Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:8:46. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:8:46, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:8:46 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:8:46 you have here. The definition of the word Talk:8:46 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:8:46, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
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.
This is supposed to be a hot word but despite a couple invitations in the RFD thread nobody has added a citation, durable or otherwise, of it being used as a word. The local prosecutor corrected the time from 8:46 to 7:46 on June 17 so 8:46 may well die out for being incorrect. (Of course, we do accept words with unsound etymology if they exist.) You'll find occasional references like Vice's 846-news tag or musical compositions 8 minutes and 46 seconds long, but I don't consider those to be uses. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I added some cites to the citations page, but they seem more like mentions than uses to me. The issue is that actual uses of 8:46 seem to be more the appearance of this time on T-shirts, face masks, etc. (or in the timing of memorial events or the title of events) rather than something that appears in text. Kiwima (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
The notion that a term claimed to be a hot word need have no durably attested citations until the passage of a year seems just to be an attempt to bypass the RfV attestation process, which provides for a minimum of one month to generate three durably attested citations.
The prevailing interpretation of "hot word" status is that a term with three durably attested cites but which do not span a year and whose cites is retained for at least a year.
A question that has not been explicitly addressed is for how long should we keep the term after the first year to give it a chance to generate an additional cite with a date at least one year after the first cite. Tagging the entry for RfV on the 366th day after the date of the first cite and closing it out after 30 days seems unreasonable. I may bring this to BP. DCDuring (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't have nominated 8:46 if I had seen several non-durable uses. And I'm not going to nominate hot words on the anniversary of their creation if I see the word has been in use. I think the following is a good starting point if we need to defend against rules lawyers: A word with three usable citations will not fail RFV unless the newest citation is more than a year old. Wuhan shake was a viral video that circulated last spring and was forgotten. It can die next spring (if not sooner). Wuhan flu is cited from this summer and can't be deleted before next summer. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Delete, even the second sense. Just because that amount of time has become a cultural phenomenon does not make it lexical. This can also be written as eight minutes forty-six seconds, 8m, 46s, or 8 minutes 46 seconds, not to mention the possible uses of and in between the minutes and the seconds. So not only is it a factoid, but also SOP. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Delete. The purported definitions are not really lexical definitions, but rather encyclopedic information about the amount of time in question. This is like adding an entry for 98.6 with the definition "human body temperature in Fahrenheit". —Granger (talk·contribs) 11:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
@WordyAndNerdy9/11 can be used to refer to the attack itself, not just to the date. Are there citations saying things like "Many American cities have seen protests over 8:46" or "Congress is working on legislation to stop police violence in the wake of 8:46"? I haven't encountered usage like that, but if it exists, that would be a reason to keep this entry with a rewritten definition. —Granger (talk·contribs) 21:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Without explanation, I would not have understood the meaning of (e.g.) “an 8:46 vignette” as used here. The symbolic significance goes far beyond the literal meaning of a time interval of 526 seconds (see e.g. this), so I don’t buy the SOP argument. Yes, it is a “hot word” – and also marked as such — but one that users may want to search for. --Lambiam11:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Functionally that's no different from me making an entry for 3:16 (which refers to the Biblical verse John 3:16 commonly referenced by Christians, at least here in the US), because citations say things like "Johnny has a 3:16 coffee mug." Sure, it's hard to guess out of context, but it's a Biblical verse. Having an entry for this wouldn't work also because I'm sure there are lots of verses in the Bible which are also verse 3:16. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Keep: Per Lambian mostly. And because I don't like how the OP defined "lexical". I also believe some of the deletion arguments above are weak. "This can also be written as..." has no bearing at all on whether or not this should be kept or deleted. And why are we so sure that this will die in a year? I've been seeing 8:46 EVERYWHERE for the past couple of weeks. Purplebackpack8912:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Keep sense 2 as a hotword to be revisited in a year; if people are still talking about "8:46" without directly referencing George Floyd, then it can be kept. (As for "41 shots", I wouldn't put it in the dictionary on the basis of being the subtitle of a Springsteen song either, but I would if people use the phrase "41 shots" separately from the song and without directly referencing Amadou Diallo.) Move sense 1 to the Etymology as Andrew Sheedy says. —Mahāgaja · talk13:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
