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

Templates:

Shortcuts:

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFDs

February 2015[edit]

Ailill mac Máta[edit]

Ailill mac Máta (< Máit?)

Amairgin mac Echit[edit]

Amergin mac Echit, variant of Eccit, genitive of Eccet

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 Echu (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)
  • Soft redirect to Wikipedia for all of these that are SoP to existing name elements. bd2412 T 13:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
    Good idea. (Or what is {{no entry}} for? lol) - -sche (discuss) 19:56, 13 June 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. 95.144.169.113 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)
  • I would keep this just to avoid confusion with short selling. bd2412 T 17:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Similar cases with "oneself" are found by searching mainspace for "oneself", including make a name for oneself, sort oneself out, and repeat oneself (I skipped a couple of vulgar items). This could be a redirect to sell short, and the redirect would do a fairly good service, but having a dedicated entry seems in keeping with what we currently do, and seems reasonably useful. On another note, these "oneself" forms remind me of reflexive verb forms in Czech, German, Spanish and other langauges. In Czech, we have the reflexives in the same headword as the base verb (e.g. představit), while in Spanish, the reflexives have dedicated headword (e.g. lavarse).

    sell something short should be deleted as a transitive form of sell short. Hugely many verbs are transitive or have transitive senses and we overwhelmingly, although not always, do not create dedicated entries for transitivity with the use of "something" in the headword. For example, we don't have try something out, pin something down, or make something work. I see that sell something short was created on 9 March 2015‎ by DCDuring. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • This seems to be an argument based on an assumed moral imperative to subordinate the needs of native users of English Wiktionary to the purported interests of learners whose native language is one of a select group of FLs (or is that any FL). I suspect that this moral imperative has led to inadequate consideration of the true interests of those learners. I doubt that the true interests are accurately assessed above. Why is it not important to use a single entry with multiple senses and/or usage examples to allow/influence FL users to note the range and relatedness of the usages of the underlying expression?
No OneLook reference has an entry for sell oneself short or sell something short.
The main entry that make sense for this is sell short. Apparently sell something short, sell oneself short, and sell someone short are needed as redirect to get some to sell short, which might benefit from some expansion, especially of usage examples. If multiple translations are required for some languages, so be it. If contributors need to be reminded of the possible differences for personal rather than impersonal objects, or reflexive rather than ordinary objects, that would seem to be a matter of establishing todo items for contributors in the languages involved. That is the kind of thing that the About pages for languages are well suited.
I am also reasonably sure that we could use similar redirects for hundreds, perhaps thousands of English transitive phrasal verb entries. DCDuring TALK 14:02, 8 June 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)

kondo[edit]

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)

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)

March 2015[edit]

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)
That is just the reason for this entry. I'm the one who added it, and I did so because I stumbled on it while reading and thought it sounded weird and awkward. I figured there must be something more to it than just negative thinking, or why would it be such a strange wording. That led me to do some digging and then create the definition. I think it of use to others who, like me, run across the phrase and think - am I missing something here? Kiwima (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


April 2015[edit]

take upon[edit]

I think this is only used reflexively, as to take upon oneself. When used non-reflexively, don't people say "take on"; that meaning is already documented under take on. Kiwima (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

RFV maybe? I agree but I think we should try to cite 'take upon' without a reflexive pronoun. I can't imagine it though: "he took it up his mother to finish the task". Nah! Renard Migrant (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I tried to cite non-reflexive usage using COCA. I found three instances that do not have -self forms as the object, but they are nonetheless reflexive. DCDuring TALK 10:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

alcohol-dependent[edit]

The definition is misleading; it's just a person dependent on alcohol. The hyphen is strange to me as a native English speaker, but seems to be attested (although it is much more rare than alcohol dependent.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

  • More likely to be an adjective, I would have thought. Donnanz (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete as self-evident SoP, like "drug-addled", "cocaine-addicted", etc. Equinox 22:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, single word. Ƿidsiþ 08:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • On the fence. Could be considered a single word. But not necessarily. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep the noun (verifiable) and include the adjective as well. A Google search reveals how many writers leave the hyphen out, when they should know better. Donnanz (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete this strictly compositional MWE. DCDuring TALK 03:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. What DCDuring said.​—msh210 (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

law enforcement agency[edit]

Law enforcement (insuring adherence to the law) + agency (department or other administrative unit of a government). Am I missing something? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, unless there is some unusual value for translations or something. No different in construction than "food safety agency" or "tax collection agency". bd2412 T 15:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I would 100% keep law enforcement as it's more than the enforcement of the law. It doesn't normally refer to judges making rulings on civil matters, for example, it's mostly policing. Not used much in the UK, I would tend to gloss as US and Canada. Perhaps others, I don't know about NZ, AUS, India, etc. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Quick! There are no translations yet. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as a translation target; thanks for the tip, Hekaheka. W:Law enforcement agency has some interwiki that shows translations that do not appear to be word-for-word translations: German Strafverfolgungsbehörde (Straf-verfolgung-s-behörde), Czech policejní orgán, Polish organy ścigania, etc. Furthermore, WP says it is a term of "North American English" (U.S. and Canadina?); is it true? If so, this is lexicographical info that adds to the value of the entry as a lexicographical one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Interwikis aren't necessarily translations, sometimes they're similar concepts which are 'close enough' to merit an interwiki. I'd argue back but since we all know that WT:CFI isn't binding, you're entitled to vote keep for any reason you like. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The assumption that, without CFI, there would be nothing to argue about seems strange to me. The unstated assumption is that we want to built a good multilingual dictionary. The good then gets broken down into multiple further requirements, such as accurate, complete, succinct, detailed, clear, verifiable, and the like. Some of these requirements clash. Even without CFI, they are there by implication. The current CFI is a particular operationalization of some of these requirements. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Who's making that assumption, just you? It's not my assumption to be clear. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@Hekaheka It's not clear (to me) what your vote really is. Undecided for now. Russian правоохрани́тельные о́рганы (pravooxranítelʹnyje órgany) fits more "law enforcement agency", though, not "law enforcement". probably the same with the Czech policejní orgán. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep idiomatic set phrase. Ƿidsiþ 08:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd ask you to justify that opinion, but I know you don't do that. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd ask you not to be so passive-aggressive, but I guess that's a bit pointless too? It's idiomatic because this is the natural way to say it in English and that cannot be predicted. No one refers to the post office as a ‘delivery enforcement agency’. Also, institutions like corporate tribunals, peacekeeping forces etc. are agencies that enforce the law, but they are not what we mean when we talk about law enforcement agencies. Ƿidsiþ 08:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
All of that is covered by law enforcement rather than law enforcement agency. Law enforcement agency is just law enforcement immediately followed by the word agency. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom.​—msh210 (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 22:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

GeoServer[edit]

