Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


May 2016[edit]


Just the name of an amulet. Unfit to be included in a dictionary. Not to mention that it is a misspelling (the correct spelling is องค์จตุคามรามเทพ). --YURi (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep but correct. It's not just the name of a single amulet, it's apparently a common type of amulet. Belongs here. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
องค์จตุคามรามเทพ is quite rare. A more, and the most, common name of the amulet is จตุคามรามเทพ. --YURi (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


This reading is only used in 皕宋楼 (Hyokusōrō, "Bisong Hall"), and I think that that's encyclopedic, and as such, I find no affix to define for this hyoku reading. Nibiko (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I can't find anything either. I'll double-check my dead-tree copy of Nelson's later tonight; it's not exhaustive, but it covers most of the bases. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
If it helps (probably not), GlyphWiki lists these kanji with an on reading of hyoku sourced from the Koseki Tooitsu Moji website/database/character encoding/character set/whatever it is. —suzukaze (tc) 02:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Nelson's lists no hyoku reading.
WWWJDIC lists 16 characters with this reading, most of them rare. I don't have time at the moment to go through these and see if any are still in use, or, looking more deeply, if they've ever been used enough to meet CFI. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

volente o nolente[edit]

I'm willing to be convinced, but isn't this just as SOP as willing or unwilling? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Only if nolente also means "unwilling"; we currently list it as meaning only "unwanted". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Also take note of the phrases given as translations at willy-nilly, many of which are analogous cases to this. Vorziblix (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. French Wiktionary defines nolente as "unwilling" ("involontaire"), so either our entry is wrong or missing a sense. --WikiTiki89 14:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    From an Italian dictionary: Volente o nolente, che voglia o no, per amore o per forza. I think willy-nilly is a good translation. --Vriullop (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and adjust the definition if needed. This seems to encompass a play on words. bd2412 T 14:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

say yes to[edit]

And say no to. The construction seems wrong for a dictionary; we don't have agree to or disagree with, etc. The preposition is properly something extraneous. Equinox 21:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, we do have disagree with, but in a figurative sense... Equinox 21:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Few OneLook references have an entry (even a run-in) for disagree with. Usage examples like "They disagreed"/"They disagreed with each other"/"The adults disagreed with the children." seem to me to be instances of the same sense of disagree and to be most informative when juxtaposed. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What I'm wondering is that we have these, but not say yes and say no. Purplebackpack89 23:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
What is a little different about this is the use of the expressions in "say yes to life", ("commit to" [not in entry]), and "say no to drugs", which is the second sense of say no to ("reject"). We once said yes/no to people and to propositions. Now we also say yes/no to things and abstractions without any oral or written expression. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep but with appropriate defs, i.e. DC's "commit to" and "reject" - in other uses it is just a way of answering a yes-no question ("Would you like a cup of tea?" "I'll say yes to that"), not dictionary material. And add a "Used other than as an idiom" redirect, as in the disagree with entry. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Bear in mind the 'say' isn't actually required. 'No to racism' and so on. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Keep or redirect. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to say yes, either leaving redirect or deleting the redirect, per nom: we don't have agree to and the preposition seems extraneous. By the way, "say yes" is in Merrian-Webster in some form[1]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

tener que[edit]

I feel it is unusual to have tener que as a separate lemma. I'd prefer it merged into tener --P3459rgo0 (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It's more like have to than think that since since the que is not optional and changes the meaning. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Renard Migrant, then why does the conjugation template say "(without the "que")." I feel we should just extend tener with this definition, and say {{qualifier|used with que}}. MackyBlue11 (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The structure is similar to "have to". Should it go as well? --Hekaheka (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
User:MackyBlue11, it says "without the que" because our verb templates are not able to include other words than the verb. It would be better to link the conjugation to tener with: Conjugation of tener que: see tener. —Stephen (Talk) 00:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge into tener. English is a special case because of the the non-SOP pronunciation. --WikiTiki89 14:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

today is a good day to die[edit]

While it's a nice quotation, and I like it, it's just literal. Refers to today being a good day to die. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not literal at all. Every day can be referred as today (and in fact was or is or will be do, in due time), but no day, whatsoever, is good to die. It is a metaphor for an obligation (or stake) more important than life. NoychoH (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
It might be your opinion that no day is a good day to die, but we don't define entries in terms of your opinion. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neither of the definitions provided literally mean just the SOP. bd2412 T 12:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain for the moment. But since no day is, literally, a 'good day' to die, I guess it needs explaining, so is okay as an entry. But I would think the defs need to be RFV'd. The second one seems unlikely to me. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. A familiar quotation, although attribution seems very tricky. According to Wikipedia's entry on "a good day to die", that phrase (without "today is") was actually attributed to Low Dog, a companion of Sitting Bull, in 1881. It was then used in Black Elk's autobiography in 1931. I also found some independent uses.
  • From an issue of the Trans-Communicator in 1927: "I thought either day out of the seven was a good day to die".
  • In 1974, James Cameron's Indian Summer (about India) claims that the phase was found in a book of essays by Anthony Burgess, attributing it to Pope John XXIII, who supposedly said that "any day was a good day to die."
  • At some point the phrase seems to have become associated with Crazy Horse, but the first hits I'm finding are from the 1970's. It was the title of a novel by Jim Harrison, reviewed in The New York Times on September 9, 1973, but from the description this probably is related to Crazy Horse.
  • In 1975, Stephen E. Ambrose, in Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors, quotes Crazy Horse: "Ho-ka Hey! It is a good day to fight! It is a good day to die!", supposedly spoken on June 25, 1876. But from what I'm reading, this may be an embellishment, since Crazy Horse doesn't seem to have said it, and there seems to be the belief that "a good day to die" is a colorful but not literal translation of "Ho-ka Hey!"
I suspect, but don't know, that the exact wording, "today is a good day to die" may have been popularized, if not originated, by Star Trek: The Next Generation, where it was said, perhaps on several occasions, by Worf. I haven't figured out when the first occasion was, but as the program started in 1987, I'd guess the first time was in the earlier seasons, between 1987 and 1991. I found quotes of this and variations from later seasons, but I think that the first occasion was before that. Perhaps the scriptwriter was half-remembering a misattributed misquotation of Crazy Horse, perhaps not. It could have been thought of independently, and I haven't found any earlier exact quotations. P Aculeius (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Earliest I can find is 1961 https://books.google.com.au/books?id=iuiF0LaKThoC&q=%22today+is+a+good+day+to+die%22&dq=%22today+is+a+good+day+to+die%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUra2J45nOAhXMto8KHfp5AEsQ6AEIPjAG . But 1961 is a long time after 1876. And indeed the Wikipedia article says this attribution to Crazy Horse is inaccurate. But still, none of the results I looked at meant that one should live life to the fullest, or anything other than a bravado warcry. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect: to good day to die. I don't think we need anything longer than that. Purplebackpack89 23:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't that be a "move" rather than a redirect, since there's nothing there yet? bd2412 T 00:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
      • It be a move without deleting the redirect. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Today is a good day to keep! Philmonte101 (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete, unless proper quotes are provided. To me the "senses" look dubious. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete sense 2, and I lean towards deleting sense 1, too. But perhaps we should put this RFD on hold and RFV the senses to determine if they're actually attested; sense 2 seems particularly likely to not be attested, except perhaps in a context where a literal reading would work (today is a good day to day, like any other, it could happen, so...). - -sche (discuss) 18:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep but mark for a stub. It's a shame to delete an article on something really pertinent only because the original User didn't know how to finish it. NoychoH (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    That's why we like to see real uses of the word. Real dictionaries either copy other real dictionaries' definitions or start with some evidence of how a term is used (literary quotes, other print sources, transcripts of conversation, collocation tables, etc). There is nothing in an RfD that will prevent someone from starting a new entry (or definition) if they start with evidence. DCDuring TALK 12:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    I am a lazy user so I understand other lazy users. If I am looking for an entry in Wikipedia or Wiktionary and I don't find it, I am always offered a proposat to start it from a scratch, and I rarely take up this offer/opportunity. Too much effort required, too little time at my disposal etc. (I don't say I never do it, e.g. today I have made a whole entry on "The Klingon Way" in Wikipedia). But if I see an article that needs improvement, and I am able to improve it - I do it. Less effort needed, less time required, I do not need to know eveything, divine what categories to ascribe etc., etc. Less responsibility is a good incentive do do a bit, too much responsibility for a whole new entry is a barrier soe people would not like to cross. So if you delete the entry, maybe within the next 10 years nobody would start it again. It's, however, much more probable, that within that period some lazy User (or even nota so lazy one) would improve an imperfect entry. That's my opinion. NoychoH (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    If having any kind of entry or definition were, ipso facto, a good thing, then making any contribution easier would be a good thing. When Wiktionary lacked entries for many common English terms, it was important to make entry easy. I think we are past that point. We need to add some definitions to existing entries, supplement definitions with quotations and naturalistic usage examples, and generally improve entry quality. Adding entries for English terms whose basic meaning is SoP, without any evidence that there is an extended meaning that has entered the lexicon is not a contribution valuable to users. DCDuring TALK 15:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    In general, in principle you are right, yet I think that in practice you are wrong. Yet, I don't think I will convince you. Consider, however, that I have ammended the entry in question a bit (in a lazy way, I admit) before entering this discussion here - by referring to Wikipedia articles. Several metaphorical meanings can be found exactly in the Wikipedia... linked by me. Maybe someone could transfer them to Wiktionary. Now, in order to diminish the power of your position, I have ameliorated the article again in several ways, also added a few remarks to the Discussion page. You may check it there now. I think these "betterments" of mine face and answer your doubts, at least to some degree. Hope this will nullify the willingness of some of you to delete this article. This is however my final remark and I do not intend to continue the discussion or correcting the article. I have submitted my opinion, explained and deepened them, this was my obligation, and if it will not prevail, I can only say: "Today is a good day to die". It was a pleasure to debate with you. NoychoH (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    Unfortunately the entry's been butchered since the rfd debate began. It's now at requests for deletion, cleanup and verification all at the same time. You don't see that very often. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I still haven't seen any evidence that this doesn't just mean "today is a good day to die". I'm aware that this is a vote so evidence doesn't matter, but I still like to see evidence. I'm seeing lots of blind assertion that this isn't literal, but nobody can say why. Is this lexically any different to today is a good day to buy a house? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it can be kept on the basis that it is now a proverb with the meaning indicated by sense 2: see [2], [3], [4] and [5]. (Compare all the world's a stage.) Sense 1 seems to be sum-of-parts, while sense 3 seems completely fictional with no real-world idiomatic application (i.e., it just means "we are prepared to die", which is also SoP). — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
All we need now is the citations that show it is a proverb that has some specific non-SoP meaning. DCDuring TALK 21:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Looking at some of the usage at Google Books, the meaning of the expression when used in dialog (ie, pseudo-colloquially) seems quite SoP, using good in the sense "suitable, fit" (which, BTW, we don't have in our definition, an example of why I don't use Wiktionary for my own needs).
The implication of the use of the expression depends a lot on the cultural context and who the speaker is. I find three classes of implications:
  1. I (speaker) (am resigned to/welcome) dying to escape my situation (eg, depression, pain).
  2. All of us (speaker and colleagues) should be willing to die to defend our people/honor/comrades-in-arms.
  3. We should be ready to die at any time and therefore should have our moral affairs in order. (the Pope John sense, but used in self-help books, both religious and secular.
That is, some awareness of the context is needed to get the implication, much as with an expression like "It's time for breakfast", the nature of breakfast differing by geography, level of affluence, etc, and time differing similarly.
Incidentally, there is significant usage with other forms of be and times other than today for dying and even some usage in the plural (ie, days). That is, it is not really a fixed expression except among those with, on the one hand, limited vocabulary and, on the other, a need for a rich understanding of the allusions of the expression (Native Americans, Klingons). DCDuring TALK 23:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Is that a vote to delete? — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I am still uncertain about resolution. IMO, there is little justification for the entry under challenge. Dropping today is captures more of the usage, but good day to die still seems SoP. In addition, it seems to me hard to come up with a definition for good day to die that captures any of the implications (or allusions) that the phrase under challenge carries. A "COBUILD" syle definition would work, but we don't normally use those.
The arguments to keep, such as they are, ignore the absence of citations, so they are arguments in favor of keeping definitions that are not supported by attestation. That seems irresponsible. If we were forced to come to a decision now, I would vote to delete, but I'd rather wait for RfV, cleanup, and even rewriting the definitions from scratch. DCDuring TALK 16:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
What about the citations indicated in my earlier post? — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
To me the first, second, and third seem like re-interpretations (of the forced-optimism variety) rather than definitions. (The fourth seems to use the expression literally.) I would hate to have to include every similar bishops' re-interpretation of a line in the KJV. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
In that case, it looks like we are heading for deletion. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]


