Talk:lumbálnější

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

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.

Is this Czech comparative adjective, of base lumbální, attested in use? If not, my position is that it should fail RFV.

This is a test case I created, to see whether the opposers in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2020-04/Attestation of comparatives and superlatives were right in thinking that there is no policy problem and that comparatives can fail RFV without any problems.

I was wondering whether my creating this entry would be pointing, and I concluded that not really, since this is not a disruption, and therefore, this is not a disruption to make a point. By contrast, if I went on a spree of creating tens of unattested comparatives, that would be a different story. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Probably RFV failed and then delete it. Due to procedure, let's wait around 1 month... --Marontyan (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

My position is that it does not matter whether this is attested or not and that whether this has a page or not does not necessarily depend on it; you have no CFI-based proof for “the position is that it should fail RFV”, no otherwise rationally founded argument (the form is not a priori excluded, say “make your exercises more lumbarly”). While some opposed your strange vote because they think it would fail anyway I opposed it because it is uninteresting and increased size of caveats to read deters from contribution, see Wikipedia and compare massive software projects, and because it does not answer what happens with inflection tables, maybe they can still include comparatives always just in case. You are bikeshedding and thus disrupting. Fay Freak (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would submit to the reader that I am conducting an experiment in administrative behavior concerning a particular item, in a way that produces as little administrative overhead as possible.

As for WT:CFI, it says "This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic." It now depends on whether one interprets "term" above to refer to things that include comparatives, or not; I think it is less than perfectly clear but some may think otherwise. On the other hand, if a comparative is not a term, then we can note that CFI only provides for inclusion of terms and not non-terms, and thus a comparative would be excluded even if attested. Since that interpretation seems to make no sense, CFI's word term would be interpreted to include comparatives, which would then fail RFV if not attested following CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

• RFV-deleted. For the record, yes, this is POINTing, and yes, it is disruptive. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply