*'''Keep (as creator)''' "Freund/innen" is a good example of why -/- isn't simply a slash. It's not "Freund"/"innen", nor is it even "Freund [singular]"/"Freundinnen" - it's "Freunde [plural] and Freundinnen". The slash specifically draws attention to the fact the use of the [[-innen]] suffix does not necessarily mark the gender of the friends (It makes more sense for words like [[Mitarbeiter]]/innen where the masculine plural is the same as the singular). Similarly, in "Beamt/er/in", it's not "Beamt"/"er"/"in", it's "Beamter"/"Beamtin". It's doing something unique that it ''only'' does when inserted into words. All of the examples given by the OP, with the exception of the slash in [[s/he]], are punctuation marks with the same meaning both inside and outside words. (There's also the fact that, for -*- and -_-, you can't use these symbols any other way: you couldn't write "ja/nein" as "ja*nein" or "ja_nein". They only work as interfixes). [[User:Smurrayinchester|Smurrayinchester]] ([[User talk:Smurrayinchester|talk]]) 15:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
*'''Keep (as creator)''' "Freund/innen" is a good example of why -/- isn't simply a slash. It's not "Freund"/"innen", nor is it even "Freund [singular]"/"Freundinnen" - it's "Freunde [plural] and Freundinnen". The slash specifically draws attention to the fact the use of the [[-innen]] suffix does not necessarily mark the gender of the friends (It makes more sense for words like [[Mitarbeiter]]/innen where the masculine plural is the same as the singular). Similarly, in "Beamt/er/in", it's not "Beamt"/"er"/"in", it's "Beamter"/"Beamtin". It's doing something unique that it ''only'' does when inserted into words. All of the examples given by the OP, with the exception of the slash in [[s/he]], are punctuation marks with the same meaning both inside and outside words. (There's also the fact that, for -*- and -_-, you can't use these symbols any other way: you couldn't write "ja/nein" as "ja*nein" or "ja_nein". They only work as interfixes). [[User:Smurrayinchester|Smurrayinchester]] ([[User talk:Smurrayinchester|talk]]) 15:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
* '''Delete''': I'm still not seeing why this usage can't be explained within {{m|mul|/}}. — [[User:Smuconlaw|SMUconlaw]] ([[User talk:Smuconlaw|talk]]) 15:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
* '''Delete''': I'm still not seeing why this usage can't be explained within {{m|mul|/}}. — [[User:Smuconlaw|SMUconlaw]] ([[User talk:Smuconlaw|talk]]) 15:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
* '''Delete''', but move the information, as I don't think it's a true interfix, but it needs to be covered more thoroughly at [[/]], [[*]], and [[_]]. [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 03:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
* '''Delete''', but move the information, as I don't think it's a true interfix, but it needs to be covered more thoroughly at [[:/]], [[*]], and [[_]]. [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 03:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
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. The most common reason for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "green 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 words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Disputes regarding whether an entry falls afoul of any of the subsections in our criteria for inclusion that demand a particular kind of attestation (such as figurative use requirements for certain place names and the WT:BRAND criteria) should also go to RFV. 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 [[green 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 once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because there is no consensus, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. The threshold for consensus is hinted at the ratio of 2/3 of supports to supports and opposes, but is not set in stone and other considerations than pure tallying can play a role; see the vote.
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: In some cases, like moves or redirections, 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 is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Rfd-sense Said as a request for an apology. I think this was intended to cover the use as a response to an insult. If that is the case, then this is a misinterpretation of this usage. It is really sense #1 (Said as a request to repeat information.), sort of like "What did you just say?". If I am wrong about what this sense was meant to cover, then I will RFV it instead. --WikiTiki8902:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the "You're an idiot!" / "Excuse me?" usage is a special case of "Said as a request to repeat information", but it may be special enough to deserve its own entry (or at least a separate usage example). There is another possible use, "Excuse me!" (exclamation mark not question mark, emphasis on "me"), which expresses the speaker's outrage, I suppose possibly implying a demand for an apology. Usage examples would be very valuable in this entry. Mihia (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Keep. google books:"I am British" phrasebook finds Japanese Phrase Book, 1987 and Collins Portuguese phrase book. Changing phrasebook to phrase yields Phrase Book for Travelers - Portuguese, Antonio Carlos Vilela, 2014 and Everyday Malay: Phrase Book and Dictionary, Thomas Oey, Sharifah Zahrah Alwee Alkadri, 2013. Thus, use something like the lemmings heuristic for the phrasebook based on English phrases. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
CFI makes it possible to keep SOP items if they are for the phrasebook: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity says "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. Although these are included as entries in the dictionary (in the main namespace), they are not usually considered in these terms. For instance, What's your name? is clearly a summation of its parts.". There, CFI makes a clear exception for the phrasebook. As for consensus or its lack, see Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-12/Removing phrasebook. I do not know of any vote or discussion showing consensus for moving the phrasebook into appendix. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Isn't the definition wrong? An international airport is an airport that has a customs/duty station. The airport does not necessarily have any scheduled international flights. (one of my local ones doesn't have any int'l flights, but is still an int'l airport) -- 65.94.171.21708:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
The definition says nothing about scheduled flights. It is quite possible in the real world that an international airport would not have a customs/duty station. It might just have immigration/passport control or nothing at all. DCDuringTALK18:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Is this a legal term? I'm asking because in Germany the term "international airport" is defined quite differently, it has nothing to do with customs or scheduled international flights, but is solely about who operates the ATC. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm asking because if there's actually no common definition of "international airport", and it's just arbitrarily added to names of airports, we shouldn't have an entry on it. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I was making a joke based on the ambiguity of the word "legal". I don't know whether "international airport" is a legal term. --WikiTiki8920:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
I split some of the senses of international, included international airport as an example, and removed the ridiculously archaic-soundia AIzng "intercourse" bit. I probably oversplit it, TBH. Probably the first five defns can be merged. --Derrib9 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Sorry Anatoli, I'm voting for keep for these terms, at least the Chinese words. They are high-importance words and would give much benefit to new learners and travellers. The Chinese term is also found in Ministry of Education's dictionary. Wyang (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
I couldn't find the term in other common dictionaries. Perhaps we should define a list of Chinese dictionaries, which should be used as a guide for inclusion. It would make the process of RFD simpler for "pro-keep" voters. E.g. if a term is included in that dictionary, we can keep it. I support Lemming_test approach in handling RFD's and it would be especially useful for languages with scriptio continua. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)06:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion
Unsupported_titles/Double_period stands for "..", obviously.
rfd-sense: (computing) The parent directory.
rfd-sense: (programming) A range operator in some programming languages, including Perl and Swift.
Deletion rationale: Not in use to convey meaning in natural language; not used in running text, only in source code. One example in the entry is this: Type "cd PhotosWallpapers" to go to the Wallpapers folder. Then you can type "cd .." to go to back to the Photos folder. That is not use in natural language. A similar deletion rationale was used in a previous RFD now archived at Talk:Unsupported titles/Double period. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Do you think your keep in based on CFI? Do you intend the Translingual in the entry to mean trans-programming language? Shall we include JOptionPane (Java), std::cin (C++), equ (Win Batch), foreach (Perl) as quasi-attested in source code? All keywords and all APIs in computing languages, quasi-attested in source code? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
That is a direly needed thing, for the world in general, you must admit. Especially for users of this project who have the questionable pleasure of acquainting Lua... Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
That's no less than insane (I chose the same word before the edit conflict with DTLHS above). JOptionPane isn't even a keyword but an API/framework class. Extending this to .NET, to take one lone example, we would be creating (undefinable!) entries for many thousands of classes such as XmlSerializer, ToolStripSeparatorRenderEventArgs and AsymmetricSignatureDeformatter. And that's before we get onto the property, method and constant names within each of those thousands of classes — just in .NET, not C++, Java or any of hundreds of other frameworks! Equinox◑22:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
There's endless variation between programming languages in exactly what a given token "means", with a lot of it coming from the architectures of the different languages. Even details of the implementation of languages on different operating systems and of different versions/builds on the same system can make significant differences. This is a massive can of worms that should be avoided at all costs. Besides, this looks like a matter of operating systems rather than programming languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Comments. 1. I suspect use as a range operator is attested in running English on Usenet and the like (derived from Perl or somewhere). If so, the definition can be broadened and the sense kept. 2. This is not only a range operator but also a flip-flop operator, and, if kept for its computing senses, is missing that sense.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
rfd-sense: (programming, computing, networking)
This is in fact a heading for senses, the first of which is "Used as a space in e-mails." and example is "My email address is jon.smith@example.com"; for more of these senses, please see the entry.
My contention is that this is not "use" of the symbol to "convey meaning" in human language. In particular, my contention is that "point.x" in the C language to refer to member x of a structure is not a use for English Wiktionary's purpose.
One way to phrase my deletion rationale is as a series of questions: Shall we include JOptionPane (Java), std::cin (C++), equ (Win Batch), foreach (Perl) as quasi-attested in source code? All keywords and all APIs in computing languages, quasi-attested in source code? --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
IMO, delete all of these, for the reasons already rehearsed for .. (double dot). The only one that gives me pause is the domain-name separator, and that's only because of all the entries we have like .com, .mil, .tk: I personally think that such entries should not include the dot, since it is indeed a separator. Equinox◑09:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Do you mean creating a new sense at a defined as "a letter used in e-mail addresses"? No, a is just a letter. There is as much reason to create that sense and separate senses saying: "a letter used in some names of people", "a letter used in some flavors of ice cream", etc. I'd oppose any of that. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Dictionaries only give ไม่บ่อย(mâi-bɔ̀ɔi) or ไม่ใคร่(mâi-krâi) as the Thai translation of "seldom", "rarely", both are formed by ไม่(mâi, “no, not”) + another word (1. บ่อย(bɔ̀i, “often”) and 2. ใคร่(krâi, “to desire; wish; prefer”) respectively). There's also นานๆครั้ง(naan-naan-kráng), which means "rarely, not often". Tentatively keep. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)14:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Unsure but I think this is at least regional. To me it suggests the hotplate (some kind of portable stove maybe). I don't think UK English generally has "plate" meaning "a dish or prepared meal"; same goes for things like blue-plate special. Equinox◑00:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Whether it's regional or not, it's surely SOP. I doubt that this sense is related to hotplate and I'm willing to bet it's pronounced hot PLATE (the SOP pronunciation) rather than HOT plate (the compound noun pronunciation). --WikiTiki8915:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with Equinox in that a "hot plate of chips" is perfectly good British English, although "a hot plate" on its own wouldn't suggest food. Also "we're having pasta; do you fancy a plate?" clearly refers to a plate of pasta rather than just a plate on its own. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
I suppose this should be an RFV. I recently changed it to a misspelling while checking plurals etc. I think Romanophile created a ton of en- forms for in- words at some stage and they might not all be legitimate. Equinox◑10:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Because it isn't, it's a noun, and it is covered as a noun. Satellite is of course an ambiguous definition and needs improvement, but nonetheless this is just the word image followed by the word satellite. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
French isn't a language I study, but I notice the plural seems to be either "images satellite" or "images satellites". Strange. DonnanZ (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Since a noun used attributively is invariable, if satellite is a noun the plural is "images satellite" and if it's an adjective it's "images satellites". That's how I was able to 'prove' that satellite is an adjective, because "images satellites" is attested. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
The complete terms are not lemmas; those just usually appear together. For example จังหวัดอุบลราชธานี is composed of จังหวัด + อุบลราชธานี, common noun + proper noun. We can understand just say อุบลราชธานี. Similar to รัฐ + โอไฮโอ, ประเทศ + ไทย, ภาษา + ไทย, คน + ไทย. For usage of ไทย we can describe in its definitions. IMO, I think about this for a long time for Thai Wiktionary policy not to include such entries and this should apply on other Wiktionaries too. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Octahedron80 Should entries เมืองไทย(“Thailand”) and ประเทศไทย(“Thailand”)be kept ("country" + "Thai")) or definitions should move to ไทย(tai, “Thai, Thailand”)? It may not be the best example, since some sources mention that "Thailand" is never/seldom used without the preceding word for "country" - ประเทศ(bprà-têet) and เมือง(mʉʉang).
What about คนไทย(“Thai (person)”) and ชาวไทย(“Thai (person)”)?
Just asking for your opinion and if there are any dictionary policies. Other languages with no clear word boundaries face similar CFI (criteria for inclusion) challenges, such as Chinese or Vietnamese. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)07:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
As I said above, เมืองไทย ประเทศไทย คนไทย ชาวไทย ภาษาไทย etc never be lemmas in official dictionary, but ไทย (Thai/Thailand) is truely the lemma. Similar to เมืองจีน ประเทศจีน คนจีน ชาวจีน ภาษาจีน etc, the main entry should only be จีน (China/Chinese). And so on around the world. (Except only if they have special meanings.) Redirects may be an option. --Octahedron80 (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Could we have some clarity on when terms should be retained as "translation targets"? I looked at WT:SOP, and the only relevant paragraph seems to be the following: "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers." However, it does not appear that "translation targets" are likely to be rare. Do we need to have a discussion and vote on the issue (@Daniel Carrero)? — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I am basically an inclusionist but I don't like the idea of "translation targets" exactly. The way I prefer to think about it is that when lots of other languages have unexpected translations for a particular concept, it's a clue that the English term, however denotionally transparent, is nevertheless idiomatic, and should be kept on those grounds. Ƿidsiþ13:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the existence of compound translations that use unexpected component words or patterns can be (strong?) evidence supporting English idiomaticity, at least if multiple language families or independent languages are involved. The argument would also support including terms like chalk and cheese, Mutt and Jeff, etc. DCDuringTALK17:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Classes of words such as the one you refer to seem to me to offer little support for idiomaticity. In the case of those translated into English as be + an adjective, I'd favor exclusion. I'm sure that are other patterns that similarly are trivially rendered into English phrases quite predictably. We already have a great deal of trivial content and hardly need more. DCDuringTALK18:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
But using an adjective to convey this idea IS idiomatic; most languages use a specific verb. (I am just talking about idiomaticity in an abstract way here; I agree that "be silent" doesn't need a dictionary entry.) Ƿidsiþ08:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Adjective. The citations look like attributive use of the noun. I doubt that citations can be found supporting non-attributive, "true" adjective use. DCDuringTALK18:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
OK, you know better than I do. You're not proposing deletion of sense 1 though, and the hottie sense (no Dutch translation there, by the way), is that not placing emphasis on stuk, e.g. she's a real hottie? SoP terms can be a minefield, and I wouldn't propose an entry for brown cow. But for the sake of completeness, if that's another meaning of lekker stuk? DonnanZ (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Both senses are SoP, delete the entire entry IMO. Lekker stuk as "tasty piece" is textbook SoP; lekker stuk as "hottie" might've been kept as being idiomatic had it not been for the fact that both constituent elements have the relevant romantic/sexual senses listed there as well: lekker can mean hot by itself, and similarly stuk can mean attractive person. In English an equivalent situation would be hot babe, which I think you will agree is SoP. — Kleio (t · c) 18:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
The difference with hot babe is that at least babe is a literal use (or arguably its primary meaning), while stuk is used figuratively (just like lekker) and is more commonly used for its more neutral senses, making this an idiomatic phrase. The first sense (tasty piece) is the equivalent of hot babe to me. I'd support deletion of sense 1 and keep of sense 2 (not bolded since I'm not sure my opinion counts yet).
I can totally imagine someone (someone learning the language, or a native not having heard of it yet) reading a phrase (e.g. Ik zag een lekker stuk daarnet) and being stumped on the meaning, thus needing to look it up in our dictionary. They shouldn't have to do the detective work of noticing both of those constituent words can be used in similar senses and putting two and two together. --Azertus (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
That's how the SoP rules here work (AFAICT) though: if the meaning of a multiple-word entry can be understood without too much difficulty by looking at the individual entries that constitute it, it is sum-of-parts and should not be here. In this case, I don't think it's really detective work anyway: both entries list the relevant senses (both labeled colloquial, too, making the connection even more obvious), they are not difficult to find, and the combination of the two does not have any unexpected change in meaning. From what I've seen in other discussions on this page and from WT:SOP, the end user is in fact expected to be able to put two and two together: that's pretty much the crux of the SoP deletion criterion. — Kleio (t · c) 15:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
It's crucially different from, say, lekker ding ("sexy person") , which is clearly idiomatic and should have an entry: ding is, after all, never really used by itself to refer to a person at all; only in the common expression lekker ding does it acquire this meaning. Both lekker and stuk however have independent and quite common meanings that, when combined, make the meaning of lekker stuk entirely obvious and thus SoP. — Kleio (t · c) 15:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't say that makes lekker stuk idiomatic and certainly not according to WT:SOP; in any case both elements are also common with the meanings "hot" or "hottie". The most that can be said is that lekker stuk is a pleonastic epithet, which can be mentioned in both entries or included in a usage example. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
"ละครทีวี" doesn't mean "TV series", "TV show", or "TV program" though. If "television drama" or "TV drama" is acceptable, then "ละครทีวี" should be kept.
P.S. in Thai,
"series" is called "ซีรีส์" or formally "รายการชุด", or "ละครชุด" if referring to drama;
"TV series" is called "ทีวีซีรีส์" or formally "รายการชุดทางโทรทัศน์", or "ละครชุดทางโทรทัศน์" if referring to drama;
"TV show" is called "ทีวีโชว์" or "รายการทีวี", or formally "รายการโทรทัศน์";
"TV program" is also called "รายการทีวี" or "รายการโทรทัศน์".
"ซีรีย์" is a common misspelling of "ซีรีส์" and may be included.
Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion
This is covered by the appropriate sense at [[dump]], whither it should redirect. (It's also covered at [[Appendix:DoHaveMakeTake]], not that that affects this discussion. But the content of that appendix shows we ought not (and generally do not) have a page for every "take a [noun]".)—msh210℠ (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Fallacious. The American (or whoever) could argue: "If I had a bath, I would own it; but I can take a bath at my friend's house." I don't suppose you consider yourself to be stealing when you "take" time, precautions, or a phone call. Equinox◑16:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm reminded of the bit in Beavis and Butthead where one of them is parodying Andy Rooney by saying "Did you ever wonder why they call it taking a dump instead of leaving a dump? I mean after all, you're not really taking it anywhere!" —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion
Do we really want to have an entry for every standard with an acronym in front of it? Whatever we decide, there's also the matter of a category the contributor created for it, which doesn't tie into our category structure (or any category structure) at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I created this. I would like to keep it. I think the term conveys more meaning than the sum of its parts. Apologies if I got categorisation wrong. John Cross (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. We would end up offering a "definition" for every model of every product that chose to name their product with a model number, and for every road and route, and for every public or private standard combining an acronym with a number. bd2412T02:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
We already have e-numbers in Wiktionary. See for example E333. So there is some precedent for including a codeconsisting of letters and numbers which has a specific meaning. John Cross (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC), edited John Cross (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
We also have M25 (but not every numbered road in the UK). If we can find a text that uses "ISA 200" in a natiral way, without being a definition, then we should keep it. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
But couldn't such examples be found for, say, every numbered road, or every car model, or whatever it might be? Does a citation "I was driving down the A3062 in my Saab 340" justify inclusion in the dictionary of "A3062" and "Saab 340"? Where would it end? Mihia (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I think that the term I have added is a useful addition to Wiktionary - it is a term in regular use by a large number of professionals around the world and it is a term recognised by an international standard setting body. I know people are worried about the precedent this might set. I would suggest that as there is a separate policy for brands, any precedent set here should not extend to models of cars or other products or services. When it comes to road/route codes, some already appear in Wiktionary and I would suggest that those entries already create some form of precedent. I would like to keep the debate more focussed on whether names and codes for recognised international standards (auditing or otherwise) that are used in natural sentences can be added to Wiktionary. John Cross (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
This is also true of all of the RfCs, all of the ISO standards, and countless other standards which are domain specific. Unless the term has meaning outside of the standard I can't see value in keeping it. The "meaning" of the term is either "the ISA standard numbered 200" in which case it is SOP, or the actual standard itself, in which case it is encyclopedic and out of scope. - TheDaveRoss13:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I echo TheDaveRoss's argument here. Even after looking at the entry, and the sample usages, the definition parses out to just ISO + 200. The long-form title and other information belongs in an encyclopedia article, which would go at Wikipedia and would ostensibly be found under [[w:Category:ISO_standards]]. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig23:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Alt-spelling sense. The word (חג׳) that it's listed as an alt-spelling of is defined only identically to חאג׳'s other sense. Not speedying this in case there's really another sense of חג׳ that we should have and that חאג׳ is an alt-spelling of.—msh210℠ (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I've already told you that this matter should be resolved as a general policy on WT:BP, as WT contains a number of languages containing made-up spelling, because they are traditionally unwritten languages. You could ask User:Knyȝt explicitly about the existence of the Westrobothnian words, but that wasn't your original complaint, which makes me assume that you aren't really interested in constructive dialogue. As far as I can see, his sources are at least Svenskt Dialektlexikon and Ordbok över Umemålet. The SD is online, and Westrobothnian terms are written in a made-up phonetic spelling there.
What's your beef with Westrobothnian? You don't really seem make such a fuss with other unwritten languages with made-up spellings, let's say, Category:ǃKung lemmas, is it because you just don't give a shit about some African bushman language?
few days ago (saw it today) you were writing "nobody is taking care of your noble endeavours to move these to other spellings or bring this up in Beer Parlour, these entries confirmed to not be verifiable by the author are just sitting on our page with a status which qualifies for a deletion." well, pull your finger out of your ass then and discuss some consitent policy on the subject, instead of just wasting time whining. You can go fuck yourself. I'm not interested in anymore discussion on this subject. Do whatever pleases you. smfh... --80.63.3.16700:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Note for admins: I'll probably be banned for this, but it's okay since I don't have any further comments in this case.
No one's going to ban you for stating an opinion. The issue is whether these orthographies are attestable, even as a single mention (since Westrobothnian is an LDL) in a single published source. If these are the spellings used in Svenskt Dialektlexikon and/or Ordbok över Umemålet, then they shouldn't be deleted. But if these spellings are really not used anywhere except Wiktionary because they were invented by the Wiktionary editor who created them, then they should. Our !Kung spellings are, to the best of my knowledge, the same as those used in dictionaries and linguistics articles about !Kung, and are thus not made-up spellings. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm in the process of deleting them now. Obviously if any spelling can be verified by presence in a reference work or in running text, I'll be happy to undelete it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
OK, all Westrobothnian entries have been deleted (or removed from pages with valid entries in other languages). I couldn't be arsed to delete all the empty categories, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
In the past yes. Now you need to make sure the word exists and it is written in the right script. There are various romanisations (not proper language scripts). Only some standard romanisations are allowed by our policies.--Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)07:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
It's not the Sichuanese that's the problem, it's the pinyin. It may be found in some dictionaries, bʌt ðɛn, soʊ ɪz aɪ pʰi eɪ. If you really want to allow every script for every language, there are some German entries in Cyrillic that we deleted not too long ago... Chuck Entz (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
You said some things, but haven't explained the issue to me, apparently because you assume that I know something I don't. (This is a bad habit on Wiktionary both in conversations and help pages. I'm pointing this out here because it's making us opaque and prolly factors into new editors being scared off.) Are you implying that we're using some other system to represent Sichuanese on which users decided? Because you haven't said so. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Sichuanese should only have entries in Chinese characters. The version of Sichuanese Pinyin we are using in the Chinese pronunciation template {{zh-pron}} isn't used other than in dictionaries. (The system is essentially the same as the one in 四川方言词典, but replaces ȵ with ny). — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }17:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Okay, but why is it that when Westrobothnian entries are made in a non-existent system without consensus, people basically vote to keep them without attestation and when Sichuanese entries are made in an existing system without consensus, they are deleted even before discussion in RFD? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Korn: I have no knowledge of Westrobothnian, so I can't comment on that. (Hmm, have you assumed that I know something I don't? :D) AFAIK, there has only been one Sichuanese Pinyin entry that has been deleted before discussion in RFD, so I'm not sure what you mean. Sichuanese is a variety of Chinese, and our current policy puts all Chinese varieties that are usually written in Chinese characters under the same umbrella. Since there is already a way to represent Sichuanese (Chinese characters), and most of the Chinese varieties are not allowed to have romanization entries (exceptions being Standard Mandarin pinyin, Min Nan POJ and Cantonese jyutping syllables), we should not have Sichuanese Pinyin entries. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }21:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
1. Sorry, I assumed the entries were deleted because they're shown as yellow links. 2. No, I'm not assuming anything, my comment was meant as an indirect question to Chuck, who's present in both discussions. 3. Why are only some varieties allowed to have Romanisations? That makes it harder to look up Sichuanese, what's the reasoning? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
1. I'm not sure how they're yellow links. They look blue/purple to me. If they were deleted, shouldn't they be red? 2. Alrighty then. 3. Standard Mandarin and Cantonese were allowed by votes (Standard Mandarin 1, Standard Mandarin 2, Cantonese). I believe Min Nan POJ entries were allowed because they're attestable, since it is sometimes written in POJ. From my understanding, other varieties are not allowed to have romanization entries because (a) the romanizations were made by Wiktionary (Gan; Jin; Xiang; Wu) or (b) they are not very common (?) (Hakka PFS and Guangdong Romanization; Min Dong BUC; Teochew Peng'im). — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }22:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Fair enough. ps.: Yellow links are links to pages which exist but don't have the corresponding language section. I assume that square brackets link to English per default and that's the reason why the links are shown in yellow to me. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't really have an opinion on this at the moment, but without knowing much about the procedures here, wouldn't it just be a lot more convenient to have page sorting characters by Pinyin, considering we're talking about a mostly non-written vernacular here? I guess I'd support deletion if this listing could be automated, but until that happens I'm not so sure. Sichuan Pinyin was not invented by any user here, so there shouldn't be conflict of interest. Regarding another point, is Hanyu Pinyin even used that much outside of teaching and Romanizations either? I've also heard that Jyutping is even more seldom used in those capacities.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
We can definitely have page sorting by Sichuanese Pinyin if we allow Category:Sichuanese lemmas and such. That should probably solve the problem.
Hanyu Pinyin and Jyutping are not used in normal writing, but they are much more common than Sichuanese Pinyin. Hanyu Pinyin is used by most (if not all) modern Mandarin dictionaries published in the PRC, and it is taught in all schools in China. It has also been accepted by the ROC government as the standard romanization. Jyutping, while being less pervasive than Hanyu Pinyin, is gaining popularity and is definitely outcompeting the other Cantonese romanizations, especially on the internet.
Any reference is a mention, not usage. It would fail the CFV for most languages in most cases but this may be a special case for a language with limited documentation, I don't know.--Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)11:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
It was my impression that this was one. We might turn it into a precedent for unwritten languages recorded solely in IPA by foreign researchers. There should be more than one. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
This is not a precedent. There are already entries like these, e.g. tɕʰɑ³¹ŋɑ⁵⁵. I'm a little unsure about this being a language with limited documentation since we have lumped all varieties of Chinese under Chinese if they are written in hanzi. It is certainly not unwritten. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }17:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Are you sure that 筶 itself is a verb? In that case I'll support deletion. Otherwise the impression I got from the Wikipedia entry 四川方言字 was that its used in the idiom 筶一下, rather than an independent part of speech.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm pretty sure. I think the page is just giving an example. All the dictionaries I've checked use 告 instead though:
But instant mashed potatoes are potatoes processed in a particular way- what the modifier "instant" means changes based on the particular type of food. DTLHS (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Cooked food is still "cooked" whether it's baked, boiled or fried. Instant food is still "instant" regardless of how it got that way. Equinox◑19:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
We should determine which "instant" food came first, as this meaning of instant is probably a back-formation from that, so that entry should be kept. The rest I would delete except for instant noodles, which seems to embody some qualities other than its instantness. I believe coffee is the trend leader. See Rupert Hughes, Gift Wife (1910), p. 164: "In a small room opening off the hall the usual withered serving woman kept the coals of the kahve-ojak alive and water ready for instant coffee." bd2412T03:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
The cite doesn't fit the current definition, nor that of WordNet 3.0: "dehydrated coffee that can be made into a drink by adding hot water". Judging from the Google N-gram and inspection of cites in decades from 1900 on, through 1929 instant coffee referred initially to a liquid coffee concentrate, starting about 1921. At some point in the 1930s there is evidence of cubes and crystals. Sanka, which fits the definitions, appeared on the market around 1946. \
Of course, most dictionaries don't have an entry for instant coffee. None at OneLook, except for us, have an entry for instant mashed potatoes. DCDuringTALK13:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
How can you tell what cite the definition fits? In any case, I am proposing that "instant" referring to a food prepared in such a way that a normally arduous process is reduced to adding water or the like, is a back-formation, which would render the originating term idiomatic whether other dictionaries now have it or not. bd2412T17:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I find the description of production process unessential. If someone found another way of producing instant mashed potatoes they would still be instant mashed potatoes. For comparison: paper is paper, no matter how it's been made. delete --Hekaheka (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
A thought. Instant coffee (respectively instant soup) is both coffee (soup) that has been dried out and, once reconstituted, coffee (soup) again. Instant mashed potatoes are mashed potatoes that have been dried out; once reconstituted, they're not mashed potatoes in the literal sense, i.e. potatoes that have been mashed, though they may be indistinguishable from same. I don't know that that's a reason to keep, and am tending to think not, especially because the reconstituted stuff is called "mashed potatoes" irrespective of the literal meanings of those words. But it's something to think about.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
If chicory coffee is a kind of coffee, then the constitution of something does not necessarily matter to the SoPitude of the term. (Chicory coffee drinks resemble certain roasts of coffee in color and flavor.) That is, I don't think the ingredients or process by which something of general familiarity is manufactured (out of sight of the great mass of language speakers) necessarily has any legitimate impact on RfD questions. In contrast, instant is meaningful to normal speakers because it indicates something that is within their experience. DCDuringTALK00:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can tell, it can be idiomatic for John the Baptist. I can't speak for Latin, but it's sort of used that way in English (I say sort of, because it's debatable whether it's simply an allusion, or is an actually idiomatic name for St. John). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hadn't actually heard of it being used to refer to John the Baptist, I always associated it more with Isaiah 40:3. The Hebrew equivalent (קוֹל קוֹרֵא בַּמִּדְבָּר(kol koré bamidbár)) is used to refer to a speaker whose arguments go unheard or unheeded. I believe that the English voice in the wilderness is used in much the same way. Anyway, how do you establish in cases like this where something stops being an allusion, and becomes an idiom worthy of inclusion in its own right? — Kleio (t · c) 18:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
In the Gospel according John 1:23, John the Baptist says that he is the voice in the wilderness of Isaiah 40:3, so it's conceivable that other people have used the phrase to allude to him. Maybe this should be moved to RFV. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Comment: A pure interjection with the particle ね seems exceptional. I can’t remember any other word at this moment. Conjunction-derived interjections can have it though (じゃあね, またね, etc.). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thai entered to mean "Christian church". The indicated sum is โบสถ์ (church) + คริสต์ (Christian). If one believes Google image search, what it refers to is a building, and maybe less so the organization; for some reason, the organization popped up to my mind first. OTOH, buildings are visual unlike organizations, so they may naturally pop up first. Sanook[5] does not seem to have the word. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
google:"ヸタミン" finds 16 hits; the first three are dupes. That said, some of these look cromulent. google books:"ヸタミン" also finds seven hits. Albeit extremely rare, this one might meet CFI. Move to RFV.
I created the entry and I became uncertain if it's a lemma or SOP, as it can be treated as a mere combination of two phrases (ทรงพระกรุณา(song-prá-gà-rú-naa) + โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม(bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m)) or as a single, valid phrase (because it seems like the two phrases are always together). Anyway, since the meanings of the two phrases do not change when they are put together, I then requested deletion of this entry. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
This definition, unless anyone can show otherwise, seems to apply only to the phrase "at the mercy of", but I am not convinced that "mercy" in "at the mercy of" means "subjugation" or "power" at all. I think it has the usual meaning of forgiveness, compassion etc., as amply covered by other senses, and that "at the mercy of" means something like "dependent on the mercy of" or "subject to the mercy of". Mihia (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
SoP, redundant to double sense: "(intransitive) (often followed by as) To play a second part or serve a second role. A spork is a kind of fork that doubles as a spoon." Equinox◑01:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Additional thought: can something just double, without an as: "this kind of fork doubles"? I suspect not. Even so, the as feels strongly like an external preposition and not a particle. Equinox◑01:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Probably the definition needs to be improved as I'm pretty sure it refers specifically to circumcision, i.e. removal of the prepuce, and not to any old cutting. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I think it is safe to assume that 儿 is not used in (standard) traditional Chinese. Moedict only lists information from the Shuowen, and that it is one of the 24 radicals, nothing about erhuayin. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
we have coffee break and water break. someone doesn't necessarily need to be drinking coffee or getting water during those breaks, which is why they have entries. likewise someone can use a restroom break for something other than using the restroom, which is why it should have an entry. note that we have urinary break. that seems more SoP to me than restroom break. 99.101.56.6800:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I found only one use of "urinary break" in BGC. Many Google hits are just mirroring Wiktionary > Agree with Equinox: hardly a set term. One more nail to the coffin: the entry was created by someone who is now blocked from all Wikimedia > delete at least "urinary break". --Hekaheka (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
It's an example of how Nynorsk can be unbelievably complex. There are two words for eye; auga and auge. There are also two prefixes for derivatives of eye; auge- and augne-. There is also a verb augne, also spelt øygne, but no noun. I suggest that you read the reference in the Nynorsk Dictionary if you haven't already done so.
There are variants in Bokmål also, where øye in compounds can also be øyen-, from an old genitive plural, but it's not regarded as a prefix for some reason. DonnanZ (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Probably because of the two spellings, auge is entered as the alternative form of auga, but that may have been the editor's personal preference. One could use the spelling auga, and in the next line use an auge- derivative I guess. DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
It may make sense from an English point of view, but not to a Nynorsk speaker. Another oddity is that the definite plural of auge is (guess what) auga, which can be highly confusing to us. DonnanZ (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Calling it a prefix doesn't make sense from a linguistic point of view, regardless of the native language of the observer. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hm, I had to think of that a bit. As so much in one's native tongue, I've never had cause to consider it before. I suppose the point is that the Nynorsk noun for "eye" can take the forms "auge" or "auga", these are not separate words, just different forms of the same word, meaning they are completely interchangeable in every context. Whereas if you use it as the first part of a compound word, you cannot use the form "*auga-", only "auge-" or "augne-" [Whereas *augne is not a valid form of the noun on its own]. So from a Nynorsk grammarians point of view, this makes "auge" and "auge-" two different... hm... lexemes(?) Donnanz writes "One could use the spelling auga, and in the next line use an auge- derivative I guess." Indeed, this true, in fact, one would have to' use an auge- derivative, because there are no *auga- derivatives. I hope this was comprehensible.--Barend (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't have much to add, but if auge- would be worthy of an entry if there was no such form as auge, then I think it would make more sense to keep auge- than to delete it, as it is still a distinct prefix form of auga. So for me, I think the question boils down to whether or not auge- is worthy of an entry if we only had auga. --Njardarlogar (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
There is a somewhat similar situation in Finnish. Adjectives ending in -inen regularly change the ending to "-is" when they are used as modifiers in compound terms. We don't regard the -is -ending terms as prefixes but rather as adjective forms. But, as such, they still may merit their own "form of" -entry. For example, the word kreikkalaiskatolinen is not categorized as "Finnish term with prefix kreikkalais-" but as "Finnish compound term" or "Finnish compound term with kreikkalainen" if such category existed. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand Finnish, but "-is" seems to be something like a modified interfix between parts of words. But I guess showing it as a compound of kreikkalainen and katolinen (as has been done) is the best treatment. Different methods are needed for different languages. DonnanZ (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I would appreciate more input, particularly from users not familiar with Norwegian. Angr's question still hasn't been answered satisfactorily: why are the words in Category:Norwegian Nynorsk words prefixed with auge-not to be compounds of the word auge? I would also like to ask an additional question: How, in theory, could compounds of auge and those of auge- be differentiated? —CodeCat20:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
The way I see it, it's merely a historically grown form of the lexeme auga/auge and we should handle it thus: 1. Indicate prefix‐form in the head template for languages where they're applicaple. For example:
auga n (definite singularauga, indefinite pluralaugo, definite pluralaugo, compound formauge‐oraugne‐)
This seems to be a combining form used for compounding, albeit a trivial one since it seems identical with the base noun. Combining forms that were deleted via RFD: barne- from barn and kraft- from kraft; tron- from trone; these were nominated for deletion by Donnanz. A combining form that was kept: jedno-. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
This is little, sense 5: Used with the name of place, especially of a country, to denote a neighborhood whose residents or storekeepers are from that place. There are literally infinite ways to use little in this sense with countries (or even regions or cities), and they're all entirely transparent. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
On the other hand, if the area is marked on maps as Little (whatever) you would have to accept that it's been accepted as a name. This happens in London with Little Venice, which I think got its name because it's at a canal junction. The name appears in my A-Z Master Atlas of Greater London. DonnanZ (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
It's a bit weird, because "little" here converts proper nouns into regular nouns. "Italys"/"Italies" is a very weird word, but "Little Italys" is quite common. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I was not aware of that sense at little when I created these. I think the OED has one or both. I'm not fussed about keeping them. Equinox◑15:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Little Italy is in Oxford Online - chiefly North American; "any urban district inhabited predominantly by Italian immigrants or people of Italian descent". No entry for Little Pakistan however. DonnanZ (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete all "surname + given name" entries based on WT:NSE. Weak delete for style names (except those specified below). (Should 孔明 as a name be deleted as well?) After checking Guoyu Cidian and Hanyu Da Cidian, the following should be kept for having other meanings:
Comment. I advocating deleting names, while agreeing with Wyang that we should keep names that have derived terms. Surely we should keep style names (字) though, as they function basically the same as nicknames do in English (e.g. J-Lo, J-Law, K-Rod, etc.). ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Style names are not comparable to English nicknames or given names; they are more akin to English "first name + middle name" combinations, such as "John Michael". English given names (e.g. John) usually have interesting etymologies, but Chinese style names (e.g. 文謙) are simply a sum of parts. On the other hand, Chinese nicknames or certain stage names are certainly worthy of inclusion, such as 鳥叔, 成龍. Wyang (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Well, we have white supremacy and its derivates, and European supremacist alone shows quite a lot of uses on Google Books, and in between clearly SoP definitions ("the supremacy of Europe") Google Books seems to support a racial-ideology definition for European supremacy as well. Perhaps the definition needs a change, but if this is to be deleted, should not white supremacy be removed as well? — Kleio (t · c) 17:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Maybe it should be an RFV. Are the books written by John Buchan any help here? If I remember correctly they contain a lot of Glaswegian dialect. DonnanZ (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete. These are of course pyramids of distinct regional styles (except the very obviously SOP ancient pyramid), but then again, that doesn't mean they should be included. We don't include Hellenistic bronze, do we? Or Roman mosaic? — Kleio (t · c) 14:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete them all per KIeio. The stated rationale for them is poor: "Terms that imply certain social knowledge that could not be derived from any of the constituents, nor from their combination. For instance, an Egyptian pyramid has a different shape to an Aztec pyramid." Well, a Japanese sword has a different design than a Roman sword, but they're still SOP... - -sche(discuss)08:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
BTW, isn't it bad practice to use a word like "short" in a definition such as that of billy club or baton? MWOnline defines nightstick as "a police officer's club", which seems much more to the point. DCDuringTALK00:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
White smoke could be used for multiple purposes. Also, the announcement isn't the white smoke itself, the white smoke is just the visible signal. DTLHS (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I could imagine the term being used metonymously to refer to the decision itself, but I don't see that as sufficient justification for inclusion. DCDuringTALK00:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Take a look at these examples [16]. Would they be understandable to someone who is not aware of the origin of the expression? keep and add the figurative sense. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
On the second thought, I'm not sure if we need the concrete sense. I added a figurative sense and an etymology in which its origin is explained. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I suppose that any signal traditionally associated with a decision could be used metonymously for the decision, but the essence of the matter is that it indicates a decision and is not the decision or the "event" of the decision. As Donnanz suggests it is "a signal". It seems like the scheduling of a press conference after some portentious meeting. All five of the hits for "white smoke" (in quotes) from Hekaheka's source read to me a "signal". Putting the encyclopedic sense in the etymology seems appropriate. We could still have {{&lit}} for the "smoke that is white in color" sense. DCDuringTALK14:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
