Talk:covfefe
Countability
editI'm confused why this word is marked as having both countable and uncountable definitions when all definitions listed seem to be uncountable? —TeragR disc./con. 21:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sense 2 has a plural citation, akin to "buying two coffees". Equinox ◑ 21:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
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.
Most of the sources in the entry do not look to be durably archived. - -sche (discuss) 02:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding definition 1, "A word used in a tweet by Donald Trump, the meaning of which was subject to speculation." ...and this is worthy of inclusion, why exactly? Is every single thing that this president does (including making a terrible typo) worthy of noting, especially in a serious (at least I try take it seriously, anyway, as do most Wiktionarians I think) dictionary? Between his toadies/admirers and those of the people that detest him that are constantly foaming at the mouth, things seem to be a circus these days.
- ...*ahem* "Definition 2, if actually attestable, may actually have a legitimate leg to stand on. Tharthan (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I have moved the cites on non-durably archived sources to the citations page. There still seem to be enough for the "coffee" sense to consider this cited. The first definition belongs more appropriately in the etymology section, indicating where the word came from. Kiwima (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Kiwima Is the pronunciation for the coffee sense consistent so to speak? I personally recall hearing /koʊˈfɛfeɪ/, /koʊvˈfɛfeɪ/, /koʊˈfɛfi/ and even /koʊˈfifi/ over the course of the whole thing (that I remember). If the pronunciation given (which was not for this seemingly attestable sense) is the only pronunciation that we can find that is citable, how can we now justify its usage? Tharthan (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- The second and third "coffee" sense cites are puns, not using the word to mean coffee. Also it is clearly not uncountable, since the fourth cite uses it in the poorly-constructed plural covfefe's. Does the New York Post have an editorial staff, or do they just spend all their money on headline writers? - TheDaveRoss 12:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- There's also a COVFEFE Act. Equinox ◑ 22:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Is the usage independent? This reminds me of the endless mentions of an erroneously typeset word in some early edition of one of Shakespeare's plays. Is even the coffee "definition" attestable in durably archived sources? DCDuring (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- How does one find out whether a given article has been archived on, say, Wayback, or another web archiver that might turn out to be durable? All the cites could use such evidence of being durably archived, at least if we are willing to stipulate that such archiving is sufficiently durable. DCDuring (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- "does it have an OCLC", is my personal view that probably isn't supported by others. DTLHS (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that it is so straightforward to get the archiveurl, which I found for all the relevant cites. But 3 of the four for the first definition look like mentions to me. For the "coffee" definition, the book can be found on Amazon, but not in the Library of Congress Catalog nor in WorldCat. I think we will have to count the Wayback archive as making the cites durable, but I don't think we've agreed to that. DCDuring (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- "does it have an OCLC", is my personal view that probably isn't supported by others. DTLHS (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- How does one find out whether a given article has been archived on, say, Wayback, or another web archiver that might turn out to be durable? All the cites could use such evidence of being durably archived, at least if we are willing to stipulate that such archiving is sufficiently durable. DCDuring (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Is the usage independent? This reminds me of the endless mentions of an erroneously typeset word in some early edition of one of Shakespeare's plays. Is even the coffee "definition" attestable in durably archived sources? DCDuring (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Judging by the Google books entries that contain this word, it may be time to revisit this RfV. Purplebackpack89 19:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Purplebackpack89 Looks like mentions, mostly. The whole thing about the word was that it didn't "convey meaning".__Gamren (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)