Talk:Haifa
Latest comment: 11 years ago by -sche in topic RFV
RFV edit
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.
Tatar. I can't imagine that there are any texts we can grab ahold of that talk about Israel in Tatar. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why? If we can find a newspaper, it's likely to talk about Israel sometime. Cyrillic is currently the official script in Russia, but Latin was briefly popular in the 21st century.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hrm, how many citations do we need for Tatar? Tatar being only 'unofficially' written in Latin script finding three could be rather hard. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- One mention, since it’s not listed in WT:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages. It had an official Latin orthography for some time (see w:Yañalif). — Ungoliant (Falai) 08:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- One mention? Oh bugger, maybe I should've read that vote. So if it's a mention it doesn't even need to be a citation in Tatar, or indeed a citation at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it has to be in Tatar. I still find it equally unlikely because you'd need, say, a Russian-Tatar dictionary that not only covers various cities in Israel but has them in Latin orthography, so we could cite something like ХАЙФА - HAIFA город в Израиле. Not that such is impossible, and I would fully accept it as sufficient proof - I just don't see how we can even find that. Prosfilaes, the newspaper idea is good... but I still don't get how you're going to find it.--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Where does it say about one mention but in the language please? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Re: "one mention": WT:CFI#Number of citations. Re: "but in the language": the CFI never explicitly said that, but it would be ridiculous to assume otherwise (and I would consider it to be POINTing/wikilawyering if one voted in RFD or made an entry based on such an assumption). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Where does it say about one mention but in the language please? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it has to be in Tatar. I still find it equally unlikely because you'd need, say, a Russian-Tatar dictionary that not only covers various cities in Israel but has them in Latin orthography, so we could cite something like ХАЙФА - HAIFA город в Израиле. Not that such is impossible, and I would fully accept it as sufficient proof - I just don't see how we can even find that. Prosfilaes, the newspaper idea is good... but I still don't get how you're going to find it.--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- One mention? Oh bugger, maybe I should've read that vote. So if it's a mention it doesn't even need to be a citation in Tatar, or indeed a citation at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- One mention, since it’s not listed in WT:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages. It had an official Latin orthography for some time (see w:Yañalif). — Ungoliant (Falai) 08:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hrm, how many citations do we need for Tatar? Tatar being only 'unofficially' written in Latin script finding three could be rather hard. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- delete
{{wrongscript}}-- Liliana • 20:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)- It's not the wrong script; Latin was used for Tatar officially between 1927-1940 (and the WP article claims the schoolbooks printed in Latin were around until the 1950s) and between 2000-2002.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding "it would be ridiculous to assume otherwise" erm, would it? The whole point of mentions is they don't convey meaning, whether the phrase that doesn't convey meaning is in Tatar or not doesn't seem important to me. Even if it did, it wouldn't be part of the vote so I'd have no right to assert my opinion over the vote. In my opinion; amend the vote to exclude mentions. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's not the wrong script; Latin was used for Tatar officially between 1927-1940 (and the WP article claims the schoolbooks printed in Latin were around until the 1950s) and between 2000-2002.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)