Neither a common misspelling nor variant spelling. This spelling is not verifiable in any of the following references for Taiwanese Hokkien: MoE, Tw-Ch, Maryknoll, or Tai-nichi Dai Jiten. Possibly a one-off from one author in one publication. Hongthay (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(copy pasted from the talk page of the article) I understand your concern of it being found only in one entry. But for me, the thing is that 闽南方言大词典 is the most, if not the most, comprehensive dictionary/reference on Hokkien/Min Nan. It mostly contains words used in Mainland China (specifically Quanzhou, Xiamen, and Zhangzhou) while also elaborating on district-specific dialects in the latter part. It also has a section of Taiwanese-specific words at the start and that's where I got 捏居帶. I understand that Taiwanese don't use these characters in this context, but in my opinion, I would say that 闽南方言大词典 is really in the Top 3, if not Top 1, of possible references for Min Nan. Considering how few super complete dictionaries are in Min Nan, this is like a Min Nan Bible. I dare say that it's the most complete. Therefore, I think we shouldn't ignore its contents, specifically, 捏居帶. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course we can't overlook its contents, but we can't regard it as an authority since actual character usage of Taiwanese loanwords from Japanese differs from it significantly. We need to have evidence from other places, or else it probably wouldn't pass CFI. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Let me explain my train of thought in a series of statements.
  1. If the word has a Chinese character equivalent, then there should be an entry for that, and if there are many ways, only one of them should be the main entry.
  2. Taiwan doesn't use any Chinese characters to transcribe this word.
  3. Although Taiwan doesn't use it, 闽南方言大词典 has a Chinese character equivalent for it.
  4. There's only one way to write it using Chinese characters, so 捏居帶 should be the main article for the Chinese character entry, while we can still keep the POJ entry, like always.
That's how I thought about it. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I still cannot see how this spelling meets WT:CFI, especially if, as you said, people don't actually use it. Taiwanese does not have a strong written tradition, and some of our POJ entries may not meet CFI either, but at least POJ is reliable for transcription of the spoken vernacular. Hongthay (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

r-karaokeMINANsonglyrixUSEhanzi(thoV.unstandardizd)4subtitles<owcanlearnrfigure'm outIFnotinDIC?(minan=MOSTLYspokn,sure81.11.219.175 18:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean we should look at KTV songs for lyrics/subtitles for guidance with Min Nan Hanzi. We could use them to "cite actual usage", "in the wild" (WT:WFW)...as long as we establish "proof of usage" and do not violate copyright. As to using 闽南方言大词典, I am concerned we may well be violating copyright (in addition to falling short on sources) if we use unique Hanzi spellings that author 周长楫 created. Hongthay (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


Neither a common misspelling nor variant spelling. This spelling is not verifiable in any of the following references for Taiwanese Hokkien: MoE, Tw-Ch, Maryknoll, or Tai-nichi Dai Jiten. Appears to be a one-off from one author in one publication. Refer to article talk page. Hongthay (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

(copy pasted from the talk page of the article) I understand your concern of it being found only in one entry. But for me, the thing is that 闽南方言大词典 is the most, if not the most, comprehensive dictionary/reference on Hokkien/Min Nan. It mostly contains words used in Mainland China (specifically Quanzhou, Xiamen, and Zhangzhou) while also elaborating on district-specific dialects in the latter part. It also has a section of Taiwanese-specific words at the start and that's where I got 米汝. I understand that Taiwanese don't use these characters in this context, but in my opinion, I would say that 闽南方言大词典 is really in the Top 3, if not Top 1, of possible references for Min Nan. Considering how few super complete dictionaries are in Min Nan, this is like a Min Nan Bible. I dare say that it's the most complete. Therefore, I think we shouldn't ignore its contents, specifically, 米汝. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep, if the term is in 闽南方言大词典. Verifying Min Nan or any Chinese term, which is not standard Chinese or Mandarin is not easy. With Min Nan specifically - both for various spellings in Chinese characters and in POJ (Pe̍h-ōe-jī).
BTW, @Mar vin kaiser, are you able to check if Min Nan POJ "tha-khú-sih" spelling or a similar term for "taxi" is in this dictionary and has a Chinese character form, please? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@Atitarev Thanks. By the way, the way 闽南方言大词典 wrote the word "taxi", the word in Taiwanese Hokkien that was borrowed from Japanese, is 塔區蝕。Although the pronunciation transcription is "thah-khú-sih", obviously that's just an approximation. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Mar vin kaiser. Thanks. Perhaps POJ should be "thah-khu-si̍h", not "tha-khú-sih", to match ""? Could you also check "bá-sirh" ("bus") in the dictionary, please? I've got a Min Nan-Mandarin-Japanese phrasebook (with CD) "台湾語会話フレーズブック". remarkably, there is no single Min Nan word in it written in POJ, all words are written in Chinese characters. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Atitarev I see no need to match the POJ with the Chinese characters, since what we need is actual pronunciations. For bá-suh (-sirh), I think it could just be 巴士 (see [6], [7], [8]). For tha-khú-sih, it's more commonly written as 塔庫西. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I actually agree that if there's a common character rendering for these Japanese borrowings, that should be the one considered. Although it should be noted that for 塔庫西, it's based on using Mandarin pronunciations of the characters to approximate the pronunciation in Hokkien. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
That's not surprising since education in Taiwan is mainly in Mandarin. This phenomenon can be seen in many words, like 今嘛 (for 這馬). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