Name of a specific software product. Also Sae1962 -- Liliana 18:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Not enormously famous outside the GIS sphere. Equinox 18:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Needs to meet WT:BRAND, and I find no hits at all detached from a description of the product. bd2412 T 18:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It is not just a brand, the name is used like xerox, it has been generic for 20 years. It is insane to delete something so ubiquitous. If you don't know what it is assume WT:AGF. See Citations:GeoServer where I added citations. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Your cites are for geoserver, lower-case, generic. Please create at the appropriate article. This capital "GeoServer" is indeed a specific product. Equinox 22:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Identical case cites added. It is an open source implementation of specific technology. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@BoBoMisiu It also doesn't look like you bothered to read WT:BRAND, judging by the quality of your cites. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I did. I also looked at Coca-Cola and Coke, Corvette, Taser, Kleenex, Jacuzzi, Pyrex, Apollo, Unix, Xerox; and Talk:Windows, Talk:Linux as others that were deleted. Aspirin with a German entry, Linux with a Hungarian entry. breathalyzer, bubble wrap, realtor, aspirin with etymology "trade name Aspirin is a registered trademark in some countries, but has entered the English language in generic usage." I also know the cites describe the eponymous product (GeoServer) of the generic product type (geoserver). —BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

nicht zutreffend[edit]

clear case of SoP -- Liliana 22:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • You obviously didn't look to see whether there is an entry for n. z., (not to be confused with NZ). But maybe not applicable should be allowable as a common term. Donnanz (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It's common but nothing more than the sum of its parts. Green grass is a common term, too. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@Donnanz: One could create the entry n. z. where it then could be "abbreviation of nicht zutreffend, but there's no need for the entry nicht zutreffend which is "SoP". 93.196.243.56 12:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Interix[edit]

Sae1962 (surprise!); another software product. -- Liliana 18:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep; a single-word attested term that can host such lexicographical content as pronunciation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

onomatopoeïa[edit]

Bad character in name. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not "bad", that's a trema. Also, though it should be common sense, the use of trema is not limited to dictionaries, but does also appear in normal texts. -IP, 01:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
But Wiktionary:About Latin says "Do not use diacritical marks in page names". SemperBlotto (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That should be limited to macrons (and breves), which aren't part of usual Latin writing. Trema (as in onomatopoeïa or poëtica) and circumflex (as in deûm, short for deorum) should be treated differently. In poëtica (that does even exists here in wt: poëtica) oe is not a diphthong, but two vowels, which is indicated by the dots above e. In case of poetica one could get the false impression that oe is a diphthong. (poetica most likely was also used, most likely because some printers didn't have tremas and umlauts and because with some knowledge one knows that the word doesn't have a diphthong.) -IP, 07:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
RfV? poëtica is a SemperBlottoBot creation, after all. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
No. The actual term is poetica but the headword has the diacritic added. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe not. It's a tough one because I know that diacritics are often added when typing manuscripts up. s:fr:La Chanson de Roland is a particularly good example because it has the original manuscripts and the typed-up versions. Not only are the typed-up version not all the same, they don't match the manuscripts verbatim. The de jure ruling is that if WT:ALA says to exclude them, we can, as WT:CFI recognises language-specific instructions. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
WT:ALA is a think tank so I am surprised to hear de jure in connection with WT:ALA. The editors of Latin and other interested editors have to make the determination; WT:ALA cannot do it for them. To me, the argument that macron should be excluded because it does not appear in the actual printed text whereas trema (¨) should be included as long as it appears in the actual text sounds convincing. But there may be good counterarguments. I checked google books:"onomatopoeïa" and it may be borderline attested, or not; it has to be in use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary:About Latin might consider itself a think tank, but WT:CFI#Language-specific issues says otherwise. Which has more gravitas, hmm. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that the mentioned part of CFI makes these think tanks automatically into policies; that would be outrageous, to me anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the common practice to include diacritica in the page name when their absence constitutes an orthographical error and otherwise link as alternate spelling? _Korn (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
No. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

restitutive fantasy[edit]

It was a stupid entry I created based on an article I read about a murder case. It should be deleted. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, it gets 66 hits at google books:restitutive fantasy, although I don't know if all of those hits are using it in the same sense as what you listed. I wouldn't call it SOP, either, since if the definition given is correct I for one wouldn't have been able to deduce it from restitutive and fantasy. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

clases particulares[edit]

Looks SOP to me --Type56op9 (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete, see particular. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
If someone does not know the meaning beforehand, they probably will not figure it out by looking up the words separately. However, there are other resources on the internet that offer the correct meaning, so we don’t have to host the difficult cases (multiword terms) on Wiktionary. —Stephen (Talk) 09:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

適当に[edit]

See Talk:親切に. Nibiko (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete. We have established that is a separated word, not an ending. Could there possibly be some exceptions, though? Category:Japanese adverbs needs to be checked for words ending in . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, as pointed out by Nibiko and Anatoli. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree per above. Here are all other entries with supposed adverbs ending in に, except kana duplicates:
--Haplogy () 05:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Inseparable adverbs like あまりに, いかに, 殊に, and 更に must be kept. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • From how I understand this, the nomination is that this is a sum of parts of 適当 (1. suitable; appropriate; fit) + . Which sense of should I take so that the sum yields "appropriately"? I checked google:"適当に" dictionary to learn more. The question we should be asking is whether we help the native English speaker by deleting this entry, and whether creating a templated usage note pointing out this is in fact sum of parts (if it is) is not more friendly towards the user. By the way, the deletion of 親切に was out of process as per Talk:親切に: there was one participant in the RFD and there was no formal closure of the discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • All na-type adjectives in Japanese work morphophonemically as standalone words, taking various particles afterwards to indicate how the word functions grammatically in a given sentence. The basic set of particles is (na) to indicate an attributive adjectival use, (ni) to indicate adverbial use, (sa) to indicate nominal use indicating degree, and (da) and its inflected variants to indicate use as a predicate. Some of these na-type adjectives can even operate as nouns, in which case an even wider variety of particles may be used.
We do not have any other instances of Japanese entries consisting of [WORD]+[PARTICLE], except for those cases where the resulting combination has some idiomatic meaning not derivable from its constituent parts.
Our coverage of Japanese particles may be incomplete; I would be very surprised if it were not, as these words are very wide-ranging in meaning and use, much like English articles and prepositions. However, incompleteness of our entries constitutes grounds for expanding those entries. I don't think these are grounds for creating entries that are SOP.
I'm not sure what you mean by "out of process". The discussion archived at Talk:親切に was in 2011, and much has changed since then. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • PS: I just did some quick testing. So long as the lemma entry includes the inflection table, searching for the corresponding adverbial form should direct the user to the lemma page.
For instance, the adjective entry for term 馬鹿 (baka, foolish, idiotic) includes the {{ja-na}} inflection table template, which auto-generates a table that includes the adverbial form, 馬鹿 (baka ni). There is no page at 馬鹿に. Entering 馬鹿に into Wiktionary's search field directs the user to the 馬鹿 page as the first hit in the list.
@Dan, does that answer (at least some of) your concerns about usability? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

شومېر[edit]

Implicitly nominated for deletion by User:عثمان_منصور_انصاري, giving reasons at Talk:سومر. -- Gauss (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Adjutor101 User:عثمان_منصور_انصاري moved شومېر to سومر. He wants to delete شومېر. Which word is correct, or are both of them correct? —Stephen (Talk) 14:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown The source: http://thepashto.com/word.php?pashto=%D8%B4%D9%88%D9%85%DB%90%D8%B1 Its a modern borrowing from Akkadian Adjutor101 (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The word سومر is a Pashto writing of the English word IPA(key): /sumər/ but the word Shumér IPA(key): /ʃumer/ is used in Pashto only. This word is rarely heard in normal speech and more in academic discussions thereby probably giving rise to the user's confusion. Adjutor101 (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown there is no a single book, authenticated & accurate website, academic research... in which found shumer!?

mostly we borrowed the therms which related to literature, historical, philosophical, related to logic, Islamic jurisprudence, theology etc from Arabic and Persian. related borrowed terms are always written as in its first source. Sumer or سومر is a term of Persian histroy, so we should used it as its in Persian. Pashto and Persian are sister language, mostly its literature have same contexts... same culture, same history, same Religion, same people, same ethnic groups ...

