Talk:inclusionist
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Kiwima in topic RFV discussion: January–April 2017
I'm not sure this word deserves an entry in Wiktionary. Wiki jargon should be separated from normal entries. The same goes for deletionist. Whee 15:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
RFD 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.
inclusionist edit
As per CFI --Keene 08:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all, as properly tagged. --Connel MacKenzie 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as a generalized term, and remove the
{{wjargon}}context if it can be verified. DAVilla 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC) - Keep. It ain't no Wikimedia invention, it actually dates back to late C19. JackLumber 21:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This and deletionist seem to be the only jargon that applies beyond the wikiverse, though both really don't need much more than a refernce to the base word and suffix -ist.--Halliburton Shill 04:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC).
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
RFV the Wiki-related senses. This passed RFD ten years ago, but this really should have been RFV'd. --WikiTiki89 18:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Cited the adjective, but I would RFD it again. Wikipedia didn't invent the word and I don't see the distinction between their use and more general uses. DTLHS (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)