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


September 2016[edit]


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)

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)
Well, I feel that we need to put intonations or at least punctuations (?!) on each sense, cuz they really don't sound the same. -- SzMithrandir (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Thai entered to mean "To study." The sum is ทรง ‎(“royal auxiliary verb”) +‎ ศึกษา ‎(“to study”). dictionary.sanook.com does not seem to have it[1]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:29, 5 November 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)

October 2016[edit]


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)

It is rather a (New) Latin prefix. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:43, 23 November 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)


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)
  • Delete. DCDuring TALK 03:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments. 1. I suspect use as a range operator is attested in running English on Usenet and the like (derived from Perl or somewhere). If so, the definition can be broadened and the sense kept. 2. This is not only a range operator but also a flip-flop operator, and, if kept for its computing senses, is missing that sense.​—msh210 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 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)


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)

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)

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)


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 [2]. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:09, 23 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)

image satellite[edit]

French. Transparently SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

  • What is considered SoP in one language is not in another: compare with satellittbilde (Bokmål) and satellittbilete (Nynorsk). I find this entry quite interesting, I would say keep (providing it's correct) and create a corresponding entry in English for satellite image. DonnanZ (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Why? Please don't say that 'why' is an inappropriate question. By 'why' I mean what is your reason for wanting to keep it? Delete per Benwing2, nouns in French can be used as ad hoc adjectives. Satellite image seems unremarkable as an 'image from a satellite'. No entry for telescope image or camera image. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
That's one point that is not covered at French satellite, its use as an adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Because it isn't, it's a noun, and it is covered as a noun. Satellite is of course an ambiguous definition and needs improvement, but nonetheless this is just the word image followed by the word satellite. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Having said that, fr:satellite#Adjectif, it actually is an adjective. It agrees in number with its referent and everything. Much to my surprise. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Yesss, also in the external link at satellite, and here [3]. DonnanZ (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
French isn't a language I study, but I notice the plural seems to be either "images satellite" or "images satellites". Strange. DonnanZ (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Since a noun used attributively is invariable, if satellite is a noun the plural is "images satellite" and if it's an adjective it's "images satellites". That's how I was able to 'prove' that satellite is an adjective, because "images satellites" is attested. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]


SOP: (still) + (have to; need to). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Huh? it says it's a variant of 重要 and that doesn't say anything about still needing. Siuenti (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Siuenti 仲要 was created by User:Tooironic based on a Cantonese sense that put into 重要. 仲要 is only a variant for this sense, but it was incorrectly defined. It does not mean "and; with", and the example sentence was ungrammatical. I've deleted that sense on 重要, as it was SOP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

social commerce network[edit]

How significant is this? Nibiko (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

social commerce make sense as an entry if the WP article thereon reflects the definition of the term in attesting use. DCDuring TALK 16:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

petits récits[edit]

See the (apparently unfinished as of yet) discussion in Wiktionary:Tea room/2016/October#petits récits. --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


SOP: ขอ + พระราชทาน + พระบรมราชานุญาต --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


Slang not widely used; not meet CFI. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep in RFD: no RFD-relevant rationale was stated. If the term does not meet WT:ATTEST, it can be sent to WT:RFV. WT:CFI does not require wide use, and thus "not widely used" is irrelevant to both RFD and RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Protologism? --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
@Octahedron80: "Protologism" is a WT:RFV-relevant rationale, relating to WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


Sum-of-parts. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it must delete. Think about this, we gotta deal with many terms lead with รัฐ มลรัฐ ประเทศ จังหวัด อำเภอ ตำบล ฯลฯ as well. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Octahedron80 Would you agree that in general, words for "state", "country", "city" don't belong to Thai lemmas? Perhaps for "person", "language" as well? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The complete terms are not lemmas; those just usually appear together. For example จังหวัดอุบลราชธานี is composed of จังหวัด + อุบลราชธานี, common noun + proper noun. We can understand just say อุบลราชธานี. Similar to รัฐ + โอไฮโอ, ประเทศ + ไทย, ภาษา + ไทย, คน + ไทย. For usage of ไทย we can describe in its definitions. IMO, I think about this for a long time for Thai Wiktionary policy not to include such entries and this should apply on other Wiktionaries too. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Octahedron80 Should entries เมืองไทย(Thailand) and ประเทศไทย(Thailand) be kept ("country" + "Thai")) or definitions should move to ไทย(tai, Thai, Thailand)? It may not be the best example, since some sources mention that "Thailand" is never/seldom used without the preceding word for "country" - ประเทศ(bprà-têet) and เมือง(mʉʉang).
What about คนไทย(Thai (person)) and ชาวไทย(Thai (person))?
And ภาษาไทย(paa-sǎa-tai, Thai (language)? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Just asking for your opinion and if there are any dictionary policies. Other languages with no clear word boundaries face similar CFI (criteria for inclusion) challenges, such as Chinese or Vietnamese. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
As I said above, เมืองไทย ประเทศไทย คนไทย ชาวไทย ภาษาไทย etc never be lemmas in official dictionary, but ไทย (Thai/Thailand) is truely the lemma. Similar to เมืองจีน ประเทศจีน คนจีน ชาวจีน ภาษาจีน etc, the main entry should only be จีน (China/Chinese). And so on around the world. (Except only if they have special meanings.) Redirects may be an option. --Octahedron80 (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
For a similar reason, some animal- and plant-related terms should be considered for deletion too, such as แมวมาเลศ, แมววิเชียรมาศ, แมวศุภลักษณ์, แมวสีสวาด, ช้างแมมมอธ, ปลาพะยูน, ปลาโลมา, ปลาวาฬ, ลิงกอริลลา, ลูกหมู, นกอีกา, ต้นแอปเปิล, ต้นตาล, งูเหลือม, งูอนาคอนดา, ไม้ชิงชัน, etc. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
^ Converted some pages to redirects because others still have no target page. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


SOP: ต้น + แอปเปิล. We can say ต้น to every plants. --Octahedron80 (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please update ต้น in that case. Siuenti (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Done that.--Octahedron80 (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


SOP: ต้น + ตาล. Same as above. --Octahedron80 (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

national average[edit]

SoP. Also easy to find "national total", "county average", and so on. Equinox 03:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep as a translation target: translations that are not word-for-word ones include German Landesdurchschnitt (Google Translate gives low-frequency Nationaler Durchschnitt), and similar Danish and Norwegian terms; the most common Czech translation is celostátní průměr, although the word-for-word one národní průměr also exists. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per DP's analysis. DonnanZ (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. SoP. de.wikt seems to have a purely compositional treatment of the word. DCDuring TALK 14:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Sidebar: clarity on "translation targets"[edit]

Could we have some clarity on when terms should be retained as "translation targets"? I looked at WT:SOP, and the only relevant paragraph seems to be the following: "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers." However, it does not appear that "translation targets" are likely to be rare. Do we need to have a discussion and vote on the issue (@Daniel Carrero)? — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The translation target rationale is not in CFI. It is not clear that it is supported by consensus. I have seen a fair number of editors support translation target on a host of terms, but I do not know whether the supporters make up 2/3 or the like. I and bd2412 have been working on more specific criteria, the latest draft of which is at User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2015#Let's draft a vote for CFI translation criteria 2. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Great, keep us informed when it's ready for wider discussion. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I am basically an inclusionist but I don't like the idea of "translation targets" exactly. The way I prefer to think about it is that when lots of other languages have unexpected translations for a particular concept, it's a clue that the English term, however denotionally transparent, is nevertheless idiomatic, and should be kept on those grounds. Ƿidsiþ 13:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the existence of compound translations that use unexpected component words or patterns can be (strong?) evidence supporting English idiomaticity, at least if multiple language families or independent languages are involved. The argument would also support including terms like chalk and cheese, Mutt and Jeff, etc. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that other languages' lexica can determine the idiomaticity of an English expression. English "be silent" is utterly unidiomatically SOP regardless of the existence of schweigen, zwijgen, taire, taceō, молча́ть, callarse, calar, and the rest. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Classes of words such as the one you refer to seem to me to offer little support for idiomaticity. In the case of those translated into English as be + an adjective, I'd favor exclusion. I'm sure that are other patterns that similarly are trivially rendered into English phrases quite predictably. We already have a great deal of trivial content and hardly need more. DCDuring TALK 18:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
But using an adjective to convey this idea IS idiomatic; most languages use a specific verb. (I am just talking about idiomaticity in an abstract way here; I agree that "be silent" doesn't need a dictionary entry.) Ƿidsiþ 08:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


Adjective. The citations look like attributive use of the noun. I doubt that citations can be found supporting non-attributive, "true" adjective use. DCDuring TALK 18:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • It's not a term I'm familiar with. Is it American only? DonnanZ (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

lekker stuk[edit]

SOP (sense 2): lekker(hot, sexy) + stuk(hottie). Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  • SoP in Dutch, but not for hottie in English. A possible keep. DonnanZ (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Donnanz I'm sorry, but I don't get your reasoning. Do you suggest lekker stuk is kept because it translates hottie? If so, there are plenty non-SOP translations for that, and stuk is one of them. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, you know better than I do. You're not proposing deletion of sense 1 though, and the hottie sense (no Dutch translation there, by the way), is that not placing emphasis on stuk, e.g. she's a real hottie? SoP terms can be a minefield, and I wouldn't propose an entry for brown cow. But for the sake of completeness, if that's another meaning of lekker stuk? DonnanZ (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
But on the other hand, if there are multiple meanings of lekker stuk, it may be better to delete the lot, and replace with examples under lekker and stuk. DonnanZ (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, if the figurative meaning is ruled SOP, I don't see how the literal meaning "tasty piece" couldn't be considered SOP. But I'll add that as well. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

SOP (sense 1): lekker(tasty) + stuk(piece). Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Both senses are SoP, delete the entire entry IMO. Lekker stuk as "tasty piece" is textbook SoP; lekker stuk as "hottie" might've been kept as being idiomatic had it not been for the fact that both constituent elements have the relevant romantic/sexual senses listed there as well: lekker can mean hot by itself, and similarly stuk can mean attractive person. In English an equivalent situation would be hot babe, which I think you will agree is SoP. — Kleio (t · c) 18:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The difference with hot babe is that at least babe is a literal use (or arguably its primary meaning), while stuk is used figuratively (just like lekker) and is more commonly used for its more neutral senses, making this an idiomatic phrase. The first sense (tasty piece) is the equivalent of hot babe to me. I'd support deletion of sense 1 and keep of sense 2 (not bolded since I'm not sure my opinion counts yet).
I can totally imagine someone (someone learning the language, or a native not having heard of it yet) reading a phrase (e.g. Ik zag een lekker stuk daarnet) and being stumped on the meaning, thus needing to look it up in our dictionary. They shouldn't have to do the detective work of noticing both of those constituent words can be used in similar senses and putting two and two together. --Azertus (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
That's how the SoP rules here work (AFAICT) though: if the meaning of a multiple-word entry can be understood without too much difficulty by looking at the individual entries that constitute it, it is sum-of-parts and should not be here. In this case, I don't think it's really detective work anyway: both entries list the relevant senses (both labeled colloquial, too, making the connection even more obvious), they are not difficult to find, and the combination of the two does not have any unexpected change in meaning. From what I've seen in other discussions on this page and from WT:SOP, the end user is in fact expected to be able to put two and two together: that's pretty much the crux of the SoP deletion criterion. — Kleio (t · c) 15:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
It's crucially different from, say, lekker ding ("sexy person") , which is clearly idiomatic and should have an entry: ding is, after all, never really used by itself to refer to a person at all; only in the common expression lekker ding does it acquire this meaning. Both lekker and stuk however have independent and quite common meanings that, when combined, make the meaning of lekker stuk entirely obvious and thus SoP. — Kleio (t · c) 15:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
ding however is used for persons (as far as I can tell exclusively for women) in combination with an attributive adjective: leuk ding, knap ding, lief ding, etc. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that makes lekker stuk idiomatic and certainly not according to WT:SOP; in any case both elements are also common with the meanings "hot" or "hottie". The most that can be said is that lekker stuk is a pleonastic epithet, which can be mentioned in both entries or included in a usage example. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


SOP --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It's SOP as much as TV series, TV show or TV program. Keep.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
"ละครทีวี" doesn't mean "TV series", "TV show", or "TV program" though. If "television drama" or "TV drama" is acceptable, then "ละครทีวี" should be kept.
P.S. in Thai,
  1. "series" is called "ซีรีส์" or formally "รายการชุด", or "ละครชุด" if referring to drama;
  2. "TV series" is called "ทีวีซีรีส์" or formally "รายการชุดทางโทรทัศน์", or "ละครชุดทางโทรทัศน์" if referring to drama;
  3. "TV show" is called "ทีวีโชว์" or "รายการทีวี", or formally "รายการโทรทัศน์";
  4. "TV program" is also called "รายการทีวี" or "รายการโทรทัศน์".
"ซีรีย์" is a common misspelling of "ซีรีส์" and may be included.
--หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


SOP: ເມົາ + ເຫລົ້າ. Same situation as above. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


SOP. See #รัฐโอไฮโอ above also. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

take a dump[edit]

This is covered by the appropriate sense at [[dump]], whither it should redirect. (It's also covered at [[Appendix:DoHaveMakeTake]], not that that affects this discussion. But the content of that appendix shows we ought not (and generally do not) have a page for every "take a [noun]".)​—msh210 (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

  • It could also be have a dump in British English, so the appendix is relevant. DonnanZ (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a job for Wikisaurus. bd2412 T 20:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
If I took a bath I would be taking a bathtub. I do enjoy having a bath though. DonnanZ (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Fallacious. The American (or whoever) could argue: "If I had a bath, I would own it; but I can take a bath at my friend's house." I don't suppose you consider yourself to be stealing when you "take" time, precautions, or a phone call. Equinox 16:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
If you really want it to be fallacious it will be fallacious. It would no doubt depend on context, e.g. "I have a dump nearby", meaning a rubbish dump. DonnanZ (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm reminded of the bit in Beavis and Butthead where one of them is parodying Andy Rooney by saying "Did you ever wonder why they call it taking a dump instead of leaving a dump? I mean after all, you're not really taking it anywhere!" —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The only link that works is Merriam-Webster, an American lemming. DonnanZ (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep using the lemming heuristic: Merriam-Webster[4] has it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


SoP. Ref. Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#รัฐโอไฮโอ above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


As above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


The entry has an rfd-tag with the comment "looks SOP" since 6 September 2016.
It might look like SOP but isn't the same true for several entries in Category:English words prefixed with non- and also for nonFrench, nonChinese, non-European (a derived term in European), nonAfrican (an anagram in Franconian)? -薫七 (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep, of course. Some users get confused, even bots. DonnanZ (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
This is the standard British form anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be, to most adjectives anyway, whether it should be or not. DonnanZ (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


See #รัฐโอไฮโอ above. A policy question too. Should Thai language names with ภาษา(paa-sǎa, language) + "ethnicity word" be included? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


As above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016[edit]

ISA 200[edit]

Do we really want to have an entry for every standard with an acronym in front of it? Whatever we decide, there's also the matter of a category the contributor created for it, which doesn't tie into our category structure (or any category structure) at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete, for sure. It's SOP: it's the ISA called "200".​—msh210 (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I created this. I would like to keep it. I think the term conveys more meaning than the sum of its parts. Apologies if I got categorisation wrong. John Cross (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, but so do Saab 340, US 422, and 18 USC 1466A; we can't include every instance of an acronym and a number corresponding to some idea associated with that acronym. bd2412 T 22:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Why shouldn't we? Purplebackpack89 23:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Because it's encyclopedia not dictionary material? Mihia (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. We would end up offering a "definition" for every model of every product that chose to name their product with a model number, and for every road and route, and for every public or private standard combining an acronym with a number. bd2412 T 02:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I support us doing the second of those three. Purplebackpack89 18:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
We already have e-numbers in Wiktionary. See for example E333. So there is some precedent for including a codeconsisting of letters and numbers which has a specific meaning. John Cross (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC), edited John Cross (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
We also have M25 (but not every numbered road in the UK). If we can find a text that uses "ISA 200" in a natiral way, without being a definition, then we should keep it. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
OK. How about these examples? "ISA 200 makes it clear that the objectives in the individual ISAs provide a link between the requirements of the ISA and the overall objectives of the auditor." "Understanding the clarified and revised ISA 200 is now fundamental to understanding the challenge of implementing clarified ISAs." (https://www.icaew.com/-/media/corporate/files/technical/audit-and-assurance/practical-help/audit-planning-and-risk-assessment/publications-and-learning-materials/right-first-time-with-clarified-isas-module-1.ashx?la=en) John Cross (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
But couldn't such examples be found for, say, every numbered road, or every car model, or whatever it might be? Does a citation "I was driving down the A3062 in my Saab 340" justify inclusion in the dictionary of "A3062" and "Saab 340"? Where would it end? Mihia (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that the term I have added is a useful addition to Wiktionary - it is a term in regular use by a large number of professionals around the world and it is a term recognised by an international standard setting body. I know people are worried about the precedent this might set. I would suggest that as there is a separate policy for brands, any precedent set here should not extend to models of cars or other products or services. When it comes to road/route codes, some already appear in Wiktionary and I would suggest that those entries already create some form of precedent. I would like to keep the debate more focussed on whether names and codes for recognised international standards (auditing or otherwise) that are used in natural sentences can be added to Wiktionary. John Cross (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
This is also true of all of the RfCs, all of the ISO standards, and countless other standards which are domain specific. Unless the term has meaning outside of the standard I can't see value in keeping it. The "meaning" of the term is either "the ISA standard numbered 200" in which case it is SOP, or the actual standard itself, in which case it is encyclopedic and out of scope. - TheDaveRoss 13:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I echo TheDaveRoss's argument here. Even after looking at the entry, and the sample usages, the definition parses out to just ISO + 200. The long-form title and other information belongs in an encyclopedia article, which would go at Wikipedia and would ostensibly be found under [[w:Category:ISO_standards]]. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


Alt-spelling sense. The word (חג׳) that it's listed as an alt-spelling of is defined only identically to חאג׳'s other sense. Not speedying this in case there's really another sense of חג׳ that we should have and that חאג׳ is an alt-spelling of.​—msh210 (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


"Mozilla". Mozilla#English has been deleted by RFD in the past. —suzukaze (tc) 11:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The rest of Special:Contributions/Jagne[edit]

except for ジープ "jeep", ブラックベリー "blackberry", and アップル "apple" (maybe more?) —suzukaze (tc) 11:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


Failed this RFV, author admitted to have invented the spelling on his own here. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there really guaranteed to be nothing attestable in the entire category? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Nothing has been attested in two 1,5 months despite RFV. Every single entry is in the idiosyncratic spelling too. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I've already told you that this matter should be resolved as a general policy on WT:BP, as WT contains a number of languages containing made-up spelling, because they are traditionally unwritten languages. You could ask User:Knyȝt explicitly about the existence of the Westrobothnian words, but that wasn't your original complaint, which makes me assume that you aren't really interested in constructive dialogue. As far as I can see, his sources are at least Svenskt Dialektlexikon and Ordbok över Umemålet. The SD is online, and Westrobothnian terms are written in a made-up phonetic spelling there.
What's your beef with Westrobothnian? You don't really seem make such a fuss with other unwritten languages with made-up spellings, let's say, Category:ǃKung lemmas, is it because you just don't give a shit about some African bushman language?
few days ago (saw it today) you were writing "nobody is taking care of your noble endeavours to move these to other spellings or bring this up in Beer Parlour, these entries confirmed to not be verifiable by the author are just sitting on our page with a status which qualifies for a deletion." well, pull your finger out of your ass then and discuss some consitent policy on the subject, instead of just wasting time whining. You can go fuck yourself. I'm not interested in anymore discussion on this subject. Do whatever pleases you. smfh... -- 00:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Note for admins: I'll probably be banned for this, but it's okay since I don't have any further comments in this case.
No one's going to ban you for stating an opinion. The issue is whether these orthographies are attestable, even as a single mention (since Westrobothnian is an LDL) in a single published source. If these are the spellings used in Svenskt Dialektlexikon and/or Ordbok över Umemålet, then they shouldn't be deleted. But if these spellings are really not used anywhere except Wiktionary because they were invented by the Wiktionary editor who created them, then they should. Our !Kung spellings are, to the best of my knowledge, the same as those used in dictionaries and linguistics articles about !Kung, and are thus not made-up spellings. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
For the record, Chuck would have them moved to existing spellings instead of deletion:Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Category:Westrobothnian_lemmas - Nobody knowledgeable in the language took any action, however. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm in the process of deleting them now. Obviously if any spelling can be verified by presence in a reference work or in running text, I'll be happy to undelete it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, all Westrobothnian entries have been deleted (or removed from pages with valid entries in other languages). I couldn't be arsed to delete all the empty categories, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Sichuanese Pinyin entries[edit]

No consensus has ever been reached to allow Sichuanese Pinyin entries. The following pages have been made by User:Prisencolin:

— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete. The user was told about the current policies for romanisation entries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
No consensus was ever reached about allowing English entries either. Why does that require a consensus to be featured? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
In the past yes. Now you need to make sure the word exists and it is written in the right script. There are various romanisations (not proper language scripts). Only some standard romanisations are allowed by our policies.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not the Sichuanese that's the problem, it's the pinyin. It may be found in some dictionaries, bʌt ðɛn, soʊ ɪz aɪ pʰi eɪ. If you really want to allow every script for every language, there are some German entries in Cyrillic that we deleted not too long ago... Chuck Entz (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Ду хаст рехт. Их бин айнферштанден! Шпрахен мюссен ден рихтиген Шрифт бенутцен! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • You said some things, but haven't explained the issue to me, apparently because you assume that I know something I don't. (This is a bad habit on Wiktionary both in conversations and help pages. I'm pointing this out here because it's making us opaque and prolly factors into new editors being scared off.) Are you implying that we're using some other system to represent Sichuanese on which users decided? Because you haven't said so. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
    Sichuanese should only have entries in Chinese characters. The version of Sichuanese Pinyin we are using in the Chinese pronunciation template {{zh-pron}} isn't used other than in dictionaries. (The system is essentially the same as the one in 四川方言词典, but replaces ȵ with ny). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, but why is it that when Westrobothnian entries are made in a non-existent system without consensus, people basically vote to keep them without attestation and when Sichuanese entries are made in an existing system without consensus, they are deleted even before discussion in RFD? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Korn: I have no knowledge of Westrobothnian, so I can't comment on that. (Hmm, have you assumed that I know something I don't? :D) AFAIK, there has only been one Sichuanese Pinyin entry that has been deleted before discussion in RFD, so I'm not sure what you mean. Sichuanese is a variety of Chinese, and our current policy puts all Chinese varieties that are usually written in Chinese characters under the same umbrella. Since there is already a way to represent Sichuanese (Chinese characters), and most of the Chinese varieties are not allowed to have romanization entries (exceptions being Standard Mandarin pinyin, Min Nan POJ and Cantonese jyutping syllables), we should not have Sichuanese Pinyin entries. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
1. Sorry, I assumed the entries were deleted because they're shown as yellow links. 2. No, I'm not assuming anything, my comment was meant as an indirect question to Chuck, who's present in both discussions. 3. Why are only some varieties allowed to have Romanisations? That makes it harder to look up Sichuanese, what's the reasoning? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
1. I'm not sure how they're yellow links. They look blue/purple to me. If they were deleted, shouldn't they be red? 2. Alrighty then. 3. Standard Mandarin and Cantonese were allowed by votes (Standard Mandarin 1, Standard Mandarin 2, Cantonese). I believe Min Nan POJ entries were allowed because they're attestable, since it is sometimes written in POJ. From my understanding, other varieties are not allowed to have romanization entries because (a) the romanizations were made by Wiktionary (Gan; Jin; Xiang; Wu) or (b) they are not very common (?) (Hakka PFS and Guangdong Romanization; Min Dong BUC; Teochew Peng'im). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Fair enough. ps.: Yellow links are links to pages which exist but don't have the corresponding language section. I assume that square brackets link to English per default and that's the reason why the links are shown in yellow to me. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I see. You've turned on OrangeLinks. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Let's save the effort in other entries - this can be easily automated. Wyang (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't really have an opinion on this at the moment, but without knowing much about the procedures here, wouldn't it just be a lot more convenient to have page sorting characters by Pinyin, considering we're talking about a mostly non-written vernacular here? I guess I'd support deletion if this listing could be automated, but until that happens I'm not so sure. Sichuan Pinyin was not invented by any user here, so there shouldn't be conflict of interest. Regarding another point, is Hanyu Pinyin even used that much outside of teaching and Romanizations either? I've also heard that Jyutping is even more seldom used in those capacities.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    We can definitely have page sorting by Sichuanese Pinyin if we allow Category:Sichuanese lemmas and such. That should probably solve the problem.
    Hanyu Pinyin and Jyutping are not used in normal writing, but they are much more common than Sichuanese Pinyin. Hanyu Pinyin is used by most (if not all) modern Mandarin dictionaries published in the PRC, and it is taught in all schools in China. It has also been accepted by the ROC government as the standard romanization. Jyutping, while being less pervasive than Hanyu Pinyin, is gaining popularity and is definitely outcompeting the other Cantonese romanizations, especially on the internet.
    BTW, a few more entries here:
    — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Justinrleung @Korn @Atitarev @Wyang How about Chinese terms without hanzi at all, what's the general concensus on how to create entries for these? For an extreme example I'm not sure if nɤ35, a demonstrative pronoun in Wuhan, meets WT:CFI but there's literally no other way to enter it.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
    Searching for ¹ at water#Translations may be relevant. —suzukaze (tc) 06:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
    I am not aware of any policy regarding these terms specifically for Chinese, but I don't think these would meet CFI (unless we consider certain varieties of Chinese to be languages with limited online documentation). You probably should have held off creating the entry for nɤ35 until we have consensus on how to deal with them. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I've sent the term to RFV. We can decide on the policy. It would fail the NORMAL inclusion test. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The entry is referenced, though. What if it is represented that way in a proper scholarly work? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Any reference is a mention, not usage. It would fail the CFV for most languages in most cases but this may be a special case for a language with limited documentation, I don't know.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
It was my impression that this was one. We might turn it into a precedent for unwritten languages recorded solely in IPA by foreign researchers. There should be more than one. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
This is not a precedent. There are already entries like these, e.g. tɕʰɑ³¹ŋɑ⁵⁵. I'm a little unsure about this being a language with limited documentation since we have lumped all varieties of Chinese under Chinese if they are written in hanzi. It is certainly not unwritten. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


Looks SOP. 筶 means "to try". 一下 is suffix/particle that indicates trying or a little bit. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure that 筶 itself is a verb? In that case I'll support deletion. Otherwise the impression I got from the Wikipedia entry 四川方言字 was that its used in the idiom 筶一下, rather than an independent part of speech.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure. I think the page is just giving an example. All the dictionaries I've checked use 告 instead though:
  • 《四川方言词典》
告 gao4 (动)试:妈喊快点~鸭儿胃口呢。(川文82·8·63)|这双鞋你来~一下,看穿不穿得。
  • 《成都话方言词典》
告 gào〔kau²¹³〕试:衣服合不合身,你先~一下。
  • 《成都方言詞典》
【告】kau˨˩˧ 試:你來~一下,看合不合適
— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The references you provided seems to indicate that in the "to try" sense it's only used in the phrase 告一下. That suggests that we just keep 筶一下 as a soft redirect.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it's just a common collocation. The first example sentence in 四川方言词典 shows that 一下 is not necessary. The same would apply to 試一下 in standard Mandarin. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

instant mashed potatoes[edit]

Similar to instant coffee, instant noodles, instant soup, instant meal etc. (which I also nominate). The sense of instant is covered (poorly) "An instant beverage or food, especially instant coffee." Which makes this SOP. - TheDaveRoss 19:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

But instant mashed potatoes are potatoes processed in a particular way- what the modifier "instant" means changes based on the particular type of food. DTLHS (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
In all of the uses I am familiar with "instant" means "pre-processed for quicker preparation times." - TheDaveRoss 19:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Cooked food is still "cooked" whether it's baked, boiled or fried. Instant food is still "instant" regardless of how it got that way. Equinox 19:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
We should determine which "instant" food came first, as this meaning of instant is probably a back-formation from that, so that entry should be kept. The rest I would delete except for instant noodles, which seems to embody some qualities other than its instantness. I believe coffee is the trend leader. See Rupert Hughes, Gift Wife (1910), p. 164: "In a small room opening off the hall the usual withered serving woman kept the coals of the kahve-ojak alive and water ready for instant coffee." bd2412 T 03:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The cite doesn't fit the current definition, nor that of WordNet 3.0: "dehydrated coffee that can be made into a drink by adding hot water". Judging from the Google N-gram and inspection of cites in decades from 1900 on, through 1929 instant coffee referred initially to a liquid coffee concentrate, starting about 1921. At some point in the 1930s there is evidence of cubes and crystals. Sanka, which fits the definitions, appeared on the market around 1946. \
Of course, most dictionaries don't have an entry for instant coffee. None at OneLook, except for us, have an entry for instant mashed potatoes. DCDuring TALK 13:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
How can you tell what cite the definition fits? In any case, I am proposing that "instant" referring to a food prepared in such a way that a normally arduous process is reduced to adding water or the like, is a back-formation, which would render the originating term idiomatic whether other dictionaries now have it or not. bd2412 T 17:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I find the description of production process unessential. If someone found another way of producing instant mashed potatoes they would still be instant mashed potatoes. For comparison: paper is paper, no matter how it's been made. delete --Hekaheka (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Nobody seems to be querying the synonym instant mash, so maybe it should be kept for the sake of completeness. Even shorter is the brand name "Smash" which used to be owned by Cadbury's. DonnanZ (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking at it again, keep. DonnanZ (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • From my perspective, all of these look like SOP. But I also don't see much harm in keeping them. Meh.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • A thought. Instant coffee (respectively instant soup) is both coffee (soup) that has been dried out and, once reconstituted, coffee (soup) again. Instant mashed potatoes are mashed potatoes that have been dried out; once reconstituted, they're not mashed potatoes in the literal sense, i.e. potatoes that have been mashed, though they may be indistinguishable from same. I don't know that that's a reason to keep, and am tending to think not, especially because the reconstituted stuff is called "mashed potatoes" irrespective of the literal meanings of those words. But it's something to think about.​—msh210 (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
    If chicory coffee is a kind of coffee, then the constitution of something does not necessarily matter to the SoPitude of the term. (Chicory coffee drinks resemble certain roasts of coffee in color and flavor.) That is, I don't think the ingredients or process by which something of general familiarity is manufactured (out of sight of the great mass of language speakers) necessarily has any legitimate impact on RfD questions. In contrast, instant is meaningful to normal speakers because it indicates something that is within their experience. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Isn't there a classic "philosphical" or "philological" discussion about the nature of adjectives like fake? DCDuring TALK 00:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The keyword to search for might be alienans. Equinox 00:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
That's the ticket. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

restoring worriable and demouse[edit]

Hi, This word may be rare but is not a protologism, it has been used quite widely on the Internet. Concerning "demouse", it's the same as "derat", which has an entry here. 15:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add CFI-compliant citations to Citations:worriable and Citations:demouse. Once there are three independent citations spanning more than a year, the entries can be undeleted. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The first one can be undeleted, the second is difficult to find because of "demo use" parasiting the research. 17:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
worriable has been cited, demouse hasn't (yet). SemperBlotto (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
It is now, I had to remove the "http//" because some silly filter disallow it (then, how to insert a link ???). 17:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification#XPCOM.

vox clamantis in deserto[edit]

A valid biblical allusion, but we are not Wikiquote. Is there idiomatic usage of which I am unaware? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it can be idiomatic for John the Baptist. I can't speak for Latin, but it's sort of used that way in English (I say sort of, because it's debatable whether it's simply an allusion, or is an actually idiomatic name for St. John). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hadn't actually heard of it being used to refer to John the Baptist, I always associated it more with Isaiah 40:3. The Hebrew equivalent (קוֹל קוֹרֵא בַּמִּדְבָּר(kol koré bamidbár)) is used to refer to a speaker whose arguments go unheard or unheeded. I believe that the English voice in the wilderness is used in much the same way. Anyway, how do you establish in cases like this where something stops being an allusion, and becomes an idiom worthy of inclusion in its own right? — Kleio (t · c) 18:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
In the Gospel according John 1:23, John the Baptist says that he is the voice in the wilderness of Isaiah 40:3, so it's conceivable that other people have used the phrase to allude to him. Maybe this should be moved to RFV. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


I'm unsure about this one, but couldn't a wide range of titles be used as "honorifics"? It doesn't seem particularly lexical to me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  • We similarly have President and King as honorifics. Are they any more lexical? bd2412 T 02:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Presidents and kings are heads of state, and far more important than a mere editor-in-chief. A hard redirect may be the answer. DonnanZ (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
"More important" is an encyclopedic consideration. We include words of even skating "importance" if they are attested. bd2412 T 00:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


さあ definition #4 ("dunno") + sentence-final particle ("asks for confirmation"). —suzukaze (tc) 11:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Great Successor[edit]

This is really just great + successor in a specific context, just as Dear Leader is dear + leader. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I hate to say this, knowing how detestable the person is, but it probably should be kept. DonnanZ (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep and create Dear Leader. DTLHS (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
And also all the honorifics in this list? Would you actually edit General to mean "Kim Jong-il"? -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


SOP --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Sam Spade[edit]

Specific detective in fiction. Equinox 01:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line? See Sherlock Holmes. DonnanZ (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Sherlock Holmes includes figurative senses derived from the literal sense. I'm not saying that Sam Spade doesn't have such senses in use, but they are not in the entry. bd2412 T 14:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of Google hits for the phrase "the Sam Spade of". If I can be arsed, I'll add some quotes. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I would say that the name of any well-known real or fictional person can be used in the pattern "the ~ of". I see this as a general feature of the English language, not a dictionary sense of the name in question. Mihia (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
There are also quotes like "intractability of a Sam Spade", "dressed in a Sam Spade overcoat", "According to Webb, they said, “You need a Sam Spade character”". In the past this type of usage has been enough to keep an entry. DTLHS (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough if that's the policy, but, as I say, it seems to me to open the door to entries for virtually any publicly known real or fictional person: "sporting a David Beckham hairstyle", "the Hermione Granger of American politics" etc. etc. etc. Mihia (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
If the characteristic shorthand is used repeatedly in print, that would seem to demonstrate that it is understood by the writer to have lexical value to the reader. bd2412 T 04:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
But there are also passages like this, this, this and this that don't refer to the character directly. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I would consider those good hits. Format them for the entry. bd2412 T 02:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per citations found by Chuck Entz. bd2412 T 17:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per SemperBlotto and bd2412. The policy is WT:CFI#Fictional universes, it seems, "With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense." It is not very clear what attributive sense is, but it might be something like what is in Chuck Entz quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


As above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this should be in RFV. A Google search finds at least one use of 二十四 「ヰ゛タミン」ノ要求 in the TOC of a book from 1871 (which should be viewable online but the link isn't working for me). —suzukaze (tc) 11:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
ヸタミン硏究の新しき進步, 一 ヰ゛タミンの供給 (click on the 詳細レコード表示にする on the left) —suzukaze (tc) 11:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
The third one is viewablesuzukaze (tc) 11:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree this and the one above should be moved to RFV. Rare doesn't mean made-up. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
(However, the one above, テレヸジョン, is made up as far as CFI is concerned.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


The entry's author tagged this for speedy deletion, but should it be kept? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I created the entry and I became uncertain if it's a lemma or SOP, as it can be treated as a mere combination of two phrases (ทรงพระกรุณา(song-prá-gà-rú-naa) + โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม(bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m)) or as a single, valid phrase (because it seems like the two phrases are always together). Anyway, since the meanings of the two phrases do not change when they are put together, I then requested deletion of this entry. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@หมวดซาโต้: I know next to nothing about Thai, but from how you describe it, ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม(song-prá-gà-rú-naa-bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m) certainly looks like an unidiomatic sum of ทรงพระกรุณา(song-prá-gà-rú-naa) + โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม(bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m), even if it is a common collocation. Would you be able to add a {{ux}} to both ทรงพระกรุณา and โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม that uses ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Just added some citations to ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม(song-prá-gà-rú-naa-bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m), in which ทรงพระกรุณา(song-prá-gà-rú-naa) and โปรดเกล้าฯ(bpròot-glâao) (shortening of โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม(bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m)) appear together. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@หมวดซาโต้: Great, thanks. I've copied those citations, mutatis mutandis, to ทรงพระกรุณา and โปรดเกล้าฯ. Could you also add to โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม citations that use ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม(song-prá-gà-rú-naa-bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m) unabbreviated, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


The entry's author tagged this for speedy deletion, but should it be kept? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It's an abbreviation of the above phrase #ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (see its discussion also). --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@หมวดซาโต้: I know next to nothing about Thai, but from how you describe it, ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าฯ(song-prá-gà-rú-naa-bpròot-glâao) certainly looks like an unidiomatic sum of ทรงพระกรุณา(song-prá-gà-rú-naa) + โปรดเกล้าฯ(bpròot-glâao) [abbreviation of โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม(bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m)], even if it is a common collocation. Would you be able to add a {{ux}} to both ทรงพระกรุณา and โปรดเกล้าฯ that uses ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าฯ, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)



(phrasal) Subjugation, power; reliance upon the compassion, forbearance, or whim of another (at the mercy of)

This definition, unless anyone can show otherwise, seems to apply only to the phrase "at the mercy of", but I am not convinced that "mercy" in "at the mercy of" means "subjugation" or "power" at all. I think it has the usual meaning of forgiveness, compassion etc., as amply covered by other senses, and that "at the mercy of" means something like "dependent on the mercy of" or "subject to the mercy of". Mihia (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Any of definitions 1, 2, or 3 would fit with my understanding of at the mercy of, which I view as SoP, though several lemmings do not. See at the mercy of at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 02:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

double as[edit]

SoP, redundant to double sense: "(intransitive) (often followed by as) To play a second part or serve a second role. A spork is a kind of fork that doubles as a spoon." Equinox 01:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional thought: can something just double, without an as: "this kind of fork doubles"? I suspect not. Even so, the as feels strongly like an external preposition and not a particle. Equinox 01:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Someone can double for someone else. Also see double as at OneLook Dictionary Search and double for at OneLook Dictionary Search, which show that some lemmings have both of these. DCDuring TALK 02:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Also note double up as (the definition of which seems slightly faulty actually). Mihia (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

male genital cutting[edit]

Defined as "the cutting of genitals which are male". Equinox 12:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably the definition needs to be improved as I'm pretty sure it refers specifically to circumcision, i.e. removal of the prepuce, and not to any old cutting. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


Wiktionary:CFI#Company_names.—suzukaze (tc) 04:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


Traditional and simplified mixed together. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Question: was using 儿 for erhua specifically to differentiate from 兒 "child" ever standard? —suzukaze (tc) 08:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably not, but I can't be sure. The book has some other simplified characters in it, so it might just have been for ease of writing. @Wyang, Tooironic, Atitarev, any thoughts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Justin. Wyang (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it is safe to assume that is not used in (standard) traditional Chinese. Moedict only lists information from the Shuowen, and that it is one of the 24 radicals, nothing about erhuayin. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017[edit]

restroom break[edit]

Might this be SoP? I mean, there are many types of breaks, do we need entries for all of them? --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE Did you mean to take this to RFD rather than RFV? SoP is irrelevant at RFV. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger Ah, I didn't know SoP issues were irrelevant here, my bad. I'll take this to RFD. Thank you for pointing this out! --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
we have coffee break and water break. someone doesn't necessarily need to be drinking coffee or getting water during those breaks, which is why they have entries. likewise someone can use a restroom break for something other than using the restroom, which is why it should have an entry. note that we have urinary break. that seems more SoP to me than restroom break. 00:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Could someone rewrite the definition of urinary break so that it looked as if it were written by someone who knew English. I'd just as soon see it deleted. DCDuring TALK 00:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It hardly seems like a set phrase in real use. Equinox 08:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This or bathroom break are often used when a group is traveling, such as a number of motorcyclists, a carload of people, a squad of soldiers, and so on. There are also some less polite variations, such as a piss break. —Stephen (Talk) 08:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
In the UK, those of us who go on walking holidays have comfort breaks. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Is this an American term? It's not labelled as such. DonnanZ (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I found only one use of "urinary break" in BGC. Many Google hits are just mirroring Wiktionary > Agree with Equinox: hardly a set term. One more nail to the coffin: the entry was created by someone who is now blocked from all Wikimedia > delete at least "urinary break". --Hekaheka (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree about urinary break, which could also be deleted through RFV if necessary. If restroom break passes, the translations can go there. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirections to numerals[edit]

This is just redundant, isn't it? --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

we have one hundred, one million, one billion and one trillion. these redirect to hundred, million, billion and trillion. note that one thousand has another use, so that shouldn't redirect to thousand. if we have one hundred which redirects to hundred, why shouldn't we have the synonym a hundred? 15:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly. We should delete one hundred etc.. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
If I'm not completely mistaken, we had a lot of numbers which we deleted (see for instance this discussion) and I'm only worried that adding redirections such as a trillion, and so forth, sets a dangerous prerequisite. I can't account for why one hundred, one million, etc. were accepted but I assume it had to do with us not wanting to encourage people to add articles such as two billion, three million and so on. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I speedied these before I realised there was a discussion. I can't see any use in them. Equinox 18:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@ the initial discussion is about your redirections – not one million, one hundred etc., which belong to an entirely different discussion. Please don't add them again to this discussion. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Nobody's suggesting a word redirected to word. This is similar > delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete. They are just nouns with an indefinite article. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • RFD deleted by DTLHS on Feb 23. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


How is this different from the noun auge? —CodeCat 17:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

  • It's an example of how Nynorsk can be unbelievably complex. There are two words for eye; auga and auge. There are also two prefixes for derivatives of eye; auge- and augne-. There is also a verb augne, also spelt øygne, but no noun. I suggest that you read the reference in the Nynorsk Dictionary if you haven't already done so.
There are variants in Bokmål also, where øye in compounds can also be øyen-, from an old genitive plural, but it's not regarded as a prefix for some reason. DonnanZ (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
But why does auge- have to be a prefix? Why can't the words in CAT:Norwegian Nynorsk words prefixed with auge- be considered compounds of auge instead? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably because of the two spellings, auge is entered as the alternative form of auga, but that may have been the editor's personal preference. One could use the spelling auga, and in the next line use an auge- derivative I guess. DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
It's perfectly possible to change {{prefix|nn|auge|bryn}} to {{compound|nn|auga|bryn|alt1=auge}}, and from a semantic point of view it makes more sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
It may make sense from an English point of view, but not to a Nynorsk speaker. Another oddity is that the definite plural of auge is (guess what) auga, which can be highly confusing to us. DonnanZ (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Calling it a prefix doesn't make sense from a linguistic point of view, regardless of the native language of the observer. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Njardarlogar, @Barend: Let's ask a couple of Nynorsk speakers. DonnanZ (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hm, I had to think of that a bit. As so much in one's native tongue, I've never had cause to consider it before. I suppose the point is that the Nynorsk noun for "eye" can take the forms "auge" or "auga", these are not separate words, just different forms of the same word, meaning they are completely interchangeable in every context. Whereas if you use it as the first part of a compound word, you cannot use the form "*auga-", only "auge-" or "augne-" [Whereas *augne is not a valid form of the noun on its own]. So from a Nynorsk grammarians point of view, this makes "auge" and "auge-" two different... hm... lexemes(?) Donnanz writes "One could use the spelling auga, and in the next line use an auge- derivative I guess." Indeed, this true, in fact, one would have to' use an auge- derivative, because there are no *auga- derivatives. I hope this was comprehensible.--Barend (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't have much to add, but if auge- would be worthy of an entry if there was no such form as auge, then I think it would make more sense to keep auge- than to delete it, as it is still a distinct prefix form of auga. So for me, I think the question boils down to whether or not auge- is worthy of an entry if we only had auga. --Njardarlogar (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your input. DonnanZ (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a somewhat similar situation in Finnish. Adjectives ending in -inen regularly change the ending to "-is" when they are used as modifiers in compound terms. We don't regard the -is -ending terms as prefixes but rather as adjective forms. But, as such, they still may merit their own "form of" -entry. For example, the word kreikkalaiskatolinen is not categorized as "Finnish term with prefix kreikkalais-" but as "Finnish compound term" or "Finnish compound term with kreikkalainen" if such category existed. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand Finnish, but "-is" seems to be something like a modified interfix between parts of words. But I guess showing it as a compound of kreikkalainen and katolinen (as has been done) is the best treatment. Different methods are needed for different languages. DonnanZ (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate more input, particularly from users not familiar with Norwegian. Angr's question still hasn't been answered satisfactorily: why are the words in Category:Norwegian Nynorsk words prefixed with auge- not to be compounds of the word auge? I would also like to ask an additional question: How, in theory, could compounds of auge and those of auge- be differentiated? —CodeCat 20:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • You should try looking from a Norwegian point of view. DonnanZ (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The way I see it, it's merely a historically grown form of the lexeme auga/auge and we should handle it thus: 1. Indicate prefix‐form in the head template for languages where they're applicaple. For example:
auga n (definite singular auga, indefinite plural augo, definite plural augo, compound form auge‐ or augne‐)
2. Create a form of‐entry for the prefix forms like we do for any other inflection. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a combining form used for compounding, albeit a trivial one since it seems identical with the base noun. Combining forms that were deleted via RFD: barne- from barn and kraft- from kraft; tron- from trone; these were nominated for deletion by Donnanz. A combining form that was kept: jedno-. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Little Pakistan[edit]

