Wiktionary:Requests for deletion: difference between revisions

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1,080: Line 1,080:
*'''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)
== [[:病臥中#rfd-notice--|病臥中]] ==
== [[:病臥中#rfd-notice--|病臥中]] ==

Revision as of 12:55, 3 April 2017

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/English
add new English request | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

Requests for verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

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

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

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

Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for verification/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. One of the reasons for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "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 requests for deletion in other namespaces such as "Category:" or "Template:", for which see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others. It is also not for requests for attestation. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.

Adding a request: To add a request for deletion, place the template {{rfd}} or {{rfd-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. The section title should be exactly the wikified entry title such as "[[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 when a decision to delete, keep, or transwiki has been reached, or after the request has expired. Closing a request normally consists of the following actions:

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFDs


September 2016


Sum of parts. 大正 + + . —suzukaze (tc) 05:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Rename to 大正時代. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete There are too many eras, and I think that, as with place names, era names should not have a specifier. Nibiko (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
明治時代 and 大正時代 are worth having entries, as well as 奈良時代, 平安時代, etc. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Japanese entry entered to refer to Taisho era. 大正 alone is entered to refer to Taisho era; is entered to mean era. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

excuse me

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. --WikiTiki89 02:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it sometimes said huffily to someone who has barged into you? Equinox 10:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. That seems to me like a more sarcastic/figurative usage of what I described above, but I'll have to think about it some more. --WikiTiki89 14:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
Well, I feel that we need to put intonations or at least punctuations (?!) on each sense, cuz they really don't sound the same. -- SzMithrandir (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


Sum of parts. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thai entered to mean "To study." The sum is ทรง ‎(“royal auxiliary verb”) +‎ ศึกษา ‎(“to study”). dictionary.sanook.com does not seem to have it[1]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted as SoP. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

yo soy británica

yo soy británico

Probably not a worthwhile phrasebook entry. The translation is clearly not "I am English", anyway. --Q9ui5ckflash (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Should be a less common alternative form of soy británica, and yeah the Europeans in my experience get confused between British and English. And I don't blame them, by the way. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I see what you mean (as opposed to soy español or soy colombiana) not really worthwhile. Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
Delete, I think, since it's formally SOP. Wasn't it decided that the phrasebook be moved to an appendix? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talked) 22:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
No consensus for deletion. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

October 2016


Not really convinced this is a Translingual prefix, so much as Nippon + -o- being used in New Latin compounds. Note that if this fails, its category needs to be deleted as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It is rather a (New) Latin prefix. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

international airport

SoP --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete DCDuring TALK 11:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • 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) -- 08:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    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. DCDuring TALK 18:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment incidentally, why was domestic airport deleted? (it does not say SOP deletion) -- 08:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    An admin could look at the deletion log, that summary is usually used for the deletion of nonsense so maybe the content was absolutely garbage. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    The entire content of the page was "home". --WikiTiki89 17:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No real objections to this entry, although international does have a corresponding sense 'pertaining to the intercourse of nations' (no, it really does say that). Renard Migrant (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
I've certainly never been arrested for saying it. --WikiTiki89 18:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
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. --WikiTiki89 20:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
In Germany they use the English term international airport? Why? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 23:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
  • Keep, there are translations entered, but maybe the definition needs tidying up. It's been here since 2009. DonnanZ (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
No consensus for deletion. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


SoP --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


SoP --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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)
That's fine, no need to apologize. We don't have to agree on everything. ;) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
No consensus for deletion. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


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)

Delete per previous discussion. Equinox 18:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Plenty more of these to be found elsewhere, e.g. # is "the ID selector in CSS". Equinox 18:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep and add more programming language symbols. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Some people also need to know how to change a tire, but that doesn't make it dictionary material. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Let's add JOptionPane (Java), std::cin (C++), equ (Win Batch), foreach (Perl). Above all, let's add all symbols such as $, &&, ==. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
That is an insane thing to say. Are you saying we should include every class name in the Java standard library? DTLHS (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • Delete. DCDuring TALK 03:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)


  • 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.

A similar deletion rationale was used in a previous RFD now archived at Talk:Unsupported titles/Double period.

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)

Keep and add more programming language symbols. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
Surely if we're going to have a sense for 'used in e-mail addresses' then we need a corresponding sense at a, b, c, d and so on. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
Oh, I se your point. Delete sense: "Used to separate words in e-mails." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


SOP --YURi (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Defined as "to have luck" and the sum is มี ‎(“to have”) +‎ โชค ‎(“luck”). --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@YURi Would you consider มีโชคดี (mii-chôok-dii, lucky, fortunate) (มี (mii) + โชค (chôok) + ดี (dii)) as a term that we should create and keep?
Please note that มีโชค (mii-chôok) is included in SEAlang Library Thai Lexicography. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


SOP --YURi (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

myeloid cell

Sum of parts? (any cell made in the bone marrow) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

wel,no,fe.fibroblast(presntinmarowncausingmyPMFasefectorcel=NOTconsiderdasM.CEL(butasCONECTIVTISUECEL)~(metastaticfe.liver)cancercelinblood=NOTbloodcel(similarCONCPT),c?ta4elpw/restho!:) 17:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

hot plate

Rfd-sense "A hot meal." This is hot + plate (the latter in a more figurative sense). --WikiTiki89 18:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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)
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). --WikiTiki89 15:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
  • I have never heard of a hot meal being called a hot plate. DonnanZ (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it ever used to mean "hot dish", as in French plat chaud or Spanish plato caliente? --Hekaheka (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


A 2011 rare misspelling entry by Romanophile. Governed by WT:CFI#Spellings.

enspection, inspection at Google Ngram Viewer does not even find the spelling so no frequency ratio = count(inspection) /count(enspection) can be determined. Delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

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)
Perhaps we should just keep it as obsolete spelling like these two: enform, entention. All three are mentioned in this source [2]. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

image satellite

French. Transparently SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

  • What is considered SoP in one language is not in another: compare with satellittbilde (Bokmål) and satellittbilete (Nynorsk). I find this entry quite interesting, I would say keep (providing it's correct) and create a corresponding entry in English for satellite image. DonnanZ (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Why? Please don't say that 'why' is an inappropriate question. By 'why' I mean what is your reason for wanting to keep it? Delete per Benwing2, nouns in French can be used as ad hoc adjectives. Satellite image seems unremarkable as an 'image from a satellite'. No entry for telescope image or camera image. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
That's one point that is not covered at French satellite, its use as an adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
Having said that, fr:satellite#Adjectif, it actually is an adjective. It agrees in number with its referent and everything. Much to my surprise. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Yesss, also in the external link at satellite, and here [3]. DonnanZ (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)

November 2016


SOP: (still) + (have to; need to). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Huh? it says it's a variant of 重要 and that doesn't say anything about still needing. Siuenti (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Siuenti 仲要 was created by User:Tooironic based on a Cantonese sense that put into 重要. 仲要 is only a variant for this sense, but it was incorrectly defined. It does not mean "and; with", and the example sentence was ungrammatical. I've deleted that sense on 重要, as it was SOP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

social commerce network

How significant is this? Nibiko (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

social commerce make sense as an entry if the WP article thereon reflects the definition of the term in attesting use. DCDuring TALK 16:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

petits récits

See the (apparently unfinished as of yet) discussion in Wiktionary:Tea room/2016/October#petits récits. --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


SOP: ขอ + พระราชทาน + พระบรมราชานุญาต --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


Slang not widely used; not meet CFI. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep in RFD: no RFD-relevant rationale was stated. If the term does not meet WT:ATTEST, it can be sent to WT:RFV. WT:CFI does not require wide use, and thus "not widely used" is irrelevant to both RFD and RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Protologism? --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
@Octahedron80: "Protologism" is a WT:RFV-relevant rationale, relating to WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


Sum-of-parts. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it must delete. Think about this, we gotta deal with many terms lead with รัฐ มลรัฐ ประเทศ จังหวัด อำเภอ ตำบล ฯลฯ as well. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Octahedron80 Would you agree that in general, words for "state", "country", "city" don't belong to Thai lemmas? Perhaps for "person", "language" as well? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
@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))?
And ภาษาไทย (Thai (language)? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
For a similar reason, some animal- and plant-related terms should be considered for deletion too, such as แมวมาเลศ, แมววิเชียรมาศ, แมวศุภลักษณ์, แมวสีสวาด, ช้างแมมมอธ, ปลาพะยูน, ปลาโลมา, ปลาวาฬ, ลิงกอริลลา, ลูกหมู (lûuk-mǔu), นกอีกา, ต้นแอปเปิล, ต้นตาล, งูเหลือม, งูอนาคอนดา, ไม้ชิงชัน, etc. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
^ Converted some pages to redirects because others still have no target page. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


SOP: ต้น + แอปเปิล. We can say ต้น to every plants. --Octahedron80 (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please update ต้น in that case. Siuenti (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Done that.--Octahedron80 (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted as SoP. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


SOP: ต้น + ตาล. Same as above. --Octahedron80 (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

national average

SoP. Also easy to find "national total", "county average", and so on. Equinox 03:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep as a translation target: translations that are not word-for-word ones include German Landesdurchschnitt (Google Translate gives low-frequency Nationaler Durchschnitt), and similar Danish and Norwegian terms; the most common Czech translation is celostátní průměr, although the word-for-word one národní průměr also exists. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per DP's analysis. DonnanZ (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. SoP. de.wikt seems to have a purely compositional treatment of the word. DCDuring TALK 14:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Sidebar: clarity on "translation targets"

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)

The translation target rationale is not in CFI. It is not clear that it is supported by consensus. I have seen a fair number of editors support translation target on a host of terms, but I do not know whether the supporters make up 2/3 or the like. I and bd2412 have been working on more specific criteria, the latest draft of which is at User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2015#Let's draft a vote for CFI translation criteria 2. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Great, keep us informed when it's ready for wider discussion. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
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. Ƿidsiþ 13:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
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. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that other languages' lexica can determine the idiomaticity of an English expression. English "be silent" is utterly unidiomatically SOP regardless of the existence of schweigen, zwijgen, taire, taceō, молча́ть, callarse, calar, and the rest. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
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. DCDuring TALK 18:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
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.) Ƿidsiþ 08:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


Adjective. The citations look like attributive use of the noun. I doubt that citations can be found supporting non-attributive, "true" adjective use. DCDuring TALK 18:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • It's not a term I'm familiar with. Is it American only? DonnanZ (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

lekker stuk

SOP (sense 2): lekker (hot, sexy) + stuk (hottie). Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  • SoP in Dutch, but not for hottie in English. A possible keep. DonnanZ (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Donnanz I'm sorry, but I don't get your reasoning. Do you suggest lekker stuk is kept because it translates hottie? If so, there are plenty non-SOP translations for that, and stuk is one of them. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
But on the other hand, if there are multiple meanings of lekker stuk, it may be better to delete the lot, and replace with examples under lekker and stuk. DonnanZ (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, if the figurative meaning is ruled SOP, I don't see how the literal meaning "tasty piece" couldn't be considered SOP. But I'll add that as well. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

SOP (sense 1): lekker (tasty) + stuk (piece). Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
ding however is used for persons (as far as I can tell exclusively for women) in combination with an attributive adjective: leuk ding, knap ding, lief ding, etc. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
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)


SOP --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It's SOP as much as TV series, TV show or TV program. Keep.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
"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,
  1. "series" is called "ซีรีส์" or formally "รายการชุด", or "ละครชุด" if referring to drama;
  2. "TV series" is called "ทีวีซีรีส์" or formally "รายการชุดทางโทรทัศน์", or "ละครชุดทางโทรทัศน์" if referring to drama;
  3. "TV show" is called "ทีวีโชว์" or "รายการทีวี", or formally "รายการโทรทัศน์";
  4. "TV program" is also called "รายการทีวี" or "รายการโทรทัศน์".
"ซีรีย์" is a common misspelling of "ซีรีส์" and may be included.
--หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


SOP: ເມົາ + ເຫລົ້າ. Same situation as above. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


SOP. See #รัฐโอไฮโอ above also. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

take a dump

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)

