Talk:copoclephile

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.

---

11 Google Book hits, all of which are mentions. Some even mention it as a French word for 'collector of keyrings'. Possibly another hypothetical word based on Greek that nobody actually uses. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like a job for {{only in}}. Ƿidsiþ 14:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Have added three references to dateable printed sources.WikiLambo (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  Can you add the quotations in which the word is used? Otherwise there's no way for us to know if the term is being used or just mentioned. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  Well, Urdang is a dictionary - so it is just a dict. entry. The other two books cite the word in a list of collectors and what they collect. Is this what is meant by "just mentioned"? Sorry - finding my way at present in Wiktionary.WikiLambo (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  Yeah, Wiktionary:CFI#Conveying meaning requires that the word actually be used in context for its meaning, rather than just defined. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  Oh, I see. Strange nomenclature to me. I am more familiar with making a distinction between "primary sources" and "secondary sources" - where a dictionary is a secondary source, as it talks about words (i.e. headwords, runons) but doesn't use them. So Urdang would be a secondary source. But the other two are cites provided are primary sources. I am not sure that these should be necessarily considered "just mentioned" just because they are in a list. Essentially, the list and its heading is just a shorthand way of saying "the word for a person who collects X is Y," and they are used in the sources in a didactic kind of way. Trying to teach someone the meaning of a word is more than just mentioning it. But, I can see how this argument isn't going to fly. Personally, I think these type of words have a life of their own (copoclephile has been around for over 20 years) albeit they are inventions (but all words are) that don't seem to have much use other than people saying "did you know the word for X is Y?" Even though no one really uses them much elsewise. A lot of phobias are like that too. In that sense they are an interesting part of English vocabulary. Nevertheless, I guess they don't have to be in Wiktionary.WikiLambo (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

RFV failed. Equinox ◑ 19:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)