Wiktionary talk:Requests for deletion

Documentation

Lists

Categories:

• Category:Requests for deletion

Templates:

• {{rfd}}
• {{rfd-sense}}
• {{rfd-redundant}}
• {{rfd-passed}}
• {{rfd-failed}}

Documentation of the deletion process:

• Help:Nominating an article for cleanup or deletion
• Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion process

This project page is documented at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Header.

This project page is for requests for deletion. These request are for entries that you think should probably be deleted. Entries that are probable to be verifiable, meaning quotations documenting their use can be found for them, are better placed at a request for verification. Entries that are clearly and indisputably worth deletion should not be requested for deletion but rather marked using {{delete}}.

To create a request for deletion, add the template {{rfd}} into the entry that you think should probably be deleted, and then add an item to this page by clicking "+" in the box that the {{rfd}} template has created in the marked entry.

When a request is completed, the completed item can be closed by striking out the heading of the item. If the entry survives RFD, the RFD template should be removed from the entry.

Archiving: Since the end of 2009, deletion debates are archived to the entry's talk page even if the whole entry is deleted. If a word is speedily deleted without much discussion, there's usually no need to archive it; it is the archiver's job to decide if there is enough "usable content" to merit an archive. A list of obsolete archives: Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/archive.

Discussion

(Moved from wiktionary:Tea room) \Mike

About vandals/trolls/newbies...

I happened to see that the entry girl had got a pretty wacko definition (on the basis of 'inferior gender'), so I saved the previous entry instead. When I looked at the "contributor's" two other contributions, submarine and deep vein thrombosis, similar junk was inserted there as well. Now I wonder, is there any 'vandal alert page' somewhere so I could warn others if he returns?

Also, I stumbled upon Naplese: Naplese - if I knew where to find it, I would put it on VfD. How do you treat stuff like this? \Mike 20:21, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The entry was clear nonsense, so I've deleted it. When it comes to vandalism problems, these seem to be a much smaller problem here than in Wikipedia. Most of the vandals who do this kind of thing have short attention spans. By the time you are ready to clean up their mess, they have probably forgotten that Wiktionary exists.

I've never been supportive of the VfD system; it's too divisive for the community. A page where non-sysops could request deletion would be a good thing, probably Wiktionary:Requests for deletion, but I'll check to see if other possible names have already been set up before I do anything about it. Eclecticology 07:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Be careful Mike, if you do this kind of stuff too often, you'll get promoted to sysop status... :-) Thanks for taking care of it! For the time being. You can take care of vandalism by putting back the previous version like you did or you can simply clear the page. (or put valid content in it, of course).

I second the requests for deletion page. It makes more sense than Votes for deletion.

I have another question. I often find myself taking decisions on deleting pages on my own, since it often is obvious that it is vandalism or nonsense. I'm only putting it in question, when I'm not sure. When I read up on the Wikipedia policy about deletion of pages, I realize I might not be entitled to do this. Do we have to create more strict rules about this? Maybe we can start thinking about that when it actually creates a problem, due to abuse of sysop power.

The reason I do it without asking much questions, is because I usually don't want to leave those nonsense pages in sight. I want to weed them out as quickly as possible. So the question is, is this OK or should we discuss more first? ~~ ~~ Polyglot :-)

I've moved the contents of Wiktionary:Personal subpages to be deleted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. The old title seemed too narrowly specialized to be meaningful.

I very strongly feel that for other than core Wiki values (NPOV, Free Distribution, etc.) each project should be master of its own rules. My personal belief is that Wikipedia has become so caught up in its rule making that it has generated disrespect for those rules. Maybe it's just a victim of its own success. I agree with Polyglot that we should develop our own way of looking at these things, and that our regulatory burden should not exceed the need for rules. Eclecticology 17:11, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Policies governing the use of this page are now at Wiktionary:Page deletion guidelines. Eclecticology 17:36, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Undeletion: I couldn't find any information about undeletion on Wiktionary. Assuming undeletion is possible and is sometimes done, it would be good for that information to be available. Zach 12:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is correct; anyone that can delete, can also undelete. (Since I originally nominated it, I'll try to just listen now, for what the consensus is.) --Connel MacKenzie 12:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RFD Proposals