  • It could also be have a dump in British English, so the appendix is relevant. DonnanZ (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a job for Wikisaurus. bd2412 T 20:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
If I took a bath I would be taking a bathtub. I do enjoy having a bath though. DonnanZ (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
If you really want it to be fallacious it will be fallacious. It would no doubt depend on context, e.g. "I have a dump nearby", meaning a rubbish dump. DonnanZ (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
The only link that works is Merriam-Webster, an American lemming. DonnanZ (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep using the lemming heuristic: Merriam-Webster[4] has it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


SoP. Ref. Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#รัฐโอไฮโอ above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


The entry has an rfd-tag with the comment "looks SOP" since 6 September 2016.
It might look like SOP but isn't the same true for several entries in Category:English words prefixed with non- and also for nonFrench, nonChinese, non-European (a derived term in European), nonAfrican (an anagram in Franconian)? -薫七 (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep, of course. Some users get confused, even bots. DonnanZ (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
This is the standard British form anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be, to most adjectives anyway, whether it should be or not. DonnanZ (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


See #รัฐโอไฮโอ above. A policy question too. Should Thai language names with ภาษา (paa-sǎa, language) + "ethnicity word" be included? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Octahedron80, หมวดซาโต้, Iudexvivorum, YURi The royal dictionary doesn't seem to include them. Many of the pages with prefix ภาษา will be affected if we decide to redirect them. Wyang (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Redirect. Sure, because language names ภาษา~ are always SOP. --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


As above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

ISA 200

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)

Delete, for sure. It's SOP: it's the ISA called "200".​—msh210 (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

  • Yes, but so do Saab 340, US 422, and 18 USC 1466A; we can't include every instance of an acronym and a number corresponding to some idea associated with that acronym. bd2412 T 22:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Why shouldn't we? Purplebackpack89 23:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Because it's encyclopedia not dictionary material? Mihia (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
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. bd2412 T 02:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I support us doing the second of those three. Purplebackpack89 18:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
OK. How about these examples? "ISA 200 makes it clear that the objectives in the individual ISAs provide a link between the requirements of the ISA and the overall objectives of the auditor." "Understanding the clarified and revised ISA 200 is now fundamental to understanding the challenge of implementing clarified ISAs." (https://www.icaew.com/-/media/corporate/files/technical/audit-and-assurance/practical-help/audit-planning-and-risk-assessment/publications-and-learning-materials/right-first-time-with-clarified-isas-module-1.ashx?la=en) John Cross (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. - TheDaveRoss 13:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 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 mig 23:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


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)


"Mozilla". Mozilla#English has been deleted by RFD in the past. —suzukaze (tc) 11:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The rest of Special:Contributions/Jagne

except for ジープ "jeep", ブラックベリー "blackberry", and アップル "apple" (maybe more?) —suzukaze (tc) 11:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Westrobothnian lemmas

Failed this RFV, author admitted to have invented the spelling on his own here. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there really guaranteed to be nothing attestable in the entire category? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Nothing has been attested in two 1,5 months despite RFV. Every single entry is in the idiosyncratic spelling too. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
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... -- 00:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
For the record, Chuck would have them moved to existing spellings instead of deletion:Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Category:Westrobothnian_lemmas - Nobody knowledgeable in the language took any action, however. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
The same user (apparently) has been creating new entries, which may or may not be attested; see the latest comments on Wiktionary:Requests for verification#Category:Westrobothnian_lemmas. - -sche (discuss) 17:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Appears resolved. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sichuanese Pinyin entries

No consensus has ever been reached to allow Sichuanese Pinyin entries. The following pages have been made by User:Prisencolin:

— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete. The user was told about the current policies for romanisation entries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
No consensus was ever reached about allowing English entries either. Why does that require a consensus to be featured? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Ду хаст рехт. Их бин айнферштанден! Шпрахен мюссен ден рихтиген Шрифт бенутцен! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
I see. You've turned on OrangeLinks. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Let's save the effort in other entries - this can be easily automated. Wyang (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    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.
    BTW, a few more entries here:
    — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Justinrleung @Korn @Atitarev @Wyang How about Chinese terms without hanzi at all, what's the general concensus on how to create entries for these? For an extreme example I'm not sure if nɤ35, a demonstrative pronoun in Wuhan, meets WT:CFI but there's literally no other way to enter it.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
    Searching for ¹ at water#Translations may be relevant. —suzukaze (tc) 06:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
    I am not aware of any policy regarding these terms specifically for Chinese, but I don't think these would meet CFI (unless we consider certain varieties of Chinese to be languages with limited online documentation). You probably should have held off creating the entry for nɤ35 until we have consensus on how to deal with them. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I've sent the term to RFV. We can decide on the policy. It would fail the NORMAL inclusion test. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The entry is referenced, though. What if it is represented that way in a proper scholarly work? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)


Looks SOP. 筶 means "to try". 一下 is suffix/particle that indicates trying or a little bit. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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)
I'm pretty sure. I think the page is just giving an example. All the dictionaries I've checked use 告 instead though:
  • 《四川方言词典》

告 gao4 (动)试:妈喊快点~鸭儿胃口呢。(川文82·8·63)|这双鞋你来~一下,看穿不穿得。

  • 《成都话方言词典》

告 gào〔kau²¹³〕试:衣服合不合身,你先~一下。

  • 《成都方言詞典》

【告】kau˨˩˧ 試:你來~一下,看合不合適

— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The references you provided seems to indicate that in the "to try" sense it's only used in the phrase 告一下. That suggests that we just keep 筶一下 as a soft redirect.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it's just a common collocation. The first example sentence in 四川方言词典 shows that 一下 is not necessary. The same would apply to 試一下 in standard Mandarin. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

instant mashed potatoes

Similar to instant coffee, instant noodles, instant soup, instant meal etc. (which I also nominate). The sense of instant is covered (poorly) "An instant beverage or food, especially instant coffee." Which makes this SOP. - TheDaveRoss 19:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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)
In all of the uses I am familiar with "instant" means "pre-processed for quicker preparation times." - TheDaveRoss 19:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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." bd2412 T 03:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
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. DCDuring TALK 13:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
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. bd2412 T 17:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
  • Nobody seems to be querying the synonym instant mash, so maybe it should be kept for the sake of completeness. Even shorter is the brand name "Smash" which used to be owned by Cadbury's. DonnanZ (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking at it again, keep. DonnanZ (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • From my perspective, all of these look like SOP. But I also don't see much harm in keeping them. Meh. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    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. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Isn't there a classic "philosphical" or "philological" discussion about the nature of adjectives like fake? DCDuring TALK 00:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The keyword to search for might be alienans. Equinox 00:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
That's the ticket. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification#XPCOM.

vox clamantis in deserto

A valid biblical allusion, but we are not Wikiquote. Is there idiomatic usage of which I am unaware? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)


I'm unsure about this one, but couldn't a wide range of titles be used as "honorifics"? It doesn't seem particularly lexical to me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  • We similarly have President and King as honorifics. Are they any more lexical? bd2412 T 02:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Presidents and kings are heads of state, and far more important than a mere editor-in-chief. A hard redirect may be the answer. DonnanZ (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
"More important" is an encyclopedic consideration. We include words of even skating "importance" if they are attested. bd2412 T 00:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


さあ definition #4 ("dunno") + sentence-final particle ("asks for confirmation"). —suzukaze (tc) 11:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Great Successor

This is really just great + successor in a specific context, just as Dear Leader is dear + leader. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I hate to say this, knowing how detestable the person is, but it probably should be kept. DonnanZ (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep and create Dear Leader. DTLHS (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
And also all the honorifics in this list? Would you actually edit General to mean "Kim Jong-il"? -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


SOP --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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)


As above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this should be in RFV. A Google search finds at least one use of 二十四 「ヰ゛タミン」ノ要求 in the TOC of a book from 1871 (which should be viewable online but the link isn't working for me). —suzukaze (tc) 11:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
ヸタミン硏究の新しき進步, 一 ヰ゛タミンの供給 (click on the 詳細レコード表示にする on the left) —suzukaze (tc) 11:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
The third one is viewablesuzukaze (tc) 11:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree this and the one above should be moved to RFV. Rare doesn't mean made-up. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
(However, the one above, テレヸジョン, is made up as far as CFI is concerned.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


The entry's author tagged this for speedy deletion, but should it be kept? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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)
@หมวดซาโต้: I know next to nothing about Thai, but from how you describe it, ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม certainly looks like an unidiomatic sum of ทรงพระกรุณา (song-prá-gà-rú-naa) + โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m), even if it is a common collocation. Would you be able to add a {{ux}} to both ทรงพระกรุณา and โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม that uses ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Just added some citations to ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม, in which ทรงพระกรุณา (song-prá-gà-rú-naa) and โปรดเกล้าฯ (bpròot-glâao) (shortening of โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m)) appear together. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@หมวดซาโต้: Great, thanks. I've copied those citations, mutatis mutandis, to ทรงพระกรุณา and โปรดเกล้าฯ. Could you also add to โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม citations that use ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (song-prá-gà-rú-naa-bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m) unabbreviated, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


The entry's author tagged this for speedy deletion, but should it be kept? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It's an abbreviation of the above phrase #ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (see its discussion also). --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@หมวดซาโต้: I know next to nothing about Thai, but from how you describe it, ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าฯ certainly looks like an unidiomatic sum of ทรงพระกรุณา (song-prá-gà-rú-naa) + โปรดเกล้าฯ (bpròot-glâao) [abbreviation of โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m)], even if it is a common collocation. Would you be able to add a {{ux}} to both ทรงพระกรุณา and โปรดเกล้าฯ that uses ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าฯ, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)



(phrasal) Subjugation, power; reliance upon the compassion, forbearance, or whim of another (at the mercy of)

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)

Any of definitions 1, 2, or 3 would fit with my understanding of at the mercy of, which I view as SoP, though several lemmings do not. See at the mercy of at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 02:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

double as

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)

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)
Someone can double for someone else. Also see double as at OneLook Dictionary Search and double for at OneLook Dictionary Search, which show that some lemmings have both of these. DCDuring TALK 02:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Also note double up as (the definition of which seems slightly faulty actually). Mihia (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

male genital cutting

Defined as "the cutting of genitals which are male". Equinox 12:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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)


Wiktionary:CFI#Company_names.—suzukaze (tc) 04:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


Traditional and simplified mixed together. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Question: was using 儿 for erhua specifically to differentiate from 兒 "child" ever standard? —suzukaze (tc) 08:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably not, but I can't be sure. The book has some other simplified characters in it, so it might just have been for ease of writing. @Wyang, Tooironic, Atitarev, any thoughts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Justin. Wyang (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it is safe to assume that 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)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

restroom break

Might this be SoP? I mean, there are many types of breaks, do we need entries for all of them? --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE Did you mean to take this to RFD rather than RFV? SoP is irrelevant at RFV. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger Ah, I didn't know SoP issues were irrelevant here, my bad. I'll take this to RFD. Thank you for pointing this out! --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
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. 00:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Could someone rewrite the definition of urinary break so that it looked as if it were written by someone who knew English. I'd just as soon see it deleted. DCDuring TALK 00:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It hardly seems like a set phrase in real use. Equinox 08:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This or bathroom break are often used when a group is traveling, such as a number of motorcyclists, a carload of people, a squad of soldiers, and so on. There are also some less polite variations, such as a piss break. —Stephen (Talk) 08:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
In the UK, those of us who go on walking holidays have comfort breaks. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Is this an American term? It's not labelled as such. DonnanZ (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
I agree about urinary break, which could also be deleted through RFV if necessary. If restroom break passes, the translations can go there. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


How is this different from the noun auge? —CodeCat 17:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

  • 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)
But why does auge- have to be a prefix? Why can't the words in CAT:Norwegian Nynorsk words prefixed with auge- be considered compounds of auge instead? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
It's perfectly possible to change {{prefix|nn|auge|bryn}} to {{compound|nn|auga|bryn|alt1=auge}}, and from a semantic point of view it makes more sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
@Njardarlogar, @Barend: Let's ask a couple of Nynorsk speakers. DonnanZ (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thanks to both of you for your input. DonnanZ (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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? —CodeCat 20:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • You should try looking from a Norwegian point of view. DonnanZ (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 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 singular auga, indefinite plural augo, definite plural augo, compound form auge‐ or augne‐)
2. Create a form of‐entry for the prefix forms like we do for any other inflection. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