i will give you some books, authenticated & accurate websites links:

  • In Famous Persian Dictionary of Dehkhuda:

لغت نامه دهخدا سومر. [ م ِ ] (اِخ ). کشوری باستانی در قسمت سفلای بین النهرین ، مجاور خلیج فارس و درجنوب کشور راکد. شهرهای سومر عبارت بود از «اور»، «اوروک »، یا «ارخ »، «نیب پور»، «لارسا». در سفر پیدایش این ناحیه را سرزمین «شنعار» نامیده اند. سومریان از 5000 ق .م . در سومر سکونت داشتند و آنان یکی از تمدنهای بسیار قدیم را در بین النهرین ایجاد کردند. حکومت آن در حدود 3000 ق .م . تشکیل گردید و در هزاره ٔ دوم (2115 ق .م .) منقرض شد و قلمرو آنان ضمیمه ٔ آشور و بابل گردید. دین سومریان پرستش ارباب انواع بود. رئیس شهر را پاتسی مینامیدند، و او امور دینی ، کشوری و لشکری را اداره میکرد. پادشاهان سومر و اکد غالباً با یکدیگر در جنگ بودند و گاه غالب و گاه مغلوب میشدند وربقه ٔ اطاعت رقیب را بر گردن مینهادند. و ملوک سومرپیشوای دین هم بودند و خود را قائم مقام و کاهن اعظم خداوند شهر خویش میخواندند و بیشتر دارائی خود را صرف ساختن معابد وی میکردند و تا میتوانستند عبادتگاه را بزرگ و زیبا میساختند. (از فرهنگ فارسی معین ).

http://daneshnameh.roshd.ir/ Sumer سومر

  1. we have an article in Persian language titled: سومریان.
  2. we have an article in English language titled: Sumer or سومر
  3. in Arabic we have also: سومر

note: in english Srilanka, but its pronounciation is shrilanka, Indians, Srilankans, Bengalis called it Shrelanka, but in Pashto we pronounce it as srilanka, سریلنکا. Indonesia, Malesia, its sounds shia, but in Pashto we dont write it shia, it sounds like Zia (indonezia) اندونیزیا، مالیزیا. --عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Persian is significantly different from Pashto [grammar, vocab, pronunciation], Persian sources can not be used in Pashto. We can have words of Persian etymology like فردوس but then we even have words of Sanskrit origin like سمندر; and we obviously do not use Sanskrit sources in Pashto. Also even if the word is present even in an "non-authentic" dictionary it at least shows the word is used in Pashto. By comparison the English word on fleek is not present in Oxford English Dictionary but modern-day slang and is hence present in wiktionary. Adjutor101 (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

thepashto.com is not an authenticated website!?[edit]

@Stephen G. Brown, @Gauss! dear Adjutor101! the source you mentioned is a free website where everyone could come and contribute... i have checked that. most of the contributors are teenage boys who even do not know how to write pashto correctly. writing on a historical topic is so far from there level!

no academic, no literary, no any cultural soceity is involved in its contribution. this is the pashto academy Website and this is there Peshawar University page of Pashto-Academy. plz go and ask your Shumer there. if they approved that is a pure and the only one Pashto term. then your claim will be 300% right!!.

--عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't care about any concept of "pure and the only one Pashto term". We are a descriptive dictionary describing what is actually used in languages, not what some academy says should be used.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • Keep this term entered as Pashto until RFD-relevant reasons for deletion are stated on the nomination page here at RFD. RFD-relevant reasons: 1) sum of parts, 2) rare misspelling, 3) other that I don't recall right now. If the form is claimed not to exist, that is a RFV case. Furthermore, the RFD nomination was made to represent a page move made by User:عثمان منصور انصاري who above presents reasoning using predicates that are inapplicable to English Wiktionary, including "approved that is a pure and the only one Pashto term". Some background about Pashto: Per WP, Pashto is an Eastern Iranian language that is one of the two official languages of Afghanistan and a significant regional language of Pakistan. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

He Who Shall Not Be Named[edit]

SOP: He+Who+Shall+Not+Be+Named --Daniel 10:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it is SOP, there is a "why" component which is not explicit. I do think we should delete though, as this is one of many constructions with the same meaning ("who will remain nameless", "whose name we will not mention", "who we will not name"). - TheDaveRoss 12:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it is WT:FICTIONAppendix:Harry Potter/Characters but maybe also is Category:English terms derived from Harry Potter. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I suppose this was especially popularised by HP, but at the end of the day it is just one of many similar SOP phrases that can be constructed using the normal rules of the English language (don't really understand the point about the "why" component), and therefore it does not merit inclusion, in my opinion. 109.152.148.40 14:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a difference in phrasing between the British and American editions, but I think the Harry Potter title is "He Who Must Not Be Named". - TheDaveRoss 14:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems that I have a consistent pattern of creating RFD fodder. To be honest, I’m almost tempted to cease making locutional entries (like this one) altogether. --Romanophile (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Send to RfV to see if it's used with people other than Voldemort If it's used that way, it might be worth keeping. Purplebackpack89 16:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Erf, I would delete but RFV seems a decent idea too. Per Purplebackpack89, the definition is 'he' not Lord Voldemort. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Pre-dates Voldemort and Harry Potter. Is a case of paraleipsis... or something like it? Feels a bit like a set phrase I suppose. Equinox 21:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete, there are tons of variations and they are not idiomatic by any means. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete, if it not Harry Potter related. I agree with all of you and especially about paraleipsis. I think many writers used variations of similar terms. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's paraleipsis, since it originates in an actual strategy to avoid naming someone directly- making it a form of euphemism. The phrase "speak of the devil" goes back to a similar taboo. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, delete, but I was wondering about the original, which I suppose was "She-who-must-be-obeyed" in the novel She: A History of Adventure. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Unlike he, it is used in accusative as well as nominate case. For example, a Google Books search "to he who shall not be named" gets a number of hits and "him who shall not be named" is relatively uncommon. —Internoob 01:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Couldn't the same be said of any similar title-like "He who ..." phrase that anyone might care to make up? 109.151.63.170 01:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I was just thinking the same thing. Look at e.g. google books:"to he who waits". - -sche (discuss) 02:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 03:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion request: duûm[edit]

As at [1] & User talk:SemperBlotto#duûm:

  • The form is attestable
  • The entry was correct
  • Instead of deletion he [= the one who deleted it] might have asked for "request for verification"
  • "probably means duu" -- no, it's "duûm", where ^ is the so called "signum contractionis", literally "sign of contraction", i.e. a sign that indicates contraction.

Example:

  1. 1670, F. Davidis Lenfant, Biblia Augustiniana, sive collectio et explicatio omnium locorum sacrae scripturae, quae sparsim reperiuntur in omnibus S. Augustini operibus: ordine biblico., Lutetia Parisiorum (~ Paris), p.774:
    In medio duûm animalium cognosceris.

