Talk:QQ
RFV discussion 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.
A specific instant-messenger program. Needs to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 19:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Considering it is used by over 80 million people every day, I would hope it passes. ---> Tooironic 10:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- The Google hits don't look too promising, to be honest. -- Prince Kassad 13:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean. Did you go through all 3,640,000,000 of them? ---> Tooironic 23:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's much, much less than three billion, since you have to restrict the target language to Chinese. -- Prince Kassad 06:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're right: it's only 4.9 million. But anyway can someone explain to me how you actually verify that something passes WT:BRAND? The criteria confuse me. ---> Tooironic 12:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I find those criteria confusing, too, but the idea is to look for durably archived uses of QQ in Chinese contexts that don't give enough information for a reader to infer what QQ is. Say, the characters are out camping, and one of them says the Chinese equivalent of, "You know, this is the longest I've ever been away from QQ!", and the subject is dropped, and that's the only time QQ is mentioned in the story. —RuakhTALK 12:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I find them confusing as well! Perhaps a clarifying rewrite is in order by whoever does understand them. Equinox ◑ 21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- It could be mentioned again and even explained later in the story, as long as that isn't near that first mention. Anyways, perhaps it does need a rewrite. DAVilla 07:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I find those criteria confusing, too, but the idea is to look for durably archived uses of QQ in Chinese contexts that don't give enough information for a reader to infer what QQ is. Say, the characters are out camping, and one of them says the Chinese equivalent of, "You know, this is the longest I've ever been away from QQ!", and the subject is dropped, and that's the only time QQ is mentioned in the story. —RuakhTALK 12:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're right: it's only 4.9 million. But anyway can someone explain to me how you actually verify that something passes WT:BRAND? The criteria confuse me. ---> Tooironic 12:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's much, much less than three billion, since you have to restrict the target language to Chinese. -- Prince Kassad 06:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean. Did you go through all 3,640,000,000 of them? ---> Tooironic 23:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- The Google hits don't look too promising, to be honest. -- Prince Kassad 13:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really get WT:BRAND either. It seems our criteria for inclusion are mostly ones that our current editors don't understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
RFV failed (zero cites provided of any sort). Sense removed.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
RFV (2) edit
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
The remaining sense (the other one already failed rfv) gets no hits at groups. -- Prince Kassad 19:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I can attest that it has that usage, as well as the sense (deprecated template usage) cry about it or (deprecated template usage) boo hoo, as well as a verb sense (deprecated template usage) whine, (deprecated template usage) complain or (deprecated template usage) cry. Finding durable cites for these senses will be all kinds of difficult, but finding evidence of widespread usage is a single google blogs, groups or web search away. - [The]DaveRoss 20:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- RFV-failed, now
{{only in}}Appendix:Emoticons. - -sche (discuss) 02:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- RFV-failed, now
yeah, I added it again edit
I'm sorry but we have MSN and Skype I don't see why we can't have QQ which has more users than either of them). ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- We do not have Skype. Didn't it fail RFV? Why are you re-adding this out of process? Equinox ◑ 23:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- "do not re-add without valid citations" - I will RFV this again. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- You're not supposed to add this again without citation, and you haven't provided any of the three required. I would flat out delete it except I'm somewhat in agreement with you. Still, I can't seem to find anything useful in English. Why don't you cite it in Chinese? Otherwise this should really be given up. DAVilla 01:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Re-added after previously failing RFV (see Talk:QQ). Needs to pass WT:BRAND. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Tooironic compared it to Skype (which we actually don't have any more because it failed RFV!) and to MSN (which isn't the brand name: it was MSN Messenger and then Live Messenger; but is more of a nickname for it). Is QQ the brand, or is it "Tencent QQ", or something else? Usenet might have citations. Equinox ◑ 23:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- But Skype is a verb, even! DAVilla 00:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- We have the verb at skype, and Skype could be added as an alternate verb form if attested. QQ is not a verb as far as I know. Equinox ◑ 00:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- QQ is used as a verb as well. There is evidence of its usage as a verb on Google search. QQ also appears on Google book searches, seems to be matching WT:BRAND requirements. As an initialism (converted to initialism by Equinox), I don't see why we should be verifying. The abbreviation definitely exists and is attestable. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 08:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I gathered a big pile of verb cites at Citations:QQ and Citations:qq. Now we need somebody to sort them by sense so I can figure out what we need to still get. Looking at QQ, the senses seem to be (intransitive) To use Tencent QQ video chat, (transitive) To chat with someone by means of Tencent QQ video chat, (gaming) To quit a multiplayer game, and (gaming, internet, intransitive) To cry, to be sad about something but I don't think any of those senses are fully cited and I'd like them to be confirmed, as well. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for providing citations. I've gone through and indicated which sense I think each citation supports. The instant messaging program is still completely unattested. - -sche (discuss) 06:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- RFV-failed (again). - -sche (discuss) 02:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)