1. I'm concerned that the {{rfd}} template is being removed from articles that are still under discussion on the WT:RFD. I think we need to modify the template and the instructions at rfd to note that removal of the {{rfd}} template will be done when the discussion is archived from the RFD page.
2. I would also like to see the discussion archived to pages when they are over and there has actually been conversation. If the page is a "speedy delete" with no conversation then I think this would be extraneous. See Talk:Eutopy for an example of how to archive an RFD discussion using {{RfdResult|result=Keep|text=}}. I think this should be done both for pages that are kept and deleted. Kevin Rector 00:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Kevin, I think this is an excellent idea for kept pages, but I disagree that it should be done for deleted pages. Sysops see deletion history whenever they go to edit. Simply knowing the date deleted should be enough to find the correct archive? --Connel MacKenzie 04:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sysops can see that, but not non-sysops. Imagine if I'm a new user and I go to add a word that ought not be added and I see that it has a talk page. By clicking the talk page I can see that the page has already existed and been deleted once as well as the arguments pro and con. Now imagine that I go ahead and re-create the article. Let's say a few weeks later someone comes along and RFDs the page again. Now, we have not only the new conversation about the article, but we have a clear archive (and perhaps some precedent) of the old conversations as well. Kevin Rector 04:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Text removed from WT:RFD follows:

Questions

If you post a question on the discussion page of a word/article that doesn't yet exist, or at least is not currently in existence (shout out to Doug Faqqin A;), and the word/article has previously been marked for deletion andor is currently under consideration for deletion. Will the discussion page of said word/article be Marked with A "this page has been marked for deletion" ?

I ask because I posted a similar question to the discussion page of Aibohphobia, and when I checked to see if it had saved I saw that "Marked for Delection" signage thingy. Then, as I was posting this question here, I went to check something else out and found out I had knew message(s), and checked said messages(s), and it was some guy named User:TheDaveRoss giving me the perhaps rightfully deserved smackdown for innappropriate postings.

However, seeing as though the Meat of that Matter speaks to asking on a Talk page of a page of a Talk page of a talk page, none of which yet exist yet, I must ask the herd: are discussion page postings deletable? where is the M out of which i should RTF? i know i could find it if i looked for it, but i did, and find it ambiguous. i post here merely to ponder opportunity in dinambiguation's direction.

I gotta say,, I think whatever question I'm asking by these few could be interpreted with much kinder eyes. i got absotively posilutely no faqqin problem with being told to RTFM, but if i ask you on something that is a few degrees of separation away from any fucking thing that someone who doesn't think way too much about this here project will ever even remotely run the risk of fucking seeing, then wouldn't it perhaps be nice if you took the time to link'ed me to the right M out of which i could read the fuck? seriously, dude, RTFM, either it is pretty much OK to post a question about whether it's ok to post a question on the discussion page of an article that doesn't yet exist, or it is not. i'm just asking for definition & consideration.

or it is not. is it not?

so, i ask the herd: where do we stand, y'all?

-:)Ozzyslovechild 04:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I was more concerned with "knowt" than "Aibohphobia," but in either case the message on the talk page is irrelevant to the article (Talk:Knowt, Talk:Aibohphobia) and I did link you to the appropriate place to list words which you would like to see included, Requested Articles. As for the location of the manual, a good place to start is in the menu on the left side of each wiki* page, under "help." I intended that note on your talk page to be helpful, not rude, and I appologize if it came across as such. - TheDaveRoss 04:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. And though I must nevertheless detour to ask: 1- how concerned is that, precisely, if it only merited a 'this talk page comment should be deleted' and didn't even merit a reference to some faqqing thing that manual'd the question that i was posing in there. In short, where is the current thinking actually being done on this heah wiki with respect to how to go about deleting chaffe from the discussion pages in a way that doesn't discourage the discourse?

~

Indeed. And no need for apologies. Took only the slightest whiff of you before first replying to you, but i sniff next to nill ill on you. I would encourage you to be as you are, and if you're to respond to me yet again, to talk hard.

~

-:)b

ps, gotta ask re: your "the message on the talk page is irrelevant to the article." DID YOU ACTUALLY FAQQIN TYPE THAT? About an talk page post about a word/article that doesn't yet exist, and whose very fucking existence is precisely what the fuck was being discussed in the talk page post? Dude! And were you feeling almighty when you did? That? -:)Ozzyslovechild 04:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Good one guys -Dirtclustit (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Failed verifications

Terms that have previously failed the Requests for verification are presumed invalid. They should not be resubmitted again without adequate verification. Sysops are reminded to delete these entries on sight. See Wiktionary:Requests for verification/archive for a detailed list.

Sorry! Who wrote that ?; Who decided that ? Where is the policy for that, so that the policy can be reviewed and changedby community consensus. Or is there some super-user here who has the right to decide policy on their own, keepit secret, and implement it on their own ?--Richardb 13:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Um... I believe that has been the consensus for quite some time. See WT:RFVA for a list of such entries, and (I think) Wiktionary talk:Requests for verification, and possibly some other places. This has been pretty much integral to the RFV process nearly since its inception. —Muke Tever 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In any case characterizing the addition as "anonymous" is quite ridiculous. It was added by User:Connel MacKenzie on 15 December and expanded by him the next day. Presumably it has been toned down since then to arrive at the removed version. —23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

reasons for deletion

There are several statements currently on the RfD page strongly suggesting that "'sum of parts' is not a valid reason for deletion". Why? If a construction is merely the sum of its parts (and has no other claim to fame), that still seems like an excellent argument for deletion.

Also, the Pawley list is often mentioned. It's an interesting list, but after reading it a couple times I confess I still don't fully understand it. I suggest we (a) move it to its own page in the project namespace (rather than leaving it hiding in Wiktionary talk), (b) expand its descriptions to make it more clear which terms it's recommending and which it's disrecommending for inclusion, with examples, and (c) make sure that all the "good" examples are indeed blue links and the "bad" ones red.

—Scs 04:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it might have another claim to fame. When people say "sum of parts" what they really mean is that plus there is no other good reason to have it. The Pawley list is taken by some to be an enumeration of reasons to keep terms. However, see my refinement below it at Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion. This is a current debate that needs to be settled before any policy changes can be begun. That's a step that has to be taken before clearer descriptions can be created for newcomers. Davilla 18:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It depends on whether an entry is nothing more than the sum of its parts (e.g., "pencil mark") or is a set phrase (e.g., pencil box). It’s not that "sum of its parts" is a reason for deletion, it is that "sum of its parts" is not a reason for inclusion. —Stephen 03:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the principle is that all words (or terms) can be included, including phrases. This should be the only criterion: if something can be considered as a word, if something is used as a word, is stored as a whole by the brain, and not built by the brain from its constituents each time it is needed, then it can be considered as a set phrase, as a word, and it should be kept. If you want to delete phrases when their meaning can be built from definitions found in the pages of its constituents, then you might have to delete all phrases: it is always possible to define the meaning of the phrase in pages dedicated to each of its parts, provided that this special case is mentioned (which is advisable): e.g. the meaning of prime number can be guessed from one of the mathematical senses of prime and one of the senses of number. This is what many dictionaries choose to do, mainly for space reasons. But no dictionary would state that prime number is not a mathematical term. And, if it's a term of the language, it should be included. Lmaltier 20:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Then any simple, canonical sentence, ought to be includable, as well as any noun-noun and adj-noun phrase, any predicate, any simple subordinate clause. Would you care to discriminate at all among these? DCDuring TALK 20:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not any phrase, but any set phrase. A bot cannot determine which phrases are set phrases, but a human being, with a good knowledge of the language, can do it (e.g. red squirrel is a set phrase, red bicycle is not a set phrase). These examples are clear, but this does not mean that it's always clear. My feeling is that we should agree on the general principle, and that the discussion should be only on the way to deal with difficult cases. This was the objective of the Pawley list as I understand it. Lmaltier 20:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are limiting yourself to set phrases, there are definite sufficient criteria for such. Some of the idiom entries that we have (and should have) wouldn't meet a set-phrase test. "Set phrase" is a sufficient condition for inclusion, we all agree. If we would be willing to accept it as a necessary condition, we would have fewer idioms and much more efficient RfD discussions for multi-word entries.

