Talk:ensmallening
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
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.
Seems someone has been entering neologisms as base forms, then errantly propagating unattested (perhaps impossible - certainly unlikely) forms? Zero groups.g.c as well as zero b.g.c. (of course.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, sure — all I can find are four Google Blogue hits, spanning four months (so, even if they were durably archived, they still wouldn’t satisfy the spanning-at-least-one-year requirement). Nevertheless, do you not see the absurdity of requiring independent attestation, to the same standard, for a conjugated form of an already-attested lemma? –Particularly for present participles, which, without exception, are formed by suffixation with -ing? In the context of the existence of ensmallen, there’s nothing “unlikely” about (deprecated template usage) ensmallening, and certainly nothing “impossible”. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 06:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- The absurdity of dictionary writing? Sorry, but for really oblique terms, Eclecticology set the precedent that each form should be attested, or not entered. The base form entry might barely pass CFI - that does not imply that all inflections of it do. --Connel MacKenzie 19:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- For this to be considered normal, proper English, yes, is absurd and impossible. It is just a joke entry to begin with, used only in a comedy context. Is this a word you'd expect to use in a formal context without garnering guffaws? --Connel MacKenzie 19:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)