Little Pakistan

Little Italy

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)

  • 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)
Are we going to have every name in every map? --Hekaheka (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't honestly know. Try this [6]. DonnanZ (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I found a couple of stations with Little Italy in the name in San Diego [7] and Cleveland [8]. DonnanZ (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Little Pakistan is a little more doubtful [9]. Both entries have Wikipedia links however. DonnanZ (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • A parallel given place name is Chinatown, which is commonly accepted and listed by Oxford, and may not necessarily appear on maps. DonnanZ (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)


鵞 is a traditional variant; 銮 is simplified. These shouldn't be together. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


rfd-sense (SOP): 中心 (Zhongxin, name of the district) + (district). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to 中心 I suggest. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
It can't be a hard redirect since there's another sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Zhōngxīn Qū

This also, if the hanzi form fails. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

孫堅, 孙坚, 孫文臺, 孙文台, 文臺, 文台, 曹仁, 子孝, 孟德, 完顏阿骨打, 完颜阿骨打, 玄德, 橋玄, 桥玄, 孟起, 馬超, 马超, 孫逸仙, 元常

伯喈, 呂布, 吕布, 奉先, 趙雲, 赵云, 子龍, 子龙, 于禁, 文則, 文则, 趙子龍, 赵子龙, 張楊, 张杨, 孫權, 孙权, 仲謀, 仲谋, 滿寵, 满宠, 伯寧, 伯宁, 范滂, 孟博, 壽長, 寿长, 雲長, 云长, 樂進, 乐进, 文謙, 文谦, 衛弘, 卫弘, 張遼, 张辽, 文遠, 文远, 陳生, 陈生, 呂虔, 吕虔, 子恪, 孫乾, 孙乾, 許褚, 许褚, 仲康, 張儉, 张俭, 元節, 元节, 霍光, 糜竺, 麋竺, 子仲, 張紘, 张紘, 子綱, 子纲, 義公, 义公, 韓當, 韩当

Couple more, including some style names for deleted entries or entries to be deleted. Wyang (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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:
  • 玄德 ("高深、幽潛的德性", "天地玄妙之理", "佛教上指玄妙的功德")
  • 奉先 ("祭祀祖先", "宋代禁軍名")
  • 文則/文则 ("文章的法則")
  • 張楊/张杨 ("1936年12月發動西安事變的著名將領張學良、楊虎城的並稱") — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I tentatively propose that we allow all names which have inclusion-worthy derived terms. Wyang (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)

European supremacy

"The ideology which holds that the European race is superior to all others." Seems like SoP - and is "European" really a race? Equinox 17:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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)
Sense 3 at supremacy: "When used with a designation for a particular group, the assertion that the group in question is superior to or should rule over others." So European supremacy can be deleted, like white supremacy. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as SoP. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

doon the stair

Scots. SOP? --Quadcont (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • 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)
Try this from Google Books [10]. Actually, if it translates to a single word in standard English it should be kept. DonnanZ (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Although sometimes it would be "down the stairs" [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. DonnanZ (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

pyramid entries

RFDing the pyramids separately, per BD's suggestion. The original discussion was at WT:RFD#Aztec pyramid (to be archived at Talk:Aztec pyramid). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Mesoamerican pyramid

Mayan pyramid

ancient pyramid

Egyptian pyramid

This one survived RFD quite a long time ago (Talk:Egyptian pyramid). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Some people don't give up. I don't see any real harm in keeping any of them. DonnanZ (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
Keep all but ancient which is SoP. The use and basic design is different and requires prior knowledge.--Dmol (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed -- the kind of knowledge which one would go to an encyclopedia for (like, for example, Wikipedia), not a dictionary. — Kleio (t · c) 00:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom and KIeio. DCDuring TALK 00:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete all. Ƿidsiþ 12:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
Delete All sub-classes of a noun, they are not individual words. Khu'hamgaba Kitap ᐅᖃᕐᕕᐅᔪᖅ - talk 17:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

police baton

SOP? --Quadcont (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

IMO,yes. No OneLook dictionary has an entry. The phrase merits inclusion only in a usage example at [[baton]], IMO. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
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. DCDuring TALK 00:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

white smoke

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)

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. DCDuring TALK 00:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
I agree that it's a signal and not an announcement, a smoke signal in fact. I think it's interesting enough to keep. DonnanZ (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
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. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
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)

slovėnų kalba

retoromanų kalba

moldavų kalba

rumunų kalba

I thought we were deleting these "X language" entries. --Quadcont (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought we aren't. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think all "kalba" -entries can be discussed together > grouped four headers together. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

se vautrer

Per WT:About French, we shouldn't have pronominal/reflexive forms of French verbs. I have already copied the definitions over from vautrer. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • A redirect to vautrer would do no harm, I think. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    Agreed. I think it could be beneficial to include redirects for all pronominal verbs. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017


Dutch. There is already a lower-case form graaf; upper-case is either reserved for titles or is characteristic of use centuries ago, not of current use. (On a different note, parts of the etymology seem dubious, as the ONW has a lemma for grāvo.) Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

ill manners

ill + manners -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

By what definition of ill? DCDuring TALK 16:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Sense 4, which even has ill manners as an example. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
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. DCDuring TALK 16:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Ill prospects, ill health, an ill season... Equinox 19:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Perhaps we should mark the adjective sense as dated, btw? Equinox 19:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
ill health - def. 5. ("Unwell in terms of health or physical condition; sick.")
ill prospects, ill season - def. 4.1 ("Unpropitious").
I guess the definitions in sense 4 just aren't part of my idiolect, except possibly in ill-mannered. DCDuring TALK 20:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete. It wouldn’t hurt to redirect the page to that sense of ill, though. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

have a look-see

Seems to be merely "have" + "a look-see". I see no reason for this, any more than have a peek, have a snoop, have a gander, or anything else. Mihia (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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. DCDuring TALK 07:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
We have Appendix:Collocations of do, have, make, and take, for a start --Quadcont (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

bikini babe

Obvious meaning. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 04:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Unsure. Isn't there something set-phrasey about it, like booth babe? You wouldn't hear socks girl or hat woman. Equinox 15:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)


Discussion moved to WT:Requests for verification#scrumtrulescent.