The definition given for sense 2 was "An amount of time taken as a pause, prayer, reflection or meditation in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement." How is that a lexical item in and of itself? It might be if 8:46 referred to any amount of time taken to reflect, but from what I'm gathering this is just the specific amount of time used to reflect. As in, when people say 8:46, they mean literally 8 minutes and 46 seconds were used to reflect, so the term is self-defining. I'll admit that it might not make sense with no context in some usages, just as much as "3:16" might not make sense to someone without the context of Biblical verses. But it could be deduced through its sum of parts, i.e. by going to the entries for 8, :, and 46. Sense 2 is functionally no different than me defining two minutes as "The amount of time on average someone spends brushing their teeth." (I don't know what the actual average time for that is, PIDOOMA for an example.) PseudoSkull (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Proponents of this word, please add some citations illustrating typical use of the second definition (the one that isn't just etymology). Durable citations if feasible, but we can worry about durability in a year if the word is kept. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Delete per PseudoSkull (as an aside, I have also seen this abbreviated 8m46s). To me, this seems like having an entry for 6 million or 6 million Jews defined as "the number who died in the Holocaust", on the basis of things like the Jimmy Carr joke "they say there's safety in numbers. yeah? tell that to 6 million Jews." Or, from a book, "Today, not only are we honoring the memory of the 6 million, but we are also reaffirming our unwaivering commitment to never let the world forget what the results of ignorance, prejudice, and apathy can be." (I am sceptical that we have an entry for "six million lies", too.) As an aside, sense 1 is not only etymological rather than a definition, it is also, apparently, wrong (the actual length of time Chauvin put his knee on the neck has been variously calculated as 7:46 ot 8:15). - -sche(discuss)18:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
AP News headline from last week: "Prosecutors: Officer had knee on Floyd for 7:46, not 8:46". This suggests the term may not last. Perhaps 7:46 will take its place. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Keep per Lambiam and others. 8:46 is independently meaningful and, like John 3:16, people in the intended audience know what it means without explanation. As for creating an entry for the unadorned 3:16 .... maybe, but I dont think these two are directly comparable because the Bible verse is John 3:16, not just 3:16. —Soap—15:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Whoops it's early ... I didnt notice the blue link for John 3:16 above was to Wikipedia. I would be on board with creating an entry here for John 3:16 but I don't want to distract from the subject matter at hand here. —Soap—15:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Just emphasizing that I still support keeping this even now that I've learned that it should have been 7:46. We report what we hear. —Soap—22:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
The first sense, as it is currently defined, seems like an encyclopedic fact, not a lexical unit. But if it can be attested to specifically mean "the murder of George Floyd" (as in "the repercussions of 8:46 have rippled around the world"), then I'd say it's a non-standard proper noun indicating an event, and that's as includable as 9/11 or 7/7. The second sense certainly seems like a provisional keep as a hot word if it can be cited. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Certainly delete sense 1, which is not a definition, more like some piece of Jeopardy! trivia. I don't know whether sense 2 exists or not. Equinox◑19:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I suppose if sense 2 is read literally, it would reflect usage like "This morning, let's take an 8:46 of five minutes." Strictly speaking it's an RFV issue to determine whether that usage exists or not, but I would be very surprised if it does, and I doubt that was the intention when the entry was created. —Granger (talk·contribs) 20:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't read sense 2 that way. Both senses unambiguously define facts, not words. If it's a number used as a word we should be seeing uses as words. "We 86ed Hans after he named his kid Adolf and started saying '88' instead of 'Hello.'" "I've been tearing around in my fucking nightgown / 24/7 Sylvia Plath." (Lana Del Rey, "Hope Is a Dangerous Thing"). If this passes RFD in its current form I'm going to RFV it. I know it's a hot word, but even hot words have to exist. And given that it's based on an admitted mistake (8:46 for 7:46) I don't see it lasting a year. @Purplebackpack89, you created this. Can you add the examples? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
