Talk:sniddy
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.
As expected, seems to be totally absent from CFI-compliant sources. A few random surnames and the like, but not this. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I just created this entry with three quotations, which together seem to more than suffice for WT:CFI. Why don't you agree? —Kodiologist (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Kodiologist: see WT:ATTEST. Those sources are not permanently recorded media. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Mahagaja: I guess I don't understand what "permanently recorded" means. I Waybacked all three pages so they can still be read when links inevitably break, so that shouldn't be an issue. WT:ATTEST specifically says Usenet is okay because it's "durably archived by Google", so shouldn't any page archived by the Internet Archive be sufficiently permanent? Google, unlike the IA, has a trend of dropping support for services when they lose interest. —Kodiologist (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don't understand why we allow Usenet either. As far as I'm concerned, "permanently recorded" and "durably archived" mean "published and available in printed form at libraries". But I know other Wiktionarians are more liberal in their definition. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have no view on this word per se, but generally speaking, per PMV, above, IMO we do seriously, I would almost say urgently, need to modernise the attestation rules so as to allow some types of Internet content beyond Usenet, while at the same time having sufficiently strong requirements to avoid opening the floodgates to vast amounts of made-up crap, extreme ephemera, bad English etc. I see no earthly reason why we cannot cite from "sensible" Internet content, making it "durable" by either archiving, uploading screenshots. Mihia (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don't understand why we allow Usenet either. As far as I'm concerned, "permanently recorded" and "durably archived" mean "published and available in printed form at libraries". But I know other Wiktionarians are more liberal in their definition. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Mahagaja: I guess I don't understand what "permanently recorded" means. I Waybacked all three pages so they can still be read when links inevitably break, so that shouldn't be an issue. WT:ATTEST specifically says Usenet is okay because it's "durably archived by Google", so shouldn't any page archived by the Internet Archive be sufficiently permanent? Google, unlike the IA, has a trend of dropping support for services when they lose interest. —Kodiologist (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Kodiologist: see WT:ATTEST. Those sources are not permanently recorded media. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, this is a fun one, but seemingly not attestable by Wiktionary's current standards. @Kodiologist, the central issue here is that "durably archived media" isn't clearly defined by WT:ATTEST or another policy. It's just been accepted as an unwritten rule for a very long time that it means "print media and Usenet." I've always been puzzled why a digital dictionary would favour print media to the near total exclusion of digital media, and why the one accepted exception (Usenet) is a legacy platform that was already in decline when the attestation criteria were set. In 2021, very few people are still having conversations on Usenet, and Google Groups is now so broken that it's impossible to find even old conversations. It's created a situation where Wiktionary is often five or six paces behind the development of language (one or two steps of cautious distance would be understandable). And it's made it especially difficult to attest fandom slang, because it often doesn't make it into print media, and when it does, it's usually in obscure academic texts or theses. I couldn't find any citations for this, unfortunately. :( WordyAndNerdy (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I made a beer parlour entry to address the concerns with WT:ATTEST brought up here. —Kodiologist (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- RFV-failed —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 09:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Tea Room discussion edit
After the CFI change to allow online attestation (on a case-by-case basis), there was a discussion about this entry on the Tea room, the ultimate result of which was to keep this entry deleted. See Wiktionary:Tea_room/2022/February#sniddy. 70.172.194.25 09:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)