Talk:Pricasso
Latest comment: 8 years ago by -sche in topic RFV discussion: October 2015–February 2016
Note edit
Note: Created, with some research previously incorporated from q:Pricasso and w:Pricasso.
Other related pages at commons:Commons category:Pricasso.
Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is not dictionary material and is going to be deleted. --Vahag (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Why not? I modeled it after the page Picasso. Please see Citations:Pricasso where there are numerous citations listed. -- Cirt (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think Picasso should be defined as “a surname”. But I'll admit, there is disagreement among Wiktionarians about including names of specific entities; see Wiktionary:CFI#Names_of_specific_entities. PS Wonderfool, is that you? --Vahag (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing me to those links, that's quite helpful. What is a "wonderfool" ? -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wonderfool is a legendary Wiktionary troll. And you may be him. --Vahag (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not. Please see w:User:Cirt/Contributions for a list of my quality contributions to Wikipedia. This includes fourteen (14) Featured Articles and ninety-nine (99) Good Articles. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK, you're awesome. But so is Wonderfool. --Vahag (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. For what it's worth, my interest in this particular subject matter stems from my more generalized interests lately on the subjects of freedom of expression and freedom of speech. -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK, you're awesome. But so is Wonderfool. --Vahag (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not. Please see w:User:Cirt/Contributions for a list of my quality contributions to Wikipedia. This includes fourteen (14) Featured Articles and ninety-nine (99) Good Articles. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wonderfool is a legendary Wiktionary troll. And you may be him. --Vahag (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing me to those links, that's quite helpful. What is a "wonderfool" ? -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think Picasso should be defined as “a surname”. But I'll admit, there is disagreement among Wiktionarians about including names of specific entities; see Wiktionary:CFI#Names_of_specific_entities. PS Wonderfool, is that you? --Vahag (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Why not? I modeled it after the page Picasso. Please see Citations:Pricasso where there are numerous citations listed. -- Cirt (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Vahag: WF would never make edits like these. You've got to get better at WF-spotting. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- PS: I'm WF too. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't get it, is that a meme? -- Cirt (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Meta: I suppose I indulged in wishful thinking. I miss WF, kinda hoped Cirt was him. @Cirt: WF-hunting is a celebrated sport among Wiktionarians. But he may be extinct now :( --Vahag (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't get it, is that a meme? -- Cirt (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- If this is keepable, it would seem to legitimise a lot of other names of individuals, such as Madonna and (the footballer) Ronaldo. I feel this kind of thing is outside our purview. As Vahag pointed out, "there is disagreement". Equinox ◑ 21:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Like I said, I based it off of the existing entry for Picasso. And I made sure it has plenty of attestable citations. It therefore amply satisfies attestation. -- Cirt (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, you didn't attest "a Pricasso" like "a Picasso", only the name sense. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I know, I'd like more help with research on additional citations for that one! :) It'd be most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, you didn't attest "a Pricasso" like "a Picasso", only the name sense. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Like I said, I based it off of the existing entry for Picasso. And I made sure it has plenty of attestable citations. It therefore amply satisfies attestation. -- Cirt (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Some of us (not many) think that "all words in all languages" overrides all other considerations. But this is most definitely not a surname (zero hits on ancestry.com). SemperBlotto (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but Picasso is not defined as such on its page, it's designed in exactly the same way, as I modeled this one off of Picasso. -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
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.
Rfv-sense: "A work of art by Pricasso" (not Picasso, but Pricasso, with an r). —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- I checked the page Picasso which I modeled this after. The page Picasso has the same "work of art by" entry. The page Picasso has no citations to back up that example. Why is there a double standard being applied here? -- Cirt (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- If someone were to challenge Picasso, it would end up here, too. It would be impractical to verify every single entry without cites, so we only do it when someone expresses a doubt. Most of us have seen or heard references to "a Picasso", so no one has bothered to request verification. I can't say that I've ever had occasion to see or hear such a reference to "a Pricasso", so I don't see anything wrong with requesting verification- whether the rfv is a good idea or not, there's no double standard involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, Chuck Entz (talk • contribs), you make very good points. I have seen and heard people referencing "a Pricasso", multiple times. :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- If someone were to challenge Picasso, it would end up here, too. It would be impractical to verify every single entry without cites, so we only do it when someone expresses a doubt. Most of us have seen or heard references to "a Picasso", so no one has bothered to request verification. I can't say that I've ever had occasion to see or hear such a reference to "a Pricasso", so I don't see anything wrong with requesting verification- whether the rfv is a good idea or not, there's no double standard involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)