Created by User:DTLHS. It was a move from chernozemic, which he converted into an alternative form entry. Some previous discussion can be found at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2016/August. To sum it up, though the majority of sources he found were used with the capital letter rather than the lowercase, I still think it's inappropriate to have an entry for it. I feel that this is an improper capitalization, and it happens a lot. As I said in the tea room, a lot, and I do mean a lot, of English speakers will capitalize common noun, adjective, or other POS words that they find complex, rare, or unique in some other way. This is nonstandard, however, and a misconception of what is supposed to and not supposed to be capitalized. I've seen this happen so much in all sorts of documents; on Wikipedia (especially), in books, essays, various websites and blogs, signs, and heck, it even happens here on Wiktionary definitions sometimes, in which case I try to change it so that it has the correct capitalization. It isn't more commonly done by "just some guy on a chat site or blog" either, I've seen this capitalization misconception done in so many professional documents by people of so many expertise levels, so this chemistry-related documentation case doesn't surprise me. What I'm telling you right now is what seems to be happening here at the sources that use "Chernozemic" rather than "chernozemic" which I believe would be the proper capitalization, since chernozem is not supposed to be capitalized at all, especially since it's not an eponym. I find this case interesting, since it doesn't seem to happen here often, and I feel like we should make some further guidelines on the capitalization policies as a result of this discussion. Philmonte101 (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not a reason for deletion. You can clearly see the widespread use of the capitalized form. We're not in the business of saying what is and isn't nonstandard. DTLHS (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
So, giving a hypothetical situation, should I add Lexicon as an entry, for example? Since this term has, I can almost guarantee without even looking, been improperly capitalized many times in the past in many documents. If I dig around enough, I could find 3 sources and add them, so it would be verifiable. But do we really need this kind of thing here? It's not proper English. You can find hundreds if not thousands of documents and webpages online that tell when it is and isn't appropriate to capitalize English words. I'd say, in the case of a common adjective that is not based on an eponym, that it is not appropriate to capitalize. Philmonte101 (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
On another note, you could say somewhere on the existing chernozemic entry that it is more often seen to be improperly capitalized. I feel like that would be appropriate. Philmonte101 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you can find citations of Lexicon being used in the manner you described. And if you can I would consider it worth having an entry since it seems unusual. DTLHS (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
And writers commonly capitalized common nouns before the 19th century, so modern citations please. DTLHS (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'm not retracting my claim about Lexicon, but I'm just saying that maybe I gave a bad example, since the word lexicon is in much more common use than chernozemic. However, I'll add in another example. I'll see what I can find with these too. Antiliberal, Technophobia. Since these seem to be just a little bit less common, so people would consider them more exotic and have the urge to capitalize them. Perhaps I should look at some old entries I created for rare words as well. I remember a lot of sources improperly capitalized those words, so I feel it would be inappropriate to have an entry for those at all.
What I'm trying to say here is that if we included these improper capitalizations in Wiktionary even as "miscapitalization entries", then we would have tens of thousands of miscapitalization entries for the (estimated, not backed up by anything) estimated tens of thousands of rare words added here. One could even say the same thing as User:Equinox said about typo entries; "ridiculous clutter in a dictionary." Sorry to be so frank. Philmonte101 (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
So I'm going on a dumpster dive through Books, Groups, and News documents for modern uses of Lexicon, Technophobia, and Antiliberal, and capitalized forms of entries I've created in the past. I'll try to especially find ones that are used in the way I said rather than as parts of proper nouns. Be back in a few hours, likely, or maybe tomorrow! Philmonte101 (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I've decided that, since it will make a lot of clutter here on this discussion, I'm going to put my usage examples all on User:Philmonte101/Improper capitalizations, collectively, so check back there from time to time. Philmonte101 (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@ User:DTLHS and anyone else who wants to comment, I've thrown in the towel for the night on User:Philmonte101/Improper capitalizations. You might wanna look these usages over, even though all except one example was from Groups. I'll probably add more examples later as I find them, but it drives my point to the ground about miscapitalizations being used for a great variety of terms; in the context of animals, mechanics, careers, medicine, etc. I found only one so far that is definitely attested (under our current miscapitalization entry standards); Chickadee. And that's unfortunate because that's one of my favorite words. Once I find enough examples of words used this way under our current standards, I should probably bring this up in BP. But for now, it's not enough for that. Although, it does give you a great view on common miscapitalizations and why they probably should or shouldn't be here as entries. Philmonte101 (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
It is cool that you tried to do some research but your reasoning about what you found seems to be totally arbitrary and made up. I don't think your page proves anything. Equinox 20:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
What is "made up" about it? I give example quotations; those are 100% real. All I did was give my personal comments on them; those aren't what you should be relying on. The quotations themselves are more important than my own comments. In other words, I'm asking what the community's interpretations on quotations such as these are? What do you think about them? Philmonte101 (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
You suggest that miscapping is a result of (i) copying a book title or (ii) some kind of typo or error, or (iii) things you're "not sure" about. You don't seem to address the idea that there is a difference in register between informal Usenet slang, possibly typed in a hurry, and technical books about soil science. If I had to come up with a random hunch, I would think that perhaps some people are under the mistaken impression that "Chernozem" is a place or a person, and therefore "chernozemic" needs capping like "Parisian" or "Einsteinian". But that guess would offer no more evidence of any kind than you have. Equinox 20:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
In particular, bear in mind that scientific and academic texts are usually proof-read by editors in a way that Usenet postings are not. Equinox 20:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I found a quotation from 1944 that suggests there is a "Chernozemic region". DTLHS (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
It looks to me like they're talking about a region that is chernozemic, not to a specific entity called "Chernozemic" or "Chernozeme" or whatnot. But good find. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, I've seen miscapitalizations of industrialization in my history textbook that I had a few months ago. And "Industrialization" was in two places at least in that book, I remember it clear and well. (If only the textbook were archived somewhere online where it could be viewed by anyone or if I had it on hand I could take a picture and show you on imgur). Plus, I gave an example from a video game manual, which was, as I'd say, supposed to have been proofread. They capitalized medical terms that don't need to be capitalized, and literally started capitalizing every word after the commas.
Why did I scratch that out? Well it seems that that is actually an okay thing to capitalize in some senses, since it was described as "the Industrialization era". Historical eras are generally capitalized. I retract my claim about Industrializaton. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay in that case, since I haven't driven my point across, I'm going to do some Wikipedia-like research, and write an essay/article for you on my user namespace with references from external sources about capitalization standards in the English language. I'm telling you guys, there are standards for capitalization, at least that many would agree upon, and I'm gonna get to the bottom of this. Once I find enough examples of miscapitalization, and complete the essay, I'm bringing this issue up in BP. You can find my essay later at User:Philmonte101/English capitalization standards. Philmonte101 (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Philmonte101 I think I know what's going on now. "Chernozemic" capitalized is the name of an "order" of soils (page 3), analogous to a biological taxonomic order. That's why it's capitalized. DTLHS (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@DTLHS Okay. That's very good, and very informative. I'd originally thought that this was a miscapitalization such as ones you find in manuals, like falsely capitalizing disorders such as tendonitis. Is it okay to take off the deletion tag now? (Though I still think we should discuss further the issue of miscapitalizations on Wiktionary, preferably on BP) But if there's a standard of capitalizing this adjective to distinguish it from the uncapitalized form, I think it should be kept. Philmonte101 (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per DTLHS. DCDuring TALK 18:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It's suboptimal that both entries contain definitions when it seems like one could use {{altcaps}}, but the above discussion suggests that it's justifiable for both entries to exist (so, keep). - -sche (discuss) 21:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Kept per the discussion.​—msh210 (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


SOP Chuck Entz (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't we usually consider compounds joined by a hyphen to be single words? Surely this is no more SOP than above-water, battery-powered, or bear-whelp. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
No, we don't. Those hyphenated entries that are there are either 1. idiomatic or 2. can stay because of COALMINE. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
German spelling uses hyphens differently and can even make do without them. In any case, Vierzylinderbenziner and Vierzylinder-Benziner have as little right to entries as four-cylinder gasoline motor and four-cylinder gasoline car and as three-bedroom house, four-bedroom house... three-bedroom apartment... etc. --Espoo (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
If Vierzylinderbenziner is attestable, it unambiguously meets CFI (as compounds written together are always considered single words) and should be included, and if it's less common than the hyphenated version, then Vierzylinder-Benziner is also to be kept by COALMINE. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I can find Vierzylinderbenziner without a hyphen in the online versions of several print newspapers. Presumably the print editions use the same spelling, making it attested in permanently archived sources. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Then we obviously need to change the CFI for German because otherwise we'd end up with many more German than English entries. In the CFI, we need to take into account that different languages have different writing systems. It's obvious that it makes no sense to include concepts in one language that are obviously excluded in others. I don't see anyone suggesting we start adding entries for four-cylinder motor and four-bedroom house. --Espoo (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I see no problem in having many more German entries than English entries. We aren't paper. We are a dictionary of words, not of concepts, which is why we allow entries like schweigen but not be silent. If German has many more words than English, so be it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The whole point is that German obviously doesn't have many more words than English, so the current CFI's definition of what is a word is badly designed and too much based on English to be useful for a global dictionary. More specifically, it's obvious that a rule that would allow 8 or even more entries in any language for the expressions one-bedroom apartment, two-bedroom apartment, etc. would simply be a bad idea because it would cause completely unmanageable amounts of articles that need to be maintained.
These expressions and an almost unlimited number of similar groups exist in all languages irrespective of whether they are written with spaces or hyphens or nothing between the parts, and they all need to be banned.
I just checked and the German Wiktionary only has Ein- and Zweizimmerwohnung but not Dreizimmmerwohnung etc. The current CFI would produce an unmanageable and almost unimaginable flood of German words if anyone started to automate the creation of new lemmas. --Espoo (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that Zimmer has a specific meaning in this context; it counts bedrooms and living rooms but not e. g. kitchens or bathrooms. That should be mentioned somewhere. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The number of entries our policies might permit simply isn't an issue. There is no maximum permissible number of German entries at Wiktionary. CFI won't allow one-bedroom apartment because it's not one word, it's either two (one-bedroom + apartment) or three (one + bedroom + apartment), but it will allow Zweizimmerwohnung because that's one word. (It is not immediately relevant to this discussion, but nevertheless interesting for an English speaker encountering German, to know that Zweizimmerwohnung means "one-bedroom apartment", not "two-bedroom apartment".) The only limit CFI puts on the German words is attestability: if we can't find three independent cites in durably archived sources for Neunzehnzimmerwohnung, we're not going to include it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The number of entries CFI permits is most definitely an issue because an unmanageable flood of entries would make it impossible to ensure the quality of Wiktionary. There would simply be too many terms at some point for the number of editors to ensure that large amounts of low-quality or incorrect information is not added and to make it possible to maintain the quality of such a large number of entries in case a similar change or improvement needs to be implemented in all of the variants of a term like <N>zimmerwohnung.
So the problem is not Neunzimmerwohnung or other extremely rare variants but the large number of similar groups of multipart terms with "only" rare or trivial variants.
Just like "high school" and most other compound nouns in English, "one-bedroom apartment" is most definitely one word. It's simply a convention in English to write compound modifiers together or with a hyphen and to write compound nouns in parts separated by spaces. "High school" is a concept whereas "big school" is not. If it became a concept, it should obviously not be a CFI whether or not the name for this possible new school type is written "big school" or "big-school" or "bigschool". --Espoo (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think we're going about this backwards. We should first determine if an unhyphenated form meets CFI; if so, we should include it and include the hyphenated form if it also meets CFI. By using CFI-worthiness as a throttle, we can substantially limit the introduction of these terms. bd2412 T 19:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
There's actually no protection for single words in WT:CFI anyway, we just never delete them if they exist. Hyphen forms are generally a gray area but are I think rejected by most as always being single words. Faster-than-light for example, in my opinion, is not a 'single word' just several words linked by hyphens. It's one of the functions of a hyphen. Widsith always maintains that the OED considers all hyphen forms to be single words, but I've literally asked him about 20 times for supporting evidence and he's never produced any. Which makes me think he might have simply misremembered. He could have read whatever it was 30 years ago for all we know. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete unless the unhyphenated version is attested, in which case we would need to compare their relative commonness to determine in COALMINE applied. - -sche (discuss) 19:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

azoxy compound[edit]

azoxy + compound DTLHS (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • True, but it (or its plural) seems to be the normal lemma in chemical dictionaries e.g. [9]. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Chemical dictionaries may have different lemmatization practices. --WikiTiki89 15:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


As we have azoxy(relating to or containing the group −N(O)=N−) [per MWOnline, not per enwikt], which I assume is correctly defined and used per that definition in the challenged term, delete SoP. I wouldn't object to redirection to [[azoxy]]. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
What DCD said.​—msh210 (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Redirected.​—msh210 (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]


This is one of a whole series of prefix entries where User:BrunoMed copied the content whole from prefixes ending with vowels to spellings without those vowels. Most of them I've dealt with so far were obvious nonsense, and I've deleted or reworked them (as well as blocking BrunoMed for a few days for disruptive edits). This one, though, is just plausible enough to bring it here.