An afterthought: the white smoke only tells the outside world that a new pope has been chosen, his name would be given later in the official accouncement. DonnanZ (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I am happy to weakly keep "X language" entries, especially if the open compound "X language" is more common than its single-word synonym. Thus, if in English, "English language" were much more common in reference to the language than "English", I would support keeping "English language". I do not know the relative frequency for Lithuanian, the language being discussed here, though. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Note that we also have earl / Earl, so I'm not sure what to think. Your point about the ety does stand though, it needs cleanup to account for the Old Dutch term. — Kleio (t · c) 17:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. Sense 4 looks like more than one definition to me. Of the ones offered "not up to reasonable standard" might fit. (MWOnline has "not meeting an accepted standard", with ill manners as its usage example.) What other nouns form an NP with that definition of ill? I can't think of any right now. Not that there aren't any. DCDuringTALK16:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Look-see works with take, get, give, allow, as object of prepositions such as for, etc. In addition, one can "have/take/get/give/allow oneself a look-see". There are numerous other collocations and grammatical roles look-see can play, all with about the same semantics. No OneLook source has the various verb+look-see combinations, though many have look-see entries. DCDuringTALK07:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete. It might be nice to have some formal way to list the verbs and prepositions that a word "takes", but creating loads of near-cloned entries is not the way. For now we can at least include some typical citations or usexes. Equinox◑10:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep. The meaning may be easily deducible, but it seems to me to be a clear compound word with a space in it. Many compound words like watercraft are readily deducible from the sum of their parts, but the way they are constructed make them dictionary-worthy. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I would say keep, it seems to be a catch phrase like soccer mom. A Daily Express headline reads "Bikini babe feeds flamingos in tiny purple string two-piece on idyllic beach". DonnanZ (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I have been thinking about creating a vote to get rid of the more egregious misspellings, but I mostly end up doing actual useful stuff, like creating words. I am happy to discuss such a vote by e-mail with anyone else who is annoyed by shit like this. Equinox◑
My main problem with including misspellings is that they can end up on word lists or indexes appearing as valid words. Otherwise, I see no reason not to include the common ones. If someone reads the word "keytone" and comes here to find out what it means, isn't it more helpful to tell them? Mihia (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Ideally that's part of the work of the search engine. If someone types NAIT then they might mean night or knight, sure. That's an argument for having phonetic search suggestions. I don't think there's any good argument for having entire entries, on the same level as "real" word entries, that only serve to deal with people's spelling errors. Equinox◑00:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I would advocate a more positive response than "did you mean?" for spelling errors that are commonly encountered. If someone types in a word that they have read, and believe to be a word, and they are told "did you mean ...?" then they might think, no, I meant what I typed, and then assume that their word was not entered in the dictionary. I do agree, though, that misspellings and errors being, as you say, "on the same level" as real entries is not very satisfactory. Mihia (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Personally, if I am looking something up which I read in a non-edited source and I cannot find it in any dictionaries, I assume it is not a word. I am in favor of paring back significantly the misspelling entries. - TheDaveRoss13:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
So am I, in principle, but in practice, it can sometimes be very difficult to distinguish between a misspelling and a rare alternative spelling; and over time, something that started out as a misspelling can become an alternative spelling (often not a rare one), like lite, tonite, and barbeque. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep as a common misspelling (WT:CFI#Spellings): (keytone*1000),ketone at Google Ngram Viewer suggests a frequency ratio of 1000, which is good enough for common misspellings by my calibration at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. Since we expressly mark the item as a misspelling, any downstream reuser who does not want misspellings can easily filter it out. Editors who want to tighten the misspelling filter can consider a lower shreshold for the frequency ratio. I think common misspellings are a usability tool: I find it much more friendly to land on a page that expressly tells me that what I was searching for was a misspelling, and what it was a misspelling of. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Μετάknowledge: GNV distinguishes capitalization, unlike Google Books: check e.g. keytone,Keytone at Google Ngram Viewer. Admittedly, when I ignore the uppercase occurrences in the Google Books search, I also find the likes of "The central tone in a key is called a keytone", but even if these would drive the frequency ratio to 2000, that would still be acceptable for a common misspelling by my lights. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This has been RFD before, but didn't attract much attention [17]. Not listed as a suffix in Oxford Online, but it is in Cambridge [18]. I think it should be discussed further. DonnanZ (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
sapiens#Translingual. The content, including descendants, of such an L2 section for a taxonomic epithet that is the same as a Latin lemma (adjective, participle, genitive form of noun) should appear under the Latin L2 section of the Latin lemma. DCDuringTALK13:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Your argument rests on missing or faulty premises, faulty data, or inappropriate considerations:
Why should it matter who the author of any particular entry or move of an entry is? The treatment of taxonomic epithets is, in any event, an unsettled matter. I was hoping that a case like this would help us reach consensus about which taxonomic epithets clearly best presented as Latin.
laherparepvec is part of the name of a drug, not a taxonomic epithet.
Some of the terms in question are epithets for subspecies, varieties, forms, etc, so "taxonomic epithet" (which is SoP) is a bit more accurate than "specific epithet".
The matter in question is more how to present terms rather than whether they "are" Latin or Translingual, the kind of question that only a linguist could love. We certainly don't bother attesting the Translingual nature of CJKV characters. We show almost no medical and legal Latin terms as Translingual. And we fail to show as Translingual many classical Latin terms that are used in many languages as set phrases (eg, "cave canem", "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"). IOW, there is no reason to assume that the fact of Translingual use is at all compelling of presenting something as Translingual. Translingual is essentially a residual category for terms otherwise without a language to call home.
There seems to be evidence for many taxonomic epithets that they were in use in Classical, Medieval, and New Latin, not just in taxonomic names. Do you really want to do the work of creating all the duplicate L2 sections or do you want someone else to do it? Personally, I'd prefer to do the much lesser amount of work to eliminate Translingual L2 sections where a Latin L2 already exists and participate in the effort to document post-Classical non-taxonomic use of other taxonomic epithets, for which [[lividans]] is a good example.
1. One could abuse the moving like this: (a) Move or change all entries to a personally preferred form (like placing the taxonomic epithet "sapiens" in an Latin entry). (b) Claim that something is common practice or even consensus (like claiming that it's common practice that taxonomic epithets are Latin). (I'm not saying that you did this or are doing this, I'm just saying that one could do it like that.)
2. Just like talimogene laherparepvec is English, laherparepvec might be English and not Translingual. Searching for "laherparepvec" on google books only had English results and two German results. One German result had "Talimogen Laherparepvec" and the other had "Talimogene laherparepvec" in italics, so it should be the English term. As German is not a LDL three cites are required. Thus with google books it's not attested in German.
4.
CJKV: I don't know CJKV languages and their writing and encoding good enough, but from what I've read, not all characters are necessarily Translingual. The communists in mainland China simplified some characters, so these characters could be simplified Chinese and not Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese, and so they maybe aren't Translingual.
Medical and legal Latin terms and Classical Latin terms as Translingual: (a) Wiktionary is not complete, so a lack of something doesn't necessarily mean anything. Maybe many Translingual terms are simply missing. (b) It could be a matter of attesting terms. Attesting one term in one language is one problem, but attesting one term in several language is a harder task. (c) It could be a problem of current usage and understanding. At least in German, Latin terms became rarer and often aren't understood anymore. So even a simple "per definitionem" isn't so simple anymore and it's rather an elevated term. (d) BTW: In case of German there could be the matter of spelling: "cave canem" could become "cave Canem" as canem/Canem is a substantive.
"Translingual is essentially a residual category for terms otherwise without a language to call home.":
As of Wiktionary:Translingual#Other languages, terms can be Translingual and also, for example, English, so terms can be Translingual and can have possible languages to call home.
Many Translingual terms could be English, French, German etc. instead of being Translingual, that is they could have languages to call home. E.g. H2O and E numbers are used in English and German. So Translingual might contain terms attested in multiple languages and also terms which could hypothetically be used in multiple languages. If E100 is used in English and German, then it's used translingually and thus Translingual. As E101 could be used similarly in English and German, it's also Translingual, even if might ATM be unattested for English or German. But that "could hypothetically be used in multiple languages" has to be restricted and is restricted: Wiktionary:About Translingual#Accepted.
5.
If "lividans" was never used in Latin but just in other languages, it shouldn't have a Latin entry as that's incorrect and misleading. So it could be English ("Streptomyces lividans" is attestable in English texts) or Translingual. Also compare with pseudo-anglicisms which are considered to be French, Italian, German etc. and not English. If lividans would be Latin, even if it was never used in Latin, then French tennisman should be English.
The "duplicating" maybe could be used to differ between earlier taxonomic terms and taxonomic terms accepted or once accepted by ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature). ICZN claims to only accepts terms invented in or after 1758: "3.2. [...] No name or nomenclatural act published before 1 January 1758 enters zoological nomenclature [...]". In fact, ICZN violates this by accepting some slightly earlier terms from 1757. So if older terms were never used in other languages, they could be Latin, while younger terms are Translingual. Homo sapiens for example is used in English and German, so it's used translingually and thus it's Translingual. But well, if older terms were also used translingually, one can't differ like this. And it might be likely that older terms were used translingually.
As there are Translingual entries like Streptomyces, it's more consistent, if lividans is Translingual too. Also it's easier to state that taxonomic terms are Translingual than to state some taxonomic terms are Translingual while some are Latin or English.
"much lesser amount of work": The amount of work doesn't determine the better or correct solution. Instead of doing RFVs/RFDs, it's easier to simply delete questioned entries. But this easy solution would be nonsense.
Regarding the work question: I was already considerend to move or duplicate some of them (as the WT:RFV discussions seem to have stopped). Problems I had: (a) It maybe wouldn't be consensus. (b) I was and am somewhat busy. Holiday time (like Christmas time) for me is a better time to do such things. (c) Proper Translingual templates could be missing. And some people do have problems with IPs creating or even just editing templates. Semi-solutions I saw: (a) Posting in the WT:RFV discussions again. (b) Starting a WT:BP discussion. But because of a lack of time and as IPs not rarelly get mistreated, I hesitated. So how about having a WT:BP discussion regarding the placement of taxonomic terms?
Possibilities and some arguments:
Putting taxonomic terms under a Translingual header.
It's consistent.
The Latin origin is irrelevant, like pseudo-anglicisms also aren't English.
By attestation some terms would be Translingual, while younger onces would just be English ATM. So placing them under Latin is misleading and incorrect.
Putting some taxonomic terms under a Translingual header and some under a Latin header.
Con: It's inconsistent, and thus might also irritate users and might lead to new incorrectly created entries.
It might be easier as it doesn't need new templates or anything.
Putting taxonomic terms under a Latin header.
It's consistent.
It might also be easy.
It orginated in Latin and has some Latin features. -- Con: But it's used or also used in other languages, and some terms might be unattested in Latin.
Putting taxonomic terms under the languages they are attested in.
It's consistent.
It might also be easy.
In this way one can provide more information like pronunciation and inflection. -- Annotation: In case of other choices, the information could be generalised and put on a about page.
Con: E.g. Homo sapens would than have an entry in several languages which is redundant.
@Daniel Carrero:
"They are presumably citable in taxonomic names in multiple languages other than Latin, and therefore I believe they are Translingual": In case of modern terms (like donaldtrumpi) it should rather be a problem to cite them in Latin than in English (or French, German). With google books I could attest iroquoianus only for English and not for another language (compare Wiktionary:RFV#iroquoianus). As it could be used in French or German as well, it might however be Translingual.
