Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

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

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFDs


April 2016[edit]


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

Is this character really not in CJK-C/-D/-E? -- Liliana 21:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Who knows? To really be sure what it is, you'd have to know what font the creator of the entry was using at the time, and possibly even which version of the font. You can guess, based on which character it was redirected to back in 2007, and on which equivalents there are to that in Min-Nan, but it would still be a guess. Given that different people may see different characters, depending on their font, I don't think it's safe to keep this as is. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 is U+E010, which is a PUA (private use area) character, which means 癩 needs to be deleted or moved, since  is not actually an encoded character. ⿸疒哥 (UTC-02663) is proposed for Extension G, as seen here and here (p. 127). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
A query for  in [1] suggests that it indeed is ⿸疒哥. —suzukaze (tc) 22:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@suzukaze-c Are you sure you're not using  (U+F5E7) instead of  (U+E010)? I tried using  (U+E010) and it didn't work. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
(how the heck did i get f5e7) Please disregard, oops —suzukaze (tc) 22:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the creator of the pua meant 疒哥, but it ended up as ✊, due to font. I still want delete, after all, 赵孟兆页 got deleted. —This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talkcontribs) at 22:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC).
This has nothing to do with 赵孟𫖯. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

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

It was deleted because it's a name with both given and family names, which violates WT:CFI, not because it's a meaningless phrase. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
This character shows as a fist on my iPad and a an up pointing arrow on my computer. Johnny Shiz (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
That's because it's a Private Use Area character, meaning that different fonts can have completely different things showing up. That's why this problem needs to be resolved. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I say Redirect to 癩⿸疒哥. Johnny Shiz (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Delete per nom; having entries for compounds built using PUA characters seems like a bad idea. I'm not convinced we should have redirects from Private Use Area characters (but a redirect, such as has already been deployed, would be preferable to keeping the term as a full entry). - -sche (discuss) 18:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


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

This is not a valid reason for deletion. —suzukaze (tc) 01:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
It's plausibly an RFV rationale as kwukyel from what I gather are used in Korean not Chinese. I obviously have no opinion on it. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Well. The Chinese character means to the name of script; it does not mean it is/was always used in Chinese language. According to G-source, GK means GB 12052-89. Looks like it was referred in Chinese language once, with reading: hǎn (厂). --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
That's why I put {{zh-see|厂|v}} for now. But never trust the Unihan Database 100%. AFAIK, GB encodes all of the Chinese characters in the BMP, so it having a G source doesn't make it Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
In Unicode, two unrelated characters may have the same code if they look identical. In this case, in Chinese is a variant of while in Korean it is a kwukyel for myeon created by simplification of . — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

No consensus to delete after an extended time. bd2412 T 14:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

stesso pronouns[edit]

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

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

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • Keep per "definitely useful translations for foreigners": err on the side of usefulness at the risk of redundancy. Entered by SemperBlotto in 2008. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to delete after extended time to discuss. bd2412 T 14:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Handlanger Corps[edit]

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

A name of a specific entity (Specialist Austrian troops of the Napoleonic Wars) and thus not really sum of parts. Governed by WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
A specific historical thing. But by consensus we seem to want to try to be a half-arsed atlas and encyclopaedia with things like World War II and Star Trek, so why delete this one? Equinox 14:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I created WT:RFV#Handlanger Corps since this might not even be attested as an English term so spelled. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete DCDuring TALK 17:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

  • I think we should try to somehow define or at least illustrate the differences between seller/fabricator of certain goods or service (as in the welding example) and more-or-less-exclusive user of a given technology or brand (as in the Bessemer examples). The latter would be a despecialization of the sense under challenge.
The whole noun PoS could use some rationalization. Eg, why is there a special definition for car repair? DCDuring TALK 10:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete (move usexes/quotations to the existing broader sense which covers this) per nom. - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


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

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

  • Weak keep since not enough other input has been provided. Thus, erring on the side of usefulness at the risk of redundancy. Entered to mean "to arrest or grab successfully." The sum is จับ ‎(“to arrest; to grab”) + ได้ ‎(“successfully”). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to delete after extended period for discussion. bd2412 T 14:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


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

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

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

So, has a consensus among Thai editors been reached? — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Entered to mean "to arrest or grab the body of." The sum is จับ ‎(“to arrest, to grab”) + ตัว ‎(“body”). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep since not enough other input has been provided. Thus, erring on the side of usefulness at the risk of redundancy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to delete after extended period for discussion. bd2412 T 01:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


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

BTW, here is a list of the operators in just one language (Perl): [2]. Equinox 12:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
IMO, we should keep some symbols of programming languages like this. Other examples: = (assignment operator) and == (comparison operator). See also the multiple meanings of $. The full list of existing entries for programming/computing symbols should be at Category:mul:Programming and Category:mul:Computing.
Related discussions created by Equinox recently: User talk:Daniel Carrero#Entries like /* */ and User talk:Octahedron80#Programming operators. In the latter, @Octahedron80 asked: "why the mathematical symbols and emojis can be included here if they are not the human language?" (but, to be fair, emojis do feel like human language to me, as in, they're used in human text :) :p :/) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least move to an Appendix. It's not a word and not in a language. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    Shouldn't the "parent directory" sense also be deleted? --WikiTiki89 21:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

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

  • I did not understand the part "You should not just want to delete them because you do not know." Were you assuming something about the nominator's knowledge of programming languages? That aside, I agree with most of what you said. I added the "range operator" sense now in .. per your comment. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I apologise if my message bothered you. My point is that we want to expand reader's knowledge who never know them before. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Your message didn't actually bother me, I just found it a little odd at first, but that's OK. Thanks for the clarification. That's a good point, too, IMO. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • A question to keepers: Shall we include JOptionPane (Java), std::cin (C++), equ (Win Batch), foreach (Perl) as quasi-attested in source code? All keywords and all APIs in computing languages, quasi-attested in source code? Why is the Equinox rationale "not used in running text" not good enough for deletion? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    • The very basic keywords like int, integer, short, long, double, real, bool, boolean, string, begin, end, if, else, elseif, endif, while, do, loop, for, foreach, try, catch, class, object, array, table, function, return, etc. and programming operators (might be symbolic or mnemonic) should be include because they reflect the basic concept of computer science. Note that same keywords and operators are usually used in many languages. (And I know many languages.) Other advanced classes and libraries (JOptionPane & std::cin) should not be included because they are language-specific. The string concatenation is an essential concept or we could not see wanted messages. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
      I don't have any strong opinion concerning terms like int, integer, begin, end, etc. Currently, endif is defined as English for "(computing) A directive, in several programming languages, that marks the end of an if statement, especially one containing multiple if .. then .. else statements". I don't particularly like when I see those defined as English entries, but that's just a gut feeling that I don't feel able to translate in rational thinking yet. I wonder if one could make the argument that, if the plural is attestable ("endifs"), then maybe it really counts as an English word, but then again, "There are 5 thes in that sentence." would not make "thes" attestable.
      I just wanted to create entries for some programming symbols because some already existed and they seemed a good idea to understand the syntax of programming languages. If anything, I don't think removing all computing senses from, say, + would turn out to be very helpful. Since there are math, genetics, electricity, chess and whatever other senses in that entry, it would feel incomplete (at least IMHO) if it does not have some computing senses too. (unless someone proposes a wider project of removing many Translingual symbols from various contexts) This discussion feels more about general policies for the inclusion of programming language terms rather than a request for the deletion of a sense of .. specifically so I wonder if there are any computing symbols that everybody would want to see in our entries, like perhaps @ (in e-mails) and logical symbols like &&. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    Consideration of the form "X should not be included because they are language-specific" is not related in any way to WT:CFI, AFAICT. Furthermore, in relation to that consideration, Perl ".." and Lua ".." are language-specific: multiple widely used programming languages do not have the operator. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see why one sense is nominated and not the other two. Are any of the three used in human language? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom: "Not part of a human language; not used in running text, only in source code." In my words, this does not seem attested in use to convey meaning; "use" in the middle of computer code is not use in English. This could thus go to RFV, but there, a discussion could arise about whether various quotations count as attesting, so let us have it in RFD and handle it here. As for the other two senses, these should be deleted as well; the third one was added after this RFD nomination in diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 14:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete No compelling keep argument. DCDuring TALK 17:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep but remove the Lua sense. —Enosh (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Why keep the Perl/Swift sense and remove the Lua sense? Is it because the sense "range operator" occurs in at least two programming languages and the sense "concatenation operator" occurs in just one (Lua)? By this logic, if we find a couple of other programming languages that use ".." as a concatenation operator, I assume the sense could stay, or be restored? Where to draw the line? For example, I support keeping both senses of "..", and keeping a bunch of entries for regex symbols: $, ^, ., etc. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
      The RFD rationale is that it's not part of a human language and not used in running text. Even if every single programming language has a certain operator, that doesn't validate it in Wiktionary. Equinox 12:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
      Should we delete all programming language symbols, including some of the "main" ones such as == and ++? If yes, then that would be a consistent decision to have only human languages as argued. But if not, then the problem with ".." meaning "concatenation operator" is that only 1 language uses it, and the decision might be revised eventually if that specific meaning catches on and becomes a part of many programming languages. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
      Yes, we should delete all programming language symbols. Your examples of == and ++ would be kept because they are used occasionally in human languages, but the programming language senses should be deleted (but can be mentioned in the etymology). --WikiTiki89 13:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
      I'm thinking of creating a BP discussion + vote eventually, with the proposal "Deleting and disallowing all programming language symbols." (I would vote oppose) to see if people agree with this rule concerning all entries. Of course, we might simply have a big RFD discussion for all the entries, but it wouldn't be the same as having that explicit rule to prevent future entry creations. WT:CFI says nothing about allowing or disallowing them, but I'm aware that even if such a vote failed, it does not mean that all programming language symbols are accepted by default. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
      Okay, I've changed my mind I weakly support, but I still think we should allow basic keywords like Octahedron mentioned above (seems like they would also be citable in running text). And yes occurring in more than one programming language (and not a very popular one at that) is important IMO. —Enosh (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Way too context-specific. It is misleading to have such symbols ascribed any very specific meaning if the meanings differ among computer languages, possibly even in different versions of the same language. Can we tell in what languages and with what meaning the symbol is most used? The computer-language specific senses would seem to me to be excellent candidates for inclusion in an Appendix with a sortable table (or tables).
Why would anyone rely on Wiktionary as a good source of the meaning of such symbols when we are not even a reliable dictionary of English? DCDuring TALK 12:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
You voted twice. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Sense deleted. bd2412 T 19:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

戰爭之舞, 战争之舞[edit]

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

By Tooironic. Is there perhaps a dictionary that has the term and would allow us to invoke the lemming heuristic? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
No Chinese-Chinese dictionary has this. Native speakers perceive this to be sum of parts. Wyang (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
This is the English Wiktionary, intended to serve a broad variety of audiences and a broad variety of purposes. Tooironic is a "professional translator (Chinese into English)", and if he considers the entry worthwhile, we should give it a thought. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
All opinions should be weighed by their persuasiveness not their origins. Wyang (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I was referring to your calling out "native speakers". My point is that what native Chinese speakers think is not the only consideration. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
And pointing out that the creator of the entry is a professional translator is not the fallacy of irrelevance ad hominem: it is perfectly reasonable to think that, in general, a professional translator has a better idea of what is useful in translation than someone who is not a translator. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
If a combination of words in a language is used only to render a foreign set phrase in translation, and is considered a non-word by native speakers, then it should be deleted. This is the case of a translation-only sum-of-parts non-English entry, which is not allowed on Wiktionary. Your proving the author's better judgement on translation usefulness would corroborate its deletion. You should perhaps argue that translators may have a non-inferior judgement of what is sum of parts and what is not, compared to native speakers. Wyang (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure I fully understand the above, but the above statement about what is "not allowed" is not traceable to a discussion or a vote, AFAIK, and therefore, is not obvious to be supported by consensus. For me, usefulness is key, including usefulness in translation. Excluding every and any sum of parts term is not supported by consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Usefulness in translation ({{translation only}}) is never a consideration in foreign-language entries, and you need to provide proof for your claim that translation-only sum-of-parts non-English entries are allowed on Wiktionary. WT:SOP states that sum of parts are generally to be deleted, unless you can show that inclusion of this specific term is beneficial, which I fail to see from your arguments so far. Wyang (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
To the contrary, the above claim that something is disallowed by consensus requires a proof. The reader will note that I have not voted yet; instead, I pinged the creator of the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep since not enough other input has been provided. Created by a prolific contributor with knowledge of Chinese. Erring on the side of keeping has keeping something redundant as the worst outcome, and that is not too bad. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe delete the entry but keep it present in synonym sections. It literally (actually "literally") means "dance of war". —suzukaze (tc) 23:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

可讀音性, 可读音性[edit]

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

Entered to mean "pronounceability". The previous RFD discussion is at Talk:可耕地, where User:TAKASUGI Shinji and User:Tooironic voted "keep" on this term. Attestation is dealt with in WT:RFV rather than WT:RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
No attestation could be provided on previous rfd. Not included in any Chinese-Chinese dictionary. Wyang (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
If you believe this term is not attested, please send the term to WT:RFV. Lack of attestation is out of scope of RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
If a word is a non-word, sum of parts and unattestable at the same time, it should stay in RFD. Wyang (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • Keep since not enough other input has been provided. The previous RFD resulted in "keep". If this does not exist, it can be deleted via RFV where the attestation evidence will matter and not votes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. google:"可读音性" -"kě dú yīn xìng" -"kědúyīnxìng" is pathetic. —suzukaze (tc) 23:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

劉麟之, 刘麟之; 劉子驥, 刘子骥; 子驥, 子驥[edit]

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

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

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

sigh-this+abuv=elpFULentryz(THAT=wotumakeDIC4!.. 17:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

How is the discussion on 子驥 and 子骥 going? — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


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

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Is it a first or last name? I find it useful and prefer to keep this one and maybe some more examples with more monosyllabic names. This can be compared to diminutives as in Slavic languages, German, etc. Admittedly, there's a huge variety of first names in Chinese.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
It could be both a first name or last name. It's not necessarily a monosyllabic name, since anyone with 山 as the last character of the given name (or even first character sometimes) can be called 阿山. The issue is with Chinese names in general. Any name can be made of any combination of any Chinese characters, which is unlike the practice with European languages. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
OK. A sense in (ā) covers this usage. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Can be applied to any character practically. Wyang (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


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

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

Delete. I won't rehash the argument because we've had it so many times. Equinox 14:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 14:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete No compelling keep argument. DCDuring TALK 17:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 18:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


