Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:RFD)
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification
add new | history | archives | old index

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} -

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “brown leaf”
  • Out-of-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use



See also:

Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. One of the reasons for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "brown leaf". It is occasionally used for undeletion requests, requests to restore entries that may have been wrongly deleted.

Out of scope: This page is not for requests for deletion in other namespaces such as "Category:" or "Template:", for which see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others. It is also not for requests for attestation. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.

Adding a request: To add a request for deletion, place the template {{rfd}} or {{rfd-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. The section title should be exactly the wikified entry title such as "[[brown leaf]]". The deletion of just part of a page may also be proposed here. If an entire section is being proposed for deletion, the tag {{rfd}} should be placed at the top; if only a sense is, the tag {{rfd-sense}} should be used, or the more precise {{rfd-redundant}} if it applies. In any of these cases, any editor including non-admins may act on the discussion.

Closing a request: A request can be closed when a decision to delete, keep, or transwiki has been reached, or after the request has expired. Closing a request normally consists of the following actions:

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it was deleted), or de-tagging it (if it was kept). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFD deleted or RFD kept, indicating what action was taken.
  • Striking out the discussion header.

(Note: The above is typical. However, in many cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply "RFD deleted" or "RFD kept".)

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk page using {{archive-top|rfd}} + {{archive-bottom}}. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:piffle, Talk:good job.

Time and expiration: Entries and senses should not normally be deleted in less than seven days after nomination. When there is no consensus after some time, the template {{look}} should be added to the bottom of the discussion. If there is no consensus for more than a month, the entry should be kept as a 'no consensus'.

Oldest tagged RFDs

May 2014[edit]


I would like to request the restoration, in some form, of mahā, the transliteration of the Sanskrit महा (great). In the course of fixing disambiguation links to this title on Wikipedia, I have found many uses of mahā with this meaning. It is similarly widely used in books. However, searching for it here takes the reader to maha, which has no information on the Sanskrit meaning of the word. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't do Sanskrit romanised forms. If you want to find a term using this transliteration - 1. paste/type it in the search window and linger to see suggestions, 2. select containing mahā from the bottom and click enter/double-click. A Search results page will appear 3. "Search in namespaces:" check "None" first, then check (Main). This will shorten your search to the main namespace and click "Search". again. महत् appears the 4th in the results. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that sort of advice is going to reach the average reader, who is more likely to either type maha into the window, or to type/paste in mahā and hit enter, which will take them to maha. I'm not sure why we wouldn't "do" this unusually well attested romanization. If someone sees this word in English text, they should be able to find it defined here. bd2412 T 02:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
(E/C)I was just giving you a technical advice how to reach the entry currently, since searching in Wiktionary and search results keep changing. There's no policy on romanised Sanskrit, AFAIK, even if romanisations are attested, they are not in the native script. E.g. ghar is an attestable transliteration of Hindi घर but we only have घर (there's Irish but no Hindi), yeoksa is an attestable transliteration of Korean 역사 but we only have 역사. I'm just stating the fact, so if mahā is created, any admin may delete it on sight. The policies can be created and changed, though. There are romanisations for some languages with complex scripts. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
We could add matching transliterations to the {{also}} templates. As for whether this entry should be restored, WT:About Sanskrit#Transliterated entries bans transliteration entries, so I oppose unless the Sanskrit editing community decides to change that. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The use of {{also}}, as now at maha, seems like a decent idea that respects our prejudices and yet offers the more persistent users at least a way of finding native script entries that provide a useful definition for the transliteration they may have come across, the Wiktionary definition for which they may not find by direct search. DCDuring TALK 03:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I personally have no objections to redirects. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
A redirect from mahā to महा would be fine with me, so long as there are no other meanings of mahā. bd2412 T 12:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I think we should reconsider permitting Latin-alphabet entries for Sanskrit, even if all they say is "Romanization of महा". We already allow Latin-alphabet entries for Pali, Gothic, and some other ancient languages that are usually encountered in Romanization in modern editions. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it used as a word in any language? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
According to Google Books, it appears in about 150,000 books. bd2412 T 22:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
If it's used as an English word or any other language, it may get an English or other entry. For romanised Sanskrit, I'm afraid it's a policy question, you'll have to start a separate discussion or a vote. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Alternative form of maha (four) in Tahitian. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see a discussion or policy that says that romanizations of Sanskrit are disallowed. Until then, I consider the above statement "We don't do Sanskrit romanised forms" unsubstantiated. In fact, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-08/Romanization of languages in ancient scripts resulted in 7:4 for the proposal that "If an ancient, no longer living language was written in a script that is now no longer used or widely understood, and it was not represented in another script that still is used or widely understood, then romanizations of its words will be allowed entries." (I wrote 7:4 rather than 8:4, since Ruakh only supported for Gothic.). A subsequent vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-09/Romanization of languages in ancient scripts 2 unanimously expressly allowed romanizations for Etruscan, Gothic, Lydian, Oscan, and Phoenician.
I found Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2013/August#Sanskrit_in_Latin_script?. There, couple of people support allowing Sanskrit romanizations, including Ivan Štambuk (apparently), Angr, Dan Polansky (me), and Eiríkr Útlendi, where Ivan reported User:Dbachmann to support including Sanskrit romanizations as well; opposition seems to include Liliana; Chuck Entz is unclear. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know much about Sanskrit, but I do know that there are tens of thousands of books that use the mahā (in that script) to signify a specific word with a specific meaning. I'm not about to suggest that we incorporate the whole transliterated Sanskrit corpus, but it seems absurd to refuse to have a definition for a word used as widely as this one. bd2412 T 15:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we should continue to have a consistent (uniform) policy towards romanized Sanskrit. At the moment, that policy is to exclude it. I wouldn't mind reversing that policy and allowing romanized Sanskrit to be entered similarly to romanized Gothic or pinyin Chinese, and the preceding comments suggest that enough other people feel the same way that we should probably have a vote.
Allowing some romanized of Sanskrit words and not others according to some arbitrary threshold such as "n Wiktionary users think this word is important" or "[we think] this word is used in x books (where x is some very high number, like 10 000)" does not strike me as a workable state of affairs. Google Books' raw book counts are unreliable, as are its attempts to restrict searching to particular languages, so although we might decide to include only romanizations used in e.g. more than 10 000 books, we have no easy way of ascertaining whether or not a romanization actually meets that threshold.
Even if we continue to exclude romanized Sanskrit, it might be possible to cite mahā as a loanword in some language, if it is really as common as has been suggested. - -sche (discuss) 17:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
What evidence supports the hypothesis that the current policy is to exclude romanized Sanskrit? Or, put differently, what makes you think and say that the policy is to exclude it? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
See WT:ASA. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Wiktionary:About Sanskrit is not a policy; it is a policy draft. Furthermore, this is not evidence; a discussion or a vote is evidence of policy. The draft says "Entries written in IAST transliterations shall not appear in the main namespace." which was added in diff. The first edit I can find to that effect is diff, before which the page said "If entries are made under the IAST orthographic transliteration, they should use the standard template {{temp|romanization of}} to reference the Devanagari entry." Since none of the diffs refer to a discussion or a vote, they are illegitimate as means of policy making. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft or not, excluding transliterated Sanskrit is the common practice. Start a discussion if you want to change that, or continue refusing to believe it, I don’t care. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I asked "What evidence ...". If you had no answer to that question, you did not need to answer; the question was directed to -sche anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
If you really want evidence, look for RFD archives of romanised Sanskrit entries. I’m familiar with your strategy of asking people to waste their time looking for this or that and then finding some excuse for why what they found is not valid or outright ignoring it. I’m going to act like CodeCat and not waste my time; as I said, you can continue refusing to believe it. — Ungoliant (falai) 10:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Putting aside the outcomes of previous discussions, what is the reason for not having entries for such things? We are talking about a well-attested word that readers may well look to us to define. bd2412 T 16:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the logic is that, insofar as we hold that Sanskrit is not written in the Latin script, mahā is not a Sanskrit word. Compare: insofar as Russian is not written in the Latin script, soyuz is not a Russian word. And mahā (great) and soyuz (union) have not been shown to be English words, or German/Chinese/etc words. If mahā is not a word in any language, it is both outside our stated scope ("all words in all languages") and not technically includable anyway : what L2 would it use?
In contrast, महा (mahā) is a Sanskrit word, and is included, and союз#Russian is included.
That said, we have made exceptions for some languages, e.g. Japanese and Gothic, and we have said in effect "even though this language is not natively written in the Latin script, we will allow soft-redirects from the Latin script to the native script for all the words in this language which we include." (Note this is very different from your statement of "I'm not about to suggest that we incorporate the whole transliterated Sanskrit corpus, but [... only] a word used as widely as this one.") I think one could make a strong case that we should make a Gothic-style exception for Sanskrit, since Sanskrit, like Gothic (and unlike Russian), is very often discussed/mentioned (whether or not it is used) in the Latin script. - -sche (discuss) 20:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Even if we admit that "mahā is not a Sanskrit word" (and that is rather questionable since it seems to confuse words with their writen forms), it still does not follow that we have a policy that forbids having Sanskrit romanization soft-redirect entries in the mainspace, on the model of Japanese, Chinese and other romanizations (Category:Japanese romaji, Category:Mandarin pinyin). We have had Japanese romanizations for a long time (dentaku was created on 17 August 2005‎), full will definitions or translations, since no rogue oligarch bothered or dared to eradicate them (we still have them, albeit in reduced form). Whether we have a policy could be quite important in a possible upcoming vote about Sanskrit romanization, since it is not really clear what the status quo is. Therefore, it is rather important to avoid misrepresentations (unintentional or otherwise) about there being or not being a policy. As for the amount of Sanskrit romanization in the mainspace, there may well be none, which would be a fairly good sign for there being a common practice of avoiding Sanskrit romanizations, but one has to consider that this could be a result of rogue olicharch actions. Generally speaking, I find it hard to find a reason for having Japanese and Chinese romanizations while avoiding Sanskrit romanizations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: Re: "I’m familiar with your strategy of asking people to waste their time looking for this or that ...": Not really. You would be familiar with my strategy of asking people to source their claims, supply evidence, clarify the manner in which they use ambiguous terms or explain themselves. Since you already know this strategy (as you say), since you don't like it, and since the question was not directed at you, you should have spared yourself the trouble and avoid answering the question (about evidence for there being policy as opposed to common practice or a draft page that anyone can edit regardless of consensus) that you did not intend to really answer anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I did intend to answer. Not for your benefit, but for that of others who may otherwise be fooled by you into thinking that adding romanised Sanskrit is totally OK. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I still see no rationale for excluding a widely used romanization that readers are likely to come across and want defined. Some justification beyond the naked assertion of policy or the momentum of past exclusions. bd2412 T 14:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
AFAICS, adding romanised Sanskrit is totally OK; there is no discussion or vote the outcome of which is that Sanskrit romanizations shall be excluded from the mainspace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
@BD, re "I still see no rationale": I just explained one rationale (mahā is not a word in any language).
The previous BP discussion linked-to above, and comments in this discussion by people who didn't participate in the previous discussion, suggest that a proposal to allow romanizations of all Sanskrit words would pass. I myself could support such a proposal. I suggest, for the third time, that someone make that proposal.
I do not see any indication that the proposal to allow "widely used romanization[s]" only has gained traction with anyone beyond you and possibly Dan. As you note, quite a lot of momentum is against you: AFAIK, there has never been a language for which we allowed romanizations for only some words according to some threshold of exceptional commonness. AFAIK, there has never even been an alphabetic or abugidic language for which we allowed romanizations for only some words according to the threshold of any citations at all. (If you discovered that one of our Gothic romanizations had 0 attestations at Google Books, Groups, etc, we'd still keep it as long as it was derived from an attested native-script form according to the rules of Wiktionary:Gothic transliteration.)
You could keep trying to overturn this momentum, but — especially given that the only people who still seem to be participating in this discussion are you, me, Ungoliant, and Dan, and we don't seem to be changing each others' minds — I think it would be more productive to grasp the support for allowing all romanized Sanskrit, and run with it. - -sche (discuss) 17:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
We generally decide whether any unbroken string of letters is "a word" by looking to see if it is used in print to convey a consistent meaning. We do this because the existence of the word in print is what makes it likely that a reader will come across it and want to know how it is defined, or possibly how it is pronounced, derived, or translated into other languages. There are now a half dozen citations of mahā at Citations:mahā, including several where the word is used in English running text without italicization. In some previous discussions we have used the compromise position of declaring the word to be English, but derived from the language of its original script. I think this is absurd. Is tovarich English, really? bd2412 T 18:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I have posted this at the Beer Parlour. bd2412 T 19:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes tovarich is indeed English if it's used in running English text as an English word (for which a citation is provided). Same with mahā - the word originates from Sanskrit but it's not a Sanskrit word in the context of provided citations - it's an English word now because it's used in English. --09:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The above unsigned comment seeks to make the case:

