Talk:yottagramme

yottagramme

See also: Wiktionary:Votes/2009-12/Proposed inclusion of words and abbreviations with meanings established by recognized international bodies and formally adopted by multiple national governments.

RFV discussion

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.

---

I'm almost inclined to speedy it as a protologism. Nothing on Google, not even web hits! -- Prince Kassad 00:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. --Hekaheka 06:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, Mglovesfun (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No. It's a British spelling of yottagram, and it's an official unit. This word is very rare, but this is quite normal, given it sense. A few uses: And as a yoctogramme is of the same order as the weight of an atom and as a yottagramme is very, very large, perhaps they'll stop coining new prefixes for a while. (www.cableforum.co.uk), The earth weighs almost 6000 Yottagrammes. (www.belvederetimes.org)... Lmaltier 22:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Official, shmofficial. Citations:yottagramme is empty. DCDuring TALK 00:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There just aren't any. Per Prince Kassad, I can't find a single one. Not even close. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Then, read examples I provide. Lmaltier 06:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If there's no cites, then it can rest at yotta- and gramme just fine.--Prosfilaes 06:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

But the word is used, this is undisputable (see above examples), and this is an official unit. What more do you want? Lmaltier 06:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It clearly is disputed, have you actually read anyone's comments? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WT:CFI#Attestation? Also, See #. DCDuring TALK 12:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an official unit, and I gave examples proving that the word is used. Have you read them? This is why nobody can dispute this fact. Nobody can state that the word does not exist. CFI state that we include all words. Therefore, attestation rules are to be used only when there is a doubt about the existence. Lmaltier 17:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the very important functions of attestation is to improve entries by making sure that there are real usage examples. Feel free to provide real usage examples from durably archived sources. Further, we officially don't care that it is an "official" word. DCDuring TALK 17:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I already provided real usage examples. I'd like that everybody acknowledge that these examples are written in English. Lmaltier 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You wrote them in English. (I haven't checked your sources.) But they don't meet the CFI's durability requirement.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Lots of stupid throw-away words are used on the Web, and those Web pages will be gone in six months. That's the point of requiring books or Usenet. As for being a "standard", yes, maybe ISO or the UN says this is the word that should be used, but until anyone wants to use it, it won't be attestable. Equinox ◑ 22:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy-deleted by Mglovesfun (talk • contribs). —Ruakh_TALK 22:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)