I don't agree with any of the general principles that we have, because they are motherhood and apple pie for us. We just like the word "all". It seems to feed some fantasy that Wiktionary will encompass all language and thus all human thought and possibly all reality. Arguing specific cases from general principles is a colossal waste of time. If folks took the trouble to actual show rather than merely assert that a given MWE was a set phrase, our discussions would be fewer. The terms that clog our RfD page are mostly not set phrases and, of those that are, virtually none have been shown to be set phrases. DCDuring TALK 22:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Archival

Accessing and navigating this page is frustrating, particularly on a slow dial-up modem. Is there a particular reason it's not regularly archived, or is it just that nobody does it? I'm quite willing to do it myself as I already do with similar processes on Meta and Wikipedia. I use a system described by m:Template:How to archive, which you can see in action at s:Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives. This archival system makes it very easy to find and access any discussion from any date in a few seconds by searching the topic listing. The links also make it very easy to spot recreations. Any thoughts on doing this or not? —[admin] Pathoschild 06:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly support some method of archival of this page. Andrew Massyn has a pretty good system going for WT:RFV, and it would be nice to see something comparable here (as another dial-up user who is frustrated by long load times ;-) I would like to point out, though, that the archival processes for various pages is rather haphazard; whoever decides that a particular community page needs it seems to implement their own favorite flavor, meaning that WT:BP is different than WT:RFV, which is different than WT:GP, etc. --Jeffqyzt 14:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd be easier to standardise this system, since it's already standard on Wikisource, semi-standard on Meta, and Werdna has noted that his bot could automate it. The system used on Requests for verification is essentially the same as this one. There are only minor formatting differences on the Archives index and archive page naming, and passed verifications are archived to the page's talk page instead of the request archives. —[admin] Pathoschild 22:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"3 independent usages" negotiable?

The criteria for inclusion allow for any term showing Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. There seem to be a large number of terms being proposed for deletion as non-notable because of "poor quality" sources (quality is not mentioned in this criterion) or "not enough" sources (eg. 20+). Could someone please explain why words remain up for deletion (and indeed get voted against) once the 3 required sources have been provided? -84.69.45.120 01:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a few factors which may complicate things in this regard. For example, a phrase is not included if it's "sum of parts", meaning that the phrase does mean anything beyond the definitions given for it components. Also, words will sometimes get deleted if the article is very poorly written. Even if a word qualifies for inclusion in Wiktionary, but people deem that nothing worthwhile is currently in the article, they might think it better to delete it, and start from scratch. There are a number of other issues which may be at play. If you can cite some specific examples, it would be easier to assess the situation. It should be noted that it's certainly possible that someone overstepped the proper boundaries and something needs to be rectified. Giving us some examples will help us figure out what's happening. Atelaes 01:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Page deletion guidelines is fairly up to date, and gives a good general description of what we aim to do. One thing it doesn't explain clearly (and neither do the relevant pages) is that on WT:RFD we vote to keep/delete, while on WT:RFV, deletion should be the automatic result if at the end of one month (or so) there is still no proof that the definitions given pass WT:CFI, while all which do pass should be kept. Generally this is uncontentious if the entry, by then, contains three independent durably archived cites showing use, not just mention, for each definition. However, occasionally there are disputes over whether cites actually show the claimed usage, or whether a word fails CFI for another reason, eg that it is a misspelling. For an example of both of these, see WT:RFV#narf. There is also an occasional dispute over whether cites are independent or durably archived or due to people failing to appreciate that the mention of a word in a dictionary does not always indicate that anyone has actually used the word to indicate the meaning defined. --Enginear 16:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeframe?

I'm not sure how aggressively to archive this page. We don't seem to have a set timeframe for RFD discussions. I'd like to propose that most discussions be closed and archived after 30 days, with exceptions for unusually problematic or contentious cases. Doing this would also make those few unusually problematic cases a great deal more visible. Objections? If 30 days seems too fast, I could do 90. The current de facto 180-300 days is just silly though.-- Visviva 04:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please proceed; 30 or so days seems fine for most cases. :-) (I believe the de facto 180-300 days is because we're lazy, not because we're patient. ;-) —Ruakh_TALK 05:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Add link to Wiktionary:Idioms that survived RFD?

What would people think about adding a link to Wiktionary:Idioms that survived RFD to the page (possibly in the line with "Good nomination guidelines" and the other links)? It's not official policy or anything, but it is at least a good reference. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Length

The length of the RfD page is way too long, over 400 KB, making it very cumbersome to scroll through. I propose we split it by months, like Wiktionary talk:Requests for deletion/Log/2008 June and Wiktionary talk:Requests for deletion/Log/2008 July. Any objections?--♠TBC♠ 04:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ineffably cumbersome and procrastinating while opening. Such a splitting in these and more sections is palpably exigent, unless an accelerated archiving befalls the page. Bogorm 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please help by marking items with {{look}} if they do not seem resolved. Vote on the old items to speed things along. I was under the impression that there were archiving macros or something. DCDuring TALK 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Connel has bots which archive this page. If we section this off into months, the stuff will simply sit and rot. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could use a bot to archive threads to an archive (for example by month) that have not had any new comments or posts for X number of days, maybe over 60 days? Cirt (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The only motivation which exists for taking care of these (and they do need to be taken care of, mind you) is the ridiculously long page. Forcing every editor on Wiktionary to load and sort through that nonsense eventually gets people to make tough decisions which desperately need to be made. If this affected readers, it would be another matter, but it only affects editors. Suck it up, or get to resolving those deletion requests! Once a decision is made, they very quickly disappear. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, a bit blunt, but a good point, nonetheless. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Computer Chess

What happened to the nomination for deletion for the word "computer chess"?? WritersCramp 00:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Connel's archiving script had a little hiccup: [1]. The section for go apeshit was also zapped. -- Visviva 04:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, how long does the nomination +tag last, computer chess seems to have a strong keep consensus ! WritersCramp 02:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It lasts until someone handles it. It takes a while sometimes, don't worry about it. It does no harm. —Ruakh_TALK 15:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

vintage car

I was gonna propose this, but it seems to have been proposed for deletion before, yet I can't find it in the archives. Seems to be very SoP, so if it hasn't already been proposed, I will do so. Mglovesfun 20:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If it really means "A motor car built between 1919 and 1930", I suppose we should keep it (or else have a note at vintage that "this means 1919-1930 for motor cars"), but surely that's a rather arbitrary definition? Equinox ◑ 20:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Having looked, we do have such a note at vintage. So delete. Equinox ◑ 20:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Woah, which corpus was used to prove that a 1931 car hasn't been called vintage more than three times? (Same question could be asked of watches.) —Michael Z. 2009-05-11 03:00 z

I believe because these are terms popularized in large part by associations which defined them in very specific ways. (the broader term to "vintage" is classic, at least in some formulation). Circeus 16:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose antique is specifically defined this way in some contexts too.

w:Vintage car says there is debate about the end date, and an image search shows that people don't always use the term the way we define it. We should examine actual usage rather than quoting an authority (much less without citing it). I'll file an RfV for vintage. —Michael Z. 2009-05-12 15:37 z

objections?

Does anybody mind if I clear out this page? I don't want to be thought of as a RFD dictator or anything, but I'm just trying to get the page smaller.... --Jackofclubs 00:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Go for it, long pages are a bit irritating as they take a long time to load and it's harder to find what you want. Mglovesfun 08:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

But this isn't a big page. I thought that each tab is separate page. Clearing this out has no consequence for loading time of the RfD. Where does this material get archived? DCDuring TALK 11:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

He must mean the page being discussed, not this talk page! Of course the actual RFDs get archived on the words' articles' talk pages. Equinox ◑ 11:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

...unless the ns:0 page is deleted, in which case to MediaWiki:Previously deleted entries AFAIK.​—msh210℠ 20:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Now to Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries. --Bequw → τ 18:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This page is huge

Anyone care to assist me in archiving this deletion page? Posting comments (for me) is becoming very slow, it takes at least 15 seconds (maybe 20) just to start editing the page after clicking on 'edit'. What is the protocol? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to this, I've archived a little. Here's what I do (others may do it differently). If there's consensus to delete, I strike the section's header with <s>, state in the section that the entry/sense is deleted, and delete the entry/sense (with a decent edit summary). If there's consensus to keep, or a roughly even split, I strike the section, state it's kept, and remove the tag from the page (with edit summary). A week (or more) after the timestamp (on RFD) that signs off on striking the section, if no more discussion has taken place in that section, I remove the section altogether. If the page was not deleted (whether the result was deletion of a sense or what-have-you) I paste the whole text into the entry's talkpage, using {temp|rfdResult}}. If the entry was deleted, I paste a link to the revision of RFD to MediaWiki:Previously deleted entries (WT:DEL) along with a link to the entry itself. (The purpose is to allow those researching the entry to see, using whatlinkshere, a link to the discussion.) In either case — whether I'm archiving to the talkpage or pasting a link to the discussion to WT:DEL — I indicate as much in the edit summary of the removal from RFD of the section. (Really you could paste to the entry's talkpage a link to the revision of RFD instead of the text of the discussion, but the latter is probably useful.) To get a link to the revision of RFD use the URL of the "Permanent link" link on the RFD page.​—msh210℠ 16:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you not use section-editing? —Ruakh_TALK 16:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed non-nomination

Jcwf wasn't nominating this, if anything it should go to WT:BP. It got a speedy delete and he just wanted to make us aware of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

zeebodempje

I protest all computer generated protologic diminutives. This one does not have much use except the odd protologic jest. Yes I am a bit like .. there are some Dutch speaker that.. like... always trun everythign ...like... into a diminutive.(Like some like speakers use "like" every other word.) That is true for a great number of potential diminutives in Dutch. Imho dictionaries should describe a language as it really is spoken, not create gibberish instead. A dictionary should provide information about which diminutives are actually used and which ones are not, rather than pretending they are all in use. This is misleading and downright bad lexicography.

Jcwf 17:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Usage of rfd-sense

Not as a criticism of anyone, just my opinion, but {{rfd-sense}} only works for senses that are not idiomatic or dictionary material. If it's a question of whether it exists, there's {{rfv-sense}}. If it's badly worded or redundant to something else, just clean it up! There's not much point nominating something for deletion if it can be cleaned up in a few seconds. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Reopen 歩いて

What is the procedure for re-opening a request for deletion? Talk:歩いて needs to go. If our policies and guidelines allow this type of nonsense, then I may need to reconsider my time here. It is extremely concerning to read all of the comments from people arguing the issue without sufficient knowledge of Japanese and only comparing to other languages. This is not how Japanese linguistics or lexicography works. I try to leave issues for other languages to the experts; I wish others would here as well.

As it exists, the entry has the following problems:

1. "Etymology: From 歩く" -- Very vague. --> Verb form aruki + conjunctive particle te > aruite. Medial -k- drops out.
2. "POS: Verb form" -- Not a verb form. The verb form is aruki; see etymology.
3. "Category: Japanese adverbs" -- Not an adverb.

I do not suggest addressing these, though, because the whole entry needs to be deleted. Bendono 21:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As the first nomination; add {{rfd}} or another rfd template and list it here. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to Bendono, I would disagree with his point #2 above, and instead argue that in modern Japanese, aruite is indeed a verb form, and that aruki is also a verb form. No one uses arukite anymore, not in speech and not in writing, but aruite can be found all over the place. Similarly for kirite vs. kitte -- the former no longer exists as a verb form, and the latter is commonplace. The verb form ending in te is distinct enough that every Japanese textbook I've seen (for English-speaking learners) specifically teaches about the "-te form". Since EN WT likewise targets English speakers, I would strongly argue for keeping te-form entries -- albeit, after properly cleaning them up. (NB: Our conjugation table for Japanese verbs includes the te form, as seen at 当たる (ataru), as I believe it should. The te form is a non-obvious derivation for all type-1 Japanese verbs, and leaving this out would be a disservice to Japanese learners.)

To wit, #1 above is spot on, #2 I disagree, and #3 is spot on (the te form is not adverbial, but is more of a conjunction instead). -- Just my 2p, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Archive

RFD is already at 650 KB and takes very long to load. Seriously, some of the ancient discussions from a year ago should finally be closed and archived. -- Prince Kassad 19:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wapiennik

Could somebody look at this? I suggested it for deletion years ago, but the SPI which created it brought it back. --Piotrus 00:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Can I delete any innapropriate Definitions ?

Hi . Can I just go ahead and delete an article or do I have to have a rquest\permission? 184.163.238.18 21:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC) _ Dustin Loz

Why would you want to? If you created it in error and it's wrong, and no one else has edited it since you created it, then, sure, mark it with {{delete|created in error, wrong}}. Otherwise, use {{rfd}}. (MHO.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

For deleting individual definitions, I try to apply the same logic as for whole entries. If a user speedy deletes a definition that has a reasonable chance of being valid, I restore it and use {{rfd-sense}} or {{rfv-sense}}. If not, I tend to leave the definition deleted. Does this answer help? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: mandatory notification

A proposal that affects this process has been initiated at Wiktionary talk:Page deletion guidelines#Proposal: mandatory notification.   — C M B J   08:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream

Can we please move this to RFV? I feel it's inappropriate in this situation to be voting on its deletion. We should be focusing on finding relevant sources that fit its definition. Philmonte101 (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

When I was in high school, this phrase was well known, but it had nothing to do with ice cream. It was a jocular conjugation of scream, similar to Latin amo, amas, amat. —Stephen ^(Talk) 04:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you might feel it's inappropriate, but we don't. Why do you think discussing if this meets WT:CFI is inappropriate? Renard Migrant (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think Philmonte101 is trying to say that people in the RFD discussion are saying that this is SOP, not because the given definition is SOP, but because the given definition is wrong and the actual definition is SOP, and that RFV is the place to verify the accuracy of a definition. Personally, I think that's just too much bureaucracy. --WikiTiki89 11:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I prefer to have RfV questions addressed in RfV, because the rules of that forum are appropriate to questions of verifiability (the term must be verified by citations, or is eventually automatically deleted). However, nothing prevents an editor from providing citations in an RfD. bd2412 T 12:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

RFD discussion: September 2017

See Talk:a turning wheel gathers no rust#RFD discussion: September 2017.

Splitting WT:RFD

See the Beer Parlour discussion. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

This talk page needs updating. 83.216.81.173 15:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Also can you please put the disambiguation part at the top? 83.216.81.173 15:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Pu'er City

I think that Pu'er City is not really a term- SOP? The term is Pu'er. That's the sum total of my opinion; forgive me if I have misunderstood something. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I have changed my mind on this request- I now think that the phrase 'Pu'er City' is common enough that it is a valid word. I found three cites and added them on the page. I think that Pu'er is commonly called 'Pu'er City' (1) because it is officially a city, (2) to distinguish it from the identically named tea, (3) because of the unusualness of the word "Pu'er" to an English speaker's eye: although the 隔音符号 is normative for mainland China, words using it will always be mortally confusing to non-experts who encounter them like Ronald Reagan (see examples at Xian) and Dan Quayle (see examples at Tiananmen). Hence, writers resort to "Pu'er City". If this view is wrong or if this is SOP, then nevermind. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Why are you posting this on the talk page instead of RFD? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This was mistakenly posted here, then I withdrew the request. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

WT:RFDCJK

@Benwing2 could you add CJK to the table here, like it is at WT:RFV? This, that and the other (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other Done. Benwing2 (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there any way to clean up the formatting on the December 2, 2008, archive of this page?

During the discussion of possible deletion for "trundle along" in the page | Archived revision by Connel MacKenzie (talk | contribs) as of 23:13, December 2, 2008., the text switches to bold and underlined and remains that way for the remainder of the page, making it hard to read. I suspect it has to do with the nested u tags. But since it's an archived version I can't edit it to remove the extra tag. Is there anyone who has authority to make that edit? Would you be so kind as to fix the page? Thisisnotatest (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Thisisnotatest. Nope. Revisions in the page history can be hidden, but not changed. Not that it matters, but just FYI, the problem is introduced in this edit- note the markup on "usually". It happened again here. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)