Little Italy[edit]

This is little, sense 5: Used with the name of place, especially of a country, to denote a neighborhood whose residents or storekeepers are from that place. There are literally infinite ways to use little in this sense with countries (or even regions or cities), and they're all entirely transparent. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  • On the other hand, if the area is marked on maps as Little (whatever) you would have to accept that it's been accepted as a name. This happens in London with Little Venice, which I think got its name because it's at a canal junction. The name appears in my A-Z Master Atlas of Greater London. DonnanZ (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Are we going to have every name in every map? --Hekaheka (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't honestly know. Try this [5]. DonnanZ (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I found a couple of stations with Little Italy in the name in San Diego [6] and Cleveland [7]. DonnanZ (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Little Pakistan is a little more doubtful [8]. Both entries have Wikipedia links however. DonnanZ (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • A parallel given place name is Chinatown, which is commonly accepted and listed by Oxford, and may not necessarily appear on maps. DonnanZ (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a bit weird, because "little" here converts proper nouns into regular nouns. "Italys"/"Italies" is a very weird word, but "Little Italys" is quite common. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I was not aware of that sense at little when I created these. I think the OED has one or both. I'm not fussed about keeping them. Equinox 15:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Little Italy is in Oxford Online - chiefly North American; "any urban district inhabited predominantly by Italian immigrants or people of Italian descent". No entry for Little Pakistan however. DonnanZ (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

bisexual erasure[edit]

Just one type of erasure; SoP. Equinox 18:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should be deleted, but I'm curious as to how bi-erasure and trans-erasure relate to this for example. Does the hyphen defend them from the SoP deletion rationale? — Kleio (t · c) 18:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

one hundred and second, one hundred and third, 102nd and 103rd[edit]

ordinal forms of one hundred and two and one hundred and three which were deleted as sop. these ordinal numbers should be deleted as well. 22:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, based on earlier discussions. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. We seem to have entries for all cardinal and ordinal numbers up to a hundred spelled out in full, and some of them in numerical form. Was the consensus from earlier discussions that only entries above a hundred should be omitted? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete these sum of part number words; one of multiple related discussions is at Talk:one hundred and twelve. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


Even though it's Old English, Beowulf is a fictional character in the same way Harry Potter is. What would make it exempt from the rules? —CodeCat 19:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Oxford, an Old English epic poem celebrating the legendary Scandinavian hero Beowulf. So it must have been written in Old English. I assume you're referring to the Old English entry, neither entry is tagged. DonnanZ (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Per Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Names of specific entities, Beowulf as a work of world literature could merit an entry apparently by consensus: A name of a specific entity must not be included if it does not meet the attestation requirement. Among those that do meet that requirement, many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which. As with place names, I would advocate for an amendment to CFI that would secure inclusion of all mythological terms as an exception to the fictional universes subsection under which it would arguably fall: there is much value in having entries with etymologies for the names of gods, mythological locations, and so forth. Which makes my vote on this matter a definite and (to me) obvious keep, by the way. — Kleio (t · c) 20:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Can't seriously be comparing this ancient literature to a recent children's book. The fact that it's a single word makes it more keepable than a forename-surname combo, also. Equinox 20:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think it should be kept, otherwise some other entries such as King Arthur and all the associated entries would also be prone to deletion. DonnanZ (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep (all words in all languages) SemperBlotto (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep, of course. It's a single word. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Being by chance a single word shouldn't make any difference. DonnanZ (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
It does according to Wiktionary policy - all words, all languages. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
What I really meant was it should be kept regardless of whether it's one or two words. DonnanZ (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
How about Shakespearean characters like Lothario and Romeo?--Prisencolin (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep. I'm not opposed to Harry Potter either. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


鵞 is a traditional variant; 銮 is simplified. These shouldn't be together. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


rfd-sense (SOP): 中心 (Zhongxin, name of the district) + (district). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to 中心 I suggest. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
It can't be a hard redirect since there's another sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Zhōngxīn Qū[edit]

This also, if the hanzi form fails. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

kabellose Netzwerkverbindung[edit]

SOP? - 14:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

袁術, 袁公路[edit]

WT:NSE: apparently we still have these lying around. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

孫堅, 孙坚, 孫文臺, 孙文台, 文臺, 文台, 曹仁, 子孝, 孟德, 完顏阿骨打, 完颜阿骨打, 玄德, 橋玄, 桥玄, 孟起, 馬超, 马超, 孫逸仙, 元常[edit]

伯喈, 呂布, 吕布, 奉先, 趙雲, 赵云, 子龍, 子龙, 于禁, 文則, 文则, 趙子龍, 赵子龙, 張楊, 张杨, 孫權, 孙权, 仲謀, 仲谋, 滿寵, 满宠, 伯寧, 伯宁, 范滂, 孟博, 壽長, 寿长, 雲長, 云长, 樂進, 乐进, 文謙, 文谦, 衛弘, 卫弘, 張遼, 张辽, 文遠, 文远, 陳生, 陈生, 呂虔, 吕虔, 子恪, 孫乾, 孙乾, 許褚, 许褚, 仲康, 張儉, 张俭, 元節, 元节, 霍光, 糜竺, 麋竺, 子仲, 張紘, 张紘, 子綱, 子纲, 義公, 义公, 韓當, 韩当[edit]

Couple more, including some style names for deleted entries or entries to be deleted. Wyang (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete all "surname + given name" entries based on WT:NSE. Weak delete for style names (except those specified below). (Should 孔明 as a name be deleted as well?) After checking Guoyu Cidian and Hanyu Da Cidian, the following should be kept for having other meanings:
  • 玄德 ("高深、幽潛的德性", "天地玄妙之理", "佛教上指玄妙的功德")
  • 奉先 ("祭祀祖先", "宋代禁軍名")
  • 文則/文则 ("文章的法則")
  • 張楊/张杨 ("1936年12月發動西安事變的著名將領張學良、楊虎城的並稱") — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I tentatively propose that we allow all names which have inclusion-worthy derived terms. Wyang (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I advocating deleting names, while agreeing with Wyang that we should keep names that have derived terms. Surely we should keep style names (字) though, as they function basically the same as nicknames do in English (e.g. J-Lo, J-Law, K-Rod, etc.). ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Style names are not comparable to English nicknames or given names; they are more akin to English "first name + middle name" combinations, such as "John Michael". English given names (e.g. John) usually have interesting etymologies, but Chinese style names (e.g. 文謙) are simply a sum of parts. On the other hand, Chinese nicknames or certain stage names are certainly worthy of inclusion, such as 鳥叔, 成龍. Wyang (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

of fame, of shame[edit]

As far as I know, these can only be used in a few set phrases and aren't adjectives on their own. DTLHS (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Besides Hall of Fame, also wall, house, walk, ring. Planes of Fame is a shift in the structure of the use of the expression with the first noun in the NP being not the possibly figurative place, but rather the class of entities that could be members. There may be others of this type. Nevertheless, such a usage seems to fit with meanings of of, whether or not we have the appropriate definition yet. DCDuring TALK 19:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

European supremacy[edit]

"The ideology which holds that the European race is superior to all others." Seems like SoP - and is "European" really a race? Equinox 17:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, we have white supremacy and its derivates, and European supremacist alone shows quite a lot of uses on Google Books, and in between clearly SoP definitions ("the supremacy of Europe") Google Books seems to support a racial-ideology definition for European supremacy as well. Perhaps the definition needs a change, but if this is to be deleted, should not white supremacy be removed as well? — Kleio (t · c) 17:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Sense 3 at supremacy: "When used with a designation for a particular group, the assertion that the group in question is superior to or should rule over others." So European supremacy can be deleted, like white supremacy. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

doon the stair[edit]

Scots. SOP? --Quadcont (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Maybe it should be an RFV. Are the books written by John Buchan any help here? If I remember correctly they contain a lot of Glaswegian dialect. DonnanZ (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Try this from Google Books [9]. Actually, if it translates to a single word in standard English it should be kept. DonnanZ (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Although sometimes it would be "down the stairs" [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. DonnanZ (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Any page that consist of initialisms and abbreviations, without any definition of the word or action[edit]

Please consider APT; noun has 7 initialisms and proper noun section should link to w:American Public Television, not 3 individual words.

apartment should mention "APT" abbreviation.

APT page is not needed at wiktionary, if we have a disambiguation page at Wikipedia (w:APT).

I suggest to review and remove some wiktionary pages that weren't touched for 2 years. d1g (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, wikidata:Q4744767 can be filled with all abbreviations in "Also known as" section. d1g (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep all. Wiktionary is not a rubbish bin for what Wikipedia doesn’t want. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep. DCDuring TALK 17:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep until a more coherent and convincing argument is made. —CodeCat 17:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
First, my arguments are not about Wikipedia and their rules or WP inclusion policy (about trash bin).
Secondly, Wikidata stores names and their acronyms coherently; e.g. wikidata:Q30 d1g (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
You still haven't made a case for why entries like APT should be deleted, making it no longer possible for users to find out what they mean on Wiktionary. —CodeCat 17:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
all meaningful content (full name of the profession, full name of the company) should be migrated, APT is not the best title.
I expect apartment page in results to "APT" query.
Third, abbreviation norms differ per language. "A.A.A." can be a norm, but in other language it should be "AAA"
I'm against punctuation-specific names: A.A.A., AAA d1g (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
People will search for APT, because it's written as APT, so the entry should be located at APT. And because APT can mean many things, it cannot be redirected to apartment. —CodeCat 18:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
IMO, page should be named with full name et cetera (и так далее).
Individual abbr "etc." "и т.д." should be mentioned in "Alternative forms"
My point it not to redirect from APT to anywhere, but show target page(s) (apartment) directly. d1g (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
That makes no sense at all. If someone encounters an abbreviation in a text, how will they know what it means? The whole point of Wiktionary is for them to look it up in order to find out what it means. If we delete the page for the abbreviation, then they can no longer look it up. —CodeCat 18:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
...they can find "Apt." at apartment page.
If they are able to understand "apartment" word at APT page, they would able to understand "APT" abbr at "apartment" page.
It makes perfect sense to me not to create pages until absolutely needed to show significance of some abbreviation.
Most of the abbreviations follow trivial "keep first letter of the word"; IMO there not so much value to create a dedicated page for every abbr.
You simply get relater useless и т.д. pages in every language. d1g (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
So you want users to rely on the search feature, which will give results for every page with contains "APT" even if they have no information on what it means? You think that's user friendly? Please read WT:CFI, specifically the first section: "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means." APT is a term that people may run across and want to know the meaning of, so it's included. —CodeCat 18:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Then where should content be written? Is there an agreement on this?
и т.д.? и т. д.? (I highly doubt that space is meaningful between these 2) и так далее?
etc? etc.? et cetera?
Yes, multiple pages seem an easy solution, but how can I filter out duplicate pages from Wiktionary dumps? d1g (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course keep all. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep, but there is merit to the idea that the proper noun senses shouldn't just link to the constituent words. Either a link to the full, three-word entry on Wiktionary be made where one exists, or a link to the corresponding article on Wikipedia, but linking to American, Public and Television separately as that entry does now seems fairly useless. — Kleio (t · c) 17:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as to all. bd2412 T 18:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep of course, but I agree with Kleio. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep of course, and I also agree with Kleio. Here, topics are words, are sequences of letters; what would not make sense on Wikipedia is perfectly sound here. Lmaltier (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep. And we don't need an entry for every abbreviatable phrase, particularly those in text messaging that may simply be a quicker way to type a perfectly SOP string of words. Equinox 21:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep, and I agree with the points raised by Kleio and Equinox. --Dmol (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep, please. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Quadcont (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

combattre le feu par le feu[edit]