(google book search says there are around 1360 results, and even when excluding grammar books and wrong ORC there are enough possible quotes.) -91.63.230.4 09:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Given google books:"duûm", undeleted. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @91.63.230.4 Would you care to create an entry for signum contractionis? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about the language and whether or not it's "SoP":
  • It might be Latin, but it might also be Latin embedded in German, which some might label German. (I'd label it Latin, as some "embeddings" imply that it's not viewed as German, like: using antiqua instead of fraktur, writing it italics, only mentioning it in brackets after a German word, writing it without capital letters as "signum contractionis" instead of "Signum Contractionis")
  • signum means mark/sign (as in: signum interrogationis, signum interrogandi = ? ; signum exclamationis, signum exclamandi, signum admirationis = !), contractio (gen. sg. contractionis) means contraction. So it's simply "sign of contraction" (more like a literal translation) or "contraction mark" (similar to "signum exclamationis" and exclamation mark).
"signum contractionis" simply refers to "^" when it indicates a contraction, as "duûm" for "duorum" (duo) and "deûm" for "deorum" (deus). The character itself (but not it's name) is even used in this Latin-German dictionary from the 20th century: [zeno.org/Georges-1913/A/duo], "Seltener Genet. duûm" = "rare genitive duûm".
Also: google book search for "signum contractionis" doesn't bring up the grammar book in which I found the term (incorrect OCR), but has 18 mostly (New) Latin results, though including duplicate results. I didn't check the results, but 2 seem to have said meaning or at least a similar one.
(Thanks for undeleting it; and to those who want it to be deleted: please use Wiktionary:Requests for verification first.)
-91.63.230.4 11:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

duûm[edit]

Wiktionary:About Latin specifically says "Do not use diacritical marks in page names". That, surely, includes the use of a circumflex. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't quickly find any discussion about Latin and the use of circumflex. WT:ALA is a think tank. The key question is, do editors of Latin really want to forbid circumflex despite its attestation, and why. Furthermore, Wiktionary:About_Latin#Do_not_use_diacritical_marks_in_page_names does explicitly discuss macron and breve, but not circumflex; could the author accidentally forget about circumlex? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto, Dan Polansky: As an editor primarily of Latin, I don't "want to forbid [the] circumflex despite its attestation". I agree with WT:ALA's general principles for lemmatisation (except for the J-ban) only. These diacriticked variants should be soft redirects, but they should definitely exist. Thus, keep.
Also WT:ALA is long overdue for rewriting. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. And I agree with you about J-words - I create then as "alternative forms" of the corresponding I-word. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think EncycloPetey would allow any edits to WT:ALA, now he's quit it gives us the opportunity to update it. J-forms have been used for years now, if WT:ALA still says they aren't allow then it's literally years out of date. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, some of WT:ALA's proscriptions against using macrons in quotes and diaereses elsewhere are ridiculous and should be removed. —JohnC5 15:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I say go for it; mark clearly in your edit summaries what you're changing and if anything gets reverted, go to Wiktionary talk:About Latin to try and thrash out a consensus. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @SemperBlotto, Renard Migrant, JohnC5: I shall devote tomorrow to rewriting WT:ALA. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

My 2c: lemmatize the diacritic-less spellings, but soft redirects for the diacritical spellings are OK. I suggest using either {{alternative typography of}} or a to-be-created dedicated template like Yiddish's {{yi-unpointed form of}} for them, though, rather than just using the general {{alternative form of}}/{{alternative spelling of}}. "Alternative form/spelling of" sounds like authorial preference, IMO — it sounds like maybe Caesar wrote his works with macrons and Cicero didn't — when it's my understanding that it's actually a matter of editorial preference (some editions of works add macrons, some omit them). - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
See also: Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#onomatopoeïa & onomatopoeïa -- and also poëticus (created by SemperBlotto who wants onomatopoeïa and duûm to be deleted), deûm and most likely other entries.
  • There is a difference between macrons/breves and circumflexes/tremas (&c.): Macrons/breves are often used in Grammar books, but never or rarely in Latin texts, while circumflexes/tremas (&c.) do occur in (New) Latin texts.
  • "duum" (without circumflex) might also exist. So how should two forms (duum, duûm) be included in one header?
    • Maybe related question: What's when a word's vowel has different lengths or when linguists aren't sure about its length? Example (maybe not the best one): stella here is "stēlla" (long e), while Lewis & Short (which might be outdated or wrongly OCRed) have it as "stella" (short e). Even when the other form is mentioned in a usage note, only having one form in the header might be arbitrary. (It's justified to put one form into a usage note, if it is poetic or if only a few linguists think that it's the correct form while many think that the other is correct.)
  • Given that they are attestable, would English "poëtic" or German "poëtisch" be excluded, even though they would exist? (In German tremas weren't uncommon and at least some words with tremas should be attestable, even though they might be obsolete/dated.) I doubt that they would be excluded, so why should Latin words be excluded? Because they might be New Latin and not Antique Latin? That's no good reason. (That's also no good reason as Antique Latin usually isn't mentioned here in wiktionary, but some New Latin or maybe post-Latin/un-Latin forms, e.g. it's "adverbium" [New Latin] and not "ADVERBIVM" [Antique Latin] and like "interiection" [maybe New Latin, maybe just some post-Latin/un-Latin invention] (besides "interjection" [New Latin]) and not "INTERIECTION" [Antique Latin].)
  • Also does the inclusion of circumflexes/tremas hurt anyone? It's hard to input tremas (as it isn't present on most keyboards), but the same is true for e.g. æ as in præ- or German umlauts ä, ö, ü in case of non-Germans users.
    • The inclusion of macrons/breves would hurt: Latin texts are usually without them, so one wouldn't know what one has to search for. E.g. when reading "stella" somewhere, one would have check the variants "stella, stēlla, stellā, stēllā" only to find out that "stēlla" is the correct basic form.
-91.63.230.4 09:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC) & 09:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Most people are going to try the plain version first, because it's easier to remember and to type. It's only the ones who copypaste the actual text from the page who might run into problems, and even then the circumflex version is going to be near the top of the search results. Besides, the copypasters are going to have their own problems with scannos on most Google Books documents- they might find themselves accidentally searching for du0m or something along those lines. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone actually proposed putting them into pagenames of the actual entry. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the nominated page has the circumflex in the page name- which is why it's nominated. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Chuck Entz's comment:
  • Maybe Korn was refering to putting macrons/breves in the header?
  • I doubt that "Most people are going to try the plain version first" is true resp. I doubt that it is an argument.
    • In case of macrons/beves it's most likely true that one would use the plain version - macrons/breves usually aren't present in real Latin text anyway -, also it's most likely true for tremas as one can't input them easily. But some diacritical marks can be entered easily. So in case of e.g. circumflexes it's not unlikely that one would input them. Reasons why circumflexes &c. might be used: 1. "duum" and "duûm" could be different words, or one could think that they're different words. 2. Most people most likely input the word they found in some text - at least when they can input it (&c.).
    • In case of "æ" one most likely would type "ae" (or "e") too, but prae- and præ- are different entries (though their content is pretty much the same). Also in English one would most likely omit tremas, but still there's naïve besides naive. So, if "duum" does exist (a short google books search for it shows that it does), there should be no problem in having both entries.
Regarding the entry header if there should only be one entry:
"duum" (without circumflex) mightdoes also exist. So how should two forms (duum, duûm) be included in one header? (Putting one form in a usage note obviously is (usually) an arbitrary discrimination of one form.)
-80.133.111.227 16:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

Deistically[edit]