it's an English word now because it's used in English.

That alone is a wholly inadequate reason. I say how natsukashii a certain time of year makes me; that doesn't make natsukashii suddenly English. The whole context must be taken into account: to whom am I speaking? Do I assume that my intended audience is familiar enough with Japanese to understand this term? Or am I being deliberately obtuse in using a word that my audience probably won't know? Or perhaps I introduced this term earlier, and explicitly explained it then. All of this must be taken into account before deciding how "English" any given term is.
Past there, I just had a look at Citations:mahā page. There are currently six citations listed. The first one mentions mahā where it's used as part of a title (the w:Mahabharata), rendering that invalid. The second, third, fifth, and sixth all feel the need to add a gloss for the term in parentheses, clearly indicating that this is not an English word. The fourth citation is the only one that might pass muster, but it's from a quite esoteric text about Tibetan Buddhism. The deeply specialized nature of this text assumes that the reader is intimately familiar with many things related to Tibetan Buddhism and related terminology, and as such, I would characterize this as a case of using Sanskrit terms in an English context where the audience is expected to know the term, and not a use of the term as English.
Delete as an English entry. Per Dan below, possibly keep as an IAST transliteration of Sanskrit महा (mahā), similar to our various other transliteration entries for non-Latin-alphabet languages, like Japanese or Gothic. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to exclude any word used in English as not being English. The use of a gloss doesn't clearly indicate that it's not an English word; it's clearly indicating that the word is precise but not necessarily clear. As for the fourth citation, if a term is used in English, even in a specialist context, it's still English.
"This time of year makes me feel natsukashii" does use natsukashii as an English word. Chasing down every bit of code switching is not a fruitful pursuit and we probably do need to have some lines, but I think you're confusing the map for the terrain there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "This time of year makes me feel natsukashii" does use natsukashii as an English word. I can only say that you and I have very different ideas about the criteria by which any given word belongs to any given language. 17:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I regard "criteria by which any given word belongs to any given language" as problematically treating "word" and "language" as platonic entities. The fundamental question is flawed. If we have a sentence that uses a word unmarked in the English language, then it's using that word as an English word. I have a book before me that says "On Agasha, these include horse, gressh, sleth and skink." Those aren't exactly English words, in the sense that an English speaker would understand them, but what else are they? They, just like natsukashii, are being used in English as English words.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep mahā as an IAST transliteration of the Sanskrit महा. (To make my stance clear to a prospective closing admin; my reasoning is above.] --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up question. What do we do with references like:

  • 2014, M. A. Center, Archana Book: with English Translation, page 40:
    214 Om mahā pātaka nāśinyai namaḥ
    ...Who destroys even the greatest of sins.
    215 Om mahāmāyāyai namaḥ
    ...Who is the Great Illusion.
    216 Om mahā sattvāyai namaḥ
    ...Who possesses great sattva.
  • 2010, Anne M. Blackburn, Locations of Buddhism: Colonialism and Modernity in Sri Lanka, page xvii:
    Tibbotuvāvē Śrī Siddhartha Sumangala Mahā Nāyaka Thera of the Malvatu Vihāraya and the Ven. Aggamahāpandita Ahungallē Vimalanandatissa Mahā Nāyaka Thera of the Amarapura Mahā Sangha Sabhā is remembered with gratitude.
  • 1975, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Antya-lila: The Pastimes of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Text 3.62:
    Text 3.62 taṁ nirvyājaṁ bhaja guṇa-nidhe pāvanaṁ pāvanānāṁ śraddhā-rajyan-matir atitarām uttamaḥ-śloka-maulim prodyann antaḥ-karaṇa-kuhare hanta yan-nāma-bhānor ābhāso 'pi kṣapayati mahā-pātaka-dhvānta-rāśim

The latter work also provides a later phrase-by-phrase translation, but only after showing the entire passage as a single block of running text. Also, it does not individually translate "mahā", but translates the phrase of which it is part. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  • What does that mean for the current [[mahā]] entry? This is now structured as English, which I strongly oppose. Moreover, the quotes in the entry do not illustrate usage as English -- of the four, three are immediately followed by glosses in a way that clearly indicates foreignness and that the author does not expect the reader to know this term, and the fourth shows use in the title of a work of literature, the Mahābhārata, with no other meaning apparent.
Will this be converted into a romanized Sanskrit entry? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, there is no reason that a term can not at the same time be a romanization from a different language, and a term that has made its way into English (see sayonara, listed as both). bd2412 T 13:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree (with Eirikir) that the citations being used to support the English entry in this case are woefully inadequate; it could be RFVed. But bd2412 is right that in general things can be both romanizations and loanwords; another good example is yin; like sayonara, it even pluralizes in English: yins.) - -sche (discuss) 16:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
There is one citation at Citations:mahā that uses the word in running English text with no gloss (several times, click "view all" to see). I would imagine that there would be a few more among the 100,000+ Google Books results. This brings us back to the original dilemma. It seems absurd to say that a space-delineated set of characters used to convey a specific meaning across that many sources is not a "word"; so what kind of word is it? bd2412 T 16:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As I previously mentioned, I do not think this particular text (Luminous Essence: A Guide to the Guhyagarbha Tantra) is a good illustration of this term in use as English. This is an esoteric text discussing deep details of certain Buddhist philosophy and practice, and it presupposes that the reader is deeply familiar with the subject matter. There are numerous examples of Sanskrit (or possibly Pali, or Hindi, or ...?) terms that are dropped into the text with no explanation, in ways that are completely opaque to anyone not well-versed in this subject matter. For instance, on page 1, we are apparently greeted with the text Namo gurumañjughoṣāya! I have no idea what this means, and no way of discovering the meaning from the text. Per Prosfilaes' arguments above, this is "English". I argue again, as I did above, that context is key in determining the language of a term in a given text, and that this context goes beyond just the sentence itself to include the work as a whole and the social circumstances of that work, such as the intended audience. Considering the intended audience of this specific text (Luminous Essence: A Guide to the Guhyagarbha Tantra), it is clear that the author assumes that readers have a high level of familiarity with Buddhist terminology, much of which is Sanskrit or Pali. In light of this, it follows that the terms namo and gurumañjughoṣāya (and, indeed, many other domain-specific terms that the broader population of English speakers are unlikely to know) are not English, and are instead Sanskrit, etc. used in a kind of code switching within an otherwise English text.
In short, yes, the book Luminous Essence: A Guide to the Guhyagarbha Tantra does use the term [[mahā]] in otherwise-English text without italics and without any gloss, but no, I do not think this particular work contains valid illustrations of the term [[mahā]] in use as an English term. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
If it's used in running English text, conforming to English syntactical structure, it's English. To what extent embedded and isolated phrases are genuinely foreign language, as opposed to being wholesale loanwords, is debatable, though the opinion of Average English Speaker not well-versed in the subject matter is no measure of wordiness when discussing the work specialized in the very same subject matter. Citations are for attestation purposes i.e. CFI passing, usexes are for illustrative usages. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I look forward to your explanation of how "taṁ nirvyājaṁ bhaja guṇa-nidhe pāvanaṁ pāvanānāṁ śraddhā-rajyan-matir atitarām uttamaḥ-śloka-maulim prodyann antaḥ-karaṇa-kuhare hanta yan-nāma-bhānor ābhāso 'pi kṣapayati mahā-pātaka-dhvānta-rāśim" is a sentence in English, and your English-language entries for these words. bd2412 T 20:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
That is not English. OTOH, the citations at [[mahā]] are from English works, and are indeed English. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
That is a citation for mahā - fourth word from the end there. So now mahā is both English and not English? Every one of these words, if found in three "English" texts, can be put in as "English", in your view? bd2412 T 21:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
In that particular excerpt, mahā is not a word. It's a part of the compound which is morphologically decomposed with hyphens, which is by itself a single word, and mahā in that spelling is an inseparable part of it. mahā never appears on its own in Sanskrit. What you found in English text is Sanskrit excerpts. That kind of format is common with classical and religious languages where "original and proper" enunciation plays an important role in setting the stage for supernatural mysticism in the minds of followers, as well as for reducing the possibility for mistranslation by enhancing the readers understanding of the text in its original form. You can find countless similar bilingual excerpts for Latin, Ancient Greek, Hebrew and Arabic in the case of former, and for almost any other major language for the latter case, particularly in poetry. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
So if those last three citations are not English, but are "Sanskrit excerpts", then this is Sanskrit, isn't it? Are these not citations for Sanskrit entries, then? bd2412 T 22:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
They are Sanskrit, but the current practice is to use Devanagari, so they'd have to be transliterated. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "they'd have to be transliterated". By whom? By the authors who wrote those books? Is it Wiktionary's role to police authors and admonish them for using the wrong transliteration, or is it our role to accurately report and define terms as they are used in the real world? There are many more authors independently using the same transliteration scheme to represent Sanskrit words in the Latin alphabet. Unless we want to call these Translingual or make up some new category of words to put them in, how are we to represent real-world usage? bd2412 T 22:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
They'd have to be transliterated by Wiktionary editors. These excerpts are not real-world usages. Rather, they are transcriptions for the benefit of readers familiar with the Latin script. The author, Rupa Goswami, certainly didn't use IAST. Contemporary speakers of Sanskrit in India don't use it either. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
How would you define "real-world usages" in a way that excludes usages in books that have actually been published in print? bd2412 T 23:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
A related question: how would you treat "voolay" as found in numerous renditions of w:Lady Marmalade lyrics? Is it English? Is it an alternative spelling of French? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how related that is, since we don't have transliterations of words written in the Latin alphabet in the first place. I would consider "voolay" used in English running text to be eye dialect no different from likee or dayum. bd2412 T 00:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Except that some of the people using it aren't trying to caricature anything, they're honestly representing the sounds of French using their own methods, just as someone writing "mahā" is representing the sounds of Sanskrit. If we allow the second, how do we distinguish it from the first? Chuck Entz (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I note that [[mahā]] includes no indication that the entry has been nominated here for RFD. Should we add {{rfd}}? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    Is the entry currently nominated for deletion? If you look at the very top of this thread, it's about undeleting the Sanskrit entry. This thread is also very long and old, so I would suggest beginning a new thread if you want to discuss deleting the English entry. - -sche (discuss) 05:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    For the record, I continue to think that the Sanskrit entry should be undeleted. There are, as I have noted a few lines above, lengthier passages that use this transliteration, such that the passage can hardly be called English. We could call half the words in all the world's languages "English" if our standard was that they appeared a few times in English running text. bd2412 T 05:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    Has anyone proposed treating those passages as English? Not even Ivan has, as far as I can see.
    I think mahā (mahā) should stay deleted until and unless we formulate a general policy on romanized Sanskrit that allows it, there being nothing unique about this one word that would cause it to deserve special treatment. Formulating such a policy is, of course, complicated by the fact that we appear to have not two factions ("yes, have romanizations", "no, don't have romanizations") but at least four ("romanize Sanskrit systematically, like Gothic", "have ad-hoc, attestation-dependent entries for ad-hoc romanizations", "don't have romanizations", and "don't have romanizations, lemmatize Sanskrit in Latin script because Devanagari is POV"). - -sche (discuss) 06:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    • @bd2412: We could call half the words in all the world's languages "English"... -- that's precisely the situation that I'm trying to avoid. It's both unhelpful to the user, and patently ridiculous.
    • @-sche: FWIW, I think we should have very low barriers to having romanizations of any language that does not typically use the Latin script. And if we have romanizations, it should be consistent and language-wide, as with Gothic, or Chinese, or Japanese. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

At this point, it seems fairly obvious that this should be closed as no consensus to restore. If there is no objection, I will close it accordingly. bd2412 T 16:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to restore the Sanskrit entry. bd2412 T 14:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

working class[edit]

Adjectival sense, looks purely attributive --Type56op9 (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

google books:"very working class" shows true adjective usage, but it’s much more commonly spelt with a hyphen. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I would say delete on this occasion. We have an entry for the noun, and the attributive adjective (working-class), and I think that is all that we need. Donnanz (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
If it were only attributive it wouldn't merit a separate PoS section. Evidently poor presentation of such terms helps maintain poor understanding of the grammar. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
What about John Lennon's "Working Class Hero"? Is that not adjectival? Or is that the special "noun use as an adjective" thing? Tharthan (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
That is the ordinary, not special, attributive use of the noun phrase, which I'd write as "working-class hero". In this case confusion would not arise because working class is lexicalized for most readers, but it could be read as a class hero who is working. DCDuring TALK 19:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I meant "special" as in "specialised use". Also, wouldn't those two things have different pronunciations then? A "working class hero" as in a class hero that is working would be /ə.wɜː(r)kɪŋˌklæs.hiːɹoʊ/, whilst a working class hero would be /ə.wɜː(r)kɪŋklæs.hiːɹoʊ/ or /ə.wɜː(r)kɪŋ.klæs.hiːɹoʊ/? Tharthan (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, in speech you don't need hyphens. This RfD is about a strictly orthographic matter. Hyphens are more or less strictly orthographic in contrast to solid spellings which seem to reflect pronunciation differences, specifically micro pauses. DCDuring TALK 03:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

*Redirect to working-class Purplebackpack89 19:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • @Purplebackpack89: WHY? For example, can you show that the hyphenated form is the normal form for predicate use? DCDuring TALK 19:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Changing my vote to Keep adjective sense as alt form (and keep noun sense outright) Purplebackpack89 16:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep the adjectival sense, per DCDuring: has predicative uses (as opposed to attributive) modified by "very". Quotations: "tinned fish (all right as an ingredient in something else, such as fishcakes or a tuna-mayonnaise sandwich, but very working class if served on its own)", "my background is very working class and I have all those sensitivities around being working class.", "It was very working class. And I understood enough of the class system", "This seemed very working class, very nonbourgeois." --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


How many distinct definitions of cooperation are there? Ignore the entry for a second and decide if you were writing the entry from scratch, what usage would not be covered by 'The act of cooperating'? Now to the entry itself

Active help from a person, organization, etc.

An orderly sharing of space or resources.

Association for mutual benefit, such as for purposes of production or purchase.

I don't think 'active help' is cooperation because it's not mutual, you can't cooperate with someone without their consent or against it, but you can help someone without their consent or against it

Orderly sharing of space or resources, this sounds like a specific example of cooperation

Sense #3 sounds like another example of cooperation. To me, it just sounds like the act of cooperating by another name.

This previously went to rfd (see Talk:cooperation) when there were seven senses and it failed to reach a consensus. Perhaps with only four senses, we can do it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Senses #1 and #2 could be merged, since they express more or les the same concept, but sense #3 is distinct because it can refer to the organization or association itself rather than to the act of cooperating. --Tweenk (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The definitions look like the product of some kind of encyclopedic, not lexicographic, effort. I would rather start over (RfC?) than work with the confused mess we have, but the RfD process limits us and may help preserve some of the translations.
I find that the most helpful thing one can do in defining English words is find any grammatical distinctions. For English nouns, a countability distinction commonly requires a distinct definition. Also, for a noun that is clearly associated with a specific verb, inclusive definitions either refer to the definitions of the verb or have to duplicate the senses of the verb, though possibly some verb senses may not carry over.
Sense three, because it starts "a" is countable and therefore distinct from the other senses. The most general countable definition would be something like "an act or instance of cooperating". Which definition is close to sense one "The act of cooperating", which is confusingly (mis)labeled as uncountable. "An orderly sharing" (sense 3) is possible among inanimate things whereas cooperation is usually among animate things, though I could imagine it being applied to, say, computer processes. Thus sense 3 seems wrong.
I think the more common uses of cooperation are uncountable. A general definition is something like "The process of cooperating". I suppose that senses two and four would be included in such a definition, though they seem at best to be two arbitrary classes of cooperation. Moreover, "active help" (sense 2) is a one-sided giving, whereas cooperation is essentially mutual. Thus sense 2 seems wrong.
Perhaps the best way to save the translations is to make sense 1 countable and make sense 4 the uncountable sense or make it a subsense of a new general uncountable sense "The process of cooperating." DCDuring TALK 14:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
This would preserve the bulk of the translations, as sense 2 and 3 have little not in sense 1 and 4, except in for words translating sense 2 that mean "help", not specifically cooperation. DCDuring TALK 14:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Acinetobacter baumannii[edit]

RFD of the English section as redundant to the translingual one. Is there any reason to include an English section (i.e. English-specific plurals, like Tyrannosaurus rex has)? — Ungoliant (falai) 01:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. The anon contributor probably wanted to insert as much content as possible at this entry and at [[Acinetobacter]]. It is not obvious how to make a link from [[Acinetobacter baumannii#Translingual]] to [[Iraqibacter#English]] as Iraqibacter is probably not a 'Translingual' synonym and it is not clear that we would welcome a slang register for Translingual. This is yet another reflection of the confusing position of Translingual entries. If we approved of having Translations sections in Translingual entries then that might be a plausible home for vernacular names like Iraqibacter. Does anyone have any preferences for where "Iraqibacter" should appear in [[Acinetobacter baumannii#Translingual]]? Synonyms? See also? Translations? Under a new 'Vernacular names' header? DCDuring TALK 02:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I’m OK with translations. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

brick wall[edit]

rfd-sense: A wall made of bricks. Redundant to {{&lit|brick|wall}} DCDuring TALK 17:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the definition for which it was introduced has now been improved, so this sense is redundant. Dbfirs 19:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Yup, do it. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete. The senses at stone wall and fried egg are not redundant to other senses in their entries. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete: that's what I was about to point out. Equinox 04:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep sense 2, useful for translations. Maybe sense 1 should be removed. Donnanz (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Donnanz: The translation-target rationale is not part of WT:CFI. There is nothing to prevent the creation of entries for translations of brick + wall that are includable as CFI-meeting in their own language.
There is indeed also nothing other than lack of willing and able volunteers preventing the creation of entries for the vast number of redlinked translations at entries that have translation tables. Once we have made more progress in that regard I might find the translation-target rationale worth considering. DCDuring TALK 11:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
As for translation target not being part of CFI and whether it matters, see Wiktionary:Votes/2014-11/Entries which do not meet CFI to be deleted even if there is a consensus to keep. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't really add anything to DP's comment, except reiterate that potential translation targets should be kept. Let's leave it at that. Donnanz (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Why can't we eliminate sense two and then reword the first section of the translation table to indicate that it contains translations of the &lit usage? bd2412 T 00:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


Rfd-redundant: "loud and annoying" redundant to "disorderly and boisterous". Look at the usage example 'raucous party', which would be as good under the "disorderly and boisterous". So delete/merge and improve. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Raucous needn't imply annoying. Equinox 21:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Equinox: A few dictionaries do include the reaction of the hearer in one of the usually two definitions: eg, "Making or constituting a disturbingly harsh and loud noise" Oxford US. "harshly or hoarsely loud" Collins. "disagreeably harsh or strident" MWOnline. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that we delete this sense, but add the "loud" connotation to sense 1. Dbfirs 10:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
MW 1913 has "Hoarse; harsh; rough; as, a raucous, thick tone. His voice slightly raucous." (no mention of "loud") and not the "disorderly and boisterous" sense which is the most common current one, IMO. So meaning has changed. The dictionaries that incorporate into a definition the hearer's reaction to the noise always include "harsh/strident/hoarse/grating" in the definition. The "disorderly, boisterous" definitions do not include the hearer's reaction. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

erotic massage[edit]

I'm really on the fence about whether this is SOP or not. WF gave it a definition that seems non-SOP, but if you think about it, that's just summing up the most obvious way a massage could be erotic, but not necessarily idiomatic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking through the Google Book hits, the first 30 all refer to massage which is erotic. However I think there might be an idiomatic sense, sex acts in exchange for money, can we cite it? Renard Migrant (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see idiomaticity in our current "idiomatic" definition. I don't see how adding money to the picture would make it idiomatic. An X is an X, whether you pay for it or not. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You're right it's a theory and I don't have any evidence to back it up. Delete, no problem. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The surface meaning is quite SoP. Any use as a disguise for intercourse or other sexual act, as in some kind of advertising, is simply deceit, not even a euphemism. DCDuring TALK 01:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Much to my chagrin, I think we're essentially at the point in society where "massage" can be defined as "The action of rubbing, kneading or hitting someone's body, followed by sexual intercourse. Purplebackpack89 21:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Not where I live, we're not. I've gotten many massages in my life and none of them involved sexual activity. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sum of parts. The arguments given above seem pretty persuasive to me. There is no specific definition of an erotic massage AFAIK - it can be paid or unpaid, involving intercourse or not, etc. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it should be kept as a euphemism. It's akin to massage parlour. Donnanz (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

double radio-source associated with a galactic nucleus[edit]

Sum of parts (and the plural) SemperBlotto (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  • It seems like it might be a set phrase. I find it interesting that the commonly used abbreviation, DRAGN, requires an unusual selection of letters from the initial phrase (a direct acronym would be more like "DRSAWAGN" or at least "DRAWGN". Can this be reworded and maintain the same technical meaning? bd2412 T 21:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • More likely, the phrase was coined for the purpose of providing a suitable acronym, and is probably only found in actual use as a gloss for the acronym. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      Oh, you cynic. DCDuring TALK 03:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      There are three Google Books hits, albeit one is in German. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It is not sum of parts. It is not any old set of two radio-sources that are associated with any galactic nucleus. For instance, it is not about two radio-loud pulsars that orbit the galactic nucleus. Nor it is for a pair of H-I regions inhabiting the galactic nucleus region. Etc, off to infinity, for all the varieties of radio sources that can be found close to galactic nuclei. It is specifically about the configuration of radio lobes carved out of the extragalactic medium that line up with the galactic nucleus, which are detectable from Earth. If one or both of the radio lobes are not detectable from Earth, then it doesn't fit, even though theoretical models of the galaxy will feature two lobes. -- 05:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Semper. We cant't include every seven-word combination which has an exact meaning. Very often they have. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


Two German senses:

2. (mockingly) Sherlock; a person who has stated something obvious, unaware of its obviousness
3. (sarcastic) a person that has not noticed the obvious or is perceived as unintelligent

Per the RFD of James Bond, these aren't separate senses of Einstein. Irony/sarcasm is a standard construction in most languages, and when you use a term sarcastically, you're not creating a new meaning for it, you're just using its usual meaning in a way that you don't actually agree with in order to make a point (not unlike hyperbole). If I say "Oh, yeah, that's a really beautiful painting(!) A real work of art(!)" to describe a painting I find hideous, I'm not using beautiful to mean ugly, and I'm not using work of art to mean monstrosity. I'm just saying something I don't believe, and undercutting it with a sarcastic tone of voice. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree, sarcasm makes use of existing sense of words, it doesn't create new ones. Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

By the same token, this sense of Sherlock should also be deleted:

  1. (humorous) A detective (from Sherlock Holmes), especially used ironically to address somebody who has stated the obvious.

It also mixes etymology and definition. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Except that Sherlock doesn't have a separate definition of "detective". It's also a bit weird to define it positively; as far as I know, the vast majority of uses in English would be in a negative sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Buraq Wall[edit]

"A wall connected to the al-Aqsa mosque." We have no criteria for including or excluding placenames, so the question is, what level of granularity is too much granularity? (Hilariously, the larger place, al-Aqsa mosque, is a redlink.) - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Funny, en-Wikipedia article on al-Aqsa does not mention Buraq Wall, but it is the same wall that the Jews call Wailing Wall, and which is more neutrally known as the Western Wall. The Arabic name for that particular wall translates word-by-word as "Buraq Wall" into English. Buraq, as we remember, is the name of the heavenly horse-like creature that took prophet Muhammed from Mecca to Jerusalem and back. Muhammed reportedly tied Buraq to this wall during his stay, hence the name. It's undeniably a remarkable place. If we decide to keep it, we might want to create a main entry of "Western Wall" and make "Buraq Wall" and "Wailing Wall" refer to it as its Muslim and Jewish names respectively. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


I wondered whether RFV would be more appropriate, but ultimately decided to put this here. I claim these three definitions:

  1. (calculus) Of a function y = f(x) or the graph of such a function, the rate of change of y with respect to x, that is, the amount by which y changes for a certain (often unit) change in x.
  2. (physics) The rate at which a physical quantity increases or decreases relative to change in a given variable, especially distance.
  3. (analysis) A differential operator that maps each point of a scalar field to a vector pointed in the direction of the greatest rate of change of the scalar. Notation for a scalar field φ: ∇φ

are redundant to each other, and they are somewhat doubtful. The definition labelled "analysis" is the one that agrees the most with what I have been taught and with w:Gradient; a slightly better-written version of it would encompass the other two. The sense labelled as "calculus" looks like something synonymous with derivative; although a plain derivative can be considered a special case of gradient (when you identify a one-dimensional vector space with its underlying scalar field, which is usually the field of real numbers), I doubt that gradient is actually used this way. The "physics" sense reads as synonymous with the first. As far as I know, physicists use "gradient" the same way mathematical analysts do (unless they use it in an everyday meaning); there is no separate physical sense of gradient. Keφr 17:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that these are not really fully independent meanings, but I'm sure we can find cites for all three of them, and some users will not be familiar with differential operators. I don't think it would be helpful to delete any one of them, and combining all three would make a rather clumsy paragraph. The OED has all three separate senses (plus some others that we don't have). Perhaps the "physics" sense is not specific to physics -- it is also used in other sciences. Dbfirs 21:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep. I've made a couple of edits to the entry, but I'm sure it can be further improved. Would you like cites for the senses you doubt? Dbfirs 08:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Kept; no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 16:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


The correct spelling is already at Saimiriinae. DCDuring TALK 15:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Saimirinae,Saimirinae at Google Ngram Viewer does not help. google books:"Saimirinae" shows 57 hits (after clicking next multiple times) while google books:"Saimiriinae" shows 36 hits (again, click next). Thus, the nominated spelling is even more common than the alleggedly correct spelling. If the nominated spelling is somehow incorrect, then it should be kept as common misspelling, that is, common relatively to its alternative. But what is the basis for the claim that the nominated spelling is incorrect? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


Correct spelling is already at Diprotodontia. DCDuring TALK 15:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Surprisingly, this is citable: 1, 2, 3, 4. Not sure if this should be classified as a misspelling or a haplologised alternative form. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Glad I didn't speedy it. Are haplologize/haplologise citable. Even if they aren't, it would be a fine addition to Wiktionary:Glossary. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
At Google Scholar it's 1400:60 (raw count, apparently actually more like 1000:60) favoring Diprotodontia, which is in line with it not appearing on the databases that I've looked at. The shorter spelling is certainly less accepted, not following standard name-construction practice from the stem (όντ-) of Ancient Greek ὀδούς (odoús, tooth) thatthe genus Diprotodon, instead reconstructing the word from πρό (pró, in front) instead of πρῶτος (prôtos, first)is derived from. See aso Diprotodontidae. DCDuring TALK 19:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Google Scholar would provide enough attestation to support haplologize, but not haplologise AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I think I've managed to cite both spellings. Most of the citations of haplologise are of the past tense form, but their grammatical environments make clear that they are verb forms rather than adjectives. - -sche (discuss) 19:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
But are the haplologized forms haplogize/haplogise attestable? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Sadly not, but that's what we have {{examples-right}} for. DCDuring TALK 21:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above discussion. I've relabelled it a nonstandard form of Diprotodontia; if someone would rather relabel it a misspelling, go ahead. - -sche (discuss) 23:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


The perfect stem for this form should be rugīv-, so all the perfect forms in rugi- (with the exception of the syncopated form rugiī) should be deleted. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 21:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:JohnC5: Can you please list the forms to be deleted, wikilinked? This will make this so much easier for administration, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: Here you are: :)
rugii rugiisti rugiit rugiimus rugiistis rugierunt rugiere rugieram rugieras rugierat rugieramus rugieratis rugierant rugiero rugieris rugierit rugierimus rugieritis rugierint rugierim rugieris rugierit rugierimus rugieritis rugierint rugiissem rugiisses rugiisset rugiissemus rugiissetis rugiissent rugiisse
JohnC5 21:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


Incesso has perfects in incessīv-, incessu-, and incess-, but the perfect forms in incesiv- (which are currently used) are incorrect and should be deleted. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 04:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

glücklicher Zufall[edit]

glücklicher Zufall = lucky chance event. Total SOP. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Another source I know has luck, serendipity (whatever that is), fortunate coincidence and lucky coincidence. Donnanz (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Then that source is trying to explain the word serendipity for German speakers. We can do that by putting {{t|de|[[glücklich]]er [[Zufall]]|m}} in the translation table of the English word. But the German term is SOP, meaning simply "lucky coincidence" and nothing idiomatic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
      • OK, bearing in mind that Wiktionary likes to shoot itself. The entry in that source (for serendipity) dates back to 2004. The same source has unglücklicher Zufall. Donnanz (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

glückliche Fügung[edit]

I'll admit that this phrase has a degree of setness in German (which is why I'm nominating it separately) but it is still "lucky" + "providence/fortune". Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


This should be in lowercase. --Type56op9 (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete the Spanish and Italian common noun sections. Italian has some proper noun senses which I have added. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep in RFD; move to RFV: Let's keep the process discipline a bit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

suelo permanentemente congelado[edit]

suelo permanentemente helado[edit]

I can’t believe LWC got away with this rubbish. They are descriptions of what permafrost is, not terms. — Ungoliant (falai) 07:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Spanish has plenty of words for permafrost, and none of them are these ones. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete the nominated two Spanish terms entered to mean "permafrost", as per above; I have checked es:w:Permafrost which presents permafrost, permagel and permacongelamiento as some of the Spanish terms. This does appear sum of parts. The fact that this was entered by User:Luciferwildcat noted for bad lexicography is also a hint, although not sufficient in itself. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

arnés pene[edit]

Doesn't look like the real thing to me (no pun intended) --Type56op9 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It a real term in Spanish. Synonyms include pene femenino, cinturón poronguero, and cinturonga. —Stephen (Talk) 12:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

alta gama[edit]

I'd say this isn't an adjective. Possibly de alta gama would be an entry, however. --Type56op9 (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It’s a noun. —Stephen (Talk) 12:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


Sense 2 seems to describe a noun, and i can't find it in any other dictionary. Not to mention how cumbersome it is to read. —This comment was unsigned.

The noun is "derogatory clause", so this is in fact an adjective modifying "clause". The definition may be outdated (a Google search suggests it comes from Rawson's 1884 Pocket Law-Lexicon) but that isn't a reason to delete it altogether. Equinox 20:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Move to derogatory clause. The definition we have appeared as a run-in in MW 1913, which does not mean that it takes the PoS of the headword. Thus it is arguably "created in error".
Further, derogatory clause seems to have another meaning, possibly a generalization of the one in question: "a statutory or contractual provision proclaiming that the document in which it appears, or a part of the document, cannot be repealed or amended."
I don't think it will turn out that there is use of derogatory in these senses apart from the word clause, either as derogatory clause or clause derogatory, but that would depend on someone attempting to create an adjective definition. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking at derogatory clause at OneLook Dictionary Search I see no entries but derogatory clause in a testament at OneLook Dictionary Search show three references containing entries, run-in or full, and one with a null redirect. DCDuring TALK 21:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I found "if the clause be derogatory", so I disagree with the proposed move. Equinox 22:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

trozo de madera[edit]

Claims to mean woodchip, which may well be true. However, it is SOP in Spanish, the definition being "piece/bit of wood". also, LWC created it. --Type56op9 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 16:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

sin forma[edit]

Spanish, looks SOP. In Spanish, we can have sin followed by almost any noun - "sin siesta", "sin cerveza", "sin elefante". I don't see this as being as idiomatic as the others. --Type56op9 (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

abrazo estrecho[edit]

Doesn't look idiomatic to me. abrazo + estrecho --Type56op9 (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

caramelo de melaza[edit]

Looks like a description more than a worthy entry - literally "sweet of molasses". --Type56op9 (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

fragmento de madera[edit]

Similar to trozo de madera, IMHO sum of parts. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 16:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


For the same reason that -ers#English and -ists#English don't exist. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep To be honest, I see no reason why -ers and -ists shouldn't exist. It seems sensible to tell people how different suffixes form plurals (especially since some are irregular: -biosis > -bioses), and because it's a "Plural form of..." entry it doesn't introduce any additional work to keep and maintain this. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Smurrayinchester here. The plural of 20-tuple, etc. is pretty obvious, but not absurdly so, and that hasn't stopped us from listing plurals for English words in general even where they're pretty obvious.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and create -er, -ers, -ist and -ists. Purplebackpack89 02:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
What is the part of speech supposed to be? It's not a suffix, because you don't add -tuples onto a word; you add -s onto a word that already ends in -tuple. But it's not a noun because it isn't an entire word. Delete! Equinox 16:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like an &lit problem to me. bd2412 T 16:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. There was some discussion on de.Wikt about what to do with compounded suffixes (e.g. -ieren, which is seen in some analyses as -ier(-) + -en). de:-ieren is currently a hard redirect to de:-ier. en.Wikt doesn't like to use redirects in circumstances like that, but something along the lines of {{&lit}} or a soft redirect seems in order here ("plural of tuple" is potentially misleading, for the reasons Equinox gives), if this entry is kept. - -sche (discuss) 18:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hyderabad State[edit]

Not sure if this ought to be an entry, or whether it should be a sense at Hyderabad. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be a sense at Hyderabad either way — so I've just added it. That, I think, makes this as SOPpy as State of South Carolina or Yorkshire County. On the other hand, we have kept SOPpy official national names before, like Kingdom of Norway. Relevant previous RFM discussion: Talk:Baramulla District. Thanks for your recent moves, by the way; I cleaned up all the pages I could find after the RFM, but I clearly didn't find them all. - -sche (discuss) 03:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
So, delete, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hyderabad Division[edit]

Same as Hyderabad State above, since -sche pointed it out. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. (See my comments above about Hyderabad State, and note that this isn't even a nation, but a sub-national unit.) - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Next thing you know separatist movements will spring up so places can get their own entry. DCDuring TALK 21:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


Rfd of the Spanish entry.

This is said to be "borrowed from English", but it looks to me like it is English. Sure, Spanish-speaking people in the US will use it in running Spanish sentences- as untranslated English. I've never heard it used, but I doubt it's pronounced any different than when a bilingual Spanish/English speaker would say it it in English. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete It seems to fail RFV anyway. The only uses I can find are in discussing US American services which have the brand name "Dial-A-Ride" in English, and in discussing a mathematical optimization problem called the "Dial-A-Ride problem". Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that: "Dial-A-Ride problem" is attestable even if the commercial service is not. Archivers take note! Equinox 00:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

furniture studies[edit]

Am I missing something as to why this is not SOP? --Type56op9 (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I suspect this entry was created as a form of protest for the inclusion and non-deletion of entries similarly regarded as SOP, such as [[Celtic studies]], as seen further up the page. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    Most of the arguments made for and against Celtic studies would apply. I suspect that any change in expressed opinion or in the ratio of pros to cons will reflect only that this is a less traditional field, smaller, and excessively trade-schoolish. DCDuring TALK 20:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    Documenting one-word translations seemed to be a concern in the discussion of "Celtic studies". are there comparable one-word translations for "furniture studies"? bd2412 T 21:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    How will we find out without keeping this until we have had at least one active contributor in all agglutinative languages pass on that question? What about the poor user who wouldn't find this newish filed in our hoary, tradition-bound competitors? How else would an academic researcher find how this would be translated in Uighur and Navajo? or compare the nomenclature of traditional fields with novel ones across languages? Am I sensing extra-linguistic considerations? DCDuring TALK 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    What's with that agglutinative straw man? No-one wants to use xłp̓x̣ʷłtłpłłs ("he had had in his possession a bunchberry plant") as a reason for creation of he had had in his possession a bunchberry plant. As per Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/July#Can we_get_'particularly_useful_translation_target'_into_CFI?: If we were after a formal strict set of criteria for translation targets, we would take care to handle these sorts of languages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd normally say Keep, because Celtic studies was kept. On the other hand, this isn't exactly like Celtic studies per se, and it was clearly created to prove a point. Purplebackpack89 21:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    So what? The entry stands on its own. It has been attested as well. Trying to find what we will and won't include by examining real cases seems perfectly appropriate. If we keep this, then it would be very efficient to add comparable entries by getting some on-line catalogs of schools and adding them en masse instead of whimsically. DCDuring TALK 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I continue to feel that creating non-idiomatic multiword SOP entries in language A just because there's a one-word term for that in language B is a poor justification. C.f. ja:w:椅子学, or google books:"椅子学" "は", demonstrating the existence of a term for the Japanese academic field of "chair studies". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Send to fucking RFV. No way we are going to let "Celtic studies" and friends pass because of in-voting, and then dispute this because we don't like the attitude of the creator. Equinox 00:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
It's already been cited, though one might question the cites. DCDuring TALK 02:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, well, strong keep then, just to make the X-studies-ists realise how stupid they are, or dig the hole deeper. Equinox 03:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
If it weren't for vacuous SoP entries many wouldn't be able to contribute. Paraphrasing SoP terms for the English definitions and doing calque translations seems to be as much as we can get out of some folks. DCDuring TALK 04:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Equinox, you need to chillax. It's not the end of the world that ____ studies entries are being kept. I'd argue it's probably better in the long run for all concerned. RfV is a waste of time, because each of the ___ studies entries I've seen could be cited in about 30 seconds. Also, what you mean by "in-voting". Purplebackpack89 16:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Re: "If it weren't for vacuous SoP entries many wouldn't be able to contribute.": Seems pretty implausible to me, given what I've seen. Celtic studies was created by Ivan Štambuk, the bulk of whose contribution is Serbo-Croatian. English studies was created by me, and the bulk of my mainspace contribution is Czech. I created English studies because of the utility that I immediately recognized; I suspect the same is true of Ivan Štambuk's creation of Celtic studies. DCDuring's Measles virus seems of much less lexicographical interest to me than Celtic studies and English studies; some would probably even argue that Measles virus is sum of parts; I would argue that it duplicates Wikispecies and that it brings close to zero value to Wiktionary users. That said, I do not propose Measles virus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Equinox and per, I don't know, COALMINE or something. Inverse COALMINE? Keep anything that another language has a single word for? Is that what we want to do? - -sche (discuss) 04:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a straw man: as user -sche knows, no-one is proposing to include all English words for which another single language has a single word. User -sche has made this straw man before, and I pointed out that this is a strawman before to him, but as we can see, to no avail. Furthermore, it has been repeatedly recognized by supporters of the translation target criterion that agglutinative languages would not be included in translation target considerations, so that user -sche's favorite xłp̓x̣ʷłtłpłłs ("he had had in his possession a bunchberry plant") would not count. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete The translation target argument would only apply if there were any translations here (beyond simply a hypothetical agglutinative furniturestudies). Incidentally, we have an article on Celtology, so why do we still need Celtic studies as a place to keep translations? Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
You could propose moving the translations on WT:RFM, or boldly move them. Maybe I'll boldly move them. I suppose the reason they're at Celtic studies is that it is significantly more common a phrase than Celtology, and it makes sense to have translations in the most common entry which exists — but that argument does become rather circular when the reason for keeping Celtic studies despite its SOPness is that translations need a place to live. - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The argument is not circular. The translations should be on a term that actually gets used, not on one that is so rare that it would be considered by many to be an error. Celtic studies,(Celtology*40) at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Smurrayinchester, or anyone else, could you explain why it makes sense to have non-idiomatic multi-word SOP English terms as translation targets for one-word foreign-language terms, when we don't do the inverse? I.e., we don't create non-idiomatic multi-word SOP foreign-language terms for one-word English terms. Instead, we list the translation as the non-idiomatic multi-word SOP foreign-language phrase, and link through to the individual terms that compose that phrase. I really don't understand why we don't do this for translating other-language terms into English. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 08:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Because English entries have translation tables, so they serve as their own translation targets, while non-English entries don't, so they can't. If you want to know the Portuguese translation of a Japanese term that doesn't have a non-SOP English translation, you're out of luck, currently- unless you have an SOP translation target to hang a translation table onto. Of course, given the variation in concepts between languages, this has at least the potential to almost exponentially complicate things. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like an argument for more complete jawikt and ptwikt or for Wikidata. Do we even still have bots doing automatic entries? DCDuring TALK 14:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Not because of the SOP argument (very clearly, some SOP phrases are English terms), but because I cannot imagine that it can be considered as a single term in English. Although note that, in my opinion, the translation target argument is not a good argument, and that there is no reason to forbid translation tables for non-English words (in some cases, they are needed, and they are the rule for de.wikt). The important thing is that each of these translations should be added by somebody knowing both relevant languages. Lmaltier (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as sum of parts until someone comes up with a sincere reason to keep this. In particular, this entry does not appear to be translation target: there are no translations in the entry. The creation of this entry appears to be pointing, a bit like the creation of himand by user -sche who now joins this pointing exercise by writing "Keep per Equinox and per, I don't know, COALMINE or something" in boldface above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

ასოების დასახელება[edit]

Firstly, it is SoP. Secondly, it sounds awkward.--Dixtosa (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dixtosa: Deleted, but it also needs to be corrected or removed from spell. —Stephen (Talk) 09:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


Incomprehensible. Totally wrong. If nothing can be done, please delete. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • While a complete mess, the information is actually mostly correct. I'll take a stab at it tomorrow, time allowing. (The first step will be moving that entry to かしこ...) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 09:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


Doesn't make any sense. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A search is not promising [1]. Equinox 05:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
This is about Sufi mysticism. Zaat is Arabic ذات (ḏāt) (essence), and Hoo (Hu) is Arabic هو (the pronoun He, as a name for Allah). —Stephen (Talk) 07:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
One possible cite with a different romanisation (there appear to be a lot on Google Books, but actually all are from the same guy): 1. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree the current entry is a mess. As to whether or not hoo has any attested (Sufi-related) meaning that could replace the current entry: there are some instances of Hoo, sometimes italicized and sometimes not, in Sultan Bahoo, The Life and Teachings. Searching is made difficult by the commonness of the phrase/interjection "Allah-Hoo" (with various capitalization), and the fact that many books not only discuss that phrase but its individual parts, saying things like:
  • "This sound of Hoo, Hoo will hit powerfully on your dormant kundalini. The Sufis have researched deeply into the sound Allah Hoo! They start with the sound Allah Hoo, then by and by the word Allah is dropped and only Hoo remains." (The Heartbeat of the Absolute: By Osho)
  • "They use Allah hoo, and slowly, slowly they change Allah hoo into simply hoo, hoo. They have found that the sound of hoo strikes exactly at the life source just below the navel." (Ek Onkar Satnam: The Heartbeat of Nanak)
(That is to say,) Many instances of hoo seem to be parts of longer terms, and/or transliterations of Arabic. - -sche (discuss) 22:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the main problem is that too much of the context is taken for granted and omitted, so an uninformed reader sees only the pieces, and not the whole. Still, I have my doubts as to whether this is English or transliterated Arabic. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Totally unconnected, but there's a place in Kent (England) by this name (Hoo St. Werburgh), and the area is known as the Hundred of Hoo. Donnanz (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention w:Sutton Hoo, site of one of the greatest finds of medieval European archeology. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

moral diversity[edit]

Both senses strike me as SOP. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The fried egg test is passed if we name a diversity of morals which does not meet the definition (much as a scrambled egg is an egg which is fried but does not meet the definition of "fried egg"). For the first sense, one example may be a diverse set of morals which no people are inclined to endorse. As another example, there may be diversity of moral inclinations which is so slight that it would not be a criteria of discrimination. This first sense of "moral diversity" refers to a criteria of social discrimination (much as a common sense of "age diversity" would excludes age differences at scales too slight to ground discrimination, or differences in the ages of corpses). The second sense (the older sense) is about good vs. evil. For this sense, the fried egg test might point to a diverse set of morals which all have the same quality (e.g. 100 different but equally evil moral inclinations). Such a set may have moral diversity in the first sense, but not in the second. If you can help improve the definition of either sense, I'd appreciate it--there is a long list of quotes on the citations page to help you. Silversalt (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


RFD sense: "(sport) Not conceding many goals."

This is just a combination of "6. Well-rehearsed and accurate in execution." and "7. Lacking holes; difficult to penetrate; waterproof." as applied to football. It also seems rather inaccurate - you can't describe a goalkeeper as "tight" no matter how few goals they concede. There was one citation, which I've moved to sense 7. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Many of our sports senses are similar overspecializations of more general definitions and should be rooted out. DCDuring TALK 09:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring:: Why? If a word means something even slightly different in sports than it does generally, it should get a second definition. Purplebackpack89 00:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Tight means something distinguishable in many contexts, but we do users (Remember them?) no service by recording every possible nuance. Our list of definitions quickly becomes useless for humans, however valuable it might be for machines attempting to "understand" human speech. DCDuring TALK 04:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"We do users no service by recording every possible nuance." I completely disagree with that. There is a great deal of use to be had in distinguishing between nuances. I cannot fathom how you and others have convinced yourselves that it is somehow more useful to users to have fewer definitions. Purplebackpack89 06:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
So users can quickly locate something close to what they want. Having "exactly" what they want but making it harder to find is no help. Think cognitive limitations and impatience. DCDuring TALK 14:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's a terrible excuse for not covering the language as well as we should. Our primary aim should be covering the language, not worrying about cognitive limitations. Generally speaking, you only have to read the first couple words of each entry anyways: once you pass the context part, it's clear whether or not you need to read on. Purplebackpack89 16:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"...not covering the language as well as we should"? That begs the question of whether we should cover it that way. There are all kinds of semantic distinctions that could be made: eating an apple involves biting and chewing, eating soup involves drinking, eating many other things involves swallowing whole, eating things like shellfish involves eating only the edible part, while eating kumquats involves eating the entire thing. Creating senses for those would just add clutter without adding anything that people couldn't have easily figured out for themselves. Using categorical statements like that hurts your argument, especially when coupled with over-the-top absolute expressions (one of your most irritating affectations) such as "terrible excuse". I think that, at the very least, the sense in question needs rewording, since tight in sports can refer to preventing all sorts of things- not just goals. If we keep this, it should be a subsense of "Lacking holes; difficult to penetrate; waterproof", and have a definition along the lines of "not allowing opportunities for opponents". We might also consider how well "Lacking holes; difficult to penetrate; waterproof" covers the expession "a tight seal". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
In answer to should we, yes, I think we need to have more precise definitions. I'd also note that this discussion grew out of a desire to have different definitions for sports and non-sports context. Also, there is a second sports-related definition nobody's touching on...when I hear "tight" in sports, I assume people are talking about the score being close. Also, why are you knocking only me for painting with a broad brush, when this discussion started with DC positing that a whole bunch of sports-related definitions should be deleted? Purplebackpack89 21:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, you seem to be of the opinion that Wiktionary should be designed for you, with your God-like cognitive capabilities and unquestionable good taste. But given those capabilities you don't need a dictionary. DCDuring TALK 22:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
How about you spend less time personally attacking me by accusing me of having a God complex and more time explaining why having fewer definitions is a good idea? Purplebackpack89 22:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I said nothing of the kind. I was trying to bring you down to earth, to realize that the ordinary Wiktionary user, for whom we should be developing it, are closer to the average human than to the average Wiktionary contributor in terms of raw capability, education, and patience. DCDuring TALK 22:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
But being of a lower capability and education would favor having more definitions... And I do consider the ordinary user, whom I believe wants as many definitions as possible, and uses other online dictionaries rather than Wiktionary because they have more definitions than we do. Purplebackpack89 22:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Arrowred.png I see this claim, again and again (not just from Purple): “users want _____” Do we have any hard data on any such statement? If so, where do we find it? Is it just a matter of combing through WT:Feedback? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

WMF seems to have many concerns with the means by which information is collected from users. Anything that smacks of tracking user behavior, which is very cheap to do, seems to be out of the question, partially on ideological grounds. Other cheap means of getting information are essentially anecdotal or suffer from selection bias of unknown nature and magnitude. Thus we are forced to rely on WMF's own efforts, which seem never to involve projects other than WP. Feedback is our best shot AFAICT, but it suffers from a selection bias. It might be possible to draw some inferences from the information available from site trackers such as ALEXA, which shows that worldwide Wiktionary users skew greatly toward those with "advanced" graduate degrees, compared to, say MWOnline. See Special:Statistics#See also. DCDuring TALK 23:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
There are some things that don't need a lot of data, like keeping rare, obsolete, archaic, and dated terms out of definitions, where an alternative exists (eg, subterraneous vs subterranean). What plausible definition of our user base could possible justify using such terms? We don't even try to exclude such terms systematically. DCDuring TALK 00:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, I regularly ask people about words, to find out whether they use them, have heard of them, have heard them used in certain ways, etc. My sample is the people in my neighborhood who walk dogs. They mostly have college degrees, but relatively few have advanced degrees. I recommend that all Wiktionary contributors get a dog and talk to the full range of people they meet while walking their dog. Those who live in university ghettos would have to take stronger measures for the same result. DCDuring TALK 00:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's get this right out of the way here. There is no conceivable way by which readers are harmed by our having properly labeled entries for rare or archaic terms, or even arguably SOP entries. People who never look them up will not see them, and therefore will not have any reaction to them at all. The real question is, what do people use dictionaries for? I would think that it is not controversial to say that the most common reason anyone would use a dictionary is if they come across a word in a book or other written work, and want to know something about that word - not necessarily the definition (although that will always be up there), but maybe the pronunciation, the etymology, the relationship it has to words with similar sounds or spellings. We offer features beyond those of the typical dictionary, like translations, citations, and even anagrams. I recall that we used to have some means to see which of our entries were being viewed by the most people. If we could get that back, it would be a great tool to see what readers were finding useful. bd2412 T 02:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record, "people who never look them up will not see them" is not true, because of anagrams, "random entry", predictive search, our pages being spidered by Google, etc. etc. Reminds me of the "if you don't like it, don't read it!" argument of the person who posts daily inflammatory comments on your favourite blog. Equinox 02:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Are we equating definitions with appropriate context tags with inflammatory blog posts? I am sure that the technology exists to leave archaic terms out of the process of creating anagrams. As for the rest, I concede that there is approximately a one in four million chance that a person clicking "random entry" will arrive at any particular entry, although it will actually probably be an Italian conjugation. Predictive search results only come up for those searching for words for which we have no entry, and will not be seen by people correctly typing in titles of existing entries. We can't control what people see on Google, but a Google search quickly turning up an archaic term on Wiktionary is probably a search for that archaic term. There is, after all, a degree to which people actually look for archaic stuff, and want to know its history of usage, etymology, and the like. bd2412 T 22:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with BD. There's no harm in having more entries, more definitions, and more sections. Purplebackpack89 07:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ailill mac Máta[edit]

Ailill mac Máta (< Máit?)

Amairgin mac Echit[edit]

Amergin mac Echit

Cairbre Nia Fer[edit]

Cairbre nia fer
This meaning of nia (later niad or niath, cf. Modern Irish niata (warriorlike, adj)) isn't there yet.

Cet mac Mágach[edit]

Cét mac Mágach

Cethern mac Fintain[edit]

Cethern mac Fintáin

Conchobar mac Nessa[edit]

Conchobar mac Nessa

Condere mac Echach[edit]

Condere mac Echach

Cormac Cond Longas[edit]

Cormac cond longas

Fedlimid mac Daill[edit]

Fedlimid mac Dall

Fergus mac Róich[edit]

Fergus mac Róch

Fionn mac Cumhail[edit]

Finn mac Cumal

Manannan mac Lir[edit]

This is a special case: Manannán is a unique name, possessed only by the god Manannán mac Lir. The elements are probably worth adding in their own right, Manannán in the etymology of the Isle of Man, and Ler in the possible origin of King Lear, and his Welsh cognate Llŷr. (He's also the father in the story of Clann Lir, where his four children were turned into swans by their evil stepmother.)

Per WT:CFI: "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney." (These individuals are of questionable historicity, but the aforecited section of CFI says it "regulates the inclusion and exclusion of names of specific entities, that is, names of individual people, [...] names of mythological creatures", etc, emphasis mine) See also my and others' comments at WT:RFV#Lugaid_mac_Con_Ro.C3.AD. Someone else may want to nominate entries like Conall the Victorious. - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete*, and I find it strange that these are marked English rather than Old or Middle Irish.
(*) Technically, Cairbre Nia Fer and Cormac Cond Longas have neither patronymics nor family names. The names mean (as far as I can tell from Googling - I'm sure one of our Irish speakers can put me straight) Cairbre, Hero/Defeater of Men and Cormac, Exiled Prince. I would assume that this sort of disambiguator would also make an individual ineligible for inclusion, although I see we do have Alexander the Great and Mary Magdalene. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Cairbre Nia Fer and Cormac Cond Longas are other examples of people, not names as names. Is it worth adding a section to Proper noun entries of "Notable bearers" or the like? With wikipedia links, say.
Mythical people is one thing, but gods is another. Manannán is a unique god. Similarly, I can't find any examples of Lugh as people, but there are names derived from him: Lugaid, Lugach, Lugair. The difference is that Lugh has many bynames -- samildánach, lámfada, macnia -- but Manannán is primarily known with his patronym. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 09:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd certainly support adding something like ", name of several ancient Irish kings." to entries like Conchobar and Ailill (which don't yet exist!), similar to what we have at Henry. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Apache ODE [edit]

Sae1962 (what did you expect?). Name of a specific product. -- Liliana 02:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; no hint that this would pass WT:BRAND. bd2412 T 03:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Deleted on sight. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

African traditionalist[edit]

Not convinced this isn't SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep It's not "African" + "traditionalist", it's "African traditional [religion]" + "-ist". It's no more SOP than fifth columnist or social scientist. "African traditional religion" is probably something we should have an entry for as well - it's generally treated as a specific religion, rather than simply an umbrella term all traditional African beliefs (see e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4), and it never refers to the Abrahamic religions, even though each has a very long history on the continent. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
But does it only apply to religion. Shouldn't the entry be African traditional religion as you suggest. Traditionalist can apply to a lot of different things. --Dmol (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
A follower of African traditional religion is an African traditionalist. (1, 2, 3). You could have traditionalists who are African, just as you could have scientists who are social ("I went to a party at CERN last night, and I've never seen so many social scientists!") or even columnists who are fifth ("When I read the newspaper this morning, the first four columnists were interesting, but the fifth columnist was really boring."), but that doesn't make African traditionalist a less valid collocation. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete this for the same reasons as Talk:traditional African religionist and Native American religionist. Many uses refer to those who adhere to African traditions in general, not just African religious traditions, and several uses specifically include those who have fused elements of African traditions with European-derived traditions; for example, David Kaulemu's The Struggles After the Struggle says: "to be a contemporary African traditionalist is in some sense to accept the modernist interpretation of African tradition [...and] what have often been paraded as 'African traditions' were actually created by colonial masters". Furthermore, even if the term were used only to denote what the definition claims, "adherents of an African traditional religion", I think it would still be SOP because "African tradition" / "African traditional religion" are themselves SOP — there is no single referent for them to have, since most of the various unrelated, unacquainted or mutually-hostile peoples that inhabit Africa have or had their own independent, unrelated, unacquainted and/or mutually exclusive or hostile belief systems. - -sche (discuss) 10:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep, it appears to have a very fixed meaning and is used commonly (often from a Christian perspective it seems), with much written about the group. It seems to usually be used in terms which treat it similarly to a religion, or at least contrasted religions from outside of Africa. Whether it is particularly meaningful to describe the many independent belief systems as a single grouping is not relevant for whether it should have a dictionary definition. Various books: "South Africa had significant Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and African Traditionalist populations", "A Christian or Hindu or an African traditionalist could be called upon to show how each party had regulated the incidents of the marriage", "The civil war motivating force is the determination to Islamize and Arabize Sudan whose majority is African traditionalist or Christian". Sometimes it is used in more SOP ways too, but it definitely has definitions which are not. "traditional African religionist" and "Native American religionist", by contrast, are hardly ever found in books and are fairly considered SOP. Pengo (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

model aircraft[edit]

Like a "model train", "model ship", etc. etc. It's a model of the thing. Whether it's remote-controlled or whatever else is not entirely relevant. Equinox 05:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. It was entered as a translation target, or don't translation targets matter? Donnanz (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I feel that this cannot be considered as a single English term. Translations can be provided in aircraft and in model, when needed. Lmaltier (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That tends to make life more difficult than necessary. Nobody seems to learn (sigh). It makes me wonder why I bother with Wiktionary at all. Donnanz (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: In order for this to be a translation target per my criteria, the translations have to be non-compounds and must not be word-for-word translations of the words in the English term. Norwegian "modellfly" does not meet that criteria, since modell is model and fly is airplane. Italian aeromodello is slightly better, since aero- seems to be a prefix, but the prefix is close to Italian aereo listed as an Italian translation for airplane among aereo, aeroplano, apparecchio, and aeromobile. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Translation target should not be an excuse for SoP entries. xłp̓x̣ʷłtłpłłskʷc̓. Equinox 22:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep as a non-idiomatic translation target. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


Military sense. Copied verbatim from another dictionary. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedied as copyvio. Please re-add with an original definition. Equinox 18:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was just a description of the way in which the intelligence department of the United States Department of Defense directs or refers information to a particular case (our sense 4). We don't need to describe how every organisation applies knowledge, do we? Dbfirs 18:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Takács de Saár[edit]

No such surname exists in Hungarian since de Saár is just a title so it is not an integral part of the name. In addition, Takács de Saár is a foreign form of the name while the Hungarian version is saári Takács. Einstein2 (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

avoir besoin de[edit]

For the same reason that have need of lacks an entry in English. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

But this is the French way to say "to need". It's kinda set term, isn't it? I changed the translation form "have need of" to "need". --Hekaheka (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Hek Purplebackpack89 01:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course, it must be kept. The only question is about the de. Should the title be avoir besoin de or avoir besoin? For information, fr.wikt has avoir besoin de, and this seems reasonable in this case. Lmaltier (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Well it's certainly a unit in French in a way that "have need of" isn't in English. (It might be instructive to compare French pouvoir with English "be able to": we have no infinitive for "can".) I don't know. Anyway: the answer to Lmaltier's question is to make one a redirect to the other. Since we can say "dont il a besoin" (I think!), probably redirect the de-form to the form without it. Equinox 00:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep. It’a set phrase with the compulsory de. You don’t say just j’ai besoin; you say j’en ai besoin, where en works as “of it” and contains de implicitly. And as Equinox said, you say dont j’ai besoin, where dont contains de. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. bd2412 T 03:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


Rfd-sense: two senses added by a non-native speaker:

  • (reflexive) sich vom etw. entfernen, to go absent
  • (reflexive) sich aus etw. entfernen, to leave something

I don't see how these are any different from sense 2. -- Liliana 12:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The "leave something" sense is transparent (given German's relatively strict rules about prepositions, you can expect any verb meaning leave to be coupled to "aus"/"raus"), so delete sense 4 (although it would be nice to have a usage example that shows the use of "aus"). The "go absent" sense is less clear to me, as a non-native German speaker. Does it only refer to cases of running away, or is it equivalent to the broader English "go absent"? If, for example, I don't report for duty (that is, I don't show up at all), have I still entfernt myself from the troop? Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The example sentence is pretty horrible because absent without leave is idiomatic in English. Really, all it means is that you leave the troop. That's it. If you don't report for duty, you never left to begin with, in that case, you'd use sich entziehen. -- Liliana 00:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
In that case Delete both. Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

淳于琼, 淳于瓊[edit]

full name, don't meet CFI.--GZWDer (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


This is what I call a rare misspelling, so it should be deleted. Some searches: increidbly, incredibly at Google Ngram Viewer, google:"increidbly", google:"incredibly", google books:"increidbly", google books:"incredibly". The frequency ratio in Google Ngram Viewer cannot be determined since the misspelling is not found; the frequency ratio in Google books is 3,520,000 : 36 = over 90,000. Compare conceive, (concieve*1000) at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody would use this form in speech or non-typed writing. I don't believe we should have typos (where the fingers misstrike the keys) as common misspellings: it is something for the search engine "did you mean...?" feature to sort out. Has this been discussed before? Romanophile, what value do you perceive in creating such entries (neutral honest question)? Equinox 22:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not see much value in complicating the inclusion criteria with the distinction between typo misspellings and non-typo mispellings, where typos cannot not occur in non-typed writing. I see value in keeping attested frequently occurring typos: when the user enters a typo into the search box of the dictionary, it is more convenient for them to be soft-redirected to typoless page than to see a blank page. I do not fear overflood of common typos and misspellings; Category:English misspellings now has less than 2000 entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, no question about that. I can make that sort of error every day, and it's up to me to correct them. Donnanz (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. We have traditionally excluded typos (which can be identified as such by the fact that they are found alongside the usual spellings in many or most of the works in which they are found). - -sche (discuss) 02:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I differentiate typos from misspellings as errors made by people who likely know the correct spelling but don't hit the right keys, or hit the keys in the wrong order. It seems highly unlikely that anyone would type this believing it to be the correct spelling of the word. bd2412 T 03:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, per BD2412 Lmaltier (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

butch lesbian[edit]

Sum of parts. --kc_kennylau (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, delete. Hard to believe Mglovesfun created this! The opposite is femme, or a femme lesbian. There are also fat, thin, living, dead, energetic, lazy, white, and black lesbians. No entries please. Equinox 03:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; transparently SOP. bd2412 T 22:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 02:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

dick-measuring contest[edit]

Brown leaf. Tecfan (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sense 1 is SOP, yes, but it's already so marked. Sense 2 is idiomatic, since no dicks are involved. I would go so far as to remove the reference to measuring masculinity, since I've heard it used for other stupid contests. (Compare pissing contest, shitting match) - -sche (discuss) 01:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep the figurative sense at least, per -sche. Equinox 01:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course keep. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep per - -sche. Pissing contest was one of my earlier entries, and this seems to be along the same lines. Seems to have plenty of usage including in books. --Dmol (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep per user -sche: sense 2 is idiomatic (WT:CFI#Idiomaticity). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy RFD kept: the arguments are obvious above, and the support is unanimous but for the nominator who seems inexperienced about Wiktionary per Special:Contributions/Tecfan. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


The sport teams do not merit a different sense IMO; almost all college sports teams are referred to by the name of the school. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete; the team is the team of the school. bd2412 T 22:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If this were to pass RFD, I'd be tempted to RFV it, because I don't think any uses exist which unambiguously are this sense and can't be interpreted as the first sense. (*"Although the University of California at Los Angeles banned hazing, UCLA continued to practice it." ?) Compare "Germany beat Brazil 7-1". - -sche (discuss) 02:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I do see the point, though: when you say "UCLA and USC will be playing for the college title at UCLA", you're not saying that two entire universities will be engaged in a sports contest- think of the work required to move all those buildings and people crosstown ;). I don't know where we should draw the line on making metonomy explicit. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I question whether it's even proper metonymy (à la "The White House said...") or just the routine phenomenon that a representative part of a group can be referred to as the group. "[The] Americans won the Fina Cup in Barcelona, Spain." (Not every American; many Americans didn't even compete.) "Wiktionary deleted [[brown leaf]] last year." (Actually, it was only deleted by CodeCat, not by every user working in unison or in sequence.) - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The same goes to every department of the university. For example: "In addition to a highly developed clinical program, UCLA has the distinction of offering an unusually flexible externship". Carol-June Cassidy, ‎Sally F. Goldfarb, Inside the Law Schools: A Guide by Students for Students (1998), page 102. However, this addresses only the law school, not the entire university. This does not require an entry for "the law school of UCLA". bd2412 T 14:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

platonic relationship[edit]

Strikes me as a pretty clear-cut SoP. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete. The contrast with platonic love is instructive, platonic love apparently being the source of the sense of platonic being used in the RfDed term. DCDuring TALK 05:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Created by mistake/typo (+ accelerated creation), the word does not exist. Same for acciradas and accirados.

pizza party[edit]

Obvious SOP entry [unnecessary personal attack redacted]. -- 20:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, transparently SoP. Why would anyone create an entry with the edit summary, "Might be sum‐of‐parts"? Figure that part out first. bd2412 T 22:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Echo BD2412. I don't know what Romanophile's "thing" is but it seems to relate to attention from others. Equinox 02:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


Auto-generated plural form, not correct. The plural is becs-de-lièvre. Ajmint (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedied. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

zoological nomenclature[edit]

Is this anything other than zoological + nomenclature? And should we also have binomial nomenclature and botanical nomenclature? ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

We would probably also need virological nomenclature, too, perhaps bacteriological nomenclature. For historical reasons we might need others as well.
Those who believe that we are a short-attention-span encyclopedia should like those entries. I don't. DCDuring TALK 14:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)