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 deletion
add new | history | archives

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

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/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, 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]


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)
  • Abstain. MWO sense 5; Collins sense 3; AHD sense 5. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:32, 21 October 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)
Kept per Talk:可耕地.--Jusjih (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]


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!


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)

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)

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!
  • Delete as at most one cite (2015c, "Mama didn't need an Urban Dictionary to figure out what we were saying.") may contribute to meeting WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 14:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Governed by WT:NSE. Let's keep single-word attested names of literary works such as Odyssey, Lysistrata and Decameron but this is a multi-word name. Related deletion discussions include Talk:Pearl of Great Price and Talk:Merseburger Zaubersprüche. If we had more cites like that above by bd2412, that would be suggestive of keeping, but we have only one. RFD seems fine since WT:NSE leaves the decision to individual editors. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

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)

Long time - no comment. There seems to be at least near-consensus of "ajaa karille" being idiomatic > striking that. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:54, 7 October 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]

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)
Keep or redirect. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:22, 19 October 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)

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[1], spanishdict.com[2] and nglish.com[3]. 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)
Delete. You can have heaps of radio-controlled vehicles, and sometimes it's expressed as remote-controlled. Nibiko (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: By my count, there are nine editors (including the nominator) favoring deletion, and six editors favoring keeping this entry. Policy-based arguments have been made on both sides. Absent further participation, I would deem this an absence of consensus, but given my participation in this matter, I would like to know if anyone disagrees with this reading of the discussion. bd2412 T 00:09, 27 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)

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)
It might be your opinion that no day is a good day to die, but we don't define entries in terms of your opinion. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:49, 29 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)
    Unfortunately the entry's been butchered since the rfd debate began. It's now at requests for deletion, cleanup and verification all at the same time. You don't see that very often. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I still haven't seen any evidence that this doesn't just mean "today is a good day to die". I'm aware that this is a vote so evidence doesn't matter, but I still like to see evidence. I'm seeing lots of blind assertion that this isn't literal, but nobody can say why. Is this lexically any different to today is a good day to buy a house? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:56, 29 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)
  • Weak keep but I don't know why. Why is it "space" rather than "place"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:39, 15 October 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 [4], [5], [6]). 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)
It's suboptimal that both entries contain definitions when it seems like one could use {{altcaps}}, but the above discussion suggests that it's justifiable for both entries to exist (so, keep). - -sche (discuss) 21:41, 29 September 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)


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)

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. [7]. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Chemical dictionaries may have different lemmatization practices. --WikiTiki89 15:08, 22 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)

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)
  • Keep all: Per Andrew. We've kept Wingding characters in the past in this isn't really all that different from that. Purplebackpack89 15:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Wingdings is a font that replaces normal characters (like ABC 123) with "dingbats" (like envelopes or pointy stars). That's a totally different issue encoding-wise. Equinox 23:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I think you miss the point. Both Wingding characters and Morse code are ways to convey the idea of words without using letters. Purplebackpack89 00:06, 27 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)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:30, 18 October 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


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)

Thai entered to mean to recite a mantra. The sum is สวด ‎(“to recite”) +‎ มนต์ ‎(“mantra”).
I am inclined to keep since this is present in http://dictionary.sanook.com/search/สวดมนต์ as "to pray", but that is a weak argument. One difficulty is that Thai does not use spaces for word separation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep. I think this word simply means "to pray" (intransitive) สวด ‎(sùuat) + มนต์ ‎(mon) (มนต์ is a variant of มนตร์ ‎(mon)). The verbal noun การสวดมนต์ ‎(gaan-sùuat-mon, prayer) is included in Sanook as well.
สวดมนต์ ‎(sùuat-mon) is also defined in two other online dictionaries: [8] and [9]. The definition is "to pray". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:28, 9 October 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)


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

Delete Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. However we have หยาดน้ำค้าง and หยาดน้ำฟ้า. --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


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

  • Now defined as "act of making food" but was defined as "cooking". Created by User:Alifshinobi, who is Th-3. The sum is การ ‎(“abstract noun prefix”) +‎ ทำ ‎(“to make”) +‎ อาหาร ‎(“food”). I would submit that not every making food is cooking; does this only mean cooking? Seems absent from dictionary.sanook.com[10]. "cooking" is consistent with Google Translate. If this means cooking, it is not sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:04, 21 October 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)
Keep.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep as a translation target; single-word non-compounds include Czech and Slovak letenka. The likes of German "Flugticket" are not so convincing since even though they are single words, they are compounds that are fairly transparent. "plane ticket" is much more common than "air ticket" per Google Ngram Viewer, and is therefore the best location to keep these translations. Interestingly, "plane ticket" is in Collins[11], and Widsith tells us above it is in the OED, so the lemming heuristic also has some force. Admission: the translations could be kept at airline ticket which was before 2000 even more common than plane ticket, but in 2008 "plane ticket" seems to be the leader. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Is it in the OED with a proper definition, or just in the common-collocation lists that they include? Do they also have train, ferry, hovercraft ticket? If not why not? Equinox 13:59, 8 October 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)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@SMUconlaw: Too early closure, IMHO: "Entries and senses should not normally be deleted in less than seven days after nomination". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Ooops, one month has passed. My mistake. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:07, 21 October 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)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:46, 18 October 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)
  • Keep. The English translation is "bye for now", and google books:"bye for now" phrasebook finds some phrasebooks including Spanish Among Amigos Phrasebook, Collins Gem Afrikaans Phrasebook and Dictionary, and Yacky Dar Moy Bewty!: A Phrasebook for the Regions of Britain: With Irish Supplement. Thus, use something like the lemming heuristic based on the English phrases. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    SOP phrasebook entries in CFI: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 2 October 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)
  • Keep. The English translation is "bye for now", and google books:"bye for now" phrasebook finds some phrasebooks including Spanish Among Amigos Phrasebook, Collins Gem Afrikaans Phrasebook and Dictionary, and Yacky Dar Moy Bewty!: A Phrasebook for the Regions of Britain: With Irish Supplement. Thus, use something like the lemming heuristic based on the English phrases. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    SOP phrasebook entries in CFI: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 2 October 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)
  • Keep. The English translation is "please talk more slowly". google books:"please talk more slowly" phrase does find German Phrases For Dummies, Korean at a Glance: Phrase Book and Dictionary for Traveler and Colloquial Polish: The Complete Course for Beginners. Thus, apply the lemming heuristic for the English phrase. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    SOP phrasebook entries in CFI: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep if not SOP. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

það er aldeilis[edit]

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

  • Abstain. The translation is "That's really something!" It does feel like something for phrasebook. However, {{b.g.c|"That's really something" does not give me enough hits; I find the English phrase in http://www.deitshbooks.com/files/Phrase%20Book%208-27-13.pdf - Pennsylvania German Phrase Book, 2013, D. Miller. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    SOP phrasebook entries in CFI: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Doesn't seem SOP, not sure it's dictionary material, not sure how many users would find it if they needed it, but it's the kind of phrase people, very few people, would want to look up. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 22:40, 1 October 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)
  • Abstain. The English translation is "that's not correct", found in Vietnamese phrase book, Nguyen Dinh-Hoa, ‎Đình Hòa Nguỹ̂en, 1976. The variant "that's incorrect" is found in Japanese for Travelers: Useful Phrases Travel Tips Etiquette, Rutherford Scott, 2013. Not so strong lemmings, but there are some. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    SOP phrasebook entries in CFI: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 20:31, 23 October 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)
  • Keep. The English translation is "that's correct"; google books:"that's correct" phrasebook" finds phrasebooks with such entries, and I would use something like a lemming heuristic for phrasebooks, based on search for English terms. And it feels intuitively to be a suitable phrasebook entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    SOP phrasebook entries in CFI: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 2 October 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)
  • Abstain. The English translation is "that's a pity"; google books:"that's a pity" phrasebook find at least one book that looks like a phrasebook, Phrases for everyday communication: die richtigen Worte zur richtiger Zeit, John Stevens, 2009. I am not sure one book is enough, and whether that one book is even a phrasebook proper. However, it feels intuitively to be a suitable phrasebook entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    Keep: this could be also translated as "what a pity", and google books:"what a pity" phrasebook yields The Spanish Teacher and Colloquial Phrasebook, Francis Butler, 1864; Fijian Phrasebook, Paul A. Geraghty, 1994; The Rough Guide to Portuguese Dictionary Phrasebook, Lexus, 2000; Baltic Phrasebook, Eva Aras, ‎Jana Teteris, 2001‎; etc. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    SOP phrasebook entries in CFI: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 2 October 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. (So abstain. If the term survives RFD it could/should ve RFVed.) - -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)
It's basically the same reason why we have an entry for unicorn even though there are no unicorns. Dictionaries do meanings, whether the thing they're talking about exists or not is irrelevant. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete as SOP per Equinox. - -sche (discuss) 19:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete per Equinox. DCDuring TALK 20:15, 23 October 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: [12]. — 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)
DeleteSaltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 04:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted bd2412 T 20:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, we still have floppy disk drive. Equinox 18:33, 25 October 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)
Delete There are too many eras, and I think that, as with place names, era names should not have a specifier. Nibiko (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
明治時代 and 大正時代 are worth having entries, as well as 奈良時代, 平安時代, etc. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:22, 19 October 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)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:52, 18 October 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)
Delete because of the synonyms list. Nibiko (talk) 04:14, 3 October 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)

All deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:54, 18 October 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)
I agree that the "You're an idiot!" / "Excuse me?" usage is a special case of "Said as a request to repeat information", but it may be special enough to deserve its own entry (or at least a separate usage example). There is another possible use, "Excuse me!" (exclamation mark not question mark, emphasis on "me"), which expresses the speaker's outrage, I suppose possibly implying a demand for an apology. Usage examples would be very valuable in this entry. Mihia (talk) 20:21, 28 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)
Delete per Wyang. —suzukaze (tc) 06:38, 3 October 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)
What is live coal? Renard Migrant (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
See sense 14 of live#Adjective. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


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

Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


Tagged a while back. Wrong traditional form. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


Sum of parts. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

acción programada[edit]

Can't see how this is NISOP...--Q9ui5ckflash (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

So why are you nominating it? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I meant to say I can't see how this isn't NISOP --Q9ui5ckflash (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

yo soy británica[edit]

yo soy británico[edit]

Probably not a worthwhile phrasebook entry. The translation is clearly not "I am English", anyway. --Q9ui5ckflash (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Should be a less common alternative form of soy británica, and yeah the Europeans in my experience get confused between British and English. And I don't blame them, by the way. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I see what you mean (as opposed to soy español or soy colombiana) not really worthwhile. Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. google books:"I am British" phrasebook finds Japanese Phrase Book, 1987 and Collins Portuguese phrase book. Changing phrasebook to phrase yields Phrase Book for Travelers - Portuguese, Antonio Carlos Vilela, 2014 and Everyday Malay: Phrase Book and Dictionary, Thomas Oey, ‎Sharifah Zahrah Alwee Alkadri, 2013. Thus, use something like the lemmings heuristic for the phrasebook based on English phrases. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete, I think, since it's formally SOP. Wasn't it decided that the phrasebook be moved to an appendix? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
CFI makes it possible to keep SOP items if they are for the phrasebook: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity says "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. Although these are included as entries in the dictionary (in the main namespace), they are not usually considered in these terms. For instance, What's your name? is clearly a summation of its parts.". There, CFI makes a clear exception for the phrasebook. As for consensus or its lack, see Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-12/Removing phrasebook. I do not know of any vote or discussion showing consensus for moving the phrasebook into appendix. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

for cryin' out loud[edit]

Any -ing word can be written as -in'. I don't see any need for these to have separate entries, any more than there is a need for every word beginning with "h" to have a separate entry with the "h" dropped, for instance. Mihia (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I couldn't agree more. I could understand why we might have cryin' as well as crying. DCDuring TALK 21:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
It's bleedin' obvious that we should get rid of this... P.S. I like fish 'n' chips. Equinox 22:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Very strong keep, from here all the way to the moon (hey I invented my own idiom). Anything that isn't SOP and is attested should be included (plus this is a very common alternative form after all, and this form is actually used most of the time in oral speech when this idiom is said). for cryin' out loud does not equal the sum of for + cryin' + out + loud. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
There are 16 permutations just of "for/fer" + "crying/cryin'" + "out/oot" + "loud/lood" ("oot" and "lood" being dialect spellings). Forgive me if I don't check every one, but many are attestable. Would you have separate entries for all? Mihia (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but this particular one, for cryin' out loud, is a very common alternative form used to show how it actually sounds very often in American English speech. PseudoSkull (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to for crying out loud, same thing with other similar entries. No reason to duplicate content. - TheDaveRoss 11:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I should point out previous consensuses are to keep entries like this. Not saying consensus can't change. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Either keep this as an {{altform}}, or redirect it (but don't delete it). In practice some entries do one of those things, some entries do the other. - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. This specific variation gets over 8,000 Google Books hits. bd2412 T 01:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
That 8,000 figure is probably one of Google's Large Random Numbers™. No one, as far as I have been able to ascertain, understands how these are generated or what they mean. Retrievable hits run out at about 170 for me. Hits verifiable by looking at the excerpt (i.e. "for cryin' out loud" visible in the excerpt) run out at about 70. 19:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
If the same attrition applies to hits for the fully spelled-out version, then the high proportion of examples of the variation remains the same. bd2412 T 13:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Predictable eye dialect, no inherent variation of the word in question. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: We keep for crying out loud as idiomatic and no CFI-based rationale for deleting this attested form was stated. The applied principle is not that eye dialect should be excluded; Category:English eye dialect has over 1600 entries. The definition line "Eye dialect spelling of for crying out loud" is fine. The entry is not hugely useful, but so are many of our -ness entries, un- entries and the like. As for the allegged permutations, e.g. google books:"for crying out lood" does not find anything. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I didn't claim that all permutations exist in Google Books, just that "many are attestable", which I stand by. I do not believe that pointing to one example with no Google Books hits undermines the main point, which is that if separate entries are allowed for all permutations of variant and dialect spellings within phrases then these entries will proliferate beyond what is sensible. Mihia (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
What if this particular permutation is orders of magnitude more prevalent than any other? bd2412 T 01:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I think there would be problems with stipulating that words or expressions should not be included just because they are insufficiently common. Obviously there are many uncommon entries that we want to include. I think there is an issue with the silliness per se of including all these permutations, irrespective of whether they are common or rare. Mihia (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Weak keep on the basis of its commonness, but any other variations should be hard redirects, and this should not be taken as a precedent for entries like that's what I'm talkin' about or seein' the forest for the trees. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Surely you mean that's what I'm talkin' 'bout. bd2412 T 04:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 17:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

high school diploma[edit]

high school + diploma --WikiTiki89 15:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Just a disambiguating modifier. DCDuring TALK 16:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
"An academic degree awarded or granted after finishing high school" delete per creator. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain: I like to keep these kinds of entries but I cannot find good enough supporting material. google:"high school diploma" dictionary finds this in portuguesedictionary.net, bab.la, and Collins[13], but I do not find them all that convincing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Le God[edit]

LOL, a nickname for Matt Le Tissier!!! Correct, yes, but....really? --Q9ui5ckflash (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As long as it's just voting delete, but I don't have a reason. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Word that people might want to look up, describing an individual entity with words not exclusively used for that entity. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Øresund Bridge[edit]

Not dictionary material? PseudoSkull (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It's the longest bridge that connects two countries, as well as the longest combined road and rail bridge in Europe (see e.g. [14], though I think you can easily find a better source). I'd say that's about enough to make it notable. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not just a bridge either, part of the crossing is in tunnel. If we have an entry for the Channel Tunnel (and rightly so) we should keep this as an important European transport link. An entry for Øresund is also obviously needed. DonnanZ (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
So is inclusion of these kinds of proper names based on a notability test? If any inclusion criteria are established or clarified as a result of this discussion then it would be useful to add them to WT:CFI which seems pretty vague right now. Mihia (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm strongly inclined to keep place names like this when they have nonobvious translations into other languages, which this entry certainly does. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
CFI is deliberately vague as quite simply, there is no consensus among editors so it can't reflect one. My view on this one is a genuinely don't care. Is it really any different from Eiffel Tower in any way apart from being less well-known among English speakers? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Aren't we supposed to record the language as it is used and not what is "correct". Google Ngram finds no hits for "Øresund Bridge" or "Öresund Bridge", but finds about equal number of hits for "Oresund Bridge" and "Oresund bridge". We should redirect this to "Oresund Bridge". --Hekaheka (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes. So keep, but only as an alternative form of Oresund Bridge. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I suspect the use of Oresund instead of Øresund may be due to convenience for those who haven't set up a Danish or Norwegian keyboard facility on their computer. DonnanZ (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course, but Oresund is still the most frequently used spelling. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Google Books Ngrams isn't all that thorough. Something that gets no hits on Ngrams may get 300 hits on Google Books. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Google Books: Oresund B. 2200, Øresund B. 1200, Öresund B. 700. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Right, but it says nothing about spelling, nor does it give useful guidance on the key question of keeping or not keeping. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
It tells you that it is up to you to decide. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Incorrectly treated, given our ethos of recording the language as it is actually used. "Sao Tome and Principe" is more popular by a huge margin in Ngram, and more than twice as popular in Google Books as São Tomé and Príncipe. Ordinary Google search is difficult to judge due to overlap, but there "Sao Tome and Principe" beats its rival by 99-13. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
It may be the official name though, like Côte d'Ivoire, which is shunned in English, except perhaps by governments. DonnanZ (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, right. In that case the entry should read: "The official name of the state of Sao Tome and Principe. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the offical name São Tomé e Príncipe rather than São Tomé and Príncipe? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
In Portuguese, sure, but what about English? In Finnish the official name is São Tomé ja Príncipe. Just like Republic of Ireland is Irlannin tasavalta, both official names, but in different languages. --Hekaheka (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

pet rock[edit]