-84.161.53.3621:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC) (And sorry for being a TL;DR text writing guy, but not giving arguments as well as ignoring other persons' arguments or concerns, wouldn't be good too.)Reply
@DCDuring: I'll reply now to all your five points. I'll copy your questions below, between quotation marks.
"Why should it matter who the author of any particular entry or move of an entry is? The treatment of taxonomic epithets is, in any event, an unsettled matter. I was hoping that a case like this would help us reach consensus about which taxonomic epithets clearly best presented as Latin."
It matters because of this reason: you had said that sapiens "should appear under the Latin L2 section of the Latin lemma" which might give the impression that it's a settled regulation. The page moves are evidence that, while we have some Latin entries for specific (or taxonomic) epithets, there is still some disagreement. Some people have created Translingual entries for epithets. That said, naturally I'm OK with discussing and seeking consensus.
"laherparepvec is part of the name of a drug, not a taxonomic epithet."
Point taken, sorry for the mix-up.
"Some of the terms in question are epithets for subspecies, varieties, forms, etc, so 'taxonomic epithet' (which is SoP) is a bit more accurate than 'specific epithet'."
Point taken, "taxonomic epithet" sounds great to me.
"The matter in question is more how to present terms rather than whether they 'are' Latin or Translingual, the kind of question that only a linguist could love. We certainly don't bother attesting the Translingual nature of CJKV characters. We show almost no medical and legal Latin terms as Translingual. And we fail to show as Translingual many classical Latin terms that are used in many languages as set phrases (eg, 'cave canem', 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc'). IOW, there is no reason to assume that the fact of Translingual use is at all compelling of presenting something as Translingual. Translingual is essentially a residual category for terms otherwise without a language to call home."
I disagree with the "Translingual is essentially a residual category ..." and I'd suggest using Translingual for medical and legal Latin terms. I believe at some point you supported the idea of using Translingual for medical/legal terms too, if I'm not mistaken.
Here's a proposal. (I actually intend to propose it on BP eventually.) Whenever a taxonomic name is attestable, let's be allowed to create a Translingual (and not Latin) entry for the specific, and possibly other taxonomic epithets. These may probably be automated by bot. Reasons for this proposal are in my next answer, below.
"There seems to be evidence for many taxonomic epithets that they were in use in Classical, Medieval, and New Latin, not just in taxonomic names. Do you really want to do the work of creating all the duplicate L2 sections or do you want someone else to do it? Personally, I'd prefer to do the much lesser amount of work to eliminate Translingual L2 sections where a Latin L2 already exists and participate in the effort to document post-Classical non-taxonomic use of other taxonomic epithets, for which [[lividans]] is a good example."
Admittedly, I basically never work on taxonomic names, whereas you work on them a lot. Still, nobody needs to create duplicate Translingual/Latin sections for specific epithets. To be fair, sometimes duplication seems to be OK, like creating multiple language sections for pizza, sushi and place names. But for specific epithets, what I proposed above is just using Translingual. Why duplicate? We don't need to create an additional line of text in the Latin section meaning "specific epithet".
If sapiens is used in Latin to mean "discerning, wise, judicious", "discreet", "(substantive) a wise man, sage, philosopher" then we probably are going to find quotations with these senses in latin running text. This is completely separate from the use of "sapiens" in specific epithets, which exists in multiple languages, and therefore Translingual is appropriate it in my opinion. Translingual taxonomic names have different quotations, uses and possibly pronunciations in different languages. Plus, they are going to have a list of all taxonomic names that use that epithet. I'd rather find it in one place (the Translingual section) rather than search the Latin section and discern the actual Latin from the specific epithets.
If specific epithets are Translingual, it's consistent with the practice of keeping taxonomic names as Translingual. If someone wants to use Latin for specific epithets, they may as well do the whole job and move all taxonomic names to the Latin section, too. (I'm not proposing that, I'm only saying that using only "Translingual" or only "Latin" would at least be consistent.)
In fact, even if a taxonomic name is only attested in Latin texts, I'd still propose using only the Translingual section for it, because it fits a group of Translingual entries. If "Homo erectus" (or another taxonomic name) were used only in durably-archived quotes in Spanish, I'd still support creating a Translingual section for it, not a Spanish section.
If we create new sections for specific epithets by bot, then it's actually less work, as opposed to the current labor of creating senses manually in the middle of the Latin section. Admittedly, probably the bot could work equally well to create Translingual or Latin sections for specific epithets. (Heck, the bot could even create duplicate sense lines meaning "specific epithet" in both Translingual and Latin, which you mentioned above as one thing you apparently don't want.) Still, I'd use it only for Translingual, not Latin, for the reasons I said above.
Delete. This is stupid, and a bad practice — if there's consensus for Daniel's idea, then it has to be gotten from the community and done on a broad scale. In the mean time, the Translingual entry should go. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds01:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Currently, a few senses about a "specific epithet" exist in both Latin and Translingual. Do you think they should all be deleted until we have consensus to add them in a broad scale, or are you OK with using Latin? To repeat what I said, I think using Latin is a bad idea, because it's inconsistent with the practice of using Translingual for taxonomic names. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
What is the point, beyond one kind of "consistency", of having both Translingual and Latin L2 sections for a term like albus? If there is a point, eg, "Wikidata would need it that way" or "Tabbed Languages needs it that way", then let some bot add the duplicate sections, that being an automatable task, perhaps requiring manual review. DCDuringTALK12:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
The entry you mentioned (albus) does not have any sense like this: "A specific epithet." You don't have to create that sense if you don't want, but senses like this can probably be created en masse by bot as I mentioned. As long as that entry doesn't have that sense, it can have only the Latin section. But, I insist, if we want to add that sense, it must be Translingual, in my opinion. Consistency is important. That sense is simply not restricted to Latin only; it is used in multiple languages. It is, therefore, Translingual. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Daniel Carrero Does your personal opinion about the importance of of consistency connect in any way to any purported importance to Wiktionary and its users of this particular set of instances of consistency? DCDuringTALK17:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Daniel Carrero (12:20, 9 March 2017): Regarding 5 (2), "Translingual taxonomic names have different quotations, uses and possibly pronunciations in different languages.": They have as seen in Homo sapiens#Pronunciation.
@Metaknowledge: It's not a matter of anyone's idea. A voting like "delete until there is some concensus" would mean that many taxonomic terms under a Translingual or Latin header have to be deleted as there is also no concensus to put the taxonomic term iroquoianus under a Latin header. But with WT:Translingual#Accepted one could argue that there is, or maybe was, concensus to place taxonomic terms under a Translingual header.
@DCDuring (12:57, 15 March 2017): Consistency is a good point. Proper categorisation is another, compare Category:mul:Taxonomic names: Translingual sapiens can be put into a Category:mul:, but Latin sapiens would be misplaced in it. Furthermore, sapiens might be attested in Latin as a taxonomic term - but Translingual iroquoianus isn't, so it fails WT:CFI as a Latin entry and has to be deleted as a Latin entry. But ok, this leads to the argument consistency. Then there's the matter of declension. Translingual taxonomic terms aren't declined as in Latin in many languages as seen by the wrong accusative "Homo sapiens" in a German example in Citations:Homo sapiens or by the wrong English singular Homo sapien. Another argument could be this: Translingual taxonomic terms might miss macrons (or macra) which are used in Latin dictionaries and grammars. So Latin macrons for a Translingual taxonomic term could be hypercorrect. BTW: Taxonian might rather be a constructed 'language' similar to Klingon, New Ancient Greek (as e.g. used in Asterix comics), etc., for which maybe compare WT:CFI#Constructed languages, WT:ID#What's the language?. I used ' around language as it's maybe not really a language like Klingon which has a grammar or New Ancient Greek, but just something else similar to a language.
Delete. It's simply wrong. Alone, this word is not translingual, it's simply Latin. Even very modern such words should have a Latin entry (modern Latin, but Latin nonetheless). But complete scientific names should have their Translingual section as well as other language sections when needed to mention pronunciation in the language, quotations in the language, gender in the language (very important), etc. Lmaltier (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think I have succeeded in making "A sectarian" redundant by adding "A member of a particular sect of thought or practice, school, party, or profession."
Keep, per your and DAVilla's comments in the last RFD discussion. If one said "I was served breakfast in bed," it would be an SOP expression, but it's usually used with "have": "I had breakfast in bed," which makes it at least somewhat non-SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
It's mostly the fact that it heavily implies that one was served breakfast in bed rather than simply eating it there. I'm not strongly opposed to deleting it, but it feels like it's more than SOP. Now, if we had a collocations section, I would be fine with relegating it to there... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete; having it served is not a necessary part of the definition. Here's a case of someone saying "I had breakfast in bed" when they were alone and had to get it themselves. There are other similar cases. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Along the same lines many of the instances in this Google Books search are examples in which the server/preparer of breakfast and the one served are the same. The logistics of the situation (How often would I want to get out of bed, make breakfast, then return to bed to eat it?), not the meaning of the words seems to be what makes breakfast in bed normally involve a situation in which someone else is preparing and serving it. DCDuringTALK18:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Grabbing a bagel and eating it in bed in the morning would not be referred to as "breakfast in bed" (except perhaps humorously). Even if someone brings you a bagel while you're lying in bed, that probably wouldn't count. It implies some sort of fanciness; whether someone is serving you, or you're serving yourself, there is still the idea of service and luxury. --WikiTiki8920:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Maybe in your idiolect, but other people's usage seems different, eg:
I have this feeling that there may be other entries, including for true idioms, that need work more than we need to cover every collocation, especially those not covered by any other OneLook reference. DCDuringTALK22:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I may be misunderstanding you, but it looks to me like these support WikiTiki and my position. They all seem to support idiomaticity, especially the third one. It's clear that she didn't actually make her aunt breakfast while in a bed, but rather prepared her aunt's breakfast to be eaten in bed. In the first quote, "Megan" isn't taking breakfast while in bed, but rather taking breakfast in bed to her parents and for herself. Between those three quotes, I'd say there's an even stronger case for idiomaticity than I had thought. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Wikitiki made the point that point that there was some connotation of fanciness and being served (though he backed away from both elements, in the end merely claiming that the term implied luxury even when the service was by oneself and the food was simple).
There is some kind of connotation, but only because of the pragmatics, the situations in which one is likely to have breakfast in bed. But many collocations have some kind of connotations, often, as here, simply because of the situations in which they are used.