This seems to me to be a variant of bacteria used in compounds, rather than a prefix. It might also be interpreted as an alternative form of bacterio-, but that seems less likely. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/bacter- (and the other one) and neither of them seem to be linked to which suggests perhaps there are no terms formed using them. I quite like RFV for that reason. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
They've only just been created, so it's not surprising they haven't been used. There are two entries, bacteraemia, and bacteroid, that could be construed as evidence for this, and a number of words starting with bacteri- not followed by either -a or- um (or -o, since bacterio- seems to be legitimate), that could be construed as evidence for bacteri-. Like I said, though, these seem to be compounds of bacterium or bacteria with part or all of the endings deleted. The etymology at bacteraemia at least, needs to be fixed either way, since the term refers to bacteria in the blood, not small staffs. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


As above


SoP, isn't it? The citation refers to "memory-full messages", which is like "out-of-paper error" on a printer. Equinox 19:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 20:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
What's the difference with law-abiding, game-time decision, dwelling-place, statically-typed, girl-on-girl? If to uphold SoP as a standard for all hyphenated words, all these and many more should be deleted by the same token. And what about conservation of mass? If the hyphenated word is SoP, but is very frequently spelled with hyphen(s), does this qualify it to stay in Wiktionary? There should be the rule about this. IMO, frequent spelling of the word should probably qualify it to stay despite being SoP. Yurivict (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
You've listed a lot of different cases and I have no intention of commenting on them all. The general consensus is that several words linked by hyphens should be treated as if they were by spaces. But something like re-elect is a single word as it is a variant of reelect. I disagree with your analysis entirely. Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
So do you think we should have "out of paper", or "out-of-paper", or "out-of-paper error", as entries? Your examples are a mixed bag. However, I'll look at one: "law-abiding" is not used on its own, but only in the adjective position. This is not true of "memory full". Equinox 18:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


SOP --YURi (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thai entered to mean to recite a mantra. The sum is สวด ‎(“to recite”) +‎ มนต์ ‎(“mantra”).
I am inclined to keep since this is present in http://dictionary.sanook.com/search/สวดมนต์ as "to pray", but that is a weak argument. One difficulty is that Thai does not use spaces for word separation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep. I think this word simply means "to pray" (intransitive) สวด(sùuat) + มนต์(mon) (มนต์ is a variant of มนตร์(mon)). The verbal noun การสวดมนต์(gaan-sùuat-mon, prayer) is included in Sanook as well.
สวดมนต์(sùuat-mon) is also defined in two other online dictionaries: [10] and [11]. The definition is "to pray". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

As a native speaker, I'd like to confirm that "สวดมนต์" never means "to pray". To pray (to offer a prayer) is generally translated as "ภาวนา" in Thai. "สวดมนต์" just means to recite/chant a mantra (or any other religious formula). --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


SOP --YURi (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thai entered to mean "to ransom somebody". The sum is ไถ่ ‎(“to ransom”) +‎ ตัว ‎(“body”). Before diff, it was entered as a noun, to mean "ransom". dictionary.sanook.com has it, as a verb[12]. Thai does not use spaces to separate words. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


An uncommon misspelling of ซอปี๊บ(sɔɔ-bpíip). And not an alternative form thereof, because ปีบ(bpìip) and ปี๊บ(bpíip) have completely different meanings and are never used alternatively. --YURi (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


SOP --YURi (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Now defined as "act of making food" but was defined as "cooking". Created by User:Alifshinobi, who is Th-3. The sum is การ ‎(“abstract noun prefix”) +‎ ทำ ‎(“to make”) +‎ อาหาร ‎(“food”). I would submit that not every making food is cooking; does this only mean cooking? Seems absent from dictionary.sanook.com[13]. "cooking" is consistent with Google Translate. If this means cooking, it is not sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

bless á meðan[edit]

For the same reason we don't have bye for now. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The English translation is "bye for now", and google books:"bye for now" phrasebook finds some phrasebooks including Spanish Among Amigos Phrasebook, Collins Gem Afrikaans Phrasebook and Dictionary, and Yacky Dar Moy Bewty!: A Phrasebook for the Regions of Britain: With Irish Supplement. Thus, use something like the lemming heuristic based on the English phrases. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    SOP phrasebook entries in CFI: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

bless í bili[edit]

Again, SOP just like bye for now as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The English translation is "bye for now", and google books:"bye for now" phrasebook finds some phrasebooks including Spanish Among Amigos Phrasebook, Collins Gem Afrikaans Phrasebook and Dictionary, and Yacky Dar Moy Bewty!: A Phrasebook for the Regions of Britain: With Irish Supplement. Thus, use something like the lemming heuristic based on the English phrases. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    SOP phrasebook entries in CFI: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

viltu tala svolítið hægar[edit]

Not useless per se, but not usually a phrasebook entry and has no corresponding English entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The English translation is "please talk more slowly". google books:"please talk more slowly" phrase does find German Phrases For Dummies, Korean at a Glance: Phrase Book and Dictionary for Traveler and Colloquial Polish: The Complete Course for Beginners. Thus, apply the lemming heuristic for the English phrase. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    SOP phrasebook entries in CFI: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep if not SOP. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

það er aldeilis[edit]

A truly useless Icelandic phrase unless this is somehow idiomatic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Abstain. The translation is "That's really something!" It does feel like something for phrasebook. However, {{b.g.c|"That's really something" does not give me enough hits; I find the English phrase in http://www.deitshbooks.com/files/Phrase%20Book%208-27-13.pdf - Pennsylvania German Phrase Book, 2013, D. Miller. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    SOP phrasebook entries in CFI: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Doesn't seem SOP, not sure it's dictionary material, not sure how many users would find it if they needed it, but it's the kind of phrase people, very few people, would want to look up. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

það er rétt[edit]

Not appropriate phrasebook material. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The English translation is "that's correct"; google books:"that's correct" phrasebook" finds phrasebooks with such entries, and I would use something like a lemming heuristic for phrasebooks, based on search for English terms. And it feels intuitively to be a suitable phrasebook entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    SOP phrasebook entries in CFI: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

það var leitt[edit]

Not appropriate phrasebook material. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain. The English translation is "that's a pity"; google books:"that's a pity" phrasebook find at least one book that looks like a phrasebook, Phrases for everyday communication: die richtigen Worte zur richtiger Zeit, John Stevens, 2009. I am not sure one book is enough, and whether that one book is even a phrasebook proper. However, it feels intuitively to be a suitable phrasebook entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    Keep: this could be also translated as "what a pity", and google books:"what a pity" phrasebook yields The Spanish Teacher and Colloquial Phrasebook, Francis Butler, 1864; Fijian Phrasebook, Paul A. Geraghty, 1994; The Rough Guide to Portuguese Dictionary Phrasebook, Lexus, 2000; Baltic Phrasebook, Eva Aras, ‎Jana Teteris, 2001‎; etc. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    SOP phrasebook entries in CFI: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

гость дипсотрудника[edit]

"дипсотрудник" is a term, which can be created but "гость дипсотрудника" actually means "guest of a diplomatic officer", LOL. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

On one hand, the entry claims that this form is used on visas; if that's true, I would expect it to be found on other government papers (enough to meet wt:attest). And if this shortening is really used on visas with this meaning, the difference from the literal meaning might increase its idiomaticity. But on the other hand I can only find a few hundred Google hits (including this one) and no Books hits, which suggests the term/meaning is not used. (So abstain. If the term survives RFD it could/should ve RFVed.) - -sche (discuss) 15:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
It may appear on the visa but the translation is wrong and there's nothing idiomati about it. The meaning is "guest of a diplomatic officer" or "diplomatic worker's guest". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I've added entry дипсотру́дник(dipsotrúdnik) with a usage example. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Atitarev, -sche: Oh hi guys, thank you for following the entry! Well, since some of you claim that дипсотрудника should be established as an independent entry, then this phrase is potentially deletable .. However, I do want to point out it may be the case that, this phrase (appearing on a Russian visa) is the only instance of usage of дипсотрудника. Anyone has a good old Russiphone friend? :P -- SzMithrandir (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

amor incondicional[edit]

Just here for linking convenience. Read the above discussion (in the case that this is archived later, see Talk:unconditional love for the details) PseudoSkull (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


Sum of parts. 大使館 + 付き + 武官. —suzukaze (tc) 05:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep. It is not that clear. See also w:ja:駐在武官. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


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)

excuse me[edit]

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)

Chinese names for provinces and municipalities - name + type of political division[edit]

SOP; all in the form "name + type of political division":

— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep the province names. 黑龍江黑龙江 (Hēilóngjiāng) and 黑龍江省黑龙江省 (Hēilóngjiāngshěng) are different. 四川 (Sìchuān) includes Chongqing while 四川省 (Sìchuānshěng) doesn’t. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
How does 四川 include Chongqing in current usage? Yes, it was part of Sichuan before becoming a direct-controlled municipality, but I don't think that would mean 四川省 is not SOP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete proper noun A + 省/市/區/鎮/縣/島/鄉 which is synonymous with pn A itself. I like the format at 平潭. Wyang (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete per Wyang. —suzukaze (tc) 06:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleting one by one. It will take a while.--Jusjih (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

aibhleog bheo[edit]

Equally SOP as live coal. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I've added the relevant sense to beo, so this can be deleted. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
What is live coal? Renard Migrant (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
See sense 14 of live#Adjective. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:10, 28 September 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[14]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

acción programada[edit]

Can't see how this is NISOP...--Q9ui5ckflash (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

So why are you nominating it? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I meant to say I can't see how this isn't NISOP --Q9ui5ckflash (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

yo soy británica[edit]

yo soy británico[edit]

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] (talk) 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)

Le God[edit]

LOL, a nickname for Matt Le Tissier!!! Correct, yes, but....really? --Q9ui5ckflash (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As long as it's just voting delete, but I don't have a reason. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Word that people might want to look up, describing an individual entity with words not exclusively used for that entity. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Kept due to lack of consensus to delete. Also because the keepers gave reasons and the deleters did not.​—msh210 (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

October 2016[edit]

Øresund Bridge[edit]

