Talk:r/woooosh

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Kiwima in topic RFV discussion: January–April 2022
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFV discussion: January–April 2022[edit]

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.


I don't think this really exists widely on the broader Internet outside of Reddit. People in Youtube comments and such usually just write whoosh without the r/. — Fytcha T | L | C 12:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

This could be non-durably cited from Twitter if we wanted to: [1] [2] [3]. One interesting angle on the new online source policy that I didn't foresee is that someone needs to decide whether it's worth invoking! From my perspecitve I don't think it is worth it, mainly because woooosh exists as a double cross-reference to whoosh. This, that and the other (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply