User talk:Lattermint/arch

=2023=

lattermint
I've marked your entry lattermint for deletion as it's not suitable for the dictionary in its current state.
 * The definition doesn't make sense—mint is not sentient and can't be early or late (actually, I think mints have no awareness of time at all).
 * The term appears to be a nonce word only used by a single author. We require three independent quotations for words (see Criteria for inclusion).

Please don't let this put you off editing! Anyway, here's the welcome message

Ioaxxere (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: the initial thread. Well, there are entries in both the OED and the Century Dictionary for the word, with that same definition. Don’t know if that means much, though. Edit: Just saw the definition of the word in the updated online edition of OED (whereas previously I'd only ever seen it in the older, second edition of OED, which is where I initially stumbled upon it) which additionally marks it as obsolete and expands upon the meaning, perhaps that could help? lattermint (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * OK I should've figured that I need to @ people I'm replying to if I want them to respond to me. Anyways, yeah, at this point I've realized that the entry should probably removed since it's only been used one time by one person, in print at least. Which I guess then implies that there can be entries in the OED but not in Wiktionary, interestingly enough. I also am now rationalizing it as not so much an independent word of itself, but rather as an unidiomatic combination of latter meaning "later" and mint meaning, well, "mint". Though it does make me wonder why the OED would include a nonce-word of this sort...
 * Yes, the OED added a lot of junk back in the 1800s and they have a policy of never removing terms, even if they can't find a single use—as of today the website returns 5088 results for "apparently only attested in dictionaries" and 3578 results for "apparently an isolated use". And of course I get 17277 hits for "obsolete rare", which sometimes meet CFI. A few are listed at Appendix:English dictionary-only terms Ioaxxere (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (: Re removal of terms from the OED: the entry has apparently been removed, as stated by This, that and the other.) J3133 (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Nice entries
Wiktionary has a lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of multi-word entries (some I created relatively recently:, , ), so it's great to have someone actively working on these. Also check out Discord server. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ioaxxere Thanks! And yeah, there is a lot of work to be done on multi-word entries. One thing about them is that many were created a relatively long time ago, but since multi-word entries and idioms in particular are usually a lot less multifaceted compared to one-word entries, they get less attention and thus are often less kempt compared to single-word entries. lattermint (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Rontosecond
The word now has three or more actual citations. I hope this solves the problem. You just have to search up online. 92.38.148.53 18:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thank you for your message. Unfortunately, though, the quotations currently added to the entry are from online-only sources, and so they do not by default contribute toward attestation as they aren't "durably archived" (haven't appeared in print). The reason I nominated the word for RFV is because there weren't any hits on GBooks nor GScholar (see ). So, it's more of a protologism at this moment. Unless, of course, three durably archived uses (see ) of the word can be found. lattermint (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)