It could be argued that there is a specific sense relating to the type of rocks sold in the pet rock fad, but the sense of any rock when considered a pet is SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep and improve the definition. This isn't covered by any sense we currently have of "pet", which specifically defines a pet as an animal; but I wouldn't want to change the definition of "pet" to cover pet rocks, either. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Covered by a sense of the adjective (not attributive use of one of the noun definitions) contained in other dictionaries. (See pet at OneLook Dictionary Search.) There might even be support for a noun sense of pet as might be used in a sentence like This rock is my pet. DCDuring TALK 12:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The whole idea behind the pet rock fad was treating an inanimate object as if it were an animal. Imaginary reassignment of roles to other things doesn't mean we need to change the terms for those roles. If you really want to follow this line of reasoning, there are all kinds of references here and there to "pet humans" (not just in science fiction, either), and then there are phenomena such as the w:Tamagotchi. With role-playing games and virtual realities becoming more and more widespread in our culture, we could end up tying ourselves into pretzels trying to cover all the possible permutations. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I attempted to add a 2nd sense at pet that should be broad enough to cover pet rocks and whatnot. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I think I have seen this used to describe something which provides comfort despite seeming triviality. A quick review of books provided only literal usage, but anecdotally there may be another sense which should be included even if the literal sense is SoP. Delete if the current sense is the only attestable sense. - TheDaveRoss 15:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep but clarify that this refers to the ironic act of keeping a rock as a pet, originating in the fad. I think there is some distinction to be made in the fact that one could claim that a "pet rock" picked up off the ground is not a "real" pet rock because it isn't the branded product. bd2412 T 20:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Weak keep. They were indeed a popular fad, and they are a specific type of thing with eyes mounted on them. Equinox 00:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep but improve the definition. Mihia (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    I am wondering how to improve it. We could, for example, mention that they have eyes stuck on them, and that they were a short-lived popular commercial product (not to get too encyclopaedic, but otherwise people might wonder who on Earth would keep a rock as a pet). Does the given Undertale citation (cough! durable??) actually refer to the fad product, or merely to a random rock that is someone's "pet"? Equinox 19:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    In the video game sprite, the rock does not have eyes and seems to be just an average rock on a table. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    Wouldn't that kind of definition fall under WT:BRAND? DCDuring TALK 20:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, but I don't think it would have any trouble passing from "generic" mentions. Equinox 20:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    But do the generic usages have the encyclopedic meaning? Perhaps, where we are defining a term no other dictionary (except UD) has covered, we should start with the citations. DCDuring TALK 21:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd actually be genuinely surprised if pet rock was not in the OED. Sadly, the university kicked me off their free OED access last month. Equinox 21:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • OED: "pet rock n. a small rock intended as a humorous novelty alternative to keeping an animal or growing plants; (hence) something seen as little more than a passing fad, or as pointless or useless." DTLHS (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    How insensitive: that definition will hurt their feelings. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    The OED's definition would at least not be SoP, but I would RfV it. The existing definition is transparently SoP. DCDuring TALK 17:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep but improve the definition. I've encountered the term a number of times, but was unaware that this was a popular fad, that the rocks were actually sold en masse, and that they had eyes on them. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Entirely SOP. It doesn't matter if you put sticks on it. You could say the same thing about having a pet toothbrush. You could attach sticks on it for ears, and a button on it for a face. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I suppose so. I've changed my vote to a weak keep. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Is this not the "fried egg" scenario? Any egg that you fry could be a fried egg, but in practice the meaning is narrower. Equinox 17:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


Not really convinced this is a Translingual prefix, so much as Nippon + -o- being used in New Latin compounds. Note that if this fails, its category needs to be deleted as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

international airport[edit]

SoP --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete DCDuring TALK 11:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Isn't the definition wrong? An international airport is an airport that has a customs/duty station. The airport does not necessarily have any scheduled international flights. (one of my local ones doesn't have any int'l flights, but is still an int'l airport) -- 08:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    The definition says nothing about scheduled flights. It is quite possible in the real world that an international airport would not have a customs/duty station. It might just have immigration/passport control or nothing at all. DCDuring TALK 18:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment incidentally, why was domestic airport deleted? (it does not say SOP deletion) -- 08:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    An admin could look at the deletion log, that summary is usually used for the deletion of nonsense so maybe the content was absolutely garbage. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    The entire content of the page was "home". --WikiTiki89 17:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No real objections to this entry, although international does have a corresponding sense 'pertaining to the intercourse of nations' (no, it really does say that). Renard Migrant (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Is this a legal term? I'm asking because in Germany the term "international airport" is defined quite differently, it has nothing to do with customs or scheduled international flights, but is solely about who operates the ATC. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I've certainly never been arrested for saying it. --WikiTiki89 18:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm asking because if there's actually no common definition of "international airport", and it's just arbitrarily added to names of airports, we shouldn't have an entry on it. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I was making a joke based on the ambiguity of the word "legal". I don't know whether "international airport" is a legal term. --WikiTiki89 20:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
In Germany they use the English term international airport? Why? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 23:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I split some of the senses of international, included international airport as an example, and removed the ridiculously archaic-sounding "intercourse" bit. I probably oversplit it, TBH. Probably the first five defns can be merged. --Derrib9 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are translations entered, but maybe the definition needs tidying up. It's been here since 2009. DonnanZ (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


SoP --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


SoP --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Anatoli, I'm voting for keep for these terms, at least the Chinese words. They are high-importance words and would give much benefit to new learners and travellers. The Chinese term is also found in Ministry of Education's dictionary. Wyang (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
That's fine, no need to apologize. We don't have to agree on everything. ;) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't find the term in other common dictionaries. Perhaps we should define a list of Chinese dictionaries, which should be used as a guide for inclusion. It would make the process of RFD simpler for "pro-keep" voters. E.g. if a term is included in that dictionary, we can keep it. I support Lemming_test approach in handling RFD's and it would be especially useful for languages with scriptio continua. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

NCSA HTTPd[edit]

A particular Web server. Not famous. Equinox 21:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment it was very famous at the beginning of the WWW, it was the second ever web server, and developed with the first ever graphical web browser (NCSA Mosaic); in 1995 it had over 50% marketshare -- 05:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay sure, famous among computer people, but not in the general sense of famous among human beings. Equinox 09:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete - the software may be (or have been) famous, but this is a name, not a word. Keith the Koala (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, and if fame were a criterion why not an entry for Barack Obama? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)











Entered as translingual. Per #105 RFD discussion, later at Talk:105, where there seems to be unanimity except for one tongue-in-cheek keep. Sum of parts with no redeeming qualities. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete. These aren't words or idioms in any language. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete the lot. No translations, which is hardly surprising. DonnanZ (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. bd2412 T 20:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. DCDuring TALK 10:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 19:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


A 2012 misspelling entry by Romanophile. Policy: WT:CFI#Spellings. aqcuire,acquire at Google Ngram Viewer does not even find the spelling, so I think it does not qualify as a "common misspelling". --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Misspelling entries are becoming a problem IMO. Equinox 21:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete DCDuring TALK 03:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The bar for misspellings should be high, in my opinion, otherwise they will proliferate to a silly extent. Mihia (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe some people may actually mistakenly believe that this is the right spelling. Therefore, if it's attested, keep it. This is silly. Take it to RFV. If you guys have a problem with how misspellings are treated the same as regular words here, take it to BP so we don't have to go through discussions about misspellings time and time again. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
    Here the linked policy WT:CFI#Spellings again, from which I quote: "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included." The only question is whether this is a rare misspelling or a common one. RFV is not the right process: rare attested misspellings get deleted per policy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    Dan is 100% right, it's just not true that 'misspellings are treated the same as regular words'. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone interested in changing misspelling policy to exclude things that are specifically typos, i.e. the result of a misplaced finger on a keyboard, such as ciaplatin (for cisplatin) which SemperBlotto created yesterday? Equinox 10:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to think we don't need to, as a misspelling isn't a typo. But yes, essentially we need to clarify that a misspelling isn't the same as a typo. Nobody thinks the word cisplatin is spelled ciaplatin, it's just that 's' and 'a' are right next to each other on a qwerty keyboard. Cf Talk:derver. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I am not but maybe I am a minority. One reason is that we have what I think is a decent frequency criterion that gives us a good enough quantitative control. As for "ciaplatin", it would be excluded as a rare misspelling per (ciaplatin*1000),cisplatin at Google Ngram Viewer: ciaplatin not found at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


Unsupported_titles/Double_period stands for "..", obviously.

  • rfd-sense: (computing) The parent directory.
  • rfd-sense: (programming) A range operator in some programming languages, including Perl and Swift.

Deletion rationale: Not in use to convey meaning in natural language; not used in running text, only in source code. One example in the entry is this: Type "cd PhotosWallpapers" to go to the Wallpapers folder. Then you can type "cd .." to go to back to the Photos folder.‎ That is not use in natural language. A similar deletion rationale was used in a previous RFD now archived at Talk:Unsupported titles/Double period. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete per previous discussion. Equinox 18:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Plenty more of these to be found elsewhere, e.g. # is "the ID selector in CSS". Equinox 18:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep and add more programming language symbols. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you think your keep in based on CFI? Do you intend the Translingual in the entry to mean trans-programming language? 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? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
That is a direly needed thing, for the world in general, you must admit. Especially for users of this project who have the questionable pleasure of acquainting Lua... Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Some people also need to know how to change a tire, but that doesn't make it dictionary material. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Let's add JOptionPane (Java), std::cin (C++), equ (Win Batch), foreach (Perl). Above all, let's add all symbols such as $, &&, ==. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
That is an insane thing to say. Are you saying we should include every class name in the Java standard library? DTLHS (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
That's no less than insane (I chose the same word before the edit conflict with DTLHS above). JOptionPane isn't even a keyword but an API/framework class. Extending this to .NET, to take one lone example, we would be creating (undefinable!) entries for many thousands of classes such as XmlSerializer, ToolStripSeparatorRenderEventArgs and AsymmetricSignatureDeformatter. And that's before we get onto the property, method and constant names within each of those thousands of classes — just in .NET, not C++, Java or any of hundreds of other frameworks! Equinox 22:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
There's endless variation between programming languages in exactly what a given token "means", with a lot of it coming from the architectures of the different languages. Even details of the implementation of languages on different operating systems and of different versions/builds on the same system can make significant differences. This is a massive can of worms that should be avoided at all costs. Besides, this looks like a matter of operating systems rather than programming languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


  • rfd-sense: (programming, computing, networking)

This is in fact a heading for senses, the first of which is "Used as a space in e-mails." and example is "My email address is jon.smith@example.com"; for more of these senses, please see the entry.

My contention is that this is not "use" of the symbol to "convey meaning" in human language. In particular, my contention is that "point.x" in the C language to refer to member x of a structure is not a use for English Wiktionary's purpose.

A similar deletion rationale was used in a previous RFD now archived at Talk:Unsupported titles/Double period.

One way to phrase my deletion rationale is as a series of questions: 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? --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep and add more programming language symbols. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
IMO, delete all of these, for the reasons already rehearsed for .. (double dot). The only one that gives me pause is the domain-name separator, and that's only because of all the entries we have like .com, .mil, .tk: I personally think that such entries should not include the dot, since it is indeed a separator. Equinox 09:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Surely if we're going to have a sense for 'used in e-mail addresses' then we need a corresponding sense at a, b, c, d and so on. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean creating a new sense at a defined as "a letter used in e-mail addresses"? No, a is just a letter. There is as much reason to create that sense and separate senses saying: "a letter used in some names of people", "a letter used in some flavors of ice cream", etc. I'd oppose any of that. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I se your point. Delete sense: "Used to separate words in e-mails." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

nice round number[edit]

SoP nice + round number, where "nice" is used in a generic sense of approval (as in "nice warm bath", "nice hot cup of tea"). Equinox 22:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

ai po[edit]

Volapük, looks like an SOP. Remove link at aipo if this fails. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It can be deleted anyway, because it's the wrong form. The right form is connected, but I haven't found it used so far. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


"A delimiter used after the protocol in URLs" (as in http://). Not human language. I can't even begin to imagine anyone picking this out of a URL as a specific element and looking it up in a dictionary to see what it means. Equinox 12:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep Delete but add a new sense at ":" meaning "protocol delimiter", for the same reasons we keep "@" as:
  1. (computing) The symbol used as a separator between a username and a domain name in an e-mail address ("at" the domain name).
    My e-mail address is psychonaut@example.com.
There are people who are not aware of how URLs work and may wonder why they have a colon and two slashes at the beginning. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
There are people who wonder what happens if you mix ammonia and bleach (don't try it!), but we don't need to include that in a dictionary either. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
That was funny. I agree that what happens if you mix ammonia and bleach is not dictionary material. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
delete, the definition is actually completely wrong. The delimiter (after the protocol name) would be just the colon, the double slashes that come after that start a URI path. As such it is possible to have links in webpages that start with // and the browser will automatically fill in http: or https: depending on whether you're currently using a secure connection or not. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. We have a related networking sense at // which could be further edited with that information. The entry : does not have the "protocol delimiter" sense... I'm not willing to add it now, because the inclusion of computing symbols is under discussion, but it can be added eventually if people agree. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete. In addition to what Pedrianaplant said above, this is not used in human language. --WikiTiki89 13:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
"Human language" as opposed to what? URLs are for people to read and use. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Not primarily. Humans do not instinctively think in phone numbers or URLs; we have to mentally map "Bob's new mobile number" or "the address of that funny blog" to a phone number or URL in order to use a system, to which that format is native. Equinox 14:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
We have ("figure dash") defined as "Used to separate digits in telephone numbers." Admittedly, I'm partially responsible for that definition -- I believe the entry did not make a lot of sense before I edited it. Feel free to see the history for yourself. You mentioned telephone numbers. Is the figure dash definition not acceptable? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I too was going to use the example of phone numbers. Phone numbers are for people to read, right? Are they words or idioms? Do we want entries for all attestable phone numbers? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we're not on the same page. Creating entries for phone numbers feels like creating entries for specific website URLs. The way I see it, a phone number like 555-1234 could be interpreted as simlply a SOP of 5 5 5 - 1 2 3 4. The figure dash () appears to be used in telephone numbers, and personally I would expect that dash to be kept as an entry. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Well what about pictures? Pictures can convey information, shall we include those too? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
In User talk:Equinox#emoji monster, I discussed some of my opinions concerning emoji and pictographs. I support deleting most of our emoji entries that only have the Unicode codepoint name as their definition. I support keeping those that are correctly attested in running text. Either way, they are not the same as URL delimiters. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
The :// is actually composed of : (protocol delimiter) and // (network root symbol) and they just come together in URLs. As sometimes you can see :\\ (backslashes) either. --Octahedron80 (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

marine mammal[edit]

SOP: A mammal that is marine. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. Yes, it's SoP, but far more useful than Le God. DonnanZ (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    Sadly, utility is not in CFI. In any event we would have a hard time directly determining utility. DCDuring TALK 12:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • keep --Hekaheka (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete as undefendable under CFI. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
That was a bit parrot-like; of course it's defendable. DonnanZ (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Many marine crustaceans aren't wholly marine either, but we have no entry for that. Polar bears, as far as I am aware, aren't typically thought of as marine mammals, so I question the value of the definition as it stands. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    Aren't they? There's a picture of a polar bear front and center at Marine mammal#Taxonomy. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    Hmmm...perhaps it's more common to include them now than it used to be (a lot of what I've read about animals is older). I still maintain my vote, however, but on the grounds that "marine" can refer to something that lives off of or is found near the sea, rather than being limited those things that are found within it, making the term entirely SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blatant SoP. Mihia (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
How do you define "blatant"? ethnic group and nuclear power are also SoP, this term is no more outrageous or blatant than those. DonnanZ (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe I need to define an English word that I am using with its normal meaning. I'm also not sure that "other stuff exists" is a good argument. Having said that, "nuclear power" seems more justifiable since "nuclear" can refer to a number of different things. It is not necessarily obvious, if you don't already know, that it is referring to the nucleus of an atom rather than the nucleus of something else. I don't see how there could be any such uncertainty about "marine mammal". Mihia (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would this SOP entry be useful to keep translations, at least? Maybe it could be kept for this reason. I call it SOP because its meaning can be understood perfectly from the entries marine and mammal alone. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
It is hard to know sometimes what is considered as acceptable SoP or unacceptable SoP until some deletionist slaps an RFD label on it, and the anti-SoP policy practised by some may discourage a lot of worthy entries. Any SoP name for a species seems to be accepted without question, e.g. flying fish, bird of paradise, sea otter, sea turtle, and personally I don't see any harm in an entry for a classification of mammals that live in a marine environment, even if they belong to several species. DonnanZ (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
In fact any English dictionary that didn't contain SoP entries would be a very poor dictionary indeed. DonnanZ (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd be interested to see an argumentation showing that bird of paradise is SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I would never query it myself, I was merely quoting it as an example. DonnanZ (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm with DonnanZ in that we have so many useless sops that one useful doesn't really matter. Take this beauty as an example: "two hundred and twenty-four". --Hekaheka (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, there have been RFD discussions created to eliminate entries for those sorts of numbers. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Question: is there a specific grouping of mammals that "marine mammal" encompasses? Or is there variation in usage as to what is understood to be included? Do some people exclude polar bears from the group (I believe that they often do), or pinnipeds? If this is a well-defined category of mammals, then I might change my vote to "keep." Otherwise, I see it as just being "mammals that are marine." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I tried to define this in the entry. Whales, dolphins and porpoises never leave the water, though whales sometimes beach themselves and die as a result. Pinnipeds do leave the water, but spend most of their time in the sea. Then there's quadrupeds such as polar bears and sea otters which have cousins living in other environments. I think that is the borderline group, but they are regarded as marine mammals because of where they live, not because they belong to a particular family of mammals. DonnanZ (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
In retrospect, there seems to be three main groups of marine mammal. It is much easier to define what is a seabird, waterbird or wading bird. DonnanZ (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, some marine mammals belong to wholly-marine species, while other species have both marine and non-marine populations, and there are some species that can live in both marine and freshwater environments. Defining whether a given taxon is marine or not can be problematic, since some have no adaptations specific to marine conditions and only go into the water when they happen to be at the coast.
Please explain how the first instance of the word "marine" differs from all the other instances in the previous paragraph, aside from modifying a noun that it alliterates with and being paired with that noun in a Wiktionary entry. I suspect that vague impression that the two are a unit that comes from the alliteration may be influencing some of the "keep" votes. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
It would only include species of mammal that habitually live in seawater, regardless of taxon. I have already tried to explain that. You wouldn't include a dog or horse that is running through the surf (a seadog or seahorse is not a mammal, and has a different meaning), or any mammal, such as a hippo, that habitually lives in fresh water. DonnanZ (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per ChuckE. DCDuring TALK 01:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

sea mammal[edit]

SOP just like #marine mammal. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete as undefendable under CFI. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless there are some clearly defined boundaries regarding what does and doesn't fall into this category of animals. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete DCDuring TALK 01:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain: I would like to keep this but cannot find a good enough rationale. The current translations in marine mammal are word-for-word translated compounds so they do not contribute to my version of translation target rationale: Finnish merinisäkäs, German Meeressäuger, Norwegian sjøpattedyr; there is Hebrew which I cannot figure out quickly; I wonder about Japanese "海獣" which seems to be "marine animal" rather than "marine mammal" from its parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

hosts file[edit]

Unless I missed something this should die the same slow painful death as .htaccess file did. It's a file called "hosts", the rest is encyclopedic information. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I would say keep, providing it's correct. It may be useful for those who aren't familiar with computing terms. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something hosts doesn't cover this. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
It's a file that lists hosts (see host), like how a "pictures folder" might be a folder containing pictures. However, the fact that it maps host names to IP addresses makes it possibly more than SoP. Equinox 15:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Does it? If I save a file in my My Documents folder with the name "hosts", does it map host names to IP addresses? By that logic .htaccess file would be idiomatic and so desktop.ini file, config.sys file, autoexec.bat file and don't even get me started. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
A sysadmin would not recognise any old random file called hosts as being a "hosts file". It's not like "brown leaf". (BTW, I don't read this as "hosts" file but as hosts file. Compare help file: it's a file that contains help, not a file that is called "help".) Equinox 17:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

ad hominem argument[edit]

ad hominem + argument. Equinox 17:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete, but what of argument ad hominem, is that immune because of the unusual postpositive nature of ad hominem? Renard Migrant (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd say it isn't immune because in that case ad hominem is operating adverbially, not adjectivally. It's usual to put an adverb phrase after a noun. Equinox 13:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey I actually agree with Purple for once. Redirect is the smart idea. Equinox 21:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Redirect makes the most sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete. SOP. An ad hominem is a type of argument. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Purp. DCDuring TALK 10:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


SOP --YURi (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Defined as "to have luck" and the sum is มี ‎(“to have”) +‎ โชค ‎(“luck”). --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@YURi Would you consider มีโชคดี ‎(mii-chôok-dii, lucky, fortunate) (มี ‎(mii) + โชค ‎(chôok) + ดี ‎(dii)) as a term that we should create and keep?
Please note that มีโชค ‎(mii-chôok) is included in SEAlang Library Thai Lexicography. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


SOP --YURi (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


doesnt exist --Bigbossfarin (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Normally I'd say "take it to RFV", but since you are the creator and sole editor and you yourself moved it to spearke, I've deleted it as "created in error". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


This is not a common noun as the entry suggests, but the name of a specific law passed under Nazi German rule. We shouldn't have names of laws as entries. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Um, why not if it's of historical interest? Etymology needs to be added, breaking the term up. DonnanZ (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
    It sure looks like a common noun. Can you prove it's a law? It's not exactly like the Offences against the Person Act now is it. Keep, obviously. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Verordnung means "regulation, ordinance, statutory instrument". I checked some articles that I could read over internet and it appears this actually is the name of a piece of legislation. To be more exact it's short (!) for "die Verordnung über die Beschränkung des Arbeitsplatzwechsels" [15] which was issued on Sept. 1st 1939 in order to control the change of employment during the WWII--Hekaheka (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

cuilén caitt[edit]

I iz sad you iz thinkin of deletin me.

It's very hard to delete a kitten (how could I delete a cute fluffy kitten?) but it's also SoP. It's just "cub/whelp" and the genitive of "cat". —CodeCat 19:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Gently remove the kitten from the dictionary. He can come live at my place. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
So it's a male kitten and not female? DonnanZ (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
cuilén is grammatically masculine, but I suspect Old Irish speakers wouldn't have been too fussy about the sex of the kitten referred to with this term. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I see. Well, kitten isn't SoP at all, so providing it's correct I don't see any harm in keeping this. DonnanZ (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
We judge SoPness in the language, not in English. —CodeCat 14:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Nobody's proposing we delete kitten. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete and give it to me! It's my kitten! PseudoSkull (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete but keep cat food in case the kitten is hungry. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 19:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, kitty, deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

go potty[edit]

go pee, go number one and go number two have been deleted per https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:go_number_two. time to delete this as well. —This unsigned comment was added by 2602:306:3653:8440:9b7:5598:56dc:2b84 (talk) at 22:56, 12 October 2016.

Keep. Idiomatic. It's actually akin to go to the bathroom. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep I think?! You can "go potty" but you can't "go toilet" or "go the gent's" or "go facilities". It might need a childish gloss. Equinox 00:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@User:Equinox It already has a childish gloss. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I think very young children say "Go bed!", "Go walk!", "Go wee wee!" and numerous others. I think "go potty" is just one example of this kind of simplified speech, not an idiomatic expression in its own right. Mihia (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but "go potty" is used by people old enough that they no longer say "go bed" or "go walk". Keep. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, I didn't know that. I assumed from the "childish" label that it was meant as something said by young children. Mihia (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
It is, but not exclusively. It's also used by adults when they're being playfully childish. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
And aside from that, it's such a common expression that, even if it's ever so slightly SOP, go + potty, it should still be deemed by us at Wiktionary as idiomatic. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The omission of "to the" makes this idiomatic. You don't go a place (go bedroom, go car) and it's not a process like pee or poop. Keep Renard Migrant (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of course. Renard Migrant's argument is particularly persuasive. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • On the basis of this, which shows no measurable hits in BrE (possibly why I have never heard of it, other than as generic baby-speak), perhaps it needs a "US" label. I'm assuming that the phrase "need to go potty" will near enough eliminate interference from the other meaning. Mihia (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
    No, I've never heard this in the UK. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Equinox Purplebackpack89 01:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • RFD kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

dans un temps donné[edit]

For the same reason that at a given time is a redlink. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Is the meaning right? Dans in this sense is 'during' not 'at' (I have imported that meaning from fr:dans#fr) so it ought to mean during a given time. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: You may well be right, but wouldn't it still be SOP in that case? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
delete nothing special about this. --Fsojic (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