Not dictionary material? PseudoSkull (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It's the longest bridge that connects two countries, as well as the longest combined road and rail bridge in Europe (see e.g. [15], though I think you can easily find a better source). I'd say that's about enough to make it notable. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not just a bridge either, part of the crossing is in tunnel. If we have an entry for the Channel Tunnel (and rightly so) we should keep this as an important European transport link. An entry for Øresund is also obviously needed. DonnanZ (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
So is inclusion of these kinds of proper names based on a notability test? If any inclusion criteria are established or clarified as a result of this discussion then it would be useful to add them to WT:CFI which seems pretty vague right now. Mihia (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm strongly inclined to keep place names like this when they have nonobvious translations into other languages, which this entry certainly does. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
CFI is deliberately vague as quite simply, there is no consensus among editors so it can't reflect one. My view on this one is a genuinely don't care. Is it really any different from Eiffel Tower in any way apart from being less well-known among English speakers? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Aren't we supposed to record the language as it is used and not what is "correct". Google Ngram finds no hits for "Øresund Bridge" or "Öresund Bridge", but finds about equal number of hits for "Oresund Bridge" and "Oresund bridge". We should redirect this to "Oresund Bridge". --Hekaheka (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes. So keep, but only as an alternative form of Oresund Bridge. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I suspect the use of Oresund instead of Øresund may be due to convenience for those who haven't set up a Danish or Norwegian keyboard facility on their computer. DonnanZ (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course, but Oresund is still the most frequently used spelling. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Google Books Ngrams isn't all that thorough. Something that gets no hits on Ngrams may get 300 hits on Google Books. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Google Books: Oresund B. 2200, Øresund B. 1200, Öresund B. 700. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Right, but it says nothing about spelling, nor does it give useful guidance on the key question of keeping or not keeping. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
It tells you that it is up to you to decide. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Incorrectly treated, given our ethos of recording the language as it is actually used. "Sao Tome and Principe" is more popular by a huge margin in Ngram, and more than twice as popular in Google Books as São Tomé and Príncipe. Ordinary Google search is difficult to judge due to overlap, but there "Sao Tome and Principe" beats its rival by 99-13. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
It may be the official name though, like Côte d'Ivoire, which is shunned in English, except perhaps by governments. DonnanZ (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, right. In that case the entry should read: "The official name of the state of Sao Tome and Principe. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the offical name São Tomé e Príncipe rather than São Tomé and Príncipe? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
In Portuguese, sure, but what about English? In Finnish the official name is São Tomé ja Príncipe. Just like Republic of Ireland is Irlannin tasavalta, both official names, but in different languages. --Hekaheka (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


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[edit]

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-sounding "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)


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)


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)


"A delimiter used after the protocol in URLs" (as in http://). Not human language. I can't even begin to imagine anyone picking this out of a URL as a specific element and looking it up in a dictionary to see what it means. Equinox 12:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep Delete but add a new sense at ":" meaning "protocol delimiter", for the same reasons we keep "@" as:
  1. (computing) The symbol used as a separator between a username and a domain name in an e-mail address ("at" the domain name).
    My e-mail address is psychonaut@example.com.
There are people who are not aware of how URLs work and may wonder why they have a colon and two slashes at the beginning. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
There are people who wonder what happens if you mix ammonia and bleach (don't try it!), but we don't need to include that in a dictionary either. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
That was funny. I agree that what happens if you mix ammonia and bleach is not dictionary material. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
delete, the definition is actually completely wrong. The delimiter (after the protocol name) would be just the colon, the double slashes that come after that start a URI path. As such it is possible to have links in webpages that start with // and the browser will automatically fill in http: or https: depending on whether you're currently using a secure connection or not. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. We have a related networking sense at // which could be further edited with that information. The entry : does not have the "protocol delimiter" sense... I'm not willing to add it now, because the inclusion of computing symbols is under discussion, but it can be added eventually if people agree. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete. In addition to what Pedrianaplant said above, this is not used in human language. --WikiTiki89 13:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
"Human language" as opposed to what? URLs are for people to read and use. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Not primarily. Humans do not instinctively think in phone numbers or URLs; we have to mentally map "Bob's new mobile number" or "the address of that funny blog" to a phone number or URL in order to use a system, to which that format is native. Equinox 14:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
We have ("figure dash") defined as "Used to separate digits in telephone numbers." Admittedly, I'm partially responsible for that definition -- I believe the entry did not make a lot of sense before I edited it. Feel free to see the history for yourself. You mentioned telephone numbers. Is the figure dash definition not acceptable? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I too was going to use the example of phone numbers. Phone numbers are for people to read, right? Are they words or idioms? Do we want entries for all attestable phone numbers? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we're not on the same page. Creating entries for phone numbers feels like creating entries for specific website URLs. The way I see it, a phone number like 555-1234 could be interpreted as simlply a SOP of 5 5 5 - 1 2 3 4. The figure dash () appears to be used in telephone numbers, and personally I would expect that dash to be kept as an entry. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Well what about pictures? Pictures can convey information, shall we include those too? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
In User talk:Equinox#emoji monster, I discussed some of my opinions concerning emoji and pictographs. I support deleting most of our emoji entries that only have the Unicode codepoint name as their definition. I support keeping those that are correctly attested in running text. Either way, they are not the same as URL delimiters. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
The :// is actually composed of : (protocol delimiter) and // (network root symbol) and they just come together in URLs. As sometimes you can see :\\ (backslashes) either. --Octahedron80 (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom: Not human language. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete: it is just the protocol delimiter (:) and the network root ([[//]]). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

sea mammal[edit]

SOP just like #marine mammal. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete as undefendable under CFI. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless there are some clearly defined boundaries regarding what does and doesn't fall into this category of animals. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete DCDuring TALK 01:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Abstain: I would like to keep this but cannot find a good enough rationale. The current translations in marine mammal are word-for-word translated compounds so they do not contribute to my version of translation target rationale: Finnish merinisäkäs, German Meeressäuger, Norwegian sjøpattedyr; there is Hebrew which I cannot figure out quickly; I wonder about Japanese "海獣" which seems to be "marine animal" rather than "marine mammal" from its parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    Switching to keep per #marine mammal: polar bear is the culprit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as per marine mammal above. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Note to closer: marine mammal has been kept. DonnanZ (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
    Donnanz, why don't you review the RFD before you jump to keeping your own entry? 5 people (me, RM, AS, DCD, U2764) voted to delete it and 3 (you, DP, and SoC) voted to keep it. That's 62.5% in favour of deleting it. The fairest thing to do would be to add {{look}} if you want to get more input; a disinterested party might judge it to be "no consensus", but there certainly is no consensus to keep it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
As this entry links to marine mammal which has been removed from this list, I think it is quite fair to leave a note. DonnanZ (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

hosts file[edit]

Unless I missed something this should die the same slow painful death as .htaccess file did. It's a file called "hosts", the rest is encyclopedic information. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I would say keep, providing it's correct. It may be useful for those who aren't familiar with computing terms. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something hosts doesn't cover this. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
It's a file that lists hosts (see host), like how a "pictures folder" might be a folder containing pictures. However, the fact that it maps host names to IP addresses makes it possibly more than SoP. Equinox 15:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Does it? If I save a file in my My Documents folder with the name "hosts", does it map host names to IP addresses? By that logic .htaccess file would be idiomatic and so desktop.ini file, config.sys file, autoexec.bat file and don't even get me started. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
A sysadmin would not recognise any old random file called hosts as being a "hosts file". It's not like "brown leaf". (BTW, I don't read this as "hosts" file but as hosts file. Compare help file: it's a file that contains help, not a file that is called "help".) Equinox 17:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:20, 11 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)


This is not a common noun as the entry suggests, but the name of a specific law passed under Nazi German rule. We shouldn't have names of laws as entries. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Um, why not if it's of historical interest? Etymology needs to be added, breaking the term up. DonnanZ (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
    It sure looks like a common noun. Can you prove it's a law? It's not exactly like the Offences against the Person Act now is it. Keep, obviously. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Verordnung means "regulation, ordinance, statutory instrument". I checked some articles that I could read over internet and it appears this actually is the name of a piece of legislation. To be more exact it's short (!) for "die Verordnung über die Beschränkung des Arbeitsplatzwechsels" [16] which was issued on Sept. 1st 1939 in order to control the change of employment during the WWII--Hekaheka (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Governed by WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, as this is considered as a word in German. And we keep all words. Lmaltier (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

dans un temps donné[edit]

For the same reason that at a given time is a redlink. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Is the meaning right? Dans in this sense is 'during' not 'at' (I have imported that meaning from fr:dans#fr) so it ought to mean during a given time. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: You may well be right, but wouldn't it still be SOP in that case? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
delete nothing special about this. --Fsojic (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

myeloid cell[edit]

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)

I need shampoo[edit]

Common household object, covered by I need .... (According to Talk:I need shampoo, it should be "I need some shampoo" if kept.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't really see the point of RFDing individual phrasebookisms. Equinox 00:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Why not? I believe we don't need "I need shampoo" as a separate entry, so apparently I have 3 options: RFDing it, speedying it or leaving it alone. The first option seemed to make more sense to me. Or maybe speedying. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
If the consensus says that it's covered by "I need..." then we should just delete all "I need X" outright. Equinox 00:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Is that the consensus? I don't think that was ever decided by discussion... I checked Special:WhatLinksHere/I_need_... and just found some individual RFDs that failed. But at least I think that nobody cares for most "I need" entries, which does sound consensus-ish. I think I'll speedy them all (I need a guide, I need toothpaste, I need gas, etc.) and leave only I need ... and I need a drink (which passed RFD recently). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that the phrasebook ("I don't speak French, but I'm in France and I want to be able to say something") is the one possible good case for having SoP entries. Someone who's stuck with a flat tyre, or no toothpaste, will not thank us for having a translation of "I need..." and ellipsis. Equinox 01:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought that your previous message [the one from 00:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)] implied that you agreed with the idea of deleting all "I need X" outright. And your comment in Talk:I need a compass suggests you see some utility in having I need .... But now it seems that you would prefer them to be kept? Me, I think I need ... is pretty useless because it's still an incomplete sentence that requires a noun to be added, so it's not incredibly more helpful than just I + need. But I also don't think that we need a separate entry for "I need" + every possible object, so the I need ... is the best option we have for now, in my opinion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Just delete the entire stupid phrasebook and start again with useful entries. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
In a Phrasebook: namespace. - TheDaveRoss 12:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The phrasebook is great, IMO. Just some entries are garbage. Admittedly, I created I need shampoo in 2010. Now I'd like to delete that entry. Here is not the place to discuss having a "Phrasebook:" namespace, and other policies that affect all PB entries. I think we should be answering the question: As long as we have some phrasebook entries, would this one qualify? I think not. I'm still going to speedy all the aforementioned entries if it's OK with everyone. If there's any doubt or controversy, I can keep RFDing one by one, if that's better. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't need this entry. I'm bald. --Hekaheka (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Haha! I'm far from being bald, but I see no value in keeping this entry. DonnanZ (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
WP:BEBALD. Equinox 10:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

hot plate[edit]

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)


Tagged a couple of weeks ago by User:Ballot man jr but not listed here. Equinox 11:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it attestable? I'm not keen on the hyphen, and prefer diarist anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Most of what I can find is unhyphenated, except:
  • Joanne Tidwell, 2008, Politics and Aesthetics in The Diary of Virginia Woolf, p. 42: Woolf wants the diary-writer to consider her days and activities and evaluate political and current events. (isbn=1135905053)
  • Margaret Atwood, 2002, Negotiating with the Dead: A Writer on Writing, p. 126: If he were, either you'd be talking together, or he'd catch you in the act. For whom does the writer write? The question poses itself most simply in the case of the diary-writer or journal-keeper. (isbn=0521662605) --Hekaheka (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
It could be moved to diary writer. I'm wondering whether it's used in contexts where the word diarist isn't appropriate. DonnanZ (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. It is a writer of a diary, how obvious can you get? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
You're missing my point. When do you use diary writer instead of diarist? It reminds me of the accordion player entry. DonnanZ (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 21:06, 30 November 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 [17]. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

frame work knitter[edit]

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

frame work knitter,framework knitter at Google Ngram Viewer does not even find the spelling so no frequency ratio = count(framework knitter) / count(frame work knitter) can be determined. I am not sure this is attested since google books:"frame work knitter" finds hyphenated occurrences. Delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


A 2016‎ rare misspelling entry by Romanophile. Governed by WT:CFI#Spellings.

(angery*10000), angry at Google Ngram Viewer yields the approximate frequency ratio of 10 000 which is too high for common misspellings, by my lights. For ratio calibration, see User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Only the very rifest misspellings should be included, else wherever would it end. Mihia (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous. This is clearly widespread use. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/“angery” — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 21:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has bothered to address my legitimate observation. If this continues, I’ll be forced to terminate the nomination by myself. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 15:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

No objections; nomination deleted. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


SOP: 蓬萊 + (city). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Redirect Siuenti (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

pay dividends[edit]

This is a lousy entry anyway, created to house a POV quote and poorly defined. More to the point here, there are a number of expressions using the metaphor of beneficial results from some metaphorical investment (an action, time and effort, etc.) as a dividend, so this is SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Possible keep. There may be something in this, if it's expanded a bit - looking at Oxford [18] (sense 1.3). It gives some examples. It's a different meaning to pay a dividend. DonnanZ (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
    I think dividend is used in the figurative sense in both the singular and the plural with pay and in other collocations.
Delete. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Citations demonstrating figurative use of dividend with pay appear under sense 3 of dividend. Do we need to show figurative use of pay with other objects too? Both "figurative" uses seem kind of obvious, widespread use. DCDuring TALK 22:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I've always considered this an idiom, and I'm surprised we've not had it at all until now. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
But there is abundant use of the figurative sense of dividends. Pay + dividends is just a common collocation, carrying over from the literal to the fgurative use of dividend(s). DCDuring TALK 14:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
It might help to list some of them (often with modifiers): repaid, brought, bore, realized, ensured, reaped, yielded, derived, there were, had, etc. Basically, we're looking at a metaphor that's expressed in a number of ways. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Right, I withdraw my objection (to the deletion) in the face of evidence. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Idiomatic enough. But the "If something ..., then ..." style of definition is horrible. Mihia (talk)
  • Keep in my opinion; extremely common idiom in English. Have had a go at improving def, btw. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

All of Reconstruction:Lombardic[edit]

Is this not just OHG? It certainly looks like it. —CodeCat 20:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you mean to post this at rfm? Or maybe rfdo? Chuck Entz (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
OHG is Old High German, for those who don't know. And the Reconstruction: namespace actually automatically comes here not to WT:RFDO as they are considered 'entries'. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I suppose what's nominated for deletion is the contents of CAT:Lombardic lemmas. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
There's many badly formatted entries that are missing from that category. —CodeCat 18:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
All pages starting Reconstruction:Lombardic/ are now in CAT:Lombardic lemmas. Is Lombardic attested at all, or is it solely reconstructed? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. What I do know is that the reconstructions look suspiciously indistinguishable from Old High German. Moreover, they're missing some of the characteristic Upper German sound changes like b > p. —CodeCat 20:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
And there's still more being added, which are missing the category. @-sche As our primary language classifier, what is your stance on this? Should Lombardic be merged into OHG? —CodeCat 22:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@Angr: a number of isolated main-namespace-worthy words and names are attested in inscriptions and in Latin texts. The language is also thought to be the ancestor of many Italian words, including pairs like banca and panca borrowed before and after the b/p sound change, which means an etymology code would be useful if we retire the languge code.
@CodeCat: scholars are divided on the matter. Some do consider it a dialect of Old High German, but others emphasize that records are too fragmentary to be certain whether the language was part of that continuum. There are differences between OHG and the Lombardic reconstructions which I see, e.g. OHG scina vs Lombardic *skinko, OHG wanga vs Lombardic *wankja (both reconstructions found in Ti Alkire, Carol Rosen, Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction). It is not even certain that Lombardic experienced the entirety of the High German consonant shift. A conservative approach would probably keep it separate. - -sche (discuss) 01:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
All of that can be explained away by other means. *skinko is simply a different word belonging to a particular outlier dialect, nothing really special going on there. *wankja is just *wangja with the g > k change, and the j is preserved because it's an earlier form. Likewise, not all of the consonant shift was experienced because of the early date. The Lombardic runic attestations still have þ, for example, but so do early OHG texts in general. —CodeCat 01:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Full Italian dictionaries always distinguish the origins of Germanic borrowings because they came in distinct phases. For example, bindolo, eribanno and grinfia are from OHG while spalto, guancia and atticciato are from Longobardic/Lombardic. (Sorry that we don't have entries for all of these words; I have not worked on Italian much here.) Excluding modern languages, Lombardic is probably the most significant Germanic influence on Italian; probably 2% of the word families are from Lombardic, whereas it will be very significantly less than 1% for Gothic or (direct) OHG, and perhaps just over 1% for Franconian/Frankish. We distinguish English borrowings from Old Danish from those from Old Norse for similar reasons. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are proposing, but it would be inappropriate to relabel Lombardic borrowings as OHG borrowings on the basis of a phonetic argument. Isomorphyc (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
But phonetics is one main method by which linguists distinguish languages, though they call them isoglosses. From what I can tell, there is no isogloss separating OHG from Lombardic. The only difference I see is that Lombardic is simply older, and thus lacks some of the features that later appear in OHG, but that just makes it an early dialect of OHG and not an entirely separate language. —CodeCat 18:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Can we pretend they are different Ausbau languages, if phonological data do not exist to distinguish them as Abstand languages? This is a very common situation, and they do have different ISO codes. The political and chronological information in the Italian etymologies is too conventional and to important to obscure for this reason. Can we at a minimum recategorise Lombardic as West Germanic, or possibly even add a level to the hierarchy within West Germanic? Isomorphyc (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia also considers it an OHG dialect. I see no reason to treat them separately. Convention is not a good enough reason. —CodeCat 19:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: According to Wikipaedia, Swedish and Norwegian would be considered dialects if one were to use purely linguistic criteria. This is why the concept of Ausbau and Abstand langauges is relevant. It is regarded in Italy as a language associated with the Kingdom of the Lombards, and even if you cannot find phonetic differences, you will easily find proper names, including place names, were are not words in other Germanic languages. This is more-or-less the criterion which separates the modern Scandinavian languages. The distinction is political but to ignore it would make certain Italian etymologies unacceptably confusing. Isomorphyc (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily; we could still treat Lombardic as an etymology-only variety of OHG, like Vulgar, Late, and Medieval Latin are etymology-only varieties of Latin. That way if any Lombardic words mentioned in Italian etymologies happen to be attested in OHG, we wouldn't need reconstruction pages for them. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, @Angr:. Is this okay with you, @CodeCat? I wouldn't object. Any attested Lombardic words can just have {{lb|goh|Lombardic}}. Isomorphyc (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. —CodeCat 21:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I made a small list of apparently attested Lombardic words, and have made some changes at Module:etymology languages/data, at zacchera, and at zahar, since zahar seems to be attested (I haven't marked Reconstruction:Lombardic/zahar for deletion yet since this is a prototype). If this seems generally liked, I can do this for all of the Lombardic entries. In that case, it would be possible for somebody to remove the m["lng"] = (...) statement from Module:languages/data3/l. Thank you all for your attention to this; I do this the present arrangement is an unmitigated improvement. Isomorphyc (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
"lng" is no longer a regular language at Module:languages/data3/l, but only an etymology-only language at Module:etymology languages/data. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat Just so I don't make the same mistake again, what does the right-arrow which you added to the Italian descendent line mean in milzi? Thanks, Isomorphyc (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
We tend to put arrows in descendant lists to indicate borrowings, though I wouldn't call it a mistake to omit the arrow. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Angr: Thanks. I'm willing to go with the convention if this has already been discussed, but I wouldn't normally consider these as borrowings. Old Italian is often dated as anything prior to St Francis, Dante, or the Accademia della Crusca (i.e., prior to 1200-1600). Hence, OHG and Lombardic influences are inherited from Old Italian. Absent that somewhat unnecessary level of granularity, I think it is better to use {{der}}. Ultimately, the pre-Renaissance Germanic borrowings are integral parts of the Italian language. Many Italians will not be aware they are not Latin. Isomorphyc (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Edit: Either way, I acknowledge the arrow makes sense in the ancestor entry; my question is about which template to use in the Italian etymology. Isomorphyc (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, we don't treat Old Italian as a separate language from Italian; it's an etymology-only variant of Italian. So if the Old Italian is spelled differently, we could say the modern Italian word is inherited from the Old Italian word (which will have its own ==Italian== entry), which in turn is a borrowing from the Lombardic word; but if the Old Italian is spelled the same as the modern Italian, it won't have a separate entry, so we basically are left with no other option than to call the modern Italian word a borrowing from Lombardic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation; I agree this is a reasonably acceptable convention. Isomorphyc (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, you can't. The templates throw an error if you try to inherit a term from a variety of the same language. By design. —CodeCat 20:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

accd'g to[edit]

And create an entry at accd'g. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

My first instinct was to simply move it to accd'g, leaving a redirect, but now I'm not so sure. Is the abbreviation "accd'g" ever used without the "to" after it? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Irrespective of whether it is used without "to", accd'g is the lexical unit at issue, the "to" being a transparently SOP addition. bd2412 T 12:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
If according to is not SOP, then accd'g to isn't either. Likewise, if accd'g to is SOP, then according to is as well. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
As Angr, create accd'g and leave accd'g to as it is (unless accd'g is unattested outside of accd'g to). Renard Migrant (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
At the moment accd'g is a hard redirect to accd'g to, on the assumption that the former appears only as part of the latter. If that turns out not to be the case, then the redirect direction can be changed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
That’s good. Clearly it is not an abbreviation of just according. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought I found a use of "accd'g" without "to", but it turned out to be an awkward line break in a table. I concede that if such a use exists, I can't find it. bd2412 T 15:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I vote to keep it, since now it is cited (with examples from Usenet). --biblbroksдискашн 17:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

image satellite[edit]

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 [19]. 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)


