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.

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 2014[edit]

working class[edit]

Adjectival sense, looks purely attributive --Type56op9 (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

google books:"very working class" shows true adjective usage, but it’s much more commonly spelt with a hyphen. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I would say delete on this occasion. We have an entry for the noun, and the attributive adjective (working-class), and I think that is all that we need. Donnanz (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
If it were only attributive it wouldn't merit a separate PoS section. Evidently poor presentation of such terms helps maintain poor understanding of the grammar. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
What about John Lennon's "Working Class Hero"? Is that not adjectival? Or is that the special "noun use as an adjective" thing? Tharthan (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
That is the ordinary, not special, attributive use of the noun phrase, which I'd write as "working-class hero". In this case confusion would not arise because working class is lexicalized for most readers, but it could be read as a class hero who is working. DCDuring TALK 19:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I meant "special" as in "specialised use". Also, wouldn't those two things have different pronunciations then? A "working class hero" as in a class hero that is working would be /ə.wɜː(r)kɪŋˌklæs.hiːɹoʊ/, whilst a working class hero would be /ə.wɜː(r)kɪŋklæs.hiːɹoʊ/ or /ə.wɜː(r)kɪŋ.klæs.hiːɹoʊ/? Tharthan (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, in speech you don't need hyphens. This RfD is about a strictly orthographic matter. Hyphens are more or less strictly orthographic in contrast to solid spellings which seem to reflect pronunciation differences, specifically micro pauses. DCDuring TALK 03:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

*Redirect to working-class Purplebackpack89 19:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • @Purplebackpack89: WHY? For example, can you show that the hyphenated form is the normal form for predicate use? DCDuring TALK 19:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Changing my vote to Keep adjective sense as alt form (and keep noun sense outright) Purplebackpack89 16:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep the adjectival sense, per DCDuring: has predicative uses (as opposed to attributive) modified by "very". Quotations: "tinned fish (all right as an ingredient in something else, such as fishcakes or a tuna-mayonnaise sandwich, but very working class if served on its own)", "my background is very working class and I have all those sensitivities around being working class.", "It was very working class. And I understood enough of the class system", "This seemed very working class, very nonbourgeois." --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Adjectival sense kept, but content moved to working-class, with unhyphenated sense changed to "alternative spelling of". bd2412 T 13:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


How many distinct definitions of cooperation are there? Ignore the entry for a second and decide if you were writing the entry from scratch, what usage would not be covered by 'The act of cooperating'? Now to the entry itself

Active help from a person, organization, etc.

An orderly sharing of space or resources.

Association for mutual benefit, such as for purposes of production or purchase.

I don't think 'active help' is cooperation because it's not mutual, you can't cooperate with someone without their consent or against it, but you can help someone without their consent or against it

Orderly sharing of space or resources, this sounds like a specific example of cooperation

Sense #3 sounds like another example of cooperation. To me, it just sounds like the act of cooperating by another name.

This previously went to rfd (see Talk:cooperation) when there were seven senses and it failed to reach a consensus. Perhaps with only four senses, we can do it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Senses #1 and #2 could be merged, since they express more or les the same concept, but sense #3 is distinct because it can refer to the organization or association itself rather than to the act of cooperating. --Tweenk (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The definitions look like the product of some kind of encyclopedic, not lexicographic, effort. I would rather start over (RfC?) than work with the confused mess we have, but the RfD process limits us and may help preserve some of the translations.
I find that the most helpful thing one can do in defining English words is find any grammatical distinctions. For English nouns, a countability distinction commonly requires a distinct definition. Also, for a noun that is clearly associated with a specific verb, inclusive definitions either refer to the definitions of the verb or have to duplicate the senses of the verb, though possibly some verb senses may not carry over.
Sense three, because it starts "a" is countable and therefore distinct from the other senses. The most general countable definition would be something like "an act or instance of cooperating". Which definition is close to sense one "The act of cooperating", which is confusingly (mis)labeled as uncountable. "An orderly sharing" (sense 3) is possible among inanimate things whereas cooperation is usually among animate things, though I could imagine it being applied to, say, computer processes. Thus sense 3 seems wrong.
I think the more common uses of cooperation are uncountable. A general definition is something like "The process of cooperating". I suppose that senses two and four would be included in such a definition, though they seem at best to be two arbitrary classes of cooperation. Moreover, "active help" (sense 2) is a one-sided giving, whereas cooperation is essentially mutual. Thus sense 2 seems wrong.
Perhaps the best way to save the translations is to make sense 1 countable and make sense 4 the uncountable sense or make it a subsense of a new general uncountable sense "The process of cooperating." DCDuring TALK 14:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
This would preserve the bulk of the translations, as sense 2 and 3 have little not in sense 1 and 4, except in for words translating sense 2 that mean "help", not specifically cooperation. DCDuring TALK 14:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Acinetobacter baumannii[edit]

RFD of the English section as redundant to the translingual one. Is there any reason to include an English section (i.e. English-specific plurals, like Tyrannosaurus rex has)? — Ungoliant (falai) 01:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. The anon contributor probably wanted to insert as much content as possible at this entry and at [[Acinetobacter]]. It is not obvious how to make a link from [[Acinetobacter baumannii#Translingual]] to [[Iraqibacter#English]] as Iraqibacter is probably not a 'Translingual' synonym and it is not clear that we would welcome a slang register for Translingual. This is yet another reflection of the confusing position of Translingual entries. If we approved of having Translations sections in Translingual entries then that might be a plausible home for vernacular names like Iraqibacter. Does anyone have any preferences for where "Iraqibacter" should appear in [[Acinetobacter baumannii#Translingual]]? Synonyms? See also? Translations? Under a new 'Vernacular names' header? DCDuring TALK 02:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I’m OK with translations. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 14:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]


Rfd-redundant: "loud and annoying" redundant to "disorderly and boisterous". Look at the usage example 'raucous party', which would be as good under the "disorderly and boisterous". So delete/merge and improve. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Raucous needn't imply annoying. Equinox 21:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Equinox: A few dictionaries do include the reaction of the hearer in one of the usually two definitions: eg, "Making or constituting a disturbingly harsh and loud noise" Oxford US. "harshly or hoarsely loud" Collins. "disagreeably harsh or strident" MWOnline. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that we delete this sense, but add the "loud" connotation to sense 1. Dbfirs 10:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
MW 1913 has "Hoarse; harsh; rough; as, a raucous, thick tone. His voice slightly raucous." (no mention of "loud") and not the "disorderly and boisterous" sense which is the most common current one, IMO. So meaning has changed. The dictionaries that incorporate into a definition the hearer's reaction to the noise always include "harsh/strident/hoarse/grating" in the definition. The "disorderly, boisterous" definitions do not include the hearer's reaction. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

erotic massage[edit]

I'm really on the fence about whether this is SOP or not. WF gave it a definition that seems non-SOP, but if you think about it, that's just summing up the most obvious way a massage could be erotic, but not necessarily idiomatic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking through the Google Book hits, the first 30 all refer to massage which is erotic. However I think there might be an idiomatic sense, sex acts in exchange for money, can we cite it? Renard Migrant (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see idiomaticity in our current "idiomatic" definition. I don't see how adding money to the picture would make it idiomatic. An X is an X, whether you pay for it or not. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You're right it's a theory and I don't have any evidence to back it up. Delete, no problem. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The surface meaning is quite SoP. Any use as a disguise for intercourse or other sexual act, as in some kind of advertising, is simply deceit, not even a euphemism. DCDuring TALK 01:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Much to my chagrin, I think we're essentially at the point in society where "massage" can be defined as "The action of rubbing, kneading or hitting someone's body, followed by sexual intercourse. Purplebackpack89 21:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Not where I live, we're not. I've gotten many massages in my life and none of them involved sexual activity. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sum of parts. The arguments given above seem pretty persuasive to me. There is no specific definition of an erotic massage AFAIK - it can be paid or unpaid, involving intercourse or not, etc. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it should be kept as a euphemism. It's akin to massage parlour. Donnanz (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

double radio-source associated with a galactic nucleus[edit]

Sum of parts (and the plural) SemperBlotto (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  • It seems like it might be a set phrase. I find it interesting that the commonly used abbreviation, DRAGN, requires an unusual selection of letters from the initial phrase (a direct acronym would be more like "DRSAWAGN" or at least "DRAWGN". Can this be reworded and maintain the same technical meaning? bd2412 T 21:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • More likely, the phrase was coined for the purpose of providing a suitable acronym, and is probably only found in actual use as a gloss for the acronym. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      Oh, you cynic. DCDuring TALK 03:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      There are three Google Books hits, albeit one is in German. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It is not sum of parts. It is not any old set of two radio-sources that are associated with any galactic nucleus. For instance, it is not about two radio-loud pulsars that orbit the galactic nucleus. Nor it is for a pair of H-I regions inhabiting the galactic nucleus region. Etc, off to infinity, for all the varieties of radio sources that can be found close to galactic nuclei. It is specifically about the configuration of radio lobes carved out of the extragalactic medium that line up with the galactic nucleus, which are detectable from Earth. If one or both of the radio lobes are not detectable from Earth, then it doesn't fit, even though theoretical models of the galaxy will feature two lobes. -- 05:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Semper. We cant't include every seven-word combination which has an exact meaning. Very often they have. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Buraq Wall[edit]

"A wall connected to the al-Aqsa mosque." We have no criteria for including or excluding placenames, so the question is, what level of granularity is too much granularity? (Hilariously, the larger place, al-Aqsa mosque, is a redlink.) - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Funny, en-Wikipedia article on al-Aqsa does not mention Buraq Wall, but it is the same wall that the Jews call Wailing Wall, and which is more neutrally known as the Western Wall. The Arabic name for that particular wall translates word-by-word as "Buraq Wall" into English. Buraq, as we remember, is the name of the heavenly horse-like creature that took prophet Muhammed from Mecca to Jerusalem and back. Muhammed reportedly tied Buraq to this wall during his stay, hence the name. It's undeniably a remarkable place. If we decide to keep it, we might want to create a main entry of "Western Wall" and make "Buraq Wall" and "Wailing Wall" refer to it as its Muslim and Jewish names respectively. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


The correct spelling is already at Saimiriinae. DCDuring TALK 15:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Saimirinae,Saimirinae at Google Ngram Viewer does not help. google books:"Saimirinae" shows 57 hits (after clicking next multiple times) while google books:"Saimiriinae" shows 36 hits (again, click next). Thus, the nominated spelling is even more common than the alleggedly correct spelling. If the nominated spelling is somehow incorrect, then it should be kept as common misspelling, that is, common relatively to its alternative. But what is the basis for the claim that the nominated spelling is incorrect? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


Correct spelling is already at Diprotodontia. DCDuring TALK 15:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Surprisingly, this is citable: 1, 2, 3, 4. Not sure if this should be classified as a misspelling or a haplologised alternative form. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Glad I didn't speedy it. Are haplologize/haplologise citable. Even if they aren't, it would be a fine addition to Wiktionary:Glossary. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
At Google Scholar it's 1400:60 (raw count, apparently actually more like 1000:60) favoring Diprotodontia, which is in line with it not appearing on the databases that I've looked at. The shorter spelling is certainly less accepted, not following standard name-construction practice from the stem (όντ-) of Ancient Greek ὀδούς (odoús, tooth) thatthe genus Diprotodon, instead reconstructing the word from πρό (pró, in front) instead of πρῶτος (prôtos, first)is derived from. See aso Diprotodontidae. DCDuring TALK 19:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Google Scholar would provide enough attestation to support haplologize, but not haplologise AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I think I've managed to cite both spellings. Most of the citations of haplologise are of the past tense form, but their grammatical environments make clear that they are verb forms rather than adjectives. - -sche (discuss) 19:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
But are the haplologized forms haplogize/haplogise attestable? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Sadly not, but that's what we have {{examples-right}} for. DCDuring TALK 21:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above discussion. I've relabelled it a nonstandard form of Diprotodontia; if someone would rather relabel it a misspelling, go ahead. - -sche (discuss) 23:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


Incesso has perfects in incessīv-, incessu-, and incess-, but the perfect forms in incesiv- (which are currently used) are incorrect and should be deleted. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 04:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Can you list all entries needing to be deleted? bd2412 T 19:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

glücklicher Zufall[edit]

glücklicher Zufall = lucky chance event. Total SOP. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Another source I know has luck, serendipity (whatever that is), fortunate coincidence and lucky coincidence. Donnanz (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Then that source is trying to explain the word serendipity for German speakers. We can do that by putting {{t|de|[[glücklich]]er [[Zufall]]|m}} in the translation table of the English word. But the German term is SOP, meaning simply "lucky coincidence" and nothing idiomatic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
      • OK, bearing in mind that Wiktionary likes to shoot itself. The entry in that source (for serendipity) dates back to 2004. The same source has unglücklicher Zufall. Donnanz (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

glückliche Fügung[edit]

I'll admit that this phrase has a degree of setness in German (which is why I'm nominating it separately) but it is still "lucky" + "providence/fortune". Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Kept; clear absence of consensus to delete. bd2412 T 19:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


This should be in lowercase. --Type56op9 (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete the Spanish and Italian common noun sections. Italian has some proper noun senses which I have added. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep in RFD; move to RFV: Let's keep the process discipline a bit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

arnés pene[edit]

Doesn't look like the real thing to me (no pun intended) --Type56op9 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It a real term in Spanish. Synonyms include pene femenino, cinturón poronguero, and cinturonga. —Stephen (Talk) 12:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

alta gama[edit]

I'd say this isn't an adjective. Possibly de alta gama would be an entry, however. --Type56op9 (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It’s a noun. —Stephen (Talk) 12:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


Sense 2 seems to describe a noun, and i can't find it in any other dictionary. Not to mention how cumbersome it is to read. —This comment was unsigned.

The noun is "derogatory clause", so this is in fact an adjective modifying "clause". The definition may be outdated (a Google search suggests it comes from Rawson's 1884 Pocket Law-Lexicon) but that isn't a reason to delete it altogether. Equinox 20:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Move to derogatory clause. The definition we have appeared as a run-in in MW 1913, which does not mean that it takes the PoS of the headword. Thus it is arguably "created in error".
Further, derogatory clause seems to have another meaning, possibly a generalization of the one in question: "a statutory or contractual provision proclaiming that the document in which it appears, or a part of the document, cannot be repealed or amended."
I don't think it will turn out that there is use of derogatory in these senses apart from the word clause, either as derogatory clause or clause derogatory, but that would depend on someone attempting to create an adjective definition. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking at derogatory clause at OneLook Dictionary Search I see no entries but derogatory clause in a testament at OneLook Dictionary Search show three references containing entries, run-in or full, and one with a null redirect. DCDuring TALK 21:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I found "if the clause be derogatory", so I disagree with the proposed move. Equinox 22:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

trozo de madera[edit]

Claims to mean woodchip, which may well be true. However, it is SOP in Spanish, the definition being "piece/bit of wood". also, LWC created it. --Type56op9 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 16:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 19:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

sin forma[edit]

Spanish, looks SOP. In Spanish, we can have sin followed by almost any noun - "sin siesta", "sin cerveza", "sin elefante". I don't see this as being as idiomatic as the others. --Type56op9 (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 19:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

abrazo estrecho[edit]

Doesn't look idiomatic to me. abrazo + estrecho --Type56op9 (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 19:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

caramelo de melaza[edit]

Looks like a description more than a worthy entry - literally "sweet of molasses". --Type56op9 (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 19:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

fragmento de madera[edit]

Similar to trozo de madera, IMHO sum of parts. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 16:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 19:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


For the same reason that -ers#English and -ists#English don't exist. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep To be honest, I see no reason why -ers and -ists shouldn't exist. It seems sensible to tell people how different suffixes form plurals (especially since some are irregular: -biosis > -bioses), and because it's a "Plural form of..." entry it doesn't introduce any additional work to keep and maintain this. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Smurrayinchester here. The plural of 20-tuple, etc. is pretty obvious, but not absurdly so, and that hasn't stopped us from listing plurals for English words in general even where they're pretty obvious.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and create -er, -ers, -ist and -ists. Purplebackpack89 02:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
What is the part of speech supposed to be? It's not a suffix, because you don't add -tuples onto a word; you add -s onto a word that already ends in -tuple. But it's not a noun because it isn't an entire word. Delete! Equinox 16:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like an &lit problem to me. bd2412 T 16:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. There was some discussion on de.Wikt about what to do with compounded suffixes (e.g. -ieren, which is seen in some analyses as -ier(-) + -en). de:-ieren is currently a hard redirect to de:-ier. en.Wikt doesn't like to use redirects in circumstances like that, but something along the lines of {{&lit}} or a soft redirect seems in order here ("plural of tuple" is potentially misleading, for the reasons Equinox gives), if this entry is kept. - -sche (discuss) 18:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hyderabad State[edit]

Not sure if this ought to be an entry, or whether it should be a sense at Hyderabad. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be a sense at Hyderabad either way — so I've just added it. That, I think, makes this as SOPpy as State of South Carolina or Yorkshire County. On the other hand, we have kept SOPpy official national names before, like Kingdom of Norway. Relevant previous RFM discussion: Talk:Baramulla District. Thanks for your recent moves, by the way; I cleaned up all the pages I could find after the RFM, but I clearly didn't find them all. - -sche (discuss) 03:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
So, delete, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hyderabad Division[edit]

Same as Hyderabad State above, since -sche pointed it out. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. (See my comments above about Hyderabad State, and note that this isn't even a nation, but a sub-national unit.) - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Next thing you know separatist movements will spring up so places can get their own entry. DCDuring TALK 21:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


Rfd of the Spanish entry.

This is said to be "borrowed from English", but it looks to me like it is English. Sure, Spanish-speaking people in the US will use it in running Spanish sentences- as untranslated English. I've never heard it used, but I doubt it's pronounced any different than when a bilingual Spanish/English speaker would say it it in English. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete It seems to fail RFV anyway. The only uses I can find are in discussing US American services which have the brand name "Dial-A-Ride" in English, and in discussing a mathematical optimization problem called the "Dial-A-Ride problem". Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Created dial-a-ride problem. Equinox 22:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

furniture studies[edit]

Am I missing something as to why this is not SOP? --Type56op9 (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I suspect this entry was created as a form of protest for the inclusion and non-deletion of entries similarly regarded as SOP, such as [[Celtic studies]], as seen further up the page. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    Most of the arguments made for and against Celtic studies would apply. I suspect that any change in expressed opinion or in the ratio of pros to cons will reflect only that this is a less traditional field, smaller, and excessively trade-schoolish. DCDuring TALK 20:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    Documenting one-word translations seemed to be a concern in the discussion of "Celtic studies". are there comparable one-word translations for "furniture studies"? bd2412 T 21:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    How will we find out without keeping this until we have had at least one active contributor in all agglutinative languages pass on that question? What about the poor user who wouldn't find this newish filed in our hoary, tradition-bound competitors? How else would an academic researcher find how this would be translated in Uighur and Navajo? or compare the nomenclature of traditional fields with novel ones across languages? Am I sensing extra-linguistic considerations? DCDuring TALK 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    What's with that agglutinative straw man? No-one wants to use xłp̓x̣ʷłtłpłłs ("he had had in his possession a bunchberry plant") as a reason for creation of he had had in his possession a bunchberry plant. As per Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/July#Can we_get_'particularly_useful_translation_target'_into_CFI?: If we were after a formal strict set of criteria for translation targets, we would take care to handle these sorts of languages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd normally say Keep, because Celtic studies was kept. On the other hand, this isn't exactly like Celtic studies per se, and it was clearly created to prove a point. Purplebackpack89 21:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    So what? The entry stands on its own. It has been attested as well. Trying to find what we will and won't include by examining real cases seems perfectly appropriate. If we keep this, then it would be very efficient to add comparable entries by getting some on-line catalogs of schools and adding them en masse instead of whimsically. DCDuring TALK 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I continue to feel that creating non-idiomatic multiword SOP entries in language A just because there's a one-word term for that in language B is a poor justification. C.f. ja:w:椅子学, or google books:"椅子学" "は", demonstrating the existence of a term for the Japanese academic field of "chair studies". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Send to fucking RFV. No way we are going to let "Celtic studies" and friends pass because of in-voting, and then dispute this because we don't like the attitude of the creator. Equinox 00:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
It's already been cited, though one might question the cites. DCDuring TALK 02:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, well, strong keep then, just to make the X-studies-ists realise how stupid they are, or dig the hole deeper. Equinox 03:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
If it weren't for vacuous SoP entries many wouldn't be able to contribute. Paraphrasing SoP terms for the English definitions and doing calque translations seems to be as much as we can get out of some folks. DCDuring TALK 04:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Equinox, you need to chillax. It's not the end of the world that ____ studies entries are being kept. I'd argue it's probably better in the long run for all concerned. RfV is a waste of time, because each of the ___ studies entries I've seen could be cited in about 30 seconds. Also, what you mean by "in-voting". Purplebackpack89 16:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Re: "If it weren't for vacuous SoP entries many wouldn't be able to contribute.": Seems pretty implausible to me, given what I've seen. Celtic studies was created by Ivan Štambuk, the bulk of whose contribution is Serbo-Croatian. English studies was created by me, and the bulk of my mainspace contribution is Czech. I created English studies because of the utility that I immediately recognized; I suspect the same is true of Ivan Štambuk's creation of Celtic studies. DCDuring's Measles virus seems of much less lexicographical interest to me than Celtic studies and English studies; some would probably even argue that Measles virus is sum of parts; I would argue that it duplicates Wikispecies and that it brings close to zero value to Wiktionary users. That said, I do not propose Measles virus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Equinox and per, I don't know, COALMINE or something. Inverse COALMINE? Keep anything that another language has a single word for? Is that what we want to do? - -sche (discuss) 04:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a straw man: as user -sche knows, no-one is proposing to include all English words for which another single language has a single word. User -sche has made this straw man before, and I pointed out that this is a strawman before to him, but as we can see, to no avail. Furthermore, it has been repeatedly recognized by supporters of the translation target criterion that agglutinative languages would not be included in translation target considerations, so that user -sche's favorite xłp̓x̣ʷłtłpłłs ("he had had in his possession a bunchberry plant") would not count. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete The translation target argument would only apply if there were any translations here (beyond simply a hypothetical agglutinative furniturestudies). Incidentally, we have an article on Celtology, so why do we still need Celtic studies as a place to keep translations? Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
You could propose moving the translations on WT:RFM, or boldly move them. Maybe I'll boldly move them. I suppose the reason they're at Celtic studies is that it is significantly more common a phrase than Celtology, and it makes sense to have translations in the most common entry which exists — but that argument does become rather circular when the reason for keeping Celtic studies despite its SOPness is that translations need a place to live. - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The argument is not circular. The translations should be on a term that actually gets used, not on one that is so rare that it would be considered by many to be an error. Celtic studies,(Celtology*40) at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Smurrayinchester, or anyone else, could you explain why it makes sense to have non-idiomatic multi-word SOP English terms as translation targets for one-word foreign-language terms, when we don't do the inverse? I.e., we don't create non-idiomatic multi-word SOP foreign-language terms for one-word English terms. Instead, we list the translation as the non-idiomatic multi-word SOP foreign-language phrase, and link through to the individual terms that compose that phrase. I really don't understand why we don't do this for translating other-language terms into English. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 08:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Because English entries have translation tables, so they serve as their own translation targets, while non-English entries don't, so they can't. If you want to know the Portuguese translation of a Japanese term that doesn't have a non-SOP English translation, you're out of luck, currently- unless you have an SOP translation target to hang a translation table onto. Of course, given the variation in concepts between languages, this has at least the potential to almost exponentially complicate things. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like an argument for more complete jawikt and ptwikt or for Wikidata. Do we even still have bots doing automatic entries? DCDuring TALK 14:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Not because of the SOP argument (very clearly, some SOP phrases are English terms), but because I cannot imagine that it can be considered as a single term in English. Although note that, in my opinion, the translation target argument is not a good argument, and that there is no reason to forbid translation tables for non-English words (in some cases, they are needed, and they are the rule for de.wikt). The important thing is that each of these translations should be added by somebody knowing both relevant languages. Lmaltier (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as sum of parts until someone comes up with a sincere reason to keep this. In particular, this entry does not appear to be translation target: there are no translations in the entry. The creation of this entry appears to be pointing, a bit like the creation of himand by user -sche who now joins this pointing exercise by writing "Keep per Equinox and per, I don't know, COALMINE or something" in boldface above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


Incomprehensible. Totally wrong. If nothing can be done, please delete. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: Sorry that fell off my radar. Work and other things are claiming more of my time. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


Doesn't make any sense. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A search is not promising [1]. Equinox 05:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
This is about Sufi mysticism. Zaat is Arabic ذات (ḏāt) (essence), and Hoo (Hu) is Arabic هو (the pronoun He, as a name for Allah). —Stephen (Talk) 07:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
One possible cite with a different romanisation (there appear to be a lot on Google Books, but actually all are from the same guy): 1. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree the current entry is a mess. As to whether or not hoo has any attested (Sufi-related) meaning that could replace the current entry: there are some instances of Hoo, sometimes italicized and sometimes not, in Sultan Bahoo, The Life and Teachings. Searching is made difficult by the commonness of the phrase/interjection "Allah-Hoo" (with various capitalization), and the fact that many books not only discuss that phrase but its individual parts, saying things like:
  • "This sound of Hoo, Hoo will hit powerfully on your dormant kundalini. The Sufis have researched deeply into the sound Allah Hoo! They start with the sound Allah Hoo, then by and by the word Allah is dropped and only Hoo remains." (The Heartbeat of the Absolute: By Osho)
  • "They use Allah hoo, and slowly, slowly they change Allah hoo into simply hoo, hoo. They have found that the sound of hoo strikes exactly at the life source just below the navel." (Ek Onkar Satnam: The Heartbeat of Nanak)
(That is to say,) Many instances of hoo seem to be parts of longer terms, and/or transliterations of Arabic. - -sche (discuss) 22:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the main problem is that too much of the context is taken for granted and omitted, so an uninformed reader sees only the pieces, and not the whole. Still, I have my doubts as to whether this is English or transliterated Arabic. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Totally unconnected, but there's a place in Kent (England) by this name (Hoo St. Werburgh), and the area is known as the Hundred of Hoo. Donnanz (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention w:Sutton Hoo, site of one of the greatest finds of medieval European archeology. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

moral diversity[edit]

Both senses strike me as SOP. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The fried egg test is passed if we name a diversity of morals which does not meet the definition (much as a scrambled egg is an egg which is fried but does not meet the definition of "fried egg"). For the first sense, one example may be a diverse set of morals which no people are inclined to endorse. As another example, there may be diversity of moral inclinations which is so slight that it would not be a criteria of discrimination. This first sense of "moral diversity" refers to a criteria of social discrimination (much as a common sense of "age diversity" would excludes age differences at scales too slight to ground discrimination, or differences in the ages of corpses). The second sense (the older sense) is about good vs. evil. For this sense, the fried egg test might point to a diverse set of morals which all have the same quality (e.g. 100 different but equally evil moral inclinations). Such a set may have moral diversity in the first sense, but not in the second. If you can help improve the definition of either sense, I'd appreciate it--there is a long list of quotes on the citations page to help you. Silversalt (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


RFD sense: "(sport) Not conceding many goals."

This is just a combination of "6. Well-rehearsed and accurate in execution." and "7. Lacking holes; difficult to penetrate; waterproof." as applied to football. It also seems rather inaccurate - you can't describe a goalkeeper as "tight" no matter how few goals they concede. There was one citation, which I've moved to sense 7. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Many of our sports senses are similar overspecializations of more general definitions and should be rooted out. DCDuring TALK 09:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring:: Why? If a word means something even slightly different in sports than it does generally, it should get a second definition. Purplebackpack89 00:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Tight means something distinguishable in many contexts, but we do users (Remember them?) no service by recording every possible nuance. Our list of definitions quickly becomes useless for humans, however valuable it might be for machines attempting to "understand" human speech. DCDuring TALK 04:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"We do users no service by recording every possible nuance." I completely disagree with that. There is a great deal of use to be had in distinguishing between nuances. I cannot fathom how you and others have convinced yourselves that it is somehow more useful to users to have fewer definitions. Purplebackpack89 06:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
So users can quickly locate something close to what they want. Having "exactly" what they want but making it harder to find is no help. Think cognitive limitations and impatience. DCDuring TALK 14:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's a terrible excuse for not covering the language as well as we should. Our primary aim should be covering the language, not worrying about cognitive limitations. Generally speaking, you only have to read the first couple words of each entry anyways: once you pass the context part, it's clear whether or not you need to read on. Purplebackpack89 16:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"...not covering the language as well as we should"? That begs the question of whether we should cover it that way. There are all kinds of semantic distinctions that could be made: eating an apple involves biting and chewing, eating soup involves drinking, eating many other things involves swallowing whole, eating things like shellfish involves eating only the edible part, while eating kumquats involves eating the entire thing. Creating senses for those would just add clutter without adding anything that people couldn't have easily figured out for themselves. Using categorical statements like that hurts your argument, especially when coupled with over-the-top absolute expressions (one of your most irritating affectations) such as "terrible excuse". I think that, at the very least, the sense in question needs rewording, since tight in sports can refer to preventing all sorts of things- not just goals. If we keep this, it should be a subsense of "Lacking holes; difficult to penetrate; waterproof", and have a definition along the lines of "not allowing opportunities for opponents". We might also consider how well "Lacking holes; difficult to penetrate; waterproof" covers the expession "a tight seal". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
In answer to should we, yes, I think we need to have more precise definitions. I'd also note that this discussion grew out of a desire to have different definitions for sports and non-sports context. Also, there is a second sports-related definition nobody's touching on...when I hear "tight" in sports, I assume people are talking about the score being close. Also, why are you knocking only me for painting with a broad brush, when this discussion started with DC positing that a whole bunch of sports-related definitions should be deleted? Purplebackpack89 21:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, you seem to be of the opinion that Wiktionary should be designed for you, with your God-like cognitive capabilities and unquestionable good taste. But given those capabilities you don't need a dictionary. DCDuring TALK 22:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
How about you spend less time personally attacking me by accusing me of having a God complex and more time explaining why having fewer definitions is a good idea? Purplebackpack89 22:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I said nothing of the kind. I was trying to bring you down to earth, to realize that the ordinary Wiktionary user, for whom we should be developing it, are closer to the average human than to the average Wiktionary contributor in terms of raw capability, education, and patience. DCDuring TALK 22:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
But being of a lower capability and education would favor having more definitions... And I do consider the ordinary user, whom I believe wants as many definitions as possible, and uses other online dictionaries rather than Wiktionary because they have more definitions than we do. Purplebackpack89 22:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Arrowred.png I see this claim, again and again (not just from Purple): “users want _____” Do we have any hard data on any such statement? If so, where do we find it? Is it just a matter of combing through WT:Feedback? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

WMF seems to have many concerns with the means by which information is collected from users. Anything that smacks of tracking user behavior, which is very cheap to do, seems to be out of the question, partially on ideological grounds. Other cheap means of getting information are essentially anecdotal or suffer from selection bias of unknown nature and magnitude. Thus we are forced to rely on WMF's own efforts, which seem never to involve projects other than WP. Feedback is our best shot AFAICT, but it suffers from a selection bias. It might be possible to draw some inferences from the information available from site trackers such as ALEXA, which shows that worldwide Wiktionary users skew greatly toward those with "advanced" graduate degrees, compared to, say MWOnline. See Special:Statistics#See also. DCDuring TALK 23:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
There are some things that don't need a lot of data, like keeping rare, obsolete, archaic, and dated terms out of definitions, where an alternative exists (eg, subterraneous vs subterranean). What plausible definition of our user base could possible justify using such terms? We don't even try to exclude such terms systematically. DCDuring TALK 00:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, I regularly ask people about words, to find out whether they use them, have heard of them, have heard them used in certain ways, etc. My sample is the people in my neighborhood who walk dogs. They mostly have college degrees, but relatively few have advanced degrees. I recommend that all Wiktionary contributors get a dog and talk to the full range of people they meet while walking their dog. Those who live in university ghettos would have to take stronger measures for the same result. DCDuring TALK 00:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's get this right out of the way here. There is no conceivable way by which readers are harmed by our having properly labeled entries for rare or archaic terms, or even arguably SOP entries. People who never look them up will not see them, and therefore will not have any reaction to them at all. The real question is, what do people use dictionaries for? I would think that it is not controversial to say that the most common reason anyone would use a dictionary is if they come across a word in a book or other written work, and want to know something about that word - not necessarily the definition (although that will always be up there), but maybe the pronunciation, the etymology, the relationship it has to words with similar sounds or spellings. We offer features beyond those of the typical dictionary, like translations, citations, and even anagrams. I recall that we used to have some means to see which of our entries were being viewed by the most people. If we could get that back, it would be a great tool to see what readers were finding useful. bd2412 T 02:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record, "people who never look them up will not see them" is not true, because of anagrams, "random entry", predictive search, our pages being spidered by Google, etc. etc. Reminds me of the "if you don't like it, don't read it!" argument of the person who posts daily inflammatory comments on your favourite blog. Equinox 02:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Are we equating definitions with appropriate context tags with inflammatory blog posts? I am sure that the technology exists to leave archaic terms out of the process of creating anagrams. As for the rest, I concede that there is approximately a one in four million chance that a person clicking "random entry" will arrive at any particular entry, although it will actually probably be an Italian conjugation. Predictive search results only come up for those searching for words for which we have no entry, and will not be seen by people correctly typing in titles of existing entries. We can't control what people see on Google, but a Google search quickly turning up an archaic term on Wiktionary is probably a search for that archaic term. There is, after all, a degree to which people actually look for archaic stuff, and want to know its history of usage, etymology, and the like. bd2412 T 22:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with BD. There's no harm in having more entries, more definitions, and more sections. Purplebackpack89 07:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ailill mac Máta[edit]

Ailill mac Máta (< Máit?)

Amairgin mac Echit[edit]

Amergin mac Echit

Cairbre Nia Fer[edit]

Cairbre nia fer
This meaning of nia (later niad or niath, cf. Modern Irish niata (warriorlike, adj)) isn't there yet.

Cet mac Mágach[edit]

Cét mac Mágach

Cethern mac Fintain[edit]

Cethern mac Fintáin

Conchobar mac Nessa[edit]

Conchobar mac Nessa

Condere mac Echach[edit]

Condere mac Echach

Cormac Cond Longas[edit]

Cormac cond longas

Fedlimid mac Daill[edit]

Fedlimid mac Dall

Fergus mac Róich[edit]

Fergus mac Róch

Fionn mac Cumhail[edit]

Finn mac Cumal

Manannan mac Lir[edit]

This is a special case: Manannán is a unique name, possessed only by the god Manannán mac Lir. The elements are probably worth adding in their own right, Manannán in the etymology of the Isle of Man, and Ler in the possible origin of King Lear, and his Welsh cognate Llŷr. (He's also the father in the story of Clann Lir, where his four children were turned into swans by their evil stepmother.)

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." (These individuals are of questionable historicity, but the aforecited section of CFI says it "regulates the inclusion and exclusion of names of specific entities, that is, names of individual people, [...] names of mythological creatures", etc, emphasis mine) See also my and others' comments at WT:RFV#Lugaid_mac_Con_Ro.C3.AD. Someone else may want to nominate entries like Conall the Victorious. - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete*, and I find it strange that these are marked English rather than Old or Middle Irish.
(*) Technically, Cairbre Nia Fer and Cormac Cond Longas have neither patronymics nor family names. The names mean (as far as I can tell from Googling - I'm sure one of our Irish speakers can put me straight) Cairbre, Hero/Defeater of Men and Cormac, Exiled Prince. I would assume that this sort of disambiguator would also make an individual ineligible for inclusion, although I see we do have Alexander the Great and Mary Magdalene. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Cairbre Nia Fer and Cormac Cond Longas are other examples of people, not names as names. Is it worth adding a section to Proper noun entries of "Notable bearers" or the like? With wikipedia links, say.
Mythical people is one thing, but gods is another. Manannán is a unique god. Similarly, I can't find any examples of Lugh as people, but there are names derived from him: Lugaid, Lugach, Lugair. The difference is that Lugh has many bynames -- samildánach, lámfada, macnia -- but Manannán is primarily known with his patronym. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 09:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd certainly support adding something like ", name of several ancient Irish kings." to entries like Conchobar and Ailill (which don't yet exist!), similar to what we have at Henry. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


Military sense. Copied verbatim from another dictionary. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedied as copyvio. Please re-add with an original definition. Equinox 18:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was just a description of the way in which the intelligence department of the United States Department of Defense directs or refers information to a particular case (our sense 4). We don't need to describe how every organisation applies knowledge, do we? Dbfirs 18:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Striking out: a typographic operation formally indicating a closure; already speedied in diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Takács de Saár[edit]

No such surname exists in Hungarian since de Saár is just a title so it is not an integral part of the name. In addition, Takács de Saár is a foreign form of the name while the Hungarian version is saári Takács. Einstein2 (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 13:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


Rfd-sense: two senses added by a non-native speaker:

  • (reflexive) sich vom etw. entfernen, to go absent
  • (reflexive) sich aus etw. entfernen, to leave something

I don't see how these are any different from sense 2. -- Liliana 12:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The "leave something" sense is transparent (given German's relatively strict rules about prepositions, you can expect any verb meaning leave to be coupled to "aus"/"raus"), so delete sense 4 (although it would be nice to have a usage example that shows the use of "aus"). The "go absent" sense is less clear to me, as a non-native German speaker. Does it only refer to cases of running away, or is it equivalent to the broader English "go absent"? If, for example, I don't report for duty (that is, I don't show up at all), have I still entfernt myself from the troop? Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The example sentence is pretty horrible because absent without leave is idiomatic in English. Really, all it means is that you leave the troop. That's it. If you don't report for duty, you never left to begin with, in that case, you'd use sich entziehen. -- Liliana 00:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
In that case Delete both. Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


This is what I call a rare misspelling, so it should be deleted. Some searches: increidbly, incredibly at Google Ngram Viewer, google:"increidbly", google:"incredibly", google books:"increidbly", google books:"incredibly". The frequency ratio in Google Ngram Viewer cannot be determined since the misspelling is not found; the frequency ratio in Google books is 3,520,000 : 36 = over 90,000. Compare conceive, (concieve*1000) at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody would use this form in speech or non-typed writing. I don't believe we should have typos (where the fingers misstrike the keys) as common misspellings: it is something for the search engine "did you mean...?" feature to sort out. Has this been discussed before? Romanophile, what value do you perceive in creating such entries (neutral honest question)? Equinox 22:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not see much value in complicating the inclusion criteria with the distinction between typo misspellings and non-typo mispellings, where typos cannot not occur in non-typed writing. I see value in keeping attested frequently occurring typos: when the user enters a typo into the search box of the dictionary, it is more convenient for them to be soft-redirected to typoless page than to see a blank page. I do not fear overflood of common typos and misspellings; Category:English misspellings now has less than 2000 entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, no question about that. I can make that sort of error every day, and it's up to me to correct them. Donnanz (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. We have traditionally excluded typos (which can be identified as such by the fact that they are found alongside the usual spellings in many or most of the works in which they are found). - -sche (discuss) 02:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Does not match my recollection. From what I recall, there is no tradition of excluding high-frequency typos. And the method of recognition, if suggestes to distinguish typos from non-typos, does not work. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I differentiate typos from misspellings as errors made by people who likely know the correct spelling but don't hit the right keys, or hit the keys in the wrong order. It seems highly unlikely that anyone would type this believing it to be the correct spelling of the word. bd2412 T 03:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, per BD2412 Lmaltier (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
We deleted derver (in English) because it's a typo for, rather than a misspelling of server. Why is this still here? Just delete it. 18:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Derver (archived version). 18:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the RFD discussion is on Talk:derver. In that discussion, certain Mglovesfun (which would be you per your recent disclosure) asks whether we would accept "viwe" as a common misspelling of "view". To which my answer is, no, we don't accept that since the frequency ratio is unequivocally unfavorable per (viwe*500000),view at Google Ngram Viewer, and therefore "viwe" is not common by any stretch. In that same discussion, DCDuring opines that we have avoided adding misspellings resulting as typos, and adds "except in atypical cases that otherwise seem to meet good old CFI", failing to note that we are talking attested typos and that there never was anything in CFI to exclude all attested misspellings (typos or not) in the first place; so much for good old CFI. As for "derver", that is not found in Google Ngram Viewer at all. On another note, the RFD discussion had three participants, and lasted mere 9 days. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 13:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


The sport teams do not merit a different sense IMO; almost all college sports teams are referred to by the name of the school. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete; the team is the team of the school. bd2412 T 22:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If this were to pass RFD, I'd be tempted to RFV it, because I don't think any uses exist which unambiguously are this sense and can't be interpreted as the first sense. (*"Although the University of California at Los Angeles banned hazing, UCLA continued to practice it." ?) Compare "Germany beat Brazil 7-1". - -sche (discuss) 02:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I do see the point, though: when you say "UCLA and USC will be playing for the college title at UCLA", you're not saying that two entire universities will be engaged in a sports contest- think of the work required to move all those buildings and people crosstown ;). I don't know where we should draw the line on making metonomy explicit. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I question whether it's even proper metonymy (à la "The White House said...") or just the routine phenomenon that a representative part of a group can be referred to as the group. "[The] Americans won the Fina Cup in Barcelona, Spain." (Not every American; many Americans didn't even compete.) "Wiktionary deleted [[brown leaf]] last year." (Actually, it was only deleted by CodeCat, not by every user working in unison or in sequence.) - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The same goes to every department of the university. For example: "In addition to a highly developed clinical program, UCLA has the distinction of offering an unusually flexible externship". Carol-June Cassidy, ‎Sally F. Goldfarb, Inside the Law Schools: A Guide by Students for Students (1998), page 102. However, this addresses only the law school, not the entire university. This does not require an entry for "the law school of UCLA". bd2412 T 14:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 18:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

platonic relationship[edit]

Strikes me as a pretty clear-cut SoP. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete. The contrast with platonic love is instructive, platonic love apparently being the source of the sense of platonic being used in the RfDed term. DCDuring TALK 05:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per DC. bd2412 T 13:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 19:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


Created by mistake/typo (+ accelerated creation), the word does not exist. Same for acciradas and accirados.

pizza party[edit]

Obvious SOP entry [unnecessary personal attack redacted]. -- 20:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, transparently SoP. Why would anyone create an entry with the edit summary, "Might be sum‐of‐parts"? Figure that part out first. bd2412 T 22:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I should have just requested permission to create this entry since I was uncertain. That would have been the wiser thing to do instead of rushing ahead. --Romanophile (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Echo BD2412. I don't know what Romanophile's "thing" is but it seems to relate to attention from others. Equinox 02:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
‘Attention from others?’ What is this, The Daily Mail? --Romanophile (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 18:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

zoological nomenclature[edit]

Is this anything other than zoological + nomenclature? And should we also have binomial nomenclature and botanical nomenclature? ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

We would probably also need virological nomenclature, too, perhaps bacteriological nomenclature. For historical reasons we might need others as well.
Those who believe that we are a short-attention-span encyclopedia should like those entries. I don't. DCDuring TALK 14:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete this, but keep binomial nomenclature (it's a set term with an idiomatic meaning). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 16:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 19:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

hummogunõ ago[edit]

õdagunõ ago[edit]

These literally mean "morning twilight" and "evening twilight". I'm guessing that they were added because Estonian (Võro is spoken in Estonia) has separate words for these, koit and eha. —CodeCat 23:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 18:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 19:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

fake etymology[edit]

false etymology[edit]

And this is not a fake + etymology because... what? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Transparent. bd2412 T 15:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

also delete false etymology--Dixtosa (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 16:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete. I added false etymology to the headers. 18:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep, delete. - -sche (discuss) 18:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Probably delete both. (But we should have etymological fallacy and folk etymology.) Ƿidsiþ 09:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 17:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Red Nose Day[edit]

No consensus last time it was RFD'd, but I think the same arguments against it apply. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep For one thing, the name of the event is Comic Relief, and the day itself was originally called "National Day of Comedy" - "Red Nose Day" was (as far as I can tell) originally an unofficial name for it which has caught on (like Poppy Day, focusing on what's worn on the day rather than what the day celebrates). While I can see a case for excluding minor SOP days (World Book Day, etc), this falls well short of SOP status. Also, there are a few citations for the general sense "A day when people wear red noses for charity" unrelated to Comic Relief:
  • 1990, The New Beacon
    Marathons and telethons, Red Nose days, sponsored long journeys taken under difficult circumstances, challenges to meet financial targets within a specific deadline — it goes on and on.
  • 1992, Cable Vision
    [...] all three circumstances helped convince United Video, along with several hundred systems that cablecast UV's transmission of Chicago superstation WGN-TV, to conduct a "Red Nose Day" promotion this spring.
  • 1997, David Barnard, Programme for Development Research (South Africa), The Youth book: a directory of South African youth organisations, service providers and resource material
    • Enables and empowers child welfare societies to organise Red Nose Days in their own communities
  • 2011, Stephen Juan, The Odd Body: Mysteries of Our Weird and Wonderful Bodies Explained, Andrews McMeel Publishing (ISBN 9781449411398)
    National Red Nose Day is an annual event in Australia. Many of the famous and not- so-famous will pay for the privilege of wearing a plastic red nose in support of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome research, counseling, and support services.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

laser beam[edit]

Baseball sense. Just a metaphor. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep Cited with unambiguous noun usage:
  • 2005, Dallas Woodburn, 3 A.m.: A Collection of Short Stories, iUniverse (ISBN 9780595357864)
    The batter hit a laser-beam to right field. A run for Cincinnati! Now the score was five to three.
  • 2009, P.J. Dragseth, Eye for Talent: Interviews with Veteran Baseball Scouts, McFarland (ISBN 9780786458134), page 37
    When in doubt, so I threw my best fastball. Mantle hit a laser beam past my right knee.
  • 2012, Paul Kocak, Baseball's Starry Night: Reliving Major League Baseball's 2011 Wild Card Night of Shock and Awe, Digitature (ISBN 9780615622309), page 152
    Just as he finished that sentence, Evan Longoria hit a laser beam over the left field fence. The Red Sox season was over in a flash.
  • 2014, Scott Simkus, Outsider Baseball: The Weird World of Hardball on the Fringe, 1876–1950, Chicago Review Press (ISBN 9781613748190), page 116
    The Bloomer Girls played a respectable brand of baseball, to be sure, but they didn't throw 350-foot laser beams from deep center, or chew Red Man during ballgames.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
(I don't know much about baseball, but there are a couple of mentions of "throwing a laser beam". Is that compatible with the definition as it stands?) Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • All those usages look like metaphors to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Well yes, they're metaphors in the sense that Evan Longoria didn't literally hit a pulse of coherent photons over the left field fence. But a daisy cutter doesn't literally cut daisies and a worm burner doesn't burn worms. It seems to be solely a baseball term (I couldn't find any relevant hits for "cricket" + "laser beam". "football" + "hit a laser beam" gets a couple of results in American local papers, but even there, most of the results are for baseball - the fact I can't find any UK usage at all suggests that it's sport journalists who have been roped in to cover school soccer games using their more familiar baseball jargon) and, dare I use those dreaded words, a set phrase. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep, I think. There's evidently some figurative sense (something like a beeline?), whether restricted to baseball or not, and its existence isn't deducible from the physics sense. Equinox 15:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Possibly generalize the sense instead of deleting. Even as a metaphor, how obvious is it that laser beam means something travelling quickly in a straight line. 17:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Equinox. the sense can be generalized if there are citations showing that it is more general than the current wording suggests, but Smurrayinchester's comments above suggest it may not be general, it may indeed be limited to baseball. - -sche (discuss) 18:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I've added the synonyms (hypernyms?) rocket and bullet and the synonym laser. None of those have a baseball-specific sense — not should they IMO. I don't know that laser beam should either. frozen rope might be another one. DCDuring TALK 18:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Citations for popular-sports use is abundant at Google News. Most sports journalism never gets into books, thankfully. I think some of these terms are used in many sports, like American and other football, hockey, as well as baseball. DCDuring TALK 19:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to be BOLD and create frozen rope. A frozen rope isn't really a thing even in Alaska. Purplebackpack89 13:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What about other metaphors using laser beam? It is often used about attention and criticism. DCDuring TALK 22:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
If you can be bothered to collect some examples, then hopefully we could come up with a single figurative sense that covers them all. (Such a sense is still worth having, IMO, to show that "laser beam" is used figuratively on a regular basis. Something like "particle accelerator" could conceivably be used as a metaphor for a situation with rapid collisions, e.g. between conflicting doctrines, but the fact is that it isn't.) Equinox 23:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The aspects of a laser that are drawn on for metaphors seem to be 'straightness', 'intensity', 'accuracy', and 'destructiveness'. Usually it's laser rather than laser beam. I'll leave this to Purp. He needs practice applying ELE and coming up with defintions supported by evidence. DCDuring TALK 02:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is it suddenly my job to do this? And why have we arbitrarily decided we need just one sense? Purplebackpack89 02:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I suppose DCD was satirically drawing attention to your habit of making binary decisions without any actual logic or thought behind them. Remember: don't disagree with Purplebackpack! When anyone disagrees with Purple, it's "open season", and some kind of aggressive attack, and they need to be "called off", to restrain themselves. And yet when Purple makes an attack, it's important and worthwhile, even though it goes against every basic law of logic that was well understood thousands of years ago by Plato. We need to smack this kind of shit down. If we are willing to be trampled, then our (hopefully) neutral definitions will be overwritten by some currently faddish biased party. It might be the Tumblr "SJWs", or their enemies, the "red-pill" misogynists, but either way... we need to be constantly vigilant that we are making any kind of fucking sense and not following rubbish and illogic, such as Purple's. Equinox 03:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
You know, Equinox, if you wanted me to think you weren't aggressively attacking me, you should dial down the rhetoric. Your above post is pretty damn aggressive. Furthermore, the claim that I put no thought or logic into my votes is false. All I do is come to a conclusion you find an anathema. Purplebackpack89 03:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


Misspelled word https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ӧти
Correct word as found in the official Komi dictionary http://dict.komikyv.ru/index.php/term/4,37848.xhtml Alcenter (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

catch a tan[edit]

SOP? catch + a + tan. --Type56op9 (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

catch = senses of get. Misleading to claim all the uses (rays, Zs, flick, ride, wave, etc) are idiomatic. Delete. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete. The citation doesn't wow me (songs rarely make very good ones) but perhaps we could move it to the sense at catch. Equinox 21:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Not sure. We do have catch a cold. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    As is often the case, we have the literal sense of catch a cold at OneLook Dictionary Search, which is at best a phrasebook entry, and miss the (not too common, but attestable) idiomatic sense. Collins and UD have the idiomatic sense. DCDuring TALK 13:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    We also miss catch one's death at OneLook Dictionary Search, clearly idiomatic, short for catch one's death of a cold. DCDuring TALK 13:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Primary mean of catch involves containing a moving object within one's hands. This definition does not pertaining to containing a moving object within one's hands. Purplebackpack89 17:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I've never heard of this, though I can work out the meaning pretty easily because it can't really mean anything else. Nevertheless, perhaps keep as a margin case. Remember CFI says 'easily derived from the sum of its parts'. Is this 'easily' derivable? Or just derivable? 17:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you think we should have an entry for catch a fish because that's done with a net or rod, not hands? How about catch a crab (literal fishing sense, not existing metaphor), catch a trout? Equinox 17:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
You wanna know what I think? I think you should stop making slippery-slope/OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST arguments in a vain attempt to reduce my votes to absurdity. None of the three things you've listed are currently at RfD; please confine your argument to this entry only. Furthermore, the three things you mention still involve containing a moving object, and you generally have to use your hands to hold the net or rod. But, since you asked, while I'd never take the time to actually create them, I wouldn't be opposed to somebody else creating them (and therefore, wouldn't nom them for deletion and wouldn't vote delete on them if you did). Purplebackpack89 18:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
"Slippery slope" isn't a catch-all that you can shout to ignore every argument of this type. Your only argument to keep this was that it isn't catching with the hands, therefore my response is a reasonable rebuttal. If you have a further reason to keep this, then you need to state that further reason, to make your argument sound. If you don't have a further reason, then your entire argument would entail the creation of catch a trout, etc. and is therefore pretty obviously silly. Equinox 23:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Equinox, any argument that says, "well, if we keep X, what are we going to do next? Create or keep Y?" is intrinsically weak, and should be ignored, for the following two reasons:
  1. It assumes that two RfDs are connected. Assuming any two RfDs should be connected is a small leap in and of itself, and it's a greater leap to assume that X and Y are.
  2. It assumes Y should be deleted. That's never been proven.
My argument is that "catch" is ambiguous, and, if anything, you've proven that point. If a word has more than one meaning, as catch does, it can be unclear which meaning is used with certain direct or indirect objects, and certain multi-word definitions containing "catch" should be created to address this ambiguity. I don't see why there's anything wrong with that argument. And remember that I have no objections to catch a trout being created. Purplebackpack89 23:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
We know that words are ambiguous: this is polysemy, and is discussed here very often. I will remind you once again (third time, fifth time?) that we hold up "brown leaf" as a prototypical example of a sum of parts; and yet "brown" has many meanings, and "leaf" has many meanings (e.g. page of a book). The polysemy argument is not ON ITS OWN an anti-deletion argument that holds water. Do you get it yet? Equinox 23:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
You see how you're doing the "if we keep X, what are we going to do next? Create or keep Y?" thing again? You know perfectly well that brown leaf and catch a tan, or a trout for that matter, are nothing alike. It is far more intuitive what brown leaf is than it is what catch a tan is. It is clear to me that there are many examples of polysemy that are worth having in this project. There are some that I would never bother to create, but I wouldn't delete because I believe it's OK to have entries that are examples of polysemy. I can understand most of your argument, Equinox; there is no need to act like I can't. I just don't believe that's the direction we should go in creating and keeping entries. Purplebackpack89 00:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
"It is far more intuitive what brown leaf is than it is what catch a tan is." Oh! Okay, I didn't realise that. Once you provide your academic sources I'll be happy to concede the debate. Equinox 00:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. We also don't have catch a movie, catch a show, or catch an idea. We are not missing these definitions; we are missing a sense of "catch" that broadly means "to obtain or experience". bd2412 T 17:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412:, would you be opposed to me adding such a sense? Purplebackpack89 18:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
You mean, adding such a sense to catch? I can't imagine that anyone would be opposed to that. There are also many more examples - catch a game, catch some rays, catch a sale. bd2412 T 02:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete per DCDuring. Ƿidsiþ 08:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

catch flies[edit]

Not sure about this one. --Type56op9 (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep, I think. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm familiar with this idiom in German too ("Mund zu, sonst kommen Fliegen rein"). Not sure what the best title would be, though - the current one strikes me as odd. -- Liliana 20:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Only flies? In Russian, if you gape, you can catch more interesting things. - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure; the given definition is a bit strange. (I seem to remember being told in primary school that "an open mouth catches no flies" is a South American proverb.) Equinox 22:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd say RFV but it would be very hard to cite because of all the literal usage of catching flies. I will attempt to add a definition which isn't patent nonsense. 17:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Isn’t this only used as try to catch flies? — Ungoliant (falai) 19:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Possibly the most common, but not likely to be the sole attestable use. I'd make it a redirect to whatever we decide the lemma is and also use it as part of a usage example there. DCDuring TALK 22:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I need shelter[edit]

Is this a common sentence? Surely "I need accommodation" would be a better fit? ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither is something I would say if I were looking for a room for the night. This is a double demonstration of why we don't have what it takes to produce a useful phrasebook. DCDuring TALK 13:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
"I need somewhere to stay" and "I need a bed for the night" are probably more likely. I can tell without looking that this is one of Daniel's; he created a few odd-sounding phrases like "I'm burned" (I've burned myself). Move to... somewhere better. Equinox 15:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete the stupid thing. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Kill with fire. 17:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


Senses 1 and 3 should be merged, IMHO, and I ask for support for this.

  • Sense 1: Violent derangement of mind; madness; insanity.
  • Sense 3: (psychiatry) The state of abnormally elevated or irritable mood, arousal, and/or energy levels.

The phrasing of sense 1 is directly from Webster 1913[2].

The genus of the merged def should be "mental disorder" or "mental illness" since I don't think psychiatry denotes a one-off temporary state of high energy level a "mania".

For comparion: mania at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. The psychiatry term doesn't mean 'madness' or 'insanity', it's a specific medical condition of elevated mood. Madness/insanity refer to many things like hallucinations which have nothing. In fact I suspect #1 is a dated definition not in current use. I believe only the medical definition is in use. Can anyone confirm or refute this? 17:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Given there's no overlap in meaning at all, can anyone provide a deletion rationale? 16:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I think the Webster 1913 definition (sense 1) was intended to cover the psychiatric sense 3. Yes, mania in the psychiatric sense and madness are not synonyms. I checked mania at OneLook Dictionary Search and found dictionaries only have two senses. Maybe I should have tagged sense 1 with {{rfd-sense}}, but it should not matter all that much since I ask for a merge. Another option is to send sense 1 to rfv-sense to see what sort of support in evidence that sort of definition has. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

sell oneself short[edit]

Included under second sense of sell something short. Should be a redirect. DCDuring TALK 20:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Both of those entries should be redirects to sell short since something is, obviously, not the only thing that one can sell short. In addition to selling oneself short, one can also sell someone (else) short. - -sche (discuss) 17:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Can sell short ever be used without an object between sell and short? I think a lot of our entry titles with something in them could also have a someone as the object, just it would be incredibly pedantic to have two separate entries for them. When I say "ever used", I mean more than incredibly rarely. 17:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
We have a few entries that include something as a placeholder in the headword in the way that I think is warranted for this. See some of the items in this search. There are others for which one, one's, oneself, and someone or somebody are placeholders.
The placement of short before or after the object depends entirely on the length/complexity of the object:
"I sold the S&P short." / *"I sold short the S&P".
"I sold short all of the Standard and Poor's index except for energy stocks." / ?"I sold all of the Standard and Poor's index except for energy stocks short."
With enough redirects, either could work. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

who are you[edit]

This is a very odd and unnatural thing to say; the proper phrasebook entry is what is your name, which in fact exists. (NB: The Korean and Welsh translations should also be deleted if this fails RFD.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It probably doesn't belong in a phrasebook, which should be aimed at helping learners in everyday transactions, but "Who are you?" is something a person might say to another person when that person does something that outside their sense of that person's character. In that use, the definition given is, at best, strained. DCDuring TALK 13:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this is both useful and very common. Sorry. Keep. 17:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Phrasebook worries aside, it's basically defined as "identify yourself", which is fair enough. A military guard might shout this (having first looked it up on Wiktionary, lol). "What is your name" serves a different, social function. I'm probably being devil's advocate. Equinox 22:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
It is a rude question in many contexts, say, in a bar/pub where one is not known. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The usage can be tweaked but keep entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The phrase means something different depending on the word stressed. "Who are you?" as a demand for identity, or a challenge to authority (as in, "who are you to tell me what to do); "who are you?" expresses surprise at someone's uncharacteristic behavior; and "who are you?" is more like "come again?" but specifically directed at the subjects identity or authority. bd2412 T 02:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Any phrase varies in meaning depending on stress. "How are you?" suggests there is a context where the status/happiness of someone else was being discussed, and I now care about yours. This is one of those things that language does. It's not lexicographical. Equinox 03:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Compare an expression like walk on water. Stressing one word may highlight that aspect of the phrase, but the meaning of the phrase remains the same. bd2412 T 13:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The difference is not in semantic meaning, but in discourse function. That is not unlike what happens when one delivers an utterance sarcastically. The next thing you know we will need an entry for I shot an elephant in my pajamas. DCDuring TALK 17:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll defer to Wikipedia here: "In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device, but it is usually known under its fallacious form, in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question". bd2412 T 21:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not a slippery slope. It's a vertical drop. I was just pointing out some of the landscape below. DCDuring TALK 22:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Be it a slippery slope or a vertical drop, it's still a bad argument. As I've said time and again, keeping one multi-word entry doesn't mean keeping or creating other ones. (though I've also said that creating many more multi-word entries is probably a good thing in the long run). Purplebackpack89 23:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
All those who would speed us down a slippery slope prefer that we ignore the existence of the slope and its slipperiness.
I assume that you are making a rational argument in principle. Or does your argument have no implications for any type of entry or potential entry or any other individual entry? That is we should never, ever take any prior decision as a matter of precedent for similar decisions. Each new entry is as subject to challenge as any other. (This, of course, is completely removed from the way a human institution would work, But how would I know this is a human institution?)
If your argument has any implications beyond this entry it would seem to be that a change in pronunciation justifies an additional definition that is supported by a even just a noticeable difference in discourse function. Let's accept the argument. This would allow for several meanings of the word no and the exclamation ah for example. Our first "definition" of ah would seem to need to be split by pronunciation difference into four or more. I wonder how we are going to display the differences and verify those definitions. Are the only pronunciation differences to be honored in this way differences in stress, which can be readily displayed, at least for whatever portion of our users who are not discouraged by IPA? Or is it any claimed pronunciation difference? In any language? This seems like an embarkation on another grand project into realms beyond what we know how to do. We seem to have a lot of folks willing to write checks that someone else would have to honor.
For this case, presumably, a single stress could fall on any of the three syllables, creating the possibility of at least three different meanings. (More than one stress is possible as well.)
'Who are 'you? - Normal question, with range of interpretations based on context and body language
Who are you? - (as above:) "something a person might say to another person when that person does something that outside their sense of that person's character"
Who are you? - Singles out the person asked for hostile interrogation, with an implication that the person is not entitled to be present or to gain entry.
I rather doubt that this suffices to cover the range of possibilities, but I still don't know how these could be verified, why someone would come to Wiktionary to "discover" these meanings, or how most would even be able to read the meanings and associate them properly with the stress or other pronunciation difference. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Single RfDs don't set precedent. Policy and votes (which create policy) do. I also don't see why you're acting as if they couldn't be verified; each of the three "who are you"s you posit can be relatively easily verified. Another thing you're doing with your fallacious slippery slope "argument" is mistaking things we could do with things that will actually happen. Just because we could potentially create hundreds or thousands of inflection or intonation definitions doesn't mean anybody will bother to. And, since I believe RfDs to not be connected, any that are created could be nominated for deletion with differing results. But I'm still not seeing why creating any number of inflection entries is a bad thing, though. If a word means different things in different situations, we should have all of those. I don't see why we would go out of our way to not have all the words and phrases we could. Purplebackpack89 01:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: per BD. We've got the space to list differences in words or phrases based on intonation or inflection; we might as well use it. Purplebackpack89 16:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Phrasebook entries should be kept if they are useful, simple and common. It's useful: I could see myself wanting to find out how to say this phrase if I was learning a foreign language. It's simple: it's just three small words. It's common: well, that goes without saying. So keep. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

*: Keep per Tooironic. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC) -Duplicate vote (already voted to keep on March 10). bd2412 T 18:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


(Norwegian) Should be plassere, I think.

“plasere” in The Bokmål Dictionary.
“plassere” in The Bokmål Dictionary.
Donnanz (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The entry for set must have been revised to plassere at some stage. Donnanz (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Since it's a Tbot entry I think mistakes should be subject to speedy deletion. But since you only say 'I think' then perhaps no speedy deletion in this case until it's been confirmed. 17:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this must be an old user under a new guise. Donnanz (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Diet Coke[edit]

The definition says: "(uncountable, informal) A cola-based soft drink containing no or low amounts of sugar". I think this wrong in two ways (see: Diet Coke):

  1. Diet Coke is not a noun, but a proper noun.
  2. It's not informal, it is a trade mark of Coca Cola Company.

If Diet Coke has become a generalized trademark, the entry should say so. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - also it is countable ("These idiots will have two Diet Cokes please, but I'll have a proper drink.") SemperBlotto (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Comparable (and IMO equally worthless in a dictionary, as non-genericised brands): Cherry Coke, New Coke, Vanilla Coke, Coke Zero, and variants of Pepsi, Fanta, Mountain Dew, Dr Pepper, Irn Bru, 7-UP, Sprite... oh, I could go on. Equinox 13:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: This RfD reveals the fact that we didn't have "diet" as an adjective. "Diet" is put in front of words and/or brands to denote something low in fat, salt, sugar or calories. As such, I have created the adjective sense. Purplebackpack89 15:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    Good point. I'd be happy to see this entry be deleted if we can ensure the relevant sense is covered at diet. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@PBP: I think you're mistaken there, diet is a noun and a verb, and here it's being used as a noun modifier, not as an adjective. Donnanz (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Donnanz: If you're trying to make the case that diet is merely an attributive noun, I would point out to you than when diet is used as a "noun modifier" (your words), it's not used in a way consistent with any of the definitions of diet we currently have. That is why there is a separate definition of diet as an adjective, which has been attested. Purplebackpack89 13:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying diet is an attributive noun - it's a standalone noun. But when it's used to modify another noun, such as in diet cola, it becomes a noun modifier, not an adjective. But there seems to be two different schools of thought here, so if you insist in calling it an adjective in cases like this, it should at least be marked as "attributive". Donnanz (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I have very little doubt that the same people who use Coke as a genericized trademark also use Diet Coke that way. The question is, when they do so, do they spell it diet Coke (in which case it's SOP as diet + Coke) or Diet Coke (in which case it isn't SOP, but a direct genericization of Diet Coke®)? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
WT:BRAND applies. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't buy the stuff, but shouldn't anything other than the brand be called "diet cola"? Donnanz (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I would say keep this entry. Supermarket brands such as Sainsbury's and Tesco (in the UK) tend to be called diet cola, and this could be entered as a synonym. The supermarkets wouldn't be allowed to call their product diet coke. Donnanz (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
If we keep it without getting citations that show that it meets WT:BRAND, it can (and should) be RfVed. Let's skip the step and give this at least a month here to collect citations that meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe that's not necessary; all you have to do is check the product, which I did. Sure enough, the ® symbol appears next to the Diet Coke name on each bottle. Predictably enough the Pepsi product is called "diet pepsi" (that's the way it's spelt) but no ® symbol, even though Pepsi-Cola is a trademark. And Sainsbury's own brand is confirmed as "diet cola". How's that for an afternoon's work? Donnanz (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Rwandan Genocide[edit]

Specific historical event. Encyclopaedia material. Equinox 15:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. 16:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom (except for spelling of encyclopedia). DCDuring TALK 14:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia is an alternative spelling here. Donnanz (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Why delete? It is a proper noun, and not an SOP. Well okay so it has Rwandan and Genocide in it, but as you can see there is no proper noun for Genocide. NativeCat drop by and say Hi! 07:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Nor should there be. It could also be known as the genocide in Rwanda. Donnanz (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
You're right. It could be the genocide of Rwanda but it could NOT be the Genocide of Rwanda. Rwandan Genocide is, in full, a proper noun. None of it is a noun. NativeCat drop by and say Hi! 03:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
"Genocide" and "genocide" are the same thing. Capitalisation does not magically make it a totally different thing. The Eiffel Tower is a tower (small t). Equinox 14:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I work at Gildersome Rehoming Centre, by your logic, we should include that because of the capital 'r' and capital 'c'! Renard Migrant (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete, not dictionary material. --Dmol (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, not dictionary material. It's also still an SOP to me: the event was a genocide in Rwanda. The full phrase might pertain to a specific genocide, but it is still SOP: the full phrase has zero idiomaticity, and is fully decomposable into its constituent parts with no loss of meaning. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
It is not SOP. It would have been SOP if it had meant "A genocide involving Rwanda", but it means "the genocide involving Rwanda that blahblah whilst also yadayada". I find these two sentences different. But I agree there is zero figurativeness (==zero idiomaticity?).
Also, can anyone explain to me what "not dictionary material" argument means? Why is this not dictionaric enough and First World War is?
BTW, Crimean War seems to be a typological equivalent.-Dixtosa (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Dixtosa, I happen to agree with you about Crimean War: that entry is little more than a soft redirect to the Wikipedia article. (The presence of the translation table in that entry is irrelevant; users can get a much more complete list of translations from the left-hand sidebar at the WP article.)
I disagree about the First World War entry, but only because that functions more as a dictionary entry should, by linking to synonyms and related terms. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This is exactly what I've been trying to say here. The Rwandan Genocide doesn't mean "a genocide in Rwanda" and does not mean the genocide of Rwanda either. There could theoretically be another genocide in Rwanda, but this is not what is referred to as the Rwandan Genocide. If I had entered Rwandan genocide into this dictionary, with the definition "the genocide of Rwanda" or "any genocide that is in Rwanda", then it would be SOP. But this is not SOP. This is why I've entered this notable term that could have citations, and I know it's not an SOP, because you can't find the definition of the Rwandan Genocide at Rwandan or genocide. NativeCat drop by and say Hi! 22:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • NativeCat, I think you're confused: notability is a criterion by which Wikipedia articles are judged. Notability is (mostly) irrelevant for Wiktionary entries.
That confusion might be clouding your understanding of what we mean by “sum of parts” (SOP) or by “dictionary material”. w:Rwandan Genocide is a valid Wikipedia article: the phrase refers to a specific incident, and describes the incident, its background, analysis, and other details.
As a proposed dictionary term, however, this is not dictionary material: it is encyclopedia material. This does not belong in Wiktionary any more than Battle of the Alamo or Northern Ireland Electricity Service or Gulf of Tonkin incident.
This proposed term is also a sum of parts. The parts, Rwandan and genocide, already have entries that fully describe the meaning of the words. The combination thereof to form the phrase Rwandan Genocide does not do anything more, at the lexical level, than add the one to the other: it is a sum of its parts. As a term, it refers to a genocide that was Rwandan in nature. As a social and historical event, it may indeed be something more than that -- but such a detailed explanation is what an encyclopedia is for, not a dictionary.
I hope that helps clarify for you why this proposed term, Rwandan Genocide, does not merit inclusion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Considering notability for names of specific entities is quite okay; we have no specific rules for names of specific entities as per WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. We have World War I and World War II. Since we have no rules, everyone can consider criteria that they see most fit for these sort of entries. Rwandan Genocide, being a proper name, is not a semantic sum of parts; nor are United States sum of parts, regardless of being states that are united. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Per Eirikr, <sarcasm>we should delete the entry United States as an SOP.</sarcasm> NativeCat drop by and say Hi! 02:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sarcasm is not an effective argument.
Differences between the United States entry and the Rwandan Genocide entry (or, indeed, the Crimean War entry):
United States Rwandan Genocide
Includes pronunciation Includes pronunciation
Includes multiple senses, with context Has a single sense
Includes synonyms, meronyms, coordinate terms, derived terms -
Includes WP links Includes WP links
Frankly, any entry at Wiktionary that is a proper noun as the name of an historical event, that consists of only a one-line description and a link to WP, does not add any value as a dictionary entry. Such entries are no more than soft redirects to Wikipedia, which seems like a big indication that the entry would be more appropriate in ... an encyclopedia.
@NativeCat, Dan Polansky: Perhaps I misunderstand your basic assumptions of what a dictionary is for? Are you of the opinion that Wiktionary should include entries for things like Battle of the Alamo or Northern Ireland Electricity Service or Gulf of Tonkin incident? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
According to your logic, Crimean War is also an SOP and a soft redirect to Wikipedia. But this is not correct. Rwandan Genocide is not an SOP. I could add Rwanda as one of the -nym's. Which -nym would it be? Also, and your point about pronunciation is...? NativeCat drop by and say Hi! 13:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
You said: "It's also still an SOP to me". I said Rwandan Genocide is not SOP. In your latest response, you said nothing that argues otherwise, nothing that supports the claim that Rwandan Genocide is SOP (semantic sum of parts). About your question, I do not know which names of historical events to include. To prevent any confusion: as for Rwandan Genocide, I abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Weak delete per Eiríkr. - -sche (discuss) 17:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


Protologism? I can't see any usage before 2014. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (p.s. Might need moving to Kondo if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The usage started in Japan but I don't know how far back it goes. Book was published 2001 in Japan. SageGreenRider (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Was it published in English in 2001? If not, when was it used in English for the first time? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Move to RFV. Doubt it will pass, but there is limited usage on the Web. Equinox 16:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Even if it is new, I thought we kept hot words, provisionally at least? SageGreenRider (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    I've tagged it with {{hot word|date=2015-02-26}} which is the earliest citation in the entry. There might be something earlier, perhaps on UseNet. The English translation got a rush of publicity on March 26, 2014, but I didn't find hits for kondoed or kondoing until later. DCDuring TALK 13:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


Not dictionary material (not even close) -- Liliana 12:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It might me shown to meet WT:BRAND, if not in a consumer context then conceivably in an industrial one. It should be in RfV, but we can keep it here for at least a month to attract citations that meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 13:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep attested single-word company name, which can host e.g. pronunciation. Best evidence of consensus about company names or its lack I know of is at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. I doubt WT:BRAND applies to it, but maybe there are quotations that show use of this as a brand name for a product or service; I don't know of such quotations, and in their absence, my working hypothesis is that WT:BRAND does not apply. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

pervasive developmental disorder - not otherwise specified[edit]

Highly doubtful we need this as an entry. It basically means what it says on the tin. -- Liliana 12:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 13:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Note that a lot of diagnostic names include "Not Otherwise Specified". Equinox 15:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I wrote that Wikipedia page. bd2412 T 19:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
not otherwise specified seems like a candidate for an entry, as does not elsewhere classified (nec). DCDuring TALK 20:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Also not elsewhere specified. A little coverage for these at OneLook. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep. The current definition is inaccurate. "Pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified" is considered both an autism spectrum disorder and a pervasive developmental disorder in its own right (see the Wikipedia article), and not just a description applied to other disorders. At least it was pre-DSM5. Basically, the DSM5 rolled the separate diagnoses of autism, Asperger's, and PDD-NOS into a single "autism spectrum disorder" diagnosis. There's been some controversy over this change, particularly in the autistic community. Anyway, searching Google Books for "with PDD-NOS" yields results like "children with PDD-NOS" and "individuals with PDD-NOS," further establishing its status as a discrete disorder/diagnosis. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Obviously delete. And correct the plural if we keep it. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This reminds me of the use of incertae sedis in taxonomy. I sure don't think that every taxon ("Taxon") that has some direct members that are of a lower rank than other direct members needs to have "Taxon incertae sedis" as an artificial taxon. That Wikispecies needs such things for presentation purposes does not make them real.
Similarly that DSM publication formatting needs a heading doesn't give any reality to it. DCDuring TALK 21:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

可供軍用, 可供军用, 可耕地, 可得到, 可編程, 可编程, 可共患難, 可共患难, 可讀音性, 可读音性, 可變化合價, 可变化合价[edit]

@WikiWinters: Sum of parts. Wyang (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wyang, Atitarev: I don't always agree with CEDICT when it comes to proper nouns, because some terms are SOP, but I don't think these are in the same category, and all of these terms are found in CEDICT. --WikiWinters (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Why do think they are not SoPs? Wyang (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
If you take 可得到, for example, it has the distinct meaning of "available," whereas 得到 means "to obtain." One is an adjective and the other is a verb. 可得到 is not the same as 可的得到 or 可以的得到, which are both certainly SOP as they are simply literal variations of the original. --WikiWinters (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
可得到 is SoP, as 可 is not tightly attached as in a word, e.g. 1) adverbs may be inserted: one may say 可轻易得到 (that can be easily obtained; easily obtainable); 2) it may act as the predicate of a sentence: 一些小幸福可得到。("Little moments of happiness can be obtained.") These show that its actual meaning is "can be obtained", not "obtainable". Wyang (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, thank you, that's understandable. I shall practice more discretion when creating entries in the future. Do you think all of the terms nominated for deletion should now indeed be deleted? --WikiWinters (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Wyang (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Re: "可得到 is SoP, as 可 is not tightly attached as in a word": Seems to be a non-sequitur: what has deducibility of the meaning from parts have to do with tight attachment? Consider look up and the phrase "look it up" for an English example of a separable non-sum-of-parts term. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep 可耕地, 可读音性 and 可讀音性. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
These are not words in Chinese. Wyang (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
IMO, some terms are worth keeping. I haven't checked well, though. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
A few will pass Lemming test. Terms 可耕地, 可共患難可共患难 are also included in the ABC dictionary, which is shipped with Wenlin software. 可共患難可共患难 seems very idiomatic. Component seems a very productive prefix to form "-able" adjectives (in English translations), e.g. Wenlin generates a big list of such words, just a few, which we are currently missing:
--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This should have been posted as individual items. I don't envy the editor who is going to close this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • These terms should be assessed individually.
可供軍用 - Delete. Not idiomatic.
可耕地 - Keep of course. This is in the 現代漢語規範詞典 for goodness sake.
可得到 - Delete. Sum of parts.
可編程 - Delete. Sum of parts.
可共患難 - Keep. Idiom. We should also add the idiom 可共患難不可共安樂.
可讀音性 - Keep. Technical term.
可變化合價 - Keep. Technical term.
---> Tooironic (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Are technical terms a problem? We have English technical terms. --WikiWinters (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
可耕地 means "arable land" not "cultivable"! 可共患難 should be deleted; 共患難 and 可共患難不可共安樂 can be kept. 可讀音性 - not a technical term and not a word in itself - there is something wrong when what you yield on Google is nothing but foreign dictionary hits. 可變化合價 - not a technical term, sum of parts 可變 and 化合價. Wyang (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


The name of a ballet? I'm sure this will stay put in the end, but hey...you never know. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The name rings a bell. Or is it the Nutcracker Suite? Donnanz (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete: like book titles, IMO doesn't belong here. Equinox 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I love the ballet, I've seen it twice. Nevertheless, delete. Not dictionary material. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain. If the name of the ballet had anything lexicographically interesting about it, I would vote keep. But this is capitalized common noun nutcracker, so no interesting pronunciation and etymology can be expected; the current translations provided in the entry seem to be translations of the common noun nutcracker. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I would be inclined to keep it for that very reason. Donnanz (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

East Prussia[edit]

Restore. Make entry just like Northern Ireland, West Germany, etc. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It was never deleted. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: It uses {{no entry}} but there is no RFD discussion. I just looked at the history, it seems it was never a full entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The entry is there now, for you to judge. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Certainly seems of historical use. A dictionary entry saves someone from going through the whole who-shot-John of the relevant history, unless they want to pursue a WP link. DCDuring TALK 10:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore/keep: along with many other historical geographical regions. Purplebackpack89 14:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems comparable to North Dakota. Weak keep. - -sche (discuss) 16:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
To me it seems more like Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, or Confederacy, only smaller. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep, it had a capital city, and we could add Province of East Prussia normally known as 'East Prussia'. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

automated license plate recognition[edit]

automatic license plate recognition[edit]

automatic license plate reader[edit]

automated license plate reader[edit]

license plate recognition[edit]

automatic number plate recognition[edit]

They all seem SOP to me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

D e l e t e. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, delete all of the above. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete (but, as you say, keep the initialisms). Equinox 14:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

перед самым[edit]

I merged it with перед several days ago. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

не успел, как[edit]

I moved it all to успеть due to the Russian moderator's request. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

negativity thinking[edit]

I'm feeling somewhat borderline about this entry. So I'm not advocating deletion, but it still smells a bit SOPpy. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

ː For sure, it is easy enough to deduce the meaning from the parts, but if it was purely SOP, wouldn't it be "negative thinking"? Partly, it may be my definition does not do justice to the jargon-y way it is used. I was trying to avoid sounding judgemental one way or the other, but it is used by the "Postive thinking" people as a put-down of any sort of criticism, or questioning of the doctrine of positive thinking̃

Posterity will thank us for attesting this awkward bit of minor-league psychobabble, won't it? DCDuring TALK 11:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
It sounds so weird I'd actually keep it. Because to me it doesn't make any sense. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The more usual form is negative thinking. I don't see much value in this entry. Donnanz (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

watertight alibi[edit]

Looks like sum of parts to me. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; its meaning can be entirely deduced from the entries for watertight and alibi. The red links to airtight alibi and iron-clad alibi only confirm my suspicions. Orthogonal (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The choice of an adjective is often problematic for a non-native speaker. This case is a good example. While vedenpitävä (watertight) alibi is perfectly understandable in Finnish, it may not be the first combination that comes into one's mind when trying to find a translatable pair of words to descibe a "very good alibi". I personally would be inclined towards using either pitävä (solid, firm) or täydellinen (perfect). These would be understandable in English without problems, but how do I know? The entries for solid, firm or perfect do not directly support the hypothesis that they could be used in this particular sense. And how do I know which translation of pitävä to use? Besides "solid" and "firm" it may in various contexts translate as "proof", "holding" and even "liking". Today it occurred to me that the Usage notes -section of the entry "alibi" (in this case) would be a perfect place to provide this sort of information and wrote this note:
I believe that this sort of approach could help us to get rid of a number of bordercase SOP/no-SOP and translation-target arguments. What do you guys think? --Hekaheka (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
We actually already cover this in some usage notes; adjectives that are commonly used with X include... Renard Migrant (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh and delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep, delete. I already deleted "watertight alibi" from the derived terms list of "alibi". --Hekaheka (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep, it's not the usual sense of watertight, but it's common enough to warrant retention. Donnanz (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete as SoP: the usual metaphorical use. Our watertight entry mentions "contract" and "regulation" as other possible nouns. Equinox 14:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, transparently SOP to the broadly understood metaphorical sense. bd2412 T 22:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Equinox. - -sche (discuss) 06:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


This word has been rdf for quite a while.

The normal feminine form for warrior/fighter stijder is strijdster in Dutch and I had never heard of strijderin. Goolge produces mostly omitted spaces in the combination "strijder in ..", but WNT does mention it as "unsual" in an article from 1925, and there is a few hits from around 1800 that say the same and mention strijderse as another unusual and archaic alternative. Perhaps keep, but mention as rare and archaic? Gunmhoine (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


A particular chocolate bar. Compare Mars, Bounty, Twix, Toblerone, Kinder Egg, Toffee Crisp, Aero, Wonka Mud Sludge. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

My favourite mainstream chocolate bar, by the way, is the Crunchie. Mars Bar party, Hershey squirts and Hershey highway all exist BTW, and Milky Bar kid seems like it might warrant inclusion.
  • It was renamed from "Marathon" years ago. Probably a registered trademark. Donnanz (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, it was always called "Snickers" in the U.S., since its introduction in 1930; it was called "Marathon" in the UK, but was changed to "Snickers" there in 1990. bd2412 T 18:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I suppose it should undergo RFV since it's quite well known. Personally I fail to see the value of brand names in a dictionary, though. Equinox 13:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes brand names are used generically with such frequency that the reader may not realize that the word is a brand at all. Sometimes authors presume the brand name to be so well known that they use it as a descriptor with no context whatsoever, so that the reader unfamiliar with the brand will not know what the word means. Those are the kinds of cases intended to be covered by WT:BRAND. In any case, even coined brand names (like coined place names and coined surnames) are words with their own etymology, pronunciation, and occasionally derivations. Where a reader is likely to come across such a word in print, and lacks contextual cues to place the word, these are useful things to have. bd2412 T 16:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Here is an example of "Snickers" used out of context, where a reader would need to look it up to know what it means:
  • 2012, Peter Sinn Nachtrieb, Bob: A Life in Five Acts, page 24.
    BOB. Jeanine used to pull out a Snickers from her purse every time we hit a snag, like when there was four hours of traffic to get to Hoover Dam, when I got a B on a chemistry test, or when we got to the Michelle Kwan Museum and it was closed for renovation. I could really use a Snickers right now.
The work gives no further context to the meaning of "Snickers" other than a "Snickers wrapper" being found later. It could just as easily be a medication, a cosmetic, or a sanitation device. More will likely be easily found. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. After further examination, this easily meets WT:BRAND with uses in print that provide no context as to the meaning of the term. I have added a half dozen more. There are also such things as Snickers ice cream (which usually contains pieces of actual Snickers) and Snickers pie (which is a pie made with ingredients common to a Snickers, but not necessarily actual Snickers). bd2412 T 17:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - "all words in all languages" SemperBlotto (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I have come to the conclusion that my objection to brand names in a dictionary is more of a broader objection to a focus on contemporary brands in fiction, novels, news, etc., and I basically hate postmodernism. (Dickens didn't fill his books with references to corporations.) My brief mortal span isn't going to win that battle, so what the hell, keep it, and let the "professional" dictionaries catch up, and see who tries to sue us for not covering their brand's "meaning" properly. Equinox 02:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Gott ist tot[edit]

Certainly a famous phrase but, as far as I can tell, not actually idiomatic. Belongs more to Wikiquote. -- Liliana 17:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Trying to be a dictionary is hard enough without trying to be Wikipedia and Wikiquote as well. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 22:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


Language unclear, German?, English? In addition, de:Schrankschande and w:de:Schrankschande were deleted. -- 13:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This needs to go to rfv: no hits on Google Books or Google Groups, and not in Duden online. The linked website on the talk page doesn't have it- I'm guessing it was in a comment that's no longer shown. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
RFV, and as I look at it now, it's clearly marked as English throughout. Treat it as such at RFV. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
As an English word, it should be written schrankschande, which was deleted in 2008. RFV has been in the article since 2008, however, as is the case with the corresponding German articles noted above, has been removed afterwards by IP contributors. I might add that the English and German articles and discussion pages of these articles (we now try to delete a new one, wikt:de:schrankschande) are full of anonymous contributions, typically even without signatures. -- 08:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I think common sense says this is a previously deleted entry, even though the capitalization is different. It is the same as schrankschande. On the other hand RFV rules were pretty different back in 2008; I seem no harm in another RFV. What will 30 days matter? And the RFV header warns users that the entry is unverified. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"qvelja" mistake page.[edit]


There is no word called "qvelja", I tried moving the page thinking it would go away but it did not. Sorry for making a mistake.

Resolved. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

All the templates created by 2601:D:5500:C1E:7599:7268:F7A6:F9EB (talk)[edit]

We don't need these Wikipedia-type templates. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this request go to WT:RFDO? bd2412 T 21:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Speedied. This IP is picking up where globally-locked user Bigwill91 left off. The combination of complete lack of understanding and total disregard of anything but the quest to immediately rearrange everything to their satisfaction is unmistakable. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing as resolved, then. bd2412 T 15:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Roletrando Novelas[edit]

The name of a TV show: not dictionary material. Doesn’t seem to be citable either. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 22:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all[edit]

Ain't this just a famous quotation? SoP! Equinox 03:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)