Should romantic dinner have an entry? For that matter, should oyster have a separate definition because of its connotational association with sex (It's a supposed afrodisiac.). DCDuringTALK15:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't really understand what you're trying to say. What I was trying to say is that it has a specific connotation of luxury and/or service or something like that. When in reality there is no luxury or service, the use of this phrase is ironic. Oysters may sometimes have an association with sex, but when they don't there is no irony. --WikiTiki8920:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think that cases like these would be easier to resolve if a "set phrases" exemption to the SoP rule could somehow be framed. Mihia (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
The mere fact it's not SI doesn't count against it, as long as it's used in text - in fact, decibel itself is not an SI unit (rather it's a non-SI unit accepted for use with SI). However, I can't imagine any time you'd have to use a gigabel - it would be an extremely weird unit where 1 GB = a factor of 10^1,000,000,000 (for comparison, a nuclear bomb is 280 dB, or 28 B, or 0.000000028 GB. I've never encountered any physical phenomena that has involved such ludicrous factors - a gigabel of anything (sound, light, radio waves), defined relative to any sensible scale, would be something so powerful that it defies our current understanding of the laws of physics). I did however find enough citations to keep it, all using it in an imprecise, jokey way.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2946: Parameter 1 is required.
I've deleted the "scientific" definition and replaced it with a definition of the jocular sense which Smurray finds citations of above. Improve the definition as needed. - -sche(discuss)09:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Um I don't know what to say about this except that it's inherently incorrect. If everyone disagrees then we'll keep it. Just drawing attention. Equinox◑22:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
Translingual entry. I don't think ICAO is truly translingual - it's English. English has been chosen the language of international aviation, but that does not make English aviation terminology translingual. AFAIK, most languages have a spelling alphabet of their own for their national use. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep, these terms are used in all languages. It's no more English than Canis is Latin. Moreover, the pronunciation is prescribed in IPA and notably does not match the regular English pronunciation in several cases. —CodeCat21:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Nope. It is clearly an English set and it is used only in a context where English is the assumed language of communication. ICAO set does not even contain all letters of all languages. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The alphabet involved has various names, depending on what organisation is using it [19], a key sentence in this article says "critical combinations of letters and numbers can be pronounced and understood by those who exchange voice messages by radio or telephone regardless of language barriers or the quality of the communication channel", which I can well believe. In fact the alphabet has a multilingual flavour anyway, Alpha, Bravo, Delta, Echo, Hotel, Lima, November, Quebec, Sierra, Tango, Zulu and maybe others all come from other languages in the first place. I suggest making them all translingual if not already done - I notice that Hotel has two entries, one with a small "h". DonnanZ (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
"ICAO set does not even contain all letters of all languages." I think compromises are found - Ü as UE, ß as SS (which it is in capitals anyway), Æ as AE, Ø and Ö as OE, Å as AA (which it used to be anyway), and so on. DonnanZ (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
@DonnanZ: It's said that ICAO has alfa or Alfa with f. German has its own spelling alphabets and has names for German letters including the umlaute and ß. At least Danish also had other ways of spelling, like "aa" instead of "å".
I would generalise and extend Andrew Sheedy's question: Is the ICAO alphabet used in other languages than English (and, of course, is it attested in other languages than English)? Do Spanish pilots etc. speak Spanish and use ICAO, or do Italians, Frenches or Germans speak their language and use ICAO? If Spanish pilots use ICAO's alphabet and speak English, then it's English. If they speak Spanish and use ICAO it's also Spanish and thus Translingual. So this could be a RFV instead of RFD. -84.161.53.3617:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep : I already heard these ICAO letters used in French (not by pilots; and no English was used at all). There is a standard pronunciation, but usual pronunciations in each language should be given in each language section. Lmaltier (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I just heard a use of Kilo in Dutch by the police in a documentary. I'm unable to post a link because the spam filter blocks it. —CodeCat22:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
These three entries (-/-, -_- and -*-) contain only one sense:
POS section: Interfix
(neologism) Used to separate multiple gendered inflections in gender-neutral writing.
Freund/innen; ein/e Beamt/er/in
friends (of any gender); an officer (of any gender)
(neologism) Used to separate multiple gendered inflections in gender-neutral writing.
Freund_innen; ein_e Beamt_er_in
friends (of any gender); an officer (of any gender)
(neologism) Used to separate multiple gendered inflections in gender-neutral writing.
Freund*innen; ein*e Beamt*er*in
friends (of any gender); an officer (of any gender)
I don't speak German, but I believe these are just punctuation marks (/, _ and *) that can be used inside words, not interfixes. The first one looks like just the punctuation mark found in "I want to meet him/her." It's used like this in Portuguese, too. We already have a couple of senses like those at /, though I'm not sure why they are marked as "proscribed" and "sometimes proscribed".
Aah, please can we change the entry into cute smilies instead of deleting them. The first one could be for Two-Face. The second one a sleeping dude, and the third one perhaps for a Hindu with a dot on the forehead. I vote for being Cute. --Quadcont (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Creating emoticon entries for -/-, -_- and -*- sounds plausible (especially this, IMO: -_-) iff they are citable. This is separate from the idea I proposed above of deleting these specific German senses. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
-/- in "ein/e Beamt/er/in" is different from / in "his/her" or German "sein/ihr": While "his/her" could be rephrased as "his or her" and "sein/ihr" as "sein oder ihr", "Beamt/er/in" would be, but with change of meaning, "Beamter oder Beamtin" and "ein/e" would be "ein oder eine" (bold part has to be added when -/- is used). If one would incorrectly treat a -/- like a /, one would get "ein oder e" which doesn't make sense.
"We already have a couple of senses like those at /": Well, one could move some of the senses from / to -/-.
"I'm not sure why they are marked as "proscribed" and "sometimes proscribed"": It could depend on the spelling, and not necessarily on the meaning. "she/he" could be "sometimes proscribed" like "actor/model" while "s/he" is "proscribed".
"Plus if I want to know the meaning of the slash in "Freund/innen", I guess it's more intuitive to search for / than -/-.": It is more intuitive, but intuitions can be wrong. One could add -/- in an {{also|}} or mention it like / / in / ("See also: / / for the use ..." and "See / / for uses of ...").
"! would be a suffix": ! is not added to a word, at least in usual English words or German. In English words like !Kung and in African languages ! might be a prefix or suffix when originally representing some click sounds, but that's something different. "( ) would be a circumfix": Aren't circumfixes only added at the begining and at the end like [circumfix part 1][word or stem][circumfix part 2]? ( ) instead is added elsewhere like in "dog(s)", "(re)write", "colo(u)r". So if ( ) would be some affix, it would be of another type. But well, the POS "Punctuation mark" might be more fitting and then / might be the proper entry. However, one has to differ between "ein/e" and "ein/eine": 1. In case of "ein/e" something has to be added (a single "e" makes no sense there). 2. / in "ein/eine" has the meaning of or and so "ein/eine" is bi-gendered (like "a man or woman"). "ein/e" on the other hand is said to include various sociological genders and is multi-gendered (like "a man or woman or possibly other"). 3. / meaning or as in "ein/eine" can be used elsewhere like in "und/oder" (= and or or, i.e. an emphasised inclusive or).
Keep (as creator) "Freund/innen" is a good example of why -/- isn't simply a slash. It's not "Freund"/"innen", nor is it even "Freund [singular]"/"Freundinnen" - it's "Freunde [plural] and Freundinnen". The slash specifically draws attention to the fact the use of the -innen suffix does not necessarily mark the gender of the friends (It makes more sense for words like Mitarbeiter/innen where the masculine plural is the same as the singular). Similarly, in "Beamt/er/in", it's not "Beamt"/"er"/"in", it's "Beamter"/"Beamtin". It's doing something unique that it only does when inserted into words. All of the examples given by the OP, with the exception of the slash in s/he, are punctuation marks with the same meaning both inside and outside words. (There's also the fact that, for -*- and -_-, you can't use these symbols any other way: you couldn't write "ja/nein" as "ja*nein" or "ja_nein". They only work as interfixes). Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
RFD-sense "2. To clean by rubbing." Undoubtedly true, but this is just unidiomatic "rub off" for a specific purpose. We don't include senses like "to deface by rubbing" either. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Agreed: if the example was "I rubbed the dirt off the old lamp", it would be SoP, but "rubbing off" a toy rabbit (cleaning it) seems a phrase of its own. Equinox◑19:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
A couple of on-line dictionaries 21.431 a include a (sub) sense involving cleaning for rub, usually under a sense corresponding to Wiktionary's sense 2. It does seem an existing sense not limited to rub off. [22][23]Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was going to fix the definition, which is for "flag carrier". When trying to formulate a better definition it began to look more and more like "an airline that is national". --Hekaheka (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
The corresponding definition of flag carrier doesn't convey that the term often refers to a carrier/airline that is typically the sole airline that provides some class of international service and may be government owned or have a special charter giving it a monopoly. I think that the meaning of the term has changed where "open-skies" regulatory regimes now govern. DCDuringTALK15:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I can also cite suprafamilial name, infrageneric name, supergeneric name, etc. The core part of these terms is in the adjective (suprageneric: "Pertaining to a taxon at a rank above that of a genus."). The sum-of-parts-ness is illustrated in the example sentence "A family name is a suprageneric name, and so is a subfamily name", where it simply means "a name that is suprageneric". There are nuances demonstrated at species name. However, I do not find it fruitful to create an entry for every single adjective combination possible, as, at suprageneric name, there is nothing to learn. Contrary to what the definition says, the results in Google Books do not refer to taxa themselves but rather to names used for taxa. I think that suprageneric name is straying too far from usefulness. Nibiko (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Consistent with my long-term stance, a spelling whose frequency ratio to its alternative spelling is very low (or very high, from the other direction) is likely a misspelling. For the above spelling, no frequency can even be determined in GNV. What is your criterion for a misspelling? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't have a criterion or criteria. I'm glad I don't because it seems that your plausible criterion has gotten this one deadwrong. DCDuringTALK16:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete per nom, as a rare misspelling. Of the relatively few books that use "deadwrong", many also use "dead wrong", which suggests that the use of the rare nonstandard spelling is an unintentional error rather than deliberate. Other books only use the term once, preventing such an analysis. - -sche(discuss)05:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I've looked through all the Google hits for the lemma that aren't us, and they all are scannos for either "Dei decus" or "dedecus". I haven't done the same for the inflected forms except partially for deidecum- so far they all look likw "Deide cum" (whatever that is). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Delete [as English] or reclassify as Latin like ec-; and probably sug- et al should be recreated as Latin; for the same reason as Talk:sug-: it seems to me that Etymology 1, the prefix supposedly meaning "out of", is describing a Latin conditional variant prefix and not an English one. Looking at the "derived terms", "evict" is borrowed whole from Latin, it is not "e-" + *"vict"; "egress" is from Latin, not "e-" + *"gress"; etc. - -sche(discuss)16:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Even if this is enough to keep the section, we ought to add information to describe the real situation (that nearly all words with this e- are Latin borrowings). — Ungoliant(falai)16:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Merriam-Webster says ebracteate is from New Latin ebracteatus and enucleate is from enucleatus, and I can find ecostatus and elocatio and enodalis as (New?) Latin words which would account for ecostate, etc. In all of those cases, e- looks like "sug-": like the prefix only existed in Latin. The invocation of "e-" in our etymology of "elamping" seems to be someone's guesswork, qualified by that question mark at the end. "Evacate" seems likely to also have a Latin or other etymon like "evacuate", or perhaps it is a variant of that word. I can't find a reference that explains the etymology of "etypical"; can anyone else? - -sche(discuss)21:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Are there any cases where English uses e- where Latin would use another allomorph of ex- due to the initial sound(s) of the word? Any examples of the suffix being used in an "un-Latin" way would be evidence of it being thought of as an English prefix. —CodeCat21:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Probably delete [as English] or reclassify as Latin for the same reason as Talk:sug- and #e-. "Efform" and "effranchise" claim to have been formed using this suffix, but I suspect they were borrowed whole or represent unusual phonological alterations, since the norm when attaching "ex-" to "f"-initial words is not to switch to "ef-" ("exfranchisees sued the company"). The only English dictionaries which have this also have sug- and hence seem to have different inclusion criteria than us. - -sche(discuss)16:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I find older dictionaries with derive efform from Latin efformo, which is an attested Latin word; ef-form seems like a superficial analysis like in some dictionaries' entries for "suggest" which say it's "sug- + gest". As for RFV, some have argued that the question of deleting an affix (even on the grounds that it does not occur in a given language) is an RFD matter; cf the discussions of -os. Sug- was discussed at RFD rather than RFV. - -sche(discuss)21:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete current definition. I don't know if there is a different, non-SoP definition that is supportable by citations. Fake news can be found in publications before the entry of the US into WWI in books such as The War Plotters of Wall Street. DCDuringTALK19:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep but needs a move to RFC. The definition has changed a lot even in recent years – until a year or two ago, it usually referred to the news-format satires like The Onion or The Daily Show. Ƿidsiþ20:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep. With the current US president seemingly engaged in a conscious campaign to shift the definition of the term, it's probably not a bad idea to include it, although the entry could be improved. Pengo (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete per DCDuring, though I could be convinced to reverse that vote. The definition needs to be reworked if there truly is a non-SOP sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete. The variation in meaning that Widsith mentions is (or should be) covered by fake. If there is truly a verifiable non-SOP definition, I'd like to see it. But this one is not. --WikiTiki8904:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Not a fan of us being an atlas, but we do do place names, and this is one, and not SoP (as explained by Blotto). (P.S. Why did I create it if I don't like the place-name entries much? Because it was in one of Ungoliant's word lists, and I tend to be thorough...) Equinox◑14:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
But the names of counties should not be added in such a way. I think the info for "McClain County" would be better off moved to McClain. As said above, it's not dictionary material, and I've actually NEVER seen an entry with "county" at the end of it that wasn't in the deletion log until now. This baffles me. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Then why don't we have names for every county? Do you think we should include the other tens of thousands of US counties with the name "County" at the end of them? How is that dictionaric? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
We don't have them because nobody has added them yet. Consensus and the place-name policy say that yes, we should have them. Personally I don't care much. Equinox◑15:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep. The "County" part doesn't necessarily come after in English, so I think it's useful to include it. For instance, in Alberta, one can find the "County of Two Hills" and the "County of Vermilion" (neither of which can be shortened) but "Sturgeon County" (which can be shortened to "Sturgeon"). "County" is part of the name (at least in Canada), and it's not always predictable whether it precedes or follows the rest of the name (again, at least in Canada). Thus, it is as useful to have as "New York City," IMO. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't see why this should be included any more than tens or probably hundreds of thousands of other minor place names. Is a dictionary really the place for all these? I think they belong in Wikipedia. Mihia (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't see any harm in what is in most cases a one-line entry. A link can be added to Wikipedia where an article exists; Wikipedia is of course the place for an in-depth description. DonnanZ (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think the question is less about "no harm" and more about what is the purpose of a dictionary. I do not personally think that the purpose of a dictionary is to list potentially hundreds of thousands of minor place-names. Mihia (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
We recently voted on and passed a policy to include counties (see the fifth bullet of CFI#Place names), so if you oppose their inclusion, you'll have to get enough support to overturn that vote. I find etymologies of place names very interesting, so I don't see any good reason why we shouldn't include them in Wiktionay. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Yes, place name etymologies are very interesting. Do these belong in a dictionary? I would say no. It does not bother me enough to campaign to overturn that vote, however. Mihia (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
They may not belong in a regular dictionary, but I think they are perfectly appropriate for a dictionary with unlimited space, a goal to be comprehensive, and no expenses to worry about. As long as someone wants to add them, I say go for it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
What you find uninteresting may be of interest to other users; personally I am interested in place names. How places got their names can also be interesting, and etymology is included in some cases. When creating Mascot I found that the original preferred name was Ascot, but the postal authorities weren't in favour for some reason, so the name was changed. DonnanZ (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't know about Wyang, but my objection is solely to the listings with "County" in the name. I have no objection whatsoever to including county names under their "simple" names, such as McClain in this instance. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep (oppose blanket deletion) per Andrew, and New York City: sometimes a place name includes the nature of the name (like city or county), and removing that word gives you a name that isn't what human beings use to describe the place. I think this is coming from a misguided idea about what SoP means (and I say this as a deletionist!). Equinox◑20:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I think the title of the category is far too long, and should be shortened to say "US counties". This would make addition of the category to entries much easier. DonnanZ (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
About placenames: note that there are placename paper dictionaries e.g. Dictionnaire des noms de lieux (Le Robert), which are purely etymological. Etymological information belongs to the Wiktionary project. Placenames should be welcome, even very minor ones (but not including placenames which cannot be considered as words, such as Excelsior Hotel or 4th Street). Another important reason to include them is demonyms. Lmaltier (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete. These are inherently encyclopedic, as are all of the newly CFI-compliant place names. At least when the bar was at the state and primary administrative district level there wasn't the potential for hundreds of thousands of worthless entries, only hundreds. - TheDaveRoss12:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep in any case. Etymology is good to have but it's now idiomatic. It might also the abbreviation of（では）また会いましょう - "well then, let's meet again". また can't be used to mean "bye" on its own. じゃ、またね(ja, matane) or じゃ、また(ja, mata) are also idiomatic (with or without comma、 after じゃ). --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)19:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
One work that agrees with this view is A Student Grammar of German by Paul Stocker, 2012[24]. This work is just a hint; I do not intend to present the author as ultimate authority on the matter. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep, I think. De.Wikt and the Duden both consider this a prefix, and Michael Lohde, in Wortbildung des modernen Deutschen: ein Lehr- und Übungsbuch (2006, ISBN 3823362119), §3.3.3.2.3, Präfix haupt-, says "haupt- hat zwar seinen Ursprung in dem freien Grundmorphem Haupt (Kopf, leitende Person), ist aber im Laufe der Zeit zu einem eigenständigen Präfix geworden." Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar (2014, ISBN 3110366274) explains that it went from being a prefixoid to being a full prefix as the ability to use Haupt as a free word in the relevant sense declined. Are there references which argue it is not a prefix? - -sche(discuss)20:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep for the reasons Dan gave. Yes, it's derived from the noun Haupt, but these senses only occur when it's combined with another word, so listing them on the noun page feels a little cheaty. Consider that, if the reasons for deleting are considered valid, then all prefixes that have a corresponding independent word would have to be deleted, because they could all be treated as specialised "in compounds" senses. —CodeCat20:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
No one said that compounds have to always be SOP. The question is: does the combined form have an inherently different meaning than the meaning when separate. A sword with two edges is a two-edged sword; a monster with two heads is a two-headed monster; a document with two sides is a two-sided document. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
If you heard a gunshot & somebody yelping or screaming, you can safely assume that somebody’s been shot. If you see a bullet hole on somebody, you can likewise assume that they’ve been shot. Why bother stating the obvious? — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 00:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
IMO "tinkling" in "tinkling bells" is probably not a true adjective. I doubt that "tinkling" is ever a true adjective. Mihia (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
"The piano is very tinkling"?? It doesn't sound right to me. I think the required adjective would be "tinkly". I don't know anything about OED sense 2. Mihia (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
That's why I said it's an attributive adjective, before the noun. "The wind chimes are tinkling" is a present participle, "the tinkling wind chimes" an attributive adjective. That's how I see it. DonnanZ (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I would draw a distinction between what I called a "true" adjective, and the fact that any present participle can be put in front of a noun to modify it, as a regular feature of the English language. I do not believe that participles in the latter cases need separate "adjective" entries where they mean no more than "X doing Y". Where there is a special or extended meaning, yes, but I don't see that with "the tinkling wind chimes". Mihia (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The correct term is valtiosääntöoikeus. This is a false calque of constitutional law. Valtiosääntö means "the formal or informal system of primary principles and laws that regulates a government or other institutions", whereas perustuslaki means the specific the statute laying down those principles in plain provisions. You can get a good hint of this by checking the Wikipedia links of valtiosääntöoikeus.[25] -- Puisque (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete. I don't agree with having what are essentially brand names unless they really have widespread adoption outside of talking about the product. I gather policy is similar. Equinox◑19:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Maybe the language - and BTW maybe the POS too - is once again wrong? Too often English phrases and abbreviations are created as Latin entries here. This GBS result has "inter alios" in references and is English. So does this GBS result though it uses italics. This GBS result has "[...] a verdict inter alios may [...]". dictionary.com knows "inter alios" too. So maybe it's an English phrase? -80.133.103.613:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Couldn't find any hits at all (is Google on my computer broken?!). Seems like a protologism to me, and I also seem to recall this entry being created – and subsequently deleted – not so long ago. --Robbie SWE (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Speedied as a clear protologism. I'm assuming your placing it in RFD rather than RFV was simply a careless mistake, and that your unwillingness to speedy it was due to a desire to avoid conflict with the creator, but the lack of raw Google hits shows that this could obviously not pass WT:ATTEST. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds21:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge: Yeah, I was being overly proceduralist because I grow tired of these arguments. I also so rarely do things that involve RFD/V that I always mess it up. —JohnC521:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Are you implying that "stupidity" and other such things have literal sounds? Because that seems to me to be the only way it could be SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
