Talk:Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz
Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz you have here. The definition of the word Talk:Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Hi, didn't find the entry on Wiktionary:Requests for deletion, so I'll make my comment here: according to the en- and de-Wikipedias, this law was indeed proposed, but finally given a different name. Because of its length and superfluous complexity (typical of German legal terms), it was considered for "word of the year" in 1999 by a German Language Society: http://www.gfds.de/woerter.html
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Claims to be the former name of a pretty insignificant German law. Has been of RFD before, and apparently was only kept because a bureaucrat of de.wikt said it was a real term. --Keene12:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Discussed and accepted long ago. There are so many thousands of "words" to be found here that aren’t English at all, nor any other language ... or just barely English. Why do you keep nominating perfectly good words for deletion, yet miss all the bad ones? —Stephen02:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Closer's note: This obviously does not belong on Wiktionary. However, in view of the numerous parallel entries on other wikts, the lack of any strong consensus to delete, and the community's absurd decision to keep brazen protologisms like hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia, deletion would be difficult to justify. -- Visviva16:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
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.
Shouldn’t have failed. This was all discussed and agreed upon some five years ago. At any rate, there is a valid link provided with the quotation. —Stephen(Talk)21:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Pointing out that this was discussed and agreed upon five years ago is not bullying anyone. Pointing out the link to the German law where the term is used is not bullying anyone. Accusing someone of bullying others without any evidence of it is bullying. Bringing an action to desysop Daniel, and trying to bring a second one, accusing him of not caring about Wiktionary, and showing no evidence to back up your accusations and no evidence against Daniel is bullying. We have a saying where I’m from...when you point your finger at me, your other four fingers are pointing back at you. —Stephen(Talk)21:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Anyway, to pass, it needs three separate citations that "use" the word rather than "mentioning" it, right? Or it could be flagged with the "nonce" gloss, which seems a bit weird for a sort of legal term, but might be okay...? Equinox◑21:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
The objective of this rule was to make sure that a word really exists. If you can be sure that the word exists through other means, the word should be included, according to the main CFI rule (first sentence): according to this first sentence, all words are welcome, and this is one of the basic rules of the project. Lmaltier14:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply