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 verification
add new | history | archives | old index

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

Requests for deletion
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.

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

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

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFDs


December 2015[edit]

these kingdoms[edit]


  1. (obsolete, figurative) the United Kingdom, considered as a union of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland

I'm not so sure that the presence of a non-kingdom in the list (Ireland) renders this idiomatic, so I thought I'd run it by everyone here. I especially wonder if this is a set phrase, or just a concept that could be expressed in various ways. I admit, this is borderline, so I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if no one else sees any problems with the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

At the time that England and Scotland were separate kingdoms, Ireland was a separate kingdom too. However, the quotes date from a time when there was only one kingdom: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, so I would regard it idiomatic to use the plural "these kingdoms" to refer to a single kingdom. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
How is the phrase not equally applicable to any set of kingdoms elsewhere identified by the speaker (even if using the phrase to refer to a unitary set including the speaker, without naming them)? P Aculeius (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. How is the use in the citations different from these United States, this green and verdant land, this community? They all seem like simple deixis to me. DCDuring TALK 09:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It's tricky to decide whether to have entries for these sorts of euphemisms. A little while ago, I considered creating an entry for "these islands" (a chiefly Irish term for the British Isles), but it's hard to argue that it's not just "these" "islands". If there are citations where "these kingdoms" isn't being used by someone in the UK, I'd keep. I tried searching for "these kingdoms" + America, but didn't find anything obvious. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. In agreement with DCDuring and P Aculeius. Example from the Bible. Daniel 2:44 - It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever. - I don't think Daniel was referring to the UK here. -- ALGRIF talk 11:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying it can't be idiomatic; just questioning whether there's any grounds for believing that it is. For instance, is there any way of knowing which kingdoms the speaker is referring to, other than "whatever kingdoms the speaker is standing in the midst of"? P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If plural "these kingdoms" is referring to a single kingdom, that is idiomatic, like "these parts". The fact that the phrase may also be used non-idiomatically is perhaps grounds for adding {{&lit}} but not for deleting the idiomatic sense. "these kingdoms" would only be used within the UK, which makes it deictic but does not stop it being an idiom. (green and pleasant land is a quotation not an idiom.) Jnestorius (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete per DCDuring, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
From reading the above comments, I'm not sure the pro-delete voters understand the intended sense. That would be a reason for improving the wording of the definition, but not for deletion. I don't think a foreigner standing in England in 1870 and hearing someone say "blah blah blah these kingdoms blah blah" would be able to work out what was being referred to. Jnestorius (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Speaking for myself alone, I feel confident that I understand the intention. However, I think that a foreigner in England in 1870 would understand this kingdom to refer to England or the United Kingdom, and these kingdoms to refer to the same plus any others belonging to the same group identified by the speaker. Who could perhaps be referring to England, Scotland, and Ireland, or to the United Kingdom and Spain, or Denmark, or Belgium, or the Netherlands, or Norway and Sweden, etc. Which group the speaker intended would have to be indicated by context; even a native Englishman would have needed some context to be sure of which kingdoms the speaker was describing. Was "these kingdoms" generally treated as a proper noun? That would support the meaning in question. P Aculeius (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. If we keep this we need to point out that it can only be used when the speaker is physically located within the UK! That shows how silly it is. Equinox 16:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • How is the phrase not equally applicable to any set of kingdoms elsewhere identified by the speaker
    • applied to a set of kingdoms is {{&lit}}, but applied to a single kingdom is idiom.
  • these sorts of euphemisms
    • I think "grandiloquence" or "pomposity" would be a more exact description than "euphemism"
  • How is the use in the citations different from these United States
    • There are multiple states in the United States; there is only one kingdom in trhe United Kingdom. Referring to the USA as "these republics" or "these federations" would be analogous to "these kingdoms" in its unexpected use of the plural.
  • this green and verdant land, this community // it can only be used when the speaker is physically located within the UK! That shows how silly it is. //
    • Yes, it's deictic, but it can be deictic and an idiom. They are not incompatible characteristics. See for example yours truly, your man, in this day and age, here you go. In fact, if it was a simple deixis, one might expect "those kingdoms" to work outside the UK; the fact that it doesn't suggests something more subtle is going on.
  • is there any way of knowing which kingdoms the speaker is referring to, other than "whatever kingdoms the speaker is standing in the midst of"?
    • I'm not sure what you're driving at. In the given usage, the speaker is only standing in one kingdom and referring to one kingdom. Someone who was under the illusion that England and Scotland were separate kingdoms might arrive at the correct interpretation by accident. Someone who knew they were a single kingdom might guess that the speaker was using some kind of poetic licence, just as one might guess the meaning of any unfamiliar word from the context.
  • "these kingdoms to refer to the same plus any others belonging to the same group identified by the speaker"
    • but there are no others and the speaker has not identified any.
  • even a native Englishman would have needed some context to be sure of which kingdoms the speaker was describing
    • well, some context to be sure the speaker was not describing any group of kingdoms. True of any {{&lit}} expression. Or any expression at all really, for small values of "some" context.
Jnestorius (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. The nominator is "not so sure", and there are several equivocal commenters between the three clear "delete" votes. bd2412 T 17:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete basically because of deixis. Equinox 10:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Since no-one presented any useful quotes showing idiomatic use, delete. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have no interest in closing this again. Clearly the additional comments lean more heavily towards deletion, but perhaps someone else can address that formality. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


Excerpt from Excerpt from Lancelot du Lac, 1488 edition, from the Bibliothèque Nationale Française.

Test case; Middle French variant of avec. WT:AFRM#spelling The thing is, u v share a glyph in the Middle French period as they do in Old French and Latin, but they're really separate letters. We don't have an entry for Latin dvx (or DVX for that matter) which is how dux appears in the Bayeux Tapestry. Addendum: I was simply going to discuss it with the entry's creator Zo3rWer (talkcontribs) but since he's indef blocked, that's obviously going nowhere. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

He can respond just fine. Can't you, @SimonP45? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • We have a usage note at u explaining the evolution of u and v. Words like this can probably be covered by the usage note. I'd note that the usage note as presently written covers auec, but not bayevx and dvx. Purplebackpack89 13:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • By way of analogy, our entry is cat but I write cɑt. You have to focus on what the letters are not what they looks like. If you look at the image I've just added, the 'v' of 'voyant' looks more like a b, the 's' of 'si' looks more like a theta (Θi). The idea is not to get as close to the original image as possible. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    • There should be usage notes for at least the common variations. For example, don't you think a should mention that in handwriting/hand printing it is usually rendered as ɑ? As for the other renderings, we don't need to mention the very rare or very archaic ones...but I think I see a ſ somewhere in that ancient text, and that ought to be mentioned at s.

Purplebackpack89 23:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added u#Middle French and v#Middle French. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
No, a should not mention it is usually rendered as ɑ in handwriting, because Unicode encodes characters, not glyphs (at least in theory). The letter »a« always corresponds to the Unicode codepoint U+0061, and whether it looks like a one-story or two-story »a« is a matter of the font rendering, not the codepoint. The codepoint U+0251 (ɑ) is a different character, Latin small alpha, that is only intended to be used when it specifically contrasts with U+0061 as a character (as in the IPA). Long s is a different matter, because often enough in manuscripts it does specifically contrast with short s (when there are no rules for fully predicting the distribution of long and short s). In these cases it would be correct to render it using the »long s« codepoint. If the distribution is fully predictable, then the Unicode standard recommends encoding them as one character and leaving the display of the correct glyphs up to rendering. Applying the same principles to u/v, presumably they should not be encoded separately when they are noncontrastive, as is the case here (I think, but I’m no scholar of Middle French). Vorziblix (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete please. In old languages that use Latin script, u is always subbed for v and vice versa. That's why there isn't any Wiktionary for Mvsevm or Vndergrovnd. Johnny Shiz (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
A redirection to avec might be acceptable, unless it turns out that another language uses this form. If so, it wouldn’t be a serious loss. Delete or redirect. --Romanophile (contributions) 16:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Just some comments – it's not the same as the difference between a and ɑ, because these glyphs do not represent separate letters. U and v do, now, represent separate letters (although they didn't really when these texts were written). How to deal with this is not a simple decision I think. Since the third edition, the OED has taken to including u/v variants among the "Alternative forms" of headwords, so at least one other very respectable dictionary has decided to include them. Ƿidsiþ 07:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Consider also that auec is pretty obvious, but some of these spellings are fairly opaque to modern readers. Someone coming across yuie or vniust in The Faerie Queene might well want to look it up in a dictionary, and you could argue that we should be able to accommodate this. Hard redirects are not possible because many of these spellings may exist as valid words in other languages. Ƿidsiþ 07:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
yuie is really a different case, because the modern spelling isn't yvie, either. I'm not convinced entries for vniust and heauen and auec are really necessary, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to vote delete. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep per Talk:vp, Talk:euery, and my points in #giuen (later to be Talk:giuen) below. - -sche (discuss) 04:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Acadian epoch[edit]

Not sure about this one, but do we really want entries like this rather than just the entry at Acadian? It certainly goes against our preëxisting standards; e.g. we have Jurassic but not Jurassic period, Phanerozoic but not Phanerozoic eon. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd happily delete but I think we'd have to improve the definitions at Acadian to cover that it's an epoch from blah to blah. Easily done though. Reminds me a bit of English language and the like where the meaning is entirely predictable provided English has enough detail. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
See User:DCDuring/Geology for a fairly comprehensive table from WP with the data required for pretty good definitions and many etymologies. See this page at the geowhen database for Acadian. The geowhen database is more complete than the WP table and could be imported and formatted for use as a source for entries. DCDuring TALK 23:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't care whether we keep Acadian epoch, but we need a good entry for Acadian. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it would be a helpful redirect as a search would otherwise suggest Acadian as the first result. So no. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The redirect could be to a senseid. DCDuring TALK 14:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I have created Middle Cambrian (epoch), of which Acadian (epoch) is a synonym. The boundaries of such geological/stratigraphic periods have more stability when defined by the fossils found than by time-period intervals, though the time periods allow for more convenient comparison and use. DCDuring TALK 23:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per talk:free variable and Talk:nominative case reasoning; keep red dwarf, prime number, algebraic number, algebraic integer, bound variable, etc.. The sense of Acadian that would make this a sum of parts is "Of or pertaining to the Acadian epoch". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    I hope you'll be adding raspberry bush, blueberry bush, cypress tree, yew bush (to go with oak tree (a previous item you argued for using a parallel argument). (What about blueberry leaf, blueberry flower, blueberry inflorescence, blueberry fruit, blueberry twig, blueberry sapling, blue berry seed, blueberry canker, blueberry blight, etc while we are at it?) There should also be at least one two-word entry for each of the one-word proper nouns that name geological time periods and stratigraphic layers. Perhaps also entries such as Acadian stage and Acadian substage. I'll try to provide substantive entries for you to supplement in this way. Perhaps a bot could speed the process, as little thought or knowledge is required. DCDuring TALK 19:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Acadian epoch is not <noun> <noun>, it is <adjective> <noun>. The noun Acadian is a result of shortening of Acadian epoch, to the best of my estimation. Therefore, raspberry bush, blueberry bush, cypress tree, etc. are not analogues of Acadian epoch. As for Talk:oak tree, I said 'Keep, as the space-free form "oaktree" is citable', which is per WT:COALMINE, a different argument. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Later: This seems to be of the pattern the Atlantic Ocean - the Atlantic, the Caribbean Sea - the Caribbean, but also Paleolithic period (redlink) - Paleolithic. The main OneLook dictionaries do not have "Paleolithic period" and "Acadian epoch" - Paleolithic period at OneLook Dictionary Search, Acadian epoch at OneLook Dictionary Search; they have Paleolithic and Acadian - Paleolithic at OneLook Dictionary Search, Acadian at OneLook Dictionary Search. By contrast, "Atlantic Ocean" is in AHD[1], Collins[2], and Merriam-Webster[3]. "Atlantic Ocean" is written with capitcal "o", suggestive of its proper-namehood.
    About the option of having a hard redirect from Acadian epoch to Acadian: the hard redirect has inferior usability: whereas on Acadian epoch the reader immediately lands on the definition sought, in Acadian it is the last definition in the proper noun section, and the entry starts with the Adjective section. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    Re: "I'll try to provide substantive entries for you to supplement in this way. Perhaps a bot could speed the process, as little thought or knowledge is required": You mean like a bot for edits like diff? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    If I could trust a bot to gender those birds, I would try to recruit one. DCDuring TALK 18:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Μετάknowledge.​—msh210 (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Metaknowledge or redirect per DCDuring. IMO the red dwarf / free variable test is not met / applicable here, since in those cases both elements have to be present for the meaning to be imparted, even if the order is changed (to "the variable is free", etc). As Dan points out on Talk:free variable, a person could try to make "red dwarf" SOP by adding "Of a dwarf star, small and relatively cool [and] of the main sequence" to [[red]], but "red" only has that meaning when "dwarf" is present. Here, however, one can say "These fossils date to the Acadian." or "This type of plant was especially common in the Acadian." and never use the word "epoch"; the meaning is present in "Acadian" alone. (Also, a few of the hits for "Acadian period" show that "epoch" isn't the only time-word that can collocate with "Acadian", although many hits for that phrase are referring to a different, more recent period.) I don't oppose redirecting the various epochs to specific senses of [[Acadian]], etc. - -sche (discuss) 22:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @- -sche: As for "These fossils date to the Acadian": the SOP claim has to be made in relation to the adjective Acadian, not the noun; otherwise, I would accept your point. Like, in "Atlantic Ocean", "Atlantic" is an adjective despite the existence of the noun "Atlantic". --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

do donuts[edit]

Surely this is just do + donuts (sense 3)? Keith the Koala (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say so, although when I've heard this it's always involved sense 1 (doughnut). Let's do coffee and see if this phrase has sprinkles. P Aculeius (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah very strong delete. I have nothing to add, Keith's got it spot on. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not quite sense 3 of donut, since it is a deliberate driving in circles rather than a skid. I suspect it also meets the fried egg rule, since it is only for a stupid driving thing, and not any other type of "donut". OTOH, I never heard this used before, and would like to see some verification of this use as common enough to warrent an entry. RFV? Kiwima (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I've heard this used. It is definitely SOP do + donuts, but a more appropriate sense of donut must be added. By the way, you're misusing the fried egg test. The fried egg test just means that the sum has features more specific than choosing the correct definitions of the parts. In this case do + the correct definition of donut is 100% accurate. --WikiTiki89 19:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
There's no implied knowledge here, it is just do + donut. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I'm pretty sure that you can "do" any shape or motion that a car can be driven in (figure eights, three-point turns, fishtails). bd2412 T 22:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The rationale that has been advanced about similar light-verb constructions (those involving verbs such as do, make, have, get, give, take, etc together with an adjective or noun [eg, donuts] that provides most of the specific meaning [See Wikipedia-logo.png light verb on Wikipedia.Wikipedia:light verb.]) is that we need entries for them because it is not always obvious which light verb goes with which noun or adjective. In this case perhaps make or give might seem appropriate to an English-language learner. See Appendix:Collocations of do, have, make, and take for a variety of such expressions.
I've rarely agreed with the rationale, but it is fairly clear that when we vote on such matters we often vote based on specific familiarity with and attitude toward the activity involved. In this case doing donuts is a red-state, blue collar, American thing, so it is easy to get disapproving votes. In contrast we approve the activities of making amends and having an affair and therefore, I believe, of the expressions. This seems like a hell of a way to run a railroad. DCDuring TALK 00:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
In this case "do" is just a coincidental verb. One can use "make donuts" to mean the same thing (see 2014, Jae Byrd Wells, The "Tail" Begins - Book 1, page 111: "One jeep, occupied by two male passengers, arrived and made donuts in the parking lot hoping to drown out any harsh sounds"; Nerd Girl, chapter 23, page 1 : "We still had a solid twenty minutes before they arrived so us being teenagers made donuts in the parking lot"; 2015, Krystal Callais, Benton, Ky Teen Arrested After Found Driving Recklessly: "The deputies said that the truck then continued to make donuts in the parking lot next to the church"). bd2412 T 13:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
With this sense of "donuts", either "make" or "do" would work (in fact, "make" would be more natural). But there's no requirement that one use either, is there? Any equivalent verb suggesting the creation of said would work, just like "making breakfast" or "baking pies" or "flying loop-de-loops" (or loop-the-loops, if you prefer). In the example "making amends", there's hardly anything else one ever does with amends than make them; and the use of some form of "have" in "have an affair" is the signal that tells one that a "love affair" is almost certainly the sense intended; if "there was an affair" it could mean any sort of occurrence. I'd say that "do donuts" fails the fried egg test because, however restricted the use of the phrase may theoretically be, the meaning of "do" is still obvious once the sense of "donuts" is known, while "do" could easily be replaced by other verbs without altering the meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


Sum-of-parts. This is just the regular negative imperative of 気にする ‎(ki ni suru, to mind something, to worry about something).

If we are not to delete this, the entry must at least be stubbified. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The Japanese phrase isn't as idiomatic. Moreover, the Japanese phrase's structure makes it much more limited in its social acceptability: the plain verb form する ‎(suru, to do) + ‎(na, negative imperative) is a very informal form, and could be interpreted as extremely bossy and arrogant in a way that don't worry wouldn't be. I don't think the Japanese term is appropriate for a phrasebook. Shinji, what say you? Are imperatives (positive or negative) appropriate for a phrasebook? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 09:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    I know the phrasebook project is based on usefulness, and a sum of parts can be accepted. In this case, as you clearly say, a bare imperative is not polite and you can use it only to close friends, children, lower people in hierarchy, or in cheering (行け!, がんばれ!, etc.). Having an entry for 気にするな is probably misleading. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, besides not being the best analogue of "don't worry", this expression is indeed unsafe and cannot be recommended for people unfamiliar with the language or customs and who have distant relationships to their audience, or to put it another way, the type of people who use phrasebooks. --Haplogy () 05:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I struck my vote due to the arguments of the Japanese editors. Perhaps a more appropriate equivalent could be created as a phrasebook entry, though? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've stubbified the entry and indicated that this is a verb form, specifically the plain negative imperative. We don't seem to have a template for this verb form (at least, there's nothing that quite fits over in Category:Form-of templates). If anyone is aware of a better template (or creates one), by all means please replace the call to {{n-g}}. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Strongly Keep though "気にするな" should be categorized in Phrase, not in Verb. All you guys in Wiktionary are so wise that you'd already know "気にするな is a phrase translated from English phrase "don't worry". Wiktionary is supposed to have an entry of those phrases. --Carl Daniels (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If 気にする ‎(ki ni suru) is categorized as a verb, which it should be as it's a phrasal verb, then 気にするな ‎(ki ni suru na) is a verb form, as the plain negative imperative form of 気にする.
Also, did you read the thread above? 気にするな is extremely more restricted in appropriate usage than the English don't worry. The Japanese could come across as fucking don't worry about it, or depending on context, even as fuck off. This is enough of a divergence in meaning and usage that listing 気にするな as a phrasebook entry for don't worry could actually be dangerous to any poor schmuck attempting to use such a phrasebook in Japan.
The entry is being kept, as a verb form of 気にする. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 
  • I still believe "気にするな" should be categorized as a phrase. We can apply a simple analytic approach: <"気にするな"(ki ni suru na)> is <"気にする"(terminate form of verb)> + <"-な"(sentence ending particle)>. "-な"(- na) is additional and grammatically belongs to a group of sentence-ending particles(終助詞), like -よ, -ね, -か, -ぞ, -ぜ, ... . So, "気にするな"(ki ni suru na) is not a verb form, while "気にしろ"(ki ni shiro) is a verb form. (Plese refer Japanese conjugation table of "する" - a1:し(ない), a2:せ(ず), b1:し(ます), b2:し(て), c:する(。), d:する(とき), e:すれ(ば), f:しろ(。or !)) And, don't worry ("don't" is additional) is also registered as a phrase as I said before. I think we have some room to reconsider. In advance, Thank you.--Carl Daniels (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    The な here is not a particle but an inflectional suffix. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry sir! it's a particle! 食べるな, 飲むな, 気にするな, ... All of these "-な" is a sentence-ending particle "な"(na)(禁止の終助詞「な」) it is clear as yo can see here ((禁止)「な」(例)二度と飲むな。)I suppose you are Japanese. You can see it.(私は日本語文法を日本語の用語で理解しています/ I understand Japanese grammar with Japanese terminology.) :) if you have an opinion, you can bring the reference. --Carl Daniels (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • There is also a recognition that this analysis of the plain negative imperative (and even of the plain imperative) may be problematic. See ja:w:活用#活用形の問題点 (“Conjugation#Problems with the Conjugated Forms”) for some discussion of this.
There are multiple possible analyses of Japanese verb forms. What we currently call the “passive” in English could well be analyzed instead as a kind of sum-of-parts, as the irrealis or incomplete verb stem + reru or rareru, with the latter element itself decomposable into ra (as a ligature element or sorts when the verb stem does not end in a) + reru (derived from the attributive form of passive / spontaneous base auxiliary verb ru via regular historical processes that applied to all lower bigrade verbs). But for practical purposes, we treat the passive as a single form. There is no real reason that one could not analyze the plain negative imperative similarly, and indeed some do, even some Japanese authors, such as at least a few of those appearing here on Google Books, using the term 禁止形 ‎(kinshikei, prohibitive form) to refer to this conjugation. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Carl Daniels: As Eirikr said, there are sources on the prohibitive form (禁止形), and it is totally up to you which theory you follow. “私は日本語文法を日本語の用語で理解しています” well, honestly speaking, it doesn’t help. In the traditional Japanese grammar (国文法), all phonologically-dependent non-inflecting morphemes are called joshi (助詞), and it doesn’t distinguish clitics and inflectional suffixes. If you analyze the prohibitive -na, you can clearly see that nothing can be inserted before it, which is a sign of inflectional suffix rather than a clitic.
Prohibitive な Exclamatory な
Don’t eat.
You eat a lot!
You have eaten a lot!
You eat a lot! No?
Anyway this is a digression. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If we are to analyze this as not a verb form, then this is non-idiomatic SOP and not worthy of inclusion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • if you say so, why do we prepare an entry "don't worry" as a phrase? I thought we were able to have "phrase".--Carl Daniels (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by your insistent reference to the English entry. Are we not discussing the Japanese entry? If so, 気にする is currently regarded as an integral idiomatic term that is treated as a verb. Hence, its plain negative imperative is regarded as a form of that verb, and we have therefore applied the template {{ja-verb-form}} in the 気にするな entry. The phrase-ness or non-phrase-ness of the English entry has exactly zero to do with the correct part of speech for the translation of don't worry into other languages.
This also fails to decide the question: if 気にするな is deemed to be not a verb form, then it is a non-idiomatic sum-of-parts, as 気にする + , and thus it fails CFI and should be removed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


Unicode wedding symbol.png

I doubt that this is translingual (existing and having the same meaning in many languages). The cross is a Christian symbol. Further, do we have a policy of accepting non-alphanumeric symbols as entries? I thought dictionary is about words, not symbols. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We need use in human language to convey meanings. It's a tough one, we have things like which I suppose is used in human language to convey meaning ("I ♥ Justin Bieber!"). There is the question also of where does language end and pictorial communication begin? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
We need to know where it is used, for one thing. I gather some of the emoji are used as markers on Japanese TV, in rather the same way that a tourist guide might show little knives-and-forks, toilets, and picnic benches next to each venue, indicating amenities. Others are now used in text messaging. How they'd be citable to meet CFI at this stage I can't imagine. Equinox 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
This looks like a job for... WT:RFV! --WikiTiki89 01:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Can I just say that on my computer, this doesn't show up as a cross, but rather a Christian-ish church - which is of course one problem with treating these Unicode entries as anything more than just pre-defined codepoints. The implementation is not consistent across systems; for example, 👮 shows up on some systems as an asexual police officer, and on others as a clearly male one. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
On my computer I also don't see a cross but what I would call a North American wedding chapel. I was under the impression that we had decided to give entries to all Unicode codepoints. I wasn't really in favour of doing so for non-language symbols but didn't mind if that was the consensus, especially given that you can't really draw the line between language-ish symbols and not-language-ish symbols. I would probably prefer such entries to be based foremost on the facts we know from the Unicode docs. Especially given that the actual image can vary greatly between fonts. — hippietrail (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
For reference, here is how this emoji appears in various fonts/systems. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
On my system, I see two different symbols, one in the page heading, a different one in the entry heading (see right). I yearn for the good old days when all we had was punctuation :( Keith the Koala (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I used a Windows tool written by a friend of mine that searches all fonts for any given character on my system. Only two fonts have a glyph for this. In fact the two in the thumbnail up there, but without colour.
It's possibly time to have another discussion or several about whether and how to include support for all Unicode codepoints, all "symbols", and all emoji. — hippietrail (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

common or garden variety[edit]

SoP: common or garden + variety. (common or garden should be created as an alternative form of common-or-garden.) This, that and the other (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

What are the other nouns common or garden modifies and what is their relative frequency compared to variety. DCDuring TALK 00:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I would say that it's common + garden variety, not common or garden + variety, and RFD common-or-garden at the same time. Just because two synonyms are often used together as alternatives doesn't make them idiomatic. P Aculeius (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
While I would initially have agreed about the common + garden variety, I have done some investigation, and common or garden does seem to be an idiom. There are a lot of quotes that use the term for plants, which is where the term probably comes from, but it is also used for things that have nothing to do with gardens and do not have 'variety' at the end. At this point, I think common or garden should be created as an alternative form of common-or-garden. In any case, common or garden variety is clearly SOP, however you parse it, so I say delete. Kiwima (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's a pondian thing: common-or-garden is used in the UK, but not in the US. The phrase "common or garden Sauine" can be found in John Gerard's herbal of 1597, and "garden variety" doesn't really show up in Google Books until the 19th century. Of course, that's not the metaphorical sense, which might have a different history. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
common or garden is more frequent than common-or-garden at BNC. 17 to 11. Also, though the expressions are used in the US, they are apparently ~25 times less common. (COCA)DCDuring TALK 01:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


A rare misspelling. I can't actually find any durably uses; most Google Books hits are scannos of "anxiety" (appropriately) broken up by bad OCR, or "anxiously" merged across a line break with something else, again by bad OCR (this is the case with the "Whilst we gazed anxted by vales" hit on Google Books). - -sche (discuss) 22:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Aaaaand delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Misspellings can go, pronunciation and all. Delete. Donnanz (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain for now. Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included per WT:CFI#Spellings. Per (anxt*2000),angst at Google Ngram Viewer, this would be a relatively common misspelling but google books:"anxt" shows these are scannos or occurrence that have nothing to do with angst. OTOH, I find some real occurrences in Usenet, e.g. "The ones that cause me a lot of anxt are the ones that are caused by the reckless and intentional behavior of a reckless and wild operator of a vehicle", which seem intentional; anxt - OneLook - Google "anxt" (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive). A consideration is this cannot really be a typo (x instead of gs?); this can at best be phonetic spelling or maybe eye spelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem hard to find apparently genuine uses in Google Books. E.g.:
That was just after a minute or so. 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
All of those are for the spelling anxst. - TheDaveRoss 01:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I somehow misread it. 21:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing RfV here, not RfD. Purplebackpack89 18:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    We don't include uncommon misspellings even if they are "attested" (used in 3 books). You would have to demonstrate that anxt was used not just 3 times, but so often that it constituted a significant percentage of usage of angst. - -sche (discuss) 18:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

après moi le déluge[edit]

Supposedly English. Little proper formatting. No definition. (might belong on Wikiquote) SemperBlotto (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing much on MW either. Should be in French if anywhere. Donnanz (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the formatting and changed the language to French. I'm neutral as to whether it belongs here at all, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Much better now. As it stands now, I wouldn't have nominated it. If nobody objects, I'll remove the RfD template. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, idiom or quotation? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Would quotes like "Naturally, Carson can afford to be fairly après moi, le deluge about all this." or "That Mourinho is politicking for Ferguson's job someday is no secret, but it is far from clear whether or not Ferguson wants him to have it (either in an après moi le deluge kinda way or the opposite), or whether or not Ferguson has even decided whether or not he wants him to have it." cite it as English? Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Pity it's not idiomatic in English, there's the Czech po mně/nás potopa, which translates quite literally, now I'll have to copypaste and copyedit this entry to create the Czech one instead of just making a link. Is there really no English "equivalent"? (Btw does it really only refer to "after one's death"? In Czech the meaning is broader, as in these cites from Smurrayinchester). --Droigheann (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure it can be broader, though Louis and Jeanne-Antoinette almost certainly meant after their deaths. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Provided one of them actually said it. But yes, that's how it's interpreted when presented as quoting (one of) them. --Droigheann (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

A list of Russian terms for your consideration[edit]

They are all SoP, IMO. It's more important some still missing components, like направля́ющая ‎(napravljájuščaja), which I am planning to do. I don't see the need to split into individual requests. They seem pretty straightforward cases. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Also missing: радиопрозра́чный ‎(radioprozráčnyj), радиолокацио́нный ‎(radiolokaciónnyj), селекто́рный ‎(selektórnyj). Benwing2 (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I added some more such terms.
Pinging @Stephen G. Brown, who added most of these terms, and who has argued that these are technical military terms that should be kept. Note that some of the terms may not be translated literally. Any comments? Benwing2 (talk) 08:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • First, if something can be deleted as unattested, then it should be deleted via RFV, and it should then be relatively non-controversial, largely constrained to evidence-based fact finding. For instance, google books:"прибор управления фотопулемётом" does not seem to find any attesting quotations. Second, this format is not really suitable for RFD, and does not meet out usual conventions. Third, the question is not only whether they are sum of parts within Russian but also whether a Russian-English translator would know how to translate them starting with the Russian terms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


Is there any POS defineable for this entry? This reading isn't used. If the reading were used, you could define an affix for it, employing an "only used in" if it's rare. Categorisation handles the index for readings. Nibiko (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I think this is a whole lot of bogosity, brought to us by poorly-vetted Unihan entries. I can't find any solid evidence of this purported reading.
Delete as bogus. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I clicked on a few of the kanji in the list, and the ones I tried go to Japanese entries for that character, where the でち reading is repeated. So, if the reading is actually wrong (or the characters are not used in Japanese at all) then these should all be deleted too, I guess. I'm not clear if this is the case though, or if the deletions at でち are proposed because that reading can only be used in compounds. By the way, the でち readings for a few of the characters that I tried are also listed at http://www.romajidesu.com website, and one of them also at wwwjdic.com, but I'm not saying this is definitive. 15:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Many of the less-visited kanji entries on the Japanese Wiktionary appear to be little more than a reformatting of information from the Unihan database, so inclusion there is not necessarily an indication of validity.
http://www.romajidesu.com clearly states on its About page that most of its data comes from WWWJDIC and KANJIDIC.
In turn, the KANJIDIC readings data appears to be partially sourced from the JIS X 0208 standard (search this page for the text "In April 1996 the readings of all the kanji"). That said, I cannot find the purported dechi kanji in the standard list provided at http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~AX2S-KMTN/ref/jisx0208.html, leaving me uncertain where these kanji came from. I cannot find them in my monolingual resources to hand, furthering my impression that these are vanishingly rare in Japanese.
Poking around more, I see that KANJIDIC was also based on a second dataset, where the Japanese ON and KUN readings are mostly from the file of Unicode pronunciations (Pronunciations.text) prepared by the Taligent company. This suggests that the similarity between the KANJIDIC listings and the Unihan database listings is because both derive from the same dataset. I don't know who this Taligent company is (possibly the Taligent of Apple's history?), but given the difficulties I'm having in verifying that these dechi characters are even used in Japanese, I suspect that they were shooting more for complete CJK character coverage, rather than lexicographically useful information.
Ultimately, though, we must hew to Wiktionary's descriptivist approach, by describing what is in use. And, so far, I cannot find any instance of these characters in use with the purported dechi reading. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
There's this thing with Sino-Japanese dictionaries where they recontruct on'yomi, so certain characters that never had a goon or kan'on get their goon or kan'on reconstructed anyway. Kan'on is the more modern reading, so if a rare character were to be used, it usually takes that - for example, searching "泆" "いつ" on the web shows use of this character with a gloss of its kan'on reading, but "泆" "いち" doesn't bring up any use. Unihan takes this a step further and gives heaps of weird readings that don't even show up in Sino-Japanese dictionaries. I've sorted out the on'yomi of all the characters that were listed as having a でち reading, but for the record, sometimes on'yomi are actually used, sometimes on'yomi are reconstructions, and sometimes on'yomi are weirdness from the Unihan database. Nibiko (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Could you comment on whether you think the characters in this list are used at all (with any reading) in Japanese? 18:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that Eirikr put it best when he said that these are vanishingly rare. 挃 appears to be used in a metaphor (Daijirin/Daijisen). 昳 appears to be used in the name of an hour, 日昳, the eighth hour, representing the time period from 13:00-15:00 (w:ja:十二時辰/w:de:Japanische Zeitrechnung#Tageseinteilung). 澈 appears to be used in some names (Japanese wikipedia). 瓞 appears to be used in a name (kotobank) and in 瓜瓞 (wikimatome). 絰 appears to be used in some obscure terms like 墨絰 (kotobank) and 衰絰 (wikimatome, jigen). 荎 appears to be used in 荎草園, which is the name of a temple (Google). 泆 appears to be used in 淫泆 (Google). The usage of all these is extremely rare and limited at best, and these are just the characters that I could find significant usage for. The characters that are encoded in JIS X 0213 are the same as the ones that I mentioned with the exception of 荎. Nibiko (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I see, thanks. 03:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

warp (verb)[edit]

Sense 11 seems the same as sense 8. Are they distinct, or should we delete one (or merge them)? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The real problem with sense 8 is that its quotes show it to be just sense 7, takien figuratively. The definition for sense 8 is definitely wrong for the quotes, and probably just wrong, period. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
RFV? With 19 senses there's a lot of room for redundancy or just plain wrongness. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
All the cites at sense 8 would seem to me to belong to sense 11 with is 8's figurative counterpart. I don't think we have any cites for the literal, physical sense at 8 from which 11 is most likely derived. DCDuring TALK 14:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Many of the senses including 8 are taken, word-for-word, from Century 1911. I think that 8 and 11 can be combined under a definition that built more closely on the physical "twist" senses of warp.
Move to rfc. This seems like a cleanup job to me. There are several uncited, obscure senses with may not prove attestable by our standards, but wording could stand to be improved first. What are "obsolete outside dialects"? Is that supposed to mean "obsolete except in dialects"? To me it is much too distracting because of the alteernative reading. DCDuring TALK 14:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll give the entry the treatment I describe at User talk:-sche/basic English; I should be finished in a few hours. :) I've already spotted one intransitive nautical sense, besides the one we do have, which we're missing (if it's attested — I'll be checking). - -sche (discuss) 20:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. See WT:RFV#warp for the only senses I couldn't find citations of. - -sche (discuss) 05:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I was going to list it in RFV, but I decided to put it here because I figured we were dealing with a redundant, badly worded sense, rather than an actually distinct one. I'm not so sure now, though. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
IMO this has been resolved by rewriting the entry. - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, and thank you for that. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


The third and fifth (second and third 'mathematical') senses. Follow-up to this discussion (as I hinted there, I'm not enough of a mathematician to meddle with the entry myself. --Droigheann (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I would leave only the first 'mathematical' sense and delete the other two. They are only exponents in the sense that they represent the same basic relationship (For example is equivalent to and is equivalent to . (BTW - I have a PhD in mathematics, not that it really matters in this case, because this is only high-school level stuff.) Kiwima (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The fifth definition should be kept; before the 20th century, "index" and "exponent" were used interchangeably, each referring to both the power to which some expression was raised and the index of a root. It should probably be changed from "rare" to "obsolete", though. For example:
  • 1845, Encyclopædia metropolitana: "The notation by which the root is expressed, is the mark called a radical, placed over the letter, with an exponent to the left indicating the order of the root."
  • 1717, A Treatise of Algebra in Two Books: "the Exponent of the m-Root (or 1/m Power) is 1/m times the Exponent of the Root."
  • 1711, M. Ozanam's Introduction to the mathematicks: or, his Algebra: "its Exponent may be commenſured by the Exponent of the Root; namely for the Square Root by 2, for the Cube by 3, &c."
Vorziblix (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

year of the pig[edit]

I don't think that this is dictionary-worthy, and certainly not in this capitalisation. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete it as sum of parts, but can we have pig, dragon, etc. defined as Chinese zodiac signs? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
They're just the animal though. The fact that a pig is a Chinese sign doesn't give it a different meaning, just a different context of use. That would be like having "penguin" defined as "the emblem of Linux". Equinox 04:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not very familiar with the Chinese zodiac, but we define the English zodiac signs independently even though they are constellations. Are the Chinese symbols used in a similar manner? - TheDaveRoss 13:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Mmmaybe. For one thing, the Chinese zodiac signs are usually capitalized. (I'm a Monkey, but I'm certainly no monkey). For another thing, they have synonyms (due to vagueness in the original Chinese terms) that the regular nouns don't. For example, in zoology goat and sheep are not synonyms, and ram is but a hyponym of sheep, but in the Chinese zodiac, the three terms (capitalized) are synonymous. Likewise Rat and Mouse are synonymous, and the Chinese Rabbit is synonymous with the Vietnamese Cat. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
At least in Portuguese, some (though not all) of the constellations themselves use actual Portuguese words, only they are usually capitalized. Example: gêmeos = twins; Gêmeos = Gemini (both the constellation and the sign). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, constellation names are usually translated (and capitalized). English is an exception. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Rename to year of the Pig and create Rat, Ox, Tiger, Rabbit, Dragon, Snake, Horse, Goat, Monkey, Rooster, Dog, and Pig. See also Cochon on French Wiktionary. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all, at this title or at as alternate spellings of a capitalized title, whichever is more common. bd2412 T 20:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

beat the shit out of[edit]

Not necessary when we can simply use the shit out of (compare the hell out of). --Romanophile (contributions) 05:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I have a funny feeling this has already passed an RFD though it's actually X the Y out of. Such titles are banned by case law (X like Y and so on, click on it) so it goes in Appendix:English snowclones. Since something and someone are valid in page titles, I wonder if the something out of is valid. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep "The something out of" is a poor substitute for entries like these. I doubt people who are looking for that definition would think to search for "the something out of". Also, is "the shit out of" used after any words other than "beat" and "scare"? Purplebackpack89 14:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, @Renard Migrant, X the Y out of and X like Y were deleted all the way back in 2007. Any chance you could cite something in the past 12-18 months instead? That'd be better case law. Purplebackpack89 14:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89 [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Need more examples? --Romanophile (contributions) 14:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I have to say that I find the hell out of to be a really unsatisfactory lemma... Equinox 15:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@Equinox Why? Is there some alternate way you would convey that idea? Purplebackpack89 15:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Equinox 00:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it is unsatisfactory. It is not a complete unit of meaning, and probably is not something that one would think to look it up. 02:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
But would the average user know that that's where the definition could be found? Purplebackpack89 17:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
If the major variations redirected there, what would that matter? bd2412 T 22:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
First of all I think User:Purplebackpack89 has a point and if you read WT:CFI#Idiomaticity there is a rationale that says however 'inefficient' it is to try and enter every variant of X the Y out of, they could all conceivably meet CFI. Secondly in reply to myself it's the something, stupid got deleted on the rationale it's no different from it's the X, stupid so my idea's looking a bit weak now. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
As long as we are discussing equivalents, "kick" and "smack" can also generally be substituted for "beat"; and the matter kicked, smacked, or beaten out can also be the "crap" or the "bejesus". bd2412 T 19:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I have put some forms of this and related terms, some with frequency data, on Talk:beat the shit out of. My initial conclusion is just that X the Y out of is much too general a formulation. It would be necessary to radically restrict both X and Y to approach adequately capturing the idiom.
If we had a collocation space we might find a way to capture the expression with items on Collocation:beat and Collocation:the shit and on the words that substitute for these. An Appendix or three could also do it. DCDuring TALK 22:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
It's easy enough to find the shit out of with words like sing, dance, play, act, sell, love, admire, respect, etc. Those may not be common in any one combination, but the sheer number and range of such collocations suggests that the shit out of is a valid lemma in its own right- or at least it's a variant of something that's a lemma in its own right (here are a variety of taboo words that can be used almost interchangeably with shit).
It seems to me like there are two different senses, the older one one with a negative, destructive overtone, and the newer with a neutral, even positive overtone. The older sense seems to be more tightly bound to beat and various similarly violent equivalents, but I think the shit out of has escaped its violent origins to become a mildly vulgar general-purpose intensifier for a variety of transitive verbs, and has become more independent.
Perhaps we should have both beat the shit out of (with variations) as the original expression, per the Jiffy test, and the shit out of (with variations such as the hell out of) as a derived term that has become independent and more versatile. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
What Chuck says about the different senses of the shit out of fits my experience.
What drives me crazy about this is that not only beat but also the shit (snot, piss, crap, stuffing, bejezus, devil, hell, daylights, fuck, etc) have a large number of variants, including modification by living, bloody, and probably others.
I don't know what corpora would help identify which of the combinations are used more or less frequently.
I also don't see how we are helping anyone by adding all the variety in the long forms. If we had a lot more volunteers and collocation space, perhaps we could indulge this whimsicality. DCDuring TALK 01:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I think in linguistic terms its definitely sum of parts, but in Wiktionary terms where having trouble finding names for the entries of the parts. X the Y out of being deleted and something the something out of sounds like it wouldn't survive an RFD either based on it's the something, stupid. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
keep. Just bekus its a vulgar word not means delete. Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely nobody is arguing against it on the grounds of vulgarity! Equinox 22:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The above keep should be discounted, IMHO. Its rationale is blatantly wrong, and it comes from a user blocked on Wikipedia for trolling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

at the time[edit]

Sole definition: "Back then, at the time referred to in the past."

It is possible to find uses with will, would and could that demonstrate that the definition is incorrect in excluding future deixis. That being so, the term is SoP. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the definition uses the very phrase it's defining is not a good sign. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
As you know, the most basic time terms are hard to define. At least this definition conveyed to me that only half of the conceptual time line was supposedly referred to.
Obviously we have more to say about past events, so it would hardly be a surprise that much more usage (90+%) of this term is about the past. DCDuring TALK 11:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete, same sense of time as the future version, when the time comes or at that time and the present version at this time, hence SOP. - TheDaveRoss 12:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmm… the entry may be necessary for translations. Many related languages disagree on which prepositions to use for something, but perhaps that’s a sign that our definitions are inadequate. --Romanophile (contributions) 12:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
That's a very good point. I may be able to find one or two translations. This is a tentative keep. Donnanz (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
at that time is synonymous, and could be redirected to this entry. Donnanz (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
This term definitely has a different sense when compared with at a time and at times. Donnanz (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
As a non-native speaker I would be very glad if I could find at time whether or not I can use in the time synonymously. That done, I'd probably support deletion as SoP. --Droigheann (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The aren't synonymous because at refers to points (events) and in refers to spaces with extent (intervals). I would hope that our definition at those terms makes that clear. Learning that and similar mostly lexical things about English prepositions goes a long way toward constructing more native-like speech and texts, even helping with phrasal verbs, sometimes eliminating the need to look up their meaning. Determiners and articles are similarly worth studying to the same end. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
That would be nice, but comparing our
2. (indicating time) Simultaneous, during.
at six o’clock;  at closing time;  at night.
with our in
1. 8. During (said of periods of time).
in the first week of December;  Easter falls in the fourth lunar month;   The country reached a high level of prosperity in his first term.
I'd never guess it. And comparing GoogleBooks results for at the time I used to and in the time I used to isn't convincing either. --Droigheann (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I find that substituting during for at in the usage examples leads me to expressions that I would never use:
At six o'clock
*During six o'clock
?During the six o'clock hour
Simultaneous is even worse, not even being the correct part of speech.
That is, I think it is not an accurate definition for the English I hear and speak. Perhaps in another time or far, far away....
But, the event vs period distinction is relative to the context and sometimes just PoV. I could say "During the arrival of the train I could see people running next to it" taking the arrival, normally a point event, as something with duration. I could say "at daybreak" when a daybreak clearly takes some time. At D-Day the outcome of the war was still in doubt vs. During D-Day there was not as much loss of life as feared. DCDuring TALK 21:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The "substitution" principle of definitions should not be taken too seriously. --WikiTiki89 22:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Au contraire, it is a powerful tool for rooting out carelessly worded definitions. It is a minimum condition for all except non-gloss definitions, though not sufficient to make a good definition. DCDuring TALK 22:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. It often forces you use really strange wording that is much less clear than it could be otherwise. --WikiTiki89 22:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  1. Would you rather have something that is clearly wrong (wrongly clear?) or something that is hard to decipher, but correct?
  2. The simplest, most common words in any language are often the hardest to define. What simpler or equally simple words does one have recourse to?
  3. They often require non-gloss definitions, which are rarely simple.
  4. Someone looking up such a simple word probably has a relatively subtle problem, so simplicity is not necessarily the principal figure of merit for the entry.
DCDuring TALK 01:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
This is all very nice (I can agree with the relativity of point vs interval), but it doesn't change one iota on the fact that a reader who doesn't come across this conversation has no way of telling the difference between "at the time" and "in the time" from what our defs say either at "at", "in" or "time", so Romanophile's remark about the possible necessity of keeping the entry for the sake of translations remains quite pertinent. --Droigheann (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Fixing the entries for grammatical terms like prepositions, especially the common ones is not to be undertaken lightly. DCDuring TALK 01:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
No. I didn't mean it as in 'go hurry and fix the "at" entry so we can delete the "at the time" one'. But as long as the former entry isn't fixed, and you admit it does need fixing, what harm does keeping the latter one? --Droigheann (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Entries for transparent (SoP) entries may (we have no statistics) lead to learners failing to consciously learn about the meaning and usage of the components.
What approach to EFL teachers and course materials take?
I think that they would offer this at their entry for time, at which various phrases, including prepositional phrases, would be available in close proximity for comparison. We don't offer that. At best we have alphabetical listings of derived terms without any clue as to meaning without clicking through to whatever of those have links. And once one has clicked through, one has lost the ability to compare. BTW, I have replaced the erroneous definition for at referenced above with a non-gloss definition more or less in line with LDOCE and COBUILD. DCDuring TALK 16:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I somehow forgot to add at on my watchlist. I apologise, my bad. --Droigheann (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


Reason for deletion request: There has never been such a spelling. --iudexvivorum (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Iudexvivorum, Alifshinobi: If you don't believe it existed, then WT:RFV is where this should go. If you both agree that it was created in error, though, I suppose we can just delete it. Nothing at google books:"มะฃาม" is relevant? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. As it is found at Google books, I hereby withdraw the request. I previously googled it but found nothing, except an alternative spelling (หมากฃาม) of its origin (หมากขาม) at a stele created in 1292/93. Sorry for any inconvenience I caused. --iudexvivorum (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

He said nothing at Google Books. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
There's something relevant at GB. So I withdrew the request. --iudexvivorum (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I just don't know whether the shortening of หมาก to มะ occured before or after obsoletion of ฃ. If มะ occured before ฃ event, so มะฃาม could have existed. --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Alifshinobi, Iudexvivorum I created this a long time ago (in 2008); so, I do not remember why I created it. I may have found this spelling from the Thai wikipedia article on ฃ. I have looked at the Thai article again and did not see that there were references for this particular word with this particular spelling. --A.S. (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

in process of time[edit]

"In the course of time; as time goes on; gradually; in due course."

The entry gives OED as a reference but the OED entry (at process) suggests that the expression is open with regard to what goes in the time slot, whether in or by is the initial preposition, and whether the of phrase is required at all.

Either the OED is in effect offering a model for how we should present such highly variable constructions or this isn't a well defined idiom. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)



  1. This character does not exist

Chuck Entz (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there a place where this information can be placed instead that can easily be found by readers? (it seems like this "nonexistent" claim is even sourced—I bet no other character-centric website can currently say the same) —suzukaze (tc) 02:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
We could {{no entry}}-ify it like this. Let's do that rather than delete it altogether. - -sche (discuss) 03:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
That might be a good idea. I thought about just speedying it, but it was far enough from what we normally deal with that I felt I should get some other opinions- so I brought it here. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me this character does exist (!) however if it's not used in any human languages there's no reason to keep it. Being present in a couple of databases isn't enough. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
This reminds me of Category:Ghost kanji, although in the RFD discussion there it was brought up that the entries in that category were unsourceable rather than uncitable. Nibiko (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Do you look in GZJW = Yinzhou Jinwen Jicheng Yinde (殷周金文集成引得) yet? When it is sourced, so it is/was used. Looks like kinda ancient form. (I could say every CJK character are sourced so Unicode implemented it.) --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


It's the name of a book, so it probably shouldn't be here. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

But this term has strong etymological connection with a common noun utopia. Wouldn't it be a reason for Keep? --Eryk Kij (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The etymology is already clearly stated in the utopia entry, though. I would say delete unless there is evidence that Utopia is used as an alternative case form of utopia, in which case the definition referring to the book should be removed and replaced with {{alternative case form of}}. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep. There is no policy to exclude every single name of a book. The applicable policy is WT:NSE. Since the name of this book gave rise to a common noun, I'd keep it; so as per User:エリック・キィ AKA Eryk Kij. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to [[utopia#Etymology]] (and change the link to this term in that section to a w:link). We already provide all of the relevant information there, so there is no need for a separate entry. bd2412 T 17:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect per BD. Though we already have automatic redirection of capitalized terms in search boxes to the lowercase form, in this case, there may be in the future a section for the genus Utopia (really!), in which case a user my not get the point. DCDuring TALK 17:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

fight tooth and nail[edit]

fight + tooth and nail! --Hekaheka (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Redirect to [[tooth and nail]]. DCDuring TALK 11:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep for translations, in which the verb fight is replaced with something else. Furthermore, I believe "fight" is by far the most common verb. Moreover, keep using the lemming heuristic: present in oxforddictionaries.com[14], dictionary.cambridge.org[15], and idioms.thefreedictionary.com[16], which cites American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Redirect. Equinox 06:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Posh and Becks[edit]

Per a previous comment at RFD, this may be SOP in its literal meaning (Posh + Becks, who are each known by those nicknames outside of this collocation). By the way, there's also a Cockney rhyming slang meaning that's currently at RFV and needs to be cited. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. - TheDaveRoss 12:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, as before. bd2412 T 01:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

arena para gato[edit]

Spanish: Just means "sand for cat". No more idiomatic than dog bone, chicken feed, cat blanket IMHO. --AK and PK (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Does arena mean litter in addition to sand/gravel? If English called the stuff "cat sand" we would keep that phrase, as that is not a normal meaning of sand. - TheDaveRoss 19:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Google Images shows it doesn't literally refer to sand. Also it's more commonly arena para gatos. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep per nomination. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


Discussion moved from WT:Requests for verification#antse.

It's actually non-lemma form whose structure is ants + -e ‎(phrase-final clitic). In Suárez (1983:117) we could find ant͜se with a gloss "woman" indeed, but the problem is that the term is a part of a sentence, whose detail is as follows: i-ˀakˀ-ba-t j-uˀun ti ant͜se. According to Aissen (1987:3) and Sk'op Sotz'leb: The Tzotzil of Zinacantán, -e often cooccurs with a definite article, i.e., ti, li, taj, i. I think that we don't have to spare a space for every such form. --Eryk Kij (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've converted it to a "form of". entry pointing to ants. The form is attested (in the reference given above, which is sufficient for a non-WT:WDL language, per WT:CFI), and because Wiktionary is not paper, it has room to include any number of inflections of words, including e.g. all the conjugated forms of every Latin verb. However, if "-e" can attach to any word without changing the meaning, some might feel that no -e forms should be included (while others disagree; contrast e.g. the arguments at Talk:fasque with those at Talk:satisne): you could start a request for deletion. - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand your attestation is right and Wiktionary could contain inflections of a word, then I should have used RFD as you advised me. I came up with the idea only after I submitted here. As you supposed, the clitic -e gives rise to no further change of a meaning itself without being definite, therefore we may have to delete this entry. I will move this discussion to RFD soon after posting this reply. Thank you for your attention and guidance. --Eryk Kij (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I've added the entry ([17]). Please note that there is an orthographic fluctuation between the letters ts and tz, which is explained in Moksnes (2013: Notes on Orthography). --Eryk Kij (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

husband and wife[edit]

Hekaheka marked this for speedy deletion because "this is here 'for translation purposes only' but there's no translatable content". It does have translations, though, so I suppose it should be discussed here. Equinox 19:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The facts: it's a fixed phrase (one does not say "wife and husband"), and is one word in many (if not all) East Asian languages. We have similar phrases in English such as knife and fork, flotsam and jetsam, kith and kin, pros and cons, first and foremost, etc. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Come to think of it, this phrase is definitely idiomatic, since it cannot refer to any old husband and wife, but a man and woman who are married to each other (as opposed to one husband and one wife who are not). IMO we should change the definition thus. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete; not all fixed phrases are idioms. We're a dictionary, not a collection of collocations. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
    When one says "they are husband and wife" it does not mean they other people's husband and wife - it means they are married to each other. This makes it idiomatic. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
    Well "father and son", "mother and son" (and so on) all have the same property. In fact "dog and owner" works as well. I'm not sure it's a linguistic argument at all so much as one of cognition. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
    A video also pointed out that we say big red balloon not red big balloon. I'm uneasy about keeping purely based on word order. Also "coach and player" works for your example above too. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Having said that I think this might make a good translation only entry. It's marginal whether it's useful enough as we do obviously have husband and wife. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
In a matriarchal society maybe they do prefer the equivalent of wife and husband. Like many coordinated nouns (indeed, many collocatons of any kind), the nature of the relationship, if any, between them is driven by context. It is only substantial or unexpected differences in meaning in different contexts that we accommodate with additional definitions. DCDuring TALK 13:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Lots of things have a fixed order. You say up and down, father and son, salt and pepper, cake and ice cream, red, white and blue for instance, not *down and up or *son and father. No reason to keep husband and wife. 20:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
It does make me wonder whose responsibility it is to teach such orderings. It's not something to put in a grammar book, is it? Nor in a dictionary, possibly. But this feels like a "teachable thing" that ought to be documented somewhere for learners, rather than them having to acquire it by reading novels etc. Equinox 08:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
If we had ===Common collocations=== sections, it could go there; otherwise in example sentences I guess. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't rely too much on an example sentence, that just tells me as a FL speaker that "husband and wife" &c is a natural sequence, not that it's the natural sequence. Maybe the information might be put under Usage notes. Anyway, Keep at least as a translation target per Tooironic's first comment, as it's not only East Asian languages that use a single word for the concept. --Droigheann (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep; some languages like Japanese have its equivalents: 夫婦 (ふうふ) and 夫婦 (めおと, ​meoto). The latter is a compound of ‎(me, woman, wife) and おと ‎(oto, man, husband) while it is an irregular reading for the kanji. Then we could leave the page as a translation target contrary to what Hekaheka considered. --Eryk Kij (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: we have already married couple for translations. The order husband and wife is a cultural preference, not a linguistic one. A frequency difference of that level is also found in mom and dad. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as a set phrase and as useful for translation. Note that this has higher frequency than "married couple": husband and wife, married couple at Google Ngram Viewer. From the point of view of a Czech speaker, this looks peculiar to English and hence common:idiomatic even if not CFI:idiomatic; in Czech, we usually say "manželé" and relatively rarely "manžel a manželka". The entry now contains {{translation only}}, which I do not like, but as long as it is there, what can anyone complain about? Digital storage space? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 16:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


A (correctly labelled as rare) rare misspelling; too rare for Ngram Viewer to plot. - -sche (discuss) 06:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be a variant, found 13,000 Google Books hits for the bare spelling, suggesting it's a regular spelling in German; and 18 GB hits for the English phrase "the seismogramme" suggesting it as a UK variant. P Aculeius (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I find it counterintuitive, but we do have angiogramme. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I did wonder if this was not actually a misspelling but just a rare alternative, like gramme. - -sche (discuss) 00:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@-sche: it’s kind of difficult to determine what is to be classified as a misspelling and what’s simply an alternative. I was thinking that these forms would be justified by analogy alone, but a lot of misspellings arise that way. I suppose that if you can find any academics discouraging it, then it’s definitely a misspelling. --Romanophile (contributions) 01:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that you can base whether something is a misspelling solely on whether any academics discourage it. Many alternative spellings are discouraged by academics (not necessarily by all academics), without being "wrong". Of course, I suppose you could make the argument that all alternative spellings can be considered misspellings, or that the difference is always a matter of opinion. But without going to that length, I'd say that perhaps "misspelling" is best applied to unintentional spellings (typos), common blunders (sherrif instead of sheriff), or the like. In this case, I think you can reasonably argue that -gram and -gramme are generally interchangable, and therefore this difference is purely a matter of style, at least in British English. P Aculeius (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is that -gram(me) are interchangeable in BrE for units (e.g. kilogramme) but not necessarily for other things (*telegramme; yes we have an entry but it's as dubious as this one). Equinox 13:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The fact that one variation comes to predominate (perhaps early on) doesn't make others incorrect. As for "other things", programme is actually the dominant spelling in UK English; telegramme occurs in English and in at least one company name, as well as in French (with or without acute accents on the first two e's); I find a number of English-language hits for audiogramme, cardiogramme, cryptogramme, encephalogramme, monogramme, phonogramme, sonogramme, and spectrogramme. There are certainly others, but these struck me as examples likely to be encountered. As a suffix, -gramme seems to be standard in French, so if Wiktionary is supposed to contain French words as well as English, then all these words and many others should still have entries. English usage varies from one word to the other, with some authors preferring the "French" spelling and others the "American" spelling. Obviously the "American" spelling is dominant now for most words, but it appears that a century ago the "French" spelling was more common in UK English; and some writers continue to use it even in cases where the "American" spelling is dominant. As a result, "misspelling" seems to be the wrong way to describe such words. P Aculeius (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


As above. - -sche (discuss) 06:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Even as an archaic spelling it's pretty rare and only seemingly goes back to 1815 on Google Books. The language was obviously standardized back then so it could been seen as a misspelling even in 1815. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete all. Sorry for the trouble. --Romanophile (contributions) 05:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


As above. Two other words are labelled "rare misspelling of" but are homographic to valid words and thus impossible to search for, so I'm not RFDing them: ша/ša, aptotic. - -sche (discuss) 06:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it is a misspelling. If it isn't, then 'rare' but doesn't matter at all. See in particular daddie. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Schengen Agreement[edit]

Encyclopedic. Or should we include Treaty of Versailles/Versailles Treaty, Peace of Westphalia, Westphalia ("treaty ending the Thirty Years' War 1648") [missing def.], Appomattox (the surrender that ended the American Civil War) [missing def.]? I could see us going either way. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A good time to break out the "slippery slope" argument, in either direction. It seems like we'd have to include an awful lot of entries like this. Many dictionaries do, of course, give simple definitions for common phrases like the names of important treaties or battles. Does it make any difference that the phrases "treaty of . . ." or "peace of . . ." and similar phrases are clues enabling the reader to look them up in an encyclopedia, while "Versailles" or "Appomattox" are used as shorthand, the meaning of which is not apparent without knowledge of the events that happened there? I don't see much harm in a definition that says something like, "Appomattox: a reference to the surrender of General Robert E. Lee's forces at Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia in 1865, often considered the most significant event marking the conclusion of the United States Civil War. Wikipedia has an article on . . ." So I think I'm leaning in favour of keeping. Not a burden on Wiktionary to keep it, and would explain the meaning of the word in the majority of contexts. Short definitions like this would suit most of the above examples, without becoming encyclopedic. P Aculeius (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
"Schengen Agreement" (name for a certain agreement), "Treaty of Versailles" (name for a certain treaty) et al are fundamentally different from "Appomatox" (name of a place, used metonymically for events which happened there) et al, IMO. We might decide to include both or exclude both types of term, but each type would need to stand on its own merits.
In a section further up, you mention US Supreme Court case titles; those are a third type of term; I've wondered if we should include some, but I can't find usage of any that is both not italicized and not referring to the court case in a way that is obvious in context (such that a reader wouldn't turn to us to find out what was meant, because they'd already know from the context). For example, all the uses of "before Roe" that I find are either italicized (alerting readers that it's a work title), or "before Roe v. Wade" (where it's obvious to readers that it's specifically a court case title), or both. - -sche (discuss) 07:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
One relatively simple rule would be follow-the-lemmings: If any works on a list of references, say, in English, OneLook+OED+any print dictionary (possibly with exclusions), have an entry/article for a term of a given type, then include automatically, subject to attestation, else, fight it out at RfD. The converse rule of automatically excluding unless there are lemmings and fighting out the inclusions is another option. DCDuring TALK 12:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

We have a definition in Schengen. That ought to be enough. delete -- Liliana 19:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC) (interestingly there is no definition for the "Treaty of Versailles" meaning in Versailles, that better be fixed!)

I agree delete and make sure Schengen covers this. 'Schengen' attributively covers this, Schengen area, Schengen zone and so on. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


Isn't verb definition 5 pretty much the same thing as verb definition 6? Purplebackpack89 23:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think they could probably be combined, with the "admonish" sense coming first, since the comedic version seems to be a form of tongue-in-cheek admonishment. P Aculeius (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind either way actually. I agree entirely with P Aculeius's analysis I just think the thin distinction might be enough to keep them separate. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Admonish doesn't seem quite right to me. Most current dictionaries have criticize:
Eg, MWOnline has "to subject to severe criticism or ridicule <films have been roasted by most critics — H. J. Seldes>" AND
"to honor (a person) at a roast."
Century 1911 OTOH has "expose (a person) to scathing ridicule or jesting, as by a company of persons, or for the amusement of a company. [Slang.]"
OED has just one definition that combines these senses: "colloq. To severely ridicule, reprimand, or interrogate (a person); to criticize or denounce. Also (chiefly N. Amer.): to subject to good-natured ridicule or banter; cf. roast n. 4."
The wording of the first MW sense and the Century sense seem to be suggestive of metaphorical roasting.
What happens at a roast is not criticism: it is jesting at an honoree's expense, often involving hyperbole of traits (age, drinking, big ears, etc) of the honoree, but sometimes using more generic insulting jests. DCDuring TALK 22:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Merely because someone is being roasted good-naturedly or in jest doesn't mean that a different definition is being used, any more than pelting someone with verbal barbs involves a different definition from pelting them with stones or snowballs. P Aculeius (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Obviously it does to some lexicographers, if not to all.
We, like most dictionaries, distinguish between literal and figurative senses on a regular basis. To take pelt as an example, MWOnline:
"1a: to strike with a succession of blows or missiles <pelted him with stones>
  b: to assail vigorously or persistently <pelted her with accusations>"
For some uses of some words the metaphorical sense has become quite conventional. For others the metaphor is more live. The former we should address with a definition or, at least, some acknowledgement. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

cave canem[edit]

Per the discussion at habemus confitentum reum, above. If this is deleted, it should be made an example phrase, but I don't think it merits an entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. One of the first Latin phrases people learn (and often one of the only ones people know). Famous in part because of the well-known and whimsical mosaic used to illustrate the entry. Often used humorously by English speakers as an alternative to the English, or out of context. P Aculeius (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • How is "One of the first Latin phrases people learn" a reason? How is being famous a reason? This is a dictionary. Let's keep being a dictionary and to try to become Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikiquote and every other WikiProject.
  • Delete per the entry itself, which makes an extremely strong case for deletion. Not claiming to be idiomatic because it isn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The only way it might be worth keeping is in a phrasebook. A Latin phrasebook could perhaps include phrases that have little conversational value, but are typically learned by beginners. I think it's misleading to have it as an entry, as it implies that it is idiomatic/non-SOP, whereas it is clearly the sum of its parts. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
A bit like veni, vidi, vici, isn't it? For purposes of comparison, the Chambers English Dictionary has an appendix of famous classical phrases (Latin, Greek, etc.), quite a mixed bag. Equinox 16:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
At the moment veni, vidi, vici is only here as a famous quotation which is problematic but not hard to resolve. I seem to think it is used as an idiom. Possibly not used as an idiom in Latin though. Originally, at least, it was used entirely literally. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Renard Migrant. I wouldn't argue that e.g. cs-wiki should have "this is a book" or "I am your English teacher" either. I also find it funny that we should have cave canum but not beware of dog/beware of the dog/beware the dog; OTOH if we found the latter worthwhile having, the former might merit entry as a translation target (provided it's actually commonly used, I've never seen it till now but then what do I know). --Droigheann (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Do we not have a Latin phrasebook? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • There does seem to be a little bit of usage of it, italicized, in English texts, so maybe it could be keepable as an English entry rather than a Latin one: [18], [19]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
    I wanted to contest this being English, but I'm gradually finding out anything, just anything can be called an English term here, so why not? --Droigheann (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
    {{ping|Droigheann]}, thanks for pointing out burčák; its citations are not durable and the first two citations are mentions (of the Czech word, not even of an English word), so I've RFVed it. - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: these common Latin phrases are found in most English-language dictionaries: for example, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Webster's New World Dictionary, the American College Dictionary, the Random House Dictionary, and Funk & Wagnalls. What is the rationale for making Wiktionary more restrictive? As has been stated for years, there's no concern about entries taking up too much space. Nor is the fact that there could be an encyclopedia article written about a word or phrase a justification for deleting it. That would simply mean that people wouldn't know what it meant when encountering it, if they looked it up here. Should Wiktionary define common phrases, or prevent people from understanding them? P Aculeius (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I think if you spoon-feed people meanings, it stops them learning. People need to be able to string two or more words together in order to speak a language. If you don't know what chat noir means in French, sure we could define it as a noun, but if they learn the words chat and noir and how to put them together to make chat noir they learn much more. A bit like how memorizing the times tables up to 12 * 12 like we did has its place but doesn't help you with 13 * 11 because it's not on the list and you haven't been taught how to multiply, just what some of the common answers are. In general the space argument isn't a very well liked one. As one person put it, we have plenty of space for pictures of kittens if that's the route we want to go down. This is a dictionary not Wikiquote or Wikipedia and I think we should stay being a dictionary. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
You call it spoon-feeding, I call it being a dictionary. Apparently most professional dictionary writers over the last century agree with me. There's a reason why common Latin phrases are found in dictionaries. They're found and used by English-speakers who don't know what they mean when strung together, or why anyone would bother. Under cave we have entries for seven languages, including nineteen senses in English alone. canem brings up Latin and Welsh; eliminate the "derived term" here and you're left with the not very helpful choice between "accusative singular of canis" or "first-person plural imperfect/conditional of canu". A trip back to "cave" under the assumption that both words have to be Latin, since one of them can only be Latin or Welsh and the other one can't be Welsh, and someone who clicks under the hidden "quotations" just might find the phrase defined there. So what exactly is the helpfulness of sending people to search two different words for two meanings that might just go together and make sense, as opposed to having one entry that says what the phrase means in English? Especially if you're already defining it in a "quotation" under one of them (I'll quickly point out that a bare attribution to Petronius is hardly a quotation, any more than you would cite "goodbye" to Anne Robinson)? And without the "derived term" or so-called "quotation" the reader would have to string together "second-person singular present imperative of caveō" and "accusative singular of canis" in order to derive a meaning for the phrase. Two more trips to two more pages, even assuming that the reader can keep all those grammatical terms in mind while trying to sort out what the phrase means in toto. All just in order to save the 432 bytes of space that "cave canem" takes up, distracting Wiktionary users with its blasted simplicity and ease of use! P Aculeius (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the English entry cave canem, I'm disputing the Latin entry. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep as phrasebook, delete otherwise. A dictionary isn't needed to understand this phrase, only knowledge of caveō and canis is sufficient. Aside, though, I think that mosaic is beautiful, please keep it. —CodeCat 23:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)



The 2008 Beijing Olympics mascots. Not dictionary material. —suzukaze (tc) 07:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it 'the name' that can be included? --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a case for WT:RFV. bd2412 T 15:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

go number two[edit]

I think this can be speedied on the grounds that the discussion has happened already for go pee (which was recently recreated and which I deleted). Perhaps folks want to have the discussion though. - TheDaveRoss 16:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • It iswould be nice to have the collocation at number two, though collocation space would probably be better. DCDuring TALK 17:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to number two. --Romanophile (contributions) 19:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Deletion and redirect are pretty much the same thing as if you search for 'go number two', it finds 'number two' as the first hit. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep. It's possible to say "went number two", so it's not just "go" + "number two". You can't say *"went drive", *"went talk", or *"went sit". —This unsigned comment was added by 2602:306:3653:8920:fd5d:6d3b:7783:13e (talk) at 18:26, 23 March 2016.
I have no idea what the connection is between went drive etc and the case at hand. I have no idea what the connection might be between "it's possible [] 'number two'." and your vote to keep. Could you explain? DCDuring TALK 23:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
You can say "go drive", "go talk" and "go sit". You can't however say *"went drive" *"went talk" and *"went sit". You can however say "went number one" and "went pee". "go number one" and "go pee" are therefore special cases and should have entries.
That's because "number two" is a noun, and "drive", "talk" and "sit" are verbs. Purplebackpack89 00:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Do we ordinarily put "go" before nouns? Or is number two a special case? Can you say things like "go house", "go car", "go TV", "go soda" etc.? I don't think so. Something special going on with number two. We have go potty. Such is use of "go" before a noun something that doesn't ordinarily occur.
No, we don't. But that's because this is only go in the sense of relieving oneself. There are a limited number of nouns referring to what one is relieving oneself of that can be used attributively after "go". The one thing they seen to have in common is that they're childish euphemisms: you can "go wee-wee", "go pee-pee", "go tinkle", "go number one", but not "go urine", and when you say "go piss", it's really the verb (shortened from "go and piss"), not the noun. What I think is going on here is that the construction is based on the way a child would say it, and if any part of it is something a child wouldn't say, it won't sound right. It's like there's an exemption from normal syntactic constraints that's granted because of difficulties children have with complex constructions, and if it's not the kind of thing a child would say, that exemption is revoked. Within those narrow restrictions, though, the parts are quite independent. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
In this case one uses the lexicon as follows:
  1. Try to make sense of the expression using the most common senses of go [[number and two, which would probably lead to combining number and two and skipping the next two steps.
  2. If necessary, one looks up the two two word combinations: go number and number two
  3. Since go number fails one reviews the meanings at number two
  4. From context one would select the meaning of number two {"Feces; the act of defecation."} and place it in one's working memory.
  5. One then proceeds to go#Noun (because it is shorter?) and determine there is no possible definition there that fits with context or.
  6. One then proceeds down the long list of definitions of go#Verb, discarding meanings until one comes to sense 40 (the last, though it probably should be higher based on relative frequency of use, especially in speech.)
  7. Then, if necessary, one can analyze the grammar and perhaps guess, based on similar cases like go home, in which the noun home is used adverbially, that number two is not functioning as a noun.
In all likelihood one would not have to complete all the steps even if one could not guess the meaning from context. Steps one and four would probably lead to the correct conclusion. It is always true that it is faster to have an entry for the exact item on is searching for. But it is also true that putting words together is the most basic element of understanding language. It's reasonable to expect folks to have the skill and to benefit from learning the pattern of combination which may be applicable to other cases, eg, "go Dior" (a red-carpet celebrity), "go Sanders" (a state's voters), "go bluegrass" (a musician), "go structuralist" (a lexicographer?). DCDuring TALK 02:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The algorithm is based on particular kinds of memory and processor. Human associative memory enables one to avoid the need for some of these steps, even when one must have recourse to a dictionary because the required information is not already in-brain or is inaccessible. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

go number one[edit]

Renard Migrant (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

veni, vidi, vici[edit]

I think in Latin this is just a famous quotation. We're not Wikisource and other famous quotations like it's the economy, stupid have been deleted. No entry for when the president does it, that means it is not illegal either (Nixon). Renard Migrant (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure about this one. Would you support eliminating I came, I saw, I conquered too? --Romanophile (contributions) 15:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I think veni, vidi, vici is probably an idiom, just not in Latin. I came, I saw, I conquered I think is also not literal and not merely a quotation. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The Latin entry could easily be rescued if somebody found citations of Latinophones using it independently and not as a quote. I didn’t find any examples of that type, but my investigation was far from exhaustive. So I’m going to say delete unless somebody can find independent uses of it in Latin. In any event, it would suffice as an example sentence. --Romanophile (contributions) 16:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm proposing, albeit implicitly not explicitly (until now) to create it in English and perhaps other languages (fr:veni, vidi, vici has a French section) delete the Latin as sum-of-parts and merely a citation (like when the president does it, that means it is not illegal) and link to Wikiquote and Wikipedia for the quotation-handling. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
So, it could be created in all the languages in which its use is attested? DCDuring TALK 17:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
That would be a lot. It probably passes CFI in a minimum of 5 languages. As well as English, French and Spanish, I'm seeing hit for it in German, Hungarian and Turkish, just I can't understand them. Isn't that what Translingual is for? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I would oppose labelling a Latin phrase "translingual" just because it is used in multiple languages, simply because the pronuncation would vary. I see pronunciation as being almost as important as spelling, but that information can't really be included in a translingual entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
There's something to that argument, OTOH couldn't you say the same about, for instance, chemical formulas? Surely H₂O is pronounced differently in different languages, isn't it? --Droigheann (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


Discussion moved from WT:RFV#erotica.

Rfv-sense (x2):

Literary works focused on sexual situations and intended for the sexual arousal of readers.
Sexual images or objects.

These do not seem to be very different from the primary sense:

Erotic literature, art, decoration or other phenomenon; sometimes encompasses only material that is not pornographic and has or is purported to have artistic or social value, but also can include pornography, depending on the context and speaker.

---> Tooironic (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you questioning the existence of these two definitions? The fact you consider them 'not very different from the primary sense' suggests you are not. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
To me, they seem to be all simply describing different manifestations of "erotic literature or art". The OED only gives one definition by the way. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm taking that as a no, hence striking. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I would be inclined to merge all senses. Equinox 12:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Move this to rfd- it doesn't belong here. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(now at RFD)

  • Sorry guys for putting this is on the wrong discussion page. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete, these are clearly covered by sense #1 and I can't think of anything else to say on the matter. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. This is just a noun referring to various things of a subject, like Disneyana or memorabilia. The first definition covers it sufficiently, including the connotations. Nibiko (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

white sweet potato[edit]

Sum of parts. It's a "white" "sweet potato". SemperBlotto (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

(Replying also to the discussion at User_talk:SemperBlotto#white_sweet_potato SemperBlotto's talk page): I made the entry based on [20], which lists "white sweet potato" as a synonym of boniato (tropical sweet potato/Cuban sweet potato/white sweet potato/white-fleshed sweet potato/batiste/batata/batata dulce/camote), which it lists as a distinct vegetable, in a separate entry from "sweet potato". Both are of the species Ipomoea batatas, but white sweet potato refers to specific cultivars traditional in Cuba, not just any white sweet potato cultivar. Goldenshimmer (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The boniato is distinct, mostly because the origin of the name limits its reference to Cuba, but white sweet potato refers to white-fleshed sweet potatoes of various types from various parts of the world. In fact, the website's chain of synonyms ("boniato = tropical sweet potato = Cuban sweet potato = white sweet potato = white-fleshed sweet potato = batiste = batata = batata dulce = camote") includes batata, which is a general name for any sweet potato, as well as camote, which is a Mexican name for sweet potatoes. I should also mention that their picture of a yamaimo looks to me more like a nagaimo, which is referred to in Chinese using the same characters that the Japanese use for yamaimo (if you're not confused by now, you're not paying attention). People who make websites about produce don't necessarily know much about languages or about other cultures than the ones that happen to have produce markets in their area, so the websites shouldn't be used as sources for dictionary entries (not to mention that they have little standing in our Criteria for inclusion). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Yep, confused. I think I'll leave this one to the experts, I guess…. Goldenshimmer (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

one time only[edit]

Is it sum of parts? --Romanophile (contributions) 15:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
You could have asked that question wo creating the entry. wtf? --Dixtosa (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Having red links is wrong, it would seem. See here. --Romanophile (contributions) 18:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
They also serve who remove spurious redlinks. DCDuring TALK 21:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
This seems to be a good argument for not agreeing with everyone who comments on your talk pages. I think we can safely say I don't. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
If you means me, what are you talking about? DCDuring TALK 21:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, you (Renard M) must be referring to Romanophile. You can easily be ambiguous on our discussion pages. DCDuring TALK 21:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
"I think we can safely so I don't" is unambiguously undecipherable. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Naw. "I think we can (not agree with everyone who comments) so I don't (agree with everyone who comments)". Equinox 13:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
You beat me to it. --Droigheann (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
How about "I think we can (agree with everyone who comments on your talk pages) safely so I don't (have to add my comments there)."?
Sadly, I'm certain that my comments on these pages suffer from similar ambiguity. DCDuring TALK 14:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
You people aren’t making any sense. If you want to nuke the entry (or even both of them), go ahead. I won’t lose any sleep over it. --Romanophile (contributions) 14:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The obvious solution to Romanophile's redlink problem is to define one-time-only in a way that doesn't link to one time only Purplebackpack89 23:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)a
    The superior solution is to delete all of the forms of this as it is merely SoP. DCDuring TALK 23:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, would redirects to one-time be unacceptable? --Romanophile (contributions) 00:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete. --WikiTiki89 00:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


As a form of the above, this should go too. --WikiTiki89 00:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete, same thing just with hyphens instead of spaces. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Gagg (Korean Hangul)[edit]

See gagg —This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talkcontribs) at 16:30, 2016 March 28 (UTC).

Have you ended up on the wrong page? There is no Korean entry (and none in the page history either). Renard Migrant (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This section was apparently added by Johnny Shiz (talkcontribs). Johnny, please remember to sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
I believe the page he meant to link to was (gak), which was marked for deletion by DolphinL (talkcontribs) way back in 2011 in this edit. DolphinL's last edit here was on 2011-11-05. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

mathematical realism[edit]

I'm confused how this term could be anything but a sum of its parts. There is apparently a philosophical position called realism, and there is a kind of this realism that pertains to mathematics, which happens to be called mathematical realism. I note there is a Wikipedia article at Mathematical realism, but the presence of an encyclopedia entry does not necessarily a term make.

I posit that mathematical realism, as a term, is wholly understandable from its constituent parts, and that this is therefore a sum-of-parts entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I could have worked out what this meant by just considering the two words. Equinox 13:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you would get it if you knew it was in the context of philosophy. DCDuring TALK 18:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I too failed to understood solely by its two parts. Having mathematical realism defined helped me understand. I vote to keep it. Amin wordie (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete per 言語学的実在論 and 科学的実在論. The Wikipedia article even mentions "mathematical anti-realism". Nibiko (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Dan Polansky (talk) I created the entry and found it useful. Since two other editors above also seem to find it useful, I post a boldface keep. The two definitions of realism with respect to which this could be sum of parts are probably these:
    • (sciences) The viewpoint that an external reality exists independent of observation.
    • (philosophy) A doctrine that universals are real—they exist and are distinct from the particulars that instantiate them.
    Based on them, I would not know that mathematical realism was "A doctrine that mathematical entities such as numbers and triangles exist independently of the human mind." --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • realism (in the context of this thread) can be boiled down to “XXX exists independent of the observer”; mathematics can be boiled down to “numbers”. Ergo, mathematical realism = “numbers exist independent of the observer” = the sum of mathematical + realism. I fail to see how this isn't SOP, but I'm also happy to concede that there is no burning reason to remove the entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    • That's not so clear since, from realism, "universals are real—they exist and are distinct from the particulars that instantiate them" is distinct and, being philosophical, could apply. In mathematical unrealism, numbers could exist outside of human mind but only in the objects that instantiate them; so number 5 could exist "only" in e.g. my hand that has 5 fingers, and it would follow, possibly, that many positive integers don't exist since no physical collection of items instantiates them. In fact, this should better be clarified, and I hope the present definition of mathematical realism is correct. (Leaving aside that math is very far from being only about numbers.)--Dan Polansky (talk)

por qué no te callas[edit]

Would definitely be a useful example, but the meaning is obvious. This is just another famous quote. --Romanophile (contributions) 19:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Delete --AK and PK (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Yup! Renard Migrant (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
¿Por qué no te borras? -- Liliana 22:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Liliana-60: where did that comment come from? Is there bad blood between you & Goupil? --Romanophile (contributions) 22:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
It was supposed to be a joke, but humor doesn't transfer well through Internet tubes. -- Liliana 22:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

semper paratus, semper eadem, semper fidelis[edit]

Sum of parts (in Latin). As always, mere examples would suffice. --Romanophile (contributions) 03:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Motto should not be dictionary entries, if you want to know what they mean, look up the individual words and/or look them up on Wikipedia where of course they belong as they are topics of interest, not idioms. No Dieu et mon droit for example. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the first and third: I also dissent from Renard's point that we shouldn't have mottos. Purplebackpack89 13:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
It’s not mottoes per se that should be eliminated. It’s phrases that are easily discernible to anybody with a competent command of the language. I don’t think that they merit entire entries, but using them within entries is a good compromise and a good idea (in my view). Renard Migrant (talkcontribs) would probably agree with me on that. --Romanophile (contributions) 14:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think keep as well, possibly as English. I have seen the third used plenty of times in English texts in a manner that presumed understanding of the phrase. I am not as familiar with semper eadem, and the Coast Guard is just smaller than the Marines, so its motto gets out less. - TheDaveRoss 14:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    This is a de facto delete vote as the English entries aren't being nominated for deletion. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    Maybe I am missing something, but when I look at those entries I see only Latin sections. - TheDaveRoss 13:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Familiar Latin phrases found in English texts should be included in dictionaries (and usually are). You shouldn't have to be able to parse Latin grammar to figure out what English speakers mean when they use these phrases. P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Like you say, they are in English dictionaries. This is logic for keeping in English, not Latin. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
If we're thinking of creating all attestable ones, I suggest arte et labore which is Blackburn Rovers' motto. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Since we're not including these for lexical reasons, per P Aculeius, do we include them for notability? Do we need WT:NOTABLE to decide which sum of parts phrases are notable enough to be included, or do we just include all mottos in all languages? Do were merely need to show use as a motto for the motto to be included. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
How about All the News That's Fit to Print? Chuck Entz (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: I honestly have almost no idea what the hell that phrase is supposed to mean. What news is ‘fit’ to print? Rich gringos dying? Gringo children being kidnapped? The crimes that poor people commit to survive? --Romanophile (contributions) 21:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@Romanophile: I'm guessing you're better educated than most. If you don't know what it means, that probably means most people don't know what it means, which it turn probably means we should have it. Purplebackpack89 14:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
What a particular newspaper deems to be fit (suitable) to print isn't lexical information, though: you clearly know what the phrase means in the lexical sense, just not which news it would apply to in the real world (which varies by newspaper of course). So not dictionary content. Equinox 15:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: Seems kinda disingenuous to me to have an English definition for a Latin phrase, but not a Latin one. Purplebackpack89 14:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree. It is odd but it's a way of complying with CFI (and some people care about that). The only argument apparently for including it in Latin is because it's used in other languages which to be honest I find even more odd. A further question for P Aculeius. Is Latin a special case or should we include mottos in other languages other than Latin? What about English ones? Just Do It (Nike) Impossible Is Nothing (Nike or Addidas or something like that). Renard Migrant (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: it's absurd to have well-known Latin phrases defined as English, merely because English speakers use them, and not defined as Latin. Moreover, as much of the significance of these phrases is how, why, or by whom they're used; something easily explained in a single sentence, without the need for an encyclopedia entry. And that you can't get from parsing each word to figure out its function in the phrase. There's a difference between a well-known phrase that's been widely used for hundreds or even thousands of years, and a corporate advertising slogan that vanishes from popular use within a few years of the ad campaign that created it. I think that Wiktionary editors wouldn't have too much trouble distinguishing between them. If you want to create a notability guideline for phrases like this, go ahead, but it'll result in more "keeps", which clearly you're opposed to. P Aculeius (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • There's not a lexical distinction (as you freely admit), it's just which are more 'notable' than others. While it's absurd, surely including a Latin entry only for non-Latin speakers is even more absurd. Imagine an English entry aim only at non-English speakers like Just Do It because non-English speakers may come across it. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • In case anyone cares what WT:CFI says, an I do, believe it or not, this is as straightforward a delete as it gets. But a vote to have CFI trump voting failed, so it literally is just a vote. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep -- They are more than mottoes, and should definitely stay. A silly debate. 16:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
So what are they, then? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep: Any foreign language phrase that is frequently used in documents written in English should be documented in some glossary within the Wikipedia Foundation. If rigid rules prevent them from being documented here, then put them in a separate wiki. Also, having entries for these mottoes document prominent organizations using them is welcome information to find. Fred Holmes


Erroneous pinyin of 岃 (rèn). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Johnny Shiz (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Build-To-Order flat[edit]

Sum of parts. A "flat" that is built-to-order. Also bad caps. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Move to BTO (and make required text adjustments), which is what most of the numerous citations attest to. DCDuring TALK 23:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete and make a separate entry BTO. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Not sure about the delete, let me read it tomorrow. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah it's sum of parts, delete. Make BTO a separate entry to keep the page histories separate. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Note that this is build-to-order, not the usual built-to-order, so we should keep that bathwater adjective when throwing this baby out. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


The entry has a PUA character "", which may be ⿸疒哥. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this character really not in CJK-C/-D/-E? -- Liliana 21:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Who knows? To really be sure what it is, you'd have to know what font the creator of the entry was using at the time, and possibly even which version of the font. You can guess, based on which character it was redirected to back in 2007, and on which equivalents there are to that in Min-Nan, but it would still be a guess. Given that different people may see different characters, depending on their font, I don't think it's safe to keep this as is. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 is U+E010, which is a PUA (private use area) character, which means 癩 needs to be deleted or moved, since  is not actually an encoded character. ⿸疒哥 (UTC-02663) is proposed for Extension G, as seen here and here (p. 127). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
A query for  in [21] suggests that it indeed is ⿸疒哥. —suzukaze (tc) 22:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@suzukaze-c Are you sure you're not using  (U+F5E7) instead of  (U+E010)? I tried using  (U+E010) and it didn't work. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
(how the heck did i get f5e7) Please disregard, oops —suzukaze (tc) 22:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the creator of the pua meant 疒哥, but it ended up as ✊, due to font. I still want delete, after all, 赵孟兆页 got deleted. —This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talkcontribs) at 22:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC).
This has nothing to do with 赵孟𫖯. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

赵孟兆页got deleted it was a meaningless frase. Johnny Shiz (talk)

It was deleted because it's a name with both given and family names, which violates WT:CFI, not because it's a meaningless phrase. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
This character shows as a fist on my iPad and a an up pointing arrow on my computer. Johnny Shiz (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
That's because it's a Private Use Area character, meaning that different fonts can have completely different things showing up. That's why this problem needs to be resolved. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I say Redirect to 癩⿸疒哥. Johnny Shiz (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


WT:CFI: No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a figurative sense, I think ([22]). Wyang (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Figurative sense added. Should the proper noun sense be deleted? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it's fine leaving the sense there as long as it is not the only sense on the page. Wyang (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
No it's not, it should go in the etymology. -- Liliana 08:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted proper noun sense and moved the name to the etymology. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

jet impingement[edit]

Sum of parts. impingement by a jet of fluid. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Much of the usage has a noun attributively modifying jet rather than jet impingement. For example, flame impingement appears elsewhere in books that use flame jet impingement. In a book title Water Jet Impingement Forming of Aluminum Aircraft Skin Panels, water jet is a conventionalized nominal being used to modify impingement. Impingement cooling is used much more frequently without modifiers or with modifiers other than jet.
IOW, there seem to be a very large variety of collocations using the word impingement in various contexts of heat-transfer engineering. Jet impingement does not seem to be conventionalized. DCDuring TALK 14:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Jet impingement is a common method of heat exchangers, drying, heat treatment and more. It is used commonly in many journal articles for example:

1. Fitzgerald, J. A., & Garimella, S. V. (1997). A study of the flow field of a confined and submerged impinging jet. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 41(8-9), 1025-1034.

2. Zuckerman, N., & Lior, N. (2006). Jet Impingement Heat Transfer: Physics, Correlations, and Numerical Modeling. Advances in Heat Transfer, 39, 565-631.

3. Cho, H. H., Kim, K. M., & Song, J. (2011). Applications of impingement jet cooling systems. In H. H. Cho, K. M. Kim, J. Song, & A. I. Shanley (Ed.), Cooling Systems: Energy, Engineering and Applications (pp. 37-67). Seol, Korea: Nova Science Publishers Inc.

I have way many more sources that use jet impingement. —This comment was unsigned.

  • You have added a duplicate section (see above). [Now merged.] The term "black cat" is probably used even more times, but that doesn't make it dictionary material - you can figure out the meaning from the two words. We call it the sum of its parts. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying sources aren't useful, but nobody's denying the existence of this terms so these sources are merely confirming something we already though. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete per DCDuring. - -sche (discuss) 02:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


Along with 言語学的実在論 and mathematical realism, I think that this is SOP so I'm nominating this. Nibiko (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

about that life[edit]

Originally entered as a thug life thing, but since broadened to any kind of lifestyle. Therefore (see Talk:about that life) I think this is just about ‎(concerned with; engaged in; intent on) + "that life", referring to a previously mentioned or implied lifestyle, by everyday anaphora. Equinox 00:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 01:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Not so fast. About that life" should be included in Wiktionary.
  • The google search for "about that life" (between quotes) returns 700K returns, and 388K results for the alternative spelling “bout that life” (also between quotes).
  • On Instagram, there are over 400K images published with the tag #aboutthatlife.
  • The saying has appeared in many outlets of popular culture, from song titles to thousands of internet memes.

Conclusion: The saying “About that life” has proven itself over the years, and should be included in Wiktionary. Do not delete it because you are not aware of its importance. There is a lot happening on social media platforms that is closed off, but nevertheless relevant. I request that the deletion-mark be removed ASAP. Amin wordie (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The search "that doesn't make sense" gets 15 million results on Google, that doesn't make it a valid string for inclusion in a dictionary. - TheDaveRoss 13:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. This is reminiscent of all about which we have as be all about. DCDuring TALK 10:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    • 2015, George T. Lindsey, Mesa Flats Resort Predators and Politics, page 403:
      He was a cowboy at heart, like the rest of them, although he had never lived the life of a real cowboy or he might not be fantasizing about that life
      DCDuring TALK 11:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm having some trouble seeing how the common use of a phrase with an anaphora by a group of people using words in a standard way becomes an idiom because they all have a common anaphora. OTOH, consider the following:
  • 2015 July 10, “Women to face trial over street brawl stabbings”, in Allentown Morning Call:
    One of the three woman, Maria Garcia, testified she was stabbed 13 times by Genesis Matos-Ramirez. Matos-Ramirez said during the attack, "I'm all about that life, I will kill you," Garcia testified
Keep DCDuring TALK 15:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep Leasnam (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
KeepΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • RFD kept: no consensus for deletion. There are 3 keeps and 2 deletes. More than a month has elapsed from the nomination. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


5. The taking on of by a shipping company of special charges by another without price increase.
6. The natural lessening of radio waves due to atmospheric interference.

These both seem to be transparent uses of a more general sense, specifically the act or process of absorbing. Are these senses really distinct? - TheDaveRoss 13:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

#5 seems overly specific as I've seen it used about things other than shipping costs. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. As Renard notes, 5 is used about many more things than shipping costs: any business can (lexically, if not necessarily economically) absorb any type of cost, a government can absorb a cost, etc. - -sche (discuss) 00:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


How is this a chinese character? This is a kwukyel. —This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talkcontribs) at 14:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC).

This is not a valid reason for deletion. —suzukaze (tc) 01:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
It's plausibly an RFV rationale as kwukyel from what I gather are used in Korean not Chinese. I obviously have no opinion on it. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Well. The Chinese character means to the name of script; it does not mean it is/was always used in Chinese language. According to G-source, GK means GB 12052-89. Looks like it was referred in Chinese language once, with reading: hǎn (厂). --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
That's why I put {{zh-see|厂|v}} for now. But never trust the Unihan Database 100%. AFAIK, GB encodes all of the Chinese characters in the BMP, so it having a G source doesn't make it Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
In Unicode, two unrelated characters may have the same code if they look identical. In this case, in Chinese is a variant of while in Korean it is a kwukyel for myeon created by simplification of . — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


Yeah delete meets critere for speedy deletion Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The deletion reason is "It is not a word. And even this letter is never being used in any korean sentence. Someone said anyway it is a valid symbol, but not always can papers be made for all valid symbols which is compound and not used." It does appear that the user has a point: searching for the character here turns up nothing of interest, and the character doesn't have an entry on Korean Wiktionary. There are 120,000 Google search results, but since I don't know anything about Korean I don't understand the significance of that. What do we do in situations like this? This, that and the other (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It seems to find some use at least as part of words: google:"갂". This would suggest that it's a valid glyph, even if it isn't used in isolation, and as such, it merits inclusion here much as other glyphs like B or . ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
    The Google hits are all typos. This character is never used. The hangeul block contains all logical combinations. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Not a valid word, but as a Unicode symbol, it better to keep it. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
깎다 is a valid word (including 깎아내리다), but it contains , not . — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Article does not claim it is a word. Korean syllables are routinely kept. Wyang (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to know where it says that. Wiktionary covers all words in all languages, and this is, as you correctly said, not a word. The standards we use for alphabets can not be applied to syllabic scripts like Korean is. -- Liliana 23:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
It's a Unicode symbol first, just like A, B, C, and then a meaningless syllable, which has phonetic value but it's not a word. Users will want to know how to read it when they find it in a combination. It's easy to see that this combination is used. Keep. I think we should keep all solid Korean hangeul syllables, even if they are meaningless. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:났 and Talk:놰. Wyang (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all attested Unicode symbols. We're not limited by space, so it seems a natural extension from what we already document. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    • The Unicode code point for (gak) is U-ac02. Although it's made of jamo symbols and this is how it's entered using native input methods, it shouldn't be considered a string of characters but one symbol. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. In Talk:놰#RFD, Stephen (ko-2) said: "Korean syllables, even when there is no meaning, are still needed for identification and pronunciation in the same way that we have the individual letters of the Roman, Greek and Cyrillic alphabets." As for CFI, WT:CFI#Terms says "A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense. Any of these are also acceptable: [...]". As an auxiliary aid, above, Wyang (ko-3) says keep, and Anatoli (ko-2) says keep. I find the arguments presented plausible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    Also, while I fear a bit of falling into the ad hominem fallacy, the nominator was blocked on Wikipedia per W:User:Johnny Shiz, which was caused in part by the unequivocal W:Special:Diff/710258916. This does increase the chance that he is pulling our leg more than anything else. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    I don't think there is anything to be disbelieved about his nomination, other than the fact that this entry doesn't meet any "speedy deletion criteria". The discussion has been worth having. This, that and the other (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • RFD kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

hot as hell[edit]

hot + as hell. --Romanophile (contributions) 00:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete per #scared as hell (to be archived at Talk:scared as hell)Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The entry is written badly but keep because Hell is actually hot, so it's a legitimate simile, like "cold as ice" or "silent as the tomb". This makes it distinct from "ugly, annoying, cool, funny... as hell" where Hell has no actual role to play. Equinox 00:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep high-frequency similes for the encoding direction. idioms.thefreedictionary.com[23] has it; there it says The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. One Ngram search: hot as hell,crazy as hell,cold as ice,scared as hell at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I feel like saying delete per Dan Polansky who points out it's not idiomatic. '[F]or the encoding direction' he means they make good translation targets (he will correct me no doubt if I'm wrong) but that's not in CFI, ergo delete per Dan Polansky. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    CFI says "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers." Admittedly, that was added without a vote proposing that wording but rather as a result of a failed vote that proposed something else: Wiktionary:Votes/2014-11/Entries which do not meet CFI to be deleted even if there is a consensus to keep. I find it eminently reasonable and good to include some sum of parts terms as long as there is a meaningful rationale to keep them, and the vote shows I am not alone. I find it obvious that deleting fat as a cow did not help our readers of this multi-lingual dictionary at all.
    Let me further note that "hot as hell" is something you say in English but not in Czech, per google:"horký jako peklo" and google:"horko jako v pekle"; in Czech, you may say horko jako v peci (hot as in furnace). Sum-of-parts nay-sayers would probably delete horko jako v peci as well since it is obvious that there is a great heat in furnace; but the point is the encoding direction: how do you know that they say it that way in the first place? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The fact that it makes sense makes it less idiomatic, not more idiomatic. We don't have or need hot as fire. --WikiTiki89 16:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Hm, seems you are right. So I'd be correct in thinking you would also want to delete "cold as ice", yes? Equinox 23:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. This one actually makes sense. It is an actual simile. It was likely the original "as hell" combination. Then people started using other adjectives before "as hell" producing "scared as hell", "dark as hell" etc. 2602:306:3653:8920:2077:A92C:8FB3:77AF 17:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep in my opinion. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • RFD kept: no consensus for deletions. There are 4 keeps; more than a month elapsed from nomination. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


Sum-of-parts. Not really a term. From เอาแต่ใจ ‎(ao-dtɛ̀ɛ-jai, self-absorbed; self-centered) + ตน ‎(dton, self). --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest deletion.--Octahedron80 (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Like other Thai SOP's this is in SEAlang but only their TDP source which seems not to be a sufficient basis on its own. — hippietrail (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


Sum-of-parts. Not really a term. From เอาแต่ใจ ‎(ao-dtɛ̀ɛ-jai, self-absorbed; self-centered) + ตนเอง ‎(oneself). --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest deletion.--Octahedron80 (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
PS ตนเอง is same as ตัวเอง --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This is in SEAlang but only from the TDP source, which does seem to have a too relaxed policy on SOP terms. See my comments on other Thai SOP terms below. — hippietrail (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


It does not mean "to keep, to store, to save" as stated in the entry. It means "to bring/take to be kept/placed", from เอา ‎(ao, to bring; to take) + ไว้ ‎(wái, to keep; to place). For example, เอาไว้ไหน (ao wái nǎi) literally means "where to take [this] to be placed?" (= where should I take it to and place it?). เอาไว้ is not really a term and is not idiomatic. เอาไว้ is thus deemed SOP. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I defer to your judgement. Wyang (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I suggest deletion. --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Even SEAlang/TDP doesn't include this and it includes many SOP terms. — hippietrail (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

stesso pronouns[edit]

loro stesse, loro stessi, me stessa, me stesso, noi stesse, noi stessi, se stessa, se stesso, sé stessa, sé stesso, te stessa, te stesso, voi stesse, voi stessi

All sum‐of‐parts in Italian. They are definitely useful translations for foreigners, but they don’t really merit entries. --Romanophile (contributions) 03:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


Sum-of-parts. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion suggested. --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Octahedron80: A minor nitpick: you mean that you suggest deletion, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes what I meant. --Octahedron80 (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Handlanger Corps[edit]

Sum of parts: Handlanger + corps. (Oh, and feel free to update the etymology and definition of Handlanger, and to add a pronunciation.) — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A name of a specific entity (Specialist Austrian troops of the Napoleonic Wars) and thus not really sum of parts. Governed by WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


An anonymous poster nominated this term on the basis that there are "[n]o uses in google books". I found one (and only one so far), but do we generally create entries for attributive uses of this sort? — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

We should just nuke all of these for a) redundancy to hyphenless form b) wrong part of speech (noun, per definition) and c) many of them seem to not even exist. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. 16:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
"[A]ll of these"?, did you create a number of such entries? If so, please identify them so they can be reviewed. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I only created hyphenated versions when actual uses can be found. I didn't create this one. I think hyphenated variants should be in the dictionary when they are used that way. 18:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Renard is suggesting that such variants may not be necessary. Perhaps we could hear from other editors on this issue and reach a consensus before you continue to create more of such entries. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Using a hyphenated form of a multi-part noun, even one that is dictionary-worthy, is basically a matter of style. I sometimes use them to help disambiguate the interpretation of a noun or other phrase.
As the search engine seems to take users to the unhyphenated form when an entry for such is available, I don't see much of a rationale for keeping these. Even for vernacular names of animals that sometimes appear in specialized and dated works, I don't see the rationale. Unlinked alternative forms don't seem objectionable to me. There should be relatively few hyphenated entries in English, IMO. Terms like devil-may-care and Schleswig-Holstein are examples of exceptions, I think. DCDuring TALK 21:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
This is not a new discussion. The usual route has to be to correct them and put them through RFV. I think correcting them could be a bot job. I wouldn't really mind mass-deletion but I don't think there's a consensus for it, not in other discussions and likely not now either. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Put it this way. All words in all languages versus all typographical variants in all languages. Are snow-leopard and snow leopard really different words? They have identical spelling but non-identical typography. Compare clubhouse and Clubhouse. But yes... this is not a page for policy discussion. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Send to RFV and hopefully discuss the wider issue somewhere, because I hate these entries too, and agree with Renard that it's similar to having upper- and lower-case words. Equinox 08:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually I got that comparison from you in the first place. Just for clarity's sake. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have copied this conversation to "Wiktionary:Requests for verification#naked-ape", where further discussion should take place. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


Just a common way to save space when writing "Großschreibung/Kleinschreibung" (=Capitalisation/Non-Capitalisation) which in itself would not qualify for an entry either.Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete, fails line #1 of CFI "all words in all languages" as not a word in a language. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Compare google books:"de- and regeneration"/google books:"de- and re-generation" which abbreviates "degeneration and regeneration" and does not deserve an entry. More distantly, compare google books:"civil and social rights", abbreviating "civil rights and social rights". - -sche (discuss) 02:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


"Adjective": The object of a costing.

This was a badly costed project.

This definition would be of a noun, though the usage example does not have it as a noun.

Further, I don't think this can be shown to be an adjective, which is probably why the OneLook references have it only as a redirect to their entries for cost (verb). The OED doesn't have it as an adjective either.

But perhaps someone here can use their superior lexicographic skills to show otherwise. DCDuring TALK 20:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I can't tell if it's an adjective. But I've improved the definition pro tem. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Just wondering – is there a difference between an adjective and a noun used attributively? Or is the latter also an adjective, and so should be indicated as such? — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, there isn't a noun costed. Seems to end that debate. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
As long as we cover it somehow I don't mind whether the part of speech is adjective or verb. Note the existence of uncosted, which you heard a lot if you followed the 2015 UK general election coverage. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

colored person[edit]

Per Talk:white person. Equinox 01:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI: In Thai, คนผิวสี has roughly meaning of this. There is also คนมีสี that could have been translated into this. But they are not the same meaning. :) --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
When I was born, I was black. / When I grow up, I'm black. / When I go in the sun, I'm black. / When I'm cold, I'm black. / When I'm scared, I'm black. / When I'm sick, I'm black. / And when I die, I'm still black.
But you white people: / When you're born, you're pink. / When you grow up, you're white. / When you go in the sun, you're red. / When you're cold, you're blue. / When you're scared, you're yellow. / When you're sick, you're green. / And when you die, you're grey...
And you're calling me a colored person?
— attributed to a variety of people from several continents

However, polysemy of "colored" doesn't stop this from being SOP. Delete per nom; colored covers this. - -sche (discuss) 06:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

  • The reasons to keep fall under the head Pragmatics. I don't find WP's coverage of ethnic slurs to foreclose our opportunity to add value in this area. If there were nothing to say about the contexts, dates of prevalence, and meanings of this term to speaker and audience it would not merit inclusion in a lexicon. But there is plenty. Keep DCDuring TALK 10:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    So add it to colored. Delete. It's a person that's colored and no amount of discussion is going to change that. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    I will leave it to you to demonstrate how the use of colored in colored people, coloreds, colored person differs (or not), how the combinations of colored and various nouns differ in their referents and frequency regionally and temporally. DCDuring TALK 13:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    So just create colored + every noun where it's attested? Surely that makes things worse not better because it divides up the usage notes over several entries instead of one, so it makes understanding the word colored harder, not easier. Is that your intention, to make comprehension more difficult? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Colored isn't really a slur; in the early twentieth century it was a polite form of reference, avoiding the negative connotations of "black" and "African", hence the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Fashions change, which is why once-polite terms like "colored" and "negro" aren't used much anymore, except historically or by people who for one reason or another refuse to say "black" or "African-American". Some may do so because they find current terms too dignified, but that doesn't make the older words ethnic slurs.
The real argument here is that anyone looking up colored person will find colored, which already covers the usage in question. If we include colored person, then we would logically need to include colored man, colored woman, colored boy, colored girl, colored child, colored baby, colored folks, colored doctor, colored nurse, colored driver, colored servant, colored manservant, colored teacher, colored maid, colored singer, colored musician, and on and on and on, all of which use the exact same meaning of the word. Which, as the nominator points out, we would also want to do with white [whatever], black [whatever], negro [whatever], [whatever] of color, and a host of other terms used to describe ethnicity. Why do this, if the meaning of the phrase colored [whatever] is reasonably transparent? A previous debate over the same topic, linked at top, resulted in the rejection of this method for "white". Why should there be a different result here? P Aculeius (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
re: "Colored isn't really a slur". I never said it was. But what is it? It took @P Aculeius quite a few sentences to give even a partial explanation.
It seems to me that we never undertake to cover this kind of thing very accurately, let alone thoroughly. Our entry for colored has: "Of skin color other than the white; in particular: black." Black was not even linked to the entry [[black]] until I just added the link. Our entry [[black]] has: "Of or relating to any of various ethnic groups having dark pigmentation of the skin. / "(chiefly historical) Designated for use by those ethnic groups which have dark pigmentation of the skin."
To omit the generally understood reference to African Americans and to blacks in South Africa is one indication of a reluctance to tackle the issue squarely and completely.
Colored person is one of a set of nominals that have been used to label various groups of people. Users may find entries for nigger, nigga, negro, black, darkie, African-American, colored, etc as nouns, but not black person, African-American person, colored person]] even though these convey something different, less abusive IMO, that the corresponding bare adjectives used as nouns.
We have been increasingly deciding to keep entries of the form [ADJ + NOUN] that combine the most generic noun used with a given highly restricted sense of an adjective. This seems to be an expedient to elicit a more intuitive understanding of the term, of the special meaning of the adjective in such use, and to facilitate comparison of nominal terms-in-use.
When we follow the other course and delete such entries, we often don't take the opportunity to enhance the restricted definition of the adjective or noun. IOW we often justify deletion based on it being SoP given ideal definitions of the component terms, while in fact having only abridged-dictionary-level (or worse) definitions of the terms. DCDuring TALK 13:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
You could have said all that without complaining about all the reading you had to do to get to the part of my comment you felt necessary to criticize as a "partial explanation". But exactly what did you think you were implying when you introduced the subject of Wiktionary's coverage of ethnic slurs into the discussion? You could just make your point without trying to make other contributors wish they hadn't spoken up. P Aculeius (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also[edit]

Erm it's a book quotation. Equinox 11:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Why was this created? It's not a word or an idiom. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
It is a proverb, I assume that is why it was created. - TheDaveRoss 12:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not claiming to be a proverb. Maybe it is, I've never heard of it as a proverb. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete IMO. I doubt the current usage-note-y last part of the definition is discernible in many examples. The "proverb" itself seems straightforwardly intelligible. Compare "He who fights with monsters should take care lest he thereby become a monster." - -sche (discuss) 00:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete. I see no usage that I would call proverbial. Almost all of the readily visible usage has it in quotation marks and/or with the chapter and verse of Matthew (KJV) from which it is taken. I would think that something is arguably not a proverb until at least it appears without attribution in a significant portion of its uses. DCDuring TALK 00:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete. In its original context, it's just part of a larger passage, and its use elsewhere is only to remind one of that larger passage- because it's the most memorable turn of phrase in it. It's not really a thing on its own, and for that reason, the "definition" is really just a sort of vague explanation of the larger passage. Without the larger context, there's something tautological about it, and it's hard to imagine how to define it as a phrase in isolation. This isn't the sum of its parts, it's the sum of other parts. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
As for it being a tautology: it is what it is. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete not dictionary material. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Pippi Longstocking[edit]

Fictional character. Per Talk:Clifford the Big Red Dog... etc. etc. Equinox 14:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete, what in the world has this got to do with a dictionary? Why would the name of a fictional person be allowed but not the name of a reason person? Why not Tony Blair, Boris Johnson, etc., etc., etc. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I assume that the difference is that Tony Blair is the same in other languages, but fictional characters tend to get translated. I would probably keep it (and the translations). SemperBlotto (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the main reason I created the article was that: a fictional character has different names in various languages. IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 08:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The names are not all that different: most seem to be word-for-word translations, in any case Czech Pipi Dlouhá punčocha, German Pippi Langstrumpf, Swedish Pippi Långstrump, Italian Pippi Calzelunghe. Winnie the Pooh had a much better case for translations with e.g. Polish Kubuś Puchatek or Danish Peter Plys. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: yes, but even there most translations contain the word for "bear" (e.g. the German, French, Japanese or Portuguese ones). In any case, though Pippi Longstocking's are mostly word-to-word, those words are put together, so if you don't speak a certain language you may not know how to say, in this case, "long stocking"; I don't see why we shouldn't keep it just because translations "aren't interesting": the name is translated and that's enough (at least in my opinion). IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 08:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@User:IvanScrooge98: For Pooh: yes, some are pretty straightforward, but interestingly many aren't. For Pippi, which are the translations that you find interesting and not straightforward?
As for whether a fictional character name is translated and that is enough, that will not find many supporters here, I fear. I for one support a much broader inclusion of names of fictional characters than is currently stipulated at WT:FICTION. I would like to see a proper Gollum entry and Shelob (Czech Odula). For Pooh, I provided a reasonably conservative rationale that stands a chance of appealing even to some fict-char-doubters. "Is translated at all => keep if attested" is too incusionist for many's taste, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: I guess you're right, my argument may seem really weak to many users. So, as you proposed, I have to agree it'd be better to include it in the appendix rather than keep it as an entry.
I don't think that's a good idea. Appendix:Fictional characters was deleted, with discussion at Appendix_talk:Fictional_characters. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: oops, I'm sorry. I noticed there are still four pages in that Appendix which weren't deleted. IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 10:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: unlike most fictional characters, Pippi Longstocking carries a lexical meaning (like Pollyanna or Sherlock Holmes or Godzilla or Cinderella, only with different shades of meaning). People with traits resembling Pippi Longstocking are often described as Pippi Longstockings, which argues strongly in favour of keeping an entry, albeit with a different definition than the current one. This seems to be mostly an oral phenomenon, but there are dozens of references in modern fiction, where someone is described as "(just) a (regular, veritable) Pippi Longstocking" or something along those lines, with no further explanation required. Perhaps something along the lines of, (from the fictional character created by Astrid Lindgren): a person, especially a girl or woman, characterized by flamboyant red hair, especially in pigtails; or given to headstrong, wild behaviour, flights of fancy, or irrepressible optimism. It's true that many fictional characters could be treated this way, but relatively few actually are. P Aculeius (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I've attempted to fix it along lexical lines with citations. Better? P Aculeius (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@P Aculeius: I've made sone further fixes. BTW, thanks a lot for the quotations! IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 15:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, it does not make much sense to discuss fictional characters one by one, see the Category:en:Fictional characters, e.g. Care Bear. --Hekaheka (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're getting at. However, the definition of "Care Bear" is the set of merchandised characters, and all three citations are references to the characters as characters and/or merchandise. In other words, they're all references to actual Care Bears, not to other people or things being characterized by referring to them as Care Bears. Nobody is being described as a Care Bear with the expectation that people will know what is intended. Maybe someone could do so (despite the fact that Care Bears all look somewhat different and have differing personalities, so it might be hard to convey much meaning in this way), but in the examples provided, they haven't; so there's no lexical meaning to the name as used in the entry. P Aculeius (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
So, what are we going to do? Now that there are two meanings as a noun, I suggest we should keep it. IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 14:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how having the names of fictional characters because they have translations is the job of a dictionary. All words and all idioms in all languages, not everything with a possible translation in any language. If we're going to do this, let's not pretend it's anything to do with being a dictionary. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not being kept because it's translated into other languages. It's being kept because it has specific meanings that are used independently of references to the actual character. P Aculeius (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
If no one else has got anything against, I would consider this debate finished. In any case, let's wait until tomorrow. IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 17:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hồ Chí Minh[edit]

this is a proper nounJohnny Shiz (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz Nobody said proper nouns are not allowed. Please carefully read WT:CFI. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Proper nouns are allowed, but names with surname and given name are not allowed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Well... it has a surname that's not his own, and a given name that's not a real given name. CFI does not cover this as far as I can tell, but I would not want George Orwell to be included, so by that logic of rejecting pseudonyms and noms de (plume|guerre), I vote delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Question - is Ho Chi Minh City ever just called "Hồ Chí Minh" in Vietnamese (as it often is English)? Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Wyang (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The sense "short name of city" would be fine, but that's not in the entry, and it's not what this RFD is about. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I have changed {{rfd}} to {{rfd-sense}} for the individual sense. Keep the city sense, if it's valid. The string "tôi (sống) ở Hồ Chí Minh" ("I live in Ho Chi Minh") gives a lot of hits in plain Google searches but nothing in Google books. A better method should be used for verifications. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Who's to say the Google hits weren't all written by bacteria in Mr. Ho's body? ;) I kid. The city sense is fine. - -sche (discuss) 02:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete (the biographical sense) per WT:CFI: "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney." That prohibition does not say "...name or patronymic that was given to the person at birth"; on the contrary, it bans a biographical entry at "Walt Disney" for the man whose legal name was not Walt but rather Walter Disney. I wouldn't want to include Bill Clinton, either, just because that is neither his birth name nor his legal name. - -sche (discuss) 23:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

As my little knowledge, Hồ Chí Minh is the designated name by Vietnamese people; it is not actually his birth name or family name at all. So it does not fall in as -sche said. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You appear to have not read what I (quoting CFI) actually said... CFI does not require that the first or last name have been given to him at birth. - -sche (discuss) 06:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps I was misunderstanding. Your words made me confused. :) However, I stand for keeping. BTW, should we move the sense to Etymology instead?--Octahedron80 (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete the person as a sense; could link to him at Wikipedia I suppose. Equinox 07:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


晩 vs 晚. 晩 generally not used for Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It is if you take into account usages of it in calligraphy. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
@Tooironic I guess we should include these for traditional Chinese, but see these edits at 晩餐 and 今晩. The simplified Chinese version should not exist though, or at most only as a hard redirect (when there's no Japanese). @Wyang, what are your thoughts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I have made the relevant edits at 晚餐 and 今晚. Keep of course. The variant character is easily attested in calligraphic works. See here. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I think we should keep it as a variant. It's also accepted as a variant character in the Dictionary of Chinese Character Variants. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should. This (晩) is a Japanese-only character, representing shinjitai of kyuujitai (晚). The reason Unicode uses two distinct codepoints for the same character is because the original JIS X 0208 Japanese codeset used two codepoints for these two, as is the case with most shinjitai and kyuujitai. It does not represent a variant in Chinese calligraphy, and it doesn't make sense to mix Japanese-only and Chinese Unicode characters. Wyang (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I guess if we think of it from a technical standpoint, it should not be kept, but if we look at the display of the character in most fonts, it is a valid Chinese character supported by ancient Chinese dictionaries like 類篇, 俗書刊誤, 字彙 and 字彙補. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Since it can be attested in calligraphy it should be kept. If we don't include that information at the entry for , where else could we include it? There are no other characters that could represent this variant, and there are no rules stating that some characters can only be used in Japanese. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
By similar loɡic one could say that ɡ, as the script form of g, should be included as an alternate spellinɡ for every word that contains a g. Never mind that ɡ is "technically" designated as for IPA.suzukaze (tc) 07:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. This is something that should be handled at the character page level, not applied to all compound pages containing this character. The reason they are called 異體字 not 正體字 (http://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/shuo/fshuo5.htm) is that they are calligraphic variants of the same character not orthographic variants (i.e. different characters), according to the various regional character standardisation documents. We are not going to multiply the number of entries containing 晚 by ten to list all the possible variants of 晚. They are calligraphic variants, even though many are still commonly used in modern calligraphy. Our coverage on these should be limited to character pages, mainly using images of calligraphic variants (alongside forms in different calligraphic styles), and codepoints if applicable. Wyang (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough then. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your thorough explanation. I guess it makes sense to just have 晚 forms for compounds. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

What does it mean 'evening paper'? Please explain. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

An evening paper is a newspaper that is printed and delivered in the evening. Before the internet, the biggest newspapers had a morning paper and an evening paper. —Stephen (Talk) 03:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I think that this is comparable to g/ɡ, so it should not be kept. The "calligraphic" argument is also kind of weak; I can see usage of 语 in this 1886 book but 言语 is probably unacceptable as a "traditional variant". —suzukaze (tc) 08:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree. That's why I brought up the ancient dictionaries and the variant dictionary. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Nibiko (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. Wyang (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


晩 is never used in simplified Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Nibiko (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. Wyang (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


rfd-sense: an organisation using specified programming languages or software, often exclusively.

An unnecessarily specific form of "Workplace; office. Used mainly in expressions such as shop talk, closed shop and shop floor." Similar forms can be found well before computer programming was a thing. For example, welding places that specialize in arc welding are "arc shops":

  • 1935, Welding Engineer
    It is bad enough when two shops of equal merit as to personnel and equipment cut prices to get work, but it is even worse when a gas shop tries to compete with an arc shop for arc jobs, or an arc shop competes with a gas shop for gas jobs.
  • 1979, Association of Iron and Steel Engineers, Year Book - Association of Iron and Steel Engineers
    The transfer of the Llanwern-type collection technology to an arc shop was relatively simple.

and a steelworks that uses the Bessemer process is a "Bessemer shop":

  • 1956, Great Britain. Iron and Steel Board, British Iron and Steel Federation, Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau, British Steel Corporation, British Independent Steel Producers' Association, Iron and Steel
    The next steelmaking plant to be laid down in the area was a Bessemer shop and rail mill at Moss Bay, Workington, in 1877.
  • 1971, Harold E. McGannon, The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel
    In addition to the auxiliary equipment necessary for an open-hearth shop, much of the apparatus necessary for a Bessemer shop also had to be provided.

and so on. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I think we should try to somehow define or at least illustrate the differences between seller/fabricator of certain goods or service (as in the welding example) and more-or-less-exclusive user of a given technology or brand (as in the Bessemer examples). The latter would be a despecialization of the sense under challenge.
The whole noun PoS could use some rationalization. Eg, why is there a special definition for car repair? DCDuring TALK 10:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


Sum-of-parts. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This has an entry in Thai SEAlang originating in the [www.sealang.net/thai/tdp.htm "The Mary Haas Thai Dictionary Project" (TDP)]. There's always difficulties with compounding languages and languages that don't use word breaks. Since SEAlang has multiple sources but only one for this word we could infer that it might go too far in including SOP terms compared to other Thai dictionaries. We should probably go for a consensus among our Thai experts and multiple dictionaries in such cases. The same goes for Chinese, Khmer, Lao, Vietnamese. — hippietrail (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


Sum-of-parts. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot meanings of จับตัว. Look for it in longdo.com. Please see if they are similar or distinct meanings from จับ (?) --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

As with จับได้ above, it's in SEAlang but the same caveats apply so as a class such terms need some thought by all our major Thai experts and the conclusions should apply to other scriptio continua languages and influence those of compounding languages. — hippietrail (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


"The concatenation operator in Lua." Not part of a human language; not used in running text, only in source code. Remember how the APL symbol entries were deleted. We don't include keywords like endif either unless they have entered English grammatically. Equinox 12:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, here is a list of the operators in just one language (Perl): [24]. Equinox 12:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
IMO, we should keep some symbols of programming languages like this. Other examples: = (assignment operator) and == (comparison operator). See also the multiple meanings of $. The full list of existing entries for programming/computing symbols should be at Category:mul:Programming and Category:mul:Computing.
Related discussions created by Equinox recently: User talk:Daniel Carrero#Entries like /* */ and User talk:Octahedron80#Programming operators. In the latter, @Octahedron80 asked: "why the mathematical symbols and emojis can be included here if they are not the human language?" (but, to be fair, emojis do feel like human language to me, as in, they're used in human text :) :p :/) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least move to an Appendix. It's not a word and not in a language. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    Shouldn't the "parent directory" sense also be deleted? --WikiTiki89 21:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep because operators are the symbols that have been used for decades like other deciplines' ones (such as mathematics, thermodynamics, engineering, linguistics, medicine, etc) and have been used in many textbooks. You might think that they are not read by human? No, they are actually read by human so we can write the codes meaningfully. (That is we call the high-level programming language.) Machines do not directly read codes; the codes must be compiled to binary values so they will understand in background. You should not just want to delete them because you do not know. In the contrast, there are many symbols out there that are generally not used in human languages (and sometimes we do not understand their specialities) still exist in this project. Additionally, there is also other meaning of .. as a range either, for example 1..5 mean from 1 to 5. I must admit that most of programming languages are from English but symbols are translingual. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I did not understand the part "You should not just want to delete them because you do not know." Were you assuming something about the nominator's knowledge of programming languages? That aside, I agree with most of what you said. I added the "range operator" sense now in .. per your comment. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I apologise if my message bothered you. My point is that we want to expand reader's knowledge who never know them before. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Your message didn't actually bother me, I just found it a little odd at first, but that's OK. Thanks for the clarification. That's a good point, too, IMO. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • A question to keepers: Shall we include JOptionPane (Java), std::cin (C++), equ (Win Batch), foreach (Perl) as quasi-attested in source code? All keywords and all APIs in computing languages, quasi-attested in source code? Why is the Equinox rationale "not used in running text" not good enough for deletion? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    • The very basic keywords like int, integer, short, long, double, real, bool, boolean, string, begin, end, if, else, elseif, endif, while, do, loop, for, foreach, try, catch, class, object, array, table, function, return, etc. and programming operators (might be symbolic or mnemonic) should be include because they reflect the basic concept of computer science. Note that same keywords and operators are usually used in many languages. (And I know many languages.) Other advanced classes and libraries (JOptionPane & std::cin) should not be included because they are language-specific. The string concatenation is an essential concept or we could not see wanted messages. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
      I don't have any strong opinion concerning terms like int, integer, begin, end, etc. Currently, endif is defined as English for "(computing) A directive, in several programming languages, that marks the end of an if statement, especially one containing multiple if .. then .. else statements". I don't particularly like when I see those defined as English entries, but that's just a gut feeling that I don't feel able to translate in rational thinking yet. I wonder if one could make the argument that, if the plural is attestable ("endifs"), then maybe it really counts as an English word, but then again, "There are 5 thes in that sentence." would not make "thes" attestable.
      I just wanted to create entries for some programming symbols because some already existed and they seemed a good idea to understand the syntax of programming languages. If anything, I don't think removing all computing senses from, say, + would turn out to be very helpful. Since there are math, genetics, electricity, chess and whatever other senses in that entry, it would feel incomplete (at least IMHO) if it does not have some computing senses too. (unless someone proposes a wider project of removing many Translingual symbols from various contexts) This discussion feels more about general policies for the inclusion of programming language terms rather than a request for the deletion of a sense of .. specifically so I wonder if there are any computing symbols that everybody would want to see in our entries, like perhaps @ (in e-mails) and logical symbols like &&. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    Consideration of the form "X should not be included because they are language-specific" is not related in any way to WT:CFI, AFAICT. Furthermore, in relation to that consideration, Perl ".." and Lua ".." are language-specific: multiple widely used programming languages do not have the operator. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see why one sense is nominated and not the other two. Are any of the three used in human language? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom: "Not part of a human language; not used in running text, only in source code." In my words, this does not seem attested in use to convey meaning; "use" in the middle of computer code is not use in English. This could thus go to RFV, but there, a discussion could arise about whether various quotations count as attesting, so let us have it in RFD and handle it here. As for the other two senses, these should be deleted as well; the third one was added after this RFD nomination in diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

non vessel operating common carrier[edit]

Created that page with wrong spelling, moved page to new title (twice, actually). Please remove, thanks. --Jerome Potts (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The definition on page is a copyvio from the reference given and looks wrong. Judging from Google Books the term looks limited to US maritime law and therefore the correct definition would seem to need to indicate that. It should be possible to find the correct definition in US CFR from which a word-for-word copy would not be a copyright violation. DCDuring TALK 14:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted by Equinox. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

berde ug dugo[edit]

Created the page with using ug instead of og. Carl Francis (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted by SemperBlotto. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


Seriously? Does anyone really use such a term in speech? Greats after a certain number start to get difficult to count. 2602:306:3653:8920:C531:D028:8E0:2504 00:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedied. I redirected it to great-grandfather. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone? Yes, they do:
  • 2012, Matt Chandler, The Explicit Gospel, page 119:
    Do you know your great-great-great-great-great-great grandfatherʼs name? It wasn't that long ago.
We established a rule specific to constructions like these by a vote some years ago, at Wiktionary:Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables. The rule is, if it is attested (which this one is), it is hard-redirected to the entry having three repetitions, in this case great-great-great-grandfather. bd2412 T 02:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Five greats is the most I hear outside of genealogical circles (which can go on indefinitely, but these days are typically abbreviated to the jargony "4th Great, 6 Great, 8G"). That's probably because few people other than genealogists know their genealogy back more than seven generations in any line, and also likely because it's increasingly easy to lose track of how many times you say "great" with each repetition. But I agree: as long as it's noted that one can keep adding more, there's no good reason for each repetition to have a separate entry. Even those famous genealogists and coiners of words, the Romans, stopped at three greats (avus=grandfather, proavus=great-grandfather, abavus=great-great-grandfather, adavus or atavus=great-great-great-grandfather), and thereafter resorted to other means of counting generations. P Aculeius (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It basically becomes an RfV problem. You'd be amazed at how many greats get three attestations in print. bd2412 T 03:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Given my druthers, I'd have redirected to great- Purplebackpack89 03:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Another consideration: what do we do for translations of these terms? For example, Serbocroatian has a unique word navrndeda for great-great-great-grandfather, which is a redirect right now. In fact, it has terms like this up to the 11th generation, albeit we lack entries for some of them and they get harder to attest after the 8th. Vorziblix (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
If it's attestable in Serbo-Croatian, then there should be a Serbo-Croatian entry. But there doesn't have to be a corresponding English entry in order to translate it into English; if vasoflorbella means "beautiful flowers in a vase" in Broglish, that doesn't mean that beautiful flowers in a vase should have its own entry in English. P Aculeius (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Sure, the issues being that (1) beautiful flowers in a vase isn’t itself a word in English, in contrast to great-great-..., (2) probably few or no other languages have a word meaning beautiful flowers in a vase, so that having translations for it isn’t particularly useful, but a larger number of languages have extensive systems of kinship terms, and (3) we do already have entries that exist only for translation purposes, such as day after tomorrow, so current consensus seems to be that such an argument doesn’t necessarily hold. Vorziblix (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so quick to assume that few or no other languages have a word meaning "beautiful flowers in a vase". There is a language with a single word for "he had had in his possession a bunchberry plant". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
You’re right, polysynthetic languages entirely slipped my mind. At any rate, however the community chooses to deal or not deal with this is all right with me. Vorziblix (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • great-great-great-grandfather should be made a soft-redirect to allow entering the translation, IMHO. This is enabled by Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Repetitions via "The above treatment may be overriden by consensus, for example where a variation having four repetitions is more common, or where an additional repetition would cause the word to shift to a different pronunciation or intonation." --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would make sense, especially given that previous consensus seems to allow for entries such as dark red, in the future, day after tomorrow, &c. for translation purposes. Vorziblix (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep if it meets citation requirements – why not? Ƿidsiþ 08:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

戰爭之舞, 战争之舞[edit]

Sum of parts. Wyang (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

By Tooironic. Is there perhaps a dictionary that has the term and would allow us to invoke the lemming heuristic? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
No Chinese-Chinese dictionary has this. Native speakers perceive this to be sum of parts. Wyang (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
This is the English Wiktionary, intended to serve a broad variety of audiences and a broad variety of purposes. Tooironic is a "professional translator (Chinese into English)", and if he considers the entry worthwhile, we should give it a thought. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
All opinions should be weighed by their persuasiveness not their origins. Wyang (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I was referring to your calling out "native speakers". My point is that what native Chinese speakers think is not the only consideration. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
And pointing out that the creator of the entry is a professional translator is not the fallacy of irrelevance ad hominem: it is perfectly reasonable to think that, in general, a professional translator has a better idea of what is useful in translation than someone who is not a translator. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
If a combination of words in a language is used only to render a foreign set phrase in translation, and is considered a non-word by native speakers, then it should be deleted. This is the case of a translation-only sum-of-parts non-English entry, which is not allowed on Wiktionary. Your proving the author's better judgement on translation usefulness would corroborate its deletion. You should perhaps argue that translators may have a non-inferior judgement of what is sum of parts and what is not, compared to native speakers. Wyang (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure I fully understand the above, but the above statement about what is "not allowed" is not traceable to a discussion or a vote, AFAIK, and therefore, is not obvious to be supported by consensus. For me, usefulness is key, including usefulness in translation. Excluding every and any sum of parts term is not supported by consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Usefulness in translation ({{translation only}}) is never a consideration in foreign-language entries, and you need to provide proof for your claim that translation-only sum-of-parts non-English entries are allowed on Wiktionary. WT:SOP states that sum of parts are generally to be deleted, unless you can show that inclusion of this specific term is beneficial, which I fail to see from your arguments so far. Wyang (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
To the contrary, the above claim that something is disallowed by consensus requires a proof. The reader will note that I have not voted yet; instead, I pinged the creator of the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

可讀音性, 可读音性[edit]

Reraising the deletion request. Not a word; sum of parts. Unattestable. Wyang (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Entered to mean "pronounceability". The previous RFD discussion is at Talk:可耕地, where User:TAKASUGI Shinji and User:Tooironic voted "keep" on this term. Attestation is dealt with in WT:RFV rather than WT:RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
No attestation could be provided on previous rfd. Not included in any Chinese-Chinese dictionary. Wyang (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
If you believe this term is not attested, please send the term to WT:RFV. Lack of attestation is out of scope of RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
If a word is a non-word, sum of parts and unattestable at the same time, it should stay in RFD. Wyang (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

劉麟之, 刘麟之; 劉子驥, 刘子骥; 子驥, 子驥[edit]

Names. Wyang (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete 劉麟之 and 劉子驥; weak keep 子驥 since CFI seems to say that only names with family and given components cannot stay. —suzukaze (tc) 09:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    This is Chinese - given names are random combinations. We will have > 50000 + 50000 ^ 2 + 50000 ^ 3 = 1.25 × 1014 Chinese given names if we decide to keep all. Wyang (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    Are really so many combinations attested in use? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    [25]. Wyang (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    The above linked picture shows China population. In fact, it was obvious from the outset that the answer to my question is, no, there are not 10E14 attested Chinese names, and therefore, it is not true that we will have over 10E14 names if we decide to keep all attested person names. Furthermore, it is not all or nothing; the nominated entries are not names of some random people. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • These are person names. The applicable policy is WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete 劉麟之, 刘麟之, 劉子驥, 刘子骥 per CFI, as they are combinations of a given name and a last name. - -sche (discuss) 15:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted the four combinations: 劉麟之, 刘麟之; 劉子驥, and 刘子骥. The two given names are still to be discussed. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

澤東, 近平[edit]

I don't think Chinese given names should not be included, since any character can be a given name and any combination of two characters can be a given name. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete. On top of those very good reasons, I'd say that these Chinese given name entries don't add anything. The readings are predictable from the individual character entries. This, that and the other (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
(relevant: Category_talk:Mandarin_given_names)—suzukaze (tc)

Deleted. Wyang (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


Incorrect simplified to traditional conversion of 古板 (gǔbǎn). is only used in 老闆. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. Wyang (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


The given definition ("be deceived by a fox") is transparent ( (kitsune, "fox") + (ni, "passive particle") + 化かされる (bakasareru, "be deceived")). 大辞泉/Daijisen, 大辞林/Daijirin, and 実用日本語表現辞典/Jitsuyō Nihongo Hyōgen Jiten do include 狐につままれる but they give more than just a literal definition for that. Nibiko (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


RFD-sense: "a familiar way of calling someone whose given name ends with 山 (shān)". SOP: can be placed before any given name's last character to make a nickname. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

twenty-five past[edit]

Sum of parts. Similar constructions could be made with a wide variety of numbers. --Romanophile (contributions) 20:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete, but a series of appendices on the formation of numerical time words, in English first but in other languages as well, would be desirable. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete. We already have this sense at past:
(postmodifier) Following expressions of time to indicate how long ago something happened; ago. [from 15th c.]
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
twenty-five past does not mean "twenty-five ago", nor does it mean "twenty-five (minutes or hours or seconds) ago".
It means "twenty-five minutes past an hour previously mentioned or otherwise derived from context. DCDuring TALK 23:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete as it stands. Possibly a full sentence would make a good example for the phrasebook, though, e.g. "it's twenty-five past ten". Equinox 10:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
There has been a pretty good usage note covering this at past. The problem with the Usage notes IMO is that it wants to link to SoP examples. DCDuring TALK 13:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The entry was meant as a translation target or a phrasebook entry or both. No-one says it's idiomatic. Convert to either of these and keep. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Are we supposed to keep these so someone can feel good because they think they are making a valuable contribution by adding a translation? Is there any evidence that anyone looks up such a term?
What makes this more of target than twenty past or twenty-two past?
Advocating that this kind of entry be retained as a translation target (a non-CFI argument to begin with) discredits the use of that argument for other entries, IMO.
Some things are better not treated as lexical items. This class is one of them. Perhaps it belongs at WikiTranslationDrill. DCDuring TALK 14:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Time expressions are common in phrasebooks and they introduced in the first lessons of most language textbooks. I just think they belong here. No, this particular expression is not better than twenty past or twenty-two past. A few examples about time is enough. Just my opinion. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 15:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

מנא מנא תקל ופרסין[edit]

It's a cryptic quotation (Daniel 5:25), but certainly not an idiomatic phrase. --WikiTiki89 21:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. We're not Wikiquote. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
For the sake of full disclosure or whatever, this was discussed before, which I had forgotten about: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/July#the writing on the wall. --WikiTiki89 20:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

do God's work[edit]

I may be mistaken, but that looks SOP to me. do + God's + work; do the work of God. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"God's work" might have some figurative sense, but yes, the "do" is redundant. It's like having "be black as night" instead of "black as night". Equinox 17:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to God's work, which is definitely idiomatic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I have created God's work Purplebackpack89 19:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Redirect per Metaknowledge and PBP89. DCDuring TALK 21:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. God's work looks wrong at the moment because it doesn't reference Christianity or any other religions. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Right. I've been looking for helpful citations for real definitions. One definition is something like "work in accordance with god's will". Another might be "the business of a religion or church". A third might be "work for good". It is the last that anyone, including secularists, might use in praise or encouragement. I find that last hard to cite, though I use it myself and expect people not to think that I have found religion when I use it. DCDuring TALK 22:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Same here, @DCDuring, hence why the definition as currently worded favors your third way of conceptualizing it. @Renard Migrant I do not believe that "God's work" is universally a religious sense. Purplebackpack89 22:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Can't find cites for it. We need cites when no dictionary (not even OED) has it as an entry. It may well be that the secular version is an echo of the first sense, but it could be that no print source wants to risk offense by using it. Maybe Usenet. DCDuring TALK 23:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


Some people think this is a sum of parts. See also Talk:accordion player.

As for myself, abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


Someone seems to think this is a sum of parts.

As for myself, abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

A bunch of names with the surname 李[edit]

WT:NSE. All (surname) + given name:

— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Delete all. Wyang (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 02:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


「ようだ」 is the Terminal form of the adjectival noun 様 (よう ). I have transferred the information that was on the page I am nominating to be deleted to the entry for 様, as is generally done for Japanese terms spelled with a single Kanji. I have also added a link with notes to the page 「よう」, which has multiple meanings. Since the page ようだ now contains no unique information and since it is merely an inflection of an adjective, it should be deleted and made to redirect to either 「よう」 or 「様#Japanese」. --Jln Dlphk (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Delete or redirectsuzukaze (tc) 20:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Goo Dictionary has an entry: [26]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with suzukaze on this one: delete or redirect. I know that many monolingual JA dictionaries list 様だ / ようだ ‎(yō da) as an entry, but this has always puzzled me -- in functional terms, this is a -na adjective, so why the special treatment? Other -na adjectives are listed with the bare term, minus the da or na on the end. I'd recommend similar handling for this term.
Because other monolingual JA dictionaries include 様だ / ようだ as a headword, I'm leaning more towards redirect. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
For me, ようだ and そうだ are single grammatical units. They are verbal endings rather than nouns. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I would agree that the よう () in 見よう (miyō, volitional of 見る, miru, “to see”) is a verbal ending. However, this よう is distinct from 様 () as discussed above: this volitional よう derives from 見む (mimu) → 見う (miu) → 見う (myō) → 見よう (miyō). The よう from the noun 様 () functions more as a distinct entity, as in その様な物 (sono yō na mono, “that kind of thing”), or そうする様になれば (sō suru yō ni nareba, “if it becomes that things are done in that way”) -- when this よう follows verbs, it follows the attributive form, not the continuative form, and thus it does not seem to be a verbal ending.
Or am I misunderstanding something here? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I’m not talking about the volitional よう. Speaking of ようだ, it looks just like a suffix. I think it is because adjectival nouns cannot be modified by a verb or by a noun.
Follows a verb
or の?
If followed by a noun Traditional
ようす Sometimes ようすの Noun
はず Always はずの Noun
たしか Never たしかな Adjectival noun
よう Always ような Jodōshi*
Jodōshi is an inflectional suffix in modern terminology. For me, よう has really lost a function as a noun. (Or the only noun with those features.) Goo Dictionary has entries for このよう, そのよう, あのよう and どのよう. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


Wrong pinyin for 碘酊 (diǎndīng). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Tooironic if you all agree it's a redirect just delete it. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
And yet moedict has dǐng as the pinyin reading for 酊. This would make it a valid entry, though obviously 碘酊 has to be edited accordingly. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Tooironic 酊 is a 多音字. Moedict only has one of the readings. The entry for 酊 points to 酩酊, which has nothing to do with the loan word 酊, meaning tincture. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right, I should have checked the guifan cidian, which has it all laid out clearly: 酊 dīng 名拉丁语 tinctura 音译。指酊剂。碘酊 | 颠茄酊 | 酊 dǐng: 见“酩(mǐng)酊”。Delete this entry accordingly. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. Wyang (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

ditch day[edit]

Sense 2, the "Caltech tradition". This seems like it is at the wrong capitalization, but the correctly capitalized form would be entirely encyclopedic. bd2412 T 01:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I'm sure you could come up with an analogous example sentence for any school that has a ditch day (I remember the term from high school, over 40 years ago). The practice at Caltech is only different in being a bit more institutionalized, not in anything lexically significant. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Delete per Chuck. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
"A tradition in which Caltech seniors leave the campus for the day and underclassmen attempt to break into their stacks." What sense of stack is this? Oh and delete obviously as a specific example of sense #1 not a different definition. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
This sense: "(US, slang) At Caltech, a lock, obstacle, or puzzle designed to prevent underclassmen from entering a senior's room during ditch day." Equinox 12:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I would delete that sense of "stack" too, or RfV it under standards comparable to WT:BRAND. bd2412 T 21:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Lexical significance is not in CFI. (Is this notability under another name?) I see no argument advanced that would lead to deletion.
Move to RfV. I wonder whether it appears in any publication except the student newspaper, for which multiple articles may be deemed not independent. DCDuring TALK 13:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, sense in question is not lexically distinct from sense 1. This would be like having a separate sense under Thanksgiving for each individual family's Thanksgiving traditions. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
If there was attestation for the name referring to ANY real or fictional supplementary tradition not a direct implication of the main definition, CFI would seem to warrant its inclusion as a subsense. That the absence of seniors should lead to some kind of vandalism is not an inevitable consequence.
That we are without good principles to apply is the inevitable consequence of having no specific criteria for inclusion of many classes of proper nouns. Perhaps we need some kind of notability criteria for such things, but we don't now have such criteria and are making unprincipled decisions not readily defensible to contributors. DCDuring TALK 14:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I think we would merely be conflating the event of a day when people ditch school with traditions incidental to such a day. Consider, by comparison, freshman orientation. Every college has this, and many colleges have specific traditions observed in connection with the day. In theory, we could have a thousand entries for definitions of "freshman orientation" with variations on a day when new students are oriented to their school combined with a tradition specific to that school. Or, as with Angr's Thanksgiving example, we could add to that definition, "and on which a meal of turkey is traditionally served"; but then needing a separate definition line for families who traditionally have a ham or go out for Peking duck. bd2412 T 21:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Delete per Angr. - -sche (discuss) 21:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

artistic revolution[edit]

Sum of parts as currently defined: An abrupt change from one art movement to another. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 21:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Delete. I came across this whilst browsing the transwiki logs and I noted how it had even been identified as SOP on the talk page. Nibiko (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

weak spot[edit]

Testicles are one particular weak spot, but that doesn't make "weak spot" mean "testicles". (Similarly, we don't have an entry for "green fruit" defined as "kiwi".) Equinox 12:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Something like "a vulnerable area; a place that is more vulnerable than others". Donnanz (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as defined. No strong objection to a general definition of this term as a point of vulnerability. bd2412 T 21:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
    That's what I meant. Redefine and keep. It is probably a subject for the Tea Room. Donnanz (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Used in a sexual context (susceptible body parts) as well as for the Achilles heel in fights. Equinox 22:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Delete the above-mentioned sense. I'm not sure if a general definition would be idiomatic or not; Cambridge has an entry but defines it as "a weak part in something", which makes it sound perfectly SOPpy. Collins' definitions are as overspecific as ours. - -sche (discuss) 03:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that other dictionaries have the exact sense for spot in its use in the sense "a weak part in something". It is certainly not among our definitions.
Moreover, I don't think that spot is used with other adjectives (or alone) to mean "part". It is used to mean "place". It is indicative that an antonym of "weak spot" is "strong point" (eg of an argument, probably using a non-spatial sense of point) and that "weak location/place/region/setting/situation/venue/locus/locale" are not synonyms, being mostly spatial or relying on non-spatial definitions of the nouns.
That it is a small leap from "location" to "part" for some, especially native English speakers, is probably why other (monolingual) dictionaries don't usually have entries. I believe that we usually don't assume that all of our users are capable of such a leap, however modest. DCDuring TALK 10:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Redefine and keep per Donnanz and bd2412. There should be an entry, but not with this definition. What constitutes a "weak spot" varies depending on what it's applied to. People in combat can have various weak spots, but so can walls and other inanimate objects. P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Redefine and keep the entry with the new definition, deleting "(fighting, slang) the testicles". As for lemmings, present in Collins[27] and in Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus[28]. I added definition: A location where the defenses are weak or the vulnerability is great. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ƿidsiþ 08:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


Sum of parts in Chinese. ---> Tooironic (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. Wyang (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


This is a misspelling of assentiendus. I created this page a moment ago myself by accident, clicking on a link at variant adsentiendus to the empty page for this misspelled gerundive. I realised once I saw the misspelling I should have corrected the link (which I have since done) rather than create the new page.

Deleted. For future reference, completely obvious cases such as this one should be tagged with {{delete}}, so they can be deleted immediately without cluttering the request pages. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

soft underbelly[edit]

I restored this; it was deleted in September 2008, seemingly speedy deleted. I find attestations like this:

  • "Exploring the soft underbelly of adaptation decisions and actions ..."
  • "... effort to slit the soft underbelly of Europe ..."
  • 'The Caribbean was America's “soft underbelly” near its strategic Panama Canal sea link.'
  • "This issue is the soft underbelly of the adoption industry in America."
  • "It is the soft underbelly and Achilles' heel of FOREX."
  • "These examples reveal the soft underbelly of global health regimes ..."
  • "In the American historical context, the fear is embedded in the soft underbelly of the isolationist movement during the thirties."
  • "Critics of climate change research assert that uncertainty about variability is the soft underbelly of the consensus warnings of the scientific world ..."

If it is sum of parts, then of which parts? Is definition in underbelly missing, then? And even if we add definition to underbelly, should this be kept as a set phrase? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete and improve underbelly. "Dark underbelly" is also pretty common. Ƿidsiþ 08:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


WT:NSE. Surname + Given name. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. Wyang (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

hot stopper[edit]

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification#hot stopper.

Never mind. Requests for verification is where one would challenge whether a term is in use, but I didn't realize this was just a redirect left over from a page move- and we just delete those, as there's no content to verify. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

truncated icosahedron[edit]

Sum of parts. The translations are redlinks.— Pingkudimmi 09:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. There is no way to get "12 regular pentagonal faces, 20 regular hexagonal faces" from truncated and icosahedron. bd2412 T 12:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think we should keep this one, even though it is a little encyclopedic. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Withdrawn. Thanks @BD2412, SemperBlotto. Although, to be fair, the number of pentagonal faces is the number of vertices of the icosahedron, and the number of hexagonal faces is the number of triangular faces of the same. It's less obvious why they should be pentagons, but the ratio 12:60 of vertices to edges of the icosahedron should give a clue (as well as the fact that the icosahedron and dodecahedron are dual polyhedra).— Pingkudimmi 08:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

white cloth[edit]

Sum of parts? SemperBlotto (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Sense 2 is redundant to sense 1. Sense 3 requires more detail, at least: which profession wears it? Equinox 12:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 12:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The original senses 1 & 2, now 2 & 3, are SoP. It is only the third sense that needs an RfV. Also, no OneLook reference has an entry. I wonder whether it might be an idiom in India. DCDuring TALK 14:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

A bunch of wrongly lemmatised entries[edit]

The following entries represent the normalisation of the respective words but were not actually written like that:
afwölteren, wölteren, fögen, vögen, andrücken, köke, spöden, mür
They're æquivalent to Latin words being lemmatised to forms with macrons. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Korn: If these aren't the lemma spellings, then can't you just move them yourself? If you want consensus first, the correct venue for this would be WT:RFM. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I created the respective lemma entries and want these pages gone. (I can remove those which have other languages on the page as well, but I figured I'd run them through here all at once.) Doesn't removing erroneously created pages belong here? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Was there an explicit policy or decision (either favorable VOTE or BP (or WT:AGML) discussion resulting in consensus) that has led to the entry you have created, with the no-umlaut form as headword but the umlaut form on the inflection line, being deemed the standard way of presenting such words? If so, was this particular matter addressed? I hope it was, so that this kind of thing could be cleaned up systematically and completely without RfD and without any further discussion. If not, there might need to be some discussion somewhere, probably not just on this page. DCDuring TALK 22:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

A discussion was had and the participants were unanimous. So I would like to restate my wish to have these entries removed. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted per above. - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


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

Keep but correct. It's not just the name of a single amulet, it's apparently a common type of amulet. Belongs here. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
องค์จตุคามรามเทพ is quite rare. A more, and the most, common name of the amulet is จตุคามรามเทพ. --YURi (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


The creator of the entry possibly took the phrase from the name of an article on the Thai Wikipedia. And the person who created that article might have taken a "definition" provided by Lexitron Dictionary to be the name of the article. But, as I said, it's a "definition" rather than a "term". การที่ผู้ชายมีเพศสัมพันธ์กับเด็กชาย literally means "an act in which a male person has sexual relationships with a male child" or "an act of a male person having sexual relationships with a male child". As for the Thai Wikipedia's article, I will have it properly renamed later. --YURi (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


SOP: From 秦州 (Qínzhōu, “Qinzhou”) + (, “district”). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I say Redirect. Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


An insignificant typographical variation. --Romanophile (contributions) 21:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Refer to #auec (to be archived at Talk:auec). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep, it's attestable Leasnam (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I feel almost certain that we had a policy somewhere saying that variant letters like this u/v should not get separate entries. Did I dream it? Or is it in a tentative non-official policy? Or...? Equinox 03:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of such a policy. WT:About Latin says to prefer v in Latin, but practice/precedent has been to keep entries like this as alt-forms, both in English (Talk:vp, Talk:euery) and in Latin (Talk:dies Iouis, Talk:uacuus). The argument for deletion and the argument for keeping seem to be summed up well in this exchange, IMO:
I just reject the idea that vp is an obsolete spelling of up. The spelling is identical, the difference is encoding, not spelling. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
And you don't think it's a problem that the ‘encoding’ happens to be in the form of a different existing letter of the alphabet? Ƿidsiþ 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep per precedent. Alternation of two separate, still-used letters is not something that can be predicted accurately by human users (especially non-native speakers) or by the site functions we use to software-redirect things like diſtinguiſh. - -sche (discuss) 04:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

More Chinese names (surname + given name)[edit]


— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


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

  • I can't find anything either. I'll double-check my dead-tree copy of Nelson's later tonight; it's not exhaustive, but it covers most of the bases. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
If it helps (probably not), GlyphWiki lists these kanji with an on reading of hyoku sourced from the Koseki Tooitsu Moji website/database/character encoding/character set/whatever it is. —suzukaze (tc) 02:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

one hundred and twelve, one hundred and eleven [edit]

We hardly need these. Besides, the translations seem to be for 110 in both entries, except in the case Hungarian which a user kindly fixed. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Striking, as nobody else seems to have a problem with writing out every number. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


Not dictionary material. DTLHS (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep-ish, I think. I'm not sure about that. WT:CFI#Names of specific entities lets us debate those, and we do find names of specific spacecrafts in running text. But then again, Talk:Curiosity has a few terms that failed RFD. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't consider the names of specific individual vehicles to be dictionary content. Something for Wikipedia. Delete. Equinox 22:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Equinox. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • IF Stardust is not merely the name of a single vessel of which similar models with other names exist, but rather the name of a unique kind of vehicle, I'd say we keep it. Otherwise I agree with the above. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. See also Talk:Columbia. - -sche (discuss) 04:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I support keeping attested single-word names of specific entities except for those that are capitalized versions of common nouns; there are probably other exceptions. Here, stardust is a common noun. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as author --J19idf (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

fried ice cream[edit]

This was deleted under the claim that it is "SOP". If anyone read the definition provided, it clearly is not just ice cream that has been fried. There are more components to this dessert than just ice cream, so clearly is not a sum of parts definition. The deletion is unjustified under that criterion. -- 05:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

For those who can't see the deleted entry, it was defined as ice cream briefly deep fried in pastry. Equinox 21:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Batter/dough to keep the main food to be fried together is regular and expected, and thus doesn't suffice to eclipse regular frying, if you ask me. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I think we should add the sense "deep-fried in batter or dough" to our entry for fried. --WikiTiki89 19:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Recursive — and not in a good way. DCDuring TALK 22:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Deep-fried itself can also be used this way (look up "deep-fried ice cream"). Therefore, I've added a subsense like Wikitiki suggests to deep-fried, wording in a way which I think addresses the issue of recursiveness. "Fried" defines itself as a short form of "deep-fried" (as of this edit by a helpful IP), and I've added a gloss; I think that is probably sufficient to cover "fried ice cream". - -sche (discuss) 04:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, fried ice cream has an outer layer, but so do fried chicken, fried clams, fried mussels, fried candy bars, etc. Breading or batter are the best way to keep fragile things from burning, overcooking or melting when fried, so there are many things that are only fried that way. As this text says, "if it can be breaded, the fair will fry it". Chuck Entz (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

volente o nolente[edit]

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

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

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


"Friends; a popular American television show." This doesn't belong in a dictionary. —suzukaze (tc) 07:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete, at least this sense. Of interest, the Chinese word for "friends" is 朋友们; the subject of this RfD literally translates as "six people in a row (in descending order)". The TV show started airing in 1994, but a Google Books search for uses before that date yields a number of hits. However, I can't tell if these are SOP, or if there is a set phrase in there that could justify an entry. bd2412 T 15:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not very sure, but it seems like the entry has the wrong pronunciation. AFAIK, it should be read as liùrénxíng, so "six people in a row (in descending order)" doesn't make sense. 六人行 generally means a trip with six people. 六 could be replaced with any number. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
    Do we need an entry for 人行, then? bd2412 T 11:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    No. means "six people", and modifies . This just uses another sense of . Chuck Entz (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


Sum of parts; predictable word formation. —suzukaze (tc) 08:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted by User:Atitarev. —suzukaze (tc) 08:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Akademio de Esperanto[edit]

Encyclopedic, and not appropriate as a dictionary entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Kill. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I created this entry when I saw the entry Académie française. Shouldn't that entry also be deleted then for the same reason? Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contributions) 16:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep this and Académie française. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


Rare misspelling of ne'er-do-well. Never does not become ne're when the 'v' is elided. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems less rare than some of our misspelling entries. (I suppose people mix up the ending with words like they're.) But at least change it to a misspelling from "possibly nonstandard". Equinox 21:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I think "ne'er" is a corruption of "never", if so "ne're" is glaringly wrong, but anyway I have never come across the spelling in question. Donnanz (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks to me like a simple transposition typo: er --> re, though for some people it may be interference from the pondian -er/-re distinction or it may be trouble believing that the sequence "e'er" exists because it's archaic and not used much anymore even in poetry. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • For reference: ne're-do-well,ne'er-do-well at Google Ngram Viewer. I don't know how to put a multiplication formula in the search since once I use multiplication (*), the dashes are interpreted as minuses. This might be a common misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't get a graph, either, but it says "ne're-do-well" (which has only been common enough to register since 1965) peaked in 1972 when it constituted 0.0000000311% of all phrases in the corpus with that number of words. "Ne'er-do-well" is older; it peaked in 1928 when it constituted 0.0000163387%, and in 1965 it constituted 0.0000107765%. When each was at its peak, "ne'er-do-well" was 525 times more common than "ne're-do-well". Comparing "ne're-do-well"'s peak of 1965 to "ne'er-do-well"'s data from that year (a non-peak year for it), "ne'er-do-well" was 346 times more common. However... paging through, there are ~50 Books hits that contain "ne're-do-well" alone (before the search results stop actually containing the word), whereas there are only two that contain both "ne're-do-well" and "ne'er-do-well". If "ne're-do-well" were a misspelling, or especially if it were a typo, I would expect more books to use both spellings. Hence, it might just be a nonstandard intentional spelling, at least for some authors. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

crab claw[edit]

Creating and RFDing in one action, since it was listed at WT:RE. Sum of parts. Equinox 21:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Why even bother creating it? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete (and next time, just delete from the RE list). A cursory perusal of Google Books yields nothing idiomatic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, speedied. Maybe I was trying to make a point about WT:WE having lower standards than WT:REE. Mumble, mumble :D Equinox 07:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks like @Daniel Carrero found an idiomatic sense. Cool. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


Redirected to the correct term. Repeated word is not hyphenated if used as a noun that is not a name for something it resembles.

Urban Dictionary[edit]

Name of a specific Web site. Equinox 05:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

As is Wiktionary, arguably a lesser known website--Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I could RFD that too, but one thing at a time. Equinox 06:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep. It meets WT:BRAND. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
How has it "entered the lexicon"? What proofs can you bring? AFAICT, the existing citations are no better than an academic paper saying "Street (1984) believes such-and-such", or a review saying "Grand Theft Auto is a violent game". Being mentioned, as a proper noun, doesn't automatically make you part of the lexicon, dictionary-wise. Equinox 07:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Wiktionary’s traffic.
UD’s traffic. --Romanophile (contributions) 07:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
More people watch MTV than read any kind of book at all. Your point? Equinox 08:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
This sounds like an RfV issue, not an RfD issue. Here's a cite:
bd2412 T 14:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Yet "a" is used, implying a common noun, not a proper noun usage (though it is capitalised). Perhaps we should have a definition at urban dictionary. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
This is merely an antonomasia. — Dakdada 11:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Antonomasia is probably on one path to commonness for a proper noun. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


@ baking, it says there is an adjective meaning intended for use in baking foods, and gives this example: Here is a baking tray for the cookies. Isn't this just the attributive use of the noun (compare driving school), and not an adjective ? Leasnam (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that, having just added Norwegian. I agree with you in that sense, but the second definition is probably acceptable; "It's really baking out there" referring to hot weather. DonnanZ (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the second sense I would leave as is Leasnam (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I certainly agree with a delete of sense 1.
As to definition 1, consider the usage example in sense 5 of bake#Verb:
"(intransitive, figuratively) To be hot."
It is baking in the greenhouse.
I'm baking after that workout in the gym.
IF one accepts the validity of definition and its the usage examples, then definition one is redundant to the "present participle of bake" definition of baking.
But IMO, it is verb definition 5 that needs to be removed because I don't think that one can say anything like "The day/car/room baked/will bake/had baked/has baked" and convey sense 5.
Here is a headline I found: 'Melbourne on the Murray' as city bakes in record heat – 'It's stunning. --is this sense 5 or 4 ? It's not literally baking, or is it ? Leasnam (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Sense 4 is "figurative" enough for me. I think it includes the headline you found, which doesn't seem strange to me, so I must have been wrong in my earlier assertion. Some "unabridged" dictionaries have an adjective sense for baking, though many do not. I haven't seen a definition like our definition 5 for bake in any dictionary. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Also definition 2 of the noun, countable sense, seems wrong. Shouldn't it be something like "the bread, cakes, etc, cooked at one time"? I think that is a UK usage. I don't think I've ever heard it in the US. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Noun def 2 doesn't really tie in with the quotations, all over 100 years old, and I wouldn't say it's particularly British; maybe it can be removed too. And that damned plural: can more recent usage be found? DonnanZ (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
It may be relevant but I recently cleaned up the entry for cooking for which I added the countable sense with citations (two more recent and one by an American author), and I added a rare label in that case. cooking and baking are semantically similar, so they may both need further editing in terms of the definitions and how they are separated out. Tulros (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • There are now 11 citations of the countable noun baking at Citations:baking. I don't think they match the definitions well and will try to provide substitute definitions. DCDuring TALK 12:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

mainstream America[edit]

Feels like SoP. Same probably goes for mainstream American though that has 3 senses (!). Equinox 16:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both as SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete because the definitions are not SoP only insofar as they are encyclopedic. DCDuring TALK 20:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

We do not discuss politics here, but still one might ask whether the success of Mr. Trump supports the definition "ordinary American ideas and values, especially political and/or religious ideas and values which are not extreme". --Hekaheka (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that mainstream would tend to mean centrist (or right-centrist or left-centrist), but centrism would not be mainstream if it did not have the support of a majority. DCDuring TALK 01:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as SOP. bd2412 T 01:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 05:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

British spelling[edit]

American spelling[edit]

See tea room discussion.

Delete. The content is encyclopaedic, as "British flora" would be. The fact that the topic of spelling happens to relate to a dictionary doesn't save it, IMO, any more than it would for an entry called "French spelling reforms". Equinox 03:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
It looks pretty SOP to me. If you delete this, you should also delete American spelling. Kiwima (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I've just RFDed that and added its header to this page section. Equinox 01:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 08:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


This prefix was queried five years ago (see Discussion). Having looked at it, I can see no reason for keeping it. It is not listed as a prefix by The Bokmål and Nynorsk Dictionaries, nor by Bokmål Wiktionary. Similarly in Danish it's not recognised (trone is also a Danish word), nor in Swedish where the spelling is tron (for throne). Perhaps Danish and Norwegian follow the Swedish pattern and chop the "e" off in compound words. DonnanZ (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. It isn't a prefix, it's just the form of a noun used in compounding. We don't list those things for German (which has thousands of them) and I see no reason to list them for the Scandinavian languages either. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
This has a stronger claim to being a prefix than barne- does (see my comments on it). Barne- is covered by our entries for barn and the infix -e-. In contrast, the removal of letters down to a stem seems harder to cover with a single infix entry the way the addition of -e- is covered by -e- — what would it be called, [[-removal of preceding letters-]] ? — and it also seems close to the definition of a prefix. Abstain for now. - -sche (discuss) 08:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
We have Appendix:Repetition, which covers cases of reduplication (and should probably be renamed Appendix:Reduplication), so we could also have Appendix:Truncation to cover cases where a morphological process deletes sounds from a word. There are a few cases where French plurals, for example, are formed by truncation, such as œuf /œf/ → œufs /ø/ and ours singular /uʁs/, plural /uʁ/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

曹操, 曹孟德[edit]

WT:NSE (surname + given name) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deleted. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


Another one in the same category as tron- (above). In this case an "e" is added rather than subtracted. The derived terms can be moved to barn (Bokmål) and barn (Nynorsk), some are there already. DonnanZ (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

On second thoughts, there may be a case for keeping it, as it is often used in terms as barne- og (whatever), and non-native users may not be aware that it is derived from barn [29]. DonnanZ (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Again, considering the parallels in German, I'm leaning toward delete. I don't want us to have entries like Gesellschafts- on the basis of "Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftskommunikation". It's simply part of knowing the language to know that a phrase like that is short for "Gesellschaftskommunikation und Wirtschaftskommunikation" (both of which are valid entries). I don't think it's a dictionary's job to spell that out explicitly, and I expect the lemmings (for Norwegian as well as German) will agree with me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    I know what you're saying, but with barne- being much shorter it may not be as obvious as Gesellschafts- and other examples. Anyway, we'll see. DonnanZ (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    Using specific forms for compounds is a general part of Germanic grammar. We could consider to treat the compound-form as just another inflected form of the words, like plural or genitive forms and what have you, which then might warrant an entry for all of them. But as it is right now, I don't see them deserving entries themselves. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete this and other forms like it that add letters or merely add a hyphen. The average reader should be able to figure out that "barne- og dagbok" should be looked up as "barnebok" and "dagbok", and on a technical level (to satisfy robots and linguists), we cover this with entries for barn and the infix -e-, like "Gesellschafts-" is covered by Gesellschaft and -s-. Forms that remove letters, like tron-, have a stronger claim to being prefixes. - -sche (discuss) 08:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


There shouldn't be any argument about this one. Derived terms can be transferred to kraft (Bokmål) and kraft (Nynorsk). DonnanZ (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


Another one like tron- (above), used in words like kronprins, but can be entered as derived terms of krone (Bokmål) and krone (Nynorsk). DonnanZ (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

educational technology[edit]

The current definition is shitty, but a more accurate one would be completely SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete DCDuring TALK 00:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Unless one can find value in a definition like the following: "the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources." I can't. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 15:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

-verk [edit]

Another Meco entry, but not a recognised suffix, although -værk in Danish is. Derived terms can go under verk (no Nynorsk entry at present). DonnanZ (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears in the Bokmål Wiktionary, so I'll have to withdraw the RFD. DonnanZ (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I need a compass[edit]

I admit I created this in 2010, but "I need a compass" does not sound like an entry very likely to be used, even though people added translations in multiple languages. Maybe the entry could just be speedied. We do have "I need ...". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Easily constructible from I need ... and compass, which will even make it possible to determine which sense of "compass" is meant. (As it stands, I don't know whether to use the entry when I need a little watch-like thing with a needle that points north or when I need a pointy thing to draw a circle with.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Weak delete. I think that having "I need" + noun is generally sufficient: even if someone gets the gender or case wrong somehow they are still very likely to be understood. OTOH I've seen worse phrasebook stuff. Hah! Equinox 08:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete - along with most of the phrasebook. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. How many people actually need a compass these days? Or, more to the point, how many people need to ask for one in another language? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
lol, I want Chuck logic to be applied to all the sexy phrasebook entries. Equinox 12:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Apparently I need a GPS would score more phrasebook points than I need a compass. (but I'm not suggesting we should have the GPS one) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I need a battery[edit]

Meh. I need ... + battery --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

As it stands, I'd like to think it means an electrical battery. Could it conceivably be any of other meanings of battery?
More to the point, I don't think many people would want to use that specific phrase and translate it into other languages. I'm afraid they would want to be more specific like "I need 2 AA batteries" anyway. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Nowadays, people are more likely to say I need a charger anyway. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I need a razor[edit]

I need ... + razor --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

There are probably some "I need" phrases that I'd like to keep because they sound more serious and useful than most: in my opinion, I need a doctor and I need a lawyer seem good enough to be kept.
By any standards, not only "I need a razor" can use I need ... as I said above (and other people said in other discussions), it does not sound like an emergency or "special case" if that makes sense, unless we want to have many separate "I need" phrases for nouns related to hygiene, household objects, etc. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


RFD-sense "A shop where bread and other baked food is sold." (synonymous to bakery). I think that this is just a feature of the -'s clitic in English, and not lexically significant as it appears in this one case, but instead something you could do with many nouns. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete for the reason given. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment: is this usage adequately explained at -'s? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This principle can be applied to every profession. bd2412 T 14:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    For example "I'm off to the drycleaner's". Siuenti (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd be inclined to keep these, just as translation targets. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    Wouldn't translations simply be the same as they would at entries like "bakery"? Or if not, I imagine the constructions in other languages would be similarly transparent (e.g. "the baker's" = "chez le boulanger" in French). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep at least as a soft redirect to bakery so people can find those translations. Siuenti (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's peculiarly British. If I go down to my local parade of shops I find the newsagent's, butcher's, chemist's and greengrocer's. DonnanZ (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The adjective entry is rather silly, maybe that should be deleted instead. DonnanZ (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 22:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Shrug... etymology 2 of -'s covers this. Equinox 08:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. This is a word, and contrary to claims above, not all professionals can be morphed into shops simply by adding an 's (for example, a native speaker wouldn't say "I'm going to the shopkeeper's, police's, barista's, craftsman's, musician's, model's, prostitute's, firefighter's, farmer's, tattooist's, etc..."). How these terms are used in the English language are not always intuitive or predictable; thus their inclusion on Wiktionary would be useful for users. I remember us discussing these terms a long time ago, and approving their inclusion on similar grounds. ---> Tooironic (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep as per Tooironic. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep as per Tooironic Leasnam (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Sense: "A Gatorade sports drink." Self-referential AND fails BRAND. Recently created another definition for generic use. Purplebackpack89 05:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Move to RFV, I created WT:RFV#Gatorade. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


Double entry; irrespectful move. And lack sentence capitalization. JaijetJasmin (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)JaijetJasmin

We don't capitalise entry titles. Try making yourself familiar with Wiktionary. Equinox 08:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


Supposedly an adjective and adverb at the same time, but defined as if it were a noun. Can anything be done to keep it? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Whatever it is, it's attested and it isn't SOP. This seems more like an rfc issue. Granted, the creator has wasted a lot of people's time trying to impose their idiosyncratic ideas about content and structure of entries, and they don't seem to know much about how English-language dictionaries work, but it's no good deleting stuff if they're going to continue in good faith to produce more.
I've had the maganda in magandang umaga defined for me by a native speaker as beauty, so defining this like a noun isn't that far-fetched to me. As for being both an adjective and an adverb: if I heard someone say "that runner is very fast- he runs more fastly than anyone else I know" I would wonder whether they were a native speaker. Tagalog uses a lot of particles and particle-like affixes to mark the grammatical roles of mostly-unvarying stems, so I'm hesitant to make judgments on part of speech.
To fix this, we need someone who speaks Tagalog and has experience working with an English-language dictionary: @Mar vin kaiser perhaps? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Adjectives in Tagalog are very flexible and act like adverbs too. They can pertain to nouns and verbs. Dictionaries often just list them as an adjective. I have qualms about the entry, though. Like "luwat" doesn't mean slow, but means "a long duration of time". "Ma-" is an adjective marker, and when attached to "luwat", means "taking a long time". Hope this helps. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The wiki entry has been edited with a new source of translation similar to the suggestion above. However, "a long duration of time" seem to be too wordy, it could mean something else (See eon at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eon). The word "maluwat" contains figurative aspects typical to Tagalog dialect. It emphasizes a steady resolve towards the end, an acceptance of a natural slow process. The use of "maluwat" has declined as one finds it now in formal speeches and literature. I wish to add "slow" in its literal meaning, thinking it must have been an older root, since I myself haven't used it conversationally, but I realize "maluwat" is time-specific and "slow" is action-oriented. Nevertheless, the proverb, persisting with the word in its recognizable sense, "Ang pagsasabi ng tapat, ay pagsasama ng maluwat" is culturally similar to "All's well that ends well." There is an overarching virtue in every proverb, and we Filipinos are keen to recognize it. I hope this answers your qualms on idiosyncrasies. The other native speaker who referred "maganda" as beauty, is using it the same way "Si Malakas at Si Maganda" can be translated, "Might and Beauty". Thank you for being scholarly curious about Tagalog. JaijetJasmin (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep in some form per Chuck Entz: the word is attested and a the entry can be cleaned up. What I do not know is whether luwat should be the lemma, since I find some dicts placing "maluwat" under "luwat". But I know no Tagalog. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Tagalog page for "luwat" has been written. JaijetJasmin (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This shouldn't be at RFD. It seems like a good-faith entry so if we think something is badly wrong we should use RFV. Equinox 04:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The pages have been formatted accordingly. JaijetJasmin (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

anomalous phenomenon[edit]

"That which is not sufficiently explained by science or inferred knowledge." Seemingly SoP. Wikipedia does not have an article on this exact term. Equinox 01:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That definition doesn't even seem to cover most use. In other contexts it would other definitions, similarly SoP. DCDuring TALK 01:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


GRENOUILLE? Leasnam (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A senseless stub entry. Speedily deleted. Equinox 16:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

technology optimist[edit]

Sum of parts. Poor, encyclopedic definition. Wrongly formatted. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed the formatting and cut down the wordy def. It still says "accelerating" technological change but does it have to accelerate, or merely continue linearly? Sounds SoP; probably delete. Equinox 16:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep, 'delete.--Hekaheka (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


I really don't think this is useful or lexicographical. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete this composite construct but consider abbreviation entries at S and E. (P.S. Anybody else play Doom? E1M1?) Equinox 03:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unless we want a few hundred of these. Some shows have 20 episodes or more in a season. Some shows have had 20 or more seasons. bd2412 T 03:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    Keep. I created this entry. I wanted to see if someone would create a RFD for it, and maybe I won't mind if this gets deleted on the grounds of being a composite term. Still, if meets the CFI requirement of "it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means". I'm aware that keeping this would be a precedent for creating S01E02, S01E03, etc. I don't intend to create these other entries while we are still discussing S01E01.
    See Category:English terms spelled with 4. We have a lot of entries like 0-8-0 and 0-8-4 for the wheel arrangement of trains, with varying numbers. S01E01 does not feel very different to me than the train entries. For reference, if we created entries for S01E01 to S27E22 for each episode of The Simpsons currently listed, we would have 596 new entries and counting, assuming they were all citable. I don't know if we should have SxxEyy or Appendix:Something/SxxEyy as a single page for that concept with any season/episode number. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    That's absurd, like having entries for the temperature 12ºC and the length 104cm. Just create S and E. Equinox 04:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    Someone might want to know what, for example, V8X 3X4 means, which would get us, in principle, as many as 26×10×26×10×26×10 entries (17.6million Canadian postal zones). And because so many are not actually in use, the often-advanced encoding rationale for inclusion of SoP(decoding) potential entries would apply. DCDuring TALK 10:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    I changed by mind per Equinox and DCDuring. I created S and E. Delete S01E01. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comparison to the train entries is ridiculous. An 0-8-0 is a type of train - one can easily find sources saying that a particular train "was an 0-8-0" (I have added a few of these to the entry to illustrate this). You won't find sources saying that an episode "was an S01E01". bd2412 T 21:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
An 0-8-0 is a type of (steam) locomotive actually (with 8 driving wheels), not a train. DonnanZ (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 01:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I've just killed it because nobody is supporting it, even the creator, and Daniel has created S and E (thanks!). Equinox 01:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome, sorry for the trouble. When you mentioned 12ºC and 104cm, I saw that it was obvious that I should not have created S01E01. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

second language acquisition[edit]

Hi all, just added this, and don't believe it is SOP. Basically, SLA studies people learning a third language, or a fourth language, etc., as well as just a second language. There is no "third language acquisition" as a subject, etc. Taking a strictly SOP view of the word, it would only ever apply to the acquisition of a second language. But, as it was speedily deleted first time around I have RFD'd it. Voting open. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It's second language + acquisition. Note that second language already covers things like a third or fourth language. Equinox 09:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete per Equinox. DCDuring TALK 10:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete per Equinox. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, point noted about second language. Nevertheless, second language acquisition in the def I have given it is not simply SOP second language + acquisition. There is nothing in the term itself that indicates that it is a field of study, thus it is not in the same class as first language acquisition, or foreign language acquisition, or mother tongue acquisition which are indeed SOP and are not fields of academic inquiry. I can't really see how it is not in the same class as discourse analysis (clearly the analysis of discourse), or physics or chemistry or environmental science or philosophy of science etc., all of which we have entries for the semantic field of academic discipline. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
First-language acquisition is a field of academic study, but it's usually simply called language acquisition. That said, I agree that this is a set phrase or term of art, so we should probably keep it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. We keep idioms, not terms of art (i.e. collocations that someone likes). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
If it's SOP, we need to add a sense to acquisition and/or acquire, because at the moment none of the existing definitions of those words cover this sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
That we lack a definition that would be required to make an MWE SoP is not evidence of anything, except that we need to look at entries for the word at dictionaries we didn't copy from. Sometimes we omit a current sense, sometimes we deleted a sense that MW 1913 or Century 1911 had, sometimes our wording is excessively narrow. There are other possibilities. DCDuring TALK 19:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem is, I don't know what other words besides "language" this sense of "acquire"/"acquisition" is used with. We could add a sense "experience" to kick and a sense "death" to bucket and then delete kick the bucket as SOP too, but I wouldn't recommend it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
But it doesn't matter, because it is used with any language acquisition, not only with the phrase "second language". You can say "first language acquisition", "during the early period of acquisition", "acquisition of Chinese", etc. --WikiTiki89 20:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Skill/expertise/fluency/taste and hyponyms thereof can be acquired.
Some collocations in which acquisition follows an attributive modifier:
  1. audio lingual acquisition
  2. data acquisition
  3. first language acquisition
  4. infant language acquisition
  5. knowledge acquisition
  6. language acquisition
  7. ontology acquisition
  8. blood unit acquisition
  9. sample data acquisition
  10. source data acquisition
  11. speech acquisition
  12. talent acquisition
  13. target acquisition
  14. vocabulary acquisition
  15. windows image acquisition
DCDuring TALK 23:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Some of those examples seem to be just SOP (e.g. talent acquisition, blood unit acquisition), which are well covered by the defs of those individual terms if they were to be looked up in isolation - however, if you look up second language and then look up acquisition you do not find out that second language acquisition is a field of study. Thus it is an idiom (in Wiktionary's sense of that word). As in this quote
2008, Susan m. Gass and Larry Selinker, chapter 1, in Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course, ISBN 978-0-8058-5497-8, page 1:
Additionally, second language acquisition is concerned with the nature of the hypotheses (whether conscious or unconscious) that learners come up with regarding the rules of the second language.
...obviously the acquiring of a second language is not "concerned with hypotheses" - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Sonofcawdrey Are you saying that the sense of acquisition in collocation with skill, fluency, vocabulary, speech, and knowledge is completely different from its sense with language? To me they seem virtually identical. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring No, I'm not saying anything about the meaning of acquisition. What I am saying is that in some terms of which the word forms a part are idiomatic, not SOP, or rather, specifically in the compound noun second language acquisition - which means more than the acquisition of a second or other language. I can't really see why environmental science is not SOP while second language acquisition is. Can anyone explain the difference? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not the one to best defend having an entry for environmental science. I think the underlying logic is that there is an institutional reality to it, such as that underlying ESL. Perhaps it is also that one says "The science involved is environmental science." rather than "The science involved is environmental.". But just as we don't have entries for titles of books, we don't have entries for titles of courses or groups of courses or headings in course catalogs, which classes of uses would seem to be the best support for the entry.
I don't see what additional meaning there is to second language acquisition other than second language + acquisition or acquisition of a second language. (Note that the commonness of the latter alternate demonstrates that second language acquisition is not a set phrase.) DCDuring TALK 12:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for you comments DCDuring. What seems clear to me is that you cannot substitute acquisition of a second language into the sentence "Additionally, second language acquisition is concerned with the nature of the hypotheses" - it just wouldn't make any sense. However, you could substitute the name of another field of academic study, e.g. chemistry, environmental science, etc. Then the sentence would make perfect sense. Thus we can conclude acquisition of a second language is not equivalent to second language acquisition ... in this case (i.e. for this meaning). Originally, I wrote two defs, the first being "the acquisition of a language other than one's primary language or mother tongue" (or something along those lines) and the second being, "the field of study ..." - I don't deny the first is SOP, it most assuredly is, but I maintain that the second is not SOP. SLA is not just the name of a course (or book, or chapter), though there are many courses named SLA, since it is commonly studied. There are many courses named Philosophy of Science, Environmental Science, etc., but this doesn't preclude those words having a dictionary definition. Finally, a set phrase can have a synonym (that is either a set phrase or not) - so I don't agree that the existence of a synthetic synonym demonstrates that a lexical item is not a set phrase, as a general rule, that is. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete per Equinox and Wikitiki89. - -sche (discuss) 01:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

ajaa karille, ajaa partansa, ajaa takaa, ajaa ylinopeutta[edit]

All SOP (though the third may be debatable). Probably should rather be in a collocations section. --Tropylium (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Ajaa karille (to "run aground"): the Finnish phrase is not more sop than the English one.
Ajaa partansa (to "shave"): A sop if you want, but could also be considered an idiomatic expression. The meaning of the literal translation "to drive one's beard" may not be intuitively clear for everyone who comes across the expression.
Ajaa takaa (to "chase"): Ditto, although "to drive from behind" is not as cryptic as "to drive one's beard".
Ajaa ylinopeutta (to "speed"): This is probably understandable from its parts, but then again, this is how we say "to speed" in Finnish > fixed expression, like e.g. "speed limit"?
--Hekaheka (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

caustic sodas[edit]

This entry has been orphaned (not by me). DonnanZ (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, if you do that it should be marked as "usually uncountable". I would rather see this entry deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Can mean the plural of a container of caustic soda. "We'll need one bucket, two brushes, and three caustic sodas"--Dmol (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the rationale for deletion. Clearly exists with a cursory Google Books search. Equinox 01:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


The second sense should likely be merged into the first one while meaning nearly the same thing. There is no difference when translating to Mandarin.--Jusjih (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the salient difference is def 1 is based on an intransitive verb sense (becoming), and def 2 on a transitive verb (converting to), dunno if these can be combined neatly in one def. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


sum-of-parts + nonexistence --YURi (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

If it is not attested (does not exist), WT:RFV is the best venue, IMHO. I always prefer RFV to RFD. But if people want to delete it via RFD as sum of parts, that is also an option. By the way, thank you for your Thai contributions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. We only say เหงื่อ. --Octahedron80 (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If deleted, be sure to also remove the links from the three entries which link to it. The entry is probably due to it previously being added as a translation on the English entry. — hippietrail (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


SoP? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I need sunblock[edit]

I need sunscreen[edit]

Use I need ... + sunblock, sunscreen. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I need a drink[edit]

Use I'm thirsty.

Or: I need ... + drink. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Abstain. I wouldn't usually bother posting to say that, but (i) this seems like a fairly useful thing to know how to say, (ii) God knows what kinds of idiom or case inflection might in theory be required to say it in certain languages, (iii) if we are going to have a phrasebook at all, which seems to be the consensus, then I don't see why it should be whittled down. Let it be known that I'm not in love with the phrasebook but either we're going to do it properly or we aren't. Equinox 01:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


SOP --YURi (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, delete. I only edited the entry to conform to current standards.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

so yesterday[edit]

This is kind of interesting because we don't have "yesterday" as an adjective, and I suppose you couldn't just say something was "yesterday". It does seem very much a composite construction, though; I can imagine someone saying that a music track is "so eighties", or a painting is "so Picasso". (I bet there's a grammatical term for this, but I don't know it.) Equinox 06:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, I was wondering about this entry as well. I suppose the forms are contractions of "so characteristic of ...". SemperBlotto (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That reminds me of a commercial here in the US a while back where a teenager says "that was sooo 15 minutes ago" as if she were talking about the last ice age. The construction can be used with any time in the past with the same meaning, and with just about any time/place/person/style/etc. with a somewhat different meaning. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Here’s a somewhat older example that in my opinion shows that this is a property of so and that so yesterday isn't idiomatic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
      • For that matter, it could be interpreted as forcing nominals to act as adjectives by putting them in a syntactic context where only an adjective could be used (in this case as a predicate)- think about phrases such as "that dress is you". If so, there's no real lexical place to hang this, except perhaps the copula. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe wiktionary should have the syntax for some composite constructions, like so %%NOUN%% with explanation that %%NOUN%% is always naming some time or period in the past? so last year is actually used even more than so yesterday. 23:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    In fact, it can even be used with times in the future: google "that's so next year" and see the examples. - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the use of so forces it to be understood as an adjective, as without it, it would carry a totally different meaning Leasnam (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The trouble with including the syntax at a special entry is that no one is likely to find such content except at so, not that we are very good at including such content. Nor is a time period the only possibility. For example, so inside baseball has 102 (raw) hits at Google Books. We could make the more common of these hard redirects to a specific appropriate definition at so. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    html has keywords meta tag that tells search engines what the search terms are. But this is probably too much of a stretch for wiktionary. I came across several idioms that are "flexible" in that they can accept a variety of words inside of them, but these things aren't describable in wiktionary. 21:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    We use "one", "someone", "something", and their possessives as placeholders because they are accepted, ie, usable by normal dictionary users. We have tried to have Appendices with snowclones, a type of construction, but it doesn't seem to have gained much traction. DCDuring TALK 21:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that this isn't idiomatic. It also doesn't seem to be exclusively a property of "so", since one could say "that's very last year" as well as "that's so last year". One could even delete the copula: "What do you think of the dress?" "So last year." / "Very last year." / "Very you." / etc. IMO, it's covered by the existing entries for "you", "last"+"year", etc, and the understanding that "...characteristic of..." is implied. Delete. - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with User:Leasnam that certain adverbs and force nouns to be treated as adjectives in this way. I don't think that the list is very long (so, too, very, kind of, a bit, somewhat, quite, etc), though the expression seems to be most useful as hyperbole, using the more extremal degree adverbs. If the list of words that do this long, then I suppose we should leave it to the grammarians. DCDuring TALK 23:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


SOP --YURi (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


SOP --YURi (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


Does it meet CFI? I didn't find more than one hit on Google Books. —This unsigned comment was added by Dowf (talkcontribs).

Move to RFV since it's a CFI question. Equinox 03:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

the trash[edit]

Bad entry name. No formatting. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete. If we need the metonomic definition, it belongs at [[trash#Noun]], where it already resides. I don't expect that it behaves entirely like a normal countable noun, eg, **trashes*. If the trash were collected into a pile, a bag, a bin, a dumpster, or down a chute, one would still use the words trash, garbage, rubbish etc to refer to any literal or virtual (pile, heap) container. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
"trash" never refers to a trash can without "the" before the word "trash". 2602:306:3653:8920:E528:3163:2220:5AA6 17:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 03:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Yesterday I did the laundry, and I live by myself, so the housecleaning tends to be neglected. I can never be sure how long the commute will take, so I don't have time to come up with more examples. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Judging by editing patterns, the creating user seems to be a new account of User:Shoof. Equinox 16:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

the garbage[edit]

As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete as above. DCDuring TALK 21:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 03:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

uterine microbiome[edit]

Sum of its parts: one could come up with a similar construction for any part of the body that has microorganisms. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 03:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Delete. Simple sum of parts. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom, no matter how trendy the "microbiome" concept is. DCDuring TALK 10:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

do the dishes and do the laundry[edit]

Sum of parts. Similar to do the cleaning, do the cooking, do the windows etc. 2602:306:3653:8920:E528:3163:2220:5AA6 17:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please use the templates instead of copying their contents to each page. DTLHS (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. Do we need some kind of table of collocations of this form, perhaps in an Appendix? DCDuring TALK 17:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
At the moment we don't have a sense of do that covers these phrases, so unless one is added, I can't accept the argument that they're SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
What are the collocations that are like this? I think that almost any -ing form (mostly effortful or purposeful processes or activities) and many nouns (both process/action and result) can be used after do in this sense, and with many, if not all, determiners and adjectives. Our definition "perform, execute" covers the process/action portion of this. This would correspond to do the laundering and do the dishwashing, which are often habitual. I think that the usage example "You haven't really done the laundry until it's ironed, folded, hung up, and put away" exemplifies usage in my idiolect. Perhaps something like "To complete (a purposeful activity)". In contrast I don't think one can say "He did his perspiration" (not a purposeful activity). That in these expressions laundry and dishes are metonomic uses of the nouns may create an illusion that there is an idiom, but there are an endless list of nouns that can follow do in this sense: "He did the drawings I asked for", "I've done underwritings", "They've done all 18 holes". DCDuring TALK 20:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


I don't think this can be considered a hot word. I don't see any reason to believe people won't forget about this word within a year. --WikiTiki89 19:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not? It's no more unpredictable than any other hot word. DTLHS (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hot words are supposed to be things that are almost certain. Like official new names for species or chemical elements, or perhaps the nicknames given to an event itself (Brexit could have been a hot word if it weren't already attestable for several years), but a feeling about an event does not have any momentum behind it. --WikiTiki89 20:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I think Brexit has a lot of momentum behind it, and people are certainly going to keep talking about their feelings and regrets about it for many years. DTLHS (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course Brexit itself is going to be talked about, but people aren't necessarily going to use the word regrexit for their feeling of regret. Brexit itself has become the accepted name of the event, so whenever people talk about it, they are likely to use this name, but the feeling of regrexit can easily just be called regret. Of course it's possible that regrexit could become a more politically significant feeling and phenomenon like, I don't know, glasnost or something (not an exact equivalent, but close enough), but I don't see any evidence of that yet. --WikiTiki89 20:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
We adopted the "hot word" idea to allow Wiktionary to include topical terms that our "spanning one year" rule allowed. One benefit is that once we have three citations that demonstrate usage of a term in current use, we don't have to argue about whether its conditional inclusion will become permanent. We just wait and see. DCDuring TALK 20:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an abuse of hot words. We can't allow protologisms in that even the media are not using in a widespread way. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Not used in a widespread manner? It's been used by all the major English language media outlets [34][35][36], print, TV and radio. I suppose that would not not even used by the media if all the English language media were considered to not be the media. -- 03:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it citable now? (3) from our usual sources, News and Usenet being the ones that are timely? DCDuring TALK 00:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
No, since it was only invented last week. DTLHS (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep The Guardian used it 24 June. There have been a flood of uses in durably archived print media since. IOW, it is the very model of a hot word. DCDuring TALK 00:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    This seems to have an aroma of censorship prescriptivism dyspepsia? DCDuring TALK 10:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • We adopted the hot word policy to allow premature inclusion of words that we agree are likely to remain in use for over a year since the first attestation. Not to allow any neologism that happens to have been used recently in durably archived sources. This isn't about censorship, this is about whether we are confident that we won't have to delete it in the future, and I am not confident. --WikiTiki89 16:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, from a technical standpoint, if we allow such terms as "hot words" and categorize them appropriately, it's very easy to find such "hot words" that are now one year old, and then systemically go through and see if they're still in use / still citable.
Put another way, if correctly categorized, we can fix any potential problems easily enough once the one-year time limit has come due. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
See Category:Hot words older than a year. DCDuring TALK 20:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
But that's not the point. That enables us to verify that we didn't make any mistakes, but that doesn't give us the right to be careless. --WikiTiki89 20:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What is careless about adding these "hot words"? Do you mean that we shouldn't be careless as we gaze into our crystal balls, attempting to discern if a given term might still be in popular use one year from now? I'm more interested in lexicography than prophecy. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Everything with {{passive present participle of}} and {{passive past participle of}} on it[edit]

These templates seem to have been made exclusively for Danish; however, no such forms exist. I request that all entries transcluding one of these (past, present) and containing no legitimate content be deleted. I intend to subsequently nominate the templates themselves.__Gamren (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying none of the forms listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:passive present participle of and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:passive past participle of actually exist? That's pretty embarrassing if we've been listing nonexistent forms all this time. We'll also need to remove the relevant parameters from {{da-conj}} and {{da-conj-base}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)