I don't believe we include such things (my own submission of The was deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Not analogous. "The" is capitalised according to normal orthographic rules, e.g. start of sentence. But "deistically" may be capitalised at the writer's choice, a bit like "kleenex" - or I presume that's what the creator meant. Equinox 19:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I think this seriously opens up a can of worms. Do we also want Theistically, Polydeistically, Pandeistically, Atheistically, etc.? bd2412 T 22:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Good question. I'm not sure. We do have Christianly, and although we don't have Godly or Biblically, we do have both Biblical and biblical. - -sche (discuss) 22:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, do people even capitalise "atheistically" in mid-sentence? I've never seen it done. We already have loads of caps variations, and even an "alternate capitalisation of" template, for them. Equinox 22:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
We have Christianly, but not christianly (and Islamically, but not islamically). I think it's a binary distinction between actual religions and religious philosophies. bd2412 T 02:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both, in any case. A Google n-gram shows the uncapped version of "deistic" has generally been more common (it was more frequently capitalized in the 18th-19th centuries, but this never exceeded use of the lowercase version); lowercase "deistically" has a much more pronounced primacy over the capitalized version. Accounting for uses as the first word in the sentence, and in things like chapter titles, I think this makes it a wash for the capitalized versions. bd2412 T 16:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This is being used in the middle of sentence capitalized, even in modern writing. Do we now delete alternative capitalizations because they are relatively rare? "Deistic" even seems relatively common, per (Deistic*4),deistic at Google Ngram Viewer; the factor 4 cannot be explained by beginning of sentences and presence in titles, I guess. As for the reason why the users might used "Deistic" capitalized relatively often, it may have to do with it being apparently the adjectival form of "God", which is often capitalized. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    The following searches should be free from beginning-of-sentence confounding: (a Deistic*8),a deistic at Google Ngram Viewer}, (the Deistic*8),the deistic at Google Ngram Viewer, (his Deistic*4),his deistic at Google Ngram Viewer. Factor 8 is still pretty favorable, and we would not delete an alternative spelling as a misspelling with such a factor. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    I note that "a Deistically" and "the Deistically" do not show up at all (although "a deistically" and "the deistically" do show up). Perhaps there is a dichotomy between adjective and adverb usage. However, I searched for "deistically" in Google books, and found five mid-sentence uses of "Deistically" in the first ten pages, so about a 5% usage rate. My sense is that this is style, not spelling, but that's a difficult line to draw. bd2412 T 15:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Not really sure what to say, it's just the word 'deistically' with a capital letter for the start of a sentence or for no reason whatsoever (this is pretty common in English). Renard Migrant (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Deistic[edit]

As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Deistically deleted; no consensus to delete Deistic. bd2412 T 19:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Rodrígez[edit]

Actually a very rare misspelling. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Entered as Spanish. It has the frequency ratio of 5000 in (Rodrígez*5000),Rodríguez at Google Ngram Viewer. For comparison: (beleive*3000),believe at Google Ngram Viewer; beleive. One can check other frequency ratios for items in Category:English misspellings. The absolute number of hits in google books:"Rodrígez" (copyedited corpus) shows as 3,960 to me; I looked at a random selection of the found hits and found the sought spelling rather than something else.--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as a common misspelling based on my post above, absent any refuting post. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

annotinata[edit]

Translingual. This is just an inflected form of Latin annotinatus. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

food broker[edit]

Sum of parts? SemperBlotto (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't we keep occupations?
I could see how an unlimited interpretation of the occupation exception to the SoP principle could lead to very silly, not-too-informative or useful entries like custom cabinet maker or combustion engineer. This may be such a case. DCDuring TALK 14:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure. We have engine driver, but not the listed synonyms that all seem to be more SoP. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Engine driver would be includable IMO because the corresponding US terms are so different: engineer or the pleonastic locomotive engineer. DCDuring TALK 14:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

stutzig machen[edit]

Clearly SoP -- Liliana 15:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think it's pretty much a set phrase. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    This Google books search shows that phrases of the form stutzig und|oder ADJ machen exist, ie, it fails the coordination test for a set phrase. DCDuring TALK 23:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

mil millones[edit]

SOP; just "a thousand millions". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. The French for eighty is quatre-vingts, ‘four twenties’. Is that sum of parts? Ƿidsiþ 06:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
It a standard term, much more usual in Spanish than "thousand million" is in English. English likes the word billion, but Spanish is uncomfortable with that and finds it ambiguous and confusing. Mil millones is no more SOP than many other numbers in most languages, including two hundred, fifty-two, осмь на дєсѧтє, dek ok, ten thousand, einundzwanzig, etc. —Stephen (Talk) 07:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I think that dek ok and similar oughtn't to exist, but it appears that I'm against precedent on this one. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Romance languages don't use billion the way English does, so we should keep this. Purplebackpack89 14:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: According to the Spanish Wikipedia article Millardo: "Un millardo es el número natural equivalente a 109 (1 000 000 000) cuyo nombre normal en español es mil millones." ("A milliard is the natural number equivalent to 109 (1,000,000,000) whose normal name in Spanish is mil millones.") See also the RAE entry for millardo. The Obento Musubi (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    This reminds me of the Japanese counting system. 百万 literally translated would mean "one hundred ten-thousands" and is the Japanese word for million. I also found an interesting article on CNN en español that utilizes "mil millones de dólares". [2] The Obento Musubi (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep on my favorite principle that if a very common multi-word term has a rarer attested single-word synonym (which in this case is Spanish millardo), the multi-word term should be kept even if transparent (sum of parts). Thanks for the post above by The Obento Musubi. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 15:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

meths drinker[edit]

Someone who drinks meths (= methylated spirits). Glossed as pejorative but it sounds like the most neutral term for it! Equinox 11:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Is meths limited to Geordie? Other dictionaries have it as UK, Canada, ANZ or just UK. DCDuring TALK 14:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
No, nor just to alcoholic contexts. The substance used for any purpose is meths. Equinox 14:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

lieber[edit]

liebsten[edit]

German adverbs do not inflect, so where do these inflected forms come from? -- Liliana 00:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  • They are correct according to the German Wiktionary. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
German Wiktionary has no guarantee of correctness. And that example is a use of the adjective lieb. The exact wording is even used in de:lieb as an example sentence. -- Liliana 11:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
German adverbs do inflect for comparative and superlative (Ich singe besser als du, aber er singt am besten von uns allen). These forms are the suppletive comparative and superlative of the adverb gern. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
b:de:Deutsche_Grammatik#Adverb_.28Umstandswort.29: "Das Adverb (Umstandswort) hilft, innerhalb eines Satzes die Umstände näher zu kennzeichnen, unter denen etwas geschieht. Sie sind nicht flektierbar, d. h. sie sind unveränderlich bzw. nicht beugbar." This should be as clear as it can get. -- Liliana 10:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
German Wikibooks has just as little guarantee of correctness as German Wiktionary. Obviously they're thinking of things like number, gender, and case (which adverbs obviously don't inflect for), but they've forgotten that adverbs do have comparatives and superlatives. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
'Am liebsten' in my example is a word describing the manner in which a verb is conducted. I may not be a big city linguist, but to me that seems a pretty solid case for calling that thing an adverb. The fact that if you rephrase the sentence in a positive, you'll end up with 'gern' and not 'lieb' is another hint that we don't have the adjective here. Beware, lemmings tend to all fall off the same cliff. (Making a statement about the policy of the same name.) Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The decisions of lemmings at other dictionaries all reflect their assessment of what a sufficient number of users would be unnappy not to find. At the dictionaries that have professional lexicographers and librarians on staff the inclusion decisions reflect a weighing of user expectations and academic linguistics. Why wouldn't we follow them except in cases of clear error? To this outside observer this doesn't look like clear error. What do those authors mean by inflection?
IMHO, Wikis cannot be assumed to have had careful professionals involved and, as a matter of good practice, should not be and generally are not taken as in themselves authoritative for purposes of our discussions. DCDuring TALK 15:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
We shouldn't follow other dictionaries just for the heck of it, as Liliana, which I well respect, seems (!) to do in this case. I'm well aware that you, During, aren't intending to copy them just for the heck of it. But by having that mindset, you already rendered the lemmings principle void. Using the lemmings rule, we can only ever copy mistakes or restrict ourselves negatively. If we copy good, useful or desired things from other dictionaries, we copy them because they're good, useful or desired, not because they're from other dictionaries. For a boon, there will always be a reason other than 'they do it too'. Whenever we actually have to resort to the lemmings argument, that just means we found no proper reason to do a thing. Which means we should not do the thing in the first place. Which means we do not need the lemmings rule in the first place. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
For any entry to which we put our minds we can usually bring its quality above that of all but the very best of professional dictionaries with paid staffs. We have more space than print dictionaries and more willing to use our space for extensive content than commercial online dictionaries. But for speed we often copy content from uncopyrighted sources and focus our more creative efforts on modern terms and modern uses of older terms. But I really don't think we put our minds to more common words and especially highly polysemic ones.
A consequence of having more space is that we can be more inclusive than other dictionaries. So, for purposes of including entries we should always have any entry that any dictionary or serious glossary has. (I exclude WordNet and it followers as lemmings worth following uncritically.) I don't have any German dictionaries bookmarked, but the translating dictionaries I've looked at have a definition for lieber and am liebsten as adverbs. They ignore the notion that it could be considered a suppletive of gern. But this relies on translating dictionaries and the translation rationale for inclusion. I'd be more interested in how German monolingual dictionaries presented these. DCDuring TALK 00:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The Oxford-Duden German English dictonary has them as adverbs in the entry for gern. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Deutsches Wörterbuch: Bedeutungsgeschichte und Aufbau unseres Wortschatzes] refers to them as "Steigergungsformen" of gern. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@Liliana-60 & Angr: (German, Latin and English) adverbs do not inflect, but comparison is not part of inflection. Inflection is either declension/declination or conjugation, and declension/declination is a changing case, gender or number, not changing the grade. Well, at least nowaydays. In antique times the Latin term "declinatio" refered to every change of a word, which also includes derivation. -93.196.239.107 13:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep lieber and liebsten as gradations of adverb gern. The sources that state that German adverbs do not inflect probably have the notion of inflection in mind that excludes changing the grade, as noted by the anon above. Duden online entry for gern has "gern" as an adverb, and states the following in its "Grammatik" section: "Adverb; lieber, am liebsten". And I find Korn's example "Ich gehe am liebsten allein" to show "am liebsten" as an adverb rather than an adjective. Korn's note above on "rephrase the sentence in a positive" seems convincing. On yet another note, the English adverb "rather" that fits reasonably well as a translation of "lieber" is suggestive as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nominator is mistaken in stating that adverbs don't inflect. In addition to the Duden, the DWDS also has these adverbs as comparative and superlative forms of gern. - -sche (discuss) 06:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • RFD kept per consensus. Boldface keeps: Dan Polansky, -sche; pro-delete nomination: Liliana-60; pro-keeping comments: Korn, Angr, and probably DCDuring. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

dizamos[edit]

"Dizamos" doesn't seem to be a legitimate conjugation of "dizer"; Portuguese Wiktionary lists the first-person affirmative imperative as "digamos", not "dizamos". A quick search online shows just a little over 2,400 results. You may see this, this, and this for more. (under imperativo → nós) The Obento Musubi (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

جدّی - jeddi[edit]

It is the established practice for most of the entries for these words to be at the form without the tashdid. جدّی was nominated by User:Placebo in 2010 but no agreement was reached. I started adding the forms with a tashdid as 'alternative forms' a while ago so that they would appear in search results, so I have added it as an alternative form at جدی. Other options would be to redirect, to have an entry as an 'alternative form' or for the entry to be at the form with the tashdid. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I didn't know what "tashdid" meant, so I looked it up for interest, but Wiktionary has no entry! 109.153.226.155 17:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    تَشْدِيد (tašdīd) is the state of there being a شَدَّة (šadda) in a word or on a letter. --WikiTiki89 17:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to جدی, there's no need for "alternative form" entries, we don't do this for terms with diacritics for Arabic or Hebrew script based languages, neither for Cyrillic-based with accents. I've started a "tashdid" entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Abrahamitische Religion[edit]

translation of rfd-failed term, this is as much SoP as its English equivalent -- Liliana 21:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; transparent even for non-German speakers. bd2412 T 21:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Or, y'know, make it a translations target... ;) - -sche (discuss) 22:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, delete. And please don't forget to delete any plurals of terms deleted here. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
For this kind of term, which will probably be deemed to be unworthy of an entry, why not have a third option to keep a mention of it in the two entries 'Abrahamitische' and 'Religion' as a user example? It could be called a 'mentioned term'/'referenced term' or something along those lines, to acknowledge that it will be mentioned or referred to but not have its own entry. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 15:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Atemweg[edit]

According to the Duden [3], this is a plurale tantum (plural Atemwege = "respiratory system/tract"). Although there are several thousand Google hits for the singular, lots of them are misspellings, parts of compound words (in which case "Atemweg-" is indeed used, e.g. in Atemwegserkrankung = Erkrankung der Atemwege), or have a non-idiomatic sense other than respiratory tract. --Zeitlupe (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

These uses seem mostly legit, albeit certainly fewer in number than the plural. Usage note? -- Visviva (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
IMO they have no other meaning than "way of the breath", which is non-idiomatic and wouldn't qualify for an English entry. I am all for having less strict inclusion rules for German compound words (especially if they use an infix like -s- or -es-). But if we allow every German compound, then we have a combinatorial explosion of entries because in German, you can always build new words "foobar", which mean only "bar of foo". --Zeitlupe (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@Zeitlupe:
1. duden isn't always correct. (Other sides/dictionaries like [www.dwds.de/?qu=Atemweg] sometimes say something different than duden and sometimes there are enough example like at [zeno.org/Zeno/0/Suche?q=Atemweg&k=Bibliothek] or google book search which show that duden is incomplete, incorrect or prescriptive).
2. German compounds aren't always "bar of foo", it can also be "bar for foo" etc. For example compare "Schweineschnitzel" (Schnitzel made out of a pig) and "Kinderschnitzel" (Schnitzel made for kids - not: Schnitzel made out of kids). So a non-native most likely could think that "Atemweg" might mean "a way to breath" (like fast or slow breathing) instead of "way of the breath" -91.63.247.5 13:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: the components of "Atemweg" are not considered to be separate for the application of WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, so the term is not sum of parts for the purpose of CFI. Whether they are separate or not depends on whether they are separated by a space or a hyphen. See also a discussion at Talk:Zirkusschule. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

lanche[edit]

Chinese? --Type56op9 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Exxon[edit]

I request undeletion (keep AKA undelete). This company name was deleted via RFD in 2007 as per Talk:Exxon#RFD, but for wrong reasons, IMHO. I have no idea of the pronunciation, for an example of lexicographical information worth providing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see some evidence at Citations:Exxon of its being used in a way that conforms to WT:BRAND before I can support undeletion. In the meantime, I've added the pronunciation at w:Exxon. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Are there any limitations on what the meaning of a brand name can be? I can't see any in WT:BRAND DCDuring TALK 21:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore/Keep/Undelete: Per nom, and per the recent RfD keep of Mobil Purplebackpack89 23:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore/Keep/Undelete: - "all words in all languages" SemperBlotto (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    "SemperBlotto" is a word in a language as much as "Exxon" is. Equinox 11:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    I think you would have problems RfVing it. (though, amazingly, it gets 143 hits on Google book search) SemperBlotto (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    @SemperBlotto I'm guessing you're poking fun at mine and Angr's keep votes, and you actually want this to remain deleted. Why do you think this should remain deleted, especially since we recently voted to keep a similar entry? Purplebackpack89 18:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    Not at all. Exxon is a perfectly valid word, and we should include it. I have always been an advocate of "all words in all lamguages". Now, somebody reading those Googled books might want to know what "SemperBlotto" means; so maybe we ought to include it. But I'm not going to push my luck. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    Good to know. I always thought you username was SOP, though. Mine is. Purplebackpack89 21:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    "Mine and Angr's keep votes"??? I didn't vote at all yet. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Restored. bd2412 T 15:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

mangubat[edit]

Supposedly English, but then says it is something else. Badly formatted. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Has a Wikipedia entry, now much curtailed and flagged for Wiktionarification, but historically long and rambling, with an edit history dating back several years. One of the sources cited in the present Wikipedia entry, [4], does not contain the word "mangubat", but refers to "mangubas" as a Bisayan (= Visayan, I presume) word for sea expeditions involving pillage. Google Book Search sources say that "mangubat" is some kind of shaman or medicine man, also in the Philippines. I guess there may be some variation in or uncertainty about the spellings. 217.44.208.136 02:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I've tried to improve it by adding the medicine-men sense. Equinox 03:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you look at the original Spanish version here, you'll see that it really is "mangubat". I'm guessing that the s in the Gutenberg version is a typo or other error. There's quite a lot of linguistic diversity in the Philippines, so having the same spelling turn up in two different languages with two unrelated meanings would hardly be surprising.
More to the point at hand, the Wikipedia article used the words as a coatrack on which to hang a variety of early accounts of the lifestyle, appearance and culture of the Visayan people, among other things, and to give excerpts of (non-English) texts containing the word itself. This was severely pruned and tagged for moving to Wiktionary. It looks to me like the creator of the Wiktionary article (who spent some time back in 2013 on the Wikipedia one) is trying to recreate the Wikipedia article here.
The big problem is that this isn't an English word. I've looked through all the Google Books hits for the word, and all but the shamanic-healer ones you mentioned seem to be for Mangubat as a surname. The only "English" use seems to be the translation of a Spanish passage that only mentions the word, saying that it's Visayan. Nor does it seem to be used much in any other language- I suspect that the passages cited in the earlier versions of the Wikipedia article are pretty much it.
In addition, judging from the footnotes in the sources, it's probably a phrase of two separate words that was mistakenly written as a single word in the Spanish text, and as such is no doubt SOP.
I would definitely delete this as an English term and rfv it as whatever language the Wikipedia cites are in. The shamanic-healer sense is unrelated, and might be added if the few hits on Google Books are solid enough. Whatever we do, we have to make sure that it doesn't end up as a coatrack article like the Wikipedia one was. That's bad enough for an encyclopedia- for a dictionary, it's criminal. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

make new friends, but keep the old[edit]

It's a line from a song. The meaning is self-evident. Equinox 03:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Transparent. bd2412 T 14:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    Is transparency a requirement for an expression to be a proverb? DCDuring TALK 01:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Usually the other way round...? "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" is proverbial and metaphorical, but "don't stake everything on a single outcome" would just be SoP advice. Equinox 01:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    What makes the following sayings, taken from w:Proverb where they are offered as examples of proverbs, proverbs? They just look like advice to me.
Haste makes waste
Ignorance is bliss
Fortune favours the bold
Well begun is half done
A little learning is a dangerous thing
It is better to be smarter than you appear than to appear smarter than you are
Good things come to those who wait
A dog is a man's best friend
Honesty is the best policy
Slow and steady wins the race
I don't think metaphors or lack of transparency are essential for something to be a proverb. It may be that we have nothing that would say that an SoP proverb should be kept, but it would seem that we are thereby guaranteeing that our coverage of proverbs will be incomplete in a way that may be a little hard to justify to normal users. DCDuring TALK 03:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
To some extent I think that these tend to be set phrases, so that saying them out of order or with substituted words is recognizable as an error (for example, "waste is made by haste", or "truthfulness is the best policy"). In this case, I doubt that the phrase is "set" enough that if someone said "make new friends, but don't lose the old", they would find themselves being corrected. bd2412 T 03:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think most of these are set phrases, unless by 'set phrase' one means a phrase that accepts synonyms for words in the phrase.
"A thing well started in half done"
"Better to be smarter than you look that to look smarter than you are"
"[[[all] [good]] things|everything] come to one [who|that] waits"
"A dog is child's best friend"
"The best policy is honesty"
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"
"Slow but sure wins the race"
If "setness" isn't absolute (and it is rarely so) the if it doesn't have some kind of quantitative criterion that is supportable or accepted, then it just seems like a crutch, and a weak one at that. DCDuring TALK 04:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I would assume that there must be some kind of quantitative criterion underscoring the sense that people have that a proverb is not being said right. Looking back at the discussion, I'm not sure what the objection to my initial comment was. I supported deletion on the grounds that the phrase was transparent. You replied "Is transparency a requirement for an expression to be a proverb?" which is the opposite of my proposition; absence of transparency is what typically makes a proverb dictionary material. I don't know if you misread my comment, or were merely making a tangential point, but I think that a proverb that is not transparent should indeed be shown to be fairly consistently set to merit inclusion. bd2412 T 15:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that a proverb is certainly a "set phrase" within the incredibly broad definition we typically apply to expressions we favor or, more properly, it is a construction with some flexibility.
That an expression is considered a proverb, IMO, enhances its lexical value. In this case, there are a fairly large of number of joint occurrences of "proverb" with the exact wording of this expression at Google Books. We have never even agreed on quantitative criteria for 'common' in common misspellings, so this more difficult realm also falls short in that regard.
We certainly do not treat SoPitude as a knockout factor for multiword expressions. We include expressions that are otherwise perfectly transparent if they have a discourse function. Use as a proverb seems to me to be a use of an expression beyond its simple meaning. It is intended to suggest a principle that has some authority be virtue of its having become a set phrase, one that the hearer might recognize as one previously heard, once reminded by the speaker. In addition there would be a 'phrasebook' rationale, if we actually had a phrasebook. DCDuring TALK 16:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Is this a proverb? Is there a rule by which we can determine when a phrase passes from being commonly repeated SoP good advice to the elevated status of proverbdom? Should we be adding things like don't eat the yellow snow? bd2412 T 03:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
As I wrote above: "In this case, there are a fairly large of number of joint occurrences of "proverb" with the exact wording of this expression at Google Books." DCDuring TALK 03:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Bluto[edit]

"The fictional man who is the antagonist of Popeye." Encyclopaedic. Equinox 00:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep (for the same reasons Popeye was kept) but improve the definition. The term has passed into metaphorical use referring to traits associated with the character. bd2412 T 01:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to RfV to verify some Wiktionary worthy usage. DCDuring TALK 01:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I have redefined the term and added CFI-worthy citations already. bd2412 T 02:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
      They look good to me. Keep as attested. DCDuring TALK 03:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per bd2412 and DCDuring. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Equinox? Are you satisfied with the revision/citations? bd2412 T 19:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Two look good to me; the rest, meh. Looks like everyone wants to keep, so fine. Equinox 19:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Out of curiosity, which two? There are more to be found. bd2412 T 19:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 1986, 2008, 2015: referring to the character as a character, not as any kind of generic entity; similar e.g. to "your cat looks like Pikachu". (Perhaps that's okay by our rules, but I find it lame, and unlike professional dictionaries.) 2007: arguable, but refers to a lot of Popeye characters in quick succession so not "independent of the universe", if that matters. 2010, both 2011s: better, closer to a generic term. Equinox 19:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    So, more like:
    • 2008, Bret Lott, Ancient Highway: A Novel, page 152:
      For whatever reason, it'd taken her a little while to get out of the cab when they first got here, and when Chuck introduced me — she stood a full foot shorter than him, a tiny woman next to this Bluto of a man, a knitted green afghan over her shoulders, a white blouse and blue jeans.
    • 2014, Les Moore, Leave Your Mark: A Memoir, page 245:
      I was a basket case mentally and then this Bluto look alike, starts ragging on me about punching tubes.
bd2412 T 20:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
How are you sure that those are referencing the Popeye character and not, for instance, the Animal House character. The first one does reference size, but in neither case is it clear that the are not talking about an unkempt frat boy rather than a musclebound giant. - TheDaveRoss 11:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The Animal House character is a reference to the Popeye character anyway; see Peter Lev, American Films of the 70s: Conflicting Visions (2000), p. 212: "The name "Bluto" comes from a villain in "Popeye" cartoons"; Matty Simmons, Fat, Drunk, and Stupid: The Inside Story Behind the Making of Animal House (2012), p. 43: "John Belushi was always going to be Bluto; the heavyset body, the grizzly beard, made him a perfect Bluto, as in the Popeye cartoons". bd2412 T 13:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

keinen Erfolg haben[edit]

Isn't that pretty much a "SoP" of "keinen" and "Erfolg haben"? Also: Aren't "nicht erfolgreich sein" (there are links to this in some entry) and "erfolgreich sein" and maybe "Erfolg haben" SoP? -80.133.107.114 15:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a precarious difference between phraseology and "SoP". How is a non-native speaker going to decide if the negation of "Erfolg haben" is "keinen Erfolg haben" or *"nicht Erfolg haben"? Now, a normal dictionary would present usage under the lemma itself, in this case "Erfolg", but since (in my understanding, but then I could never even remotely grasp the rationale behind this, as all I can see are the inconsistencies and out-of-the-blue administrative decisions without the philology to back them up) Wiktionary follows a "splitter" philosophy of "every possible derivation, inflection or permutation needs its own lemma", it would seem that all phraseology needs to be kept? This is not a vote, just a request for clarification on project policy. --Dbachmann (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • There are other ways to show users how to negate "Erfolg haben" without creating an entry for an expression that can be understood by looking up kein(en), Erfolg, and haben. We can add "{{t|de|[[keinen]] [[Erfolg]] [[haben]]}} {{i|‘be unsuccessful’}}" to the translation table at unsuccessful; we can include a usage example like {{ux|de|Er hat keinen '''Erfolg''' gehabt.|He was unsuccessful}} at Erfolg and so on. Even our tendency to create separate entries for things does need some checks put on it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
      • this is exactly how I would prefer to do it :) --Dbachmann (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Erfolg haben[edit]

Glück haben[edit]

Pech haben[edit]

All of these are straightforward SoP. -- Liliana 15:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

They are, but people cannot know that German forms "be successful/lucky" as "have luck/success". Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I think we need a better way of dealing with entries like these and avoir faim. No-one will look up "Glück haben" on a whim - they'd go to lucky, see that it translates to glücklich and either give up there, or click the link and see the usage note that explains. Similarly, someone coming across it in German will look up Glück or Pech rather than haben Gluck/haben Pech. These entries are useless, as far as I can see. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all, SOP. The translation table at successful can say something like "{{t|de|erfolgreich}}; {{t|de|[[Erfolg]] [[haben]]}} {{i|‘be successful’}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all. We need to more aggressively include usage example, but translations seem to be the most useful place of FL phrases needed to express English terms, even in cases where the translation is somewhat different in structure, eg, a predicate vs. a bare adjective or bare noun. DCDuring TALK 10:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Pech haben (and Schwein haben) as idiomatic. Lemmings are obvious, the other terms also need to be tested for lemmings. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't that be *Lemming haben? As for whether terms needing "to be tested for lemmings": I've heard of testing for various diseases and internal parasites, but not lemmings- are they harmful? Or is it like checking structures for termites? ;) Chuck Entz (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Verizon[edit]

I request undeletion (keep AKA undelete). Deleted in 2009. I cannot find any process data related to RFD; anyone has a better luck? This company name is a single-word one and can host pronunciation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Before it was deleted, the page said nothing but "VERIZON". Being empty of content, it was eligible for speedy deletion, and should not be re-created in that condition. If there's evidence of this word being used in a way consistent with WT:BRAND, let's list it at Citations:Verizon. Until there are cites showing that it's eligible for inclusion, the pronunciation info at w:Verizon will suffice. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
(sarcasm) Sure, it's the business of encyclopedias to provide pronunciation of terms, not of dictionaries. Especially given that "Pronunciations [...] are the most essential part of any lexical entry, [...]" as per diff. (end of sarcasm) --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not the business of dictionaries to do other people's advertising for them. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
An entry in a dictionary with its definition line consisting of a small number of words is much less of an advertising than an entry in an encyclopedia. I tend to think it is not advertising at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@Angr: We advertise political parties, NGOs, political jurisdictions, religions, and ideologies. We just have a bias against commercial enterprise — filthy lucre and all that. DCDuring TALK 15:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Shi'a-centric[edit]

Sum of parts, in my opinion. Something can be "-centric" on virtually anything, e.g. even google books:"cave-centric" and google books:"middle-centric" are attested. - -sche (discuss) 21:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It's debatable whether or not COALMINE would apply if Shiacentric were attested: would COALMINE protect all hyphenated and spaced alt forms, or only ones which (like Shiacentric) lacked the apostrophe? (If Shi'acentric were attested, the case for COALMINE would be clearer.) It's not clear whether Shiacentric is attested or not: it's a blue link because PAM created it with two citations, but one didn't use the form in question and the other is possibly a typo or misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 21:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Transhumanist Party[edit]

Minor political party whose name is SoP. Equinox 00:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If it were a commercial enterprise, we would call it spam. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Quran believer[edit]

SoP. Equinox 01:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

But how will people know which sense of "Quran" and which sense of "believer" this collocation uses? And wouldn't this make a good phrasebook entry and translation target? </sarcasm>
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 03:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete People who believe the Quran. I must say, I'm impressed that there are scores of entries like this still out there, nearly a year after their creator left the project. Perhaps it's true that "quantity has a quality all of its own". Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The list of synonyms at Muslim has plenty of silly items. And the creator you mention is still around and active as various IP addresses! Equinox 11:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

亞美利加洲[edit]

sum of parts: 亞美利加 (America) + (continent) (probably relevant: 北京市) —suzukaze (tc) 06:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Don't nominate something for deletion without first doing, then submitting, research to make sure that this term hasn't been used in print. 173.89.236.187 07:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Supporting the same approach for other Chinese, Japanese and Korean proper nouns where common nouns like "river, state, city, province, prefecture, country", etc. should be excluded from the lemma, unless they absolutely belong together. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

hip hop crew[edit]

Sum of parts? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think so: similar to rap crew, gangsta rap crew, rapping crew (all findable in G.Books). Equinox 11:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete hip hop + crew (a group of people associated together in a common activity or by common traits or interests) (MWOnline) = crew (A hip-hop group). (I've put in an RfC for [[crew#Noun]]). DCDuring TALK 15:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)