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 cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and 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 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 verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

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

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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'.

Tagged RFDs


November 2016[edit]

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)


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

I think it must delete. Think about this, we gotta deal with many terms lead with รัฐ มลรัฐ ประเทศ จังหวัด อำเภอ ตำบล ฯลฯ as well. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Octahedron80 Would you agree that in general, words for "state", "country", "city" don't belong to Thai lemmas? Perhaps for "person", "language" as well? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The complete terms are not lemmas; those just usually appear together. For example จังหวัดอุบลราชธานี is composed of จังหวัด + อุบลราชธานี, common noun + proper noun. We can understand just say อุบลราชธานี. Similar to รัฐ + โอไฮโอ, ประเทศ + ไทย, ภาษา + ไทย, คน + ไทย. For usage of ไทย we can describe in its definitions. IMO, I think about this for a long time for Thai Wiktionary policy not to include such entries and this should apply on other Wiktionaries too. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Octahedron80 Should entries เมืองไทย (Thailand) and ประเทศไทย (Thailand) be kept ("country" + "Thai")) or definitions should move to ไทย (tai, Thai, Thailand)? It may not be the best example, since some sources mention that "Thailand" is never/seldom used without the preceding word for "country" - ประเทศ (bprà-têet) and เมือง (mʉʉang).
What about คนไทย (Thai (person)) and ชาวไทย (Thai (person))?
And ภาษาไทย (Thai (language)? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Just asking for your opinion and if there are any dictionary policies. Other languages with no clear word boundaries face similar CFI (criteria for inclusion) challenges, such as Chinese or Vietnamese. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
As I said above, เมืองไทย ประเทศไทย คนไทย ชาวไทย ภาษาไทย etc never be lemmas in official dictionary, but ไทย (Thai/Thailand) is truely the lemma. Similar to เมืองจีน ประเทศจีน คนจีน ชาวจีน ภาษาจีน etc, the main entry should only be จีน (China/Chinese). And so on around the world. (Except only if they have special meanings.) Redirects may be an option. --Octahedron80 (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
For a similar reason, some animal- and plant-related terms should be considered for deletion too, such as แมวมาเลศ, แมววิเชียรมาศ, แมวศุภลักษณ์, แมวสีสวาด, ช้างแมมมอธ, ปลาพะยูน, ปลาโลมา, ปลาวาฬ, ลิงกอริลลา, ลูกหมู, นกอีกา, ต้นแอปเปิล, ต้นตาล, งูเหลือม, งูอนาคอนดา, ไม้ชิงชัน, etc. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
^ Converted some pages to redirects because others still have no target page. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


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)
  • I defintely think it's SoP. Including lekker ding, as proven by L.B.D. above. This is just a fairly rare sense of stuk/ding combined with a very normal though not perfectly literal sense of lekker. So delete. Kolmiel (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

December 2016[edit]

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)
I support us doing the second of those three. Purplebackpack89 18:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
We already have e-numbers in Wiktionary. See for example E333. So there is some precedent for including a codeconsisting of letters and numbers which has a specific meaning. John Cross (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC), edited John Cross (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
We also have M25 (but not every numbered road in the UK). If we can find a text that uses "ISA 200" in a natiral way, without being a definition, then we should keep it. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
OK. How about these examples? "ISA 200 makes it clear that the objectives in the individual ISAs provide a link between the requirements of the ISA and the overall objectives of the auditor." "Understanding the clarified and revised ISA 200 is now fundamental to understanding the challenge of implementing clarified ISAs." (https://www.icaew.com/-/media/corporate/files/technical/audit-and-assurance/practical-help/audit-planning-and-risk-assessment/publications-and-learning-materials/right-first-time-with-clarified-isas-module-1.ashx?la=en) John Cross (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
But couldn't such examples be found for, say, every numbered road, or every car model, or whatever it might be? Does a citation "I was driving down the A3062 in my Saab 340" justify inclusion in the dictionary of "A3062" and "Saab 340"? Where would it end? Mihia (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that the term I have added is a useful addition to Wiktionary - it is a term in regular use by a large number of professionals around the world and it is a term recognised by an international standard setting body. I know people are worried about the precedent this might set. I would suggest that as there is a separate policy for brands, any precedent set here should not extend to models of cars or other products or services. When it comes to road/route codes, some already appear in Wiktionary and I would suggest that those entries already create some form of precedent. I would like to keep the debate more focussed on whether names and codes for recognised international standards (auditing or otherwise) that are used in natural sentences can be added to Wiktionary. John Cross (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
This is also true of all of the RfCs, all of the ISO standards, and countless other standards which are domain specific. Unless the term has meaning outside of the standard I can't see value in keeping it. The "meaning" of the term is either "the ISA standard numbered 200" in which case it is SOP, or the actual standard itself, in which case it is encyclopedic and out of scope. - TheDaveRoss 13:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I echo TheDaveRoss's argument here. Even after looking at the entry, and the sample usages, the definition parses out to just ISO + 200. The long-form title and other information belongs in an encyclopedia article, which would go at Wikipedia and would ostensibly be found under [[w:Category:ISO_standards]]. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete per above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted together with ISA 210, ISA 220, ISA 720, ISA 800, ISA 805, and ISA 810 on the grounds that they are SoP and more suitable for Wikipedia. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


Alt-spelling sense. The word (חג׳) that it's listed as an alt-spelling of is defined only identically to חאג׳'s other sense. Not speedying this in case there's really another sense of חג׳ that we should have and that חאג׳ is an alt-spelling of.​—msh210 (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


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











Special:Contributions/Jagnesuzukaze (tc) 11:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sichuanese Pinyin entries[edit]

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

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

Delete. The user was told about the current policies for romanisation entries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
No consensus was ever reached about allowing English entries either. Why does that require a consensus to be featured? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
In the past yes. Now you need to make sure the word exists and it is written in the right script. There are various romanisations (not proper language scripts). Only some standard romanisations are allowed by our policies.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not the Sichuanese that's the problem, it's the pinyin. It may be found in some dictionaries, bʌt ðɛn, soʊ ɪz aɪ pʰi eɪ. If you really want to allow every script for every language, there are some German entries in Cyrillic that we deleted not too long ago... Chuck Entz (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Ду хаст рехт. Их бин айнферштанден! Шпрахен мюссен ден рихтиген Шрифт бенутцен! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • You said some things, but haven't explained the issue to me, apparently because you assume that I know something I don't. (This is a bad habit on Wiktionary both in conversations and help pages. I'm pointing this out here because it's making us opaque and prolly factors into new editors being scared off.) Are you implying that we're using some other system to represent Sichuanese on which users decided? Because you haven't said so. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
    Sichuanese should only have entries in Chinese characters. The version of Sichuanese Pinyin we are using in the Chinese pronunciation template {{zh-pron}} isn't used other than in dictionaries. (The system is essentially the same as the one in 四川方言词典, but replaces ȵ with ny). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, but why is it that when Westrobothnian entries are made in a non-existent system without consensus, people basically vote to keep them without attestation and when Sichuanese entries are made in an existing system without consensus, they are deleted even before discussion in RFD? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Korn: I have no knowledge of Westrobothnian, so I can't comment on that. (Hmm, have you assumed that I know something I don't? :D) AFAIK, there has only been one Sichuanese Pinyin entry that has been deleted before discussion in RFD, so I'm not sure what you mean. Sichuanese is a variety of Chinese, and our current policy puts all Chinese varieties that are usually written in Chinese characters under the same umbrella. Since there is already a way to represent Sichuanese (Chinese characters), and most of the Chinese varieties are not allowed to have romanization entries (exceptions being Standard Mandarin pinyin, Min Nan POJ and Cantonese jyutping syllables), we should not have Sichuanese Pinyin entries. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
1. Sorry, I assumed the entries were deleted because they're shown as yellow links. 2. No, I'm not assuming anything, my comment was meant as an indirect question to Chuck, who's present in both discussions. 3. Why are only some varieties allowed to have Romanisations? That makes it harder to look up Sichuanese, what's the reasoning? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
1. I'm not sure how they're yellow links. They look blue/purple to me. If they were deleted, shouldn't they be red? 2. Alrighty then. 3. Standard Mandarin and Cantonese were allowed by votes (Standard Mandarin 1, Standard Mandarin 2, Cantonese). I believe Min Nan POJ entries were allowed because they're attestable, since it is sometimes written in POJ. From my understanding, other varieties are not allowed to have romanization entries because (a) the romanizations were made by Wiktionary (Gan; Jin; Xiang; Wu) or (b) they are not very common (?) (Hakka PFS and Guangdong Romanization; Min Dong BUC; Teochew Peng'im). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Fair enough. ps.: Yellow links are links to pages which exist but don't have the corresponding language section. I assume that square brackets link to English per default and that's the reason why the links are shown in yellow to me. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I see. You've turned on OrangeLinks. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Let's save the effort in other entries - this can be easily automated. Wyang (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't really have an opinion on this at the moment, but without knowing much about the procedures here, wouldn't it just be a lot more convenient to have page sorting characters by Pinyin, considering we're talking about a mostly non-written vernacular here? I guess I'd support deletion if this listing could be automated, but until that happens I'm not so sure. Sichuan Pinyin was not invented by any user here, so there shouldn't be conflict of interest. Regarding another point, is Hanyu Pinyin even used that much outside of teaching and Romanizations either? I've also heard that Jyutping is even more seldom used in those capacities.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    We can definitely have page sorting by Sichuanese Pinyin if we allow Category:Sichuanese lemmas and such. That should probably solve the problem.
    Hanyu Pinyin and Jyutping are not used in normal writing, but they are much more common than Sichuanese Pinyin. Hanyu Pinyin is used by most (if not all) modern Mandarin dictionaries published in the PRC, and it is taught in all schools in China. It has also been accepted by the ROC government as the standard romanization. Jyutping, while being less pervasive than Hanyu Pinyin, is gaining popularity and is definitely outcompeting the other Cantonese romanizations, especially on the internet.
    BTW, a few more entries here:
    — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Justinrleung @Korn @Atitarev @Wyang How about Chinese terms without hanzi at all, what's the general concensus on how to create entries for these? For an extreme example I'm not sure if nɤ35, a demonstrative pronoun in Wuhan, meets WT:CFI but there's literally no other way to enter it.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
    Searching for ¹ at water#Translations may be relevant. —suzukaze (tc) 06:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
    I am not aware of any policy regarding these terms specifically for Chinese, but I don't think these would meet CFI (unless we consider certain varieties of Chinese to be languages with limited online documentation). You probably should have held off creating the entry for nɤ35 until we have consensus on how to deal with them. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I've sent the term to RFV. We can decide on the policy. It would fail the NORMAL inclusion test. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The entry is referenced, though. What if it is represented that way in a proper scholarly work? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Any reference is a mention, not usage. It would fail the CFV for most languages in most cases but this may be a special case for a language with limited documentation, I don't know.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
It was my impression that this was one. We might turn it into a precedent for unwritten languages recorded solely in IPA by foreign researchers. There should be more than one. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
This is not a precedent. There are already entries like these, e.g. tɕʰɑ³¹ŋɑ⁵⁵. I'm a little unsure about this being a language with limited documentation since we have lumped all varieties of Chinese under Chinese if they are written in hanzi. It is certainly not unwritten. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Are you sure that 筶 itself is a verb? In that case I'll support deletion. Otherwise the impression I got from the Wikipedia entry 四川方言字 was that its used in the idiom 筶一下, rather than an independent part of speech.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure. I think the page is just giving an example. All the dictionaries I've checked use 告 instead though:
  • 《四川方言词典》
告 gao4 (动)试:妈喊快点~鸭儿胃口呢。(川文82·8·63)|这双鞋你来~一下,看穿不穿得。
  • 《成都话方言词典》
告 gào〔kau²¹³〕试:衣服合不合身,你先~一下。
  • 《成都方言詞典》
【告】kau˨˩˧ 試:你來~一下,看合不合適
— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The references you provided seems to indicate that in the "to try" sense it's only used in the phrase 告一下. That suggests that we just keep 筶一下 as a soft redirect.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it's just a common collocation. The first example sentence in 四川方言词典 shows that 一下 is not necessary. The same would apply to 試一下 in standard Mandarin. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

instant mashed potatoes[edit]

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

But instant mashed potatoes are potatoes processed in a particular way- what the modifier "instant" means changes based on the particular type of food. DTLHS (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
In all of the uses I am familiar with "instant" means "pre-processed for quicker preparation times." - TheDaveRoss 19:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Cooked food is still "cooked" whether it's baked, boiled or fried. Instant food is still "instant" regardless of how it got that way. Equinox 19:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
We should determine which "instant" food came first, as this meaning of instant is probably a back-formation from that, so that entry should be kept. The rest I would delete except for instant noodles, which seems to embody some qualities other than its instantness. I believe coffee is the trend leader. See Rupert Hughes, Gift Wife (1910), p. 164: "In a small room opening off the hall the usual withered serving woman kept the coals of the kahve-ojak alive and water ready for instant coffee." bd2412 T 03:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The cite doesn't fit the current definition, nor that of WordNet 3.0: "dehydrated coffee that can be made into a drink by adding hot water". Judging from the Google N-gram and inspection of cites in decades from 1900 on, through 1929 instant coffee referred initially to a liquid coffee concentrate, starting about 1921. At some point in the 1930s there is evidence of cubes and crystals. Sanka, which fits the definitions, appeared on the market around 1946. \
Of course, most dictionaries don't have an entry for instant coffee. None at OneLook, except for us, have an entry for instant mashed potatoes. DCDuring TALK 13:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
How can you tell what cite the definition fits? In any case, I am proposing that "instant" referring to a food prepared in such a way that a normally arduous process is reduced to adding water or the like, is a back-formation, which would render the originating term idiomatic whether other dictionaries now have it or not. bd2412 T 17:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I find the description of production process unessential. If someone found another way of producing instant mashed potatoes they would still be instant mashed potatoes. For comparison: paper is paper, no matter how it's been made. delete --Hekaheka (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Nobody seems to be querying the synonym instant mash, so maybe it should be kept for the sake of completeness. Even shorter is the brand name "Smash" which used to be owned by Cadbury's. DonnanZ (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking at it again, keep. DonnanZ (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • From my perspective, all of these look like SOP. But I also don't see much harm in keeping them. Meh.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • A thought. Instant coffee (respectively instant soup) is both coffee (soup) that has been dried out and, once reconstituted, coffee (soup) again. Instant mashed potatoes are mashed potatoes that have been dried out; once reconstituted, they're not mashed potatoes in the literal sense, i.e. potatoes that have been mashed, though they may be indistinguishable from same. I don't know that that's a reason to keep, and am tending to think not, especially because the reconstituted stuff is called "mashed potatoes" irrespective of the literal meanings of those words. But it's something to think about.​—msh210 (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
    If chicory coffee is a kind of coffee, then the constitution of something does not necessarily matter to the SoPitude of the term. (Chicory coffee drinks resemble certain roasts of coffee in color and flavor.) That is, I don't think the ingredients or process by which something of general familiarity is manufactured (out of sight of the great mass of language speakers) necessarily has any legitimate impact on RfD questions. In contrast, instant is meaningful to normal speakers because it indicates something that is within their experience. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Isn't there a classic "philosphical" or "philological" discussion about the nature of adjectives like fake? DCDuring TALK 00:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The keyword to search for might be alienans. Equinox 00:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
That's the ticket. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

vox clamantis in deserto[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, it can be idiomatic for John the Baptist. I can't speak for Latin, but it's sort of used that way in English (I say sort of, because it's debatable whether it's simply an allusion, or is an actually idiomatic name for St. John). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hadn't actually heard of it being used to refer to John the Baptist, I always associated it more with Isaiah 40:3. The Hebrew equivalent (קוֹל קוֹרֵא בַּמִּדְבָּר (kol koré bamidbár)) is used to refer to a speaker whose arguments go unheard or unheeded. I believe that the English voice in the wilderness is used in much the same way. Anyway, how do you establish in cases like this where something stops being an allusion, and becomes an idiom worthy of inclusion in its own right? — Kleio (t · c) 18:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
In the Gospel according John 1:23, John the Baptist says that he is the voice in the wilderness of Isaiah 40:3, so it's conceivable that other people have used the phrase to allude to him. Maybe this should be moved to RFV. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I found this definition when looking up an idiomatic use of the phrase in Taleb's The Black Swan:
Seeing how superfluous his measure was, and how it squandered resources, the public, with great help from airline pilots, might well boot him out of office. Vox clamantis in deserto. He will retire depressed, with a great sense of failure.
I think it's appropriate for Wiktionary. Splintax (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I came to my computer to look up vox clamantis in deserto because I couldn't recall the referent. I was pleased to find it in Wiktionary.

--BobShair (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I see that you put "Wikipedia" first and fixed it, and that you have never made any edits here before. It seems an absurd thing for a mere RFD, but am I witnessing meatpuppetry? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


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

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


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

Great Successor[edit]

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

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


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

Thai entered to mean "Christian church". The indicated sum is โบสถ์ (church) +‎ คริสต์ (Christian). If one believes Google image search, what it refers to is a building, and maybe less so the organization; for some reason, the organization popped up to my mind first. OTOH, buildings are visual unlike organizations, so they may naturally pop up first. Sanook[1] does not seem to have the word. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


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

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


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

I created the entry and I became uncertain if it's a lemma or SOP, as it can be treated as a mere combination of two phrases (ทรงพระกรุณา (song-prá-gà-rú-naa) + โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m)) or as a single, valid phrase (because it seems like the two phrases are always together). Anyway, since the meanings of the two phrases do not change when they are put together, I then requested deletion of this entry. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@หมวดซาโต้: I know next to nothing about Thai, but from how you describe it, ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (song-prá-gà-rú-naa-bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m) certainly looks like an unidiomatic sum of ทรงพระกรุณา (song-prá-gà-rú-naa) + โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m), even if it is a common collocation. Would you be able to add a {{ux}} to both ทรงพระกรุณา and โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม that uses ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Just added some citations to ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (song-prá-gà-rú-naa-bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m), in which ทรงพระกรุณา (song-prá-gà-rú-naa) and โปรดเกล้าฯ (bpròot-glâao) (shortening of โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m)) appear together. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@หมวดซาโต้: Great, thanks. I've copied those citations, mutatis mutandis, to ทรงพระกรุณา and โปรดเกล้าฯ. Could you also add to โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม citations that use ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (song-prá-gà-rú-naa-bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m) unabbreviated, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


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

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



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

This definition, unless anyone can show otherwise, seems to apply only to the phrase "at the mercy of", but I am not convinced that "mercy" in "at the mercy of" means "subjugation" or "power" at all. I think it has the usual meaning of forgiveness, compassion etc., as amply covered by other senses, and that "at the mercy of" means something like "dependent on the mercy of" or "subject to the mercy of". Mihia (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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

double as[edit]

SoP, redundant to double sense: "(intransitive) (often followed by as) To play a second part or serve a second role. A spork is a kind of fork that doubles as a spoon." Equinox 01:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional thought: can something just double, without an as: "this kind of fork doubles"? I suspect not. Even so, the as feels strongly like an external preposition and not a particle. Equinox 01:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Someone can double for someone else. Also see double as at OneLook Dictionary Search and double for at OneLook Dictionary Search, which show that some lemmings have both of these. DCDuring TALK 02:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Also note double up as (the definition of which seems slightly faulty actually). Mihia (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


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

January 2017[edit]

restroom break[edit]

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

@Robbie SWE Did you mean to take this to RFD rather than RFV? SoP is irrelevant at RFV. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger Ah, I didn't know SoP issues were irrelevant here, my bad. I'll take this to RFD. Thank you for pointing this out! --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
we have coffee break and water break. someone doesn't necessarily need to be drinking coffee or getting water during those breaks, which is why they have entries. likewise someone can use a restroom break for something other than using the restroom, which is why it should have an entry. note that we have urinary break. that seems more SoP to me than restroom break. 00:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Could someone rewrite the definition of urinary break so that it looked as if it were written by someone who knew English. I'd just as soon see it deleted. DCDuring TALK 00:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It hardly seems like a set phrase in real use. Equinox 08:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This or bathroom break are often used when a group is traveling, such as a number of motorcyclists, a carload of people, a squad of soldiers, and so on. There are also some less polite variations, such as a piss break. —Stephen (Talk) 08:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
In the UK, those of us who go on walking holidays have comfort breaks. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Is this an American term? It's not labelled as such. DonnanZ (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I found only one use of "urinary break" in BGC. Many Google hits are just mirroring Wiktionary > Agree with Equinox: hardly a set term. One more nail to the coffin: the entry was created by someone who is now blocked from all Wikimedia > delete at least "urinary break". --Hekaheka (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree about urinary break, which could also be deleted through RFV if necessary. If restroom break passes, the translations can go there. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


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

  • It's an example of how Nynorsk can be unbelievably complex. There are two words for eye; auga and auge. There are also two prefixes for derivatives of eye; auge- and augne-. There is also a verb augne, also spelt øygne, but no noun. I suggest that you read the reference in the Nynorsk Dictionary if you haven't already done so.
There are variants in Bokmål also, where øye in compounds can also be øyen-, from an old genitive plural, but it's not regarded as a prefix for some reason. DonnanZ (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
But why does auge- have to be a prefix? Why can't the words in CAT:Norwegian Nynorsk words prefixed with auge- be considered compounds of auge instead? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably because of the two spellings, auge is entered as the alternative form of auga, but that may have been the editor's personal preference. One could use the spelling auga, and in the next line use an auge- derivative I guess. DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
It's perfectly possible to change {{prefix|nn|auge|bryn}} to {{compound|nn|auga|bryn|alt1=auge}}, and from a semantic point of view it makes more sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
It may make sense from an English point of view, but not to a Nynorsk speaker. Another oddity is that the definite plural of auge is (guess what) auga, which can be highly confusing to us. DonnanZ (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Calling it a prefix doesn't make sense from a linguistic point of view, regardless of the native language of the observer. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Njardarlogar, @Barend: Let's ask a couple of Nynorsk speakers. DonnanZ (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hm, I had to think of that a bit. As so much in one's native tongue, I've never had cause to consider it before. I suppose the point is that the Nynorsk noun for "eye" can take the forms "auge" or "auga", these are not separate words, just different forms of the same word, meaning they are completely interchangeable in every context. Whereas if you use it as the first part of a compound word, you cannot use the form "*auga-", only "auge-" or "augne-" [Whereas *augne is not a valid form of the noun on its own]. So from a Nynorsk grammarians point of view, this makes "auge" and "auge-" two different... hm... lexemes(?) Donnanz writes "One could use the spelling auga, and in the next line use an auge- derivative I guess." Indeed, this true, in fact, one would have to' use an auge- derivative, because there are no *auga- derivatives. I hope this was comprehensible.--Barend (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't have much to add, but if auge- would be worthy of an entry if there was no such form as auge, then I think it would make more sense to keep auge- than to delete it, as it is still a distinct prefix form of auga. So for me, I think the question boils down to whether or not auge- is worthy of an entry if we only had auga. --Njardarlogar (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your input. DonnanZ (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a somewhat similar situation in Finnish. Adjectives ending in -inen regularly change the ending to "-is" when they are used as modifiers in compound terms. We don't regard the -is -ending terms as prefixes but rather as adjective forms. But, as such, they still may merit their own "form of" -entry. For example, the word kreikkalaiskatolinen is not categorized as "Finnish term with prefix kreikkalais-" but as "Finnish compound term" or "Finnish compound term with kreikkalainen" if such category existed. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand Finnish, but "-is" seems to be something like a modified interfix between parts of words. But I guess showing it as a compound of kreikkalainen and katolinen (as has been done) is the best treatment. Different methods are needed for different languages. DonnanZ (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate more input, particularly from users not familiar with Norwegian. Angr's question still hasn't been answered satisfactorily: why are the words in Category:Norwegian Nynorsk words prefixed with auge- not to be compounds of the word auge? I would also like to ask an additional question: How, in theory, could compounds of auge and those of auge- be differentiated? —CodeCat 20:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • You should try looking from a Norwegian point of view. DonnanZ (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The way I see it, it's merely a historically grown form of the lexeme auga/auge and we should handle it thus: 1. Indicate prefix‐form in the head template for languages where they're applicaple. For example:
auga n (definite singular auga, indefinite plural augo, definite plural augo, compound form auge‐ or augne‐)
2. Create a form of‐entry for the prefix forms like we do for any other inflection. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a combining form used for compounding, albeit a trivial one since it seems identical with the base noun. Combining forms that were deleted via RFD: barne- from barn and kraft- from kraft; tron- from trone; these were nominated for deletion by Donnanz. A combining form that was kept: jedno-. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Delete all "surname + given name" entries based on WT:NSE. Weak delete for style names (except those specified below). (Should 孔明 as a name be deleted as well?) After checking Guoyu Cidian and Hanyu Da Cidian, the following should be kept for having other meanings:
  • 玄德 ("高深、幽潛的德性", "天地玄妙之理", "佛教上指玄妙的功德")
  • 奉先 ("祭祀祖先", "宋代禁軍名")
  • 文則/文则 ("文章的法則")
  • 張楊/张杨 ("1936年12月發動西安事變的著名將領張學良、楊虎城的並稱") — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I tentatively propose that we allow all names which have inclusion-worthy derived terms. Wyang (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I advocating deleting names, while agreeing with Wyang that we should keep names that have derived terms. Surely we should keep style names (字) though, as they function basically the same as nicknames do in English (e.g. J-Lo, J-Law, K-Rod, etc.). ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Style names are not comparable to English nicknames or given names; they are more akin to English "first name + middle name" combinations, such as "John Michael". English given names (e.g. John) usually have interesting etymologies, but Chinese style names (e.g. 文謙) are simply a sum of parts. On the other hand, Chinese nicknames or certain stage names are certainly worthy of inclusion, such as 鳥叔, 成龍. Wyang (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

doon the stair[edit]

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

  • Maybe it should be an RFV. Are the books written by John Buchan any help here? If I remember correctly they contain a lot of Glaswegian dialect. DonnanZ (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Try this from Google Books [2]. Actually, if it translates to a single word in standard English it should be kept. DonnanZ (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Although sometimes it would be "down the stairs" [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. DonnanZ (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

slovėnų kalba[edit]

retoromanų kalba[edit]

moldavų kalba[edit]

rumunų kalba[edit]

oksitanų kalba[edit]

afarų kalba[edit]

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

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

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

I am happy to weakly keep "X language" entries, especially if the open compound "X language" is more common than its single-word synonym. Thus, if in English, "English language" were much more common in reference to the language than "English", I would support keeping "English language". I do not know the relative frequency for Lithuanian, the language being discussed here, though. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I grouped the four headers now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Those are the normal terms to refer to the languages, as far as I'm aware. (And I think all others are ambiguous.) Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

From originally separate section of Afar:
I thought we were deleting all these "X language" entries. --G23r0f0i (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

yeah...delete. It's SOP. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]

ill manners[edit]

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

By what definition of ill? DCDuring TALK 16:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Sense 4, which even has ill manners as an example. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Sense 4 looks like more than one definition to me. Of the ones offered "not up to reasonable standard" might fit. (MWOnline has "not meeting an accepted standard", with ill manners as its usage example.) What other nouns form an NP with that definition of ill? I can't think of any right now. Not that there aren't any. DCDuring TALK 16:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Ill prospects, ill health, an ill season... Equinox 19:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Perhaps we should mark the adjective sense as dated, btw? Equinox 19:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
ill health - def. 5. ("Unwell in terms of health or physical condition; sick.")
ill prospects, ill season - def. 4.1 ("Unpropitious").
I guess the definitions in sense 4 just aren't part of my idiolect, except possibly in ill-mannered. DCDuring TALK 20:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete. It wouldn’t hurt to redirect the page to that sense of ill, though. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

have a look-see[edit]

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

Delete. Look-see works with take, get, give, allow, as object of prepositions such as for, etc. In addition, one can "have/take/get/give/allow oneself a look-see". There are numerous other collocations and grammatical roles look-see can play, all with about the same semantics. No OneLook source has the various verb+look-see combinations, though many have look-see entries. DCDuring TALK 07:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete. It might be nice to have some formal way to list the verbs and prepositions that a word "takes", but creating loads of near-cloned entries is not the way. For now we can at least include some typical citations or usexes. Equinox 10:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
We have Appendix:Collocations of do, have, make, and take, for a start --Quadcont (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


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

Delete.Kleio (t · c) 17:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


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


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

This says the misspelling is common in relation to diabetes. If you search Google for keytone diabetes there are indeed quite a few hits. Mihia (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I have been thinking about creating a vote to get rid of the more egregious misspellings, but I mostly end up doing actual useful stuff, like creating words. I am happy to discuss such a vote by e-mail with anyone else who is annoyed by shit like this. Equinox
But why not discuss it on-project, why, why not do that? "Because of you" is the response to all those people. HTH. Equinox 22:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
My main problem with including misspellings is that they can end up on word lists or indexes appearing as valid words. Otherwise, I see no reason not to include the common ones. If someone reads the word "keytone" and comes here to find out what it means, isn't it more helpful to tell them? Mihia (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Ideally that's part of the work of the search engine. If someone types NAIT then they might mean night or knight, sure. That's an argument for having phonetic search suggestions. I don't think there's any good argument for having entire entries, on the same level as "real" word entries, that only serve to deal with people's spelling errors. Equinox 00:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I would advocate a more positive response than "did you mean?" for spelling errors that are commonly encountered. If someone types in a word that they have read, and believe to be a word, and they are told "did you mean ...?" then they might think, no, I meant what I typed, and then assume that their word was not entered in the dictionary. I do agree, though, that misspellings and errors being, as you say, "on the same level" as real entries is not very satisfactory. Mihia (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Personally, if I am looking something up which I read in a non-edited source and I cannot find it in any dictionaries, I assume it is not a word. I am in favor of paring back significantly the misspelling entries. - TheDaveRoss 13:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
So am I, in principle, but in practice, it can sometimes be very difficult to distinguish between a misspelling and a rare alternative spelling; and over time, something that started out as a misspelling can become an alternative spelling (often not a rare one), like lite, tonite, and barbeque. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as a common misspelling (WT:CFI#Spellings): (keytone*1000),ketone at Google Ngram Viewer suggests a frequency ratio of 1000, which is good enough for common misspellings by my calibration at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. Since we expressly mark the item as a misspelling, any downstream reuser who does not want misspellings can easily filter it out. Editors who want to tighten the misspelling filter can consider a lower shreshold for the frequency ratio. I think common misspellings are a usability tool: I find it much more friendly to land on a page that expressly tells me that what I was searching for was a misspelling, and what it was a misspelling of. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: Please look at google books:"keytone". Most of the uses are not actually this misspelling, so the frequency you quoted is a gross overestimation. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Μετάknowledge: GNV distinguishes capitalization, unlike Google Books: check e.g. keytone,Keytone at Google Ngram Viewer. Admittedly, when I ignore the uppercase occurrences in the Google Books search, I also find the likes of "The central tone in a key is called a keytone", but even if these would drive the frequency ratio to 2000, that would still be acceptable for a common misspelling by my lights. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the OP's argument really is more of an RfV one than an RfD. Purplebackpack89 11:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


This has been RFD before, but didn't attract much attention [8]. Not listed as a suffix in Oxford Online, but it is in Cambridge [9]. I think it should be discussed further. DonnanZ (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


sapiens#Translingual. The content, including descendants, of such an L2 section for a taxonomic epithet that is the same as a Latin lemma (adjective, participle, genitive form of noun) should appear under the Latin L2 section of the Latin lemma. DCDuring TALK 13:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep: it is a specific epithet, like platanifolia, gingivalis, lividans, etc. (these three were created as Translingual but you moved them to Latin), also guatemalae, livadus, laherparepvec, etc. They are presumably citable in taxonomic names in multiple languages other than Latin, and therefore I believe they are Translingual. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Your argument rests on missing or faulty premises, faulty data, or inappropriate considerations:
  1. Why should it matter who the author of any particular entry or move of an entry is? The treatment of taxonomic epithets is, in any event, an unsettled matter. I was hoping that a case like this would help us reach consensus about which taxonomic epithets clearly best presented as Latin.
  2. laherparepvec is part of the name of a drug, not a taxonomic epithet.
  3. Some of the terms in question are epithets for subspecies, varieties, forms, etc, so "taxonomic epithet" (which is SoP) is a bit more accurate than "specific epithet".
  4. The matter in question is more how to present terms rather than whether they "are" Latin or Translingual, the kind of question that only a linguist could love. We certainly don't bother attesting the Translingual nature of CJKV characters. We show almost no medical and legal Latin terms as Translingual. And we fail to show as Translingual many classical Latin terms that are used in many languages as set phrases (eg, "cave canem", "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"). IOW, there is no reason to assume that the fact of Translingual use is at all compelling of presenting something as Translingual. Translingual is essentially a residual category for terms otherwise without a language to call home.
  5. There seems to be evidence for many taxonomic epithets that they were in use in Classical, Medieval, and New Latin, not just in taxonomic names. Do you really want to do the work of creating all the duplicate L2 sections or do you want someone else to do it? Personally, I'd prefer to do the much lesser amount of work to eliminate Translingual L2 sections where a Latin L2 already exists and participate in the effort to document post-Classical non-taxonomic use of other taxonomic epithets, for which [[lividans]] is a good example.
DCDuring TALK 15:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 1. One could abuse the moving like this: (a) Move or change all entries to a personally preferred form (like placing the taxonomic epithet "sapiens" in an Latin entry). (b) Claim that something is common practice or even consensus (like claiming that it's common practice that taxonomic epithets are Latin).
    (I'm not saying that you did this or are doing this, I'm just saying that one could do it like that.)
  • 2. Just like talimogene laherparepvec is English, laherparepvec might be English and not Translingual. Searching for "laherparepvec" on google books only had English results and two German results. One German result had "Talimogen Laherparepvec" and the other had "Talimogene laherparepvec" in italics, so it should be the English term. As German is not a LDL three cites are required. Thus with google books it's not attested in German.
  • 4.
    • CJKV: I don't know CJKV languages and their writing and encoding good enough, but from what I've read, not all characters are necessarily Translingual. The communists in mainland China simplified some characters, so these characters could be simplified Chinese and not Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese, and so they maybe aren't Translingual.
    • Medical and legal Latin terms and Classical Latin terms as Translingual: (a) Wiktionary is not complete, so a lack of something doesn't necessarily mean anything. Maybe many Translingual terms are simply missing. (b) It could be a matter of attesting terms. Attesting one term in one language is one problem, but attesting one term in several language is a harder task. (c) It could be a problem of current usage and understanding. At least in German, Latin terms became rarer and often aren't understood anymore. So even a simple "per definitionem" isn't so simple anymore and it's rather an elevated term. (d) BTW: In case of German there could be the matter of spelling: "cave canem" could become "cave Canem" as canem/Canem is a substantive.
    • "Translingual is essentially a residual category for terms otherwise without a language to call home.":
      • As of Wiktionary:Translingual#Other languages, terms can be Translingual and also, for example, English, so terms can be Translingual and can have possible languages to call home.
      • Many Translingual terms could be English, French, German etc. instead of being Translingual, that is they could have languages to call home. E.g. H2O and E numbers are used in English and German. So Translingual might contain terms attested in multiple languages and also terms which could hypothetically be used in multiple languages. If E100 is used in English and German, then it's used translingually and thus Translingual. As E101 could be used similarly in English and German, it's also Translingual, even if might ATM be unattested for English or German. But that "could hypothetically be used in multiple languages" has to be restricted and is restricted: Wiktionary:About Translingual#Accepted.
  • 5.
    • If "lividans" was never used in Latin but just in other languages, it shouldn't have a Latin entry as that's incorrect and misleading. So it could be English ("Streptomyces lividans" is attestable in English texts) or Translingual.
      Also compare with pseudo-anglicisms which are considered to be French, Italian, German etc. and not English. If lividans would be Latin, even if it was never used in Latin, then French tennisman should be English.
    • The "duplicating" maybe could be used to differ between earlier taxonomic terms and taxonomic terms accepted or once accepted by ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature). ICZN claims to only accepts terms invented in or after 1758: "3.2. [...] No name or nomenclatural act published before 1 January 1758 enters zoological nomenclature [...]". In fact, ICZN violates this by accepting some slightly earlier terms from 1757. So if older terms were never used in other languages, they could be Latin, while younger terms are Translingual. Homo sapiens for example is used in English and German, so it's used translingually and thus it's Translingual. But well, if older terms were also used translingually, one can't differ like this. And it might be likely that older terms were used translingually.
    • As there are Translingual entries like Streptomyces, it's more consistent, if lividans is Translingual too.
      Also it's easier to state that taxonomic terms are Translingual than to state some taxonomic terms are Translingual while some are Latin or English.
    • "much lesser amount of work": The amount of work doesn't determine the better or correct solution. Instead of doing RFVs/RFDs, it's easier to simply delete questioned entries. But this easy solution would be nonsense.
    • Regarding the work question: I was already considerend to move or duplicate some of them (as the WT:RFV discussions seem to have stopped). Problems I had: (a) It maybe wouldn't be consensus. (b) I was and am somewhat busy. Holiday time (like Christmas time) for me is a better time to do such things. (c) Proper Translingual templates could be missing. And some people do have problems with IPs creating or even just editing templates. Semi-solutions I saw: (a) Posting in the WT:RFV discussions again. (b) Starting a WT:BP discussion. But because of a lack of time and as IPs not rarelly get mistreated, I hesitated.
      So how about having a WT:BP discussion regarding the placement of taxonomic terms?
      Possibilities and some arguments:
      • Putting taxonomic terms under a Translingual header.
        • It's consistent.
        • The Latin origin is irrelevant, like pseudo-anglicisms also aren't English.
        • By attestation some terms would be Translingual, while younger onces would just be English ATM. So placing them under Latin is misleading and incorrect.
        • This is what Wiktionary:About Translingual#Accepted should already state or at least imply. -- Annotation: The about page could be changed.
      • Putting some taxonomic terms under a Translingual header and some under a Latin header.
        • Con: It's inconsistent, and thus might also irritate users and might lead to new incorrectly created entries.
        • It might be easier as it doesn't need new templates or anything.
      • Putting taxonomic terms under a Latin header.
        • It's consistent.
        • It might also be easy.
        • It orginated in Latin and has some Latin features. -- Con: But it's used or also used in other languages, and some terms might be unattested in Latin.
      • Putting taxonomic terms under the languages they are attested in.
        • It's consistent.
        • It might also be easy.
        • In this way one can provide more information like pronunciation and inflection. -- Annotation: In case of other choices, the information could be generalised and put on a about page.
        • Con: E.g. Homo sapens would than have an entry in several languages which is redundant.
@Daniel Carrero:
  • "They are presumably citable in taxonomic names in multiple languages other than Latin, and therefore I believe they are Translingual": In case of modern terms (like donaldtrumpi) it should rather be a problem to cite them in Latin than in English (or French, German). With google books I could attest iroquoianus only for English and not for another language (compare Wiktionary:RFV#iroquoianus). As it could be used in French or German as well, it might however be Translingual.
- 21:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC) (And sorry for being a TL;DR text writing guy, but not giving arguments as well as ignoring other persons' arguments or concerns, wouldn't be good too.)
@DCDuring: I'll reply now to all your five points. I'll copy your questions below, between quotation marks.
  1. "Why should it matter who the author of any particular entry or move of an entry is? The treatment of taxonomic epithets is, in any event, an unsettled matter. I was hoping that a case like this would help us reach consensus about which taxonomic epithets clearly best presented as Latin."
    • It matters because of this reason: you had said that sapiens "should appear under the Latin L2 section of the Latin lemma" which might give the impression that it's a settled regulation. The page moves are evidence that, while we have some Latin entries for specific (or taxonomic) epithets, there is still some disagreement. Some people have created Translingual entries for epithets. That said, naturally I'm OK with discussing and seeking consensus.
  2. "laherparepvec is part of the name of a drug, not a taxonomic epithet."
    • Point taken, sorry for the mix-up.
  3. "Some of the terms in question are epithets for subspecies, varieties, forms, etc, so 'taxonomic epithet' (which is SoP) is a bit more accurate than 'specific epithet'."
    • Point taken, "taxonomic epithet" sounds great to me.
  4. "The matter in question is more how to present terms rather than whether they 'are' Latin or Translingual, the kind of question that only a linguist could love. We certainly don't bother attesting the Translingual nature of CJKV characters. We show almost no medical and legal Latin terms as Translingual. And we fail to show as Translingual many classical Latin terms that are used in many languages as set phrases (eg, 'cave canem', 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc'). IOW, there is no reason to assume that the fact of Translingual use is at all compelling of presenting something as Translingual. Translingual is essentially a residual category for terms otherwise without a language to call home."
    • I disagree with the "Translingual is essentially a residual category ..." and I'd suggest using Translingual for medical and legal Latin terms. I believe at some point you supported the idea of using Translingual for medical/legal terms too, if I'm not mistaken.
    • Here's a proposal. (I actually intend to propose it on BP eventually.) Whenever a taxonomic name is attestable, let's be allowed to create a Translingual (and not Latin) entry for the specific, and possibly other taxonomic epithets. These may probably be automated by bot. Reasons for this proposal are in my next answer, below.
  5. "There seems to be evidence for many taxonomic epithets that they were in use in Classical, Medieval, and New Latin, not just in taxonomic names. Do you really want to do the work of creating all the duplicate L2 sections or do you want someone else to do it? Personally, I'd prefer to do the much lesser amount of work to eliminate Translingual L2 sections where a Latin L2 already exists and participate in the effort to document post-Classical non-taxonomic use of other taxonomic epithets, for which [[lividans]] is a good example."
    • Admittedly, I basically never work on taxonomic names, whereas you work on them a lot. Still, nobody needs to create duplicate Translingual/Latin sections for specific epithets. To be fair, sometimes duplication seems to be OK, like creating multiple language sections for pizza, sushi and place names. But for specific epithets, what I proposed above is just using Translingual. Why duplicate? We don't need to create an additional line of text in the Latin section meaning "specific epithet".
    • If sapiens is used in Latin to mean "discerning, wise, judicious", "discreet", "(substantive) a wise man, sage, philosopher" then we probably are going to find quotations with these senses in latin running text. This is completely separate from the use of "sapiens" in specific epithets, which exists in multiple languages, and therefore Translingual is appropriate it in my opinion. Translingual taxonomic names have different quotations, uses and possibly pronunciations in different languages. Plus, they are going to have a list of all taxonomic names that use that epithet. I'd rather find it in one place (the Translingual section) rather than search the Latin section and discern the actual Latin from the specific epithets.
    • If specific epithets are Translingual, it's consistent with the practice of keeping taxonomic names as Translingual. If someone wants to use Latin for specific epithets, they may as well do the whole job and move all taxonomic names to the Latin section, too. (I'm not proposing that, I'm only saying that using only "Translingual" or only "Latin" would at least be consistent.)
    • In fact, even if a taxonomic name is only attested in Latin texts, I'd still propose using only the Translingual section for it, because it fits a group of Translingual entries. If "Homo erectus" (or another taxonomic name) were used only in durably-archived quotes in Spanish, I'd still support creating a Translingual section for it, not a Spanish section.
    • If we create new sections for specific epithets by bot, then it's actually less work, as opposed to the current labor of creating senses manually in the middle of the Latin section. Admittedly, probably the bot could work equally well to create Translingual or Latin sections for specific epithets. (Heck, the bot could even create duplicate sense lines meaning "specific epithet" in both Translingual and Latin, which you mentioned above as one thing you apparently don't want.) Still, I'd use it only for Translingual, not Latin, for the reasons I said above.
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is stupid, and a bad practice — if there's consensus for Daniel's idea, then it has to be gotten from the community and done on a broad scale. In the mean time, the Translingual entry should go. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    Currently, a few senses about a "specific epithet" exist in both Latin and Translingual. Do you think they should all be deleted until we have consensus to add them in a broad scale, or are you OK with using Latin? To repeat what I said, I think using Latin is a bad idea, because it's inconsistent with the practice of using Translingual for taxonomic names. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    What is the point, beyond one kind of "consistency", of having both Translingual and Latin L2 sections for a term like albus? If there is a point, eg, "Wikidata would need it that way" or "Tabbed Languages needs it that way", then let some bot add the duplicate sections, that being an automatable task, perhaps requiring manual review. DCDuring TALK 12:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    The entry you mentioned (albus) does not have any sense like this: "A specific epithet." You don't have to create that sense if you don't want, but senses like this can probably be created en masse by bot as I mentioned. As long as that entry doesn't have that sense, it can have only the Latin section. But, I insist, if we want to add that sense, it must be Translingual, in my opinion. Consistency is important. That sense is simply not restricted to Latin only; it is used in multiple languages. It is, therefore, Translingual. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Daniel Carrero Does your personal opinion about the importance of of consistency connect in any way to any purported importance to Wiktionary and its users of this particular set of instances of consistency? DCDuring TALK 17:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    Yes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero (12:20, 9 March 2017): Regarding 5 (2), "Translingual taxonomic names have different quotations, uses and possibly pronunciations in different languages.": They have as seen in Homo sapiens#Pronunciation.
@Metaknowledge: It's not a matter of anyone's idea. A voting like "delete until there is some concensus" would mean that many taxonomic terms under a Translingual or Latin header have to be deleted as there is also no concensus to put the taxonomic term iroquoianus under a Latin header. But with WT:Translingual#Accepted one could argue that there is, or maybe was, concensus to place taxonomic terms under a Translingual header.
@DCDuring (12:57, 15 March 2017): Consistency is a good point. Proper categorisation is another, compare Category:mul:Taxonomic names: Translingual sapiens can be put into a Category:mul:, but Latin sapiens would be misplaced in it. Furthermore, sapiens might be attested in Latin as a taxonomic term - but Translingual iroquoianus isn't, so it fails WT:CFI as a Latin entry and has to be deleted as a Latin entry. But ok, this leads to the argument consistency. Then there's the matter of declension. Translingual taxonomic terms aren't declined as in Latin in many languages as seen by the wrong accusative "Homo sapiens" in a German example in Citations:Homo sapiens or by the wrong English singular Homo sapien.
Another argument could be this: Translingual taxonomic terms might miss macrons (or macra) which are used in Latin dictionaries and grammars. So Latin macrons for a Translingual taxonomic term could be hypercorrect.
BTW: Taxonian might rather be a constructed 'language' similar to Klingon, New Ancient Greek (as e.g. used in Asterix comics), etc., for which maybe compare WT:CFI#Constructed languages, WT:ID#What's the language?. I used ' around language as it's maybe not really a language like Klingon which has a grammar or New Ancient Greek, but just something else similar to a language.
- 20:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete. It's simply wrong. Alone, this word is not translingual, it's simply Latin. Even very modern such words should have a Latin entry (modern Latin, but Latin nonetheless). But complete scientific names should have their Translingual section as well as other language sections when needed to mention pronunciation in the language, quotations in the language, gender in the language (very important), etc. Lmaltier (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The argument "Alone, this word is not translingual, it's simply Latin" may work in this case. But: 1. There are many species epithets where it doesn't work, that is, the species epithets are not attestable in Latin but only in non-Latin taxonomics. 2. For Latin one could argue that "(New Latin) Used as a taxonomic epithet" is not a specialised sense but just the meaning wise. Even for Translingual taxonomics one could argue that they simply use the Latin word meaning wise to form species names like Homo sapiens. So one could delete both, the Translingual entry and the taxonomic epithet sense.
Compared with Wiktionary:About Translingual ("Accepted [...] taxonomic names"), Category:Translingual taxonomic eponyms (which contains some epithets) and Category:Species entry using missing Translingual specific epithet ("that are missing entries or L2 sections for the species name, presumed to be Translingual, ie, [= i.e.] not Latin"), one could argue that a Translingual entry sapiens is justified. - 06:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@DCDuring: dahuricus was moved to Latin Dahuricus and a thereafter created Translingual dahuricus got deleted. What do you think of not having Translingual dahuricus, fleischmanni if there is a Latin Dahuricus, Fleischmanni? If Translingual sapiens should be deleted because there is Latin sapiens, then Translingual dahuricus, fleischmanni maybe should be too. - 12:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't care very much. I already incur the keyboard overhead in species entry creation of directing links from species epithets to the appropriate lemma and L2 (See {{epinew}}.) because I despaired of us reaching an easy-to-implement uniform policy concerning L2 placement of specific epithets. I hope that those who move a epithet definition or section also make the appropriate changes to the inflection line in species entries that link to them. DCDuring (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Really, it's just Latin. --Jtle515 (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


I think I have succeeded in making "A sectarian" redundant by adding "A member of a particular sect of thought or practice, school, party, or profession."

breakfast in bed[edit]

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

Keep, per your and DAVilla's comments in the last RFD discussion. If one said "I was served breakfast in bed," it would be an SOP expression, but it's usually used with "have": "I had breakfast in bed," which makes it at least somewhat non-SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Try as I might, I cannot perceive any meaning of "breakfast in bed" that is different from "breakfast" + "in bed". Mihia (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    It's mostly the fact that it heavily implies that one was served breakfast in bed rather than simply eating it there. I'm not strongly opposed to deleting it, but it feels like it's more than SOP. Now, if we had a collocations section, I would be fine with relegating it to there... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Andrew, being served is not inherent to any component term. bd2412 T 04:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete; having it served is not a necessary part of the definition. Here's a case of someone saying "I had breakfast in bed" when they were alone and had to get it themselves. There are other similar cases. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Along the same lines many of the instances in this Google Books search are examples in which the server/preparer of breakfast and the one served are the same. The logistics of the situation (How often would I want to get out of bed, make breakfast, then return to bed to eat it?), not the meaning of the words seems to be what makes breakfast in bed normally involve a situation in which someone else is preparing and serving it. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Grabbing a bagel and eating it in bed in the morning would not be referred to as "breakfast in bed" (except perhaps humorously). Even if someone brings you a bagel while you're lying in bed, that probably wouldn't count. It implies some sort of fanciness; whether someone is serving you, or you're serving yourself, there is still the idea of service and luxury. --WikiTiki89 20:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe in your idiolect, but other people's usage seems different, eg:
  • 2014, Mr Ceri Carpenter, Megan and the Mayoress:
    Megan could not just lie there any longer, so she got up, boiled three eggs, made some tea and toast and took her parents and herself breakfast in bed
  • 2015, Pat Warren, ‎Carol Ericson, Obsession and Eyewitness, page 96:
    He'd shed his jeans last night and hadn't expected breakfast in bed this morning. Not that he minded. She poured a cup of the steaming brew and carried it to him along with a sliced bagel on a plate.
  • 2015, Terrence Benjamin Samuel Jr, Strange Luv: Twisted Fate:
    To show her appreciation, she decided to make her auntie breakfast in bed which consisted of a bowl of cereal (75% milk and 25% cereal).
I have this feeling that there may be other entries, including for true idioms, that need work more than we need to cover every collocation, especially those not covered by any other OneLook reference. DCDuring TALK 22:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I may be misunderstanding you, but it looks to me like these support WikiTiki and my position. They all seem to support idiomaticity, especially the third one. It's clear that she didn't actually make her aunt breakfast while in a bed, but rather prepared her aunt's breakfast to be eaten in bed. In the first quote, "Megan" isn't taking breakfast while in bed, but rather taking breakfast in bed to her parents and for herself. Between those three quotes, I'd say there's an even stronger case for idiomaticity than I had thought. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikitiki made the point that point that there was some connotation of fanciness and being served (though he backed away from both elements, in the end merely claiming that the term implied luxury even when the service was by oneself and the food was simple).
There is some kind of connotation, but only because of the pragmatics, the situations in which one is likely to have breakfast in bed. But many collocations have some kind of connotations, often, as here, simply because of the situations in which they are used.
Should romantic dinner have an entry? For that matter, should oyster have a separate definition because of its connotational association with sex (It's a supposed afrodisiac.). DCDuring TALK 15:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you're trying to say. What I was trying to say is that it has a specific connotation of luxury and/or service or something like that. When in reality there is no luxury or service, the use of this phrase is ironic. Oysters may sometimes have an association with sex, but when they don't there is no irony. --WikiTiki89 20:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that cases like these would be easier to resolve if a "set phrases" exemption to the SoP rule could somehow be framed. Mihia (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Andrew, BD and Wikitiki Purplebackpack89 04:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

same old-same old[edit]

Um I don't know what to say about this except that it's inherently incorrect. If everyone disagrees then we'll keep it. Just drawing attention. Equinox 22:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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

I vote to keep. It is a reasonably common variant. Kiwima (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


Translingual entry. I don't think ICAO is truly translingual - it's English. English has been chosen the language of international aviation, but that does not make English aviation terminology translingual. AFAIK, most languages have a spelling alphabet of their own for their national use. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I've noted that some letters are under English and some are under Translingual, but they should all be under English. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Not only aviation though, it is used internationally on amateur radio, along with all the other letters. I have the callsign Golf Zero Echo Zulu Lima. DonnanZ (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep, these terms are used in all languages. It's no more English than Canis is Latin. Moreover, the pronunciation is prescribed in IPA and notably does not match the regular English pronunciation in several cases. —CodeCat 21:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Nope. It is clearly an English set and it is used only in a context where English is the assumed language of communication. ICAO set does not even contain all letters of all languages. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The alphabet involved has various names, depending on what organisation is using it [10], a key sentence in this article says "critical combinations of letters and numbers can be pronounced and understood by those who exchange voice messages by radio or telephone regardless of language barriers or the quality of the communication channel", which I can well believe. In fact the alphabet has a multilingual flavour anyway, Alpha, Bravo, Delta, Echo, Hotel, Lima, November, Quebec, Sierra, Tango, Zulu and maybe others all come from other languages in the first place. I suggest making them all translingual if not already done - I notice that Hotel has two entries, one with a small "h". DonnanZ (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
"ICAO set does not even contain all letters of all languages." I think compromises are found - Ü as UE, ß as SS (which it is in capitals anyway), Æ as AE, Ø and Ö as OE, Å as AA (which it used to be anyway), and so on. DonnanZ (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Spanish has its own phonetic alphabet (e.g. jueves), as does Italian (e.g. Quarto). Is the ICAO alphabet used in those languages? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I found a table written in Danish, giving letters that are probably used internally. Other letters are the same.

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

Bogstav Dansk Norsk (civilt) Norsk (militært) Svensk
Æ / Ä Ægir Ægir Ærlig Ärlig
Ø / Ö Ødis Ørnulf Østen Östen
Å Åse Ågot Åse Åke
DonnanZ (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@DonnanZ: It's said that ICAO has alfa or Alfa with f.
German has its own spelling alphabets and has names for German letters including the umlaute and ß.
At least Danish also had other ways of spelling, like "aa" instead of "å".
I would generalise and extend Andrew Sheedy's question: Is the ICAO alphabet used in other languages than English (and, of course, is it attested in other languages than English)? Do Spanish pilots etc. speak Spanish and use ICAO, or do Italians, Frenches or Germans speak their language and use ICAO? If Spanish pilots use ICAO's alphabet and speak English, then it's English. If they speak Spanish and use ICAO it's also Spanish and thus Translingual. So this could be a RFV instead of RFD. - 17:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep : I already heard these ICAO letters used in French (not by pilots; and no English was used at all). There is a standard pronunciation, but usual pronunciations in each language should be given in each language section. Lmaltier (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I just heard a use of Kilo in Dutch by the police in a documentary. I'm unable to post a link because the spam filter blocks it. —CodeCat 22:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)




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

POS section: Interfix

  1. (neologism) Used to separate multiple gendered inflections in gender-neutral writing.
    Freund/innen; ein/e Beamt/er/in
    friends (of any gender); an officer (of any gender)
  1. (neologism) Used to separate multiple gendered inflections in gender-neutral writing.
    Freund_innen; ein_e Beamt_er_in
    friends (of any gender); an officer (of any gender)
  1. (neologism) Used to separate multiple gendered inflections in gender-neutral writing.
    Freund*innen; ein*e Beamt*er*in
    friends (of any gender); an officer (of any gender)

I don't speak German, but I believe these are just punctuation marks (/, _ and *) that can be used inside words, not interfixes. The first one looks like just the punctuation mark found in "I want to meet him/her." It's used like this in Portuguese, too. We already have a couple of senses like those at /, though I'm not sure why they are marked as "proscribed" and "sometimes proscribed".

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per Danliel's reasoning. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Aah, please can we change the entry into cute smilies instead of deleting them. The first one could be for Two-Face. The second one a sleeping dude, and the third one perhaps for a Hindu with a dot on the forehead. I vote for being Cute. --Quadcont (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    Creating emoticon entries for -/-, -_- and -*- sounds plausible (especially this, IMO: -_-) iff they are citable. This is separate from the idea I proposed above of deleting these specific German senses. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
-/- in "ein/e Beamt/er/in" is different from / in "his/her" or German "sein/ihr": While "his/her" could be rephrased as "his or her" and "sein/ihr" as "sein oder ihr", "Beamt/er/in" would be, but with change of meaning, "Beamter oder Beamtin" and "ein/e" would be "ein oder eine" (bold part has to be added when -/- is used). If one would incorrectly treat a -/- like a /, one would get "ein oder e" which doesn't make sense.
  • "We already have a couple of senses like those at /": Well, one could move some of the senses from / to -/-.
  • "I'm not sure why they are marked as "proscribed" and "sometimes proscribed"": It could depend on the spelling, and not necessarily on the meaning. "she/he" could be "sometimes proscribed" like "actor/model" while "s/he" is "proscribed".
  • "Plus if I want to know the meaning of the slash in "Freund/innen", I guess it's more intuitive to search for / than -/-.": It is more intuitive, but intuitions can be wrong. One could add -/- in an {{also|}} or mention it like / / in / ("See also: / / for the use ..." and "See / / for uses of ...").
  • "! would be a suffix": ! is not added to a word, at least in usual English words or German. In English words like !Kung and in African languages ! might be a prefix or suffix when originally representing some click sounds, but that's something different.
    "( ) would be a circumfix": Aren't circumfixes only added at the begining and at the end like [circumfix part 1][word or stem][circumfix part 2]? ( ) instead is added elsewhere like in "dog(s)", "(re)write", "colo(u)r". So if ( ) would be some affix, it would be of another type.
    But well, the POS "Punctuation mark" might be more fitting and then / might be the proper entry. However, one has to differ between "ein/e" and "ein/eine": 1. In case of "ein/e" something has to be added (a single "e" makes no sense there). 2. / in "ein/eine" has the meaning of or and so "ein/eine" is bi-gendered (like "a man or woman"). "ein/e" on the other hand is said to include various sociological genders and is multi-gendered (like "a man or woman or possibly other"). 3. / meaning or as in "ein/eine" can be used elsewhere like in "und/oder" (= and or or, i.e. an emphasised inclusive or).
- 16:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (as creator) "Freund/innen" is a good example of why -/- isn't simply a slash. It's not "Freund"/"innen", nor is it even "Freund [singular]"/"Freundinnen" - it's "Freunde [plural] and Freundinnen". The slash specifically draws attention to the fact the use of the -innen suffix does not necessarily mark the gender of the friends (It makes more sense for words like Mitarbeiter/innen where the masculine plural is the same as the singular). Similarly, in "Beamt/er/in", it's not "Beamt"/"er"/"in", it's "Beamter"/"Beamtin". It's doing something unique that it only does when inserted into words. All of the examples given by the OP, with the exception of the slash in s/he, are punctuation marks with the same meaning both inside and outside words. (There's also the fact that, for -*- and -_-, you can't use these symbols any other way: you couldn't write "ja/nein" as "ja*nein" or "ja_nein". They only work as interfixes). Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    • For people who believe this should be kept, but that it's not an interfix, would you say it's an infix? eg in "für eine/n andere/n", where it's inserted into the middle of the -en suffix? (e.g. in 1, 2, [3)? Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'm still not seeing why this usage can't be explained within /. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, but move the information, as I don't think it's a true interfix, but it needs to be covered more thoroughly at /, *, and [[_]]. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


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

rub off[edit]

RFD-sense "2. To clean by rubbing." Undoubtedly true, but this is just unidiomatic "rub off" for a specific purpose. We don't include senses like "to deface by rubbing" either. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Our entry for rub#Verb doesn't have an appropriate definition for rub, IMO. Juding from the usage examples the "cleanse" definition is not appropriate. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed: if the example was "I rubbed the dirt off the old lamp", it would be SoP, but "rubbing off" a toy rabbit (cleaning it) seems a phrase of its own. Equinox 19:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't rub in "I rubbed my glasses" imply cleaning in a similar way, with the thing being cleaned as the direct object? [11] [12] Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
A couple of on-line dictionaries 2 1.4 3 1 a include a (sub) sense involving cleaning for rub, usually under a sense corresponding to Wiktionary's sense 2. It does seem an existing sense not limited to rub off. [13] [14] Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

national airline[edit]

I was going to fix the definition, which is for "flag carrier". When trying to formulate a better definition it began to look more and more like "an airline that is national". --Hekaheka (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The corresponding definition of flag carrier doesn't convey that the term often refers to a carrier/airline that is typically the sole airline that provides some class of international service and may be government owned or have a special charter giving it a monopoly. I think that the meaning of the term has changed where "open-skies" regulatory regimes now govern. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]


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

Recently raised at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#deadwrong. Mihia (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, and in WT:RFV#deadwrong, Kiwima found attesting quotations so this is going to pass RFV. It can still be deleted as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
What makes it a misspelling rather than an emergent spelling or a pronunciation spelling? DCDuring TALK 13:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Consistent with my long-term stance, a spelling whose frequency ratio to its alternative spelling is very low (or very high, from the other direction) is likely a misspelling. For the above spelling, no frequency can even be determined in GNV. What is your criterion for a misspelling? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a criterion or criteria. I'm glad I don't because it seems that your plausible criterion has gotten this one deadwrong. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom, as a rare misspelling. Of the relatively few books that use "deadwrong", many also use "dead wrong", which suggests that the use of the rare nonstandard spelling is an unintentional error rather than deliberate. Other books only use the term once, preventing such an analysis. - -sche (discuss) 05:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Wildly nonstandard. Equinox 12:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

e-#Etymology_1, "out of"[edit]

Delete [as English] or reclassify as Latin like ec-; and probably sug- et al should be recreated as Latin; for the same reason as Talk:sug-: it seems to me that Etymology 1, the prefix supposedly meaning "out of", is describing a Latin conditional variant prefix and not an English one. Looking at the "derived terms", "evict" is borrowed whole from Latin, it is not "e-" + *"vict"; "egress" is from Latin, not "e-" + *"gress"; etc. - -sche (discuss) 16:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Category:English words prefixed with e-, there are a few words that look like they are examples of productive use of Latin-derived e- (but some have a sense that is more accurately described as non- rather than out of): ebracteate, enucleate, ecostate, elamping, elocation, enodal, etypical, evacate. Maybe they are actually borrowings from scientific New Latin terms, though; does anyone have more info?
Even if this is enough to keep the section, we ought to add information to describe the real situation (that nearly all words with this e- are Latin borrowings). — Ungoliant (falai) 16:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster says ebracteate is from New Latin ebracteatus and enucleate is from enucleatus, and I can find ecostatus and elocatio and enodalis as (New?) Latin words which would account for ecostate, etc. In all of those cases, e- looks like "sug-": like the prefix only existed in Latin. The invocation of "e-" in our etymology of "elamping" seems to be someone's guesswork, qualified by that question mark at the end. "Evacate" seems likely to also have a Latin or other etymon like "evacuate", or perhaps it is a variant of that word. I can't find a reference that explains the etymology of "etypical"; can anyone else? - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Are there any cases where English uses e- where Latin would use another allomorph of ex- due to the initial sound(s) of the word? Any examples of the suffix being used in an "un-Latin" way would be evidence of it being thought of as an English prefix. —CodeCat 21:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Probably delete [as English] or reclassify as Latin for the same reason as Talk:sug- and #e-. "Efform" and "effranchise" claim to have been formed using this suffix, but I suspect they were borrowed whole or represent unusual phonological alterations, since the norm when attaching "ex-" to "f"-initial words is not to switch to "ef-" ("exfranchisees sued the company"). The only English dictionaries which have this also have sug- and hence seem to have different inclusion criteria than us. - -sche (discuss) 16:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@-sche: The OED states that efform derives from ef- +‎ form, though I suppose it could derive from the Latin efformō instead. Isn't this an RFV issue, though? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I find older dictionaries with derive efform from Latin efformo, which is an attested Latin word; ef- form seems like a superficial analysis like in some dictionaries' entries for "suggest" which say it's "sug- + gest". As for RFV, some have argued that the question of deleting an affix (even on the grounds that it does not occur in a given language) is an RFD matter; cf the discussions of -os. Sug- was discussed at RFD rather than RFV. - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


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

quasi mai[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. Wyang (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Collect these to an appendix page instead? These names are somewhat useful. --Octahedron80 (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I support this notion. Either here or on some other WikiProject site.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

be above[edit]

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

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

Many Thai language names[edit]

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

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

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

I've been shot[edit]

If you heard a gunshot & somebody yelping or screaming, you can safely assume that somebody’s been shot. If you see a bullet hole on somebody, you can likewise assume that they’ve been shot. Why bother stating the obvious? — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 00:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

They might be on a 911 call, or talking to a blind person, or discussing a shooter video game. Equinox 00:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
And they might be trying to feed an elephant a delicious mango. But our phrasebook entries don't need to cover any and all situations. Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep I've been shot, like I've been raped and I've been robbed. Don't create I'm trying to feed an elephant a delicious mango. Most conceivable phrases don't merit phrasebook entries, and some do. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


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

Well, the entry was created by a native Thai speaker. @Atitarev, any thoughts? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with Octahedron80 but it's not my entry and I don't think the entry is important, even if it's a transliteration of my name.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


Rfd of the adjective sense: this strikes me as redundant to the present participle sense —This comment was unsigned.