Not a Finnish word; sum of parts. Word is registered company name and trademark in Finland and needs immediate removal.
Trademark link: http://epalvelut.prh.fi/en/web/tietopalvelu/haku?appNum=T201550495&regNum=263954 Veepeli (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Being a trademark isn't in itself a reason for removal: we have things like Big Mac and kleenex. Equinox 14:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
There is incorrect definition also. It's website name and finnish dictionary does not contain word "Riemurasia" Veepeli (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Speedy keep and move to rfv. It's on the wrong forum. None of what Veepeli is actually cause for deletion as having a separate word Riemurasia does not mean that riemurasia should be deleted. Nor does its absence from other dictionaries (Veepeli doesn't say which dictionary anyway). Renard Migrant (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
It's listed in Suomi Wiktionary. I have a hard job understanding Finnish, but what I could make out through cross references would seem to verify the translation of "vagina". Any trademark is normally capitalised anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The Suomi entry was created in May 2008, and Veepeli has also been editing that today. The trademark wasn't registered until 2015, so I think it's a closed case as far as we're concerned. DonnanZ (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Riemurasia company website www.riemurasia.net was created on 2003. It was before Suomi entry. Veepeli (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep. No valid case has been made for deletion. —CodeCat 14:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I smell a rat here anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The word "riemurasia" predates the website which was opened in April 2003. I could find a music recording by that name from 1938 (by Matti Jurva ja Ramblers-orkesteri). There the word is used as synonym of gramofoni(gramophone). In the web chats "riemurasia" seems to be sometimes used as euphemism of vagina. I wasn't able to confirm usage of vagina -sense which would predate the website. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Further, the name of the company and the website are spelled with a capital "R". --Hekaheka (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: a solid-written word, no space and no hyphen, is not traditionally considered to be a sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Kept.​—msh210 (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]


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)

submarine pitch[edit]

The definition's not quite right, side-arm is not the same as submarine. However in trying to redefine it I'm struggling to find a better wording than 'a pitch that's submarine'. Not even that common, as submarine usually qualifies a pitcher not a pitch. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a particularly useful correction, but on Ngrams 'submarine pitch' and 'submarine pitcher' are about equally common. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Re: definition: underhand is a useful word for the definition, IMO. I find that WP almost always has an article that can help, though not necessarily an article with a title the same as our headword. DCDuring TALK 11:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Meaning not predictable from components, except in a distantly metaphorical way. DCDuring TALK 11:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually no, submarine ("underhand") + pitch ("delivery of a pitcher in baseball"). Renard Migrant (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
To mean an underhand delivery of a pitcher in baseball. You'll be telling me next that green grass is grass that's green. How unpredictable! Renard Migrant (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Also underhand has no sense to cover this; submarine is in reality like sidearm just a bit lower, it's not the same as an underhand throw in a child's game where the aim is to throw the ball slowly. It's not the same as softball either where the pitch comes underarm which a straight arm. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
w:Submarine pitch and w:Submarine pitcher before direct to w:Submarine (baseball). Renard Migrant (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
My hypotheses about the evolution:
Metaphor → submarine delivery/pitch → submarine pitcher → submarine as adjective in thrown-ball sports.
This a recurring conceptual problem with regards to the evolution of extended senses from metaphors: the phrase with the embedded metaphor can be reconstrued as SoP. IMO, when one of the components of the phrase now takes meaning only in applications directly related to the originating metaphorical phrase, as submarine does in this case, in our definition at least, it is silly to view the originating phrase as SoP. In this case, the adjective meaning may now apply to other thrown-ball sports, whether or not our definition indicates that. AHD has: "Thrown with or characterized by a low sidearm or underhand motion": a submarine-style pitcher. DCDuring TALK 21:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
So you're in favor of deleting now, I take it? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
We need a term for these, à la "fried egg". How about mobile phone (since they are now just called "mobiles"?). Equinox 22:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
That's not really comparable as this is just submarine + pitch. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@Equinox, Renard Migrant: This is very much like fried egg, except that submarine may have taken on the ability to modify other nouns besides synonyms of pitch and related terms like pitcher. AHD's example show submarine style. One can also find submarine in the sense in question modifying ball, motion, hurler, curve ball, slider, sinker, angle, throw, flip. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

social commerce network[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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)


SOP: หญิง + ชาติชั่ว (I believe this is created to attack a former Thailand's PM.) --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


SOP: ขน + รักแร้ --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

sum activity of peripheral deiodinases[edit]

May be sum-of-parts, and seems more suitable for a Wikipedia entry (there is already one). — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like an opportunity to confirm that we actually have definitions for the components (sum, peripheral, and deiodinase) that support usage in this collocation and the context in which this collocation is used. DCDuring TALK 12:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
IMO, we don't. Eg, peripheral is not about the nervous system. Activity seems OK. Deiodinase could use some supplementation about its function in humans. Moreover I don't think we or anyone else can concoct suitable component definitions. DCDuring TALK 12:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Is that a vote to delete? — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
If we can't concoct component definitions that would make the term transparent in contexts where the component terms were familiar, then we should keep it. That's how it seems to me, but I could be wrong, not being familiar with the context. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Sum [NP] seems to be used in some technical and scientific contexts where I would expect "total of [NP]", "total [NP]", or "sum of [NP]". Activity, as used in this expression seems to be a "rate" (not an "amount" as our definition would have it). Sum activity would seem to be a "fried egg", therefore to be kept. But it seems to have a transparent role in the entire phrase. Peripheral deiodinase may not be: Apparently it is deiodinase that has its effect on the peripheral/non-central/non-core parts of a mammal. I don't think that any definition of peripheral, noun or adjective, captures this.
As to the phrase in question, it seems to me that, whether or not the component phrases are SoP, someone acquainted with the field would understand it. Ergo, delete.
AFAICR, this kind of argument, with transparency being defined relative to someone somewhat knowledgeable in the field has not found much acceptance. Perhaps this example will become a useful deletionist example, as "fried egg" is for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Not dictionary material. Mihia (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


Wrong simplified form. is not simplified. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

dried shrimp[edit]

"Shrimp that have been sun-dried and shrunk to thumbnail size, as used in Asian cuisines." -- Isn't this just a "dried + shrimp"? --Hekaheka (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as SOP; dried, sense 2. bd2412 T 14:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reason given by the nominator. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe or maybe not. Thai's name called it กุ้งแห้ง which mean "dried shrimp" and (idiomic) "very skinny". Does the dried shrimp can mean "very skinny"? If so, keep the entry. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "dried shrimp" in English would have any meaning of "very skinny". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

al-Qaeda in Iraq[edit]

Encyclopaedic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete. — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete, al-Qaeda should suffice, and they make their presence felt everywhere, not just in Iraq. DonnanZ (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep if this was the name of a specific group, and not just used for Al-Qaeda members operating in Iraq. Would need to see the cites. Ƿidsiþ 13:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


"The Count of Monte Cristo". Do we include things like this? —suzukaze (tc) 05:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

  • No, we don't. Delete. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Inclusion of names of works is governed by WT:NSE, and it is up to each editor to decide. I support keeping single-word attested names of works such as Lysistrata, Decameron and Odyssey. This seems to be a multi-word name of a work, for which I am undecided. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


WTF Equinox 06:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

SOP perhaps. PS. Some radios can play a cassette both directions. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, autoreverse. I should have nominated this properly as SoP: a slash means "or", and we have probably all seen devices with a switch that says "ON/OFF"; this seems comparable. P.S. Listen to this excellent set [20] Equinox 03:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
IMO, you have good taste in music. Also, I agree with the comparison with "ON/OFF". If we kept ▶/⏸, we would probably have a precedent to create 1 ! too, because there's a single button for 1 and ! too on a keyboard; we don't create 1 ! because it would be a SOP of 1 and !, like the discussed entry is a SOP of and . (that said, I'd like to think that is probably an exception and can be kept normally, assuming that many people consider it a "single unit" as opposed to a SOP of ⇥ and ⇤) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Ditto on the music. Is it normally our policy to allow entries for symbols that appear only on keyboards, etc. rather than in running text? It doesn't feel to me like it's an actual unit of language, though I'm not really opposed to having it (I supported adding Morse Code after all). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes, I try to search Google Books for citations of symbols in running text like "Press ▶ to play." The entries 💾, 🗗, 💡 contain a few citations in running text. (I added +2 quotes to now, too) I tried to find citations in running text for too, but I failed. But 🛇 is different: it contains one "citation" from a cartoon movie that uses the symbol not in running text, but complementing the character lines nonetheless. I can't speak for others, but instead of running text, I'd be satisfied with, for example: 1) citing (a media symbol) with printed diagrams of media devices and/or screenshots of media software; 2) citing (a weather symbol) from printed weather reports; 3) citing (a map symbol) from printed maps. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice! It's not "all buttons in all systems". Chuck Entz (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Completely SOP. — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
SoP? How do you work that one out? DonnanZ (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
It's just + / + . Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


WT:SOP--kc_kennylau (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I would want to keep because it's not completely obvious how 教識 (sb) (sth) means "to teach (sb) to know (sth)". 教識 and words with similar constructions (教曉, 教會 and 教精) do appear as entries in 廣州話普通話詞典. Maybe I just can't think of any general grammatical rule that would make 教識 (sb) (sth) make sense without 教識 being a verb instead of two verbs(?). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
It reminds me of Wikipedia:Chinese_grammar#Complement_of_result Siuenti (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, if we argue that 教識 is verb + complement of result, then would 吃飽 or 學會 (verb sense) be SOP? Also, can verb + complement of result take two objects like 教識? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Yes; yes. 做人 / 做人 [Cantonese]  ―  gaau3 sik1 keoi5 zou6 jan4 [Jyutping]  ―  teach him how to live --kc_kennylau (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: I know that's how 教識 works; in fact, I think it requires both objects. I want some examples of other verb + complement of result that can take two objects to support 教識 being a verb + complement of result. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: I have misread your comment. 教識 takes two objects only because 教 takes two objects. --kc_kennylau (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: Interesting. So that's why. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
There are many "verb + complement of result" construction terms on Wiktionary. Using 懂 as an example, there are 聽得懂, 看得懂, 聽不懂, 看不懂, 聽懂, 看懂. @Tooironic, Atitarev, Metaknowledge. I guess these are very useful constructions for learners. Wyang (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to keep this one. Not a straightforward case, IMO. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wiktionary collects thousands of conjugations for inflected languages, I don't see why we can't keep these kind of words for Chinese as well. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


龍山 "Longshan" + 文化 "culture". Sum of parts or encyclopedic. —suzukaze (tc) 06:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 06:01, 19 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(paa-sǎa-tai, 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, นกอีกา, ต้นแอปเปิล, ต้นตาล, งูเหลือม(nguu-lʉ̌ʉam), 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)

new standard[edit]