Only in Minecraft video game, so I doubt it can pass WT:FICTION. Equinox 15:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


As pointed out by @Amgine, sense #12 is a subset of sense #7. The context label may need to be expanded. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


This appears to be a vanishingly rare misspelling. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This says the misspelling is common in relation to diabetes. If you search Google for keytone diabetes there are indeed quite a few hits. Mihia (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
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
But why not discuss it on-project, why, why not do that? "Because of you" is the response to all those people. HTH. Equinox 22:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. - TheDaveRoss 13:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
    @Dan Polansky: Please look at google books:"keytone". Most of the uses are not actually this misspelling, so the frequency you quoted is a gross overestimation. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    @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)


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)


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. DCDuring TALK 13:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep: it is a specific epithet, like platanifolia, gingivalis, lividans, etc. (these three were created as Translingual but you moved them to Latin), also guatemalae, livadus, laherparepvec, etc. They are presumably citable in taxonomic names in multiple languages other than Latin, and therefore I believe they are Translingual. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Your argument rests on missing or faulty premises, faulty data, or inappropriate considerations:
  1. 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.
  2. laherparepvec is part of the name of a drug, not a taxonomic epithet.
  3. 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".
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
DCDuring TALK 15:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 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.
        • This is what Wiktionary:About Translingual#Accepted should already state or at least imply. -- Annotation: The about page could be changed.
      • 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.
- 21:50, 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.)
@DCDuring: I'll reply now to all your five points. I'll copy your questions below, between quotation marks.
  1. "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.
  2. "laherparepvec is part of the name of a drug, not a taxonomic epithet."
    • Point taken, sorry for the mix-up.
  3. "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.
  4. "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.
  5. "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.
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 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/deeds 01:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    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)
    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. DCDuring TALK 12:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    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)
    @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? DCDuring TALK 17:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    Yes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@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.
- 20:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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)


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."

ein Armutszeugnis ausstellen

Straightforward usage of the figurative sense of Armutszeugnis. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


SoP? - redirect to lemmas without နိုင်ငံ (nuingngam)? @Angr, Wyang. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with a hard redirect to ရုရှား (ru.hra:). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's do redirection on other countries too. They usually put နိုင်ငံ everywhere. --Octahedron80 (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, of course. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


1471 is not really a notable number. I can't see any four-digit numbers apart from 1000 so does this page really need to stay? Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I assume you just mean the Translingual section, not the English one. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete the (translingual) generic-number sense at least. Numbers are constructed by rule, not coined as lexemes. Equinox 21:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Is the English entry really an English word? Do Cornish and Arabic speakers in the UK use a different call return number? — Ungoliant (falai) 17:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

breakfast in bed

Both the noun and the verb seem SoP to me and also to all the lexicographers who failed to provided entries (even redirects) at breakfast in bed at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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)
  • Delete as SoP. — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Try as I might, I cannot perceive any meaning of "breakfast in bed" that is different from "breakfast" + "in bed". Mihia (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    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)
  • Keep per Andrew, being served is not inherent to any component term. bd2412 T 04:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
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. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
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. --WikiTiki89 20:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe in your idiolect, but other people's usage seems different, eg:
  • 2014, Mr Ceri Carpenter, Megan and the Mayoress ((Please specify the language of the quote)):
    Lua error in Module:usex/templates at line 41: The parameter "1" is required.
  • 2015, Pat Warren, ‎Carol Ericson, Obsession and Eyewitness ((Please specify the language of the quote)), page 96:
    Lua error in Module:usex/templates at line 41: The parameter "1" is required.
  • 2015, Terrence Benjamin Samuel Jr, Strange Luv: Twisted Fate ((Please specify the language of the quote)):
    Lua error in Module:usex/templates at line 41: The parameter "1" is required.
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. DCDuring TALK 22:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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.). DCDuring TALK 15:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
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. --WikiTiki89 20:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Keep: per Andrew, BD and Wikitiki Purplebackpack89 04:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


Recently removed from fr because it is not an SI unit (only bel and decibel are). Remember to also remove links e.g. in GB and gigabels. There may be other derivatives. — Dakdada 14:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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.
1993 June 15, Henry Gessau, “PC speaker via SB16 too loud”, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard, Usenet[19] ((Please specify the language of the quote)):
Problem now is that the volume of the speaker sounds is like gigabels louder than volumes from other sources.
2013 March 9, Rumpelstiltskin, “This is embarrassing. I agree with McCain”, in soc.retirement, Usenet[20] ((Please specify the language of the quote)):
I do however object to boomboxes on buses, and to car radios playing crap music turned up to 10 gigabels.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Yep, kilofoot is another real word for a "quasi-SI" unit. Equinox 16:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
So we should at least change the definition and remove the link to GB. — Dakdada 11:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Kilofoot may actually mean 1000 feet, but gigabel can’t be a real unit. It is always a way of exaggeration. We should define it so. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
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)

same old-same old

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)

We'd need it as a redirect anyway. Keeping it as an entry is just a matter of attestation IMO. DCDuring TALK 00:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
After I put this to WT:RFV#same old-same old, attesting quotations are now in the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


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)

Agreed. I've noted that some letters are under English and some are under Translingual, but they should all be under English. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Not only aviation though, it is used internationally on amateur radio, along with all the other letters. I have the callsign Golf Zero Echo Zulu Lima. DonnanZ (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
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. —CodeCat 21:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The alphabet involved has various names, depending on what organisation is using it [21], 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)
"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)
Spanish has its own phonetic alphabet (e.g. jueves), as does Italian (e.g. Quarto). Is the ICAO alphabet used in those languages? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I found a table written in Danish, giving letters that are probably used internally. Other letters are the same.