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

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


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

Refer to #auec (to be archived at Talk:auec). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep, it's attestable Leasnam (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I feel almost certain that we had a policy somewhere saying that variant letters like this u/v should not get separate entries. Did I dream it? Or is it in a tentative non-official policy? Or...? Equinox 03:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of such a policy. WT:About Latin says to prefer v in Latin, but practice/precedent has been to keep entries like this as alt-forms, both in English (Talk:vp, Talk:euery) and in Latin (Talk:dies Iouis, Talk:uacuus). The argument for deletion and the argument for keeping seem to be summed up well in this exchange, IMO:
I just reject the idea that vp is an obsolete spelling of up. The spelling is identical, the difference is encoding, not spelling. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
And you don't think it's a problem that the ‘encoding’ happens to be in the form of a different existing letter of the alphabet? Ƿidsiþ 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep per precedent. Alternation of two separate, still-used letters is not something that can be predicted accurately by human users (especially non-native speakers) or by the site functions we use to software-redirect things like diſtinguiſh. - -sche (discuss) 04:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep DCDuring TALK 17:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 14:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Striking, as nobody else seems to have a problem with writing out every number. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Unstriking. Someone may want to delete this; admitted, people are busy creating the dictionary. These are sum of parts entries; the question is, do we make an exception for numbers and how high can the numbers be? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
They should go up to four hundred and seventy-three. Equinox 07:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The anon is hard at word at adding more. Recent additions to Category:English cardinal numbers are two hundred and two, two hundred and one, one hundred and ninety-nine, one hundred and ninety-eight, one hundred and ninety-seven, one hundred and ninety-six, one hundred and ninety-five, one hundred and ninety-four, one hundred and ninety-three, one hundred and ninety-two.
Delete. This has to stop somewhere. I am ok with some sum of parts terms to show the compound number word construction but having the full set from 100 to 199 and beyond seems an overkill to me, and in any case, these are SOP so there is a CFI-based rationale for deletion. I have notified the anon at User talk: --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete anything higher than four hundred and seventy-three. Equinox 07:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Why 473? Purplebackpack89 04:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: certainly at least keep to 200. Purplebackpack89 04:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Aren't these SoPs anyway? four hundred and twelve, or any other number in the hundreds. Although, I don't know where my stance is on these, because there are a lot of languages it can translate to where their words are not SoP. Philmonte101 (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 14:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

volente o nolente[edit]

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

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

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

  • Delete. French Wiktionary defines nolente as "unwilling" ("involontaire"), so either our entry is wrong or missing a sense. --WikiTiki89 14:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    From an Italian dictionary: Volente o nolente, che voglia o no, per amore o per forza. I think willy-nilly is a good translation. --Vriullop (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Akademio de Esperanto[edit]

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

Kill. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I created this entry when I saw the entry Académie française. Shouldn't that entry also be deleted then for the same reason? Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contributions) 16:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep this and Académie française. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Note that Académie française is an English entry, and in English, it's not SOP. --WikiTiki89 14:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Wikitiki points out a key distinction; compare made in Italy which is defined as "made in Italy", but in Italian. Of course, it could be argued that "made in Italy" and "Académie française" are code-switching and should also be deleted, but this entry should be deleted in any case. - -sche (discuss) 18:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 01:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


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

Seems less rare than some of our misspelling entries. (I suppose people mix up the ending with words like they're.) But at least change it to a misspelling from "possibly nonstandard". Equinox 21:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I think "ne'er" is a corruption of "never", if so "ne're" is glaringly wrong, but anyway I have never come across the spelling in question. Donnanz (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks to me like a simple transposition typo: er --> re, though for some people it may be interference from the pondian -er/-re distinction or it may be trouble believing that the sequence "e'er" exists because it's archaic and not used much anymore even in poetry. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • For reference: ne're-do-well,ne'er-do-well at Google Ngram Viewer. I don't know how to put a multiplication formula in the search since once I use multiplication (*), the dashes are interpreted as minuses. This might be a common misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't get a graph, either, but it says "ne're-do-well" (which has only been common enough to register since 1965) peaked in 1972 when it constituted 0.0000000311% of all phrases in the corpus with that number of words. "Ne'er-do-well" is older; it peaked in 1928 when it constituted 0.0000163387%, and in 1965 it constituted 0.0000107765%. When each was at its peak, "ne'er-do-well" was 525 times more common than "ne're-do-well". Comparing "ne're-do-well"'s peak of 1965 to "ne'er-do-well"'s data from that year (a non-peak year for it), "ne'er-do-well" was 346 times more common. However... paging through, there are ~50 Books hits that contain "ne're-do-well" alone (before the search results stop actually containing the word), whereas there are only two that contain both "ne're-do-well" and "ne'er-do-well". If "ne're-do-well" were a misspelling, or especially if it were a typo, I would expect more books to use both spellings. Hence, it might just be a nonstandard intentional spelling, at least for some authors. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete rare misspelling. DCDuring TALK 17:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Weak delete. - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary[edit]

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

As is Wiktionary, arguably a lesser known website--Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I could RFD that too, but one thing at a time. Equinox 06:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep. It meets WT:BRAND. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
How has it "entered the lexicon"? What proofs can you bring? AFAICT, the existing citations are no better than an academic paper saying "Street (1984) believes such-and-such", or a review saying "Grand Theft Auto is a violent game". Being mentioned, as a proper noun, doesn't automatically make you part of the lexicon, dictionary-wise. Equinox 07:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Wiktionary’s traffic.
UD’s traffic. --Romanophile (contributions) 07:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
More people watch MTV than read any kind of book at all. Your point? Equinox 08:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
This sounds like an RfV issue, not an RfD issue. Here's a cite:
bd2412 T 14:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Yet "a" is used, implying a common noun, not a proper noun usage (though it is capitalised). Perhaps we should have a definition at urban dictionary. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
This is merely an antonomasia. — Dakdada 11:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Antonomasia is probably on one path to commonness for a proper noun. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how the citations show that this has entered the lexicon. And that is in WT:BRAND so it's not optional. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


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

  • Delete. It isn't a prefix, it's just the form of a noun used in compounding. We don't list those things for German (which has thousands of them) and I see no reason to list them for the Scandinavian languages either. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
This has a stronger claim to being a prefix than barne- does (see my comments on it). Barne- is covered by our entries for barn and the infix -e-. In contrast, the removal of letters down to a stem seems harder to cover with a single infix entry the way the addition of -e- is covered by -e- — what would it be called, [[-removal of preceding letters-]] ? — and it also seems close to the definition of a prefix. Abstain for now. - -sche (discuss) 08:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
We have Appendix:Repetition, which covers cases of reduplication (and should probably be renamed Appendix:Reduplication), so we could also have Appendix:Truncation to cover cases where a morphological process deletes sounds from a word. There are a few cases where French plurals, for example, are formed by truncation, such as œuf /œf/ → œufs /ø/ and ours singular /uʁs/, plural /uʁ/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. --WikiTiki89 14:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 14:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


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

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
I feel the same way about this as about tron-, which see. Abstain. - -sche (discuss) 21:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete. --WikiTiki89 14:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 14:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Ajaa karille (to "run aground"): the Finnish phrase is not more sop than the English one.
Ajaa partansa (to "shave"): A sop if you want, but could also be considered an idiomatic expression. The meaning of the literal translation "to drive one's beard" may not be intuitively clear for everyone who comes across the expression.
Ajaa takaa (to "chase"): Ditto, although "to drive from behind" is not as cryptic as "to drive one's beard".
Ajaa ylinopeutta (to "speed"): This is probably understandable from its parts, but then again, this is how we say "to speed" in Finnish > fixed expression, like e.g. "speed limit"?
--Hekaheka (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to keep but do not really want to override Finnish editors on this. Hekaheka is a Finnish editor who seems to argue pro-keeping. Taking ajaa karille, how else can you say in Finnish, to strand, run aground? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Ajaa kiville is a slang expression, but I don't think YLE newsreader would ever use it. If the vessel merely touches the ground but is unharmed from any practical point of view, one might say saada pohjakosketus. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
As a person who knows only a bit of Finnish, to me ajaa karille literally just means "drive into a rock", which might mean all kinds of things, but you can sort of infer the right idea even if you might get the details wrong. So perhaps a weak keep? ajaa partansa is certainly not obvious, not even close. ajaa takaa does not necessarily carry an implication of chasing to me, so if there is one then I'd say that's idiomatic. ajaa ylinopeutta is the most obvious one to me, once you know each word, so that one can probably go. —CodeCat 13:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
On closer thought, ajaa karille might be idiomatic, insofar as ajaa is otherwise not normally used of sailing.
For other others compare though what we already have under ajaa. Sense 3, "to drive, chase", with tiehensä already given as a collocation; sense 9, "to shave, cut, mow", with partansa already given as a collocation. --Tropylium (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete ajaa takaa and ajaa ylinopeutta. Abstain for ajaa karille and ajaa partansa. --WikiTiki89 14:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


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

  • Keep: entered to mean bookcase. If this is the single Thai word used for bookcase, I'd like to keep it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Kept. No consensus to delete, not enough input. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


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

  • Keep: now entered to mean "stupid person" but before short entered as "fool, idiot". Entered by User:Atitarev. If this is most common Thai word used for that, I'd like to keep it. What are other Thai words to refer to "idiot"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not easy to decide, for a language like Thai, what should be included and what should not. The etymology is very straightforward คน ‎(kon, person) + โง่ ‎(ngôo, stupid).
คน ‎(kon) is used to form words, like the English -er: คน ‎(kon) + งาน ‎(ngaan) = คนงาน ‎(kon-ngaan, worker)
Nationalities and ethnicities: คนไทย ‎(kon-tai, Thai (person)) = คน ‎(kon) + คน ‎(kon, ไทย)
Other uses of adjectives with nouns: ภาษาไทย ‎(paa-sǎa-tai, Thai (language)) = ภาษา ‎(paa-sǎa) + คน ‎(kon, ไทย), or fully qualified words for Thailand: ประเทศไทย ‎(bprà-têet-tai), เมืองไทย ‎(mʉʉang-tai). Both are formed by adding a word "country". My small dictionary only includes "คนโง่" in the Thai-English section but includes other similar words formed with คน (คนงาน - worker: "person" + "work", คนไข้ - patient: "person" + "sickness").--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete, literally means "stupid person" in its own language, which is in itself SOP, though many words in English represented in one word mean this same thing. Philmonte101 (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Not a straightforward case. There are many Thai words where คน ‎(kon) + adjectives are in dictionaries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Kept. No consensus to delete, not enough input. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

So you're saying none of the forms listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:passive present participle of and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:passive past participle of actually exist? That's pretty embarrassing if we've been listing nonexistent forms all this time. We'll also need to remove the relevant parameters from {{da-conj}} and {{da-conj-base}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
They do not exist as "passive participles", but they may exist as other forms, see this conversation with @Pinnerup. Past participles can also be declined in the genitive case, but then the -t becomes -de- or -te- or something similar. Including these forms in a conjugation table seems like a bit of a stretch. {{da-conj-reg}} has been modified, and {{da-conj}} is unused. I don't see why we need more than one conjugation template, but perhaps @NativeCat would like to explain this, and also why {{da-conj}} has code for categorizing entries in Category:Swedish strong verbs and its subcats.__Gamren (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not surprised at all. NativeCat's edits at the time showed an oversupply of youthful enthusiasm and energy combined with an undersupply of caution and awareness of her limitations. As much as I like her personally, that always made me nervous. I'm sure she converted the templates from Swedish ones without realizing the full extent of the differences between the languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Gamren & @Chuck Entz: The forms listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:passive present participle of _theoretically_ exist, but not as "passive present participle forms", as they're called there. No such thing exists in Danish. Instead they're theoretically existing possessive/genitive forms of present participles (e.g. one could say "en gående" in the sense "someone walking, a pedestrian" and then coin a genitive "en gåendes", meaning "of someone walking, of a pedestrian"), but they are all exceedingly rare – I wonder if you'd ever come across them. For the forms listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:passive past participle of the claim to existence is even more tenuous, and the label is wrong here as well (in so far as they exist, and they don't all, they'd be possessive/genitive forms of the past participle). I'd advise that both templates are deleted and that lemmas defined only using these templates are deleted as well. —Pinnerup (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
BTW there are already {{present passive participle of}} and {{past passive participle of}}, which should be used instead for these concepts. Benwing2 (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I am NativeCat's new account. I just wanted to tell you all that I am very sorry about this. I agree, it is ridiculous and extremely embarrassing. 2 years ago, I don't know what I was thinking trying to make a template for forms I didn't know. I was told by another Danish person that those were all verb forms, but he wasn't interested in linguistics as the rest of you are, so it wasn't reliable. Plus he couldn't tell me what the forms were. And so I assumed that they were passive just like -es. But I was wrong. What I suggest, as I am the author of those pages, is we just go ahead and delete the 30+ pages created by me using those templates, perhaps using a bot to speed up the process. The way I see it now, I think we should add the "genitive" or whatever forms later and split that into a different discussion. I totally support adding those "genitives" or "possessives" to a conjugation template, so people in the future know what they are, since Danish is a very complex language. The good part is that when I looked through the list of verb forms in the WhatLinksHere, that the templates were used a lot but not THAT much, I mean 30+ isn't really a lot compared to you know some of the French verb templates and such. And most of those if not all were created by me anyway. Anyways, please forgive me for doing that 2 years ago. I really should've asked someone knowledgable to help me make a template like this, such as someone from the Danish Wiktionary. I also should've asked what these "s" forms were. I should've done that to begin with, really I don't remember why I didn't and it baffles me. Philmonte101 (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, I am going to keep away from creating any verb entries until this is resolved. Philmonte101 (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright, that's it. I've waited enough. In order to partially compensate for what I've done, I'm going to go one by one through all those entries of "passive past participle" and speedy each and every one. It's gonna have to happen anyway, so might as well go ahead and get this mass deletion over with. Philmonte101 (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@Philmonte101: Given the opinions you've expressed in this discussion, could you either mark with {{delete}} or change every transcluded instance of {{passive present participle of|word|lang=da}} to {{inflection of|word||pasv|pres|part|lang=da}} in the mainspace entries listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:passive present participle of, please? That way, {{passive present participle of}} will be orphaned and then I can delete it. Thank you. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: This is really bad! I'm sorry for not seeing this until now, but now that all the entries were replaced with Template:inflection of, I can't look through "What links here" and put speedies on all of them... This isn't good. Because the passive present participle is not an actual form in Danish; all these forms are hypothetical and rare genitive forms of the nominal forms of verb forms. (confusing, right?) Philmonte101 (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Philmonte101: See Special:Contributions/I'm so meta even this acronym, specifically contributions dated 12 August 2016; it looks like most or all of the offending entries have been deleted, anyway. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@Philmonte101: Are these searches not enough? I also notice the latter one brings up no relevant results. --WikiTiki89 14:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Thanks, I had a brain fart there. And it doesn't show the passive past because I already speedy-tagged those and they were deleted. Now for the last mass deletion, and this whole thing will be a thing of the past. Philmonte101 (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
However, the next thing we have to discuss is how we're going to actually represent these hypothetical forms in the future. I will start discussion at Wiktionary talk:About Danish later, and maybe at WT:BP as well if necessary. Philmonte101 (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Good news, @User:Gamren, User:Pinnerup, and everyone else, all of the faulty entries have now been deleted! Thank you for rising up this issue, and I think I learned a valuable lesson from this embarrassment. Our next step is to figure out where we should place these actual forms in inflection templates. I'll arise the discussion soon. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

native metal[edit]

SOP: native (Adjective sense 7: "(mineralogy) Occurring naturally in its pure or uncombined form; native aluminium, native salt") + metal Chuck Entz (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Weak delete. I note we also have native element, which really strongly feels like a term of art to me, despite being somewhat SOPpy. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Delete. --WikiTiki89 14:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete No compelling keep argument. DCDuring TALK 17:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 01:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

say yes to[edit]

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

Wow, we do have disagree with, but in a figurative sense... Equinox 21:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Few OneLook references have an entry (even a run-in) for disagree with. Usage examples like "They disagreed"/"They disagreed with each other"/"The adults disagreed with the children." seem to me to be instances of the same sense of disagree and to be most informative when juxtaposed. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What I'm wondering is that we have these, but not say yes and say no. Purplebackpack89 23:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
What is a little different about this is the use of the expressions in "say yes to life", ("commit to" [not in entry]), and "say no to drugs", which is the second sense of say no to ("reject"). We once said yes/no to people and to propositions. Now we also say yes/no to things and abstractions without any oral or written expression. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep but with appropriate defs, i.e. DC's "commit to" and "reject" - in other uses it is just a way of answering a yes-no question ("Would you like a cup of tea?" "I'll say yes to that"), not dictionary material. And add a "Used other than as an idiom" redirect, as in the disagree with entry. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Bear in mind the 'say' isn't actually required. 'No to racism' and so on. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 14:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


Is this SOP? It's the only entry like it that we have, AFAICT; the only entry in Category:English words suffixed with -year-old. - -sche (discuss) 19:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
(I was unsure at first and hence posed this as a question, but I'm persuaded that deleting or redirecting is the appropriate course of action here. - -sche (discuss) 22:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC))

  • Didn't we have a run of these a few months ago? bd2412 T 01:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • And didn't we all redirect them someplace? Redirect to that place. Purplebackpack89 01:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
      • The discussion was about twelve-year-old, and there was no consensus for deletion – as you can see, the entry is still in existence. — Cheers, JackLee talk 02:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I revert to my answer to the previous discussion. Keep those at round numbers that are attested. Redirect the rest to them. bd2412 T 03:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. Equinox 03:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect. DCDuring TALK 10:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to -year-old. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Keep I'm afraid, at least I see no justification to delete it assuming it had three citations. Ƿidsiþ 15:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the basic issue is that not all hyphens are the same: there's the hyphen that connects the parts of a compound, and there's the hyphen that's used as an orthographic convention to show that a phrase is being used attributively. It's not as obvious as Chinese, where you can have a whole sentence transformed into a subordinate clause modifying what follows by adding in between, but it's basically the same thing. There's no real limit but unwieldiness to what kind of verbiage can be shoehorned into such a clause: do we really want to have entries like oh-so-predictable, or sexy-as-hell? Just randomly picking up something from Google Books, I can see evidence on a single page for twenty-eight-foot(-long), thirty-four-foot(-long), thirty-six-foot(-long), forty-foot-long, forty-two-foot, fifty-five-foot, and then there's "thirty-five- to forty-five-footers"- however you want to split that up. Or how about 13-foot-four-inch-by-56-foot-six-inch? The existence of things like thirty-four-and-three-quarter-year-old further points to this construction being a phrase with hyphens and not a single word. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, even if this is kept, it seems clear that "-year-old" is not a suffix (as the entry currently asserts), any more than "-silly" is a suffix in other equally-silly constructions. - -sche (discuss) 22:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I would keep all of these, and generate the ones that are missing (that meet CFI). SemperBlotto (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Does this not feel a bit like the E1S1 (episode, series) that you were eventually convinced against? Equinox 21:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Delete, per you and Chuck Entz. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I would have said keep as I'd consider it as a single word not as three words simply connected by a hyphen. But I hate to spoil a clear consensus so put me down as no opinion. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain. In Talk:twelve-year-old, I invoked the translation target as a rationale. It might probably be invoked here as well, but I think we should stop somewhere for these <number>-year-old entries, and 71 is a pretty high number. As for whether it is a single word, it is my guess that the putative principle that all CFI-attested space-free hyphenated strings are automatically included as idiomatic will not find consensus, and not even a plain-majority support; more on this by Chuck Entz above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    "We should stop somewhere" sounds more like an oppose... Equinox 18:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    Well yes, but I have a tender heart for entries :). And I have some sympathy for the include-all-attested-hyphenated-compounds position. My abstain should be sufficiently conducive to deletion or redirection. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirected to -year-old. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

tener que[edit]

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

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

cult film[edit]

Bringing this up again. Though I created it, that was years ago when I didn't fully understand the concept of "SoP". This is SoP. See how cult video game, cult movie, cult TV show, cult comic, etc., can all be used as "something that has acquired a cult following." Though "cult film" is the most common one, that does not mean it should be kept, if we can find the definitions at cult and film. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Among OneLook dictionaries Collins has this. But cult#Adjective has this covered and even cult#Noun conveys the idea. The ambiguity between "a film that has a cult(-like) following" and "a film about a cult" (eg, about Manson or Jonestown) remains. [[Cult film]] needs {{&lit}} if it remains. DCDuring TALK 16:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    I think there's a better case for an entry for cult classic, which failed RfD (See Talk:cult classic). DCDuring TALK 17:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • English contains many SoP terms, even compound words are sums of parts. No grounds for deletion, therefore keep. DonnanZ (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    WT:CFI#Idiomaticity disagrees with you. I don't quite see your point. Nobody's denying that English contains things like I have a black car, so why bring it up? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Why not? I don't expect anyone to agree with me. DonnanZ (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Collins has it[6], and while one such dictionary is not much, this is still an appeal to the lemming heuristic. I said more at Talk:cult film in 2014. SOP is a ground for considering deletion; x is SOP => redeeming qualities should be sought and if none are found => delete x. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    Wow, the linked Collins definition seems to be written for children or idiots: is that their normal edition? Anyway, I would ask: do you think that cult + film does explain the meaning (same for cult video game, cult musical, cult rock hit, etc.): if so, would you not at least think a redirect to cult appropriate? Equinox 17:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    The lemming heuristic is really just a heuristic, letting us focus more on expanding the dictionary and less on regulating it. I posted more substantive arguments in the original discussion at Talk:cult film. The arguments include the Talk:free variable argument. The adjectival sense at cult really seems to originate from the existence of the "founding" terms "cult book" and "cult film", and I would keep the terms as founding. On the talk page, I mention a "red drawf" argument. A related note: I don't think "cult" can be used predicatively, but I may be wrong. To the question, yes, I think cult could explain the meaning, but so could red if it contained definition "Of a dwarf planet, being relatively cool and of the main sequence". Even so, I am not sure the definition "Enjoyed by a small, loyal group" is accurate; Collins seems more accurate and seems to match Macmillan:cult[7], but I don't know. As for the Collins definition, I like it. I love clarity and simplicity, even excess clarity and simplicity. One has to realize that the definitions are often more important to non-natives and fresh learners than to natives who already know what a cult film is anyway, and that English is the lingua franca which people around the world hurry up to learn. A redirect would be better than nothing, but cult film entry is certainly more convenient since the task of picking the part of speech and the definition line from cult entry has been already done for the reader. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    Hmmm. 1. I was a little snobbish about Collins (although I do genuinely think that their def sounds dumbed-down, which doesn't make much sense unless it's a foreigner-facing dictionary). 2. Your point about "founding terms" is sensible and interesting and reminds me of prime number (I think we argued about that one too! Obv my position is that "17 is prime, and 17 is a number", but then again a mobile phone was a thing before a mobile was, and yet they are the same entity and it would be a historical loss to delete the former, which was once the only name). I don't think I agree about "red dwarf" because I can't see it taking any other noun ("red star"???), whereas at least we can have a "prime factor", a "prime integer", etc. I would still prefer an ety at "cult" that explains "it was originally cult film, used by John McFilmReviewer [can we source this?]" but whatever, I like your insightful post. Also I can't be bothered to read all the links again. haha. I'll leave it alone. Equinox 19:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Probably the most common, perhaps the originator, of a class of similar phrases, as mentioned above. Makes sense to have at least one of them, and the first or most widespread would be my choice. P Aculeius (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. --WikiTiki89 15:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

radio-controlled car[edit]

A car that is controlled by radio (signals). Philmonte101 (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. It was RFDed in 2014 and survived then. We shouldn't have to go through this rigmarole again. DonnanZ (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • So was cult film, but sometimes consensuses can still be in error. There's no rule about recontesting. Philmonte101 (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, there seems to be a screw missing somewhere. DonnanZ (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete SoP and no OneLook Dictionary has this. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep We've been down this road already. Purplebackpack89 04:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
"Down this road already" with a no consensus. No consensus doesn't seem good enough for me for this one. Philmonte101 (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Note there was a majority delete vote last time, and one of the keepers wanted to convert it into {{translation only}} as a non-idiom. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason why {{translation only}} or similar can't be added, if that helps in keeping the entry. DonnanZ (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Still think it should be deleted, but it seems wrong to reopen the RFD so soon without a new argument. Equinox 11:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
It's the easiest delete ever if you apply WT:CFI. But of course, it is just voting. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Not just voting; the voters are supposed to provide a rationale for keeping, and once a rationale is provided, it is not "just" voting. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per what I said in Talk:radio-controlled_car: "Keep as a translation target and possibly per fried egg argument via the tendency to refer to toy cars. ...". Reopening this RFD seems like a waste of time but les us see. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Why keep it as a translation target? It seems very pointless to me. Even German doesn't use a compound to describe this word. The only translation in the box that uses it in one word are Chinese, Japanese, and Swedish, and the first two are scriptio continua languages. If we applied terms like this as translation targets, we'll soon be having "anthropomorphic animal" and other extremely SoP terms that only are compounds in like one or two languages. Because in the rest, they're just translated SoPs. Philmonte101 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I case you have not read Talk:radio-controlled car, let me quote myself from there: Translations that I find worthwhile include Dutch autootje op afstandsbediening French: voiture téléguidée, and Swedish radiobil; by contrast, German funkgesteuertes Auto seems pretty word-per-word. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You say that you "find them worthwhile", but what is worthwhile about them? voiture téléguidée is an SoP, for example, because it just means "remote-controlled car", "a car that is controlled by remote control." All the examples you just named, except for Swedish radiobil, are two words. I am not going to speak as if I know for sure about Dutch and German, since these aren't languages I even began to learn, but even if these aren't SoP (which they probably are seeing how most of the rest seem to be), then that's only two examples of non-SoP terms described in multiple words (with spaces). I honestly don't see how this argument applies as a reason to keep radio-controlled car (which just means "car that is radio-controlled") as a translation target. Like I said before, if we kept terms like this because of that, we'd have police officer home (the home of a police officer), car joke (a joke about cars), monkey breath (breath that smells like a monkey), and countless more, (those were just off the top of my head), just because they are compounds in a few languages (namely just a few Germanic ones), and may just happen to not be an SoP two-worded term in one language. Philmonte101 (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    • They are worthwhile since they are not word-for-word translations: The translator cannot figure them out by translating the single words of the English original and stringing the translations together. Thus, they embody translation knowledge. Therefore, a translator benefits from such an entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Completely SOP. Keeping as a translation target is a pretty weak argument in this case, as few of the translations appear to be non-SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Translations that I find worthwhile include Dutch autootje op afstandsbediening French: voiture téléguidée, and Swedish radiobil; by contrast, German funkgesteuertes Auto seems pretty word-per-word. Three European languages seem good enough for me to justify translation target. Our readers will benefit from these three, won't they? I can't imagine any reader being better served by finding no entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The entry for radio-controlled already has téléguidé as a translation. Voiture téléguidée is no less SOP than radio-controlled car. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe so, but you can't make the same point about Dutch autootje op afstandsbediening, and Swedish radiobil. And you have to question the accuracy of radio-controlled, which says that "remote-controlled" is a synonym, which is not obvious; remote-controlled could include infrared-controlled. Thus, French téléguidée is possibly inaccurate as a translation of radio-controlled. Swedish radiobil seems most resilient against any sort of argument like you brought. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
What I believe Dan is trying to say is that, since the term has several non-literal translations as well as one compound, then this is a good translation target, and the fact that those non-literal translations are non-literal means that SoP doesn't matter as much. I disagree; though it is a valid point, my point about many SoP English terms not being used as translation targets still stands. Some examples from Spanish: tener sueño and tener frío are not in Wiktionary, because it simply means "to be cold", or "to be sleepy". However, you can't just translate word for word to find those English translations. Literally, they translate to "to have sleepiness" or "to have coldness". But does that mean we should have entries for be cold or be sleepy just because of this? No, and we don't, or else someone would have made these entries by now. Also, if Spanish has phrases like these for "to be cold" or "to be sleepy", I am almost positive that at least some other languages have non-literal en->__ translations for these as well, especially other Romance ones. So, according to your point, if Wiktionary did this for every entry like this, we would have entries for be cold, be sleepy, be sad, kill a pig, cut down a tree, and a lot of other obviously SoP terms, and that would be silly. Philmonte101 (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
If all these terms you redlinked above were good translation targets, we could have them; I do not know whether they are. As for tener frío, I find it in bab.la[8], spanishdict.com[9] and nglish.com[10]. We do not have be cold, but we have I'm cold as an ersatz. By the standards of a monolingual dictionary, translation target entries may look silly, but from the standpoint of a multilingual translation dictionary, translation target entries make sense. For those who really despise translation target entries, we have a template that can be put on the definition line that says the entry exists only for translation; I don't really like the template but if it reduces the opposition to translation targets a bit, I am fine with it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the solution is to have a designated section of the dictionary for SOP collocations, exactly for that purpose. I strongly agree that we need to cover those better, but I really don't like using the mainspace to hold them all, since it clutters it up. It's a pity that that didn't go through last time it was tried, but perhaps a few years down the road we will have a collocations namespace, if we push for it.... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Am I the only one who considers it significant that the definition specifies a model, as opposed to a typical full-sized passenger car? Nothing in the definition of radio-controlled (or radio or controlled) implies anything about the size of the "car" involved, but the phrase is understood to refer to a miniature facsimile of a regular car, even though people can and do sometimes operate full-sized cars by radio control. bd2412 T 19:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    Google Image and Books searches for "radio-controlled boat", "radio-controlled plane", "radio-controlled truck", "radio-controlled dragon" and "radio-controlled dinosaur" all also turn up mostly small rather than full-size things, although full-size radio-controlled boats and planes and trucks exist. Should we have entries for those phrases? - -sche (discuss) 20:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    Can we get some data on the relative frequency of these terms? I would say that as to "dragon" and "dinosaur" at least, it would be intuitively understood that we were not speaking of any actual "life-sized" version, because these don't exist at all in our modern world. As to the others, I would bet that "car" is far more frequent, and less likely to be used in the literal sense of the full-sized thing. bd2412 T 21:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    # User:BD2412 I don't think frequency really matters. The only "frequency" we really need to know is does the term have 3 durably archived sources that attest it? And do "radio-controlled dinosaur", etc., have 3 attesting citations? If so, and if "radio-controlled car" is not deemed SOP in this discussion, then radio-controlled dinosaur and all the others that -sche named above, should theoretically be added, since they wouldn't be SOP either. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    Maybe it's just me, but I would understand anything remote-controlled and regularly large to be a miniature version, and/or a toy, unless context dictated otherwise. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    Dictionaries are for people who don't understand words, though. One test I use is to imagine a foreigner with no more than elementary knowledge of the language coming across a word or phrase, and trying to make sense of it. If we do not have this entry, then we need a sense at "radio-controlled" that indicates that a "radio-controlled foo" is expected to be a model rather than the real thing. bd2412 T 02:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    Delete. If I mention a radio-controlled dune buggy, Porsche 911, Mini Cooper, fire engine, dump truck, yacht, hovercraft, air boat, battleship, P-51 Mustang, Cessna 150, B2 stealth bomber, John Deere tractor, front-end loader, cement mixer or Sherman tank, how many people are going to assume I'm talking about full-sized vehicles (if you can callany Mini Cooper full-sized)? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    What about people who are not native speakers of English? Should we add a sense to radio-controlled to specify a small model? bd2412 T 16:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    Well, do you think we need to add a sense to plastic or car or have plastic car to account for the fact that most plastic cars are miniatures rather than full-size? IMO no: the restriction is practical, not lexical. There are probably far more toy remote-controlled cars and boats than full-size remote-controlled cars and boats, and the toys are more widely known. But full-size ones can also be (and be called) remote-controlled, and that's what makes this phrase SOP -- it refers to any remote-controlled car like "remote-controlled plane" refers to any remote-controlled plane, even if one type (e.g. small, propeller-driven) happens to be more commonly produced than another (large and/or supersonic). - -sche (discuss) 17:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. When I saw this at RFD just now, I was going to made the point BD2412 just made, so thank you for making it. If this were a SoP phrase, it would be understood to refer to a normal-sized car, the most common sense of car. —CodeCat 20:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per BD2412. Car in this sense is a small toy model, not a full size vehicle. The term requires that prior knowledge.--Dmol (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Move the idiomatic part of the definition to radio-controlled (and remote-control). --WikiTiki89 21:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Chuck and per my observation above, that many (possibly most) "remote-controlled" things are miniature, so the miniatureness of this one is not special. - -sche (discuss) 16:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

stoga boot[edit]

This is a type of boot that was commonly known as a stoga. It isn't like moon boot, where the meaning doesn't reside in either part, but stoga with boot tacked on for clarity. It's perfectly ordinary to have a specific noun followed in this way by the class to which is belongs: just in footwear, you can find usage for oxford shoe, plimsoll shoe, pump shoe, loafer shoe, sneaker shoe, brogan boot, waffle stomper boot, etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not stoga with boot tacked on for clarity. Rather stoga is a shortening of the original term stoga boot. In any case, "clarity" is not a reason to delete a term. We have entries for oak tree, pine tree, etc., but these can all be shortened to just "oak" and "pine". The terms are synonyms, not SOP. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we can explain it like this. SOP is a case where x+y = x+y. What we have here with stoga and stoga boot is x = z and x+y = z. They are synonyms, hence x = x+y. But you need to have both entries because Wiktionary doesn't concatenate entries - like print dictionaries do. That is, you see a lot of dictionaries list, say neem tree as a variant of neem, all in the one entry, but they do record both nouns. OED for instance has entries for Wellington and Wellington boot. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like this might pass by WT:JIFFY. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Except that there's no clear pattern in Google Books of "stoga boots" preceding "stogas". In fact, "stogas" is attested a few years earlier- but it's hard to determine whether any refer to "stoga boots" rather than "stoga shoes" ("stoga shoes" is attested earlier than "stoga boots"). There's also a reference to a boot and shoe factory that started out doing "stoga work", before diversifying. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
stoga boots does seem to be earlier: 1830 Mechanics Press (Utica, NY) 9 Jan. 66/3: In six days they crimped and made forty-five pairs of Stoga Boots. Reminding us that although the Google Books corpus is very strong on 19thC material, it cannot be always trusted to give us the whole picture. As for stoga work from 1850 - this is a hapax (pace my last point!) which I believe this just means work on making stogas (footwear); in any case it is 1850, so two decades after earliest attestation of stoga boots. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


And so on. Numbers are not words in any language so do not meet CFI. Can someone please nuke these? Renard Migrant (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I would say numbers are words in every language, just with a separate orthographical system. But, they seem pretty useless as dictionary entries, esp. given the definitions, and the general infinitude of them. So I'd say delete. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't mean numbers like one, two, three or 1, 2, 3 just combinations of numerical characters like this. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, clearly we keep those. But 105 is still a word as far as I can see. Just one that doesn't need a dict definition or entry. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that we figure out a comprehensive list of numbers which do merit entries, create those, then create an edit filter which prevents the rest from being created again. Seems like these shouldn't have to be discussed on a regular basis. - TheDaveRoss 12:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think any string of symbols that has meaning can be called a word. I mean like a reference number for a training or flight booking, FL05YH60D or something. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any great objection to these. But I have got better things to do with my time. Some of them (e.g. 1066, 1943 etc) are also dates, so might have additional definitions. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Have added a def to one hundred and one in it idiomatic use = "a great many". There a number of numbers that need such defs. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect the larger ones to an appendix, per my comment at the discussion of "one hundred and twelve, one hundred and eleven", above. bd2412 T 20:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: 1) We cannot accept the lack of space between 1, 0, and 5 as indicating that this is not separate enough for WT:SOP: we would end up with a huge number of trivial entries for no appreciable benefit to the reader. 2) We could make an exception for this item and keep it to show translations for this and thus number word formation in various languages. But then, I would sooner make that exception on 101; we don't need all of 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, etc. Or keep one hundred and one and redirect 101 to it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 101 has a separate, idiomatic meaning. I would keep everything up to 101, and everything idiomatic above that (404, 411, 747, 911, etc.), and redirect anything not having such significance. bd2412 T 20:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree with BD2412 here. Numbers under 100 should all be kept because (among other things) some languages (e.g. Hindi) have idiosyncratic terms for every one of them. Benwing2 (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't see why we would want to redirect a large number of trivial digit sequences. But maybe it does not harm. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
        • I agree with Dan Polansky, I think the numerical sense of 105 and 101 and 1231238.324123 are SOP. And surely the question then becomes where do we stop, since there is an infinity of infinities of numbers, we could fill the world's entire computing space writing entries for all the numbers without even scratching the surface of their totality? If 105, why not 1005, and why not 10005, and so one. There doesn't seem any reason to prefer one over the other. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
          • We could limit ourselves to just "interesting numbers" (See w:1729_(number)), primes being a good start, and initially limit our numbers to approximately the number of subatomic particles in the universe, or perhaps the limit should initially be the number in the galaxy. DCDuring TALK 02:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
            • This may sound over the top to some, but aside from numbers that merit individual entries, I think that we should have an appendix on number formation and redirect the first one million numbers there. If a flagged bot makes the redirects, the operation won't affect any of us. bd2412 T 15:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep all numbers that are either prime, or contain a three in the hundreds position. Equinox 20:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: We do not need to entirely reinvent the wheel here, since Wikipedia has already done some of this work. The complete list of numerals included in Wikipedia as numerals (i.e., not as years or for some other cultural significance) is:
−1, 0, all whole numbers from 1 to 260, then 263, 269, 270, 273, 276, 277, 280, 284, 290, 300, 311, 313, 318, 353, 359, 360, 363, 365, 369, 384, 420, 440, 400, 495, 496, 500, 501, 512, 555, 593, 600, 613, 616, 620, 666, 700, 720, 743, 777, 786, 790, 800, 801, 836, 840, 880, 881, 888, 900, 911, 971, 999, 1000, 1001, 1024, 1089, 1093, 1138, 1289, 1458, 1510, 1701, 1728, 1729, 1987, 2000, 2520, 2875, 3000, 3511, 4000, 4104, 5000, 5040, 6000, 6174, 7000, 7744, 8000, 8128, 8192, 9000, 9999, 10000, 16807, 20000, 24601, 30000, 40000, 50000, 60000, 64079, 65535, 65536, 65537, 69105, 70000, 80000, 90000, 100000, 142857, 144000, 10000000, 100000000, 1,000,000,000, 2147483647, 4294967295, 9814072356, 9223372036854775807
If we apply fence-post theory, we can assume that there is some good reason for these numbers to be included in an encyclopedia, and perhaps this translates to a reason for their inclusion in a dictionary. bd2412 T 18:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete per Dan. - -sche (discuss) 20:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – this is pronounced differently in the US from the UK. (The current Translingual entry apparently uses the US form.) Ƿidsiþ 09:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Is it pronounced differently as a function of its parts? bd2412 T 12:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete No compelling keep argument. DCDuring TALK 17:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

today is a good day to die[edit]

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

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

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

  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete sense 2, and I lean towards deleting sense 1, too. But perhaps we should put this RFD on hold and RFV the senses to determine if they're actually attested; sense 2 seems particularly likely to not be attested, except perhaps in a context where a literal reading would work (today is a good day to day, like any other, it could happen, so...). - -sche (discuss) 18:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep but mark for a stub. It's a shame to delete an article on something really pertinent only because the original User didn't know how to finish it. NoychoH (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    That's why we like to see real uses of the word. Real dictionaries either copy other real dictionaries' definitions or start with some evidence of how a term is used (literary quotes, other print sources, transcripts of conversation, collocation tables, etc). There is nothing in an RfD that will prevent someone from starting a new entry (or definition) if they start with evidence. DCDuring TALK 12:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    I am a lazy user so I understand other lazy users. If I am looking for an entry in Wikipedia or Wiktionary and I don't find it, I am always offered a proposat to start it from a scratch, and I rarely take up this offer/opportunity. Too much effort required, too little time at my disposal etc. (I don't say I never do it, e.g. today I have made a whole entry on "The Klingon Way" in Wikipedia). But if I see an article that needs improvement, and I am able to improve it - I do it. Less effort needed, less time required, I do not need to know eveything, divine what categories to ascribe etc., etc. Less responsibility is a good incentive do do a bit, too much responsibility for a whole new entry is a barrier soe people would not like to cross. So if you delete the entry, maybe within the next 10 years nobody would start it again. It's, however, much more probable, that within that period some lazy User (or even nota so lazy one) would improve an imperfect entry. That's my opinion. NoychoH (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    If having any kind of entry or definition were, ipso facto, a good thing, then making any contribution easier would be a good thing. When Wiktionary lacked entries for many common English terms, it was important to make entry easy. I think we are past that point. We need to add some definitions to existing entries, supplement definitions with quotations and naturalistic usage examples, and generally improve entry quality. Adding entries for English terms whose basic meaning is SoP, without any evidence that there is an extended meaning that has entered the lexicon is not a contribution valuable to users. DCDuring TALK 15:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    In general, in principle you are right, yet I think that in practice you are wrong. Yet, I don't think I will convince you. Consider, however, that I have ammended the entry in question a bit (in a lazy way, I admit) before entering this discussion here - by referring to Wikipedia articles. Several metaphorical meanings can be found exactly in the Wikipedia... linked by me. Maybe someone could transfer them to Wiktionary. Now, in order to diminish the power of your position, I have ameliorated the article again in several ways, also added a few remarks to the Discussion page. You may check it there now. I think these "betterments" of mine face and answer your doubts, at least to some degree. Hope this will nullify the willingness of some of you to delete this article. This is however my final remark and I do not intend to continue the discussion or correcting the article. I have submitted my opinion, explained and deepened them, this was my obligation, and if it will not prevail, I can only say: "Today is a good day to die". It was a pleasure to debate with you. NoychoH (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Derived terms of Hồ Chí Minh[edit]

I see sufficient consensus for deletion of the name sense, while retaining the "alternative form of city" sense. If the former is deleted, what (if anything) should be done about the following which are listed as "derived terms"?

SMUconlaw (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Delete. WT:NSE. - -sche (discuss) 18:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]


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

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

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

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

crash space[edit]

I just feel like this might be SoP. I could've sworn I've heard the word space being used in the sense of "a place" (rather than just "an empty place"), though it doesn't seem that Wiktionary has that definition yet.

Here's an example: "This is my space, man." ("This is my personal place [of any sort].") I think.

If anyone else noticed, it's User:Equinox's first ever contribution to Wiktionary. Not that it matters at all, just an interesting thing. That's how I found this in the first place. Philmonte101 (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Abstain. --WikiTiki89 15:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe, although I doubt anybody talks about, say, "sleep space" in this sense. My actual first entry (as an IP) was, I think, virtual machine. Equinox 18:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


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

(copy pasted from the talk page of the article) I understand your concern of it being found only in one entry. But for me, the thing is that 闽南方言大词典 is the most, if not the most, comprehensive dictionary/reference on Hokkien/Min Nan. It mostly contains words used in Mainland China (specifically Quanzhou, Xiamen, and Zhangzhou) while also elaborating on district-specific dialects in the latter part. It also has a section of Taiwanese-specific words at the start and that's where I got 米汝. I understand that Taiwanese don't use these characters in this context, but in my opinion, I would say that 闽南方言大词典 is really in the Top 3, if not Top 1, of possible references for Min Nan. Considering how few super complete dictionaries are in Min Nan, this is like a Min Nan Bible. I dare say that it's the most complete. Therefore, I think we shouldn't ignore its contents, specifically, 米汝. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep, if the term is in 闽南方言大词典. Verifying Min Nan or any Chinese term, which is not standard Chinese or Mandarin is not easy. With Min Nan specifically - both for various spellings in Chinese characters and in POJ (Pe̍h-ōe-jī).
BTW, @Mar vin kaiser, are you able to check if Min Nan POJ "tha-khú-sih" spelling or a similar term for "taxi" is in this dictionary and has a Chinese character form, please? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@Atitarev Thanks. By the way, the way 闽南方言大词典 wrote the word "taxi", the word in Taiwanese Hokkien that was borrowed from Japanese, is 塔區蝕。Although the pronunciation transcription is "thah-khú-sih", obviously that's just an approximation. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Mar vin kaiser. Thanks. Perhaps POJ should be "thah-khu-si̍h", not "tha-khú-sih", to match ""? Could you also check "bá-sirh" ("bus") in the dictionary, please? I've got a Min Nan-Mandarin-Japanese phrasebook (with CD) "台湾語会話フレーズブック". remarkably, there is no single Min Nan word in it written in POJ, all words are written in Chinese characters. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Atitarev I see no need to match the POJ with the Chinese characters, since what we need is actual pronunciations. For bá-suh (-sirh), I think it could just be 巴士 (see [11], [12], [13]). For tha-khú-sih, it's more commonly written as 塔庫西. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I actually agree that if there's a common character rendering for these Japanese borrowings, that should be the one considered. Although it should be noted that for 塔庫西, it's based on using Mandarin pronunciations of the characters to approximate the pronunciation in Hokkien. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
That's not surprising since education in Taiwan is mainly in Mandarin. This phenomenon can be seen in many words, like 今嘛 (for 這馬). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


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

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


Only 彷彿 or 仿佛, not 彷佛. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

We seem to be getting Chinese entries for deletion every day. Is there a particular user or group of users who are making these SoP entries? Shouldn't we warn them on their talk page or something to stop doing this? I don't know the situation, I'm just asking. Philmonte101 (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
This particular one is not SOP. The two above aren't SOP either. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Then did you mean to take this to RFV, rather than RFD? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe that's more appropriate. Here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There are hits on the Chinese Text Project, have you seen them? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

agglutinative language[edit]

The definition is nonsense, and even if it weren't, I think this is just agglutinative + language. Pedrianaplant (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I've replaced the nonsense definition with an accurate definition, but the accurate definition is SOP. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Kind of, yes, but "sticky language" would make no sense and the relevant sense of "agglutinative" has the "linguistics" label attached. Thus, delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete. There's a difference between a semantic association between two words and their being lexically a compound: one can talk about agglutinative morphology, or about how Proto-Indo-European was more agglutinative than most of its descendants, or about how Turkish is agglutinative, but Chinese isn't. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete. "That language is agglutinative". Same meaning; components separated. Equinox 10:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
What about "keep it up" and keep up, where components can be separated? In fact, the possibility of separation is typical of the talk:free variable items. But many are not convinced by the free variable argument. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I see the phrasal/prepositional verb area as quite a different area from the attributive/predicative adjective distinction. Equinox 16:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. But let me still point out that the separability and attributive-predicative convertibility of the adjective component are typical of talk:free variable items (see there) such as algebraic number, bound variable, or imaginary number. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Straightforward delete. Topically interesting but lexical not so. Agglutinative not only or mainly used with language so that's not a defence either. It's more like green grass than imaginary number. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete; the linguistic sense of agglutinative is not limited to this phrase and can be found also in environments such as "agglutinative suffix", "agglutinative character", "agglutinative derivation"… --Tropylium (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: there is nothing to this other than agglutinative + language, literally. The literal definition is "a language that is agglutinative". Lmao. Philmonte101 (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to add a few more: Philmonte101 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete (see Chuck's point regarding the difference between this as free variable). - -sche (discuss) 19:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

agglutinierende Sprache[edit]

German. A translation of the term. Seems to be the same deal, doesn't have any meaning other than "a language that is agglutinative". Philmonte101 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 19:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

eklemeli dil[edit]

Turkish. Same as above. Philmonte101 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 19:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

mentally retarded[edit]

The definition is more or less verbatim quoted from retarded. Does mentally retarded mean anything beyond mentally + retarded? -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose a request for deletion. Mental retardation is a very notable and important mental disability, like dyscalculia, dyslexia and autism. So it has a noteworthy, particular meaning. So I think we should keep the entry. RandomScholar30 (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
We're not talking about mental retardation though. That might indeed be a set phrase, but the same can't be said about mentally retarded. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Mentally retarded would be a set adjective to describe a person with the condition, just like autistic, dyscalculic and dyslexic are adjective describing people with those mental disabilities. RandomScholar30 (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The two terms have very different meanings and uses and styles. Retarded is offensive, whereas mentally retarded is still widely used, and even by professionals, although there are efforts to replace it with intellectually disabled. --Espoo (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that by itself a reason to keep? If the adjectival form of a noun means something very different from the noun? bd2412 T 20:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, definitely keep. --Espoo (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
It tends to be used just as an insult where there's no hint of mental retardation. Hence, keep the literal sense along with it to avoid confusion (or else people will think it doesn't mean [[mentally]] [[retarded]]). Renard Migrant (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. A technical term with a specific definition. I believe the non-technical use of "retarded" to mean "mentally retarded" is a later development. P Aculeius (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per the previous editor, it is a "technical term with a specific definition". Historically, it was effectively the only such term available for professional use for several decades in the middle of the last century, at a time when the previously correct technical term idiot had become seen as too offensive to use. yoyo (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 17:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


I'm pretty sure the definition is totally wrong, but in any case, this is not a set phrase by any means. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete I wish we could set it up so anyone who tries to use that "Wortschatz-Lexikon" as a source gets an electric shock... Chuck Entz (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
My German is not good, but if (as it appears) this is an everyday SoP construct like two-litre bottle or five-bedroom house, then delete. Equinox 09:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes. The problem is the reference cited: it uses an automated process to assemble frequent collocations and presents them as if they were terms in a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Instead of giving users an electric shock :) could a bot automatically produce a message on their user page warning them that many or most of the entries in that lexicon do not belong in Wiktionary? Going thru such new entries and deciding which to delete is much more work. I wrote a warning on the user page of the creator of this entry and the one below.
Is there an automated way of finding which entries an editor created using that lexicon? If someone created one nonsense entry like this, they're likely to have created many of them if no one warned them when they started. --Espoo (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
We could, obviously, set up a filter that would warn users who tried to add entries citing that dictionary, and tag the additions... - -sche (discuss) 00:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


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

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

trivialism Sense 2[edit]

Sense 2 of trivialism: 'The theory that every proposition and its negation is true.' I don't think this sense of the word is ever used except by a few crackpot ivory tower philosophers. Since there are no trivialists, I don't think it is a topic discussed often, its not even refuted often because nobody believes in the idea anyway. I believe this is a very rare use of the word. RandomScholar30 (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This should be an WT:RFV, not an RFD; but I've just added three citations to ensure it would pass. Equinox 15:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S. There are no unicorns either, but that isn't an argument against having the entry! Equinox 15:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep per nomination and Equinox. Rareness isn't a reason to exclude something unless it's so rare it can't be shown to exist. And this can. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep DCDuring TALK 18:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


A virtually never occurring spelling of זרתוסטרא. The creator also seems to be confused regarding Hebrew transliteration and created erroneous entries before, which makes me doubt their proficiency in Hebrew. — Kleio (t · c) 14:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This would be better off at WT:RFV. --WikiTiki89 02:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Not if it's a rare misspelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Look at the entry I rfded below, and at the "IPA" they added to Mandaeism (for that matter, look at every entry they've edited)- when it comes to confusion, they're quite multitalented... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

ethnic religion[edit]

The current definition is:

  1. A religion that appeals primarily to a specific group of people from a specific place, compared to a universalizing religion which attempts to appeal to a wide number of people throughout the world.

It looks to me like a more accurate definition would boil down to ethnic (sense 1) + religion. If we keep it, the definition needs to be fixed. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I have cleaned up the definition, but it still looks like sum-of-parts to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Unless it has a specialised meaning amongst say theologists it seems SoP to me. — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 18:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete per all. Unless we're missing something (and nobody's saying that we are) it's just a religion that's ethnic. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete No compelling keep argument. DCDuring TALK 18:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

azoxy compound[edit]

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

  • True, but it (or its plural) seems to be the normal lemma in chemical dictionaries e.g. [14]. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Chemical dictionaries may have different lemmatization practices. --WikiTiki89 15:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yankee spelling[edit]

I presume this is as unidiomatic as American spelling was judged to be. - -sche (discuss) 21:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  • There's something about that makes me think it is less so, but not enough to object to deletion. bd2412 T 15:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
But then why is no sense of Yankee glossed as derogatory? Equinox 17:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps some sense should be labelled pejorative; at a minimum, the entry should note that Yankee is more informal than American. Does a word have to be pejorative on its own in order for some constructions using it to be pejorative, though? No sense of "transgender" or "agenda" is labelled as derogatory, but "transgender agenda" has been meant and received as derogatory in every instance I've seen, and the sense of "gay" used in "gay agenda" is also not inherently derogatory, but the full phrase is derogatory (and both are SOP, IMO). For another example, "foreign" and "worker" are not labelled as derogatory, but referring to "foreign workers" rather than another synonym is controversial / pejorative in Germany (including in English-language media). Also, I suspect "Yankee spelling" is not always pejorative, but is only sometimes pejorative in the same way that "Yankee" is only sometimes pejorative. - -sche (discuss) 18:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
To accuse someone of an "agenda" (when it's really probably just a set of opinions) is more semantically than lexically derogatory. People don't get accused of making rulings. Equinox 21:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it can be derogatory from a British point of view: e.g. "Why is it spelt "color"?" "Oh, that's the Yankee spelling". Just an idea. DonnanZ (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete, yes, Yankee is as far as I understand it generally derogatory but not always. And not derogatory when referring to the New York Yankees which is frankly what it's most used for nowadays. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Bosman ruling[edit]

Name of a court decision. Not dictionary material. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hm, not sure. The first comparable thing I thought of was Anton Piller order, but that is a countable type of thing (and so are e.g. Elvis sandwich and Kanye glasses), whereas this is one specific historical ruling. Equinox 12:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I recently considered adding entries for Roe, Plessy and other major US court cases that are often mentioned by only one word in sentences about e.g. women dying "pre-Roe" / "before Roe", on the basis that such sentences are opaque without an understanding of what "Roe" means. However, I decided against it because even in cases where the word wasn't followed by "ruling" or "case" or "decision" to make clear that it was a ruling, it was almost always still italicized (unless the book was e.g. typewritten and had no italics at all), another way of making clear that it was the name of a thing that might need to be looked up in an encyclopedia of books etc rather than in a dictionary that appropriately covers Roe (and should cover Plessy) only as a surname. Here, I think "ruling" makes clear that this is a court or other body's ruling that should be looked up in an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. So, delete. "Bosman transfer" has a better claim to being idiomatic. - -sche (discuss) 15:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Or even just "Bosman" - the phrase "on a Bosman" is in use, e.g. [15][16]. Keith the Koala (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Bosman may or may not merit an entry but we shouldn't decide about this entry based on that one. Equinox 16:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
There are plenty of usages of this term. We should keep it. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
On further consideration, delete: discussing "the Bosman ruling" seems like talking about "the Johnson book" or "the Smith paper", a particular textbook etc. known from more or less immediate context. Equinox 09:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
It would seem to me to be like Chilcot enquiry (WP) where of course the person's name isn't going to tell you anything about what it is. But it's not an English idiom. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was thinking this might be like "an Alford plea", but I can not find enough references to "a Bosman ruling" to justify an entry. bd2412 T 14:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


SOP --YURi (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

delete --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

good law[edit]

Maybe this is a term of art, but it looks to me like it's SOP. I can see this construction applied with other modifiers: bad law, better law, worse law. It may be that we need to improve the definitions at good or law to cover this usage: this seems to hinge on an uncountable sense of law. Not that it's unique to law: other disciplines can be referred to similarly- good writing, good acting, good lexicography. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If there's a legal definition of good (or any definition for that matter) that means 'still valid' then you have a point. The definition isn't 'a law which is positive and beneficial' but 'a law that's still valid' which is completely different. This is a clear keeper. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I can't see any usage of this term with this meaning. If OK, why should it be uncountable? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
As a law academic, I'd say that good law and bad law are terms in use in legal circles. Perhaps we should add to good the sense of "valid". I note that we have the sense "useful for a particular purpose; functional" (with the example "the flashlight batteries are still good"), which is rather close in meaning. Perhaps it can be expanded to include the "valid" sense? Apart from good law, this sense of good arises in other contexts, such as "these coupons are still good" (they haven't expired yet, so are still valid). — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep. See, e.g., David Hricik, Law School Basics: A Preview of Law School and Legal Reasoning (2016), p. 100: "Verify that your cases are good law". If a citation is valid, it is good law. If fifty citations are valid, they are good law.
Further examples:
  • Suzan D. Herskowitz, ‎James E. Duggan, Legal Research Made Easy (2005), p. 96: "How can you be sure that these cases are good law? How do you know that these cases have not been overruled or reversed?"
  • Warner v. Sickles, (Ohio), Wright, J., in ‎John Crafts Wright, Reports of Cases at Law and in Chancery: Decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio (1835), p. 82: "Both cases are good law, and if here, the husband were dead, and the title remained in the wife, and the bond was sought to be enforced against her, it would be held invalid".
Cheers! bd2412 T 16:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
To modify Renard's example, I think good law may be uncountable because the term doesn't mean "a law which is positive and beneficial" but "law [in the uncountable sense] that is still valid". Roe v. Wade is still good law (not a good law) as it has not been overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
This certainly seems SOP, using the uncountable sense of "law" (also used in e.g. "...is settled law") and a sense of "good" that is also seen in the example above of "the coupons are still good", and (from Google Books) "it is still good dogma that the leadership should not merely hold onto the coattails of society but must...", "it is still good principle to use a pattern in dress rehearsal before cutting flaps in reconstructive rhinoplasty or anywhere else". - -sche (discuss) 20:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a distinction between "settled law" and "good law" - "settled law" generally refers to a principle (e.g., it is settled law that you can't walk up to a stranger in the street and punch them for no reason"), whereas "good law" generally refers to a specific statute or precedential case. A specific case can be good law in an area that is not at all settled, a circumstance exemplified by the fact that two cases offering conflicting outcomes can both be good law. There is also an issue of lack of antonyms. Law that is not "good law" in the sense of the definition is generally not called "bad law"; it is referred to as being "not good law" or, even more frequently, "no longer good law". bd2412 T 13:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, this nomination makes no sense. "Good law" does not mean "a law that is good" (the sum of its parts), it means law that is "current and still applicable" (to use the reference's terminology), as opposed to that which has been overturned or otherwise invalidated. Please read the definition before nominating for deletion next time. Augurar (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Augurar: please read the discussion before accusing others next time. :-p You'll notice that we did read the definition, and found that the relevant senses of "good" and "law" are commonly used elsewhere, e.g. "the coupons are still good", "settled law". - -sche (discuss) 20:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The OP's examples ("better law", "good writing") are unrelated to the phrase "good law" in the legal sense. But as you say, the discussion has raised some more coherent objections which need addressing. This passes the WT:SOP test because "its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components". I would compare this to phrases like legal tender, statutory rape, etc., in that its meaning is derived from its constituent parts, but when used in a legal context it has a more precise and specific meaning worthy of its own entry. Augurar (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
See also the "prior knowledge" test Augurar (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep. It doesn't seem to be SOP, not least because it is used without an article, which seems to indicate that it is a single unit, not two used in conjunction with each other. In other words, I don't think it is simply "a law that is good" because one would then expect it to occur as "a good law." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I am forgetting, however, that the verb "to be" which precedes "good law" in all the above examples may be copulative. My first impression remains the same, however. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree that there's a sense of good that covers this; coupons that are still 'good' are good in a different sense, for one thing that sense of 'good' only ever seems to be used after 'to be'. 'Those coupons are still good' is ok, 'those are good coupons' is not. Even not taking that into account, it's a slightly different sense of 'good' that the one in the entry good. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
But isn't good law also invariably preceded by a form of to be as well? See the quotations mentioned by BD2412 above. The common sense seems to be "functional; in force, valid". — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
That's not what I meant (I do see the ambiguity though). I was contrasting 'the coupons are good' and 'the good coupons'. 'Good' to be mean valid does not come BEFORE the noun, but with good law it does. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: The phrase does not necessarily follow a "to be" verb; e.g.: Stanley Chodorow, ‎Hans Wilhelm Gatzke, ‎Conrad Schirokauer, A History of the World (1986), Volume 1, page 221: "Judges were often stymied in settling cases because both parties could cite good law"; Practicing Law Institute, Tax Strategies for Corporate Acquisitions, Dispositions, Financings, Joint Ventures, Reorganizations, and Restructurings (1999), Volume 11, page 971: "It has been strongly suggested, however, that the cited cases may no longer reflect good law, particularly when considered in light of the 1984 changes to Section 707(a) governing certain transactions between a partner and a partnership". bd2412 T 21:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Why? 01:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Last Prophet[edit]

Isn't this just a SOP description of Muhammad as (according to Muslim belief) the last prophet? In addition to being described as the last prophet (or with honorific caps, the Last Prophet) he is also described as the final prophet / Final Prophet (google books:"Final Prophet" Muhammad), the ultimate prophet, "the last and final Prophet", etc. I can also find him and other religious figures referred to by many other SOP descriptors, e.g. "[the] Holy One". - -sche (discuss) 21:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Do Jews use this phrase, capitalized, for Malachi? Do Christians use it for Jesus or John the Apostle? If so, then I think it should probably be deleted. If not, then it might have some claim to idiomaticity because it only applies to the Muslim last prophet. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The idea of one last prophet who will be followed by no other is peculiar to Islam. That doesn't mean it can't be SOP. I can come up with lots of snippets from Christian religious texts that would be unambiguous references to any Christian but meaningless to anyone unfamiliar with Christianity: "the baby in the manger", "the man who walked on water", "the man who turned water into wine". Of course, that doesn't rule out idiomaticity, either- it just means you can't use it as a shortcut to avoid all the regular tests. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@User:Chuck Entz Some branches of Christianity refer to Jesus as "the last prophet". Not that I'm any religion at all, but I've been dragged to several different churches in my life, and I know I've heard this used before in the Christian sense. Still SOP, not to mention that it is Islamocentric, and doesn't abide by our guidelines of general neutrality, so even if it were to stay, it needs a better definition. Delete. Philmonte101 (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any POV problem. The context is labeled as "Islam", so we know it's not in general use with that definition. Simply describing usage isn't POV: it's only when we get into slanting that description one way or the other, or when we give usage pertaining to one view of a religion disproportionately more or less coverage that we get into trouble.
Notice I said "disproportionately". Simply treating all religions exactly the same gives undue weight to minor religions that the vast majority of English speakers have never heard of, let alone talked about, or even to major religions such as Islam that most English speakers are ignorant about. Historically, most English speakers have been Christians, so there's more usage of terms typical of Christianity- to be neutral, we have to reflect that when describing usage. This is something Pass a Method just couldn't comprehend: making up terms to fill in gaps in usage isn't being even-handed- it's fraud perpetrated to advance an agenda.
That's not to say we shouldn't cover what usage there is by adherents of all religions- just not disproportionately. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

thank you so much[edit]

thank you + so much

thank you very much (the literal sense)[edit]

thank you + very much

thank you so very much[edit]

thank you + so + very much

There's a lot/a bunch/a ton/a million/loads/heaps/much/so much/very much/so very much more, but let's start with these. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Strong keep for thank you very much — we need it to host translations! I abstain re the others, as I have no problem with deleting them but see no reason to do so. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep thank you very much. Redirect thank you so much. I think so very much is an unusual construction, and I’d like to know native speakers’ judgement. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Not very unusual, just emphatic: "I love/hate him so very much!" Equinox 10:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

multiple o's[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... There's currently no "orgasm" definition at o#English. Therefore, if this term is the main or only expression used to refer to orgasms using "o's", then we should keep it as idiomatic and slang. Otherwise, we should extend the definition of o to cover the orgasm sense. Philmonte101 (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as SOP and add a sense to o. This can be used with any adjective modifying the noun - big o's, little o's, noisy o's, quiet o's, crazy o's. bd2412 T 04:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Please be careful with "big-O" and "little-o" (sometimes without hyphens) as these are technical mathematical terms: big-O notation describing the orders of magnitude of measurable quantities, and little-o notation something similar (I forget the details of that, having last encountered it decades ago ...). In this sense, "big O" is definitely more than the Sum of its Parts ("SoP"). yoyo (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
We have big O notation. Equinox 13:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think anyone will confuse the sense of "O" being used in these expressions. bd2412 T 21:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

raw data[edit]

Question: did this previously fail RFD? There's nothing on the talk page, but if you look at the history you can see that Msh210 RFDed it some years ago. Equinox 15:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems to have been speedied: [17] Keith the Koala (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I'll nominate as SoP, as in "raw numbers", "raw figures", "raw file". Equinox 16:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I didn't know what raw data is. Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep This is IT & statistic jargon. For Thai would be ข้อมูลดิบ. [18] --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    It is claiming to be SoP. "Coined in the 1910s, from raw ‎(“unprocessed”) +‎ data." Then the definition "Data that has not been analyzed or processed." raw backs this up therefore I'm going to believe it and say delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Renard Migrant. As an IT worker for many years - even before it was called IT! - I acknowledge that the phrase was in common use, but required no special definition, since we all knew that our task involved (either Automatic or Electronic) data processing, whence the once-common contractions ADP and EDP for the field now known as information technology - "IT". "Raw data" is purely SoP: the Sum of its Parts. Only in jest could its antonym be "cooked data"! As for the statement by DonnanZ that they "didn't know what raw data is", why is that pertinent? Since the meaning of "raw data" can be ascertained using raw + data, we don't need a head entry for it; tho' it could still be used to exemplify the "unprocessed" sense of raw. yoyo (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    Why purposefully make it more difficult? That's what I don't understand. The SoP policy is like a huge turd. DonnanZ (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    Fundamentally, including definitions for all strings of words that exist isn't the job of a dictionary. Also, I think if you teach people parrot fashion what strings of words mean they actually learn slower not faster because they're not learning how the language works. Like the old times tables they used to teach up to 12 times 12, but because they didn't know how to multiply, if you asked them what 13 times 12 was they didn't know. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Renard (it defines itself as SOP...) and Yoyo. - -sche (discuss) 03:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as a set phrase. bd2412 T 12:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The sense of raw (sense 4) is one that I myself have used in expressions like "the raw page count at Google Books". In this sense, raw can be used with words like text, numbers, bitstream, pixels, results, returns, P/E, leads (vs "qualified"), recruit, trainee, freshman, apprentice, postgraduate. DCDuring TALK 13:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Maybe a sum of parts but fixed. Etymon of the Japanese ローデータ and the Korean 로 데이터. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. --WikiTiki89 15:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

propaganda war[edit]

SOP. See sense #3 at war (any conflict). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. Entry created at 19.37, RFD applied at 19.41. This seems to be a knee-jerk reaction. DonnanZ (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    I don't see the relevance, I managed to read the entry in a few seconds so if anything why did it take Metaknowledge so long? It's clear a delete, it is a war of propaganda and all the discussion in world isn't going to change that. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    My internet was being slow. And DonnanZ, you don't seem to know what a knee-jerk reaction is. It's not about it being fast, it's about it being without thought or reasoning — like your knee-jerk vote for your own entry without considering that it's clear SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I will treat that comment with the contempt it deserves. DonnanZ (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Why does it say "as opposed to war propaganda"? The two phrases evidently have different grammatical heads. Equinox 14:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Obviously that should go as not part of the definition. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
If you don't like the wording, by all means change it (like you normally do). DonnanZ (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done ;) Equinox 02:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

lots of[edit]

Redirect to lotsa. It's SOP. Why would one think that most people who searched "lots of" would want to get lotsa? Actually, I was looking to see if lots of had an idiomatic meaning of some sort. It's totally SOP too, and doesn't merit an entry at all. The entry for lotsa itself even separates lots from of in its contraction template. Delete. Philmonte101 (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This is obviously related to the lot of ("all") and a lot. Ostensibly our first sense of lot#Noun covers this. In that sense, though, it is a funny noun, not accepting most adjectives (or attributive nouns). I think it does not normally accept anything other than intensifiers like great and fucking. The existence of lotsa, lotta, and alot suggests that many speakers don't think of this as a noun. I think the purported synomyms (load, pile, mass), which are only a subset of all the words (eg, ton, heap, ocean) that can be used to quantify uncountable (and countable?) nouns retain more noun characteristics. Load is the one that seems to behave almost exactly the same as lot, except for the merging with the indefinite article and with of/a, but others like ton and heap are similar to load.
We could redirect all of the lot of, a lot of, and lots of specifically to sense 1 of lot#Noun.
One thing we shouldn't do IMO is redirect to lotsa, which is in the wrong register and sometimes considered non-standard. DCDuring TALK 04:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with DCDuring, no redirect to lotsa. Keep as is. DonnanZ (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This entry has already been redirected to lotsa, which is highly informal. Shouldn't the redirect be undone? It's a kind of preposition. See usage notes in Oxford [19]. DonnanZ (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how it could be a preposition; maybe a determiner. Equinox 10:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
It does behave a lot like a determiner, as do the lot of ("all") and a lot of ("many, a large quantity"). But the other terms like tons/a ton (of) and loads/a load (of) behave in a very similar ways. OTOH, those expressions wouldn't work replacing a lot underlined above. DCDuring TALK 15:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Change redirect target to lots. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
What Angr said, per a lot of. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Re-direct to lots (which is where it originally pointed) or to sense 1 of lot. - -sche (discuss) 03:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirected back to lots. We don't normally RFD redirects, by the way. --WikiTiki89 15:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89 I've done it before for to have. Is it better to send these to RFDO? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

ert þú[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion, but this has been there since September 14, 2005 (last edited 9 years ago), so shouldn't be speedied. Still SOP, though. It claims to be a phrasebook entry, but it's incomplete: it literally means "are you", and is supposed to be followed by the name of the person you're addressing, as in "Are you John?". Aside from being SOP, it's also a bit of a fossil, with no templates and no categorization except for Category:Icelandic phrasebook. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a contracted form ertú though. —CodeCat 18:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@ User:CodeCat It doesn't matter. Take a look at do not's deletion, for example, and that was just a redirect. Strong delete; SOP. We don't have an entry for are you either, and it just means the same thing as that. Philmonte101 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
PS we have an entry for she'll but not she will. It's not both or neither. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Not to mention a direct cognate of the contraction, artow- but not art thou. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

tveggja ára[edit]

Same reason, I don't see any other Icelandic entries for x years old. DTLHS (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

True, but we still have 71-year-old. It's all or nothing! --Hekaheka (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 03:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

indefinite block[edit]

SoP, possibly created as wiki jargon. (Many other places would prefer to call it a permaban.) Equinox 19:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Probably created by someone with a chip on their shoulder, and I don't see any value in keeping it. DonnanZ (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Lexically no different from a 3 day block, ergo delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Strong delete. No meaning beyond a block that is indefinite. Basically per the above. Philmonte101 (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: I do not see anything beyond sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    What's an expiration set? DCDuring TALK 11:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The past participle of the verb 'set', not a noun. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't writing with that kind of potential for misconstrual bother you, especially in a definition written for a mass audience? IMO, there is not enough context to eliminate the alternative reading. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


What --- is meant to represent.


What -·· is meant to represent (top line).

These are not words in any language. --WikiTiki89 13:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Hmm, Morse code? It depends on the length of the dash though - O and D respectively. DonnanZ (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
    Did you look at the entries? It's not Morse code, these are line patterns. --WikiTiki89 13:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but Morse has an alphabet, so it must be a language of sorts which can be used for a lot of languages (I have an amateur radio licence). But whether these are the right format for Morse characters is another question. DonnanZ (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Once again, it was not Morse code entries that I nominated here. Morse code entries have not been added yet. The current entries represent the line patterns in the images I just added at right. It is the line patterns that are up for deletion here. Line patterns are not words. --WikiTiki89 14:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, but the similarity is striking. DonnanZ (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Although the entry names --- and -·· are a little weird in my opinion and I'd probably want to rename them if we think of better names.
I created --- and -·· to explain different uses of line patterns in origami books (valley fold, mountain fold), among other senses (------- = detach a coupon). They are really not words in any language. I created these entries because I felt there is an actual, verifiable symbolic value for all senses. I added at least 1 quotation for each sense, and it would be trivial to find 3 quotations.
I've been creating a number of entries for symbols and pictographs with actual meanings, like , , (empty ballot), 💬, 💭, 🗮, 🗖, 🗕, 🗗, 🗙... IMHO, ------------------- and -··-··-··-··-··-··-··-·· have a symbolic value like those. If other cultures use a different line pattern to do the same things, that's something I'd like to know, too.
Incidentally, I created a few similar meanings for long lines in other entries:
. has:
  1. Used repeatedly (as in: ........) in the index of a book, separates the chapter name from the page number.
    Chapter 1.....................................14
    Chapter 2.....................................19
_ has:
  1. Indicates a space to be filled. Often, the character _ is used repeatedly to form a longer line.
    Age: __ Gender: _
    Sign here: _________________________________ Date: __________
  1. Separates titles, subtitles, chapter numbers, comments, and the body text.
    • 1843, Harvard University, The Symbol and Odd Fellows' Magazine, Volumes 1-2, Harvard University, page 223:
      BY P. G. L. WYMAN, JR.
      Soon a man of respectable appearance, whom I took for a laborer, came in and []
If people want to delete ------------------- and -··-··-··-··-··-··-··-··, I assume they would want to delete those other lines too? (......................, _____________________, ⸻) If they do, maybe we can put all the 5 lines in an appendix. Anyway, my vote is keep.
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete. First of all, these have no meaning as individual units: it's only the line that contains them that has any significance.
More importantly, these may convey meaning, but they aren't language. As any artist will tell you, there's symbolism and nuance in all kinds of graphical elements, including color, texture, shape and composition (I'm probably just scratching the surface). You can also convey meaning by using italics, underlining, bolding, ALL CAPS, and other text styles- but that doesn't mean we should have entries for them.
It's not that they're unimportant- street gangs regularly fight and kill each other over things like the drawing of a line through a piece of grafitti- but they're not dictionary material. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Chuck and nom. DCDuring TALK 03:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Not a clue but in general we only want symbols used in human language(s) to have entries, not anything used in non-verbal communication. If I said a friend a picture of a kitten it communicates something, but we don't want all kitten pictures to have an entry here. Well, no-one but me. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Move to an Appendix. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I support moving them to an appendix. Possible name: Appendix:Line patterns. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I oppose moving these to an appendix. If anything, there could be a Wikipedia article on them. They are not dictionary material. --WikiTiki89 18:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Wikipedia has sent us so many misbegotten errors in judgement to infest our Appendix namespace over the years, so we should return the favor rather than doing it to ourselves. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I deleted the two entries early because they are going to fail RFD anyway. They are both in User:Daniel Carrero/Line patterns. I deleted them because I wanted to make way for Morse code entries, which are being discussed in the BP. No sense making an effort to keep both an unwanted line pattern and a Morse code letter in the same entry. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, you only deleted --- but not -··. Did you mean to delete -··? FWIW I agree with the sentiment above that these ("line patterns") are not lexical; I would not expect someone to interpret them as language. - -sche (discuss) 02:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
You are correct. I deleted the other entry now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

---.. ---.., ...---...[edit]

There is no consensus to create these. They are not words. DTLHS (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep. There is a consensus to create those. See Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/August#Poll: Allowing Morse code abbreviations. Poll results: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 abstain. (currently) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
...---... is not an abbreviation, it is a prosign, which means it is essentially a single Morse code "character" that happens to correspond to a word rather than a letter (---.. ---.., however, is an abbreviation). I want to stress that if Morse code letters are to be allowed, then prosigns have to be allowed along with them. But abbreviations, not necessarily. --WikiTiki89 11:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep these two and any other Morse prosigns, abbreviations, etc., whose meanings are not obvious simply by transliterating Morse code into the Latin alphabet. I would not want to keep -.. --- --. ‎(dog), for example. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep ...---... as it's a unique Morse character, delete ---.. ---.. and move its contents to 88. —CodeCat 14:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a consensus to make these. You have to have more of an argument than that. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think "Translingual" is appropriate for things that only appear in Morse code. It's being used as a wastebasket category, isn't it? If we have these they should have "Morse code" as a language — but Morse code isn't a human language, it's an encoding of other languages, like ASCII. Comparable entries might be the \a through \z used as encodings for control characters in strings in C programming (and other languages). Not human language. Delete. Equinox 14:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Morse code is used by humans to communicate with other humans, and predates the invention of personal computers. Escape sequences like \n = new line, \t = tab, \\ = backslash, \" = quotation mark are used in computer strings. Braille ( = A, = B, etc.) is also an encoding system for communication with other humans, and we keep Braille letters and abbreviations. Unlike Braille, Morse code was discussed before entries started to be created, using the consensus from the discussion. Not to mention that normal letters (A, B, C) also fit the definition "an encoding system for communication with other humans"; but they are the "main" system; they are beyond question.
Morse code is not a language; it's a code. I added the script code "Morse" in the database (I mean, Module:scripts/data) and created Category:Morse code as a script category. You can signal "Hello, Equinox!" in Morse code, though there are plenty of Morse code-specific abbreviations you would use.
We are using the Translingual section because the "A", "B", etc. are used in multiple languages. I don't know if I would place Morse code for "Ñ" exactly in the Spanish section, and Morse code for "Ç" in the Portuguese section: treatment of Latin script language-specific letters is messy in many ways. A single Translingual section would probably be helpful for those, pointing to the main letter entry. Apparently, there are Braille encodings for Japanese hiragana/katakana. (w:Wabun code) These would merit a Japanese section. (Some Braille entries keep languages from many different scripts together in the Translingual section. I consider it very messy and disagree with that.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it's time we adopt Wiktionnaire's treatment of Translingual entries, and split Translingual into "Character" and "Translingual" (in Wiktionnaire, "Caractère" and "Conventions internationales"). See A, for instance. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with User:Equinox, who writes "Morse code isn't a human language, it's an encoding of other languages"; specifically, it's a family of language-specific alphabets all constructed on the same principle; but then, so are the Braille, Latin, Cyrillic, Runic and Tifinagh alphabet families; so too are the Indic and Semitic abjads. A dictionary is only useful to those who can read it, so even a dictionary for a single language only needs have an entry for each letter of the alphabet (or alphabets) that it uses, because it is also a word naming that letter: a necessary element we use in both speech and writing to show, for example, how to spell other words. But since Wiktionary records all words, it seems - certainly much more than one language, where do we draw the line: Will we include Egyptian hieroglyphs and Maya ideograms as well as Japanese hiragana and katakana? Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese characters? The reserved words of several hundred active and obsolete programming languagess - including APL? Frankly, I would have expected Wikipedia to cover signalling systems such as Morse code and Semaphore, rather than any dictionary doing so. yoyo (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Actually, we have entries on pretty much every Unicode character that's been attested as used in text sometime in history. The only reason we don't have Maya ideographs out of your list is because there's no Unicode encoding for them (yet). We also tend to use the original script for words in most languages, with limited romanization entries in a few. We have, however, drawn the line on reserved-word entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
      It bothers me a bit that most of these things seem to end up being added because of Unicode fetishism. Having a chart appendix is one thing, but making entries for a lot of emoji and techno-scribbles just because they have code-points seems misdirected. Equinox 18:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: As for User:Daniel Carrero's comment that we are "using the Translingual section because the A, B, etc. are used in multiple languages", isn't that wrong even on the face of it? The Y of French is not the Y of English; they merely look the same and share a common ancestry, but they're pronounced very differently. Try spelling a French word to a Francophone West African, say, using the sound of the English letter Y, and see how baffled they are! yoyo (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep. The IPA isn't an actual writing system either, yet we include IPA symbols that do not belong to any alphabet. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Doubting Are you guys sure about the language? I don't think morse code for "88" means "love and kisses" in awfully many languages. In which contest does one use this "expression". I'd also like to see the three quotes that we normally want. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

After thinking of it, delete as unattestable. I get absolutely nothing from my Google search. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

That's probably because Google does not allow you to search for punctuation marks. ...---... has to be attestable, although I'm not sure about ---.. ---... --WikiTiki89 11:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I get 1800 hits for di-di-di-dah-dah-dah-di-di-dit, but they look like mere mentions to me, not uses. It may be the same with "...---...". --Hekaheka (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


Name of a Mars rover, should be deleted like its brethren Curiosity etc. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete specific vehicles and buildings; keep types of vehicle and types of building. Equinox 14:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Also not an initialism. Not as a part of speech, anyway. It may have been etymologically formed as an initialism (which I doubt) but usage-wise it is a proper noun. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete DCDuring TALK 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


This is the proper name of a planet somewhere in the universe. I am not convinced this is dictionary material, we certainly don't need all the asteroids and all the stars either. I mean, sure, we should have anything with a proper name, like the planets of the solar system and then a few like Alpha Centauri. But this? -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete - I wouldn't call this a word, just a code or designation. Keith the Koala (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. I think we should treat these like chemical formulas: there may be one or two of these that enter the lexicon independent of the technical literature (and references to it), but there are supposed to be codes like this for literally all the stars in the sky, and any exoplanet discovered will have a subcode of one of those. This is encyclopedia material, at best. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

con esmero[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion by User:Ballot man jr, but that doesn't seem right: it's been around for a number of years. It does seem SOP, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

con + noun is very common in Spanish, of course. Con amor, con tiempo, con cuidado. Sorry for not adding it here. The page took too long to load. Also, sin + verb is common and looks SOP to me. Sin querer, sin darse cuenta, sin comer, sin parar. So ddelete all. sin embargo is an exception.
  • Delete. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 18:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

con frecuencia[edit]

As above. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I added con + frecuencia as Spanish translation to "often", which makes this collocation findable even if the entry would be deleted. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
And I added some usexes to frecuencia. --Q9ui5ckflash (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 18:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

sin querer[edit]

As above. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Why, then, do we have on purpose? Because, I guess, it is a common way in English to express that something happens intentionally. "Sin querer" is a common, if not the most common, adverbial expression that communicates the idea of unintentionality in Spanish. Thus, keep. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, querer doesn't have a definition to cover this. If it means 'unintentionally' how come querer doesn't mean intention or intend? The nomination is unsatisfactory and must be rejected unless more evidence is produced. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I might lean to keep, as sin querer queriendo is an extension of the idiom.
I added a sense of "to mean to" to querer. --Q9ui5ckflash (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


Not a word, 23 ghits. Possibly a misspelling or mistranscription of フィアンセ. Nardog (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletesuzukaze (tc) 21:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. A quick glance through the 23 googits strongly suggests that they're all echoes of our own entry -- nothing cromulent at all. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
WT:RFV would be the right venue since the would-be term does not seem to exist in the first place. But I am inclined to not object to deleting this via RFD to speed things up a bit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

마음에 들다[edit]

This seems like an idiom using the many-purposed verb 들다. I don't think it should be on its own separate page, but rather a {{ko-usex}} on the page for 들다.

Marked for deletion. I oppose. Strong keep. Idiomatic, included in many dictionaries. Compare Japanese  () () ‎(ki ni iru). They seem like calque of one another.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep, unguessable from its components. Siuenti (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments by the proposer are on the talk page. It comes down to how we treat Korean idiomatic phrases. I'm inclined to keep. Wyang (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep because when I read the meanings of the individual morphemes in the Etymology section, I expected it to mean "to come to mind" or "to occur to someone" or maybe "to remember", but not what it actually does mean. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have talked about it in User talk:KoreanQuoter#마음에 들다. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


The sense "To reveal (a person) to be secretly gay or transgender." is unnecessary because it is covered by the next sense of "To reveal (a person or organization) as having a certain secret, such as a being a secret agent or undercover detective." The latter can also be adjusted to make it seem less like it is only about secret agents. --WikiTiki89 00:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Are they etymologically linked? I was under the impression that the former was a clipping of out of the closet, while the latter, eh, not so much. Also, if this is kept, I would ditch the word "secretly". Purplebackpack89 01:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
How could it be? "Out of the closet" is not a verb. But that is a good point, it's possible I guess that this sense is not derived from the other sense, but rather from the closet analogy. --WikiTiki89 01:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
They don't have to be mutually exclusive. It looks to me like this is just a case of using the adjective out as a verb. If that's true, then it's only the first word of "out of the closet" and the first word of "out in the open" that are relevant, not the entire phrases. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Weak keep, but also weak delete, so more of an abstain. If this is kept, I recommend merging the two senses, making the "certain secret of any kind" definition above the "secretly gay" definition. Like this:

1. To reveal (a person or organization) as having a certain secret, such as a being a secret agent or undercover detective.

1. To reveal (a person) to be secretly gay or transgender.

PseudoSkull (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

But why not just add modify the other sense to include homosexuality as an example in addition to the secret agent example? --WikiTiki89 01:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I imagine that at least some people who use the word mean it in the narrow sense, in which case it might more properly be considered a sub-definition than falling under a broader definition. I have no proof of that though. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep, lexically distinct. They are distinct to an English speaker even if it's hypothetically possibly to merge them, such a merger isn't in the best interests of the entry. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as the LGBT-related sense is older, and the more general sense is a development of it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    Is that really the case? --WikiTiki89 14:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    It seems you may be right. I'm going to withdraw this nomination. --WikiTiki89 14:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    The OED has the two transitive senses separated (a & b) with first cites for both being from 1990, the sexual orientation sense being seven months earlier. Are there earlier usages? Dbfirs 07:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


SOP --YURi (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Note, my edits were just to convert to the current standard format for Thai entries, not to endorse SoP-ness, which is sometimes not obvious. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete surely. We can call "ลูก..." (fruit) of any plants. Unless a new meaning occur. --Octahedron80 (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Entered to mean "coconut fruit"; the summation is ลูก ‎(“fruit”) +‎ มะพร้าว ‎(“coconut”). Does anyone know of a binding criterion for Thai that could serve as a repacement for space used for e.g. English? Like, could Thai pronunciation or accent play a role in seeing this as a single word? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 04:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

so yeah[edit]

SOP, based on the arguments at WT:Tea room#so yeah. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Have you guys tried looking up a simple search of "so yeah" on Google? It explains it right off the dot that "so yeah" alone is a filler phrase. This is why it should be kept. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, "so no" doesn't have the same connotation. So no is almost always a response to a question. So yeah is used regardless of a yes-or-no question beforehand. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Please provide some citations (three apiece) that unambiguously support the definitions you have provided or some other definitions that are not SoP. DCDuring TALK 02:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The given Conjunction example is in fact using so in its normal sense, to show causality. If anything is a filler in that sentence, it's only the "yeah". Equinox 09:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, the "agreement" doesn't have to be with a question. It could be with a statement or an expressed feeling. And I read some usages as the speaker agreeing with himself/herself — basically changing tack from continuing to the next point to marking a pause in the argument, interpretable as "so, that's what I mean to say," possibly immediately following up with a summary or consequent point. So, yeah, SoP. — Pingkudimmi 09:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete as SOP. The filler here is just yeah, which can come after any conjunction (so we should add that sense there). --WikiTiki89 16:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, so and yeah are both fillers so to find them together as fillers is no great surprise. Um yeah is essentially identical. I think this fails CFI as the meaning is easily derived from the sum of the parts. So (filler) + yeah (filler) is a longer filler than either one on its own. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Just…bad. Loads of things can be used as filler. "So, you know", "so uh" etc etc etc etc. Ƿidsiþ 09:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
so, um, like, yeah, delete per WikiTiki and Renard. - -sche (discuss) 02:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


WT:NSE: 嬴 (surname) + 政 (given name). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This one looks good to go (we only need to establish that it is given name + surname in any order for WT:NSE to apply) and of course Ying Zheng, Zhao Zheng, Chao Cheng and Ying Cheng are all good to go as well. Objections? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Also Ying Zheng, Yíng Zhèng, 趙正, 赵正, Zhao Zheng, Zhào Zhèng. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


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

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

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


As above


I may not be knowledgable in Chinese, but by reading this, the term doesn't look idiomatic. It basically just means "to change oneself newly" doesn't it? Wouldn't that make the term SOP? Oh, and its synonym looks SOP as well. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep. It is considered a chengyu. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Idiomatic. Wyang (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Idiomatic. Included in many Chinese dictionaries, including 现代汉语规范词典 and moedict. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep per the above. Basically an idiom. bd2412 T 01:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


Discussion moved to WT:RFV#共和社會主義越南.

Predator drone and Reaper drone[edit]

Predator drone and Reaper drone are countable noun phrases that are apparently based on components of the proper nouns of two different brands of drone aircraft; see General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper and General Atomics MQ-1 Predator at Wikipedia. The entries were both created by User:North Atlanticist Usonian, who is now blocked for "abuse of multiple accounts." Predator drone was the first of the two to be created, in December 2013, when Usonian created it in its lowercase form, and User:Equinox realized it was based on a brand name, so it should've been capitalized, about which he was indeed correct. Reaper drone was the second, created in February 2014, and Usonian did it correctly the second time.

First off, I find it odd that the entries are based on military brand names, but the definitions imply that it has a more broad meaning; i.e. only meaning any kind of "unmanned military aerial vehicle." It seems that Usonian just copied the definitions from their respective Wikipedia articles, which isn't bad since I do that too a lot, but the senses of the two terms just don't clarify enough why they aren't SOP... The only attention that these entries got was 1 edit from another user. No discussion or anything. No usage notes. No etymology explaining that it is from the brand name. So it's pretty questionable content if you ask me just because of that alone. Also, unless the terms "Predator drone" and "Reaper drone" are significantly more common than just "Predator" or "Reaper", I don't see why it's not SOP.

I understand there are no entries for these two brand names yet, but let's just say that Predator and Reaper actually did meet CFI. So it would just be Predator + drone, Reaper + drone. A "Predator" could be used to describe a certain type (brand) of "unmanned military aerial vehicle", but I don't believe it would be any "unmanned military aerial vehicle". Of course, I could be wrong and it could be a general term that came from a brand name, like kleenex, but the entry doesn't clarify whether or not this is true at all. So does this even meet WT:BRAND at all? And if it does, how is it not SOP?

I say delete, per my points above. But I'm interested to see what the community thinks about this. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be on RFV? -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@User:Pedrianaplant I don't think so. The term is clearly in widespread use, but the question is, isn't it just Reaper + drone? And are the brand names even attested at all per WT:BRAND? PseudoSkull (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The definition of these entries is not "A drone of the type Predator" or "A drone of the type Reaper". WT:BRAND questions would certainly have to be resolved at RFV and not here. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@User:Pedrianaplant No; as I explained above, I don't believe that the definitions given are accurate. I think a Predator drone is literally just a drone that is of the Predator brandname and there is no evidence given that this definition is accurate. So, it would just be Predator + drone. If anyone can find sufficient citations that suggest that the two terms are used as they are defined, which is in a more general sense, then we'd be clear. So I guess this could go in either one. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The process is, 1.) Verify that the definition is accurate. 2.) If it is not sufficiently cited, then the definition is RFV failed, and the actual SOP definition of just "any drone under the Predator brandname" should be added. 3.) We RFD the SOP definition. 4.) The entry gets deleted as SOP. Miscellaneous: We should at some point decide whether or not the brandnames actually meet WT:BRAND, and if they do even by the slightest, we should add entries for Predator and Reaper. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I do think we could delete the entries outright if the general sense fails RFV. No need to be overly bureaucratic, this is Wiktionary and not the German tax office. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. The brand name would be fodder for rfv, but this isn't a brand name, it's a phrase that includes a brand name. One might rfv Ford, but not "Ford automobile". Chuck Entz (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


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

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


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

power supply[edit]


(Lots of translations from Wikipedia with wrong script codes, no transliterations.) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep. While the first sense is probably SoP, it is included in several other dictionaries. The second sense feels less SoP to me since the component is actually a converter/transformer. It is also a set phrase (see PSU and UPS) like central processing unit or random-access memory. - TheDaveRoss 12:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep, I think some of the translations may belong to the first sense, not sense 2. DonnanZ (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. It's just a supply of power. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep. In engineering it means an apparatus, and no one says supply of power in that sense. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep per Dave and Shinji. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep The way it is used with respect to electronic/electrical devices seems to me to not be SoP. Although it's meaning is obviously derived from the component terms, it seems to have taken on a much narrower, more specialized meaning in that context. DCDuring TALK 12:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep the the second definition, change the first to {{&lit}}. Patching an electrical cord could be construed as "repairing the power supply" in the SOP sense, but any tech who worded it that way on an invoice would probably be fired. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I have added a more accessible reference to the entry. DonnanZ (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 14:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


Same as above - power supply. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

alabaster brow[edit]

Sum of parts; relevant sense of alabaster is sense 2 of the adjective, "pale; white; translucent". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Strong delete: absolutely. Lots of older literature refers to alabaster necks, skin, foreheads, and so on. Equinox 18:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete per above. - TheDaveRoss 12:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
And delete. Creator probably wasn't aware of the word alabaster (as an adjective). Renard Migrant (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC). Amended 17:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


"Only used in Covent Garden": then it shouldn't have its own entry. We have covent, anyway. Equinox 18:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete Just the uppercase form of covent as used in a placename. No more a distinct term than the New in New York. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
At least the New in New York represents a common practice in placenames. bd2412 T 12:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it should be at new, not New. If you nickname somebody "Big Dave" or "Little Joe", the capital comes from the proper-noun status; the word in use is still "big" or "little". Equinox 12:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings about it, if a redirect remains. The reason I created New in the first place is that we have literally dozens of entries for places with "New" in the name which link to it. bd2412 T 15:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete and I will nominate New below. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete, same as The. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


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


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


Just the word 'new' capitalized as part of a place name. We don't have Big as in Big Apple. Nor do we have The as in The Ukraine or The Gambia. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep, or redirect retarget links to sense #4 of new. I created this entry as a link target for the link found in literally dozens of entries for places with "New" in the name. bd2412 T 15:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Then the links should be fixed. That has nothing to do with keeping the entry. --WikiTiki89 17:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I have fixed all of the links, but some still show up on the "What links here" page. bd2412 T 19:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
        • It's the foreign language headwords that are still generating links (at least that's what's happening at New York). Most foreign language headwords should just be completely delinked as the parts are meaningless. --WikiTiki89 19:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Technical note, this can be done using {{head}} if you specify |head={{subst:PAGENAME}} with no brackets, you can unlink a multi-word title. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Note: New is also a surname. I have added a proper noun sense for this and converted the RfD into an RfD-sense. Since there is another meaning, the title can not be redirected, but placename links to "New" can be changed to "new". bd2412 T 15:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I think we should move it to new, either as a sense or as a usage note. Equinox 15:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I think this is already covered by sense #4 of new. A usage note and examples (i.e. the quotes now at New) would help. bd2412 T 16:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Definitely delete. Compare "Old Sarum" and other placenames with "Old", "West Jerusalem" and "East Berlin" and other places with "West" and "East" and "North" and "South", in addition to the examples in this thread and the thread above, of "Big Dave", "Little John", etc. The capitalization is added to the full word because it is a proper noun; the word "new" is just lowercase "new". (Similarly, prefixes in German are mostly lowercase even though a noun with a prefix is capitalized: the capitalization is added to the full word because it has noun status, not inherent in the prefix.) - -sche (discuss) 17:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete per - -sche. Also, as bd2412 notes, this is already covered at new. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm all for deleting the adjective, but what about the translations and derived terms? Can they go under new instead? DonnanZ (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
They can just go, IMHO. They add no value. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete: fails CFI, see the case for The as well. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This sort of entries will keep popping up as long as the POS header templates automatically link multiple word entries into their constituent parts. This creates silly links like "New Agers" was linked to "New" and "Agers" before I fixed it. I know one can avoid it using head=, but the problem is people don't and no one has the energy to correct all the dozens of entries that link to "New" alone. Thus, deleting "New" will create dozens of silly-looking redlinks. Perhaps the templates should be rewritten such that it would not automatically link proper nouns to their parts? --Hekaheka (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Same as The. I actually made a big fuss about capitalization in alt forms about a month ago. See #Chernozemic. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


SOP --YURi (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


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

plane ticket[edit]

It's a ticket for a plane. What else could plane ticket mean? Unlike air ticket which is not a ticket that entitles you to air. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep it for its translations, at least. "plane ticket" is much more common than "air ticket", and translations should be placed on the most common synonym. —CodeCat 23:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
You feeling alright? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean you have to question my mental state. That's rather Stalinistic of you. —CodeCat 23:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a matter for debate where the translations should be, but I felt the need for entries for synonyms. RM seems to have overlooked the various senses of plane. DonnanZ (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat It was a joke. I've never seen you argue to keep a SoP term before. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm arguing in favour of keeping a synonym, and there shouldn't be anything wrong with those; in fact they are helpful to foreign users. Whether it's SoP or not is not relevant. DonnanZ (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm in favour of keeping translation targets. I recognise that this term is SoP and would not keep it otherwise. —CodeCat 16:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Once you start allowing synonyms of single words and idioms when they are multi-word non-idioms, you can justify almost anything. One who votes for voter, for example. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I think your argument is rather leaky. That's a definition you've given. DonnanZ (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Most/all public transport has tickets (bus, tram, ferry; even "hovercraft ticket" meets CFI). Equinox 10:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete: SOP, see plane + ticket. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
As stated above, plane has different senses, and I suppose ticket does too. You can't gain admission with a parking ticket. DonnanZ (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
That logic alone would seem to legitimise entries like plane window and airborne plane. Equinox 17:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, why would this matter? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the former but not the latter. A plane window can also be called a porthole. DonnanZ (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep. This one is also in the OED, for what it's worth. Ƿidsiþ 06:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


This made it through RFD with no consensus. I'd like to nominate it again for redirection to -year-old, following the precedent at #71-year-old (to be archived at Talk:71-year-old). Just because it has single-word translations doesn't mean that a predictable English compound separated by hyphens needs to be kept. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep for the sake of the translations, and also have more entries for lower age groups. DonnanZ (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Redirect or delete. --WikiTiki89 11:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Redirect or delete. DCDuring TALK 12:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Redirect or delete. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Redirect or delete; preferably just delete. Equinox 18:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep per DonnanZ + more entries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep single word. Ƿidsiþ 13:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Since we have no criteria on this, it's editor judgment whether this is a single word or not. I say it isn't therefore delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Many editors seem to like compound words as they avoid the SoP spectre, but often they look stupid. That would certainly apply here, twelveyearold is a non-runner. Widsith definitely has a point. DonnanZ (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I think you have to look at citations and usage. There may be ways this is used that are worth recording but no one really checks, they just assume they know what it means so why bother. For instance, you will get lots of results for "drinking a good twelve-year-old" because it's a common ageing for Scotch whisky, but you won't get any for thirteen-year-old because whiskies are not aged to 13 years. Though there may be other uses for 13-year-old, I don't know. I just see no reason to exclude this. Where does it fail the CFI exactly? Ƿidsiþ 06:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
A whisky aged for 13 years would still be a thirteen-year-old, if people talked about it. It's still SoP. The brewing practices of whisky-makers don't change what it means. Equinox 15:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The point is only that there are users interested in the pragmatics of language use, rather than in general theories. Either way, I don't see any justification for deleting this under CFI. The fact that you think it's obvious what it means, I feel, is neither here nor there. Ƿidsiþ 06:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Redirect or delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Redirect or delete. Keith the Koala (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete, or redirect if you must. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Some Danish "proverbs"[edit]

  • Just to clarify, Gamren has stated in RFV that these are neither proverbs nor idioms in Danish. DonnanZ (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)



WT:NSE. —suzukaze (tc) 21:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete both. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

7-second delay[edit]

...and the alt forms and synonyms 7 second delay, seven-second delay, seven second delay, 5-second delay, 5 second delay, five-second delay, five second delay. First of all, these aren't limited to broadcast delays; Google Books has plenty of hits for any delay, like "She looked over at him on a five-second delay" (her reaction was delayed by five seconds). Secondly, one can also have a "3-second delay", "2-second delay", a "five-minute delay" (e.g. from Google Books "even if the TV transmission says 'live' coverage, it is on a five-minute delay"), etc. Hence, these are SOP. - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Silly definition! Equinox 18:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Probably good enough for WT:BJAODN, ergo, delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete, and damn, what a massive load of alt forms and synonyms to delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

bless á meðan[edit]

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

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

bless í bili[edit]

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

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

viltu tala svolítið hægar[edit]

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

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

það er aldeilis[edit]

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

það er ekki rétt[edit]

Not appropriate phrasebook material. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

það er rétt[edit]

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

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

það var leitt[edit]

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

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

гость дипсотрудника[edit]

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

On one hand, the entry claims that this form is used on visas; if that's true, I would expect it to be found on other government papers (enough to meet wt:attest). And if this shortening is really used on visas with this meaning, the difference from the literal meaning might increase its idiomaticity. But on the other hand I can only find a few hundred Google hits (including this one) and no Books hits, which suggests the term/meaning is not used. - -sche (discuss) 15:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
It may appear on the visa but the translation is wrong and there's nothing idiomati about it. The meaning is "guest of a diplomatic officer" or "diplomatic worker's guest". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I've added entry дипсотру́дник ‎(dipsotrúdnik) with a usage example. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

unconditional love[edit]

An entry created by User:Tooironic in 2010. Several translations have been added since into the translations box, most of which are either redlinks or separated links to the parts. However, there is one translation entry that has actually been created, amor incondicional (Spanish), that I believe is also SOP for the same reason. So keep in mind that that entry is also being RFD'd here.

The reason I'm RFDing this entry is because the term's definition "Affection felt for someone that is not dependent on certain qualities or actions." may not look like it is SOP, but that definition is a rather outside the box way of saying unconditional + love. I was already suspicious when I looked at the entry, but the real thing that inspired me to RFD was the fact that I could also say unconditionally love (a verb meaning "to love someone in a way that is not dependent on certain qualities or actions"). Also we could form it backwards and say love unconditionally, or especially love someone unconditionally. That's not an RFD rationale in itself, but it goes to show that unconditional love isn't really a set phrase, which moreso suggests the SOPness of the term. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Wikipedia has an entry on this term, which suggests it isn't totally SOP, so am leaning keep. You might say the same about unconditional surrender, which is likewise similar to but not quite the same as unconditional + surrender (for example, an unconditional surrender does in fact come with certain conditions). Also, your argument about the ability to say "love unconditionally", "unconditionally love", etc. isn't really probative because lots of idioms can be flipped around or rearranged in certain ways. For example, the expression "to drive one up the wall" can be passivized but it's still an idiom (the Free Dictionary gives the example "I was being driven up the wall by their silly chatter"), and you can insert certain words in the middle, cf. drive me completely up the wall. Benwing2 (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Tempted to say keep. A mother's unconditional love for her child is not literally unconditional - it depends on the condition that the beloved is her child. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I think in fact that unconditional in practical, not lexical terms doesn't always mean without condition. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Is it? Say, a father unconditionally loves his child, but later he finds out that he isn't actually the biological father - does that cause the love for his child to cease immediately? -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course, unconditional still means without condition, it doesn't change the meaning of the word, so much as people don't always mean what they say absolutely literally. Like someone who's 100% committed probably isn't, but that doesn't change the meaning of 100%. PS how do we not have 100%? It's clearly not SoP. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
And a perfect circle isn't actually perfect. This is more about how people use words loosely than about what the word means. Equinox 15:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

amor incondicional[edit]

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

CD-ROM drive[edit]

A CD-ROM drive is a drive that reads CD-ROMs. Seems pretty straightforward to me. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I remember something similar coming up here before, but can't seem to find the archived RFD discussion. --WikiTiki89 20:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it was Wiktionary:Tea room/2016/April#cassette drive. --WikiTiki89 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep. CD-ROM drive can also read at least CDs and Photo CDs, not only CD-ROMs. You might call it just CD drive, but it is far less common: [20]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. The fact that a CD-ROM drive can read other compatible formats doesn't make it anything other than a CD-ROM + drive. Keith the Koala (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. CD-ROM + drive. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


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

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


Sum of parts. 大正 + + . —suzukaze (tc) 05:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Rename to 大正時代. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


じゅう? —suzukaze (tc) 05:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • A clear mistake created by an anon. Shot on site, together with the mistakenly romanized entry formerly at jyu. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


Sum of parts. ポリウレタン + -製 + コンドーム. —suzukaze (tc) 05:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


Sum of parts. 消防 + 活動. —suzukaze (tc) 05:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


Possibly sum of parts; literally "the くま under the eyes", where くま can mean the "circles under the eyes" by itself just fine. —suzukaze (tc) 05:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete it and add usage information in くま. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


Sum of parts. ポリウレタン + -製 + カテーテル. —suzukaze (tc) 06:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
And, while we're at it:

ポリウレタン樹脂, ポリウレタン塗装[edit]

Similarly transparent sum-of-parts compounds. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

excuse me[edit]

Rfd-sense Said as a request for an apology. I think this was intended to cover the use as a response to an insult. If that is the case, then this is a misinterpretation of this usage. It is really sense #1 (Said as a request to repeat information.), sort of like "What did you just say?". If I am wrong about what this sense was meant to cover, then I will RFV it instead. --WikiTiki89 02:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it sometimes said huffily to someone who has barged into you? Equinox 10:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. That seems to me like a more sarcastic/figurative usage of what I described above, but I'll have to think about it some more. --WikiTiki89 14:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

aibhleog bheo[edit]

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

I've added the relevant sense to beo, so this can be deleted. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


共産党 + 宣言, and we don't have Communist Manifesto#English. —suzukaze (tc) 02:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)