I can't understand the AfD because normally notability and not dictionary would be considered. Instead, everyone is focused on whether "stuck" or perhaps "stück" has ever been used. At any rate, I thought I would see what spelling the references support. Cardarelli says "stuck" as do all the other references. Except, I cannot find the word in The Class-book of Entymology. Please quote a couple of words from the source so I can see it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No wonder I could not see it. The entire entry from The class-book of etymology... (1854) is: Steak—a slice of flesh broiled; derived by some from to stick; a piece roasted on a point; by others from stycke (Swedish), stück (German), a part or piece. That is not usable as a reference for what is purportedly a unit to measure a volume of wine. Per WP:NOTDICT this is not the place to discuss the meanings of the German word stück. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! You reverted my removal of two duplicates (essentially) of the Cardarelli reference for this article. Note that the Jerrard book is a new edition (the original was in the 1960s), with a copy-paste of the same information from the Cardarelli; both books are published by Springer, who thus own the copyright to this scrap of text. The Gyllenbok book is a newer book published (ultimately) by Springer, which seems to have copied, but misread the Cardarelli entry (which reads "Stuck (hock)"). Gyllenbok, who just like Cardarelli is not a native speaker of English, has assumed that "hock" is another way of saying "stuck", because he doesn't realise it's a curious English word for German white wine. So neither reference is independent, and Gyllenbok is actually worse. Can you explain how it can help to have three copies of essentially the same snippet? Thanks. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern.
Please understand mine.
There are different sources from different authors that say the same thing. Inferentially, it suggests that each of them deemed the assertion to be factually correct.
Further, we are going through an AFD process where some editors, maybe even you, suggest that it is not verified, and not WP:Notable. And the argument will then follow that there are no sources and not references. And of course, since you removed them that would be correct. You have deliberately put the article into a tailspin and made a Self fulfilling prophecy. I will put this all on the article's talk page, as that is where it should be aired. 7&6=thirteen (☎)14:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, moving it here is fine by me. The AfD is over; I withdrew it, because clearly there is a basis for the claim, even if the Cardarelli version is half-baked. But references have to be independent, and these three, all from the same publisher, are simply copies of each other. I was mistaken in thinking that Jerrard (the book, not the man) copied from Cardarelli (tbntm); it was the other way round. Anyway, eventually I think this should redirect to a real article on German wine cask sizes, by which time flaky references would be unnecessary. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