I Norden anvendes Æ/Ä, Ø/Ö og Å, som har fået tildelt lokale navne:

Bogstav Dansk Norsk (civilt) Norsk (militært) Svensk
Æ / Ä Ægir Ægir Ærlig Ärlig
Ø / Ö Ødis Ørnulf Østen Östen
Å Åse Ågot Åse Åke
DonnanZ (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@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. - 17:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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. —CodeCat 22:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)




These three entries (-/-, -_- and -*-) contain only one sense:

POS section: Interfix

  1. (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)
  1. (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)
  1. (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".

  1. (proscribed) exclusive or (used to link mutually-exclusive alternatives)
    I think she/he writes very well.
    I think s/he writes very well.
  2. (sometimes proscribed) inclusive or (used to link compatible alternatives or joint items)
    He's an actor/model.

These uses also resemble a sense currently in ( ) with multiple examples:

  1. Expands a word into another word, inflection or spelling.
    Go get the dog(s) - Here, s is a shorthand for the plural dogs.
    You should (re)write that story. - Here, re is an optional prefix re-.
    Blue is my favo(u)rite colo(u)r. - Here, u is an alternative spelling (color/colour).
    A variable with persistence that is currently above (below) its mean will tend not go below (above) its mean for some time.

Plus if I want to know the meaning of the slash in "Freund/innen", I guess it's more intuitive to search for / than -/-.

If that / were an interfix, then by that logic I believe ! would be a suffix and ( ) would be a circumfix. (which they aren't) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete per Danliel's reasoning. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
    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)
-/- 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).
- 16:34, 1 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). Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'm still not seeing why this usage can't be explained within /. — 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 [[_]]. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


Sum of parts (see etymology). —suzukaze (tc) 05:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

rub off

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)

Our entry for rub#Verb doesn't have an appropriate definition for rub, IMO. Juding from the usage examples the "cleanse" definition is not appropriate. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
Doesn't rub in "I rubbed my glasses" imply cleaning in a similar way, with the thing being cleaned as the direct object? [22] [23] Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
A couple of on-line dictionaries 2 1.4 3 1 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. [24] [25] Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

national airline

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)

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. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

suprageneric name

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)

Delete. a suprageneric name is just a name used for suprageneric taxa, used in suprageneric classification. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

media maven

The first def is clearly SOP, and the second def is probably SOP as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete. The second is just based on a hyperspecialization of maven. DCDuring TALK 03:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
If it exists at all. Delete per nom. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete for the nominator's reason. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


This seems deletable as a rare misspelling of dead wrong or dead-wrong. The regulation is WT:CFI#Spellings. deadwrong, dead wrong, dead-wrong at Google Ngram Viewer does not even find "deadwrong", and therefore, frequency ratio cannot be determined with the use of GNV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Recently raised at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#deadwrong. Mihia (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, and in WT:RFV#deadwrong, Kiwima found attesting quotations so this is going to pass RFV. It can still be deleted as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
What makes it a misspelling rather than an emergent spelling or a pronunciation spelling? DCDuring TALK 13:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
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)


IS there any evidence of this? @I'm so meta even this acronym. —JohnC5 01:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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)


This seems to just be an analogic usage and not a real word. —JohnC5 01:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

How do you feel about Citizen Kane and John Travolta? Siuenti (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Send to RFV; see what comes up. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Moved to RFV. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

e-#Etymology_1, "out of"

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)

Looking at Category:English words prefixed with e-, there are a few words that look like they are examples of productive use of Latin-derived e- (but some have a sense that is more accurately described as non- rather than out of): ebracteate, enucleate, ecostate, elamping, elocation, enodal, etypical, evacate. Maybe they are actually borrowings from scientific New Latin terms, though; does anyone have more info?
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)
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)
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. —CodeCat 21:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


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)

@-sche: The OED states that efform derives from ef- +‎ form, though I suppose it could derive from the Latin efformō instead. Isn't this an RFV issue, though? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
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)


SOP --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

quasi mai

SOP? Also, I find it very odd that an entry for hardly ever has never been created. --Quadcont (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

More Chinese names (characters from Romance of the Three Kingdoms)

(WT:NSE) All of these are surname + given name:

李典, 李封, 龔景/龚景, 伏德, 黃劭/黄劭, 胡邈, 胡敬才, 閔貢/闵贡, 楊彪/杨彪, 楊密/杨密, 薛蘭/薛兰, 吳匡/吴匡, 趙萌/赵萌, 楊琦/杨琦, 宗寶/宗宝, 薛禮/薛礼, 范康, 檀敷, 龐舒/庞舒, 王邑, 韓融/韩融, 孔昱, 伍孚, 呂伯奢/吕伯奢, 胡赤兒/胡赤儿, 黃琬/黄琬, 孔伷, 蘇獻/苏献, 潘隱, 應劭/应劭, 關純/关纯, 王匡, 蒯良, 臧霸, 荀諶/荀谌, 桓階/桓阶, 武安國/武安国, 張虎/张虎, 馬宇/马宇, 左靈/左灵, 紀靈/纪灵, 呂公/吕公, 麴義/麴义, 區星/区星, 曹德, 蔣雄/蒋雄, 荀正, 宋果, 范成, 胡才, 祖郎, 王昌, 岑晊

Sigh. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Collect these to an appendix page instead? These names are somewhat useful. --Octahedron80 (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

fake news

Seems SOP--Simplificationalizer (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • 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. DCDuring TALK 19:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 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. Ƿidsiþ 20:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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. --WikiTiki89 04:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 05:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've modified a definition of fake to include this as an example. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


A not particularly notable recent Web site. Equinox 16:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

google books:"Quora" doesn't really look like a great case for WT:COMPANY. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete. ―Born2bgratis (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

McClain County

SOP, McClain + county. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Those two parts don't tell us where it is. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
delete it's probably not SOP because it refers to a specific administrative entity, but in any case it's not dictionary material. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
It's part of the name, like city in New York City. Equinox 15:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
We have quite a few US counties. Many, but not all have been added to Category:en:Counties of the United States of America. We should probably have them all, but it would be mind-numbingly boring to add them all. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
Also in County Durham. Former counties like Middlesex are also represented, although this discussion is centred on US counties. Keep them all anyway and expand, there must be hundreds of them. DonnanZ (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Delete. Not dictionary material and uninteresting. Wyang (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
It is Wiktionary policy to include counties. See the fifth bullet of CFI#Place names. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
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)