A misspelling entry by Semper. Policy: WT:CFI#Spellings. ciaplatin,cisplatin at Google Ngram Viewer does not even find the spelling, so I think it does not qualify as a "common misspelling". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy. Not even a misspelling, it's a typo. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I add these (from Visviva's lists) if there are more than 1,000 simple Google hits. There are about 1,500 hits for this one. What is our policy on misspellings? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I suspect that sometimes an "s" is misread as an "a" by a scanner. DonnanZ (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
A and S are also adjacent on a keyboard. Damningly, the document is full of the correct spelling cisplatin, showing that this was a one-off typo/scanno and not even somebody's personal idea of the correct spelling. Delete. Equinox 11:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
We do not have an agreed policy on when a misspelling is rare. My personal policy that applies only to my votes is based on relative frequency or frequency ratio, not absolute frequency. As for absolute frequency, google books:"ciaplatin" gives me only 8 results. The data I use for acceptable frequency ratio are at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. I consider the frequency ratio of 1000 to be good enough for common misspelling but do not have a clear idea of a threshold. Once Google Ngram Viewer does not find a spelling at all, it cannot be used to determine the relative frequency, and I usually consider the spelling to be a rare misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Some of those hits have both spellings, another is a scanno, so I think they can be discounted. I don't think scannos and typos count as misspellings, so yes, delete. DonnanZ (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


Not a suffix, any more than blue-eyed, five-fingered, poorly-chosen, etc. Equinox 13:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I tried it in Oxford [16]. It is just a hyphen added in compounds of shaped. There's some unpicking to be done. DonnanZ (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with both of you. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

myeloid cell[edit]

Sum of parts? (any cell made in the bone marrow) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC) wel,no,fe.fibroblast(presntinmarowncausingmyPMFasefectorcel=NOTconsiderdasM.CEL(butasCONECTIVTISUECEL)~(metastaticfe.liver)cancercelinblood=NOTbloodcel(similarCONCPT),c?ta4elpw/restho!:) 17:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Die Grünen[edit]

Proper name of a political party. Delete per precedent case Republican Party. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It's the German name of many political parties. We should probably add them all (as many as we can) though I'd be happy with deletion as well. In terms of WT:NSE I don't find these any more entry-worthy than the names of famous buildings, though we do have some of those, which is why I'm not actually advocating deletion. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep. It's entry-worthy. DonnanZ (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
It's actually a short for several parties, the official name of the German party for instance is Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, and was the name of that party's predecessor in West Germany. It seems that it's more often used as "die Grünen" however. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

hereditary elliptocytosis[edit]

Sum of parts - hereditary elliptocytosis. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

sigh=diseasENTITY,haSYN,etyetc(juslook@DEF<folowzfrPARTS??(medicin'dbEASY~that..(fe.CAUSE,malaria-resistance<knownfrPARTS?linguisticR/=4here,rest4wp81.11.206.29 17:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
wot=difrnsw/abetalipoproteinemia?<aSPACE,idungetitsmh81.11.206.29 17:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
We don't expect folks to analyze any spelled-solid words into components, let alone those composed from elements from other languages. This leads to some silly inclusions on occasion (eg, many of the words beginning in non- and un-), but forms a bright line that reduces the number of RfDs. DCDuring TALK 10:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Aren't all elliptocytoses hereditary? DCDuring TALK 22:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep. A synonym or perhaps alternative form. (A search ""elliptocytosis" -"hereditary elliptocytosis"" yields 4400 hits, versus 5310 for "hereditary elliptocytosis".) It was described before it was found to be hereditary, if that explains anything.— Pingkudimmi 01:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep per Pingku. DCDuring TALK 10:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

thyroid's secretory capacity[edit]

Sum of parts. The part of the meaning not strictly derived from the meanings of the parts is derivable from the context and from encyclopedic information about thyroid function: if you know that thyroxine is what the thyroid produces, then you know what this term means. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep. The meaning of the term is not clear from the parts. Secretory capacity is often mixed-up with secretion rate. Both are measured in mol/sec or multiples. The secretory capacity is, however, defined as the maximum stimulated amount of thyroxine that the thyroid gland can produce in a given time-unit, while secretory rate is the current instantaneous amount of thyroxine produced by the thyroid.--Jwdietrich2 (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
But that's also true of "the secretory capacity of the thyroid" or even "the secretory capacity of that thing in the neck that produced hormones". You're just stating a fact about how one measures the secretory capacity of the thyroid, not defining a term. In fact, I just checked on Google Books and Google Scholar: between them there are 10 hits for this spelling. This isn't a set phrase or a standard term- it's just a paraphrase of more common ways to say this. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Encyclopedic and SoP. We are not the short-attention-span edition of Wikipedia. DCDuring TALK 22:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
lung capacity? lung volume? DTLHS (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I've always considered it bad form to systematically go after all the SoP entries, but I'd make an exception for those used in defense of an SoP entry. DCDuring TALK 10:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete sum of parts with an obvious meaning. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete per DCDuring. - -sche (discuss) 19:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

colour television[edit]

black-and-white television[edit]

Color television is television in color and black-and-white television is television in black-and-white. Also the etymology is very doubtful or would black-and-white movie be a retronym of movie because at some point in history all movies were black and white? -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep for translations. —CodeCat 19:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep: The terms may be idiomatic as they describe the colour of the image shown on the television and not the colour of the TV set itself. — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep both, and color television too. DonnanZ (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete both. --WikiTiki89 14:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep both. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Were the old monitors that had green or orange characters on black background called black-and-white? I know that they were called monochrome. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I need shampoo[edit]

Common household object, covered by I need .... (According to Talk:I need shampoo, it should be "I need some shampoo" if kept.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't really see the point of RFDing individual phrasebookisms. Equinox 00:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Why not? I believe we don't need "I need shampoo" as a separate entry, so apparently I have 3 options: RFDing it, speedying it or leaving it alone. The first option seemed to make more sense to me. Or maybe speedying. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
If the consensus says that it's covered by "I need..." then we should just delete all "I need X" outright. Equinox 00:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Is that the consensus? I don't think that was ever decided by discussion... I checked Special:WhatLinksHere/I_need_... and just found some individual RFDs that failed. But at least I think that nobody cares for most "I need" entries, which does sound consensus-ish. I think I'll speedy them all (I need a guide, I need toothpaste, I need gas, etc.) and leave only I need ... and I need a drink (which passed RFD recently). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that the phrasebook ("I don't speak French, but I'm in France and I want to be able to say something") is the one possible good case for having SoP entries. Someone who's stuck with a flat tyre, or no toothpaste, will not thank us for having a translation of "I need..." and ellipsis. Equinox 01:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought that your previous message [the one from 00:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)] implied that you agreed with the idea of deleting all "I need X" outright. And your comment in Talk:I need a compass suggests you see some utility in having I need .... But now it seems that you would prefer them to be kept? Me, I think I need ... is pretty useless because it's still an incomplete sentence that requires a noun to be added, so it's not incredibly more helpful than just I + need. But I also don't think that we need a separate entry for "I need" + every possible object, so the I need ... is the best option we have for now, in my opinion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Just delete the entire stupid phrasebook and start again with useful entries. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
In a Phrasebook: namespace. - TheDaveRoss 12:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The phrasebook is great, IMO. Just some entries are garbage. Admittedly, I created I need shampoo in 2010. Now I'd like to delete that entry. Here is not the place to discuss having a "Phrasebook:" namespace, and other policies that affect all PB entries. I think we should be answering the question: As long as we have some phrasebook entries, would this one qualify? I think not. I'm still going to speedy all the aforementioned entries if it's OK with everyone. If there's any doubt or controversy, I can keep RFDing one by one, if that's better. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't need this entry. I'm bald. --Hekaheka (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Haha! I'm far from being bald, but I see no value in keeping this entry. DonnanZ (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
WP:BEBALD. Equinox 10:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

hot plate[edit]

Rfd-sense "A hot meal." This is hot + plate (the latter in a more figurative sense). --WikiTiki89 18:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsure but I think this is at least regional. To me it suggests the hotplate (some kind of portable stove maybe). I don't think UK English generally has "plate" meaning "a dish or prepared meal"; same goes for things like blue-plate special. Equinox 00:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Whether it's regional or not, it's surely SOP. I doubt that this sense is related to hotplate and I'm willing to bet it's pronounced hot PLATE (the SOP pronunciation) rather than HOT plate (the compound noun pronunciation). --WikiTiki89 15:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with Equinox in that a "hot plate of chips" is perfectly good British English, although "a hot plate" on its own wouldn't suggest food. Also "we're having pasta; do you fancy a plate?" clearly refers to a plate of pasta rather than just a plate on its own. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I have never heard of a hot meal being called a hot plate. DonnanZ (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it ever used to mean "hot dish", as in French plat chaud or Spanish plato caliente? --Hekaheka (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Wrong simplified form for 什麼甚麼 (shénme). Should only be 什么. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Justinrleung, Wyang: deleted, but the templates {{zh-der}} (see "") and {{zh-x}} (see "沙發") are automatically generating the link and so need to be changed. See "Special:WhatLinksHere/甚么". — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I've changed them to 什麼. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of rearvision mirror[edit]

Repeat of already existing page TI121695 (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, you were the creator. Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


Tagged a couple of weeks ago by User:Ballot man jr but not listed here. Equinox 11:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it attestable? I'm not keen on the hyphen, and prefer diarist anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Most of what I can find is unhyphenated, except:
  • Joanne Tidwell, 2008, Politics and Aesthetics in The Diary of Virginia Woolf, p. 42: Woolf wants the diary-writer to consider her days and activities and evaluate political and current events. (isbn=1135905053)
  • Margaret Atwood, 2002, Negotiating with the Dead: A Writer on Writing, p. 126: If he were, either you'd be talking together, or he'd catch you in the act. For whom does the writer write? The question poses itself most simply in the case of the diary-writer or journal-keeper. (isbn=0521662605) --Hekaheka (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
It could be moved to diary writer. I'm wondering whether it's used in contexts where the word diarist isn't appropriate. DonnanZ (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. It is a writer of a diary, how obvious can you get? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
You're missing my point. When do you use diary writer instead of diarist? It reminds me of the accordion player entry. DonnanZ (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

gay club & gay bar[edit]

gay (sense 4.3) makes them both SoP; --Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep for translations, at least, since many languages have a one-word term for these. bd2412 T 14:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete, simple stuff, the translations of course will be unaffected by this. Apart from splitting the links. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep per BD2412, even though I hate the places. DonnanZ (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps we should discuss the translations issue in more general terms. If we apply the translation argument consistently, we probably end up keeping vast majority of the English SOP terms, because there will almost always be a language or languages (such as German, Russian, Swedish and Finnish) in which the translation is a single word. We may not need to think that way, though. As an example, if one would want translations for "wound ointment" the base assumption is that the translation is of the form trans(wound) + trans(ointment). To find any existing single word translations, one can type "wound ointment" in the search box and press <enter>. If you do, you'll find out that currently the only single-word translation for "wound ointment" is Finnish (aren't you surprised!) haavavoide. On the other hand a separate entry for "wound ointment" would bring the additional benefit that one could add also redlinked translations such as Swedish sårsalva. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

There have been, I believe, some conversations in the past about including translation targets based on their being single-word translations in some threshold number of languages. No rule has ever been formally proposed following from these. bd2412 T 15:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2015#Let's draft a vote for CFI translation criteria 2 contains a current draft of criteria that I and bd2412 were working on. Accoring to these, the following does not contribute to translation target: 'a closed compound that is a word-for-word translation of the English term: German Autoschlüssel does not qualify to support the English "car key"; or'. According to that, Finnish "haavavoide" does not count. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Good! That gives us a rule. Then, I guess, "gay bar" should go. All translations, including Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Thai, fail to fulfil the condition. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Another thought brought about by your answer: shouldn't we have "ignition key"? --Hekaheka (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
gaybar exists so, if it's legitimate, that could pass gay bar per WT:COALMINE, right? Equinox 18:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Per Equinox, delete gay club but not gar bay. Simple SoP and it's a shame that the rules can be overturned by voting. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete gay club per Equinox, but keep gay bar. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


Rare earache form. Only in one text, I think: Lucy Montgomery. Equinox 16:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Not a word. --WikiTiki89 21:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

In this case, who cares? It's attested, and people might wanna know what it is and what it means. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The entry doesn't say what it means, only when it's used... Equinox 21:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that kind of the point of some entries? PseudoSkull (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
You could compare this to entries like doggo, which, in one etymology, is only used in lie doggo. Except for the fact that the term it's only used in has too many variants to have an entry, i.e. "How do you spell icup?", "Spell icup for me.", "Spell icup.", etc. So by those standards, this merits an entry. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
We recently had an "only used in" which was, in fact, deleted for that reason: it wasn't a proper entry. I don't see your point about spelling, either. "How would you spell quirkafleeg?" doesn't mandate an entry for that. Equinox 09:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete, especially if we don't cater for words coined in fun; one I remember is MTGG (a hungry horse). DonnanZ (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Send to RFV to see if there are any uses that actually meet the use/mention distinction. If the term is only ever used where its meaning is immediately explained, then it is doubtful to say that it is used in print. bd2412 T 12:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
It does rather seems to fail WT:CFI line 1 "all words in all languages" as not a word in any language. It does not say "all jokes in all languages". Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Our own dictionary defines word as "The smallest unit of language which has a particular meaning and can be expressed by itself; the smallest discrete, meaningful unit of language"; the question in this case is whether this has a particular meaning that can be expressed by itself. bd2412 T 15:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
According to icup itself, no, it doesn't. Which is why I don't favor RFV as any citations found must necessarily fail the use-mention distinction. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I can envision, at least hypothetically, a scenario where someone uses "icup" as a word with the intent of asking another person to spell it, but never gets around to asking for the spelling. Frankly, I think that it is unlikely that we will find any, but I also think that questions of verifiability should be settled before addressing whether the term, if verified with CFI-worthy citations, should have an entry. bd2412 T 20:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure, why not, worst that can happen is it fails 3 weeks later than it really ought to. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
It also places the burden of providing citations on those who would keep the entry. bd2412 T 04:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I opened WT:RFV#icup to find quotations, if any. I am not closing this RFD, though; it may be needed to close the matter if quotations are found over which dispute arises. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The joke doesn't even work. I would answer "E-Y-E-C-U-P" to the question. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Localised Finnish version of the joke: Juha and Johan are sitting in the sauna. Johan says "Juha, how would you spell icup?" Juha says "be serious man, we have only twelve litres of Koskenkorva and three hours until sunrise." Equinox 10:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
You are mean!! --Hekaheka (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

no fucking worries[edit]

The intensifier "fucking" can be inserted into many phrases: "no fucking problem", for example. DTLHS (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine, I get it, but wouldn't an entry make sense if we have no wucking furries? (This mass creation is miserable for the whole wuck- root but it's necessary since they're all attested) PseudoSkull (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so- the etymology can be explained without creating the entry. DTLHS (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete. It can be inserted even into non-idiomatic phrases, e.g. "there's no fucking milk left in the fridge, Wonderfool! you promised you'd get some! I'm going to kill your scrawny arse". Which I totally didn't say to my flatmate yesterday. Equinox 03:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Your roommate is Wonderfool??? Lmao, you should block him from your household. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Ugh, delete. There is already an entry for no worries, no need for this. DonnanZ (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete basically per all, as SoP os no worries and fucking. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete as a mistaken entry. And whoever deletes it, please delink it in all the pages I mass created for no wuckas. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep, set form where "fucking" has no particular meaning or function. Siuenti (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
See fucking#Adjective. - -sche (discuss) 19:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Compare "I have no fucking issue with deleting this", "no fucking problem", etc. - -sche (discuss) 19:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I fucking agree that it should be Deleted. Mihia (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


A 2011 rare misspelling entry by Romanophile. Governed by WT:CFI#Spellings.

enspection, inspection at Google Ngram Viewer does not even find the spelling so no frequency ratio = count(inspection) /count(enspection) can be determined. Delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I suppose this should be an RFV. I recently changed it to a misspelling while checking plurals etc. I think Romanophile created a ton of en- forms for in- words at some stage and they might not all be legitimate. Equinox 10:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we should just keep it as obsolete spelling like these two: enform, entention. All three are mentioned in this source [17]. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

frame work knitter[edit]

A rare misspelling entry. Governed by WT:CFI#Spellings.

frame work knitter,framework knitter at Google Ngram Viewer does not even find the spelling so no frequency ratio = count(framework knitter) / count(frame work knitter) can be determined. I am not sure this is attested since google books:"frame work knitter" finds hyphenated occurrences. Delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


A 2016‎ rare misspelling entry by Romanophile. Governed by WT:CFI#Spellings.

(angery*10000), angry at Google Ngram Viewer yields the approximate frequency ratio of 10 000 which is too high for common misspellings, by my lights. For ratio calibration, see User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Only the very rifest misspellings should be included, else wherever would it end. Mihia (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


SOP: 蓬萊 + (city). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Redirect Siuenti (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

pay dividends[edit]

This is a lousy entry anyway, created to house a POV quote and poorly defined. More to the point here, there are a number of expressions using the metaphor of beneficial results from some metaphorical investment (an action, time and effort, etc.) as a dividend, so this is SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Possible keep. There may be something in this, if it's expanded a bit - looking at Oxford [18] (sense 1.3). It gives some examples. It's a different meaning to pay a dividend. DonnanZ (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
    I think dividend is used in the figurative sense in both the singular and the plural with pay and in other collocations.
Delete. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Citations demonstrating figurative use of dividend with pay appear under sense 3 of dividend. Do we need to show figurative use of pay with other objects too? Both "figurative" uses seem kind of obvious, widespread use. DCDuring TALK 22:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I've always considered this an idiom, and I'm surprised we've not had it at all until now. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
But there is abundant use of the figurative sense of dividends. Pay + dividends is just a common collocation, carrying over from the literal to the fgurative use of dividend(s). DCDuring TALK 14:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
It might help to list some of them (often with modifiers): repaid, brought, bore, realized, ensured, reaped, yielded, derived, there were, had, etc. Basically, we're looking at a metaphor that's expressed in a number of ways. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Right, I withdraw my objection (to the deletion) in the face of evidence. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Idiomatic enough. But the "If something ..., then ..." style of definition is horrible. Mihia (talk)

All of Reconstruction:Lombardic[edit]

Is this not just OHG? It certainly looks like it. —CodeCat 20:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you mean to post this at rfm? Or maybe rfdo? Chuck Entz (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
OHG is Old High German, for those who don't know. And the Reconstruction: namespace actually automatically comes here not to WT:RFDO as they are considered 'entries'. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I suppose what's nominated for deletion is the contents of CAT:Lombardic lemmas. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
There's many badly formatted entries that are missing from that category. —CodeCat 18:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
All pages starting Reconstruction:Lombardic/ are now in CAT:Lombardic lemmas. Is Lombardic attested at all, or is it solely reconstructed? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. What I do know is that the reconstructions look suspiciously indistinguishable from Old High German. Moreover, they're missing some of the characteristic Upper German sound changes like b > p. —CodeCat 20:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
And there's still more being added, which are missing the category. @-sche As our primary language classifier, what is your stance on this? Should Lombardic be merged into OHG? —CodeCat 22:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@Angr: a number of isolated main-namespace-worthy words and names are attested in inscriptions and in Latin texts. The language is also thought to be the ancestor of many Italian words, including pairs like banca and panca borrowed before and after the b/p sound change, which means an etymology code would be useful if we retire the languge code.
@CodeCat: scholars are divided on the matter. Some do consider it a dialect of Old High German, but others emphasize that records are too fragmentary to be certain whether the language was part of that continuum. There are differences between OHG and the Lombardic reconstructions which I see, e.g. OHG scina vs Lombardic *skinko, OHG wanga vs Lombardic *wankja (both reconstructions found in Ti Alkire, Carol Rosen, Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction). It is not even certain that Lombardic experienced the entirety of the High German consonant shift. A conservative approach would probably keep it separate. - -sche (discuss) 01:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
All of that can be explained away by other means. *skinko is simply a different word belonging to a particular outlier dialect, nothing really special going on there. *wankja is just *wangja with the g > k change, and the j is preserved because it's an earlier form. Likewise, not all of the consonant shift was experienced because of the early date. The Lombardic runic attestations still have þ, for example, but so do early OHG texts in general. —CodeCat 01:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Full Italian dictionaries always distinguish the origins of Germanic borrowings because they came in distinct phases. For example, bindolo, eribanno and grinfia are from OHG while spalto, guancia and atticciato are from Longobardic/Lombardic. (Sorry that we don't have entries for all of these words; I have not worked on Italian much here.) Excluding modern languages, Lombardic is probably the most significant Germanic influence on Italian; probably 2% of the word families are from Lombardic, whereas it will be very significantly less than 1% for Gothic or (direct) OHG, and perhaps just over 1% for Franconian/Frankish. We distinguish English borrowings from Old Danish from those from Old Norse for similar reasons. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are proposing, but it would be inappropriate to relabel Lombardic borrowings as OHG borrowings on the basis of a phonetic argument. Isomorphyc (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
But phonetics is one main method by which linguists distinguish languages, though they call them isoglosses. From what I can tell, there is no isogloss separating OHG from Lombardic. The only difference I see is that Lombardic is simply older, and thus lacks some of the features that later appear in OHG, but that just makes it an early dialect of OHG and not an entirely separate language. —CodeCat 18:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Can we pretend they are different Ausbau languages, if phonological data do not exist to distinguish them as Abstand languages? This is a very common situation, and they do have different ISO codes. The political and chronological information in the Italian etymologies is too conventional and to important to obscure for this reason. Can we at a minimum recategorise Lombardic as West Germanic, or possibly even add a level to the hierarchy within West Germanic? Isomorphyc (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia also considers it an OHG dialect. I see no reason to treat them separately. Convention is not a good enough reason. —CodeCat 19:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: According to Wikipaedia, Swedish and Norwegian would be considered dialects if one were to use purely linguistic criteria. This is why the concept of Ausbau and Abstand langauges is relevant. It is regarded in Italy as a language associated with the Kingdom of the Lombards, and even if you cannot find phonetic differences, you will easily find proper names, including place names, were are not words in other Germanic languages. This is more-or-less the criterion which separates the modern Scandinavian languages. The distinction is political but to ignore it would make certain Italian etymologies unacceptably confusing. Isomorphyc (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily; we could still treat Lombardic as an etymology-only variety of OHG, like Vulgar, Late, and Medieval Latin are etymology-only varieties of Latin. That way if any Lombardic words mentioned in Italian etymologies happen to be attested in OHG, we wouldn't need reconstruction pages for them. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, @Angr:. Is this okay with you, @CodeCat? I wouldn't object. Any attested Lombardic words can just have {{lb|goh|Lombardic}}. Isomorphyc (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. —CodeCat 21:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I made a small list of apparently attested Lombardic words, and have made some changes at Module:etymology languages/data, at zacchera, and at zahar, since zahar seems to be attested (I haven't marked Reconstruction:Lombardic/zahar for deletion yet since this is a prototype). If this seems generally liked, I can do this for all of the Lombardic entries. In that case, it would be possible for somebody to remove the m["lng"] = (...) statement from Module:languages/data3/l. Thank you all for your attention to this; I do this the present arrangement is an unmitigated improvement. Isomorphyc (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
"lng" is no longer a regular language at Module:languages/data3/l, but only an etymology-only language at Module:etymology languages/data. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat Just so I don't make the same mistake again, what does the right-arrow which you added to the Italian descendent line mean in milzi? Thanks, Isomorphyc (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
We tend to put arrows in descendant lists to indicate borrowings, though I wouldn't call it a mistake to omit the arrow. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Angr: Thanks. I'm willing to go with the convention if this has already been discussed, but I wouldn't normally consider these as borrowings. Old Italian is often dated as anything prior to St Francis, Dante, or the Accademia della Crusca (i.e., prior to 1200-1600). Hence, OHG and Lombardic influences are inherited from Old Italian. Absent that somewhat unnecessary level of granularity, I think it is better to use {{der}}. Ultimately, the pre-Renaissance Germanic borrowings are integral parts of the Italian language. Many Italians will not be aware they are not Latin. Isomorphyc (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Edit: Either way, I acknowledge the arrow makes sense in the ancestor entry; my question is about which template to use in the Italian etymology. Isomorphyc (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, we don't treat Old Italian as a separate language from Italian; it's an etymology-only variant of Italian. So if the Old Italian is spelled differently, we could say the modern Italian word is inherited from the Old Italian word (which will have its own ==Italian== entry), which in turn is a borrowing from the Lombardic word; but if the Old Italian is spelled the same as the modern Italian, it won't have a separate entry, so we basically are left with no other option than to call the modern Italian word a borrowing from Lombardic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation; I agree this is a reasonably acceptable convention. Isomorphyc (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, you can't. The templates throw an error if you try to inherit a term from a variety of the same language. By design. —CodeCat 20:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

accd'g to[edit]

And create an entry at accd'g. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

My first instinct was to simply move it to accd'g, leaving a redirect, but now I'm not so sure. Is the abbreviation "accd'g" ever used without the "to" after it? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Irrespective of whether it is used without "to", accd'g is the lexical unit at issue, the "to" being a transparently SOP addition. bd2412 T 12:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
If according to is not SOP, then accd'g to isn't either. Likewise, if accd'g to is SOP, then according to is as well. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
As Angr, create accd'g and leave accd'g to as it is (unless accd'g is unattested outside of accd'g to). Renard Migrant (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
At the moment accd'g is a hard redirect to accd'g to, on the assumption that the former appears only as part of the latter. If that turns out not to be the case, then the redirect direction can be changed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

dandelion clock[edit]

This may not seem SOP- until you look at clock and see definition #4: "The seed head of a dandelion". I'm not sure about the second sense, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Sense 2 confirmed here [19]. DonnanZ (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep. And the second sense is a well-known tradition here in England. I would say that the entry at "clock" is the more dubious one. Is the word "clock" ever used in isolation to mean this? Mihia (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe in the first place. The term originated from the game. Keep all anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Provisional keep per Mihia. That sense of clock needs verifying before we go and delete this (the second definition will obviously survive no matter what). Renard Migrant (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Like Mihia, I have only ever heard "dandelion clock" and not "clock" alone. Equinox 15:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

literal belief[edit]

Believing in a statement literally. Equinox 15:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)