Talk:debati

RFV discussion: February–November 2018

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.

---

debati

Rfv-sense of "(transitive) to destroy, to obliterate" and "(transitive) to knock off, to strike off". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Why? What made you look at a page with three senses, and nominate the one with a cite by the creator of the language?--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing. I looked at three uncited senses, checked Google Books for citations, noted that two senses seemed difficult to cite and then added a cite by Zamenhof. There are evidently multiple etymologies (debat vs. de + bati) involved and I thought it was a good idea to verify the senses before splitting the section. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. It's easier to RFV stuff with a little simple information about why the nominator thought these needed to be nominated.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

What other motivation could one have for RFV'ing something than feeling unable to cite it? Also, how is being written by Zamenhof at all relevant?__Gamren (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot of shit that's been RFVed that took no time at all to cite. I could blow through Chinese, RFVing stuff left and right because it has no cites and I feel unable to cite it. I could RFV 蘋果 (apple); it has no citations and I am completely unable to cite it. It would easy to force changes in Wiktionary, or just get blocked, by RFVing all the words I am unable to cite that don't have three citations.

Citing words with multiple senses in Esperanto, a language I'm marginally familiar with, is quite tedious to me. It's part of the way the game is played, but that doesn't stop it from being frustrating. It makes it less frustrating when a nominator explains why they think it's not a real citable word and shows what work they've done, so I don't have to do all that work all over again, and I can decide whether or not it's worth my time to try and cite them. Whenever you can't be bothered to give any explanation for what you've done to search for a citation for a word, you're wasting my time, or possibly getting a perfectly citable word deleted because I couldn't afford to waste time retreading your footsteps.

How is being written by a highly respected author whose writings formed the back-bone for all later literature in the language relevant? If Zamenhof used the word that way, I'm almost certain that failure to be citable is about our lack of sources and patience in searching them, not that there's actually not two more authors who followed his lead.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It is quite possible that there are several hapax legomena in Zamenhof's writings, even if any given sense initiated by him is quite likely to have been used by other writers. And my RFV wasn't intended to cause frustration; I tend to be cautious with RFVing.

Anyway, I have added another cite, so only one more is needed for "to strike off". "To destroy" seems very likely to fail. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't really directed at you; Gamren has nominated many words for RfV without any explanation at all.

If we delete six words, three of which are hapax legomena and three of which we failed to cite because a vast quantity of Esperanto texts between 1923 and now are unscanned or kept behind copyright walls, I don't think we've improved Wiktionary. But I understand the rules of the game.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I always check whether I can cite a word before RFV'ing it. I think the fact that the words I nominate rarely get cited should demonstrate that.__Gamren (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You do a partial computer-aided check on whether you can cite a word; it would be nice to know what you did check. I'm moderately offended that you can take the time to search, but not to write a sentence to your fellow collaborators, instead dumping them out on RFV with the written versions of a grunt.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good: Gamren does an incredible amount on rfv, especially unglamorous chores on the back end. I, for one, am too appreciative of what he does do to criticize him for leaving out information that might be helpful. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've added several quotations for the "knock off, strike off" sense. The "destroy, obliterate" sense seems weird to me and I can't find any clear citations for it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  I think that the meaning "to knock off, to strike off" clearly passes, whatever happens to "to destroy, to obliterate". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  And the other sense fails—it's been long enough. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)