  • Dunno about that. Tinkling bells springs to mind. I think it's an attributive adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
IMO "tinkling" in "tinkling bells" is probably not a true adjective. I doubt that "tinkling" is ever a true adjective. Mihia (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It looks like an adjective to me. Even the OED has two entries as an adjective (1 - that tinkles, 2- that works as a tinker). SemperBlotto (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
"The piano is very tinkling"?? It doesn't sound right to me. I think the required adjective would be "tinkly". I don't know anything about OED sense 2. Mihia (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
That's why I said it's an attributive adjective, before the noun. "The wind chimes are tinkling" is a present participle, "the tinkling wind chimes" an attributive adjective. That's how I see it. DonnanZ (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I would draw a distinction between what I called a "true" adjective, and the fact that any present participle can be put in front of a noun to modify it, as a regular feature of the English language. I do not believe that participles in the latter cases need separate "adjective" entries where they mean no more than "X doing Y". Where there is a special or extended meaning, yes, but I don't see that with "the tinkling wind chimes". Mihia (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep both the verb and the adjective: This is yet another word that ends in -ing that can be both a verb and an adjective. I do not get why there is continual surprise at these, nor why there is continued opposition to them carrying both word types. Purplebackpack89 11:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

inter alios[edit]

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

Not sure about inter alios by itself, but res inter alios acta is a legal doctrine. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Another link for that: res inter alios acta (Wiktionary and not Wikipedia).
Maybe the language - and BTW maybe the POS too - is once again wrong? Too often English phrases and abbreviations are created as Latin entries here. This GBS result has "inter alios" in references and is English. So does this GBS result though it uses italics. This GBS result has "[...] a verdict inter alios may [...]". dictionary.com knows "inter alios" too. So maybe it's an English phrase? - 13:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Convert to English. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Converted to English, changed POS from adverb to phrase. — Eru·tuon 23:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

I can't hear you over the sound of[edit]

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

Are you implying that "stupidity" and other such things have literal sounds? Because that seems to me to be the only way it could be SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Why does everyone always think SOP means "literal"? --WikiTiki89 12:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Should there be a figurative sense at sound instead? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Not really even idiomatic. You can use any similar sentence. --WikiTiki89 12:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The current definition is very inadequate, not indicating that the phrase is incomplete as it stands, nor what needs to be added to finish it. Equinox 12:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

adjacent to[edit]

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

Redirect to adjacent. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 19:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


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

Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

safe, sane and consensual[edit]

Tagged in March (as SoP), not listed. See Talk:safe, sane and consensual. Equinox 22:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. There isn't much of a "definition" to it. Equinox 22:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Apparently crazy people like me are incapable of having good sex. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 09:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If it is an established set phrase used in the stated context, I think it should probably be kept. The fact that it has an acronym, SSC, at least according to the Wiktionary article, might support this. Mihia (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Having the term in this dictionary is unsafe, insane, and unconsensual. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is in a topical area for which we often seem to ignore the standards that apply elsewhere. Is that relevant? DCDuring (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

de schone schijn ophouden[edit]

SOP, de + schone schijn + ophouden. — Kleio (t · c) 18:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Which sense of ophouden? —CodeCat 18:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The one that should've been there and I just added. — Kleio (t · c) 18:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

er voor spek en bonen bijstaan[edit]

See above, voor spek en bonen + bijstaan. — Kleio (t · c) 18:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Btw, should entries like geen kind hebben aan and geen boodschap hebben aan be with or without the aan? — Kleio (t · c) 18:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Can they ever be used without? —CodeCat 18:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
It's sometimes used with voor as well, though aan is more common (by far). Saying it without either does sound unnatural. — Kleio (t · c) 18:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess one could be called an alternative form of another, but I'm not sure what the usual practice is. Ask in BP maybe? —CodeCat 18:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)



This is just alt, neu used in compounds. - 10:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Technically you're right. But the compound form tends to have a different meaning than the adjective. The adjective means "old, of high age", the compound means "not used anymore". Like altes Holz is "old wood", while Altholz is "wood waste" or "wood to be disposed of". It's not clear-cut because the adjective could have that sense as well. Still, I'm tending towards keep, but with a better definition and some notes. Kolmiel (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
There does seem to be a difference in meaning. Dutch oud- is used similarly. — Kleio (t · c) 21:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


SOP: 刺斜 + — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this may be keepable. Hanyu Da Cidian has this word. Wyang (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

nature preserve[edit]

nature reserve[edit]

  • Keep. It is a widely used term and something people may want to look up - see also the discussion below. John Cross (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)****

natural preserve[edit]

natural reserve[edit]

wildlife reserve[edit]

wildlife sanctuary[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong. I believe these are all SOP. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

  • They appear to be SoP, but they are all synonyms or semi-synonyms. I would say keep. Cambridge has nature reserve at least. DonnanZ (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. They don't feel like they're entirely SOP. I'm not sure they can really be fully understood by their constituent parts. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
But preserve for one has the sense "A reservation, a nature preserve." If this word alone means that, doesn't it follow that at least nature preserve and natural preserve are SOP? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Not if it passes the in a jiffy test. If it doesn't, however, then I'm inclined to agree. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I have never heard of "nature preserve". I think it is AmE. I would have taken it as an error for "nature reserve". On that basis I vote keep, at least for that one. Mihia (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
M-W says it is AmE [15]; I have added a label. Mihia (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Natural preserve also proved to be AmE when I googled it. DonnanZ (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Would the good old "translation target" -justification fit here? --Hekaheka (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. DonnanZ (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

fer cryin' out loud[edit]

"Eye dialect spelling of for crying out loud." Doing this with entire phrases, rather than single words, does not seem wise. Equinox 19:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep as it is attested. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Can you read? I'm not challenging it on attestation grounds and this isn't RFV. Equinox 22:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I know. But it is simply because it's attested that it should stay. I don't believe in deleting eye-dialect alternative forms just because there are too many of them, unless of course it's something like having Elephant with a definition like # Alternative capitalization of elephant, used at the beginning of sentences. Attestation is key here. I'm not saying that you challenged its attestation; I'm saying rather that because it's attested it should stay. All words in all languages that are not SOP and are attested with 3 valid durable citations should stay. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - [The]DaveRoss 11:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

heavy machinery[edit]

Isn't this just SOP? Kiwima (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep, I think. Reference added. It doesn't necessarily mean static machinery, but can refer to heavy items such as bulldozers and earthmovers. The definition needs tweaking. DonnanZ (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It can refer to static machinery as well. I have added a quote that illustrates this. And how would you change the definition - it is substantially similar to the def in the reference. Kiwima (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. But yes: rewrite definition. Kolmiel (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The reference should be to the Cambridge Business English Dictionary, not the Cambridge English Dictionary.
"Heavy" agricultural equipment seems to be frequently mentioned, and also mining equipment, rolling mills, printing presses, rotary kilns, etc. General-purpose transportation equipment, plans, ships, locomotives and railroad carts, and cars, buses, and trucks are almost always excluded. For example, a very common warning refers to "driving or operating heavy machinery", which I take to mean "driving (cars or other vehicles) or operating heavy machinery", NOT "driving (heavy machinery) or operating heavy machinery".
No OneLook reference has an entry for the term. DCDuring (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

intelligent life[edit]

This def isn't SOP, but it's not a particularly accurate or consensus view of what the term means. In general, the debate boils down to what we consider to be intelligence or an unmistakeable sign of the same — but that doesn't necessarily mean that every interpretation of that deserves a definition. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It definitely can and often does refer to terrestrial beings. So that must be corrected. I'm not sure if it'll make it SOP, though. Kolmiel (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
It certainly would. Basically, the best definition I could come up with was: "Life that is intelligent." Delete! PseudoSkull (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


Unnecessary if fueled is adjectival and testosterone is understood to overpower rationality. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 02:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  • It's an American spelling, so I've labelled it, whether it survives or not. DonnanZ (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Common collocation, but it does feel somewhat SoP to me, like a booze-fuelled party or a hate-fuelled rant. Equinox 17:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Neither fueled nor fuelled are entered as adjectives. I don't see any harm in keeping this. DonnanZ (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Fueled/fuelled is a part participle. All past participles are potentially adjectival in English. DCDuring (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I came across an interesting one this morning - "railway-fuelled building", referring to development spurred by the building of a railway in the 19th century. DonnanZ (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • To me this is a keep as a single (hyphenated) word. Ƿidsiþ 06:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


Same as above. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: this has been RFD'ed before; see Talk:pouasse. MG found that it was sufficiently common to keep; what makes you disagree with his assessment? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: 8030 hits for "la pouasse" (397000 for "la poisse"); 3150 hits for "quelle pouasse" (30900 for "quelle poisse"); 307 hits for "une pouasse" (11800 for "une poisse"). It's not that common (+ at least some hits concern the word for a kind of chemical, so they aren't misspellings); so no, I don't think it warrants an entry. --Barytonesis (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Abstain. It could be deleted a rare misspelling (WT:CFI#Spellings). pouasse,poisse at Google Ngram Viewer does not find pouasse, so no frequency ratio can be calculated and it must be rather rare. However, going by the web counts posted by Barytonesis above, I would say it could be a common misspelling, but I prefer to use Google Ngram Viewer for frequency ratios since it is a tool designed for frequency statistics. A frequency ratio calibration is at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

oldest occupation[edit]

oldest occupation in the world[edit]

world's oldest occupation[edit]

Sure they're used, but are they idiomatic enought to have their own entries? --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

oldest occupation looks like a prime example of an idiomatic expression to me. Starting with the fact that prostution is, of course, not the historically oldest occupation. (That's hunter-gatherer.) So definitely keep. One may consider deleting the other two versions, though. Kolmiel (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, keep oldest occupation, delete all others. Similarly for variants of "oldest profession". SemperBlotto (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, the first one should in this case be kept. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep all three. They're all idiomatic. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep "oldest occupation": it is not a semantic sum of oldest and occupation, in which regard it is like oldest profession. The other two items can be argued to be sums of parts with respect to oldest occupation; hard-redirecting them would be an option other than deletion. If I were arguing as a devil's advocate for deletion, I would say that "oldest occupation" is obtained from "oldest profession" by synonym replacement, which makes it a certain kind of summation, meaning the idiomatic semantics would be taken from "oldest profession", but I do not find that argument convincing enough. Interestingly, oldest occupation at OneLook Dictionary Search finds nothing, whereas oldest profession at OneLook Dictionary Search finds Merriam-Webster[16] and en.oxforddictionaries.com[17]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete the last two. - -sche (discuss) 07:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep the first, delete the final two. - [The]DaveRoss 11:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

hür yazılım[edit]

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification#hür yazılım.

final frontier[edit]

Sense "outer space". Currently at WT:RFV#final frontier (closed as passed) and soon to be archived to Talk:final frontier. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Without previous knowledge of Star Trek, there's no guessing what people are referring to when they call outer space the "final frontier". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could equally mean time, for time travel, but doesn't. Equinox 16:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Purplebackpack89 11:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

compulsive streak[edit]

Not the usual meaning, but this one seems equally SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

come to the fore[edit]

SOP: come + to the fore. (Or come + to + the + fore...) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to to the fore. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 04:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


“The land beyond the Ered Luin in J.R.R. Tolkien's Legendarium”

Doesn’t pass WT:FICTION. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 16:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

kop of munt, kruis of munt[edit]

Both SOP. —CodeCat 18:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it still used when tossing Euros, which have neither kop nor munt on them? If so, it's idiomatic. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It would still be SOP, because there is still one side called kop and one side called munt. For Euro coins, munt is the side that's the same for all countries, kop is the side specific to each country. The kop side does have a head on it sometimes, depending on the country. For Dutch and Belgian ones it does. —CodeCat 17:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
And these usages are found outside of these specific phrases? When you ask someone to do a hatching (nl. arcering) of a coin, you ask him to use the 'mint side' and not the 'number side'? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Iran–Iraq War[edit]

There are many wars in human history, why should we include this one? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Dictionaries often consider wars and other historical events to be under their purview. Why did you nominate this and not World War Two? If you accept that we should keep that one, then you accept we should keep this as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I chose not to nominate World War Two mainly because of notoriety. I mean, just skim through the list of wars on Wikipedia. For instance, there are hundreds of wars and battles which have taken place on Swedish soil alone. Keeping the discussed term sets quite a dangerous future standard. PS: who can forget the War of the Golden Stool? We definitely need to add this one! --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The Iran–Iraq War was an important conflict, even if it didn't happen to affect you. But notoriety is not the standard by which we judge these things. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge Hold on a minute, who said it didn't affect me? I never downplayed the seriousness of said war. It wasn't my intention to bring this up for discussion in order to evaluate the severity of wars and make anyone around here feel bad. I just wanted to bring this to the attention of the greater community before we had a user who intended on adding a list of wars and other conflicts which might be pushing POV. --Robbie SWE (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
delete not dictionary material. If there is a dictionary that includes specific wars as terms I'd like to see it but I haven't come across such a dictionary yet. World War II was not nominated so far and "we have this, so we must keep that too" has never been a valid rationale for keeping any term. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Dictionaries including at least some wars can be found in World War II at OneLook Dictionary Search, including Merriam-Webster[18]. Inductive or extrapolative arguments certainly are used for names of specific entities, governed by WT:NSE, and I don't see why they should not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


WT:FICTION. Equinox 22:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesus, already? I bet anyone here could find three citations from sources that have nothing to do with the Transformers franchise. This is like Beyblade. If I could find citations for that, we can certainly find citations for this. Did you even bother to look? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Plus this isn't even an RFD thing. It's an RFV thing. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
It's your entry. You cite it. Children's toys fail WT:FICTION even if it's your favourite. Equinox 00:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Then do Beyblade too because no one has opposed it thus far except you. And Transformers is not just a favorite toy of one person, but an extremely popular franchise that has been mentioned throughout books and the media. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Easily attested, at this capitalization. E.g., 2015, Steve Berry, The Patriot Threat: A Novel, p. 304: “It's like a Transformer today,” Stamm said. “It appears as one thing, then becomes another.” bd2412 T 02:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    • * However, I don't think we need separate senses for the toy and the character. The character is just an animated version of the toy. bd2412 T 02:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
As above, keep! PseudoSkull (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but how is that sense any different from the senses found at transformer? Delete if you ask me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Because the toy is rather specific, and others refer to the toy in many sources external from the franchise. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
We certainly don't have a sense at transformer of a mundane appearing object, usually a vehicle, capable of turning into a giant robot. bd2412 T 01:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


"(French, colloquial) thank you". Yes, it's actually glossed as French. I think we had a similar case with Russian da or nyet once. The fact that French may jokingly be used in English doesn't make French words English words. Equinox 12:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There is voilà and bon appétit, among many others, so why not this one?Julien Daux (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The fact that it's glossed as French as stated. An alternative option would be merely to remove that gloss and say "okay, merci is English". Equinox 15:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I removed the gloss. Now why exactly is this at RFD? It's certainly attested. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Plenty of alien interjections already have entries, like gracias, arrivederci, ciao, oui, shalom & similar. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 04:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep if attested in unambiguously English sources. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


Spelt like this, with a capital letter, nope. --G23r0f0i (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

thick as shit[edit]

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

In the light of thick as pig shit and other similar expressions, I'm not sure, but isn't it just thick + as shit? Can we say "as thick as shit"? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis: Did you mean to take this to WT:RFD rather than RFV? Is your concern that the phrase is not used, or that its meaning is sum of parts? If it's the latter, the discussion should be at RFD. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
If you really mean this as RFV, it is cited. As for the SOP issue, I would be more inclined to consider thick as pig shit and alternative form of the same expression. That said, I found a few other quotes (which I put on the citations page) that use "as shit" as an intensifier for other meanings of thick, which lends credence to the SOP viewpoint. The fact that it almost always refers to stupidity, however, makes me think that the "fried egg" rule applies and those few quotes are an anomoly. (BTW, I was unable to find any other meanings of thick when looking up "thick as pig shit") Kiwima (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, my concern was indeed about whether it's SOP or not. Shall I copy-paste this discussion to RFD, then? --Barytonesis (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Moved to RFD. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: I am in favor of keeping common similes in general. Without this entry, how would a non-native speaker know one actually says this in English to indicate someone is stupid? With entries like this, I enter Czech blbý jako tágo, and find how to say this in English. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Excrement is not, in fact, stupid, so this is no tautology or SoP. Delete as DCDuring has pointed out the existence of a single entry for as shit. Equinox 22:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete: as shit is just an intensifier (not a simile) that can occur after many adjectives, like as fuck, as hell, as all get out, etc. Whether we need as pig/dog/cow shit I leave to others. DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. - [The]DaveRoss 11:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


A Quaffle in Swedish Harry Potter. --G23r0f0i (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There's English quaffle, and maybe klonken could pass WT:CFI and especially WT:CFI#Fictional universes too? So maybe this should be a RFV instead of RFD. - 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

feel up to[edit]

Isn't it just feel + up to? --Barytonesis (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, delete. Equinox 23:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep Several dictionaries have entries for it. OTOH is|isn't|seems|doesn't seem up to (doing something) are pretty common too. DCDuring (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep with the help of Lemming heuristic, credited to DCD; in Collins and Macmillan. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

tíminn er eins og vatnið[edit]

"time is like the water" in Icelandic. Is it dictionary-worthy? What does it mean? --G23r0f0i (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete, Wiktionary is not Wikiquote. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete, it doesn't seem to be as idiomatic as, say, the die is cast is in English. Still, it might be useful to get an Icelandic native's opinion on whether it might be idiomatic enough for inclusion; @Krun? — Kleio (t · c) 17:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. I don’t really think it is idiomatic. It would generally be understood as a reference to the poem by Steinn Steinarr, and I don’t think it has any other general meaning. – Krun (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

shower on[edit]

SoP. Not a phrasal unit. Equinox 19:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Hmm, dunno, its usually separable with an object. From Oxford (shower):

1.4 (shower something on/upon) Give a great number of things to (someone)

‘the government showered praise on the young volunteers’
  • More example sentences:
‘The sane people of the world saw it purely as a piece of comic genius, and showered awards upon the badly-drawn comedy.’
‘He also recognized me, congratulated my brother and showered his blessing upon me.’
‘The functions were not rituals to merely shower gifts on the birthday boy.’
‘By showering favours on Elizabeth's relatives, Edward began to build up a faction to counter Warwick.’
‘Pupils from the Harwich School and five primary schools joined in the custom, which represents the newly-elected mayor showering his blessings on the children.’
‘Hillary forgives him and then Bill showers gifts upon her in gratitude.’
‘It must have certainly helped him to shower benefits on his beloved city.’
‘But his language mistakes were no barriers as kids and elders alike wanted to hear the man as he showered gifts on them.’
‘He showered praises on the union parliamentary minister saying he enjoys the full support of Congress men in the state.’
‘She consumed lavishly herself, showered expensive gifts on her dealers, and promoted Tupperware as part of an affluent suburban lifestyle.’
‘The preposterous image of a benign West showering its goods on a grateful Africa / India / Indochina/wherever would surely have no purchase in a society where informed debate was the daily order.’
‘Muthuraman, who has over 100 films behind him, set the tone for the function, showering praises on Balachander, and the superstar Rajnikanth rounded it off.’ DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
This uses the same sense of shower (to bestow liberally, to give or distribute in abundance) as shower with. It seems SoP to me. DCDuring (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, shower with and shower on have different objects (you shower [praise] on someone, but shower [someone] with praise), so the verb’s meaning is not the same. – Krun (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

riskantne ettevõtmine[edit]

Sum of it's parts. Strombones (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete assuming that riskantne means "risky" and ettevõtmine means "venture". They're both red links, so I hope someone who knows Estonian will remedy that before this gets deleted. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Created those pages. Strombones (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


RfD of the German sense only

This suffix simply does not exist. It exists in Latin where it was used to form some words borrowed into German, but it can never be used independently from those words. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, definitely delete. — Kleio (t · c) 16:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Dictionaries or grammars could mention a -ment, cp. canoo (there it's now -ament, -ement, -iment) and de:Vorlage:Neoklassische Formative (Deutsch). But well, "can never be used independently" chould still be correct. - 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Within a loaning language such as German these are formants, not suffixes in their own sake. Not changed by the fact that word-derivation appendices can describe what function they had as suffixes in the loangiving language. --Tropylium (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

take a bite[edit]

"To eat a light, quick snack". Algrif intended to send this to RFD in 2009 but evidently never got around to it. Note to closer: though this is an RFD-sense, if it fails, the whole entry should be deleted, as this is the only idiomatic sense presently. @Chuck Entz, KiwimaΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I say delete as SOP. We have "a small meal or snack" as a definition of bite, and people also say "have a bite", "stop for a bite", etc. Kiwima (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. The only sense of 'take' we have that would somewhat fit this is 'to remove'. This phrase is not as self‐explaining to a foreigner as it might seem to native speaker and it would benefit our users if we kept it. I edited the entry. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, there's a sense for "eat" in take. That would sort of apply. But I am still sympathetic to your point of view that it isn't self-explanatory. — Eru·tuon 00:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. But perhaps we need a sense at take to cover this and other things like "take a look", "take a swim", "take a guess", etc. --WikiTiki89 11:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Isn't this an Americanism? If so, keep. DonnanZ (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Korn. There's ambiguity as to what "take" means because there are so many different definitions of "take". Keep Purplebackpack89 19:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
You know, this is exactly why I created (and fought to keep) Appendix:Collocations of do, have, make, and take As it stands, the entry at take is a complete farce. We have all the phrasal verb entries as phrasal verbs in their own right, or at least we should have! (please feel free to add any that might have been missed), and we have most of the "take = light verb" entries in the appendix. (Please feel free to add any that might have been missed. Try not to make a mess of it though!). -- ALGRIF talk 07:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti[edit]

Finnish for fair + trial. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, but maybe we should consider adding fair trial instead. I wrote this entry back in 2012, because it seemed to me that this term might have a well-defined juridical meaning. I admit that I have not done a good job in writing the definition. See: . --Hekaheka (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Merriam-Webster has "fair trial"[20]; it has interesting "Additional Notes on fair trial". Very cool. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@User:Dan Polansky I would not be bold to create free trial myself, but if you feel free trial in English is idiomatic, then someone please do add it. It's sort of weird to be adding a two-letter entry for another language to which its English translated counterpart has no entry. I feel it'd be easier if somebody just created free trial and then... Okay I have a better idea. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

State of New York[edit]

Sum of parts. —suzukaze (tc) 19:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. The example sentence isn't even for the State of New York. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Similar to Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, etc. I don't see why multi-part formal names of entities that have the legal status of these should not be inclusion-worthy under our rules or lack thereof. DCDuring (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Some of the states of the US have formal names like Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Commonwealth of Virginia, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of Kentucky, State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. IOW, the formal name is not guaranteed to be State of (informal name). DCDuring (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
There is another entry for New York State. I guess both are considered necessary to avoid confusion with New York City. I would say keep. DonnanZ (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)



Is this a valid Chinese word? The anonymous editor who added it mentioned this website in an edit summary, but I do not see the use of isolated English words in Chinese text as necessarily indicating that the words are regarded as Chinese. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. Delete. Wyang (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep as being the only word the Chinese use for the concept. If the Russians used флаш (flaš) no one would bat an eye, but the Chinese are more familiar with the Latin alphabet and didn't want to transcribe it using Chinese characters and here we are. —suzukaze (tc) 07:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
There is no Chinese word the Chinese use for the concept. Wyang (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
While I agree with Wyang, Suzukaze-c asks a legitimate question - how we deal with this type of words, which don't have a Chinese equivalent (yet) but apparently are used in a Chinese context by Chinese. We need a CFI for Chinese. It happens every now and then. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Anatoli that it would be useful to have a discussion of this issue. Perhaps editors with some linguistic background can explain how experts regard a foreign word as having been incorporated into a particular language. I can't help thinking it is a bit strange that a term in language B can be regarded as part of language A when it is not even rendered in the usual script of language A. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

liberal Republican, conservative Democrat, and Conservative Democrat[edit]

From Requests for Verification:

Rfv-sense: Does this term exist with this definition except as an alternative form of SoP liberal + Republican? DCDuring TALK 15:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

       I had a final look, and all quotes I found with this capitalization refer to the Liberal Republican party (or movement) of the 1870s. As no one else has produced citations with this capitalization in over a year, I am calling this RFV-failed. Kiwima (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Conservative Democrat

Analogous to above. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

   DCDuring, these two terms have a set meaning, which encompasses parts (but not all) of the two words they are composed of. Liberal Republicans tend to be liberal on certain issues; conservative Democrats tend to be conservative on the same issues. I can produce stacks of Google Books citations that use the term (for example, search for "Liberal Republican" and civil rights); and I believe the terms should be kept, SoP or no. Purplebackpack89 15:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
       I doubt it. Facts before arguments. Let's see the citations. DCDuring TALK 16:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
           This isn't even an RfV, @DCDuring. This is just and RfD pretending to be an RfV. I will cite the definitions as written. SOP is not a question for RfV and I will not bother trying to meet your off-topic SOP threshold. Purplebackpack89 17:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
           @DCDuring I have added citations for LR. Those citations bear out the definition as written. If they pass muster, I'll add citations for CD later. Purplebackpack89 18:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
               Not one of the three citations offered at Liberal Republican is for the headword. Try again. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
                   If you're complaining that they are for "liberal Republican" instead of "Liberal Republican", by god, I can just flip which is the primary and which is the alternative. Otherwise, the citations are valid. Purplebackpack89 20:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
       Virtually no-one, bar a handful of ideologues, is liberal or conservative on every single issue. There are at least two groups of "conservative Democrats" in the US - social-conservative Blue Dogs and fiscal-conservative New Democrats (I can find cites calling both conservative Democrats). Not all conservative Democrats fit the definition given, it seems, and I'd be surprised if all "liberal Republicans" do either. Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
           Well, I doubt they use LR and CD to refer to people who are 90-10. But you do concede that this definition is a valid description of some people, Murray? Purplebackpack89 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
               Do I think that there are Republicans who are (relatively) liberal and Democrats who are (relatively) conservative? Sure (as you can see from the citations I linked). Do I think that liberal Republican means anything more than a Republican who is liberal? No. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
                   But, Murray, isn't your second question an RfD one instead of an RfV one? Purplebackpack89 23:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
   Comment: Following @DCDuring's concerns about headwords, I have moved the primary definitions to liberal Republican and conservative Democrat. I have left the RfV templates on. Purplebackpack89 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
   SOP. These "terms" exist, but as no more than collocations of “liberal | conservative” + “Republican | Democrat”. The definitions as given in the current terms at liberal Republican and conservative Democrat are unsupportably narrow, as noted by Smurrayinchester above.
   Delete, or move to RFD, then delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
   I think the only way to find out if this is SOP is to read every use of LibRep and ConsDem on Google Books and find out if, in practice, the terms are always used the way Purplebackpack89 has defined them. Let's do some researching! Khemehekis (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been sitting here for over a year, because it is an argument that belongs in RFD not RFV. I have cited both entries. I would vote for delete if this were moved to RFD, but as an RFV issue, I must say it has passed. Kiwima (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep all: and restore the definition Kiwima removed. Purplebackpack89 16:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete all. - [The]DaveRoss 11:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


This is a misspelling of farvel, which already has an article for both Nynorsk and Bokmål. All relevant information is already in those articles.--Barend (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • If it's a common misspelling or an archaic spelling, we should keep it. Is it either of those? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's particularly common, and I don't think it's archaic.--Barend (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
It is a misspelling, and I even found "Kapp Farvell" (Kapp Farvel of course). Anyway, delete. DonnanZ (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, is a redirect a good way of dealing with misspellings? DonnanZ (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

cost a pretty penny[edit]

SoP, pretty penny, can also "make", "earn", etc. Equinox 20:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Um, that would include the translations, ones that don't appear at pretty penny. I like the Spanish one, cost a testicle and a half. DonnanZ (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Those aren't direct translations for "cost a pretty penny" but general idiomatic equivalents of "cost a large amount". bd2412 T 22:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Not that I disagree with your basic point, but translations are "general idiomatic equivalents". Ƿidsiþ 06:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
        • A synonym is cost an arm and a leg, which went through the indignity of an RFD in 2009, and got redirected to arm and a leg. An arm and a leg are two different things, and the idiom only makes sense in full. We don't need a repeat of that disaster. DonnanZ (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
In other words, keep this entry in its present form. DonnanZ (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

be in on[edit]

SoP, be + in on. It's hard to find it without be, but it seems perfectly possible that it could be used with e.g. wish or announce. Just found this: "Although more entrepreneurs wanted in on their success, only four Top Hats were ever opened." Equinox 02:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think also get in on, bring in on, let in on, and probably slangy synonyms for most of the above. DCDuring (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)















per WT:BRANDsuzukaze (tc) 04:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Some entries are poorly formatted and use wrong PoS headers (e.g Noun, not Proper noun) but they all seem to have English equivalents, for which we have entries. To me, they are just normal proper nouns. Tentatively keep. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


Not IMO a prefix. Feels more like an adjective. There's virtually always a hyphen when it's used in longer words, and it doesn't have any particular special meaning beyond the usual noun. Equinox 19:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree, delete. I could only find one hyphenated entry (twin-engine) anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
It's never used as an adjective though. Nothing is very twin, or so twin, or more twin/twinner.... keep Leasnam (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
You can, it's just rarer now. Eg in Twelfth Night, "An apple cleft in two is not more twin…". Ƿidsiþ 08:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I have a surprise for you, Oxford, Cambridge and Collins all regard twin as an adjective, e.g. twin sister, twin town etc. DonnanZ (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
attributive. that would be like saying sister in sister city is an adjective. it's not imo. there is also twin-chamber, twin-car, twin-deck Leasnam (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
You can't say, my sister is twin (adj). Leasnam (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue with those dictionaries. The concept that adjectives must be comparable is rather bizarre. Anyway twin as an adjective can be discussed in the Tea Room if you want to do that. DonnanZ (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@Donnanz: Comparablity and gradability are two sufficient conditions in out decision making about whether a candidate term to be considered an adjective. The only necessary condition is that it modify a noun, without which condition the adjective PoS would probably be speedily deleted. We follow the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language for PoS tests where possible. DCDuring (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I would call it a modifier. But it's all good. It's being used as a prefix even if we don't call it one; I'm satisfied with that. The concept that a prefix cannot be a standalone word is bizarre to me. But it's the consensus here, and I respect that. delete :) Leasnam (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
It is not attributive, it's an adjective. It just feels attributive now because the noun is so much more common. Ƿidsiþ 08:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I suppose you're right--it was an adjective in Old English (alongside ġetwinn which was the noun). It must have survived unrecorded in ME to this day. I'll update the entry Leasnam (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The "very", "so", etc. tests are useful evidence for an adjective but not necessarily required. Equinox 23:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Examples are easily paraphrased to use twin as a separate word: the plane has twin engines-->it's a twin-engine plane. The fact that it's attached to the following word is merely an artifact of how phrases are treated when used as modifiers.
The matter of whether twin as a modifier is an adjective is a bit murkier. It obviously started out as attributive use of the noun, but it's hard to be sure that it hasn't changed into something else, whether an adjective or a determiner, I'm not sure. There's also the matter of having two as opposed to being one of two: twin engines may be twins to each other, but they aren't twins to the plane, and someone with sisters who are twins to each other but not to them could say "I have twin sisters", but not "I have a twin sister". Chuck Entz (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete; the word can also be used without the hyphen, as in Chuck's example of "twin engines", which strongly suggests that hyphenated use does not represent a prefix; compare "ownership-based society" in which "ownership" is neither a prefix nor an adjective. This is independent of the question of what part of speech "twin" is in "twin engines". That it was an adjective in Old English, and that a few examples like "more twin than" can still be found, suggest it may be an adjective (compare Talk:aliquot). - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017[edit]

fire drill[edit]

RFD sense 1: "An organized practice to prepare occupants of an office, school or other public building for evacuation in the event of a fire."

At my old high school, we also used to have tornado drills. You could also say emergency drill, hurricane drill, earthquake drill, etc. What I suggest is deleting the sense and replacing it with something like this:

  1. Used other than as an idiom: see fire,‎ drill.
The schoolchildren all went outside and lined up during the fire drill on Friday.

PseudoSkull (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete/Replace per nom. drill#Noun even has the example of "Regular fire drills can ensure...". —suzukaze (tc) 00:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete etc. per nom. DCDuring (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I think the definition at drill could be improved if fire drill is going to be deleted. The current one doesn't include the notion of the practice being done in preparation for a possible future event/disaster. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@User:Andrew Sheedy [21] [22] Did that do the trick? PseudoSkull (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that about covers it. I question the parenthetical "especially as a military exercize". Is that accurate as the definition now stands? Perhaps the definition is better off split into two separate senses or subsenses? A military drill and a fire drill don't "feel" the same to me, at least. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep sense 1, I don't see the point in deleting it when the rest of the entry is being kept. That's mind-boggling silliness. DonnanZ (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I have added references, and it's in my Oxford hard copy ("a practice of the emergency procedures to be used in case of fire"), so it's definitely dictionary material. DonnanZ (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind that we are different from other dictionaries. Regardless of other dictionaries, Wiktionary simply does not allow SOP terms. Notice that, for instance, we don't have Internet meme, though I'm sure many online dictionaries have this probably. standardized test is probably also in a lot of dictionaries. It's not "mind-boggling silliness" to delete the sense; in fact, since fire drill is so commonly used to refer to the school drill, I suggested above that we replace the definition with an &lit. And you just said " I don't see the point in deleting it when the rest of the entry is being kept. That's mind-boggling silliness." So basically you're saying that all rfd-sense situations are wrong. I don't understand this at all. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I have struck the offending sentence. The truth of the matter is that dictionaries can't call themselves dictionaries unless so-called SoP terms are included, not even Wiktionary. A lot of terms don't lend themselves to be compounded (though some users seem to think otherwise, and Wiktionary contains a lot of ghastly compound words). A check of derived terms for fire proves this point. So you can't delete every SoP entry. DonnanZ (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
No actually other dictionaries don't see to have "internet meme" and "standardized test". Both dictionary.com and merriam-webster don't have entries for those, while both have a fire drill entry. 2602:306:3653:8440:B979:122F:5C44:E2AD 12:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ƿidsiþ 16:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
It would be silly to remove it altogether. Changing it to an &lit, as suggested, seems okay to me. Equinox 13:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Does WT:COALMINE apply to individual senses? — Ungoliant (falai) 17:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I suppose it would. DCDuring (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as per DonnanZ. Morgengave (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Purplebackpack89 18:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep using the lemming heuristic: the sense is present e.g. in M-W[23]; see also fire drill at OneLook Dictionary Search. I prefer to keep the sense as is, without &lit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are several senses of both fire and drill, and three different words drill. "Exercise to prepare for a fire" is sum-of-parts, but so is "rotating bit used to start a fire", and someone who doesn't know which parts to sum might come up with "monkey of genus Mandrillus who shoots a cannon" or "flame-retardant barrier made of a certain fabric". PierreAbbat (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

ложное срабатывание[edit]

SoP and a wrong definition. It refers to an alarm system that was triggered by something, eg. a malfunctioning alarm worked but there was no security problem. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, isn't that approximately what a false alarm is? Benwing2 (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
For the sense, ложная тревога is normally used in the direct or figurative senses, "ложное срабатывание" means a "false firing/functioning". This is SoP, IMO. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Miles Christi[edit]

Tagged but not listed. Seems SOP, too. - -sche (discuss) 02:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Trivially attestable, so I've moved -sche's post from RFV here to RFD. There were two senses originally in the entry, one for "soldier of Christ", which is patently SOP, and one for the Miles Christi religious order, which is patently not Latin (and which I have therefore removed). Looking at actual attestation, however, I see that some writers have used miles Christi or miles Dei to refer not only to crusaders or other soldiers motivated at least nominally by Christianity, but to all Christians in general. I presume that this metaphorical usage is not exactly lexical, however. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The first sense is in the wrong case form anyway, it should be at miles Christi if it is to be on any entry at all (and I don't think it should be). The second sense is encyclopedic imo and not dictionary material. Delete.Kleio (t · c) 17:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
If it to be kept, then it needs the normal Latin formatting, along with inflection. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
It could also be an English entry under a wrong language header, cp. this older revision with its likely English references and English see also terms: this revision. For English it wouldn't be SOP and as an English entry it doesn't need Latin inflection. - 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


Just as SOP as democratic revolution. Note to closer: if this fails, be sure to delete the pinyin as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete unless @Tooironic has a good argument for keeping it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The Chinese entry can stay as it passes the Lemmings test, being in the 现代汉语规范词典. The English entry is yet to be created. It is a term used in political science. See the Wikipedia entry. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Justinrleung, Wyang: I don't find this convincing, but I don't know Chinese; what do you guys think? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
    I think I would be happy keeping this entry. It is found in multiple dictionaries. Wyang (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


SOP? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


A football club. Nibiko (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent. It may be keepable. There are other club entries, such as Arsenal or entries in Category:zh:Football. Wyang (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Arsenal is a single word, unlike A.C. Milan. These entries were added by an anon who just linked the definitions wholesale to English Wikipedia. Given that the construction of this term is the same as the English equivalent, this fails WT:CFI. The same also applies to K聯賽, J1聯賽, and J聯賽. Nibiko (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sum of parts, basically. bd2412 T 23:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)




Malay, Indonesian language names with bahasa in Category:ms:Languages,[edit]

Delete or redirect all Malay and Indonesian language names with bahasa (language) in Category:ms:Languages and to lemmas without "bahasa". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


是非 ("please") + ご一読 ("read") —suzukaze (tc) 03:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

lait bilong san[edit]

Tok Pisin for "sunlight", but it just means "light of the sun". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

You mean it's not a term in its own right, but merely SoP? Is there some other Tok Pisin term for sunlight? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's SOP, and no, there is no other term. It's the same reason we don't have an entry for Spanish luz del sol. Many languages just don't have a single-word way of sayng it, so we link the individual words in the translation table and don't make an entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
In that case, delete. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted since there haven't been any contrary views expressed after an extended period. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

CRT television[edit]

Sum-of-parts. 2602:306:3653:8440:B979:122F:5C44:E2AD 16:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I think therefore I am[edit]

Along with all the translations. Seems like a Wikiquote/Wikipedia situation; it has cultural and philosophical relevance, but it isn't lexical, idiomatic, or worthy of keeping as a phrasebook entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep. I disagree that it's entirely unidiomatic, and the fact that it is snowcloned is evidence of lexical value. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Zen Buddhism[edit]

SOP; just [[Zen]] [[Buddhism]]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep. My feeling is to keep it at least as a translation hub but I am not sure I find enough supporting translations. When I was entering the Czech translation today, I was almost certain there is "zenbuddhismus", which is a manner of compounding no so common in Czech; it further occurred to me there could be "zenový buddhismus", and I verified that to exist. Thus, by having the entry, we spare someone the little lexico-work I did today. Furthermore, the lemming heuristics applies: present in Collins[24]; en.oxforddictionaries.com has it as an "also" item in boldface in its Zen entry[25]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

manual capture[edit]

delete as SOP. Kiwima (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

forced update[edit]

Both created by the same anon. Not sure if they fulfil WT:CFI – could they just be SoP? --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

country bumpkin[edit]

A bumpkin from the country. Keep translations, though.__Gamren (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm leaning towards keep as it seems to be one of those common collocations. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Country bumpkin is much more common than just bumpkin. In fact, the former term probably came first. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep, more or less a set phrase. DonnanZ (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. It is SOP. Kiwima (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Reference added. DonnanZ (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It can also be cited as country-bumpkin. Leasnam (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


Adjective: "Falsely presented as having medicinal powers". That's the noun, isn't it? 12:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The definition is not expressed as a noun, so perhaps you can clarify what you think the problem is? There is a usage example of the adjectival use: "Don't get your hopes up; that's quack medicine!". — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It does feel like attributive use of a noun; cf. "that's doctor talk!". Equinox 04:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Hmmm. I do see some usage of the superlative quackest, though they may be facetious or non-standard uses: [26], [27], [28]. However, I didn't see any use of quacker in the comparative sense. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Found one cite for more quack than: [29]. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

years young[edit]

Idiomatic or an SOP joke? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe it's a play on the word young, meaning "old". One is [x years] + [young/old]; not [x] + [years young/old]. delete per nom, and put a new sense at young which states can mean "old" euphemistically Leasnam (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
If someone is called 70 years young, it could be a euphemism or flattery or it could be that the person is being simply described as young ("as if young, youthful") for their age. DCDuring (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Good point. So "[70 years] [young]" would essentially mean "[70 years] [of age]" but would connote "[70 years] [of (youthful) age] ? Leasnam (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This seems supported by how the phrase seems to have evolved in the first place, for if we trace x years old (and incidentally its mutated offspring x years young, which is just the same phrase with a twist), we find Middle English x yeres of eld(e) ("x years of age") and finally our x years old. So the old and hence the young refer to "age" Leasnam (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not a joke entry, just a humorous phrase. See Markedness. It's like saying "he was 5 feet short" instead of "tall": it comically draws attention to failed expectations or what not. I'm not sure that dictionary entries are the best way to cover this sort of language feature. Equinox 04:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if we need to expand young to address this or if the entry already addresses this adequately simply by defining "young", but delete "years young" because it's just [years] [young], not [years young], like "5 feet tall" or "5 feet short" are not using *"feet tall" or *"feet short". I can find babies referred to as "n months young", btw. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Possibly also redirect to young, if there is an appropriate specific sense. I'm not sure that young is unique, but it may well be an example of a rare phenomenon in English, which would make a definition that captured the phenmenon lexical material. DCDuring (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: Largely on the basis that "young" meaning "old" is indeed a joke (though a widespread one), and also that it doesn't have much use beyond years young. Since there is no corresponding definition for young, SOP cannot be invoked. Purplebackpack89 16:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand to note that it is usually used to indicate that a person of advanced age is more active or youthful than their age alone would suggest. bd2412 T 17:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. It's just irony Leasnam (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per bd2412. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It is an ironic phrase which is not sum of parts. John Cross (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards keep, per @Purplebackpack89's comment. It wouldn't be terrible if an appropriate sense of young were added and years young redirected to it, but it would be odd unless there are other fixed phrases in which this sense of young is used. I don't like that years young is a fragment of a phrase such as 70 years young, but as of yet there is no way to indicate an unspecified number in an entry name as there is for pronouns (on one's own account), so the entry name has to be a fragment. — Eru·tuon 05:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
    Isn't the sense of "young" used here the usual sense of "young", i.e. already present in the entry, selected to flip the markedness? Compare "18 months young" (instead of "18 months old"), "eight feet narrow" (instead of "eight feet wide"), or The Complete McAuslan, page 227, "If he had been eight feet tall, or three feet short, I'd have thought the same thing – simply, that he would have looked out of place in a Highland regimental pipe-band." - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
    Which sense of young are you referring to? "Born not long ago", "having qualities of a young person", "belonging to the earlier part of life", "inexperienced"? Those don't really lend themselves to being qualified by "some number of years". For instance, "70 years born not long ago" doesn't make sense. There really needs to be another sense, or at least a subsense. Could you explain what you mean by markedness? I'm familiar with it as a general linguistic concept, but I don't quite understand how it applies here. — Eru·tuon 19:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
    What I mean by markedness is that the usual phrase is "X years old" or "how old are you", or "X feet tall", because "old" and "tall" are unmarked... but one could intentionally used the marked words, "X years young" or "how young are you" or "X feet short", to suggest (seriously or humorously) that instead of being advanced in age or height, someone is not advanced in age or height. - -sche (discuss) 20:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ƿidsiþ 12:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 19:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I have created decades young, which should have as much or as little claim to being separate from young as years young. - -sche (discuss) 20:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Russian military terms, part 3[edit]

More terms that are likely SOP:

@Atitarev Benwing2 (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete all. When learning foreign vocabulary, it's probably better to use collocations, so US army personnel used these word combinations to learn Russian but they are all obvious SoP's. Thanks for pinging. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Боевое отделение is not a SOP. 22:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are a few more possible ones:

@Atitarev Benwing2 (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete all. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

One more:

@Atitarev Benwing2 (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

mental hygiene[edit]

I'm unsure if this is SOP, but it smells like it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Was this coined to rhyme with "dental hygiene"? I see that hygiene basically means health, but I don't usually associate it with mental health (which after all isn't really about cleanliness at all, but about conforming to social norms). My instincts say keep. I'm on board with Thomas Szasz so maybe I'm biased or whatever, not sure. Equinox 04:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Its meaning cannot be fully or clearly inferred from its parts, i.e. without clarification it could be very well be about cleaning your mind from sinful thoughts. Morgengave (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

foreign currency[edit]

foreign + currency -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, as I don't believe translation-only entries should exist (though the community disagrees with me). PseudoSkull (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, because the translation target argument is silly. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Anatoli. DonnanZ (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Silly or not, we have a number of "translation targets" already. Our policies and practices should not be applied in a haphazard manner. It seems that many of the translations are also SOP's but for example Catalan divisa is not. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Anatoli. Some SOPs still deserve translation-only entries.--Jusjih (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as a translation hub, and thus per Anatoli. I count Hungarian deviza toward the rationale but not German Fremdwährung. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sidebar: clarity on "translation targets", redux[edit]

See #Sidebar: clarity on "translation targets" above. Aren't we ready for a full discussion and vote on this issue yet? — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

types of Russian kasha[edit]

The following appear SOP:

@Atitarev Benwing2 (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I think they are OK to be deleted. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
You can also say "геркулесовая крупа", so perhaps an oatmeal sense should be added to геркулесовый and then геркулесовая каша can be deleted as well. --WikiTiki89 14:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done, and we should probably then also delete геркуле́совая ка́ша (gerkulésovaja káša). Benwing2 (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 07:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

college is the new high school[edit]

Snowclone, X is the new Y. DTLHS (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What about the implied standard of living aspect? And if this really is a "snowclone" shouldn't we have an entry for "is the new"? Because there are so many terms with the layout "X is the new Y". PseudoSkull (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. In every "X is the new Y" snowclone, there is some reasoning by which to explain why that particular "X" is the new "Y". bd2412 T 02:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think the definition is apparent, and unless it isn't attested without the context explaining or implying what is meant, there is no good reason not to keep it. I don't think "it's just a snowclone" is sufficient reasoning to delete, since in this case, the meaning isn't deducible from "college" + "is the new" + "high school". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    One can also find community college is the new high school, A Bachelor's degree is the new high school degree. "I was a little taken aback to see that apparently preadolescence is the new adolescence or junior high school or middle school is the new high school". Preschool is the new kindergarten. the white T-shirt is the new little black dress. Many Xs fit [X] is the new black.
    Delete It's an instance of a snowclone. We've never figured out how to make snowclone entries that would be useful to someone using standard mainspace search. DCDuring (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    I still think it's worth having those entries, as long as they have fairly consistent definitions (if "college is the new high school" refers to all sorts of different aspects of college and high school, then it's not worth keeping, but it fairly consistently refers to educational expectations, it's worth including). I don't think it's at all harmful to have such entries. If space was a concern, then sure, but it really isn't and you can't necessarily figure out what the phrase means based on the sum of its parts ("is the new" relating to colour is pretty consistent in meaning, but with other phrases it's more ambiguous and it is thus worth it to create separate entries). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete per bd. - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. I wouldn't necessarily know why college is the new high school, but I don't think this justifies the entry. The possibilities for "X is the new Y" are virtually unlimited, and I don't think a dictionary can be the place to explain the "why" of all of them. 21:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep per WT:CFI: The meaning cannot be obtained from the meaning of separate components, and "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means". We are not running out of database space. Also per Andrew Sheedy: we are able to single out the particular regard in which college is the new highschool, and thereby provide value to the user. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that we would need [[the new little black dress]]. I didn't find "the old little black dress".

Oxford has an entry for little black dress, but omits figurative use, probably relying on its more sophisticated average reader to infer any figurative meaning in context and a fortiori what modification by the new might add. the new black (new black?) is also in widespread use. Other cases are (person X (eg, Obama, Trump, Cruz) is) the new Reagan. DCDuring (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, this snowclone is covered at Appendix:Snowclones/X is the new Y. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

just like[edit]

A Wonderfool entry. I could also say "just as" or "just how". Perhaps we need to extend the definition at just. On a more RFCish kind of note, this isn't even a preposition, and prepositions are also labelled "prepositional phrases" here on Wiktionary when there's more than one word. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a prima facie case that if like is a preposition, so is just like. Normal parsing of uses of just like [x] would have just as an adverb modifying the prepositional phrase like [x]. That is, just like is not a grammatical constituent in any standard use AFAICT.
I don't see why we should have an entry for just like. DCDuring (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, SOP, as the very definition proves: "exactly" = "just"; "in the same way as" = "like". Actually, there is a missing sense: "He walks just like a penguin" = "He walks in exactly the same way as a penguin", yet "He looks just like his father" = "He looks exactly the same as his father". If retained this sense should presumably be added, but I don't see why the entry should exist at all. Mihia (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

thank ya so much[edit]

Also thank ya very much and thank ya so very much. Equinox 23:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

See ya, also seeya and see ya. DCDuring (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep. I am against the deletion of such eye dialect phrase variants. They do add to the dictionary, even though it is of the smallest manner. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. This is just a phrase containing an eye dialect word. Kiwima (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete these and all similar (e.g. thank ye very much, thank ya very much, thank u very much, thank yu very much, etc.). I do not believe that we should have dictionary entries for all these permutations of nonstandard spellings of words within a phrase, nor should they be listed as "alternative forms". Do we want "ya", "ye", "yer", "u", "yu" forms for every phrase containing the words "you"? Surely not. And multiply that up by variants of other words within a phrase, e.g. fank yer very much, and the result is a vast amount of dross, essentially. On another point, I question whether thank you so much should exist anyway. Isn't it sum of parts? thank you very much, to which it points, seems to be justified on account of sense 2, but is "thank you so much" ever used in that sense? Mihia (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
You guys seem to miss the point. They should exist simply because they are attested and because they are not SOP. I don't care how "useless" they are to this project or how much "space they clog up" here. They're useful simply because they have meaning and they're there, and thus should have entries. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Far from "missing the point", I actually provided a link showing attestation for "fank yer very much" to make the point, in my opinion, that just because some permutation of nonstandard spellings has at some time been written down, it doesn't mean that we need a dictionary entry for it. Dictionary entries for the inividual words, yes, of course. By the way, though, how is "Thank you so much" not SOP? I can't see it myself. Mihia (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
There's a difference between "not explicitly forbidden by the rules" and "useful". No set of rules can cover every possible undesirable permutation, which is why we have rfd for human beings to judge on what to delete. For instance, I don't think CFI explicitly bans senses for three such as "forty seven minus forty four", "a dozen missing nine", etc. That doesn't mean we should have them- not that we could have all of them if we tried.
The use to the one poor, deluded person that thinks they're going to get any information from an eye-dialect alternative form entry for a questionably-idiomatic phrase is far outweighed by the harm caused to all the others who have to wade through pages of meaningless filler in order to find anything. Every piece of mindless, non-informative i-dotting lowers the opinion of our dictionary for those unfortunate enough to run across it.
You mean well, but you spend too much of your time testing the limits on uselessness. Please find something better to do. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
The 'three such as "forty seven minus forty four"' argument does not make much sense to me: it is not a separate sense but rather an alternative definition of an existing sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Abstain. The deletion rationale could be, this is sum of parts, where the sum is not exactly a sum but rather "thank you so much".replace("you", "ya"); put differently, this can be figured out from thank you so much and ya. From my standpoint, it is not a strict application of the sum of parts rationale. there ya go is from 2008; see ya is from 2006; smell ya later is from 2006‎; thank ya is from 2016. "fank yer very much" does not seem attested, responding to argument made above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Then you must be seeing different Google results from me. Mihia (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mihia: If you post three links to attesting quotations (WT:ATTEST), we can check. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
TBH, there is no need for anyone to "check" anything. I see several uses of that phrase in Google results. If you don't, then no big deal, it is only one example to make the general point that "fank/thank" multiplied by "you/u/ya/yer/yu/etc." is potentially a large space, and ditto, or even more so, with other phrases, and that, IMO, even if attested, we do not need to list all of this profusion as separate dictionary entries. Mihia (talk)
Yes, we do. I still say it should stay, and if any of those Mihia listed are attested, they should be added as well. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Not every hit on Google meets WT:ATTEST's "use in permanently recorded media". google books:"fank yer very much" does not look promising. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I see nine book hits from four different authors. Do you not see those? Mihia (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I see only one book, perhaps because of my location. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Update: I'd like to add another one I have found: "thank u so much". Equinox 01:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete this and the u variant. - [The]DaveRoss 11:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This term and other variants mentioned in the above discussion deleted; I see consensus that it is not necessary to provide so many variants, particularly when they are readily discernible from u, ye, yu, and so on. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

จับได้, จับตัว[edit]

(Renomination) Sum of parts. Wyang (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


Sum of parts. —suzukaze (tc) 23:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete (you can use {{delete}}). Wyang (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Western classical music[edit]

SOP: Western + classical music. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • What other types are there? It's shown as a synonym of classical music under classical music. DonnanZ (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Donnanz: China and India had fairly extensive systems of art music and methods of notation before the modern era. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, you can find uses of "Eastern classical music" or "Chinese classical music" (and many other modifiers). DTLHS (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

disentir verb forms[edit]

Lots of the verb forms of disentir are incorrect as should be deleted. --WF

元讓, 吳景, 吳璟, 周奐, 周毖, 周泰, 喬瑁, 夏侯嬰, 夏侯淵, 孫仲, 孫武, 王尋, 王方, 王莽, 王頎, 胡軫, 華雄, 袁遺, 趙岐, 趙岑, 趙弘, 鄭泰, 陶謙, 韓遂, 韓馥, 馬騰, 魯馗, 鮑信, 鮑忠, 袁逢, 袁隗, 典韋, 邊讓, 荀緄, 張闓, 張燕, 宋憲, 成廉, 魏續, 曹性, 郝萌, 侯成, 何儀, 皇甫酈, 呂奉先, 周尚, 張昭, 張英[edit]

People's name. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Delete. —suzukaze (tc) 21:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Don't forget to delete the simplified forms as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

曹嵩, 曹騰, 曹豹[edit]

Delete, and speedy delete any future ones. Wyang (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

高昇, 种邵, 管亥, 穆順, 方悅, 郭阿多[edit]

Delete, and speedy delete any future ones. Wyang (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

呂範, 楊奉[edit]

Delete. Wyang (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


Delete. Wyang (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


Sum of part? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Delete. (@Tooironic) —suzukaze (tc) 21:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


—This unsigned comment was added by 2001:da8:201:3512:bce6:d095:55f1:36de (talk).

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


—This unsigned comment was added by 2001:da8:201:3512:bce6:d095:55f1:36de (talk).

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No opinion on this, but if they are deleted, please at least add them as collocations (example sentences) at the respective entries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

wank fodder[edit]

SoP. Equinox 03:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Usex in wank and esp. fodder? DCDuring (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Can see a few hundred uses of "bin fodder" (sometimes another phrase, e.g. "bargain bin fodder") in Google Books. However, I don't see what this adds to the sense of "fodder". It's a bit like "material": you could say that a pornographic film is wank material, junk mail is bin material etc. Equinox 19:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think. Ƿidsiþ 12:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


Just frei used in compounds. - 18:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. German Wiktionary has it as a suffix. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. It isn't clear which of the senses of frei even corresponds to this suffix. It's as much a suffix in German as -free is in English at any rate. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above Leasnam (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
    • By en.Wikt's definitions it might indeed be unclear and at best be "1. free" in frei with "5. Without" in free, but it's not unclear in general. The adjective frei already has the meaning 'without'. In German one can say 'er ist frei von Sorgen' (= sorgenfrei or carefree, literally 'he is free of sorrows'), 'es ist frei von Kohlensäure' (= kohlensäurefrei or noncarbonated, literally 'it's free of carbonic acid' which is 'it's without carbonic acid' or 'it's noncarbonated') etc. And the word can also be declined like "Ein [...] von Schmerzen freier Tod [...]" (a painless death, literally 'a death free of pain' or 'a death without pain') and "[der] von Sünden freie Gottessohn" (literally 'the Son of God free of sins').
      Additional information: Some derived adjectives ending in frei are listed at frei#Derived terms (while some others can be found in Category:German words suffixed with -frei).
      Another additional information as it might be rarer and uncommon in English: Adjectives can govern a case which can also be seen in "ein kaum des Schreibens mächtiger Bauer" with mächtig and the genitive "des Schreibens". And 'mächtig' too has derived adjectives like 'zaubermächtig' (= des Zauberns mächtig). - 17:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment What IP above says. Just plain [atm] definition 1. of frei#German used in a compound. If you find that keepworthy, go ahead, but the entry is more a case of completeness-of-forms than a proper additional entry. I mention here again the idea of having compound forms (haupt-, augen-, -frei) listed in the headline of the actual lemma. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


How is this a noun?-- 14:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Not really sure. It's found in 台日大辭典, which only gives the definition (國)  (せき) (きょく) (てき) (sekikyokuteki). The Taiwanese translation is given as (日)正面向前進取ê精神. It might be better to send it to RFV instead. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@Hongthay Any input on this would be appreciated. Wyang (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
From what I can tell, he just took this from TDJ. I did find two uses in the Digital Archive Database for Written Taiwanese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
It's interesting to note that the earlier quotation actually uses ê after 積極的. This may indicate that it is not SOP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung Do you think this is a noun? If yes the definition should be improved. Also please confirm it's not a short form of SOP phrase (e.g. we don't have a entry for 老的 meaning old people).--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 20:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
AFAICT from the two quotations, it's an adjective/adverb. I'm not sure what you mean by short form of an SOP phrase; I think 老的 merits inclusion. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017[edit]

Berlin Wall[edit]

(as a generic noun) -- moved from RFV. Kiwima (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (politics) Any barrier designed to keep people from crossing a border, e.g. the one proposed to keep people from crossing from Mexico into the United States. Really? -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, really. I am short on time this morning, but in a quick search I came up with the following: [30]






I am, generally speaking, opposed to including these kinds of comparative or "referential" senses unless strongly established in the language. I think it is probably incorrect to say that "Berlin Wall" actually means "Any barrier designed to ... etc.". When people say that some other barrier is "a Berlin Wall", what they are really saying is that it is like the actual Berlin Wall, in my opinion. The possibilities for these kinds of references are open-ended and somewhat limitless. In the floods, I could say, of the stream at the bottom of my garden, that I have "the River Thames" flowing through my garden. It doesn't mean that "River Thames" means "Any stream or river carrying a large volume of water". Mihia (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I think there is a difference between saying 'like the Berlin Wall' and 'like a Berlin Wall'. By using the indefinite article the author seems to indicate that Berlin Wall does not refer to a specific wall, but to a class of wall. Kiwima (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
You may be correct, but I see this as a regular feature of the English language that allows us to liken one thing to another, not a new meaning of "Berlin Wall". For example, I could say that Hillary Clinton "isn't a Barack Obama". It doesn't mean, in my view, that "Barack Obama" has a dictionary sense of a certain type of person/president. Mihia (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree entirely that the principle, "the English language that allows us to liken one thing to another" (justifying exclusion of such definitions), applies to English nouns. But White House at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that other dictionaries find some metonymic construals of proper nouns worth inclusion. The principle does not limit including definitions of common nouns at all. See head#Noun for the numerous definitions that spring from similes, metaphors and metonomy. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I entirely agree with the inclusion in the dictionary of the special metonymic meaning of "White House", but I believe that somewhere between "The White House says that President Obama will veto the bill" and the kind of examples offered above for "Berlin Wall", we pass from a genuine extended meaning to regular patterns of the English language that can apply in the same way to virtually any proper noun. Mihia (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The second refers to the original Berlin Wall, the third is a mentioning or a comparision/simile ("as a "Berlin Wall""), the fouth is a mentioning and maybe an comparison/simile too ("The .. politican .. described this division as a 'Berlin Wall'"), the fifth is a comparison/simile ("like a Berlin Wall"). The first and the sixth could use some rhetorical figure ("the rope/thing that's a Berlin Wall", "lies behind a Berlin Wall of ..."). - 23:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Given these arguments, I think this belongs more appropriately under requests for deletion rather than requests for verification. Any use that is found can be argued to be a similie. Kiwima (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

אַ שיין פּנים[edit]

Yes, my grandmother would say this too, but that doesn't make it any less SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm leaning towards delete. --WikiTiki89 15:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

husband and wife[edit]

the translate target is already at married couple.--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 20:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

delete --Hekaheka (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep. husband and wife and married couple are different, although related concepts, and have different translations. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep per Daniel Carrero; not all married couples are husband and wife. — Kleio (t · c) 15:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Are you saying that e.g. a gay couple of two men could be called "husband and wife"? Equinox 16:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Nope, I'm saying the exact opposite. — Kleio (t · c) 19:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Effectively a set phrase. Hits for "husband and wife" outnumber those for "wife and husband" by at least ten to one. bd2412 T 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    Should we be enshrining in Wiktionary such microaggressive expressions of the unequal power relations in traditional heterosexual marriage? Don't we at least need a usage note shaming those who use or have used this? DCDuring (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    The fact that it is such an expression of unequal power lends to idiomacity, in the same way as man and wife, and Mr. and Mrs. bd2412 T 20:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    How do you feel about Talk:knife and fork (the generic sense, not the "symbol" sense)? Equinox 20:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    Or for that matter, ladies and gentlemen? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
    There is idiomacity inherent in setness of order. If it could be shown that "knife and fork" is orders of magnitude more common than "fork and knife", I would argue that this is strong evidence of a set phrase. bd2412 T 15:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
    @BD2412: Is that a kind of "setness" that we should care about? I think not. It is trivial and it is a little hard to believe that someone will go to Wiktionary to find whether the order of the nouns in the correlative phrase heard of read is correct. The US Declaration of Independence loses at least some of its meaning with even the slightest change in word order. What makes the order or words in correlatives so special? DCDuring (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
    I certainly wouldn't go to the trouble of deleting an entry that exhibited such setness. Of course, there's a sliding scale of setness based on how wrong the converse order would seem. If someone told you that they saw a "pony and dog show" would you feel that they were wrong? bd2412 T 19:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
    I deleted "newly" from the definition of "mand and wife". A male-female couple is declared "man and wife" until the death them aparts. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
    Lexicographically speaking, you can't choose which words you include in a dictionary based on whether or not you like their meaning. I'm sure there are many slurs on here and they should be because they are words and this is meant to be concise. That being said, I don't think there's anything microagressive about this term, the fact is when a man and woman get married the man is called the husband and the woman the wife, one member has to be mentioned before the other, this is the way, for whatever reason, it's worked out, but that doesn't make it offensive. The question should be is the usage of this phrase different enough from the mere conjunction of 'husband' and 'wife' to warrant it being considered a separate lexical item, not whether or not it upsets someone. 2WR1 (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
    Heheh, I am surprised by all the serious answers to this comment. It looks to me to be facetious. — Eru·tuon 23:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
    I was having the same feeling. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's one word in many languages, such as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Czech, Esperanto and Finnish. This makes it useful as a translation target. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. 2WR1 (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

многоквартирный дом[edit]

SoP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

вредоносное ПО[edit]

SoP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Windows, Firefox, XP[edit]

This is an undeletion request - these entries or senses are deleted or removed per RFV. For rationale of the request see Wiktionary:Information desk/2017/June.--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 12:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes. they should all be recreated. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we should have an entry for Windows and XP (especially since the latter isn't the official name). I'm not so sure about Firefox. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Restore Windows. Undecided about others for now. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


SOP?--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 12:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


RFD for "Used other than as an idiom" section: we don't need a sense for every incorrect word segmentation. They are very common and never to be completed. (examples of incorrect word segmentations: 鼠标垫增强了鼠标的可用性, 为人民服务, 对这个常数的确定有决定性的意义, 努力学习语法规则)--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 20:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not exactly an incorrect word segmentation; it's just kind of SOP. It might be useful to keep, but I don't really have a strong argument for keeping. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung in my opinion 仲有成百個人排緊隊喎 is better interpreted as 仲有/成百個人/排緊隊/喎.--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 20:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I guess that makes sense. The definition comes from Cantodict, which was why it was included. What about the second example sentence? Do you think it could be spliced as 我手頭上/有成/十幾張飛...? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I think 成 should be a qualifier of the following number.--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 20:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Alright. I think it could be deleted. @Wyang, Suzukaze-c, Atitarev, thoughts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Wyang (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I guess so. —suzukaze (tc) 02:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, delete the non-idiomatic sense. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Greek future tense forms[edit]

These are formed from θα (tha, will) + verb, which makes them just as SOP as will be etc in English. I brought this up to Saltmarsh here. A full list of the verb forms that ought to be deleted can be found here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

金正日, 金日成[edit]

People's names. Wyang (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Johnny Shiz (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)



I gather that им- (im-) and ир- (ir-) are prefixes that only occur in words borrowed from Romance languages or English, so they do not merit entries. For an earlier discussion, related to the category "adjective-forming prefixes", see Wiktionary:Tea room/2017/May § им-. — Eru·tuon 07:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


Not exist in dictionaries. However, this is the name of a district in Chiang Rai. (Perhaps it is a minor language?) --Octahedron80 (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Octahedron80, Stephen G. Brown: Why do you think this should be deleted? If you doubt its existence, then it should be sent to WT:RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
See thai-language.com. —Stephen (Talk) 23:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
^The word is บันเทิง; it is not from บัน+เทิง and no such lone เทิง. For เทิ่ง (with mai ek), it is an adverb meaning "obviously; clearly". They both do not relate with any large or big things. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


SOP: ("to go") + 飲茶 ("to have dim sum"). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


Reraising rfd. Obvious SoP for translation purpose. Not a Chinese word. The same can be said of 可閱讀性, 可朗讀性, 可開導性, 可電解性, etc. Wyang (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete.—suzukaze (tc) 11:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd be easier to delete if it went through RFV. Its SoPness is not as obvious. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

炮火的洗禮, 炮火嘅洗禮[edit]

SOP. Handled by 洗禮.--2001:DA8:201:3512:E49E:3757:EDD0:9CB5 12:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

If it is used as English baptism by fire, it should be kept. I suggest sending this to RFV. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The English term is idiomatic does not mean the Chinese one is. baptism does not mean ordeal in English.--2001:DA8:201:3512:98C7:6612:A4DC:CF14 18:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but there doesn't need to be any actual 炮火 involved, right? How is it SoP then? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this is idiomatic enough to be keepable. Wyang (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep because it doesn't literally involve firing at Christians. —suzukaze (tc) 14:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


SOP--2001:DA8:201:3512:E49E:3757:EDD0:9CB5 12:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete, but we may need an entry for 初榨. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


It exists, but should it be included? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This may be a brand name unlikely to pass WT:BRAND.--2001:DA8:201:3512:98C7:6612:A4DC:CF14 21:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
There's much more reason for it to be in WP, but they've deleted under their criteria. I don't see why it wouldn't have to meet WT:BRAND, not that I understand those criteria. DCDuring (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The word seems to exist. The definition needs improving though. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. (Well, RFV is an option, but this is just another Web site, not exactly a household name.) Equinox 21:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. DTLHS (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
SemperBlotto deleted the entry, just for the record. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

kvað við klukkan[edit]

I don't see how this could be useful or idiomatic. DTLHS (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOPWT:SOP might be what you are looking for68.151.25.115 01:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
It might be idiomatic; literally it seems to be "spoke with the clock", where "the clock" is not the object of "with", because it is nominative singular definite. — Eru·tuon 16:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Erutuon: kveða við (3rd person singular past indicative kvað við) is a set phrase meaning to resound (see here), so it's literally just "the bell resounded/rang", not "spoke with the clock/bell". BigDom 09:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. One of the many unidiomatic, seemingly random Icelandic phrases we have had stick around until somebody notices them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure when klukkan can mean either clock or bell. DonnanZ (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete SOP (kveða við + klukkan), see my comment above. BigDom 09:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thanks for the explanation of what the phrase is, @BigDom. — Eru·tuon 23:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 01:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

hlaupa á glæ[edit]

Same as above. DTLHS (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

WT:SOP might be what you are looking for68.151.25.115 01:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a phrase from the Bible: Philippians 2:16. I'm not sure it merits inclusion, though. — Eru·tuon 16:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. One of the many unidiomatic, seemingly random Icelandic phrases we have had stick around until somebody notices them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to RFV, literally means "run into the sea" so probably not SOP. Can't find as a set phrase in any of the is/en dictionaries though. BigDom 09:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


bogus entry: its a misspelling and was never obsolete. 01:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, no: it's well and truly attested, and it now well and truly obsolete. Although there is a case to be made that the adjectival use in period was actually as an attributive noun... especially given the capitalization in "Prognostick Signs" &c. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 02:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Should be challenged at RFV if anywhere. Now has some cites. Keep. Equinox 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep, of course. 08:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

« », «, »[edit]

Duplicated lemma. We probably don't need a section for every languages the symbol is used.--2001:DA8:201:3512:41BB:786D:20EE:2C4A 13:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, why not? Either all the languages that use the symbol should be listed, or there should be an entry for each of them. Is this different from having an entry for every language that uses the letter a? — Eru·tuon 14:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention that every language has its own rules for when and how they are used and how they are formatted (with or without spaces, etc.). --WikiTiki89 14:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep per above. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

industrial complex[edit]

Hello, I tried to create a page for "industrial complex" because on Wikipedia, there is an article about "white savior" under which the term "white savior industrial complex" is discussed. There are a couple of Wikipedia articles, "military-industrial complex" and "prison-industrial complex", that exist. Beyond these, the term "industrial complex" has been appended in other ways as discussed here, which I had included in the Citations tab for justification. It seems appropriate as a dictionary term since there is no real encyclopedic coverage, but there exists a variety of uses of it. What warranted the rather immediate deletion of this page? Erik (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This says, "The suffix '-industrial complex' has become a convenient (and certainly overused) way to describe the meshing of public and private interests, usually in a manner suggesting that profit motivations have trumped rational policy assessments," with a few examples of its use listed. Erik (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge I restored it temporarily so that it can be discussed. I agree that it has some issues, not least of which is that the definition is a mix of etymology and usage note, without having an actual definition included. It is also not a suffix. But perhaps it can be cleaned up? The citation is also a mention rather than a usage, which needs to be addressed. I do think it was added in good faith, so merits discussion. - [The]DaveRoss 17:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Please let me know what sources would be ideal to help here. I'm happy to look further. Erik (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Dave, your ping didn't work. Anyway, let me copy what I said on my talk-page: "I'm really not sure it is appropriate for Wiktionary. You seem to be supporting a sort of suffix (although your entry didn't say that explicitly), but isn't it rather a case of various blends based on military-industrial complex?" I might add that if it were a suffix, the page title would have to begin with a hyphen. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete if only for the crap so-called definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there anything like "assume good faith" in this particular realm? Why is it exactly "crap" and "so-called"? I am seeing words under Category:English idioms that are less substantial than this. Erik (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment. I've got to agree with User:Erik, that User:SemperBlotto's statement wasn't nice, and was inappropriate especially to whom seems to be a good-faith new user. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Good faith doesn't necessarily prevent you from creating crap. I know this well, sometimes create crap in good faith myself. --Droigheann (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Droigheann But you don't word it that way, especially with new users. Encourage new users to learn further about the system. Using derogatory terms to refer to a good faith entry from a new user is mean, and not only that, but it can lead to new users who could very well one day become essential contributors to the project, feel that they are shunned away and don't come back. you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The concept exists, we just don't happen to be very good at it. The problem with the definition is that it isn't a definition, as was mentioned about by myself and Meta. A definition for this might be something like "a corrupting influence on the government by individuals or companies with a significant financial stake in related legislation". That is certainly not perfect, but it is attempting to describe what the term means rather than the origin of the term or how it is used. Another problem is that the term isn't used (as far as I know) independently of the various specific terms (military-, prison-, etc.). If the term is never independent then it is not worthy of an entry on its own, but should rather exist at each specific use. - [The]DaveRoss 14:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Why does the term have to exist independently? We can set it as "-industrial complex" if needed. Unless suffixes are not allowed? I see that -gate exists. Erik (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Suffixes are OK, if this is in fact a suffix it should be moved to the hyphenated version. The thing is there are lots of words and pairs of words which are common constructions but which are not affixes or terms in their own right. The question here is whether or not "industrial complex" is, in and of itself, a term. - [The]DaveRoss 19:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I can see why that is uncertain. I would be fine with a move to the hyphenated version. What about this from the book Unwarranted Influence from Yale University Press? Erik (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Those look like they are mostly "mentions" rather than uses. I think my inclination is that this is neither an independent term nor a suffix, but rather a number of snowclone terms of the form X-industrial complex. The industrial complex portion is not idiomatic in its own right, and I don't think that it is a proper suffix. - [The]DaveRoss 20:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Metaknowledge that these all look like blends of military-industrial complex with other terms: it derives from the whole phrase, rather from than from any of its parts. It's kind of like one of those images where someone's head is photoshopped onto someone else's body: the idea is to merge the two identities in incongruous ways, rather than treat the body as a modular piece to be swapped for another. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Considering all the different kinds of Wiktionary entries, I'm surprised there is no place for this term here in any form at all. I would have thought that a write-up of the very term in a Yale University Press book would be good enough. What kind of real-world use is warranted for inclusion? Erik (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep, but move to -industrial complex: Mostly per Erik. I also feel like "Delete because the definition is crap" is a rather specious argument for deletion. It's a good argument for fixing the definition, though. Purplebackpack89 18:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
BTW, @SemperBlotto, you wanted the definition reworked? I've reworked it. Purplebackpack89 19:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

We already have military-industrial complex. Therefore, we do not need to re-define it here. "Industrial complex" has another definition, however, which I added. Have a look. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep, I think it's OK as modified. DonnanZ (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I would argue that the new addition is SOP, and that the restated original definition is wrong. This is not short for military-industrial complex, especially not when used in terms like prison-industrial complex. - [The]DaveRoss 11:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

creep into[edit]

To enter by creeping, etc. Doesn't seem like a special set phrase, just normal use of into. Equinox 21:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete DCDuring (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


Chinese: This is not Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This is related to "#Flash" above. Would you like to start a full discussion on the issue at the Beer Parlour? — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Personally I'd like to put this one in RFV. —suzukaze (tc) 00:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

connected graph[edit]

A graph which is connected.__Gamren (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

connected graph at OneLook Dictionary Search DCDuring (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Unsupported titles/Number sign[edit]

Following this RFD on .. non-human senses from computing [36]: here are some more. 1. The anchor in a Web page; 2. The length operator in Lua. Equinox 18:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I think having information on elements of programming languages is useful. I added one of the definitions that you are proposing be deleted (the Lua one). However, the current CFI doesn't mention programming languages at all, so I suppose they are not currently allowed. Perhaps this sort of thing should be moved to an appendix, at least for now: Appendix:Lua, Appendix:JavaScript. — Eru·tuon 21:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete, not part of human language. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
keep SemperBlotto (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete all definitions which are specific to programming languages, this is not something we ought to, or are equipped to, cover. - [The]DaveRoss 12:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete, we should not try to provide documentation on programming languages. DTLHS (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --WikiTiki89 18:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. A programming language doesn't convey meaning: it's the non-physical equivalent of switches, dials and levers, a means to control a non-sentient device. A detonator doesn't mean "boom", a gas pedal doesn't mean "go", and a steering wheel doesn't mean "turn or go straight". Human beings can infer meanings from them, just as they can infer from a stain on my shirt what I had for lunch, but those meanings aren't inherent in the symbols and keywords themselves. I'm typing this by applying pressure on pieces of plastic in order to change the conductive properties of circuitry inside the computer. The fact that I can thereby produce the full range of written expression in pretty much all the languages in the world does not change the fact that these are pieces of plastic, not language.
While the inventory of symbols and syntax in all the programming languages in the world is indeed useful information, it's simply not dictionary material. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a clever but in my view incorrect argument. The interpreter of a symbol being a computer does not change there being meanings to symbols, keywords and APIs of programming languages. The meaning of such a symbol is what the symbol does or what specification it stands for. Thus, in some languages, ! refers to negation, regardless of the particular rendering in particular assembly language; to say that the meaning of ! is negation sounds like a perfectly sensible thing to say. Searching for google:operator "what does it mean" yields the following questions asked: "The python <- operator: what does it mean?", "python - Go "&^" operator, what does it mean?", and "What does the operator !== mean?". A slightly different search finds "mysql - What does the KEY keyword mean?" and "C++: What does the explicit keyword in C++ mean?". (Note that I am not defending inclusion of computing symbols; I only comment on the argument presented.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. I've typically leaned towards inclusion when it comes to programming languages, but Chuck Entz's argument is the most convincing I've seen for deletion, and I think he has won me over... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete; the following is a repetition of what I said elsewhere. What sort of attestation (WT:ATTEST) would that be? All keywords and all APIs in computing languages, quasi-attested in source code? Shall we include JOptionPane (Java), std::cin (C++), equ (Win Batch), foreach (Perl) as quasi-attested in source code? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm seeing broad consensus for the computing senses to be deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


"Of or related to a camp." As in 'camp policy', 'camp employee' (not the other etymology). Actually a noun mistakenly labelled. 08:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Delete. Equinox 17:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DCDuring (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Delete. There's far too many of these false adjectives. DonnanZ (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete - [The]DaveRoss 11:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: attributive use only. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

good aftanoon[edit]

Equinox 17:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, SOP as it stands and of no value as a phrasebook entry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete - [The]DaveRoss 11:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

thank yu[edit]

As with "good aftanoon", I don't see the purpose of this sort of weird misspelling. Just makes us look bad. Equinox 23:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete all funky-spelling phrase variants. Retain individual yu and aftanoon assuming attested to required standards. Mihia (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Mihia. DCDuring (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete Kiwima (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep I think it should be kept because it's an example of eye dialect. Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually it seems rare enough that it might just be a typo. But anyway your argument is for yu#Pronoun, not for every possible phrase containing it. Equinox 00:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete - [The]DaveRoss 11:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

thank yu so much[edit]

...and thank yu very much. Per RFD on thank ya so much above. (Sorry, I missed these at the time. Same arguments will apply.) Equinox 22:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete both. DCDuring (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Who is "yu"? Delete. - [The]DaveRoss 13:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Delete Kiwima (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

accidente de tráfico / accidente laboral[edit]

SoP. Ultimateria (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. But why do we have road accident? The definition is dubious too. If a bicycle hits a pedestrian on a road, it's a road accident - or am I wrong? --Hekaheka (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I think we should also delete "road accident" (who says that anyway?). Any combination of [setting] + "accident", really. Ultimateria (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, Collins defines it as "a traffic accident involving vehicles, pedestrians or cyclists" [37].--Droigheann (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

zahraniční obchod[edit]

Tagged last year [38] but apparently not brought here. Links properly to foreign trade, which is a red link. I think that if we consider the English term an SoP, the same should probably be true about the Czech term. --Droigheann (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

  • As for sum of parts or not, "foreign trade" is at least ambiguous: for a U.K. citizen, foreign trade does not include trading that Germans do among themselves. For whatever reason, foreign trade is currently linked to from User:Robert Ullmann/Missing/e-f and User:Msh210/Duesentrieb/xdv. Furthermore, how would you know that Czechs say "zahraniční obchod" rather than "vnější obchod", analogous to German de:Außenhandel, or "externí obchod"? The German entry has French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish translations that are based on "external" rather than "foreign", information of use for a translator. If the translations entered turn out to be not the most common ones, that can be corrected, provided there is an entry to correct. Admittedly, foreign trade at OneLook Dictionary Search does not help much to support keeping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
That's an argument for the creation of foreign trade. What I'm saying is that as the English->Czech translation is quite straightforward (unlike the English->German &c ones), there's little point in having the Czech entry in the English Wiktionary linking to an non-existent English one. (Incidentally I didn't tag it for deletion, just noticed it in Category:Requests for deletion in Czech entries.) --Droigheann (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

icicle plant[edit]

I found only two legitimate (non-dictionary) references to "icicle plant" when I searched the internet. Neither referred to "A plant of the genus Mesembryanthemum". There is a redirect page in Wikipedia, but I do not think this qualifies the term for inclusion in Wiktionary. I would update the Wikipedia redirect but the "icicle plant" article does not exist at this time.User-duck (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This should be at WT:RFV- but see the citations I have added to the entry. DTLHS (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I added some simple usages to supplement more mentiony cites that support specific definition. DCDuring (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
This is tricky, because 1) Mesembryanthemum used to be a wastebasket taxon containing a large number of species that are now classified in other genera, and 2) plant common names tend to be either a) mentioned along with the botanical name, but not used, or b) used, but not accompanied by botanical information. To complicate things further, Dorotheanthus bellidiformis was mostly known as Mesembryanthemum crinifolium, and Mesembryanthemum is neuter in gender, so specific epithets such as edulis and bellidiformis change to edule and bellidiforme. Allowing for that, it's easy to confirm that all of the species in the ice plant and icicle plant articles (except for Helichrysum thianschanicum of course) have been known for most of their history as species of Mesembryanthemum.
It looks to me like icicle plant, when applied to plants in the Aizoaceae, is just an alternative form of ice plant: the species that look like they're covered in ice aren't shaped like icicles and the species that have long, narrow leaves don't look like they're covered in ice. I suspect that ice plant was generalized from Mesembryanthemum crystallinum to the rest of the genus Mesembryanthemum as it was constituted at the time, with that connection becoming lost after the genus was split up. I've changed the articles at ice plant and icicle plant to reflect the above. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I dread having to cite many of the less common vernacular names because the story seems so often to be as you say. I wonder if we should just buryput some of the dictionary-only names in Usage notes. They may be somewhat useful to some users.
It seems highly likely that any good vernacular name will be (mis)applied to higher level taxa and similar-looking or -behaving organisms. Is it even worthwhile to document this?
icicle plant may be so rare as to fail RfV. DCDuring (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


"Of, or relating to such a system." That's the noun. Translations just seem to be the noun 'airmail' with a hyphen (though I can't read the Arabic). 11:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, delete the adjective entry as it isn't one, merely a noun used as a modifier. The translations can go with the noun entry as a noun modifier. DonnanZ (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 00:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sense deleted. bd2412 T 01:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Назарбаев мәңгі өмір сүрсін[edit]

Nationalistic Kazakh phrase that feels weird in a political-neutral dictionary... 12:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, SOP on its face and with no practical value as a phrasebook entry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

underwater handstand[edit]

Sum of parts? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I had never even heard of an underwater handstand, but it seems to be bizarre enough to keep. No images to be found on Commons though, damn. DonnanZ (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The definition makes a point about which parts of the body are above the surface. AFAICS, that's the only possible reason why this should perhaps be kept: if it implies some stuff about body's position relative to the surface, rather than being any kind of handstand done (mostly) underwater. What a nightmare to verify, though. Equinox 07:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I did find images, but not on Commons. DonnanZ (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Is there some kind of official definition of such a performance, as one used in some competitive water gymnastics? That might be worth including if attestable. DCDuring (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


Specific Harry Potter sequels. (I've only bothered to tag HP1, but please consider this to cover 2 through HP7 too.) Having an HP entry is fine, but I don't agree with these. HP1 doesn't really mean "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone"; it means "Harry Potter 1", and that just happens to be the first one. Likewise, we can tell what HP15 refers to, even though no such book yet exists. It's a lot like the previously mooted entries for S1E1, S1E2, S1E3 etc. (season/episode of TV series), though I can't seem to find that discussion. At the time I likened them to temperature entries for 1ºC, 30ºF, etc.; we only need F and C. Equinox 16:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, delete all (or replace with other meanings e.g. "heterochromatin protein 1"). SemperBlotto (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Kinsey 0, 1, 2 through 6 is another set that makes me roll my eyes a bit. Equinox 15:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Funnily enough I have heard Kinsey-6 used adjectivally, as in "he is Kinsey-6 gay" (I think in the movie Easy A). No idea if 1-5 get that sort of use, if 0 did that wouldn't surprise me either. - [The]DaveRoss 11:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as per Equinox, they are SoP (and possibly not dictionary material as well); compare ISA 200. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Herr Ober[edit]

Redundant, badly formatted. – Jberkel (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

足濟, chiok chōe[edit]

Looks SOP. If this is deleted, should 很多 be deleted as well? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

carbon nanotube is a sum of parts[edit]

Does it quality to have an entry? Yurivict (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I would keep this, but I find the reasoning hard to put into words. I suppose it is a translation target for single-word foreign equivalents, and a synonym for the existing buckytube. bd2412 T 16:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Carbon nanotubes were the original nanotubes, so it is possible that the term carbon nanotube predates the independent term nanotube, in which case I would keep. Otherwise it is probably SOP, there are lots of specific nanotubes. - [The]DaveRoss 11:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wyang (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

loose connection[edit]

Sum of parts? SemperBlotto (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


Does this meet WT:BRAND? —CodeCat 12:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

piece of furniture[edit]

Sum of parts, surely. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I remember that years back there was a leeengthy discussion about this and it was kept. If there's ever a need for a translation target, this is the one. If one translates "piece of furniture" word-by-word to almost any other language, one ends up with nonsense. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Not in Chinese, and I imagine many other Asian languages. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Hindi फर्नीचर का टुकड़ा (pharnīcar kā ṭukṛā) is nonsensical. फर्नीचर (pharnīcar, furniture (uncountable); piece of furniture (countable)) can mean both. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 17:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep, a piece of furniture shouldn't be called "a furniture". DonnanZ (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
So, by that rationale, should we add piece of advice, piece of equipment, piece of information, piece of news, piece of stationery, etc.? This is quite a normal English construction that is used to count a mass noun. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
un meuble is not "a furniture". Neither is et møbel. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
And? Why should a feature of a foreign language impact the inclusion of English terms on the English Wiktionary? What you describe would be better placed in a grammar not a dictionary. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. "Furniture" is just a mass noun, and it's normal to treat it this way in English. This translation target stuff is making me roll my eyes a bit. It comes up for everything. We have to either accept at some point that we're primarily an English language dictionary rather than a translation dictionary, or we need to create a collocations section to allow common SOP phrases. I'd much prefer the latter, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be consensus for it.... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't know. We do need to indicate somehow/somewhere that this phrase is the usual singular for furniture (not "a furniture"). That could be a usage note or something at furniture. Equinox 00:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: by all means add a usage note at furniture (note that it is also possible in some contexts to say "a stick of furniture" and "a set of furniture"), but it is clearly SoP as Tooironic says. I take it we are not planning to create entries for "bunch of grapes", "piece of legislation", and so on. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And what about the remaining "translation targets"? Kill'em all? They are hardly more useful than this one. If that should be the policy, I'm ok with it, but let's be consistent. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, this is less of a translation target and more of a clear-cut sum of parts IMO. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Less than ace of diamonds, banana peel, national sports team, model aircraft, birthday card and CD player, just to name a few? --Hekaheka (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
No. Anyway, why don't we just move it to Category:English phrasebook? That category can obviously accommodate anything from could I see the menu, please to I am English to two beers, please, including 59 entries beginning with "I'm ...", from I'm blind (no, it doesn't have a sound file) to both I'm fine and I'm fine, thank you to I'm twenty years old, so why not a few "pieces of" for the cases which, unlike the abovementioned, can't be translated directly? --Droigheann (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Nearly all of the phrasebook phrases are full sentences (even if elliptical, like "two beers please"), not just vocabulary items in a vacuum. Equinox 17:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
And? Does being full sentences make them any less SoPs? Occasionally even sort of "double" SoPs when we have both how do I get to and how do I get to the airport, how do I get to the bus station & how do I get to the train station? --Droigheann (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The inclusion of phrasebook entries has nothing to do with SoP - rather, we include phrases which are commonly used in phrasebooks and actually useful. "Piece of furniture" is just a common collocation, not a phrase with a specific pragmatic function. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
That's where we differ, for me having "piece of furniture" is about a thousand times more useful than having, say, I'm agnostic. But maybe these things are always down to subjective opinions ... --Droigheann (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I'm agnostic is representative of the English phrasebook. Most of the entries we have in there are actually common and useful. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete SoP, follows a standard English approach to "countabilizing" English mass nouns. It would be important to include the common examples of these in usage examples (less desirably, citations) at the various uncountable nouns that show this behavior. DCDuring (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
An interesting contrast in terms of idiomaticity is chest of drawers, which is sometimes (NOT normally) spelled chesterdrawers, indicating a loss of connection of the idiom with its origins and apparent components. In contrast pizzafurniture is very rare in this sense and pisafurniture is only a crossword clue word. DCDuring (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I see no reason why pizzafurniture could not also be a crossword clue word. bd2412 T 01:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Weak keep as a translation target. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 17:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Russian -ва-[edit]

We already have -вать (-vatʹ), -ивать (-ivatʹ), -ывать (-yvatʹ). --Barytonesis (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

istuic, istuius, istujus[edit]

Long enough unattested and properly would have failed WT:RFVN#illic and istic already. The forms very likely were might up by wiktionary. - 17:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


This entry overlaps significantly with the suffix section of 'd, though it adds usage notes, its own (lengthy) example use, and the annotation poetic. I propose these two entries be merged. Rriegs (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Should very likely be -'d as it's a suffix. Additionally there could be a ===See also===.
Btw: 's and -'s are inconsequent too: at -'s the head is 's (or properly |head=’s) but the lemma is -'s. - 19:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

шкоднае праграмнае забеспячэнне[edit]

Tagged by IP. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

шкоднае ПЗ[edit]

Tagged by IP. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)



Really not convinced that these terms are suitable. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The words seem to exist - but should be defined as plural of the singular. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

صدام حسين[edit]

Full name of a person. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

person of size[edit]

Nominating this entry since man of size and woman of size have been determined in earlier discussions to be sum-of-parts. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Delete. DCDuring (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep , as size here refers euphemistically to overweight, not just size in general, which we do not have at size, so it's not SOP. It doesn't mean a tall person, or a large bodied person, it means an overweight or obese person. It's modelled after person of color. Leasnam (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The purported connection with person of color is their shared use of a standard English construction.
I doubt that "purported" is at all an accurate assessment of the the Washington Post's article regarding the term's origin. Leasnam (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I repeat the comment I made above at #woman of size:
I'm sureI hope you agree that wall of great size is SoP. Isn't woman of great size SoP? I would hope you would agree that wall of size is SoP. I don't think woman of size departs from this normal construction of meaning for these of NPs. DCDuring (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I disagree where woman of size is concerned. It is not a woman of (great) size or necessarily any size, which is precisely why large bodied, stocky (but not fat) women are never referred to as a "women of size". No one uses the term that way. "Woman of size" is a nice PC way of saying "plus-sized woman" (i.e. "fat woman"), a woman with more to love ;) She doesn't even have to be large, just have a little excess fat (you can be petite and "curvy" and be a woman of size, or a "plus size" woman, and be of normal size). As I pointed out in ES about the origin of person of size, it is a collocation with its originator phrase person of color which served as the pattern for why the phrase woman of size was created in the first place. It's like little person, little people for those with dwarfism. They're not strictly just "little + people" (SoP). Same thing here. Leasnam (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring, why again is person of color is not SoP ? Maybe the definition of person of size should be: A non-skinny person. Leasnam (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, if you're comparing woman of size to wall of size, then perhaps you're not understanding what woman of size specifically refers to. It's not always a "large woman". It's a woman who has more body fat than popular culture deems desirable. OTOH, big woman would be SoP, because big can mean "fat" in addition to just large size. Leasnam (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I know English expressions reasonably well, but I may be semantically challenged and unaware of it.
Wall of size is just about synonymous with wall of great size and woman of size is just about synonymous with woman of great size. No OneLook reference has of size or woman/person/man of size. Perhaps the OED does?
I think person of color is inclusion-worthy because color does not mean "dark/brown skin color" AND because the selection of an appropriate name for a member of a group that is sensitive to the names it or its members are called is a matter of GREAT pragmatic concern. (I'm speaking here as a descendant of Huns.)
Not every instance of pragmatically/contextually preferred selection among available expressions warrants an entry, still less one that involves only conventional construction of conventional meaning. In contrast plus-size/plus-sized/plus size do involve departure from conventional usage.
As to the matter of size only being one specific measure of size in woman of size, what of garden of size? In this case size can (almost???) always only mean "area", not "length", "weight", "height". You certainly wouldn't want to have separate entries for each combination of [Noun] and of size because a particular meaning of size was most common when used with [Noun]. DCDuring (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Nowhere at size does it refer to overweight. It only refers (among other things) to dimensions. Leasnam (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The definitions at [[importance]] don't show "great import", even though it has that meaning in "matter of importance". I think that many of the nouns that are conceived as having scalar or ordinal values are often used without a modifier to mean that the scalar or rank is high in context. Examples of such nouns that can be used with of to yield the result are many as are examples that do not have the resulting type of meaning. DCDuring (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Is "garden of size" or "wall of size" a normal construction where you're from? It seems weird to me. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say it was common, just normal, in the sense of following a fairly standard pattern. One can find numerous instances of "player/lineman/back of size" in sports news. It is parallel to "matter of (some/great) significance/importance/weight" and similar expressions. DCDuring (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't have us making entries for garden of size, shoe of size, x of size, what have you...those are clearly SoP. But person of size and woman of size are inclusion-worthy. Like man of God, These are not SoP. I see your concern over the slipperiness of this though--should we create passenger of size, roommate of size, patron of size ? No. JUst like we don't have child of God, passenger of colour, or whatever either. We know where to draw the line. Leasnam (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring: interesting, that's completely foreign to me (but then again, I don't read sports news). Where do you live? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't read the sports news either: I searched Google News, suspecting that something could be found. I'm just north of NYC. But I don't think it's regional. DCDuring (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I think you could take almost any word that could mean a type of individual and add "of size": imagine a dating service for plus-sized people. You could say that you're interested in "dog-lovers of size" or "left-handers of size". If anything's idiomatic, it would be "of size", not person of size, man of size, woman of size, etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Chuck, absolutely ! Either something is missing at size, or we need to consider creating an idiomatic of size. Leasnam (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
This now makes me think that person of color is just person + of color, as you can also say: woman of color, people of color, culture of color, music of color, etc. Leasnam (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaving you [edit]

Do we actually need this phrase? --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete. If traveling to another country for a short vacation, why would you be getting into a serious relationship immediately, so as to have a moment at all when someone is saying "I'm leaving you."? What is the likelihood of this? Not high at all. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 17:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DCDuring (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Not dictionary material, not even phrasebook material. Deleted SemperBlotto (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

意大利式長麵條, 意大利式長麵條[edit]

These look suspiciously SOP. They look more like a description of spaghetti than an actual name for it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

live free or die[edit]

A state motto, which is not idiomatic. We are neither Wikipedia nor Wikiquote. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete as it stands. May or may not be salvageable by giving it a proper definition. Equinox 12:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Not only is it SOP, but it is almost entirely attributed to the state's motto. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Speedily deleted as non-idiomatic and clearly SoP; the definition was simply "New Hampshire's state motto". — SGconlaw (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


Originally tagged for speedy deletion, but I don't think it qualifies, so I'm bringing it here. We do have entries for roots in other attested languages, notably CAT:Sanskrit roots, but for most languages we don't list roots, and for Ancient Greek this is the only one (so far, at least). At the moment I'm somewhat undecided as I see arguments both for (it would be convenient to have a place to gather all the terms derived from this root, like γίγνομαι (gígnomai), γείνομαι (geínomai), γένεσις (génesis), γένος (génos), γονή (gonḗ), γόνος (gónos), γενέτωρ (genétōr)) and against (this form is more of an abstract concept than a genuinely occurring form of the language), so I'm hoping for an active discussion that will help me make up my own mind. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I created this entry, but I think this and other roots (Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit) should probably be moved to appendices. They are theoretical concepts, particularly so for Arabic and Hebrew roots, and can't meet the criterion of attestation. (@Wikitiki89's comments in a discussion about Arabic patterns is what convinced me of this. If patterns should go in appendices, roots should too, because the two are interconnected.)
Having a list of roots and their allomorphs (here, γεν-, γον-, γιγν-, γειν-) might help users to identify the origins of words. I don't know what form this should take: a single page with many or all roots, individual pages (subpages of something like Appendix:Ancient Greek roots). And I'm not sure how or if it would be linked to entries in the main namespace. But I think it would be useful in some form. — Eru·tuon 04:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Putting roots in Appendix space does seem like a good idea. How would we name Appendix pages for roots? Now that reconstructions have their own namespace, we could names like Appendix:Ancient Greek/γεν-, Appendix:Sanskrit/जन् for roots, and link to them using √ (the square root symbol) as a prefix, the same way we already use * for reconstructions. Thus {{l|grc|√γεν-}} would link to Appendix:Ancient Greek/γεν-, and {{l|sa|√जन्}} would link to Appendix:Sanskrit/जन्, etc.  Alternatively, the pages could be named Appendix:Ancient Greek/Roots/γεν-, Appendix:Sanskrit/Roots/जन्, etc. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea of using a character to link to the root appendix, but the root symbol is difficult to type, and would discourage people from linking to roots. (Asterisks, by contrast, are on my keyboard, at least.) It would be good to use either the root symbol or an easier-to-type alternative that Module:links can display as a root symbol, preferably something that doesn't otherwise occur in page titles.
I guess I would prefer Appendix:Ancient Greek roots as the prefix. It's a little more clear about what its subpages should contain than Appendix:Ancient Greek (whose subpages could be anything, including all the existing appendices with the prefix Ancient Greek). If we used Appendix:Ancient Greek/Roots, I'm not sure what we could put on the page Appendix:Ancient Greek, so it would be an empty page and a redlink on each root page. Appendix:Ancient Greek roots, on the other hand, could contain general information on roots: for instance, how ablaut and other sound changes affect the form of roots. — Eru·tuon 18:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Why should roots go in appendices but not affixes? They're tied together. Also, we'd have to fix almost every PIE link across Wiktionary. Oppose. —CodeCat 18:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
No, PIE roots could stay in the Reconstruction namespace. If you oppose moving roots to the Appendix namespace, why did you propose deleting γεν- (gen-)? Why should Ancient Greek not have root entries at all? — Eru·tuon 20:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Are roots well defined for Ancient Greek? There's a tradition of treating Sanskrit and PIE roots, but not for Greek. —CodeCat 20:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Not that I know of, but it's pretty easy to extract this root at least. — Eru·tuon 20:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

delayed ejaculation[edit]

Does anyone else feel that this is a SOP? --Hekaheka (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Very much so. Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
On the second thought, we have premature ejaculation, and it's been around since 2009. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
...which should also be deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Medical entity. Has a DSM-5 and ICD-10 code, and has specific diagnosis criteria. Wyang (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep per Wyang. I doubt that many normal people use the term in ordinary speech except possibly as SoP. took too long to cum would be more typical of ordinary speech and might not constitute or be a part of a syndrome. Delayed ejaculation as a noun seems to be part of syndromes and is almost entirely to be found in medical and psychiatric works and some self-help books. DCDuring (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

premature ejaculation[edit]

Per the above delayed ejaculation. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Well-known medical condition. Has a Wikipedia entry. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Medical entity. Has a DSM-5 and ICD-10 code, and has specific diagnosis criteria. Wyang (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Wyang, User:SemperBlotto, but you guys aren't voting keep I don't think for the sense of premature + ejaculation, i.e. not "You cummed too fast for me to handle." but rather "You have a medical condition that causes you to ejaculate very quickly during sexual acts." I think what you two are suggesting is that there should be another definition for the condition that the current entry doesn't have? Same for delayed ejaculation. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's a separate sense. This is the name of a medical entity, and colloquial uses are based on that medical entity. Wyang (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Well shouldn't the fact that it is a "medical entity" at least be explained somewhere in the entry, to clarify to readers? PseudoSkull (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
And just clarify to me why this "medical entity" is different from, say, bite to the neck or ejaculation inside the anus? I know they're not "DSM-5" or "ICD-10", but I'm almost positive there are some terms that fall under both of these categories that are highly SOP and would not be welcome here on Wiktionary. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Because an ejaculation that's premature but doesn't meet the diagnostic criteria isn't the same thing as the medical condition that can be confirmed present by showing it does meet them. I'm sure the world is full of men who ejaculate too soon because they're inconsiderate jerks, or for other non-medical reasons. Also, I'm sure that someone blurting out some word or phrase before they're supposed to could be described as a premature ejaculation, too, but that's not the same thing. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

fair trial[edit]

I feel like a total, complete moron for the above mistake. I must be really, really tired and need to get some sleep immediately. I meant to write "fair trial".

As below:

"I would not be bold to create fair trial myself, but if you feel free trial in English is idiomatic, then someone please do add it. It's sort of weird to be adding a two-worded entry for another language to which its English translated counterpart has no entry on RFD. I feel it'd be easier if somebody just created fair trial and then we labelled that for deletion. I know, in technicality, the entry doesn't exist yet, so I suppose this vote is more or less about if it should exist. I feel this would be an interesting debate. See also Right to a fair trial.

Should we have this entry here or not? If someone creates the entry, be sure to label it with Template:rfd. If someone creates it it will make this a whole lot less confusing. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)" PseudoSkull (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  • fair trial at OneLook Dictionary Search
  • I think that any non-SoP sense is strictly in a legal context, at least in the US. The definition should be somewhat formal. There are several elements that are needed for a trial to be fair under the law. They might differ according to the legal tradition, nature of the trial (civil, criminal) etc. DCDuring (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I have had a stab at creating a general entry - though legal definitions will differ from country to country.

  • Keep SemperBlotto (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, keep this. DonnanZ (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that this is problematic, to say the least. The elements constituting a "fair" trial vary enough from one country to the next that the definition would ultimately boil down to a "trial" that is "fair" under the laws of the place where it is being held. Not all systems require a public trial for "fairness". In common law countries, one would generally consider it unfair if they were not afforded a right to a trial by jury (complete with peremptory challenges and sequestration), though most of the world does not have the jury trial element at all. bd2412 T 01:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

gaijin rikishi[edit]

SOP in English (gaijin + rikishi), as well as in the original Japanese. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete both. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


Possibly sum-of-parts (物#Suffix). —suzukaze (tc) 02:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's SoP. Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

0800 number[edit]

Defined as A telephone number beginning with 0800, the rest is encyclopedic. We do have 1-800 so maybe an entry on 0800 might be warranted. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I would keep this entry. And without the "encyclopedic" explanation, the entry would be meaningless. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. John Cross (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    "A telephone number beginning with 0800, calls to which are free for the caller because the call is paid for by the party called." DCDuring (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    But 0800 number is not a set phrase, other collocations occur too. Or do we need all of 1-800 number, 1-800 hotline, etc.? -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


"whether, whether or not". Daijirin has this sense but mentions that it is often found in the form of "…かどうか". I think this is important. This entry doesn't mention that, which is why I currently oppose it.

Of course, the question is "why don't I add it"? I don't think having this information at どうか is proper; "…かどうか" seems to me like it should be "… どう ". どうか (whether or not) is not in EDICT. —suzukaze (tc) 08:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete sense. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Walt Disney Animation Studios[edit]

Inner Focus (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. DTLHS (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


Sum of parts. —suzukaze (tc) 03:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)