Talk:ĉerizokoloro
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV in topic RFV discussion: May–July 2014
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Esperanto for cherry (the color). I can't find a single use of either variant of this word, and the plural forms in particular seem unlikely to be attested. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Plus it violates Zamenhofian phonotactics. It wouldn't qualify anyway, as it's a transparent compound. kwami (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Zamenhofian phonotactics is utterrly irrelevant to RFV, as is this being a "transparent compound" or not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- In English, transparent combinations such as "green grass" are not acceptable as entries, so why should they be acceptable for Esperanto? Or, would we accept cherry-colored as an English entry? kwami (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- For one thing, whether something is a tranparent compound is a RFD matter, not RFV; RFV only finds out whether the word or phrase is actually used in a way that meets WT:ATTEST. Second, if we were in RFD, I would point out that we have kept several transparent German compounds (Talk:Zirkusschule), and that things written together without a space are considered by multiple editors including me to be not sum of separate components. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- In fact, the whole reasoning behind WT:COALMINE is that anything written together as one word is keepable. This gets kind of hazy for writing systems that don't use spaces, but for those that do, it's fairly clear cut (clear-cut? clearcut?). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- For one thing, whether something is a tranparent compound is a RFD matter, not RFV; RFV only finds out whether the word or phrase is actually used in a way that meets WT:ATTEST. Second, if we were in RFD, I would point out that we have kept several transparent German compounds (Talk:Zirkusschule), and that things written together without a space are considered by multiple editors including me to be not sum of separate components. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- In English, transparent combinations such as "green grass" are not acceptable as entries, so why should they be acceptable for Esperanto? Or, would we accept cherry-colored as an English entry? kwami (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Zamenhofian phonotactics is utterrly irrelevant to RFV, as is this being a "transparent compound" or not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Both failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)