Talk:microfortnight
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Ruakh in topic Request for verification
My reaction to having entries for all the SIprefixed seconds.
Request for verification edit
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
9 b.g.c. hits, all of which seem to define the term immediately (and often humorously). --EncycloPetey 01:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- The term is indeed intended humorously, and sources do tend to define it when they use it; but neither humor nor defined-ness is a criterion for exclusion. —RuakhTALK 07:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- See WT:CFI#Conveying meaning. If all supporting quotations are mentions, rather than use of the word, then we don't have support for this as a word in English use. --EncycloPetey 06:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Right, but that's not what you said. You said that they "seem to define the term immediately", which WT:CFI explicitly says is not a problem. —RuakhTALK 13:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- More important than being immediately defined, the term rarely appears to be actually used. DAVilla 07:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
This is indeed used in all VMS (VAX) and OpenVMS (VAX, Alpha, Itanium) Operating Systems as a timing parameter set in the SYSGEN parameter list. It is not only humerous — This unsigned comment was added by 84.86.77.75 (talk) at 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC).
- The citation is fine as an example, but is it not a mere mention? I would have thought that something only being used immediately next to its definition is virtually proof of it being a protologism. I recall being beaten about the head and shoulders concerning such. That the definition is put in the mouth of a character does not make it any the less true that it does not have meaning independent of its definition in the specific usage. DCDuring TALK 20:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
RFV passed. Thanks, Equinox. —RuakhTALK 15:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)