This has been created by tbot from the translation table; the translation itself was added par @Lmaltier, but I don't know why he did that; this looks like a calque of fight fire with fire, while the real idiom is combattre le mal par le mal or soigner le mal par le mal. The French Wiktionary doesn't even have it. I agree there are a lot of hits on Google, though. --Barytonesis (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, both exist: 26000 hits on Google for combattre le feu par le feu, 34000 for combattre le mal par le mal. The French Wiktionary isn't complete (of course), and both are absent, but they will be added sometime or another. Lmaltier (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep, as has been pointed out it exists, a calque though it may be. If you dispute the fact that it exists, take it to WT:RFV. If you think it should be noted that combattre le mal par le mal is another usage (that isn't a calque), feel free to create that entry and link to it as a synonym. Wiktionary doesn't delete forms that are not per se standard usage, as long as they are in use in their language - as combattre le feu par le feu obviously is. — Kleio (t · c) 20:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that, in French, I think that the origin is with forest fires. A calque of fight fire with fire is not quite impossible, but I would be surprised. In any case, we should consider that fight fire with fire is not a calque of combattre le feu par le feu. Lmaltier (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep (and for future reference, this is a matter for RFV). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • RFD kept by unpopulous consensus. I also vote keep to make it more populous. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

pyramid entries[edit]

RFDing the pyramids separately, per BD's suggestion. The original discussion was at WT:RFD#Aztec pyramid (to be archived at Talk:Aztec pyramid). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Mesoamerican pyramid[edit]

Mayan pyramid[edit]

ancient pyramid[edit]

Egyptian pyramid[edit]

This one survived RFD quite a long time ago (Talk:Egyptian pyramid). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Some people don't give up. I don't see any real harm in keeping any of them. DonnanZ (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete. These are of course pyramids of distinct regional styles (except the very obviously SOP ancient pyramid), but then again, that doesn't mean they should be included. We don't include Hellenistic bronze, do we? Or Roman mosaic? — Kleio (t · c) 14:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep all but ancient which is SoP. The use and basic design is different and requires prior knowledge.--Dmol (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed -- the kind of knowledge which one would go to an encyclopedia for (like, for example, Wikipedia), not a dictionary. — Kleio (t · c) 00:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom and KIeio. DCDuring TALK 00:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete all. Ƿidsiþ 12:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

għandi bżonn xampu[edit]

The English I need shampoo failed RFD (see WT:RFD#I need shampoo, to be archived at Talk:I need shampoo). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think if the English one failed RFD, that sets enough of a precedent to speedy the translations, no? — Kleio (t · c) 00:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

alternative fact[edit]

As this is a hot word, it's not an RFV matter. However, I feel some scepticism that this isn't merely an SOP construction that is being used in this exact form to mock Kellyanne Conway. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not used to mock Kellyanne Conway (she merely coined the term, hence the relevance of her name), since it is used to describe the Trump administration by sources all over the world, like the UK (The Guardian [15], The Independent [16]), Canada (Toronto Star [17], Globe and Mail [18]), US (CNN [19][20], Forbes [21], Washington Post [22]), Australia (Sydney Morning Herald [23]), New Zealand (Herald [24]), Hong Kong (The Standard [25])
And it is not a SOP since "alternative fact" does not result in a "fact" that is an alternative, it results in a non-fact. People whose mother tongue isn't English won't easily see this difference, as alternate ways to formulate facts exist that result in facts instead of falsehoods, unlike this usage of "fact" resulting in falsehoods.
(For example, there are alternate theories of gravity, which result in the same facts on the ground as the conventional theories, but which differ in areas which are not experienced in everyday life, so results in true statements in experiential circumstances, from different processes)
It is also truly a very hot word, widely exploding all over the world, with its unique meaning.
-- 04:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The SOP meaning is not covered in the entry. The SOP meaning is the legalese meaning of competing facts of a case, presented at a court of law, where both sides bases are demonstrably true, but interpretations may be incorrect. The usage here it is for statements demonstrably untrue. -- 05:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The legal term provided by user:2602:306:b802:31c0:7836:d6e5:3a15:83fd has been moved to Etymology 2 -- 04:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep, per the above. If it dies out it can be deleted then, but not while people would be looking it up the most. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep "Alternative facts" is not a neologism. The phrase is being widely regarded as a absurd, laughable neologism coined by Kellyanne Conway. While the use to which Kellyanne put this phrase may be unprecedented, the phrase itself has a longstanding and legitimate in the legal profession. Kellyanne Conway is a lawyer, so it is at least plausible that she pulled this phrase from her legal experience to defend Sean Spicer during her contentious interview with Chuck Todd. In any case, I think it is really helpful for people to realize that, despite the outrageous, shocking use to which Kellyanne Conway put this phrase, the phrase itself does have a prior history, and does have a respectable use in the legal profession. Following is the second etymology for this entry, explaining the phrase in the legal profession: "Etymology 2 The term is widely used in the legal profession. For example, in 1991 an opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court contained this: "If the presumed fact is not itself necessary for the verdict, but only one of a variety of facts sufficient to prove a necessary element, the reviewing court should identify not only the evidence considered for the fact subject to the presumption, but also the evidence for alternative facts sufficient to prove the element."[13] A textbook used in legal education states: "The expression 'alternative facts' might seem contradictory, but it simply means competing facts. In a civil case, if there weren't alternative possible facts, the case wouldn't be at trial...."[14] This phrase is an example of legalese ("Wording that resembles how a lawyer writes, especially such that is confusing to the layperson.") This phrase is also an example of a term of art."
—This unsigned comment was added by Credidimus2 (talkcontribs) at 21:40, 25 January 2017.
Keep The term has application as it can be applied as a basis for the resulting conclusion of a twisted logic argument.
—This unsigned comment was added by Karenz80 (talkcontribs) at 22:56, 29 January 2017.
  • Keep: "This is only used to mock Kellyanne Conway" a) isn't an argument for deletion (if it was used enough, it still passes CFI), and b) is itself an alternative fact ("alternative facts" is also used to mock Donald Trump, Steve Bannon and Sean Spicer) Purplebackpack89 04:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep There are two uses, both of them legitimate (even if one is hot). —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep seen that the term's usage is proving to be more than ephemeral. Morgengave (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Could somebody please put in some citations? Please see use-mention distinction and WT:ATTEST. DCDuring TALK 18:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Homer Simpson[edit]

Fictional character. However looking at the attested usage below, the term seems to have entered the language as noun in and of itself, but I just wanted to double check.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Reminds me of https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#Berlin_Wall. Mihia (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

police baton[edit]

SOP? --Quadcont (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

IMO,yes. No OneLook dictionary has an entry. The phrase merits inclusion only in a usage example at [[baton]], IMO. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
BTW, isn't it bad practice to use a word like "short" in a definition such as that of billy club or baton? MWOnline defines nightstick as "a police officer's club", which seems much more to the point. DCDuring TALK 00:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


Sum of parts. Wyang (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
[26] has an entry for the term Adbar (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
This isn't sufficient. Uses of 青春期前 below on that page show the obvious SoPness of this; 青春期 and 前 are not tightly attached to each other. Also, it is "before puberty", not "preadolescence". Wyang (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
ok Adbar (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

white smoke[edit]

White smoke could be used for multiple purposes. Also, the announcement isn't the white smoke itself, the white smoke is just the visible signal. DTLHS (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I could imagine the term being used metonymously to refer to the decision itself, but I don't see that as sufficient justification for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 00:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Take a look at these examples [27]. Would they be understandable to someone who is not aware of the origin of the expression? keep and add the figurative sense. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
On the second thought, I'm not sure if we need the concrete sense. I added a figurative sense and an etymology in which its origin is explained. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it's a signal and not an announcement, a smoke signal in fact. I think it's interesting enough to keep. DonnanZ (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I suppose that any signal traditionally associated with a decision could be used metonymously for the decision, but the essence of the matter is that it indicates a decision and is not the decision or the "event" of the decision. As Donnanz suggests it is "a signal". It seems like the scheduling of a press conference after some portentious meeting. All five of the hits for "white smoke" (in quotes) from Hekaheka's source read to me a "signal". Putting the encyclopedic sense in the etymology seems appropriate. We could still have {{&lit}} for the "smoke that is white in color" sense. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
An afterthought: the white smoke only tells the outside world that a new pope has been chosen, his name would be given later in the official accouncement. DonnanZ (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

bulaarr dhawadha banay yuli[edit]

For the same reason two thousand and sixteen doesn't exist. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom. — Kleio (t · c) 19:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

slovėnų kalba[edit]

retoromanų kalba[edit]

moldavų kalba[edit]

rumunų kalba[edit]

I thought we were deleting these "X language" entries. --Quadcont (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought we aren't. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think all "kalba" -entries can be discussed together > grouped four headers together. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

se vautrer[edit]

Per WT:About French, we shouldn't have pronominal/reflexive forms of French verbs. I have already copied the definitions over from vautrer. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • A redirect to vautrer would do no harm, I think. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    Agreed. I think it could be beneficial to include redirects for all pronominal verbs. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

false punishment[edit]

Per Equinox. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 06:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete. DCDuring TALK 13:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was going to say keep at first, since the immediately obvious interpretation of this collocation would be "something that appears to be a punishment, but isn't one", but then I saw that our sense 2 of false is "based on factually incorrect premises", so yeah, this is SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

mare's milk[edit]

Despite the comical definition, this is just mare's milk. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, delete. The definition isn't particularly comical, but it is incomplete: mare's milk is still mare's milk even when it's not used as food by humans. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
What about cow's milk? Nibiko (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, good point. On b.g.c I do see some use of cowsmilk, which would COALMINE cow's milk. But then I also see a very tiny amount of use of maresmilk, which in turn would COALMINE mare's milk in. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep according to COALMINE. Also, I note it is one word in many languages (Chinese, Japanese and Kazakh, to name a few), which would make it a useful translation target. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

As u wish. I changed the definition to "milk from a mare", though. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]


Dutch. There is already a lower-case form graaf; upper-case is either reserved for titles or is characteristic of use centuries ago, not of current use. (On a different note, parts of the etymology seem dubious, as the ONW has a lemma for grāvo.) Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that we also have earl / Earl, so I'm not sure what to think. Your point about the ety does stand though, it needs cleanup to account for the Old Dutch term. — Kleio (t · c) 17:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

be the way to go[edit]

Redundant to "way to go". Equinox 17:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom, but retain redirect and add redirect from the way to go. DCDuring TALK 17:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Just delete. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)



  1. Fictional planet in Star Wars

With reference to WT:FICTION, this seems to be strictly in-universe. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any out-of-universe use, so delete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep - "all words in all languages" SemperBlotto (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete unless WT:FICTION is satisfied. Pop culture doesn't get a free pass just because it's everybody's favourite. Equinox 10:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per SMUconlaw and Equinox. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep French Wiktionary has it, same would be to delete entry Earth. --Bjelun (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Ridiculous. Earth is not fictional. Equinox 14:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete unless WT:FICTION is satisfied. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted, as there is no evidence that WT:FICTION has been satisfied. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

ill manners[edit]

ill + manners -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

By what definition of ill? DCDuring TALK 16:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Sense 4, which even has ill manners as an example. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Sense 4 looks like more than one definition to me. Of the ones offered "not up to reasonable standard" might fit. (MWOnline has "not meeting an accepted standard", with ill manners as its usage example.) What other nouns form an NP with that definition of ill? I can't think of any right now. Not that there aren't any. DCDuring TALK 16:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Ill prospects, ill health, an ill season... Equinox 19:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Perhaps we should mark the adjective sense as dated, btw? Equinox 19:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
ill health - def. 5. ("Unwell in terms of health or physical condition; sick.")
ill prospects, ill season - def. 4.1 ("Unpropitious").
I guess the definitions in sense 4 just aren't part of my idiolect, except possibly in ill-mannered. DCDuring TALK 20:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

communal understanding[edit]

Nothing beyond its two component words. See talk page also. Equinox 21:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 21:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

have a look-see[edit]

Seems to be merely "have" + "a look-see". I see no reason for this, any more than have a peek, have a snoop, have a gander, or anything else. Mihia (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Look-see works with take, get, give, allow, as object of prepositions such as for, etc. In addition, one can "have/take/get/give/allow oneself a look-see". There are numerous other collocations and grammatical roles look-see can play, all with about the same semantics. No OneLook source has the various verb+look-see combinations, though many have look-see entries. DCDuring TALK 07:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete. It might be nice to have some formal way to list the verbs and prepositions that a word "takes", but creating loads of near-cloned entries is not the way. For now we can at least include some typical citations or usexes. Equinox 10:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
We have Appendix:Collocations of do, have, make, and take, for a start --Quadcont (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

bikini babe[edit]

Obvious meaning. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 04:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Unsure. Isn't there something set-phrasey about it, like booth babe? You wouldn't hear socks girl or hat woman. Equinox 15:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep. The meaning may be easily deducible, but it seems to me to be a clear compound word with a space in it. Many compound words like watercraft are readily deducible from the sum of their parts, but the way they are constructed make them dictionary-worthy. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I would say keep, it seems to be a catch phrase like soccer mom. A Daily Express headline reads "Bikini babe feeds flamingos in tiny purple string two-piece on idyllic beach". DonnanZ (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

banana principle[edit]

This page should never have been deleted without any discussion whatsoever (the deletion rationale is very obviously not applicable). As such I request restoration and a proper discussion. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I restored the page and tagged it, seems like it deserves consideration here. @Neskaya. - TheDaveRoss 14:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why it should be deleted. Move to RFV if the existence is disputed. Equinox 20:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


Discussion moved to WT:Requests for verification#scrumtrulescent.


Only in Minecraft video game, so I doubt it can pass WT:FICTION. Equinox 15:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

do wtorku[edit]

Passed RFD in 2008. SOP IMHO. --Quadcont (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Can other similar phrases be formed like this (do day of the week) in Polish? — Ungoliant (falai) 18:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure: do środy, do niedzieli and so on. --Quadcont (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


As pointed out by @Amgine, sense #12 is a subset of sense #7. The context label may need to be expanded. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


This appears to be a vanishingly rare misspelling. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This says the misspelling is common in relation to diabetes. If you search Google for keytone diabetes there are indeed quite a few hits. Mihia (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I have been thinking about creating a vote to get rid of the more egregious misspellings, but I mostly end up doing actual useful stuff, like creating words. I am happy to discuss such a vote by e-mail with anyone else who is annoyed by shit like this. Equinox
But why not discuss it on-project, why, why not do that? "Because of you" is the response to all those people. HTH. Equinox 22:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
My main problem with including misspellings is that they can end up on word lists or indexes appearing as valid words. Otherwise, I see no reason not to include the common ones. If someone reads the word "keytone" and comes here to find out what it means, isn't it more helpful to tell them? Mihia (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Ideally that's part of the work of the search engine. If someone types NAIT then they might mean night or knight, sure. That's an argument for having phonetic search suggestions. I don't think there's any good argument for having entire entries, on the same level as "real" word entries, that only serve to deal with people's spelling errors. Equinox 00:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I would advocate a more positive response than "did you mean?" for spelling errors that are commonly encountered. If someone types in a word that they have read, and believe to be a word, and they are told "did you mean ...?" then they might think, no, I meant what I typed, and then assume that their word was not entered in the dictionary. I do agree, though, that misspellings and errors being, as you say, "on the same level" as real entries is not very satisfactory. Mihia (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Personally, if I am looking something up which I read in a non-edited source and I cannot find it in any dictionaries, I assume it is not a word. I am in favor of paring back significantly the misspelling entries. - TheDaveRoss 13:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
So am I, in principle, but in practice, it can sometimes be very difficult to distinguish between a misspelling and a rare alternative spelling; and over time, something that started out as a misspelling can become an alternative spelling (often not a rare one), like lite, tonite, and barbeque. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as a common misspelling (WT:CFI#Spellings): (keytone*1000),ketone at Google Ngram Viewer suggests a frequency ratio of 1000, which is good enough for common misspellings by my calibration at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. Since we expressly mark the item as a misspelling, any downstream reuser who does not want misspellings can easily filter it out. Editors who want to tighten the misspelling filter can consider a lower shreshold for the frequency ratio. I think common misspellings are a usability tool: I find it much more friendly to land on a page that expressly tells me that what I was searching for was a misspelling, and what it was a misspelling of. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


This has been RFD before, but didn't attract much attention [28]. Not listed as a suffix in Oxford Online, but it is in Cambridge [29]. I think it should be discussed further. DonnanZ (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


sapiens#Translingual. The content, including descendants, of such an L2 section for a taxonomic epithet that is the same as a Latin lemma (adjective, participle, genitive form of noun) should appear under the Latin L2 section of the Latin lemma. DCDuring TALK 13:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep: it is a specific epithet, like platanifolia, gingivalis, lividans, etc. (these three were created as Translingual but you moved them to Latin), also guatemalae, livadus, laherparepvec, etc. They are presumably citable in taxonomic names in multiple languages other than Latin, and therefore I believe they are Translingual. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Your argument rests on missing or faulty premises, faulty data, or inappropriate considerations:
  1. Why should it matter who the author of any particular entry or move of an entry is? The treatment of taxonomic epithets is, in any event, an unsettled matter. I was hoping that a case like this would help us reach consensus about which taxonomic epithets clearly best presented as Latin.
  2. laherparepvec is part of the name of a drug, not a taxonomic epithet.
  3. Some of the terms in question are epithets for subspecies, varieties, forms, etc, so "taxonomic epithet" (which is SoP) is a bit more accurate than "specific epithet".
  4. The matter in question is more how to present terms rather than whether they "are" Latin or Translingual, the kind of question that only a linguist could love. We certainly don't bother attesting the Translingual nature of CJKV characters. We show almost no medical and legal Latin terms as Translingual. And we fail to show as Translingual many classical Latin terms that are used in many languages as set phrases (eg, "cave canem", "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"). IOW, there is no reason to assume that the fact of Translingual use is at all compelling of presenting something as Translingual. Translingual is essentially a residual category for terms otherwise without a language to call home.
  5. There seems to be evidence for many taxonomic epithets that they were in use in Classical, Medieval, and New Latin, not just in taxonomic names. Do you really want to do the work of creating all the duplicate L2 sections or do you want someone else to do it? Personally, I'd prefer to do the much lesser amount of work to eliminate Translingual L2 sections where a Latin L2 already exists and participate in the effort to document post-Classical non-taxonomic use of other taxonomic epithets, for which [[lividans]] is a good example.
DCDuring TALK 15:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


I think I have succeeded in making "A sectarian" redundant by adding "A member of a particular sect of thought or practice, school, party, or profession."

ein Armutszeugnis ausstellen[edit]

Straightforward usage of the figurative sense of Armutszeugnis. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


SoP? - redirect to lemmas without နိုင်ငံ(nuingngam)? @Angr, Wyang. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with a hard redirect to ရုရှား(ru.hra:). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's do redirection on other countries too. They usually put နိုင်ငံ everywhere. --Octahedron80 (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, of course. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


1471 is not really a notable number. I can't see any four-digit numbers apart from 1000 so does this page really need to stay? Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I assume you just mean the Translingual section, not the English one. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete the (translingual) generic-number sense at least. Numbers are constructed by rule, not coined as lexemes. Equinox 21:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

breakfast in bed[edit]

Both the noun and the verb seem SoP to me and also to all the lexicographers who failed to provided entries (even redirects) at breakfast in bed at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep, per your and DAVilla's comments in the last RFD discussion. If one said "I was served breakfast in bed," it would be an SOP expression, but it's usually used with "have": "I had breakfast in bed," which makes it at least somewhat non-SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Try as I might, I cannot perceive any meaning of "breakfast in bed" that is different from "breakfast" + "in bed". Mihia (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    It's mostly the fact that it heavily implies that one was served breakfast in bed rather than simply eating it there. I'm not strongly opposed to deleting it, but it feels like it's more than SOP. Now, if we had a collocations section, I would be fine with relegating it to there... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Andrew, being served is not inherent to any component term. bd2412 T 04:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete; having it served is not a necessary part of the definition. Here's a case of someone saying "I had breakfast in bed" when they were alone and had to get it themselves. There are other similar cases. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Along the same lines many of the instances in this Google Books search are examples in which the server/preparer of breakfast and the one served are the same. The logistics of the situation (How often would I want to get out of bed, make breakfast, then return to bed to eat it?), not the meaning of the words seems to be what makes breakfast in bed normally involve a situation in which someone else is preparing and serving it. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Grabbing a bagel and eating it in bed in the morning would not be referred to as "breakfast in bed" (except perhaps humorously). Even if someone brings you a bagel while you're lying in bed, that probably wouldn't count. It implies some sort of fanciness; whether someone is serving you, or you're serving yourself, there is still the idea of service and luxury. --WikiTiki89 20:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe in your idiolect, but other people's usage seems different, eg:
  • 2014, Mr Ceri Carpenter, Megan and the Mayoress:
    Megan could not just lie there any longer, so she got up, boiled three eggs, made some tea and toast and took her parents and herself breakfast in bed
  • 2015, Pat Warren, ‎Carol Ericson, Obsession and Eyewitness, page 96:
    He'd shed his jeans last night and hadn't expected breakfast in bed this morning. Not that he minded. She poured a cup of the steaming brew and carried it to him along with a sliced bagel on a plate.
  • 2015, Terrence Benjamin Samuel Jr, Strange Luv: Twisted Fate:
    To show her appreciation, she decided to make her auntie breakfast in bed which consisted of a bowl of cereal (75% milk and 25% cereal).
I have this feeling that there may be other entries, including for true idioms, that need work more than we need to cover every collocation, especially those not covered by any other OneLook reference. DCDuring TALK 22:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I may be misunderstanding you, but it looks to me like these support WikiTiki and my position. They all seem to support idiomaticity, especially the third one. It's clear that she didn't actually make her aunt breakfast while in a bed, but rather prepared her aunt's breakfast to be eaten in bed. In the first quote, "Megan" isn't taking breakfast while in bed, but rather taking breakfast in bed to her parents and for herself. Between those three quotes, I'd say there's an even stronger case for idiomaticity than I had thought. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikitiki made the point that point that there was some connotation of fanciness and being served (though he backed away from both elements, in the end merely claiming that the term implied luxury even when the service was by oneself and the food was simple).
There is some kind of connotation, but only because of the pragmatics, the situations in which one is likely to have breakfast in bed. But many collocations have some kind of connotations, often, as here, simply because of the situations in which they are used.
Should romantic dinner have an entry? For that matter, should oyster have a separate definition because of its connotational association with sex (It's a supposed afrodisiac.). DCDuring TALK 15:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you're trying to say. What I was trying to say is that it has a specific connotation of luxury and/or service or something like that. When in reality there is no luxury or service, the use of this phrase is ironic. Oysters may sometimes have an association with sex, but when they don't there is no irony. --WikiTiki89 20:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that cases like these would be easier to resolve if a "set phrases" exemption to the SoP rule could somehow be framed. Mihia (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Andrew, BD and Wikitiki Purplebackpack89 04:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


Recently removed from fr because it is not an SI unit (only bel and decibel are). Remember to also remove links e.g. in GB and gigabels. There may be other derivatives. — Dakdada 14:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The mere fact it's not SI doesn't count against it, as long as it's used in text - in fact, decibel itself is not an SI unit (rather it's a non-SI unit accepted for use with SI). However, I can't imagine any time you'd have to use a gigabel - it would be an extremely weird unit where 1 GB = a factor of 10^1,000,000,000 (for comparison, a nuclear bomb is 280 dB, or 28 B, or 0.000000028 GB. I've never encountered any physical phenomena that has involved such ludicrous factors - a gigabel of anything (sound, light, radio waves), defined relative to any sensible scale, would be something so powerful that it defies our current understanding of the laws of physics). I did however find enough citations to keep it, all using it in an imprecise, jokey way.
1993 June 15, Henry Gessau, “PC speaker via SB16 too loud”, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard, Usenet[30]:
Problem now is that the volume of the speaker sounds is like gigabels louder than volumes from other sources.
2010 October 3, Bill Heck, “Letters to the Editor”, in Midland Reporter-Telegram[31]:
Music used to be measured in decibels, and now it’s gigabels. Ten gigabels will destroy a well-made masonry wall and 30 gigabels can send out harmonic motion that will drop the Golden Gate Bridge into the harbor.
2013 March 9, Rumpelstiltskin, “This is embarrassing. I agree with McCain”, in soc.retirement, Usenet[32]:
I do however object to boomboxes on buses, and to car radios playing crap music turned up to 10 gigabels.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Yep, kilofoot is another real word for a "quasi-SI" unit. Equinox 16:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
So we should at least change the definition and remove the link to GB. — Dakdada 11:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Kilofoot may actually mean 1000 feet, but gigabel can’t be a real unit. It is always a way of exaggeration. We should define it so. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

same old-same old[edit]

Um I don't know what to say about this except that it's inherently incorrect. If everyone disagrees then we'll keep it. Just drawing attention. Equinox 22:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

We'd need it as a redirect anyway. Keeping it as an entry is just a matter of attestation IMO. DCDuring TALK 00:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


Translingual entry. I don't think ICAO is truly translingual - it's English. English has been chosen the language of international aviation, but that does not make English aviation terminology translingual. AFAIK, most languages have a spelling alphabet of their own for their national use. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I've noted that some letters are under English and some are under Translingual, but they should all be under English. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Not only aviation though, it is used internationally on amateur radio, along with all the other letters. I have the callsign Golf Zero Echo Zulu Lima. DonnanZ (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep, these terms are used in all languages. It's no more English than Canis is Latin. Moreover, the pronunciation is prescribed in IPA and notably does not match the regular English pronunciation in several cases. —CodeCat 21:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Nope. It is clearly an English set and it is used only in a context where English is the assumed language of communication. ICAO set does not even contain all letters of all languages. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The alphabet involved has various names, depending on what organisation is using it [33], a key sentence in this article says "critical combinations of letters and numbers can be pronounced and understood by those who exchange voice messages by radio or telephone regardless of language barriers or the quality of the communication channel", which I can well believe. In fact the alphabet has a multilingual flavour anyway, Alpha, Bravo, Delta, Echo, Hotel, Lima, November, Quebec, Sierra, Tango, Zulu and maybe others all come from other languages in the first place. I suggest making them all translingual if not already done - I notice that Hotel has two entries, one with a small "h". DonnanZ (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
"ICAO set does not even contain all letters of all languages." I think compromises are found - Ü as UE, ß as SS (which it is in capitals anyway), Æ as AE, Ø and Ö as OE, Å as AA (which it used to be anyway), and so on. DonnanZ (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Spanish has its own phonetic alphabet (e.g. jueves), as does Italian (e.g. Quarto). Is the ICAO alphabet used in those languages? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I found a table written in Danish, giving letters that are probably used internally. Other letters are the same.

I Norden anvendes Æ/Ä, Ø/Ö og Å, som har fået tildelt lokale navne:

Bogstav Dansk Norsk (civilt) Norsk (militært) Svensk
Æ / Ä Ægir Ægir Ærlig Ärlig
Ø / Ö Ødis Ørnulf Østen Östen
Å Åse Ågot Åse Åke
DonnanZ (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


The correct spelling is وئرمک. ARBN19 (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)




These three entries (-/-, -_- and -*-) contain only one sense:

POS section: Interfix

  1. (neologism) Used to separate multiple gendered inflections in gender-neutral writing.
    Freund/innen; ein/e Beamt/er/in
    friends (of any gender); an officer (of any gender)
  1. (neologism) Used to separate multiple gendered inflections in gender-neutral writing.
    Freund_innen; ein_e Beamt_er_in
    friends (of any gender); an officer (of any gender)
  1. (neologism) Used to separate multiple gendered inflections in gender-neutral writing.
    Freund*innen; ein*e Beamt*er*in
    friends (of any gender); an officer (of any gender)

I don't speak German, but I believe these are just punctuation marks (/, _ and *) that can be used inside words, not interfixes. The first one looks like just the punctuation mark found in "I want to meet him/her." It's used like this in Portuguese, too. We already have a couple of senses like those at /, though I'm not sure why they are marked as "proscribed" and "sometimes proscribed".

  1. (proscribed) exclusive or (used to link mutually-exclusive alternatives)
    I think she/he writes very well.
    I think s/he writes very well.
  2. (sometimes proscribed) inclusive or (used to link compatible alternatives or joint items)
    He's an actor/model.

These uses also resemble a sense currently in ( ) with multiple examples:

  1. Expands a word into another word, inflection or spelling.
    Go get the dog(s) - Here, s is a shorthand for the plural dogs.
    You should (re)write that story. - Here, re is an optional prefix re-.
    Blue is my favo(u)rite colo(u)r. - Here, u is an alternative spelling (color/colour).
    A variable with persistence that is currently above (below) its mean will tend not go below (above) its mean for some time.

Plus if I want to know the meaning of the slash in "Freund/innen", I guess it's more intuitive to search for / than -/-.

If that / were an interfix, then by that logic I believe ! would be a suffix and ( ) would be a circumfix. (which they aren't) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete per Danliel's reasoning. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

itmək and ایتمک[edit]

This verb does not seem to exist. 23:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Move to WT:RFV. —CodeCat 01:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


Sum of parts (see etymology). —suzukaze (tc) 05:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


This is just a number. I can't even see any use for it to be on Wiktionary. Everybody knows that 146 is a number and there is no meaning for it or any special use for this number. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Also: 145, 144, 143, 142, 141, 140, 139, 138, 137, 136, 135, 134, 133, 132, 131, 130, 129, 128, 127, 126, 124, 123, 122, 120, 119, 118, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153 and 154. These should be all deleted for the same reason. All these pages were created by IP addresses. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Given our previous discussions concluding that we should not have any numbers over 100, these should be speedy deletion cases. bd2412 T 03:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    Agree with BD. We might also want to semi-protect some of the lower ones to avoid the well-meaning but errant creation by new folks who are unaware. - TheDaveRoss 13:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete; a relating discussion is at Talk:105. 146 entry does not show any meaning other than the number. Delete the listed numbers as well. I don't object to speedy deletion, as a follow-up on Talk:105. A semi-protection may be in order. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deleted per previous consensus against having entries for numbers over 100 without idiomatic meanings. bd2412 T 17:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Post-closing note: I seem to recall from my youth that 143 was at some point used as shorthand for "I love you" (based on the 1, 4, and 3 representing the number of letters for each word in the phrase). There appear to be a smattering of sources for this proposition, e.g., 2011, Dr. Brian Snow, Santa Claus and Little Sister: “I love you. Love always, Your wishful daughter, Lupe. P.S. 143” I put Lupe's heart down and wiped my eyes. I learned from the girls that “143” meant “I love you” from the old military days when messages had to be quick and cheap on Western Union. Can anyone else find anything for this? If so, I'll restore the entry for this idiomatic sense. bd2412 T 02:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@BD2412 Before I close this, I have actually found more numbers that should be deleted that were created by IP Addresses:

Delete all these numbers for the same reasons. There is an endless pile of numbers created by IPs and bad users. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

rub off[edit]

RFD-sense "2. To clean by rubbing." Undoubtedly true, but this is just unidiomatic "rub off" for a specific purpose. We don't include senses like "to deface by rubbing" either. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Our entry for rub#Verb doesn't have an appropriate definition for rub, IMO. Juding from the usage examples the "cleanse" definition is not appropriate. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed: if the example was "I rubbed the dirt off the old lamp", it would be SoP, but "rubbing off" a toy rabbit (cleaning it) seems a phrase of its own. Equinox 19:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

national airline[edit]

I was going to fix the definition, which is for "flag carrier". When trying to formulate a better definition it began to look more and more like "an airline that is national". --Hekaheka (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The corresponding definition of flag carrier doesn't convey that the term often refers to a carrier/airline that is typically the sole airline that provides some class of international service and may be government owned or have a special charter giving it a monopoly. I think that the meaning of the term has changed where "open-skies" regulatory regimes now govern. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


This term does not exist in Bashkir, and appears to have been invented in analogy to Kazakh мұзтау "iceberg". Also, please see the discussion in the Tea room.Borovi4ok (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)