Rather a plain SoP. Compare "a higher being who ... has set a standard of perfect holiness"; "a total of 16 colors was once the standard for text work and simple graphics". Equinox 18:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete, SoP. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete; most common meaning of new plus sense three of standard. Also, the phrase "new standard" can be used with equal facility for a new version of any sense of "standard". bd2412 T 19:42, 13 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)


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

Aztec pyramid[edit]

The definition is literally "A pyramid built by the Aztecs". Not even Wikipedia has an article on this so it really can't be idiomatic. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Nebraskan pyramids? Nebraska would become famous. But if there's a difference in style, it may be a tentative keep. DonnanZ (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I am no archeologist but I cannot tell the difference between an Aztec pyramid and a Mayan pyramid. They both look just about the same. I doubt such a difference is reflected in texts and if it is, it would need to be attested as such rather than just meaning "a pyramid built by the Aztecs/Mayans". -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Mesoamerican pyramids are different from Egyptian pyramids, but I'm sure Mesoamerican pottery, textiles and weapons are also different from their counterparts in Egypt. The fact that two different things are called by the same name doesn't mean that any phrase based on the name that applies to one, but not the other is idiomatic. For instance, a rubber means something completely different to someone from England as opposed to someone from the United States. That doesn't mean we should have an entry for "American rubber" and English rubber".
Are "American rubber" and "English rubber" attested with these meanings? bd2412 T 02:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Note, I have improved the definition of Mesoamerican pyramid to note that it is "typically a step pyramid with a temple at the top". bd2412 T 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, personally – I never understood why these pyramid terms so famously survived RFD. Am open to being convinced otherwise though. Ƿidsiþ 13:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete, and ancient pyramid by the same token. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

read on[edit]

Very typical use of "on", similar to "I paused, then walked on", or "I stopped the car at the traffic lights, then drove on". Equinox 10:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. Adverb sense 2 at on, "Along, forwards (continuing an action)" should cover it. If felt not to cover it adequately then that definition should be enhanced rather than having a separate entry for "read on". Mihia (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete per above. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

national average[edit]

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"[edit]

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[edit]

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)


This is no more than a misspelling in Spanish. --Derrib9 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


SOP --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep. This is listed in official dictionary. It is the technical term for optics, geography and astronomy "umbra". Analogous to เงามัว. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Unstriking: not enough time has passed to close based on consensus or its lack. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


SOP (+ nonexistence) --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep. It is the technical term for optics, geography and astronomy "penumbra". Analogous to เงามืด. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Unstriking: not enough time has passed to close based on consensus or its lack. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


SOP: เมา + เหล้า. The term เมา(mao, to be intoxicated, to be drunk, to undergo impairment of faculties, to feel vertiginous, to feel dizzy, etc) can be applied to anything that is the source of such condition, such as เมายา (drug), เมาตด (fart), เมากลิ่นปาก (bad breath), เมาเต่า (body odour), เมารถ (car), เมาเรือ (boat), เมาเบียร์ (beer), เมาม้า (meth), เมากัญชา (hemp), เมาหมัด (punch), เมารัก (love - as in the famous verse by Sunthorn Phu: 'ไม่เมาเหล้าแล้วแต่เรายังเมารัก สุดจะหักห้ามจิตคิดไฉน ถึงเมาเหล้าเช้าสายก็หายไป แต่เมาใจนี้ประจำทุกค่ำคืน'), etc. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete. PS. some เมา- terms may be compound word or have idiomic sense so we can include those e.g. เมายศ เมาอำนาจ. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


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


As before - person's name. Wyang (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

two thousand and one[edit]

sum-of-parts. similar to the two hundred and one above.

  • I'm tempted to say keep. There's two ways of saying the year 2001, two thousand and one and "twenty-oh-one". Two thousand and one is probably the more common of the two. DonnanZ (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't that same rationale dictate keeping every individual number in the two-thousands through the nine-thousands? bd2412 T 16:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as sum of parts. I don't think we can make an exception for years, because that would justify the reintroduction of all cardinal numbers. However, I think we can consider an addition to "Appendix:Numerals" or a separate appendix ("Appendix:Dates") explaining how years (and dates) are indicated visually and read out. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Years are labelled with numbers; they are not a separate dictionary sense for a number. Equinox 16:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


The "adjective", which is purely attributive use of the noun. The quotations can be placed under the noun. DonnanZ (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete; put "often attributive" on the noun senses. The existing adj isn't well thought out: it was marked as comparable (!) and only defined as "having the properties of collecting water", whereas a "catchment area" can also be e.g. a region where children go to a certain school, or any noun sense of catchment. Equinox 03:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
It was only added last December, less than a year ago. DonnanZ (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 14:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


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

take a dump[edit]

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)


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


As above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

emotionally stunted[edit]

Sum of parts. Needs formatting properly if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Against deletion: It's thorough, but could maybe do with a nip/tuck. —This comment was unsigned.


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)

student-teacher ratio[edit]

Ratio of students to teachers. Typical SoP construct, akin to width-height ratio etc. Equinox 18:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nom.​—msh210 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 01:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, transparent SOP. bd2412 T 15:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2016 (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)


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


I accidentally made this page. It's a copy of abbaccàbile, the preferred form (because of the accent mark on the a).--Qwed117 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Do the entries at the ====See also==== section of abbaccada need modification? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

work together[edit]

SOP. Nibiko (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I would keep and add a sense for people, parts, or materials that function in combination to achieve a result. There are two distinct things going on here. If two people work for the same company, they "work together" even if they do completely unrelated tasks and the work of each is unaffected by that of the other. If two people must combine their efforts to achieve a result, they "work together" even if they do not share an employer (and even if they do not directly interact with each other at all). In other words, it is possible for people to "work together" even if they do not "work together". Moreover, the second sense also applies to, e.g., parts of a machine. The gas tank and the engine "work together" to make the car move, though they are not "workers" as in the first sense. bd2412 T 16:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete existing sense. If a non-SoP sense is added, then {{&lit|work|together}} should accommodate the existing SoP definition and other meaning that arise from combining the various senses of the two words. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, a synonym of collaborate as well. DonnanZ (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    • So is "work on the same thing with another person". Chuck Entz (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I have added senses. There are three distinct ways that this phrase is used as a set phrase; one where people interact because they have a common employer (even if their tasks and goals are unrelated), the second is where people collaborate, even if they do not share an employer, and the third is where things function as parts of a whole, such as where two chemicals, once mixed, have an effect. bd2412 T 23:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

be silent[edit]

Someone said we should not have this entry. But to me, this is an excellent example of translation target, per existence of single-word non-compound translations into a variety of languages, including schweigen, zwijgen, taire, taceo, молча́ть(molčátʹ), mlčet, callarse, etc.

Keep as a translation target. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, "be silent" is in User:Dan_Polansky/Roget_MICRA/Class_IV._Words_Relating_to_the_Intellectual_Faculties, in 585. Taciturnity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep this as an obvious translation target. I'm often surprised at the opposition to "translation target" entries. Over the years I have found Wiktionary to be especially valuable as an online substitute for bilingual translation dictionaries, and translation target entries are part of making Wiktionary useful for this purpose. A translation dictionary would never omit a term that is idiomatic in the other language just because it is not idiomatic in English; so, in order to be a properly useful multilingual dictionary, we should make an effort to include these entries. To do otherwise is to make the translation dictionary aspect of Wiktionary seem arbitrary and frustrating for our readers. This, that and the other (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps we should just have {{translation only}} on the definition line for such terms. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    Like day after tomorrow. Equinox 07:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    I don't like {{translation only}}, but if a this is a preference of a majority, it is better than deletion. For the particular case of "be silent", the particular sense with the translations is more specific, referring to refraining to speaking as opposed to refraining from making noises, and this should be made explicit at least in the head of the translation table. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll go with the flow, keep. A lot of "be" terms are translation targets, but aren't entered. DonnanZ (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Is be silent here equivalent to the imperative silence? --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    No, it's not limited to the imperative. Equinox 11:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    (after e/c): Not really. The lemma is for the verb, like "They were all silent; no one was speaking." --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as transparently SoP in English (this is English Wiktionary, after all). If you think a translation target rationale to be sufficient, you might see which Wiktionaries use such a rationale for inclusion and use that to propose for vote a policy change in favor of translation targets. DCDuring TALK 12:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Why do we need "translation targets" in the first place? I see no problem with writing "# to [[be]] [[silent]]" as the definition line of the Finnish verb vaieta(to be silent). --Hekaheka (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Hekaheka You're thinking about the Finnish-English, not English-Finnish dictionary. I want to be able to say how to say молча́ть(molčátʹ, to be silent) in Finnish and other languages but the English Wiktionary won't have an entry for it if it's deleted. I would need to go to the German Wiktionary to check e.g. if schweigen has a translation into Finnish or French se taire but they don't. So, there's no way to translate some even very common words in other languages into a third language if the English entry is missing. It's a bridge between "молчать" (Russian), "vaieta" (Finnish), "schweigen" (German), etc.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Got it. "Translation hub" would describe this function better. --Hekaheka (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Hekaheka "Translation hub" or "Translation target", not sure what is best. How do you vote - keep, delete, abstain? Now, to translate the Finnish "vaieta" into Estonian (vaikima), next time you go to Tallinn, you don't need to look for a Finnish-Estonian dictionary. It's a problem for me to find certain translations of words, when the English term is not idiomatic or too ambiguous, as in this case. I have to use Russian-other language dictionaries, if they exist. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I like that description - a "translation hub" is exactly what makes sense where there are multiple single-word foreign translations. bd2412 T 03:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per DCD.​—msh210 (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I can't recall how we've handled translation targets in the past, but I vote keep on the condition that the definition consist of "See be and silent" (rather than actually being defined as it now is) with a notice at the top of the entry stating that this is a translation hub of an SOP term, if this is not already how we treat such entries. The translation table should retain the current gloss. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that translations of "be silent" should go under "silent", suitably labelled. Who would guess that a separate entry "be silent" existed, or think to look there? Mihia (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain until we have a policy on so-called "translation targets" that has been agreed by consensus. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think anyone would look this up and, though the way English handles this idea is not unidiomatic, the copula + adjective construction is too common to work as a lemma IMO. Probably a better way of handling this is by having more flexible translations at silent – so the French translation might say silencieux; cf. se taire(to be silent). Ƿidsiþ 08:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

family guy[edit]

Not idiomatic? I don't think this could be used in the same context as "family man" . DTLHS (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Google ngram viewer has hits from the 1940s (well before the animated series). I've made it a synonym of family man. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

sexual role[edit]

SoP. No Wikipedia article. Equinox 12:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I would understand gender role (OneLook), but sexual role is just not common (OneLook). Nibiko (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


SoP. + 纽约市. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

ISA 200[edit]

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)


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)