Talk:Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz
Hi, didn't find the entry on Wiktionary:Requests for deletion, so I'll make my comment here: according to the en- and de-Wikipedias, this law was indeed proposed, but finally given a different name. Because of its length and superfluous complexity (typical of German legal terms), it was considered for "word of the year" in 1999 by a German Language Society: http://www.gfds.de/woerter.html
Hope that helps, --89.53.217.237 15:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
RFD (2007) edit
The following information passed a request for deletion.
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.
Claims to be the former name of a pretty insignificant German law. Has been of RFD before, and apparently was only kept because a bureaucrat of de.wikt said it was a real term. --Keene 12:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Discussed and accepted long ago. There are so many thousands of "words" to be found here that aren’t English at all, nor any other language ... or just barely English. Why do you keep nominating perfectly good words for deletion, yet miss all the bad ones? —Stephen 02:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Closer's note: This obviously does not belong on Wiktionary. However, in view of the numerous parallel entries on other wikts, the lack of any strong consensus to delete, and the community's absurd decision to keep brazen protologisms like hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia, deletion would be difficult to justify. -- Visviva 16:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
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.
Per (deprecated template usage) Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz, which appears to have just failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 20:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Shouldn’t have failed. This was all discussed and agreed upon some five years ago. At any rate, there is a valid link provided with the quotation. —Stephen (Talk) 21:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any talk page or citations for Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz, and as for "discussed and agreed upon some five years ago", consensus can change. Stephen, please don't bully other editors because they don't agree with you. I'd love to say you're not that sort of person, but you are. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Pointing out that this was discussed and agreed upon five years ago is not bullying anyone. Pointing out the link to the German law where the term is used is not bullying anyone. Accusing someone of bullying others without any evidence of it is bullying. Bringing an action to desysop Daniel, and trying to bring a second one, accusing him of not caring about Wiktionary, and showing no evidence to back up your accusations and no evidence against Daniel is bullying. We have a saying where I’m from...when you point your finger at me, your other four fingers are pointing back at you. —Stephen (Talk) 21:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz failed RFV because no citations of use were provided. There was a proposal in 2009 to include words established by governments, which would have allowed yottalumen and other possible SI units, and possibly the R-law, but that proposal was not adopted. - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway, to pass, it needs three separate citations that "use" the word rather than "mentioning" it, right? Or it could be flagged with the "nonce" gloss, which seems a bit weird for a sort of legal term, but might be okay...? Equinox ◑ 21:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- The objective of this rule was to make sure that a word really exists. If you can be sure that the word exists through other means, the word should be included, according to the main CFI rule (first sentence): according to this first sentence, all words are welcome, and this is one of the basic rules of the project. Lmaltier 14:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
{{look}}
- According to the letter of WT:CFI, this fails RFV. As my closing of the Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz appears to have been controversial, I would prefer others give input on this. At present, there is in the entry at most one passable citation. - -sche (discuss) 03:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
failed -- Liliana • 22:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)