And all of Category:en:Counties of the United States of America

That is, to move them to their proper names, for example, Orange County's definition would be moved to Orange, and Orange County will be deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no less than eight counties named Orange County, so that entry kills eight birds with one stone. DonnanZ (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep per my statement above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
The category is seriously underpopulated, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
Delete. Not dictionary material and uninteresting. Wyang (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep all. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep all. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
  • It seems that in Louisiana they are called parishes, not counties. I wonder why. DonnanZ (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Louisiana was French until the Louisiana purchase.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, apparently it comes from French paroisse. Cheers. DonnanZ (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
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. - TheDaveRoss 12:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

stepwise migration

SoP, any migration that is stepwise. (The single given translation is also a two-word phrase.) Equinox 12:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete DCDuring TALK 17:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

be above

Should be handled at "above". (Never mind the mess that "be" makes of our inflection template. "is", "was", "were", "been"?) Equinox 16:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete, merging any useful material into above#Preposition, perhaps by enhancing definitions or add usage examples. DCDuring TALK 17:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Many Thai language names

Per #ภาษาไทย above. These are SoPs, and should be converted to redirects with content migrated to the base articles (without "language"):

Wyang (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Redirect all to lemmas, per the above link. Inclusion of usexes would be helpful but not required for this RFD to go ahead. Also, converting to translations, e.g. French#Translations from ภาษาฝรั่งเศส (th) to SoP ภาษาฝรั่งเศส would also be helpful but not required. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Redirect all to lemmas --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


また (shortening of また明日, entry currently missing definition) + particle . —suzukaze (tc) 09:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  • My understanding of this phrase was always that また (mata) simply referred to "later", not necessarily "tomorrow".
No strong opinions on keeping this, other than that, if we do keep it, this should be changed to a phrasebook entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Transform to phrasebook entry and then keep. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
I have created ではまた (de wa mata) after this discussion. If it's RFD'ed, I hope it will pass. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


Not a prefix; information should be merged into Haupt. At Wiktionary:Tea room/2017/March#haupt-, User:Angr and User:Korn have both voiced their support for deletion. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Indeed; delete. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: This only works via Haupt containing the following definition lines:
    • main (in compounds, see haupt-)
    • chief or leader of a unit of men (in compounds, see haupt-)
    Thus, the combining form use (haupt-) is semantically distinct from the separate noun uses, especially via the "main" sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    One work that agrees with this view is A Student Grammar of German by Paul Stocker, 2012[26]. 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)
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), §, 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)
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. —CodeCat 20:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


This is similar to haupt- above, but unlike the previous, this doesn't appear to have any meanings not shared by two. —CodeCat 20:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • It's just a cardinal number which is used in compounds, unlike bi-. Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Keep: two-headed means "double" headed. Nowhere does two mean double. Leasnam (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
      • The norm is for things to have one head. Two of any single thing is double. I don't see the distinction. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Okay, take two-edged, or two-sided. There are no norms there Leasnam (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
          • ...and a "two-edged" thing is a thing with two edges, like a "three-edged" thing has three edges. I don't see what you're getting at. - -sche (discuss) 04:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
          • 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)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 04:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete per Donnanz. Equinox 06:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Donnanz. DCDuring TALK 09:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Twitter tantrum

Per User:Romanophile (creator). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Been wondering about "temper tantra", too, since we don't even have tantra as a plural of tantrum. Equinox 22:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been shot

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)

They might be on a 911 call, or talking to a blind person, or discussing a shooter video game. Equinox 00:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
And they might be trying to feed an elephant a delicious mango. But our phrasebook entries don't need to cover any and all situations. Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

have something to eat

SoP? Compare "have sth to drink", "have sth for dinner". Equinox 20:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete or make into a phrasebook entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


Not a word in Thai (even person name). --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

de nazi uithangen

Dutch, sum of parts of uithangen (second sense) with de nazi: to act like a nazi. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

DeleteCodeCat 16:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
This does seem SOP; compare the example sentence de clown uithangen‎ at uithangen‎. Delete. - -sche (discuss) 21:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


Rfd of the adjective sense: this strikes me as redundant to the present participle sense

  • Dunno about that. Tinkling bells springs to mind. I think it's an attributive adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
It looks like an adjective to me. Even the OED has two entries as an adjective (1 - that tinkles, 2- that works as a tinker). SemperBlotto (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)

bloemrijke taal

Dutch. Sum of parts of bloemrijke (flowery) taal (language). Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The entry for bloemrijk doesn't exactly explain how there could be flowers on a language. —CodeCat 16:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
It does now. Delete for the same reason that flowery language doesn't have an entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Yup, delete. — Kleio (t · c) 21:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I have added some labels and glosses that should clarify the reasoning behind the nomination. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 05:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


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.[27] -- Puisque (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a matter for RFV. If the term is attested, we should keep it, even if it seems "wrong". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Angular.js and AngularJS

Per WT:COMPANY. The “definition” of the “term” is just advertising. ―Born2bgratis (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

inter alios

This seems SOP: inter means “among” and alios means “other people”. — Eru·tuon 09:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about inter alios by itself, but res inter alios acta is a legal doctrine. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Another link for that: res inter alios acta (Wiktionary and not Wikipedia).
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? - 13:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Convert to English. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


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)


Only 8 hits on google. botialities gets none. Borders on protologism. —JohnC5 17:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  • 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/deeds 21:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @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. —JohnC5 21:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

помещать сообщение

Non-idiomatic SoP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't hear you over the sound of

SOP.​—msh210 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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)


For the same reason that 1000000 doesn't exist. The IPA doesn't belong here anyway, but should instead go to the actual spelling of the term, whatever that may be. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

adjacent to

This smells like SOP, but I'd like to see what happened to any other compound prepositions that have gone through RFD. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


SOP: 政治的 + 広告. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


SOP: 文學學士 (Bachelor of Arts) + 學位 (degree). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)