Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

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

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

Requests for verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

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

Requests for verification/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfi}} -

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'.

Tagged RFDs


November 2016[edit]

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)


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 (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 (lûuk-mǔu), 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)
RFD failed. 0 keep, 2 delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2017 (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)

What about In a less whoop-de-doo vein are the suits of cheetah,... and It's all very whoop-de-do? Kiwima (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2017 (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)
  • I defintely think it's SoP. Including lekker ding, as proven by L.B.D. above. This is just a fairly rare sense of stuk/ding combined with a very normal though not perfectly literal sense of lekker. So delete. Kolmiel (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Kaaskop present and saying delete. Lingo Bingo Dingo, your profile says Dutch is your mother tongue. You think "lekker ding" is used exclusively for women? Prepare to have your mind blown.
As for "lekker stuk": it's SoP. I can also have a klein stuk (small piece) or a groot stuk. (big piece) lekker stuk as in "hot babe" is something I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone say. I've heard someone sing it though: Malle Babbe, but in the song it's followed by "dier van plezier" (animal of pleasure), another thing I've never heard anyone say. A stuk can already be found here so this is no different from hot babe. If you disagree you need to start creating pages for waanzinnig stuk, ongelofelijk stuk, prachtig stuk, superstuk and megastuk. Stuk is rarely used with an adjective anyway.
Lekker ding is probably not valid either. Dutch wiktionary removed it in 2011 saying "not suitable for dictionary". Just "ding" in Van Dale says "waarderende aanduiding voor een persoon" (appreciative description of a person) with some examples with adjective. Oddly, it can be used in a non-appreciative way as well (but it's not as common): lelijk ding (ugly thing), dom ding. (dumb thing)
Conclusion, cast it away. W3ird N3rd (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
RFD failed. 1 or 2(?) keep votes, and apparently not very enthusiastic ones. 4 delete votes. Clearly there is consensus to delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2017 (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)


SoP. Ref. Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#รัฐโอไฮโอ above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:56, 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)
RFD kept. 1 keep, 1 delete. No consensus to delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:34, 13 August 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)

@Octahedron80, หมวดซาโต้, Iudexvivorum, YURi The royal dictionary doesn't seem to include them. Many of the pages with prefix ภาษา will be affected if we decide to redirect them. Wyang (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Redirect. Sure, because language names ภาษา~ are always SOP. --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


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

December 2016[edit]


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)











Special:Contributions/Jagnesuzukaze (tc) 11:06, 11 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)
RFD failed. 0 keep, 4 delete. (please archive all this in every single entry in question) PseudoSkull (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2017 (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)

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 found this definition when looking up an idiomatic use of the phrase in Taleb's The Black Swan:
Seeing how superfluous his measure was, and how it squandered resources, the public, with great help from airline pilots, might well boot him out of office. Vox clamantis in deserto. He will retire depressed, with a great sense of failure.
I think it's appropriate for Wiktionary. Splintax (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I came to my computer to look up vox clamantis in deserto because I couldn't recall the referent. I was pleased to find it in Wiktionary.

--BobShair (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I see that you put "Wikipedia" first and fixed it, and that you have never made any edits here before. It seems an absurd thing for a mere RFD, but am I witnessing meatpuppetry? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:50, 18 April 2017 (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)

RFD failed. 0 keep, 2 delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2017 (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)
RFD kept. 2 keep, 1 delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


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

Thai entered to mean "Christian church". The indicated sum is โบสถ์ (church) +‎ คริสต์ (Christian). If one believes Google image search, what it refers to is a building, and maybe less so the organization; for some reason, the organization popped up to my mind first. OTOH, buildings are visual unlike organizations, so they may naturally pop up first. Sanook[1] does not seem to have the word. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:57, 18 March 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)
Moved to RFV per consensus; RFD passed. (why did this take so long?) PseudoSkull (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2017 (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)

Agreed. delete Kiwima (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

RFD failed. 0 keep, 2 delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2017 (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)


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

Delete; totally doesn't follow CFI. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:47, 13 August 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)

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)
    Delete them, if not included at http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/ that nevertheless includes some personal names like 劉禪 (Liu Shan) in 3rd Century China.--Jusjih (talk) 03:01, 18 August 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 [2]. 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" [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. DonnanZ (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

slovėnų kalba[edit]

retoromanų kalba[edit]

moldavų kalba[edit]

rumunų kalba[edit]

oksitanų kalba[edit]

afarų 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)

I am happy to weakly keep "X language" entries, especially if the open compound "X language" is more common than its single-word synonym. Thus, if in English, "English language" were much more common in reference to the language than "English", I would support keeping "English language". I do not know the relative frequency for Lithuanian, the language being discussed here, though. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I grouped the four headers now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Those are the normal terms to refer to the languages, as far as I'm aware. (And I think all others are ambiguous.) Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

From originally separate section of Afar:
I thought we were deleting all these "X language" entries. --G23r0f0i (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

yeah...delete. It's SOP. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
RFD kept for all. 3 keep, 2 delete, no consensus to delete. (Wait, started by Wonderfool, so his vote doesn't even count anyway right?, so 1 delete from me) PseudoSkull (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]

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)
Delete. It wouldn’t hurt to redirect the page to that sense of ill, though. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
RFD failed. 0 keep, 3 delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:53, 13 August 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)
RFD failed. 0 keep, 3 delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


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

Delete.Kleio (t · c) 17:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Weak keep, due to the amount of citations given, but I feel the entry really needs to be cleaned up. I can't tell if it's used as a (sometimes attributive) noun or a proper noun? PseudoSkull (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Number of cites is irrelevant on its own. Quality and admissibility are relevant. We could find large numbers of cites for many terms you have voted to delete in the past, e.g. SoPs. Equinox 11:39, 14 August 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)
    @Dan Polansky: Please look at google books:"keytone". Most of the uses are not actually this misspelling, so the frequency you quoted is a gross overestimation. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Μετάknowledge: GNV distinguishes capitalization, unlike Google Books: check e.g. keytone,Keytone at Google Ngram Viewer. Admittedly, when I ignore the uppercase occurrences in the Google Books search, I also find the likes of "The central tone in a key is called a keytone", but even if these would drive the frequency ratio to 2000, that would still be acceptable for a common misspelling by my lights. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the OP's argument really is more of an RfV one than an RfD. Purplebackpack89 11:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
RFD kept. 2 keep, 1 delete, no consensus to delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


This has been RFD before, but didn't attract much attention [8]. Not listed as a suffix in Oxford Online, but it is in Cambridge [9]. 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)
  • 1. One could abuse the moving like this: (a) Move or change all entries to a personally preferred form (like placing the taxonomic epithet "sapiens" in an Latin entry). (b) Claim that something is common practice or even consensus (like claiming that it's common practice that taxonomic epithets are Latin).
    (I'm not saying that you did this or are doing this, I'm just saying that one could do it like that.)
  • 2. Just like talimogene laherparepvec is English, laherparepvec might be English and not Translingual. Searching for "laherparepvec" on google books only had English results and two German results. One German result had "Talimogen Laherparepvec" and the other had "Talimogene laherparepvec" in italics, so it should be the English term. As German is not a LDL three cites are required. Thus with google books it's not attested in German.
  • 4.
    • CJKV: I don't know CJKV languages and their writing and encoding good enough, but from what I've read, not all characters are necessarily Translingual. The communists in mainland China simplified some characters, so these characters could be simplified Chinese and not Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese, and so they maybe aren't Translingual.
    • Medical and legal Latin terms and Classical Latin terms as Translingual: (a) Wiktionary is not complete, so a lack of something doesn't necessarily mean anything. Maybe many Translingual terms are simply missing. (b) It could be a matter of attesting terms. Attesting one term in one language is one problem, but attesting one term in several language is a harder task. (c) It could be a problem of current usage and understanding. At least in German, Latin terms became rarer and often aren't understood anymore. So even a simple "per definitionem" isn't so simple anymore and it's rather an elevated term. (d) BTW: In case of German there could be the matter of spelling: "cave canem" could become "cave Canem" as canem/Canem is a substantive.
    • "Translingual is essentially a residual category for terms otherwise without a language to call home.":
      • As of Wiktionary:Translingual#Other languages, terms can be Translingual and also, for example, English, so terms can be Translingual and can have possible languages to call home.
      • Many Translingual terms could be English, French, German etc. instead of being Translingual, that is they could have languages to call home. E.g. H2O and E numbers are used in English and German. So Translingual might contain terms attested in multiple languages and also terms which could hypothetically be used in multiple languages. If E100 is used in English and German, then it's used translingually and thus Translingual. As E101 could be used similarly in English and German, it's also Translingual, even if might ATM be unattested for English or German. But that "could hypothetically be used in multiple languages" has to be restricted and is restricted: Wiktionary:About Translingual#Accepted.
  • 5.
    • If "lividans" was never used in Latin but just in other languages, it shouldn't have a Latin entry as that's incorrect and misleading. So it could be English ("Streptomyces lividans" is attestable in English texts) or Translingual.
      Also compare with pseudo-anglicisms which are considered to be French, Italian, German etc. and not English. If lividans would be Latin, even if it was never used in Latin, then French tennisman should be English.
    • The "duplicating" maybe could be used to differ between earlier taxonomic terms and taxonomic terms accepted or once accepted by ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature). ICZN claims to only accepts terms invented in or after 1758: "3.2. [...] No name or nomenclatural act published before 1 January 1758 enters zoological nomenclature [...]". In fact, ICZN violates this by accepting some slightly earlier terms from 1757. So if older terms were never used in other languages, they could be Latin, while younger terms are Translingual. Homo sapiens for example is used in English and German, so it's used translingually and thus it's Translingual. But well, if older terms were also used translingually, one can't differ like this. And it might be likely that older terms were used translingually.
    • As there are Translingual entries like Streptomyces, it's more consistent, if lividans is Translingual too.
      Also it's easier to state that taxonomic terms are Translingual than to state some taxonomic terms are Translingual while some are Latin or English.
    • "much lesser amount of work": The amount of work doesn't determine the better or correct solution. Instead of doing RFVs/RFDs, it's easier to simply delete questioned entries. But this easy solution would be nonsense.
    • Regarding the work question: I was already considerend to move or duplicate some of them (as the WT:RFV discussions seem to have stopped). Problems I had: (a) It maybe wouldn't be consensus. (b) I was and am somewhat busy. Holiday time (like Christmas time) for me is a better time to do such things. (c) Proper Translingual templates could be missing. And some people do have problems with IPs creating or even just editing templates. Semi-solutions I saw: (a) Posting in the WT:RFV discussions again. (b) Starting a WT:BP discussion. But because of a lack of time and as IPs not rarelly get mistreated, I hesitated.
      So how about having a WT:BP discussion regarding the placement of taxonomic terms?
      Possibilities and some arguments:
      • Putting taxonomic terms under a Translingual header.
        • It's consistent.
        • The Latin origin is irrelevant, like pseudo-anglicisms also aren't English.
        • By attestation some terms would be Translingual, while younger onces would just be English ATM. So placing them under Latin is misleading and incorrect.
        • This is what Wiktionary:About Translingual#Accepted should already state or at least imply. -- Annotation: The about page could be changed.
      • Putting some taxonomic terms under a Translingual header and some under a Latin header.
        • Con: It's inconsistent, and thus might also irritate users and might lead to new incorrectly created entries.
        • It might be easier as it doesn't need new templates or anything.
      • Putting taxonomic terms under a Latin header.
        • It's consistent.
        • It might also be easy.
        • It orginated in Latin and has some Latin features. -- Con: But it's used or also used in other languages, and some terms might be unattested in Latin.
      • Putting taxonomic terms under the languages they are attested in.
        • It's consistent.
        • It might also be easy.
        • In this way one can provide more information like pronunciation and inflection. -- Annotation: In case of other choices, the information could be generalised and put on a about page.
        • Con: E.g. Homo sapens would than have an entry in several languages which is redundant.
@Daniel Carrero:
  • "They are presumably citable in taxonomic names in multiple languages other than Latin, and therefore I believe they are Translingual": In case of modern terms (like donaldtrumpi) it should rather be a problem to cite them in Latin than in English (or French, German). With google books I could attest iroquoianus only for English and not for another language (compare Wiktionary:RFV#iroquoianus). As it could be used in French or German as well, it might however be Translingual.
- 21:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC) (And sorry for being a TL;DR text writing guy, but not giving arguments as well as ignoring other persons' arguments or concerns, wouldn't be good too.)
@DCDuring: I'll reply now to all your five points. I'll copy your questions below, between quotation marks.
  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."
    • It matters because of this reason: you had said that sapiens "should appear under the Latin L2 section of the Latin lemma" which might give the impression that it's a settled regulation. The page moves are evidence that, while we have some Latin entries for specific (or taxonomic) epithets, there is still some disagreement. Some people have created Translingual entries for epithets. That said, naturally I'm OK with discussing and seeking consensus.
  2. "laherparepvec is part of the name of a drug, not a taxonomic epithet."
    • Point taken, sorry for the mix-up.
  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'."
    • Point taken, "taxonomic epithet" sounds great to me.
  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."
    • I disagree with the "Translingual is essentially a residual category ..." and I'd suggest using Translingual for medical and legal Latin terms. I believe at some point you supported the idea of using Translingual for medical/legal terms too, if I'm not mistaken.
    • Here's a proposal. (I actually intend to propose it on BP eventually.) Whenever a taxonomic name is attestable, let's be allowed to create a Translingual (and not Latin) entry for the specific, and possibly other taxonomic epithets. These may probably be automated by bot. Reasons for this proposal are in my next answer, below.
  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."
    • Admittedly, I basically never work on taxonomic names, whereas you work on them a lot. Still, nobody needs to create duplicate Translingual/Latin sections for specific epithets. To be fair, sometimes duplication seems to be OK, like creating multiple language sections for pizza, sushi and place names. But for specific epithets, what I proposed above is just using Translingual. Why duplicate? We don't need to create an additional line of text in the Latin section meaning "specific epithet".
    • If sapiens is used in Latin to mean "discerning, wise, judicious", "discreet", "(substantive) a wise man, sage, philosopher" then we probably are going to find quotations with these senses in latin running text. This is completely separate from the use of "sapiens" in specific epithets, which exists in multiple languages, and therefore Translingual is appropriate it in my opinion. Translingual taxonomic names have different quotations, uses and possibly pronunciations in different languages. Plus, they are going to have a list of all taxonomic names that use that epithet. I'd rather find it in one place (the Translingual section) rather than search the Latin section and discern the actual Latin from the specific epithets.
    • If specific epithets are Translingual, it's consistent with the practice of keeping taxonomic names as Translingual. If someone wants to use Latin for specific epithets, they may as well do the whole job and move all taxonomic names to the Latin section, too. (I'm not proposing that, I'm only saying that using only "Translingual" or only "Latin" would at least be consistent.)
    • In fact, even if a taxonomic name is only attested in Latin texts, I'd still propose using only the Translingual section for it, because it fits a group of Translingual entries. If "Homo erectus" (or another taxonomic name) were used only in durably-archived quotes in Spanish, I'd still support creating a Translingual section for it, not a Spanish section.
    • If we create new sections for specific epithets by bot, then it's actually less work, as opposed to the current labor of creating senses manually in the middle of the Latin section. Admittedly, probably the bot could work equally well to create Translingual or Latin sections for specific epithets. (Heck, the bot could even create duplicate sense lines meaning "specific epithet" in both Translingual and Latin, which you mentioned above as one thing you apparently don't want.) Still, I'd use it only for Translingual, not Latin, for the reasons I said above.
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is stupid, and a bad practice — if there's consensus for Daniel's idea, then it has to be gotten from the community and done on a broad scale. In the mean time, the Translingual entry should go. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    Currently, a few senses about a "specific epithet" exist in both Latin and Translingual. Do you think they should all be deleted until we have consensus to add them in a broad scale, or are you OK with using Latin? To repeat what I said, I think using Latin is a bad idea, because it's inconsistent with the practice of using Translingual for taxonomic names. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    What is the point, beyond one kind of "consistency", of having both Translingual and Latin L2 sections for a term like albus? If there is a point, eg, "Wikidata would need it that way" or "Tabbed Languages needs it that way", then let some bot add the duplicate sections, that being an automatable task, perhaps requiring manual review. DCDuring TALK 12:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    The entry you mentioned (albus) does not have any sense like this: "A specific epithet." You don't have to create that sense if you don't want, but senses like this can probably be created en masse by bot as I mentioned. As long as that entry doesn't have that sense, it can have only the Latin section. But, I insist, if we want to add that sense, it must be Translingual, in my opinion. Consistency is important. That sense is simply not restricted to Latin only; it is used in multiple languages. It is, therefore, Translingual. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Daniel Carrero Does your personal opinion about the importance of of consistency connect in any way to any purported importance to Wiktionary and its users of this particular set of instances of consistency? DCDuring TALK 17:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    Yes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero (12:20, 9 March 2017): Regarding 5 (2), "Translingual taxonomic names have different quotations, uses and possibly pronunciations in different languages.": They have as seen in Homo sapiens#Pronunciation.
@Metaknowledge: It's not a matter of anyone's idea. A voting like "delete until there is some concensus" would mean that many taxonomic terms under a Translingual or Latin header have to be deleted as there is also no concensus to put the taxonomic term iroquoianus under a Latin header. But with WT:Translingual#Accepted one could argue that there is, or maybe was, concensus to place taxonomic terms under a Translingual header.
@DCDuring (12:57, 15 March 2017): Consistency is a good point. Proper categorisation is another, compare Category:mul:Taxonomic names: Translingual sapiens can be put into a Category:mul:, but Latin sapiens would be misplaced in it. Furthermore, sapiens might be attested in Latin as a taxonomic term - but Translingual iroquoianus isn't, so it fails WT:CFI as a Latin entry and has to be deleted as a Latin entry. But ok, this leads to the argument consistency. Then there's the matter of declension. Translingual taxonomic terms aren't declined as in Latin in many languages as seen by the wrong accusative "Homo sapiens" in a German example in Citations:Homo sapiens or by the wrong English singular Homo sapien.
Another argument could be this: Translingual taxonomic terms might miss macrons (or macra) which are used in Latin dictionaries and grammars. So Latin macrons for a Translingual taxonomic term could be hypercorrect.
BTW: Taxonian might rather be a constructed 'language' similar to Klingon, New Ancient Greek (as e.g. used in Asterix comics), etc., for which maybe compare WT:CFI#Constructed languages, WT:ID#What's the language?. I used ' around language as it's maybe not really a language like Klingon which has a grammar or New Ancient Greek, but just something else similar to a language.
- 20:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete. It's simply wrong. Alone, this word is not translingual, it's simply Latin. Even very modern such words should have a Latin entry (modern Latin, but Latin nonetheless). But complete scientific names should have their Translingual section as well as other language sections when needed to mention pronunciation in the language, quotations in the language, gender in the language (very important), etc. Lmaltier (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The argument "Alone, this word is not translingual, it's simply Latin" may work in this case. But: 1. There are many species epithets where it doesn't work, that is, the species epithets are not attestable in Latin but only in non-Latin taxonomics. 2. For Latin one could argue that "(New Latin) Used as a taxonomic epithet" is not a specialised sense but just the meaning wise. Even for Translingual taxonomics one could argue that they simply use the Latin word meaning wise to form species names like Homo sapiens. So one could delete both, the Translingual entry and the taxonomic epithet sense.
Compared with Wiktionary:About Translingual ("Accepted [...] taxonomic names"), Category:Translingual taxonomic eponyms (which contains some epithets) and Category:Species entry using missing Translingual specific epithet ("that are missing entries or L2 sections for the species name, presumed to be Translingual, ie, [= i.e.] not Latin"), one could argue that a Translingual entry sapiens is justified. - 06:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@DCDuring: dahuricus was moved to Latin Dahuricus and a thereafter created Translingual dahuricus got deleted. What do you think of not having Translingual dahuricus, fleischmanni if there is a Latin Dahuricus, Fleischmanni? If Translingual sapiens should be deleted because there is Latin sapiens, then Translingual dahuricus, fleischmanni maybe should be too. - 12:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't care very much. I already incur the keyboard overhead in species entry creation of directing links from species epithets to the appropriate lemma and L2 (See {{epinew}}.) because I despaired of us reaching an easy-to-implement uniform policy concerning L2 placement of specific epithets. I hope that those who move a epithet definition or section also make the appropriate changes to the inflection line in species entries that link to them. DCDuring (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Really, it's just Latin. --Jtle515 (talk) 18:55, 19 July 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."

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)
After I put this to WT:RFV#same old-same old, attesting quotations are now in the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I vote to keep. It is a reasonably common variant. Kiwima (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • RFD kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:42, 19 August 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 [10], 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)
@DonnanZ: It's said that ICAO has alfa or Alfa with f.
German has its own spelling alphabets and has names for German letters including the umlaute and ß.
At least Danish also had other ways of spelling, like "aa" instead of "å".
I would generalise and extend Andrew Sheedy's question: Is the ICAO alphabet used in other languages than English (and, of course, is it attested in other languages than English)? Do Spanish pilots etc. speak Spanish and use ICAO, or do Italians, Frenches or Germans speak their language and use ICAO? If Spanish pilots use ICAO's alphabet and speak English, then it's English. If they speak Spanish and use ICAO it's also Spanish and thus Translingual. So this could be a RFV instead of RFD. - 17:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep : I already heard these ICAO letters used in French (not by pilots; and no English was used at all). There is a standard pronunciation, but usual pronunciations in each language should be given in each language section. Lmaltier (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I just heard a use of Kilo in Dutch by the police in a documentary. I'm unable to post a link because the spam filter blocks it. —CodeCat 22:33, 13 March 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)
  • Aah, please can we change the entry into cute smilies instead of deleting them. The first one could be for Two-Face. The second one a sleeping dude, and the third one perhaps for a Hindu with a dot on the forehead. I vote for being Cute. --Quadcont (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    Creating emoticon entries for -/-, -_- and -*- sounds plausible (especially this, IMO: -_-) iff they are citable. This is separate from the idea I proposed above of deleting these specific German senses. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
-/- in "ein/e Beamt/er/in" is different from / in "his/her" or German "sein/ihr": While "his/her" could be rephrased as "his or her" and "sein/ihr" as "sein oder ihr", "Beamt/er/in" would be, but with change of meaning, "Beamter oder Beamtin" and "ein/e" would be "ein oder eine" (bold part has to be added when -/- is used). If one would incorrectly treat a -/- like a /, one would get "ein oder e" which doesn't make sense.
  • "We already have a couple of senses like those at /": Well, one could move some of the senses from / to -/-.
  • "I'm not sure why they are marked as "proscribed" and "sometimes proscribed"": It could depend on the spelling, and not necessarily on the meaning. "she/he" could be "sometimes proscribed" like "actor/model" while "s/he" is "proscribed".
  • "Plus if I want to know the meaning of the slash in "Freund/innen", I guess it's more intuitive to search for / than -/-.": It is more intuitive, but intuitions can be wrong. One could add -/- in an {{also|}} or mention it like / / in / ("See also: / / for the use ..." and "See / / for uses of ...").
  • "! would be a suffix": ! is not added to a word, at least in usual English words or German. In English words like !Kung and in African languages ! might be a prefix or suffix when originally representing some click sounds, but that's something different.
    "( ) would be a circumfix": Aren't circumfixes only added at the begining and at the end like [circumfix part 1][word or stem][circumfix part 2]? ( ) instead is added elsewhere like in "dog(s)", "(re)write", "colo(u)r". So if ( ) would be some affix, it would be of another type.
    But well, the POS "Punctuation mark" might be more fitting and then / might be the proper entry. However, one has to differ between "ein/e" and "ein/eine": 1. In case of "ein/e" something has to be added (a single "e" makes no sense there). 2. / in "ein/eine" has the meaning of or and so "ein/eine" is bi-gendered (like "a man or woman"). "ein/e" on the other hand is said to include various sociological genders and is multi-gendered (like "a man or woman or possibly other"). 3. / meaning or as in "ein/eine" can be used elsewhere like in "und/oder" (= and or or, i.e. an emphasised inclusive or).
- 16:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (as creator) "Freund/innen" is a good example of why -/- isn't simply a slash. It's not "Freund"/"innen", nor is it even "Freund [singular]"/"Freundinnen" - it's "Freunde [plural] and Freundinnen". The slash specifically draws attention to the fact the use of the -innen suffix does not necessarily mark the gender of the friends (It makes more sense for words like Mitarbeiter/innen where the masculine plural is the same as the singular). Similarly, in "Beamt/er/in", it's not "Beamt"/"er"/"in", it's "Beamter"/"Beamtin". It's doing something unique that it only does when inserted into words. All of the examples given by the OP, with the exception of the slash in s/he, are punctuation marks with the same meaning both inside and outside words. (There's also the fact that, for -*- and -_-, you can't use these symbols any other way: you couldn't write "ja/nein" as "ja*nein" or "ja_nein". They only work as interfixes). Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    • For people who believe this should be kept, but that it's not an interfix, would you say it's an infix? eg in "für eine/n andere/n", where it's inserted into the middle of the -en suffix? (e.g. in 1, 2, [3)? Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'm still not seeing why this usage can't be explained within /. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, but move the information, as I don't think it's a true interfix, but it needs to be covered more thoroughly at /, *, and [[_]]. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


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

Japanese entered to mean "bedridden"; the sum is 病臥 +‎ . --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:44, 19 August 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)
Doesn't rub in "I rubbed my glasses" imply cleaning in a similar way, with the thing being cleaned as the direct object? [11] [12] Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
A couple of on-line dictionaries 2 1.4 3 1 a include a (sub) sense involving cleaning for rub, usually under a sense corresponding to Wiktionary's sense 2. It does seem an existing sense not limited to rub off. [13] [14] Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:06, 3 March 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)

March 2017[edit]


This seems deletable as a rare misspelling of dead wrong or dead-wrong. The regulation is WT:CFI#Spellings. deadwrong, dead wrong, dead-wrong at Google Ngram Viewer does not even find "deadwrong", and therefore, frequency ratio cannot be determined with the use of GNV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Recently raised at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#deadwrong. Mihia (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, and in WT:RFV#deadwrong, Kiwima found attesting quotations so this is going to pass RFV. It can still be deleted as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
What makes it a misspelling rather than an emergent spelling or a pronunciation spelling? DCDuring TALK 13:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Consistent with my long-term stance, a spelling whose frequency ratio to its alternative spelling is very low (or very high, from the other direction) is likely a misspelling. For the above spelling, no frequency can even be determined in GNV. What is your criterion for a misspelling? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a criterion or criteria. I'm glad I don't because it seems that your plausible criterion has gotten this one deadwrong. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom, as a rare misspelling. Of the relatively few books that use "deadwrong", many also use "dead wrong", which suggests that the use of the rare nonstandard spelling is an unintentional error rather than deliberate. Other books only use the term once, preventing such an analysis. - -sche (discuss) 05:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Wildly nonstandard. Equinox 12:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

e-#Etymology_1, "out of"[edit]

Delete [as English] or reclassify as Latin like ec-; and probably sug- et al should be recreated as Latin; for the same reason as Talk:sug-: it seems to me that Etymology 1, the prefix supposedly meaning "out of", is describing a Latin conditional variant prefix and not an English one. Looking at the "derived terms", "evict" is borrowed whole from Latin, it is not "e-" + *"vict"; "egress" is from Latin, not "e-" + *"gress"; etc. - -sche (discuss) 16:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Category:English words prefixed with e-, there are a few words that look like they are examples of productive use of Latin-derived e- (but some have a sense that is more accurately described as non- rather than out of): ebracteate, enucleate, ecostate, elamping, elocation, enodal, etypical, evacate. Maybe they are actually borrowings from scientific New Latin terms, though; does anyone have more info?
Even if this is enough to keep the section, we ought to add information to describe the real situation (that nearly all words with this e- are Latin borrowings). — Ungoliant (falai) 16:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster says ebracteate is from New Latin ebracteatus and enucleate is from enucleatus, and I can find ecostatus and elocatio and enodalis as (New?) Latin words which would account for ecostate, etc. In all of those cases, e- looks like "sug-": like the prefix only existed in Latin. The invocation of "e-" in our etymology of "elamping" seems to be someone's guesswork, qualified by that question mark at the end. "Evacate" seems likely to also have a Latin or other etymon like "evacuate", or perhaps it is a variant of that word. I can't find a reference that explains the etymology of "etypical"; can anyone else? - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Are there any cases where English uses e- where Latin would use another allomorph of ex- due to the initial sound(s) of the word? Any examples of the suffix being used in an "un-Latin" way would be evidence of it being thought of as an English prefix. —CodeCat 21:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Probably delete [as English] or reclassify as Latin for the same reason as Talk:sug- and #e-. "Efform" and "effranchise" claim to have been formed using this suffix, but I suspect they were borrowed whole or represent unusual phonological alterations, since the norm when attaching "ex-" to "f"-initial words is not to switch to "ef-" ("exfranchisees sued the company"). The only English dictionaries which have this also have sug- and hence seem to have different inclusion criteria than us. - -sche (discuss) 16:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@-sche: The OED states that efform derives from ef- +‎ form, though I suppose it could derive from the Latin efformō instead. Isn't this an RFV issue, though? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I find older dictionaries with derive efform from Latin efformo, which is an attested Latin word; ef- form seems like a superficial analysis like in some dictionaries' entries for "suggest" which say it's "sug- + gest". As for RFV, some have argued that the question of deleting an affix (even on the grounds that it does not occur in a given language) is an RFD matter; cf the discussions of -os. Sug- was discussed at RFD rather than RFV. - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


SOP --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thai originally entered as "wheel", now as "wheel of a car". The sum is ล้อ (“wheel”) + รถ (“car”). Found in sanook[15]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

quasi mai[edit]

SOP? Also, I find it very odd that an entry for hardly ever has never been created. --Quadcont (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

More Chinese names (characters from Romance of the Three Kingdoms)[edit]

(WT:NSE) All of these are surname + given name:

李典, 李封, 龔景/龚景, 伏德, 黃劭/黄劭, 胡邈, 胡敬才, 閔貢/闵贡, 楊彪/杨彪, 楊密/杨密, 薛蘭/薛兰, 吳匡/吴匡, 趙萌/赵萌, 楊琦/杨琦, 宗寶/宗宝, 薛禮/薛礼, 范康, 檀敷, 龐舒/庞舒, 王邑, 韓融/韩融, 孔昱, 伍孚, 呂伯奢/吕伯奢, 胡赤兒/胡赤儿, 黃琬/黄琬, 孔伷, 蘇獻/苏献, 潘隱, 應劭/应劭, 關純/关纯, 王匡, 蒯良, 臧霸, 荀諶/荀谌, 桓階/桓阶, 武安國/武安国, 張虎/张虎, 馬宇/马宇, 左靈/左灵, 紀靈/纪灵, 呂公/吕公, 麴義/麴义, 區星/区星, 曹德, 蔣雄/蒋雄, 荀正, 宋果, 范成, 胡才, 祖郎, 王昌, 岑晊

Sigh. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Collect these to an appendix page instead? These names are somewhat useful. --Octahedron80 (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I support this notion. Either here or on some other WikiProject site.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

be above[edit]

Should be handled at "above". (Never mind the mess that "be" makes of our inflection template. "is", "was", "were", "been"?) Equinox 16:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete, merging any useful material into above#Preposition, perhaps by enhancing definitions or add usage examples. DCDuring TALK 17:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Many Thai language names[edit]

Per #ภาษาไทย above. These are SoPs, and should be converted to redirects with content migrated to the base articles (without "language"):

Wyang (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Redirect all to lemmas, per the above link. Inclusion of usexes would be helpful but not required for this RFD to go ahead. Also, converting to translations, e.g. French#Translations from ภาษาฝรั่งเศส (th) to SoP ภาษาฝรั่งเศส would also be helpful but not required. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Redirect all to lemmas --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Redirecting should not harm, although for "X language" entries, I am ok with keeping as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been shot[edit]

If you heard a gunshot & somebody yelping or screaming, you can safely assume that somebody’s been shot. If you see a bullet hole on somebody, you can likewise assume that they’ve been shot. Why bother stating the obvious? — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 00:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

They might be on a 911 call, or talking to a blind person, or discussing a shooter video game. Equinox 00:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
And they might be trying to feed an elephant a delicious mango. But our phrasebook entries don't need to cover any and all situations. Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep I've been shot, like I've been raped and I've been robbed. Don't create I'm trying to feed an elephant a delicious mango. Most conceivable phrases don't merit phrasebook entries, and some do. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep: for the phrasebook, I like to use something like a lemming heuristic. google books:"I've been shot" phrasebook finds Dari / Pashto Phrasebook for Military Personnel, 2013, and 日常英会話表現4000, 2003. I admit two items are not terribly many; by contrast, google books:"I've been robbed" phrasebook gives many relevant hits. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


Not a word in Thai (even person name). --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the entry was created by a native Thai speaker. @Atitarev, any thoughts? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with Octahedron80 but it's not my entry and I don't think the entry is important, even if it's a transliteration of my name.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. The nomination does not refer to WT:CFI; "not a word" is not a CFI consideration. If existence is questioned, that would be for WT:RFV. The creator is user:หมวดซาโต้, who identifies as a native Thai speaker. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


Rfd of the adjective sense: this strikes me as redundant to the present participle sense —This comment was unsigned.

  • Dunno about that. Tinkling bells springs to mind. I think it's an attributive adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
IMO "tinkling" in "tinkling bells" is probably not a true adjective. I doubt that "tinkling" is ever a true adjective. Mihia (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It looks like an adjective to me. Even the OED has two entries as an adjective (1 - that tinkles, 2- that works as a tinker). SemperBlotto (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
"The piano is very tinkling"?? It doesn't sound right to me. I think the required adjective would be "tinkly". I don't know anything about OED sense 2. Mihia (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
That's why I said it's an attributive adjective, before the noun. "The wind chimes are tinkling" is a present participle, "the tinkling wind chimes" an attributive adjective. That's how I see it. DonnanZ (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I would draw a distinction between what I called a "true" adjective, and the fact that any present participle can be put in front of a noun to modify it, as a regular feature of the English language. I do not believe that participles in the latter cases need separate "adjective" entries where they mean no more than "X doing Y". Where there is a special or extended meaning, yes, but I don't see that with "the tinkling wind chimes". Mihia (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep both the verb and the adjective: This is yet another word that ends in -ing that can be both a verb and an adjective. I do not get why there is continual surprise at these, nor why there is continued opposition to them carrying both word types. Purplebackpack89 11:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

I can't hear you over the sound of[edit]

SOP.​—msh210 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you implying that "stupidity" and other such things have literal sounds? Because that seems to me to be the only way it could be SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Why does everyone always think SOP means "literal"? --WikiTiki89 12:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Should there be a figurative sense at sound instead? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Not really even idiomatic. You can use any similar sentence. --WikiTiki89 12:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The current definition is very inadequate, not indicating that the phrase is incomplete as it stands, nor what needs to be added to finish it. Equinox 12:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep in some form: does not seem SOP per Andrew Sheedy. It does seem to be a unit of language, a repetitively used manner of expression, peculiar to a particular language. Equinox is right that the phrase is incomplete; we could add " X" to the end, but I am not sure that would be an improvement. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

adjacent to[edit]

This smells like SOP, but I'd like to see what happened to any other compound prepositions that have gone through RFD. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to adjacent. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 19:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

safe, sane and consensual[edit]

Tagged in March (as SoP), not listed. See Talk:safe, sane and consensual. Equinox 22:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. There isn't much of a "definition" to it. Equinox 22:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Apparently crazy people like me are incapable of having good sex. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 09:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If it is an established set phrase used in the stated context, I think it should probably be kept. The fact that it has an acronym, SSC, at least according to the Wiktionary article, might support this. Mihia (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Having the term in this dictionary is unsafe, insane, and unconsensual. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is in a topical area for which we often seem to ignore the standards that apply elsewhere. Is that relevant? DCDuring (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

de schone schijn ophouden[edit]

SOP, de + schone schijn + ophouden. — Kleio (t · c) 18:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Which sense of ophouden? —CodeCat 18:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The one that should've been there and I just added. — Kleio (t · c) 18:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. @KIeio (did you pick your displayed username to avoid these or something?), can you provide some examples that use the sense of ophouden you just added without schone schijn? For example, keep up that enthusiasm doesn't translate to ophouden dat enthousiasme or het enthousiasme ophouden. Only de schijn ophouden seems to work. Schijn is very old: http://etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/schijn1. http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/glamour is also interesting. If this sense of ophouden can work in various other combinations, it'll be SoP. If it can't, we should probably add an entry for de schijn ophouden as well. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh wait, that's a blue link. Which makes me wonder why you didn't nominate that as well. For now I say keep, but I'm willing to reconsider if there's a good argument. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

er voor spek en bonen bijstaan[edit]

See above, voor spek en bonen + bijstaan. — Kleio (t · c) 18:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Btw, should entries like geen kind hebben aan and geen boodschap hebben aan be with or without the aan? — Kleio (t · c) 18:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Can they ever be used without? —CodeCat 18:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
It's sometimes used with voor as well, though aan is more common (by far). Saying it without either does sound unnatural. — Kleio (t · c) 18:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess one could be called an alternative form of another, but I'm not sure what the usual practice is. Ask in BP maybe? —CodeCat 18:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I would include the aan and mention an alternative form if required. voor doesn't sound too natural to me either, so I'm not adding it. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. voor spek en bonen can be used in various combinations and this is not even a common one. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Examples: meedoen voor spek en bonen (participating), werken voor spek en bonen (working), ik ben voor spek en bonen op komen dagen. (I showed up for nothing) There really is nothing special about bijstaan. W3ird N3rd (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)



This is just alt, neu used in compounds. - 10:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Technically you're right. But the compound form tends to have a different meaning than the adjective. The adjective means "old, of high age", the compound means "not used anymore". Like altes Holz is "old wood", while Altholz is "wood waste" or "wood to be disposed of". It's not clear-cut because the adjective could have that sense as well. Still, I'm tending towards keep, but with a better definition and some notes. Kolmiel (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
There does seem to be a difference in meaning. Dutch oud- is used similarly. — Kleio (t · c) 21:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


SOP: 刺斜 + — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this may be keepable. Hanyu Da Cidian has this word. Wyang (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

fer cryin' out loud[edit]

"Eye dialect spelling of for crying out loud." Doing this with entire phrases, rather than single words, does not seem wise. Equinox 19:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep as it is attested. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Can you read? I'm not challenging it on attestation grounds and this isn't RFV. Equinox 22:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I know. But it is simply because it's attested that it should stay. I don't believe in deleting eye-dialect alternative forms just because there are too many of them, unless of course it's something like having Elephant with a definition like # Alternative capitalization of elephant, used at the beginning of sentences. Attestation is key here. I'm not saying that you challenged its attestation; I'm saying rather that because it's attested it should stay. All words in all languages that are not SOP and are attested with 3 valid durable citations should stay. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - [The]DaveRoss 11:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


Unnecessary if fueled is adjectival and testosterone is understood to overpower rationality. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 02:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  • It's an American spelling, so I've labelled it, whether it survives or not. DonnanZ (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Common collocation, but it does feel somewhat SoP to me, like a booze-fuelled party or a hate-fuelled rant. Equinox 17:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Neither fueled nor fuelled are entered as adjectives. I don't see any harm in keeping this. DonnanZ (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Fueled/fuelled is a part participle. All past participles are potentially adjectival in English. DCDuring (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I came across an interesting one this morning - "railway-fuelled building", referring to development spurred by the building of a railway in the 19th century. DonnanZ (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • To me this is a keep as a single (hyphenated) word. Ƿidsiþ 06:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


Same as above. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: this has been RFD'ed before; see Talk:pouasse. MG found that it was sufficiently common to keep; what makes you disagree with his assessment? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: 8030 hits for "la pouasse" (397000 for "la poisse"); 3150 hits for "quelle pouasse" (30900 for "quelle poisse"); 307 hits for "une pouasse" (11800 for "une poisse"). It's not that common (+ at least some hits concern the word for a kind of chemical, so they aren't misspellings); so no, I don't think it warrants an entry. --Barytonesis (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Abstain. It could be deleted a rare misspelling (WT:CFI#Spellings). pouasse,poisse at Google Ngram Viewer does not find pouasse, so no frequency ratio can be calculated and it must be rather rare. However, going by the web counts posted by Barytonesis above, I would say it could be a common misspelling, but I prefer to use Google Ngram Viewer for frequency ratios since it is a tool designed for frequency statistics. A frequency ratio calibration is at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

oldest occupation[edit]

oldest occupation in the world[edit]

world's oldest occupation[edit]

Sure they're used, but are they idiomatic enought to have their own entries? --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

oldest occupation looks like a prime example of an idiomatic expression to me. Starting with the fact that prostution is, of course, not the historically oldest occupation. (That's hunter-gatherer.) So definitely keep. One may consider deleting the other two versions, though. Kolmiel (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, keep oldest occupation, delete all others. Similarly for variants of "oldest profession". SemperBlotto (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, the first one should in this case be kept. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep all three. They're all idiomatic. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep "oldest occupation": it is not a semantic sum of oldest and occupation, in which regard it is like oldest profession. The other two items can be argued to be sums of parts with respect to oldest occupation; hard-redirecting them would be an option other than deletion. If I were arguing as a devil's advocate for deletion, I would say that "oldest occupation" is obtained from "oldest profession" by synonym replacement, which makes it a certain kind of summation, meaning the idiomatic semantics would be taken from "oldest profession", but I do not find that argument convincing enough. Interestingly, oldest occupation at OneLook Dictionary Search finds nothing, whereas oldest profession at OneLook Dictionary Search finds Merriam-Webster[16] and en.oxforddictionaries.com[17]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete the last two. - -sche (discuss) 07:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep the first, delete the final two. - [The]DaveRoss 11:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

compulsive streak[edit]

Not the usual meaning, but this one seems equally SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

come to the fore[edit]

SOP: come + to the fore. (Or come + to + the + fore...) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to to the fore. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 04:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


“The land beyond the Ered Luin in J.R.R. Tolkien's Legendarium”

Doesn’t pass WT:FICTION. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 16:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I vote for redirect Kiwima (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to what exactly? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

kop of munt, kruis of munt[edit]

Both SOP. —CodeCat 18:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it still used when tossing Euros, which have neither kop nor munt on them? If so, it's idiomatic. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It would still be SOP, because there is still one side called kop and one side called munt. For Euro coins, munt is the side that's the same for all countries, kop is the side specific to each country. The kop side does have a head on it sometimes, depending on the country. For Dutch and Belgian ones it does. —CodeCat 17:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
And these usages are found outside of these specific phrases? When you ask someone to do a hatching (nl. arcering) of a coin, you ask him to use the 'mint side' and not the 'number side'? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
If the coin-hatcher(?) would ask "What side should I do, kop of munt?" the customer would probably laugh and say "Hey, you're not going to toss my coin right!". Kop of munt is an extremely common expression, any references outside of that to sides of a coin are rare if you're not a coin collector or something. W3ird N3rd (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep. This is referring to a coin toss. Looking up kop and munt provides exactly 0.0 clue that this is just heads or tails. Heads or tails doesn't have an RfD so why would this? W3ird N3rd (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


WT:FICTION. Equinox 22:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesus, already? I bet anyone here could find three citations from sources that have nothing to do with the Transformers franchise. This is like Beyblade. If I could find citations for that, we can certainly find citations for this. Did you even bother to look? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Plus this isn't even an RFD thing. It's an RFV thing. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
It's your entry. You cite it. Children's toys fail WT:FICTION even if it's your favourite. Equinox 00:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Then do Beyblade too because no one has opposed it thus far except you. And Transformers is not just a favorite toy of one person, but an extremely popular franchise that has been mentioned throughout books and the media. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Easily attested, at this capitalization. E.g., 2015, Steve Berry, The Patriot Threat: A Novel, p. 304: “It's like a Transformer today,” Stamm said. “It appears as one thing, then becomes another.” bd2412 T 02:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    • * However, I don't think we need separate senses for the toy and the character. The character is just an animated version of the toy. bd2412 T 02:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
As above, keep! PseudoSkull (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but how is that sense any different from the senses found at transformer? Delete if you ask me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Because the toy is rather specific, and others refer to the toy in many sources external from the franchise. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
We certainly don't have a sense at transformer of a mundane appearing object, usually a vehicle, capable of turning into a giant robot. bd2412 T 01:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Kept. 2-0-2. No consensus to delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


"(French, colloquial) thank you". Yes, it's actually glossed as French. I think we had a similar case with Russian da or nyet once. The fact that French may jokingly be used in English doesn't make French words English words. Equinox 12:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There is voilà and bon appétit, among many others, so why not this one?Julien Daux (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The fact that it's glossed as French as stated. An alternative option would be merely to remove that gloss and say "okay, merci is English". Equinox 15:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I removed the gloss. Now why exactly is this at RFD? It's certainly attested. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Plenty of alien interjections already have entries, like gracias, arrivederci, ciao, oui, shalom & similar. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 04:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep if attested in unambiguously English sources. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I think (which is the most unreliable source around here) I heard Alan on Two and a Half Men say it as a genuine way to say "thank you". But I can't find it in the subtitles, other than the fourth episode of season four which is not what I meant. So either my memory is not right, the subtitles skipped over the interjection or they translated it. I guess "merci" in English would never be written, it would only be used in speech. And because it's an interjection in a foreign language it will often not be a part of subtitles. So your best bet is probably to search transcripts. Which is what I've done. (merci site:springfieldspringfield.co.uk) And I still haven't been able to come up with anything. Every time somebody says it it's either a Frenchman (Superman 2), the character speaking to a Frenchman, the character speaking French or the character talking about France. In Dutch it's just an extra-polite way of saying "thank you" but in English I can't find any source for that. Maybe [18] but I don't know what the context really is there. So I would lean towards removing the English entry for merci, unless someone else actually does have a source. W3ird N3rd (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#merci W3ird N3rd (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep. User:Kiwima provided citations. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see an RFD-relevant reason for deleting. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

thick as shit[edit]

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

In the light of thick as pig shit and other similar expressions, I'm not sure, but isn't it just thick + as shit? Can we say "as thick as shit"? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis: Did you mean to take this to WT:RFD rather than RFV? Is your concern that the phrase is not used, or that its meaning is sum of parts? If it's the latter, the discussion should be at RFD. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
If you really mean this as RFV, it is cited. As for the SOP issue, I would be more inclined to consider thick as pig shit and alternative form of the same expression. That said, I found a few other quotes (which I put on the citations page) that use "as shit" as an intensifier for other meanings of thick, which lends credence to the SOP viewpoint. The fact that it almost always refers to stupidity, however, makes me think that the "fried egg" rule applies and those few quotes are an anomoly. (BTW, I was unable to find any other meanings of thick when looking up "thick as pig shit") Kiwima (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, my concern was indeed about whether it's SOP or not. Shall I copy-paste this discussion to RFD, then? --Barytonesis (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Moved to RFD. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: I am in favor of keeping common similes in general. Without this entry, how would a non-native speaker know one actually says this in English to indicate someone is stupid? With entries like this, I enter Czech blbý jako tágo, and find how to say this in English. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
We should be adding all of the phrases of that form to avoid giving the impression that there is any thing special about thick as shit: boring as shit, hot as shit, cold as shit, slow as shit, fast as shit, dumb as shit, smart as shit. One can find quotes such as "He does have that swagger and looks presidential as shit" (not about Trump). DCDuring (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Excrement is not, in fact, stupid, so this is no tautology or SoP. Delete as DCDuring has pointed out the existence of a single entry for as shit. Equinox 22:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete: as shit is just an intensifier (not a simile) that can occur after many adjectives, like as fuck, as hell, as all get out, etc. Whether we need as pig/dog/cow shit I leave to others. DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. - [The]DaveRoss 11:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep: Because thick has over a dozen possible meanings. Someone who doesn't know English very well could easily pick description #11 (Deep, intense, or profound) instead of #9 (informal, Stupid) and think they've been given a compliment. W3ird N3rd (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Other senses of thick, including the most literal one, could be used with as shit. The limitations on the senses is strictly due to the slanginess of as shit. DCDuring (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


A Quaffle in Swedish Harry Potter. --G23r0f0i (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There's English quaffle, and maybe klonken could pass WT:CFI and especially WT:CFI#Fictional universes too? So maybe this should be a RFV instead of RFD. - 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Does this mean I can add Poké Ball? W3ird N3rd (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
There are already some dedicated pages for translations of Quidditch in various languages, so I guess this can pass CFI. But in that case I’m pretty sure it should be moved to klonk. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] (parla con me) 13:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

shower on[edit]

SoP. Not a phrasal unit. Equinox 19:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Hmm, dunno, its usually separable with an object. From Oxford (shower):

1.4 (shower something on/upon) Give a great number of things to (someone)

‘the government showered praise on the young volunteers’
  • More example sentences:
‘The sane people of the world saw it purely as a piece of comic genius, and showered awards upon the badly-drawn comedy.’
‘He also recognized me, congratulated my brother and showered his blessing upon me.’
‘The functions were not rituals to merely shower gifts on the birthday boy.’
‘By showering favours on Elizabeth's relatives, Edward began to build up a faction to counter Warwick.’
‘Pupils from the Harwich School and five primary schools joined in the custom, which represents the newly-elected mayor showering his blessings on the children.’
‘Hillary forgives him and then Bill showers gifts upon her in gratitude.’
‘It must have certainly helped him to shower benefits on his beloved city.’
‘But his language mistakes were no barriers as kids and elders alike wanted to hear the man as he showered gifts on them.’
‘He showered praises on the union parliamentary minister saying he enjoys the full support of Congress men in the state.’
‘She consumed lavishly herself, showered expensive gifts on her dealers, and promoted Tupperware as part of an affluent suburban lifestyle.’
‘The preposterous image of a benign West showering its goods on a grateful Africa / India / Indochina/wherever would surely have no purchase in a society where informed debate was the daily order.’
‘Muthuraman, who has over 100 films behind him, set the tone for the function, showering praises on Balachander, and the superstar Rajnikanth rounded it off.’ DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
This uses the same sense of shower (to bestow liberally, to give or distribute in abundance) as shower with. It seems SoP to me. DCDuring (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, shower with and shower on have different objects (you shower [praise] on someone, but shower [someone] with praise), so the verb’s meaning is not the same. – Krun (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


RfD of the German sense only

This suffix simply does not exist. It exists in Latin where it was used to form some words borrowed into German, but it can never be used independently from those words. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, definitely delete. — Kleio (t · c) 16:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Dictionaries or grammars could mention a -ment, cp. canoo (there it's now -ament, -ement, -iment) and de:Vorlage:Neoklassische Formative (Deutsch). But well, "can never be used independently" chould still be correct. - 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Within a loaning language such as German these are formants, not suffixes in their own sake. Not changed by the fact that word-derivation appendices can describe what function they had as suffixes in the loangiving language. --Tropylium (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
What about Medikament for which the synonym Medizin exists? Or Arrangement and arrangieren? Or is this different? W3ird N3rd (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@W3ird N3rd: Both of these examples would support deleting, since they were borrowed from Latin/French. They were not derived in German using some German word + -ment, so it seems like it was never and is not at all productive in German. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti[edit]

Finnish for fair + trial. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, but maybe we should consider adding fair trial instead. I wrote this entry back in 2012, because it seemed to me that this term might have a well-defined juridical meaning. I admit that I have not done a good job in writing the definition. See: . --Hekaheka (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Merriam-Webster has "fair trial"[19]; it has interesting "Additional Notes on fair trial". Very cool. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@User:Dan Polansky I would not be bold to create free trial myself, but if you feel free trial in English is idiomatic, then someone please do add it. It's sort of weird to be adding a two-letter entry for another language to which its English translated counterpart has no entry. I feel it'd be easier if somebody just created free trial and then... Okay I have a better idea. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reason I would keep fair trial. W3ird N3rd (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

State of New York[edit]

Sum of parts. —suzukaze (tc) 19:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. The example sentence isn't even for the State of New York. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Similar to Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, etc. I don't see why multi-part formal names of entities that have the legal status of these should not be inclusion-worthy under our rules or lack thereof. DCDuring (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Some of the states of the US have formal names like Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Commonwealth of Virginia, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of Kentucky, State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. IOW, the formal name is not guaranteed to be State of (informal name). DCDuring (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
There is another entry for New York State. I guess both are considered necessary to avoid confusion with New York City. I would say keep. DonnanZ (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. bd2412 T 20:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • RFD kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    Additional evidence: Use of State of New York on the official "Great Seal of the State of New York" and on official letterhead, ie, evidence of legal status. DCDuring (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)



Is this a valid Chinese word? The anonymous editor who added it mentioned this website in an edit summary, but I do not see the use of isolated English words in Chinese text as necessarily indicating that the words are regarded as Chinese. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. Delete. Wyang (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep as being the only word the Chinese use for the concept. If the Russians used флаш (flaš) no one would bat an eye, but the Chinese are more familiar with the Latin alphabet and didn't want to transcribe it using Chinese characters and here we are. —suzukaze (tc) 07:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
There is no Chinese word the Chinese use for the concept. Wyang (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
While I agree with Wyang, Suzukaze-c asks a legitimate question - how we deal with this type of words, which don't have a Chinese equivalent (yet) but apparently are used in a Chinese context by Chinese. We need a CFI for Chinese. It happens every now and then. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Anatoli that it would be useful to have a discussion of this issue. Perhaps editors with some linguistic background can explain how experts regard a foreign word as having been incorporated into a particular language. I can't help thinking it is a bit strange that a term in language B can be regarded as part of language A when it is not even rendered in the usual script of language A. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess the Chinese section in the smallcaps entry flash may be deleted... Dokurrat (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Ain't it a matter of WT:RFVN? If used in Chinese, it's Chinese.
  • As for SMUconlaw's "but I do not see the use of isolated English words in Chinese text as necessarily indicating that the words are regarded as Chinese":
    Anglicisms in French, German etc. and also Latinism, Germanisms etc. in other language are part of the other language. Just take a look at Category:French terms borrowed from English where you can find for example the French Anglicism "break" and "malware".
    Of course, foreign words, especially Anglicisms coming from the killer language (i.e. English) and Pseudo-Anglicisms, are sometimes critisied, yet they are included in wiktionary too.
  • As for Anatoli T.: Ain't it covered by WT:CFI and "All words in all languages" already? If used and attested in Chinese, then it's attested as Chinese.
  • As for SMUconlaw's second comment: It's not as extreme as Latin script inside of Asian script, but it's similar: Foreign terms often are written in Antiqua in German Fraktur texts. Sometimes even deformed words (like without Latin ending or with k instead of c) are still written in Antiqua. The deformed words aren't Latin (or French or Italian) anymore. Hence they can only be non-words or German words. Usually they are considered to be words, i.e. German words. And like deformed words written in Antiqua are considered to be German, so are non-deformed words (if they aren't mentionings). - 21:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

liberal Republican, conservative Democrat, and Conservative Democrat[edit]

From Requests for Verification:

Rfv-sense: Does this term exist with this definition except as an alternative form of SoP liberal + Republican? DCDuring TALK 15:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

       I had a final look, and all quotes I found with this capitalization refer to the Liberal Republican party (or movement) of the 1870s. As no one else has produced citations with this capitalization in over a year, I am calling this RFV-failed. Kiwima (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Conservative Democrat

Analogous to above. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

   DCDuring, these two terms have a set meaning, which encompasses parts (but not all) of the two words they are composed of. Liberal Republicans tend to be liberal on certain issues; conservative Democrats tend to be conservative on the same issues. I can produce stacks of Google Books citations that use the term (for example, search for "Liberal Republican" and civil rights); and I believe the terms should be kept, SoP or no. Purplebackpack89 15:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
       I doubt it. Facts before arguments. Let's see the citations. DCDuring TALK 16:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
           This isn't even an RfV, @DCDuring. This is just and RfD pretending to be an RfV. I will cite the definitions as written. SOP is not a question for RfV and I will not bother trying to meet your off-topic SOP threshold. Purplebackpack89 17:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
           @DCDuring I have added citations for LR. Those citations bear out the definition as written. If they pass muster, I'll add citations for CD later. Purplebackpack89 18:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
               Not one of the three citations offered at Liberal Republican is for the headword. Try again. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
                   If you're complaining that they are for "liberal Republican" instead of "Liberal Republican", by god, I can just flip which is the primary and which is the alternative. Otherwise, the citations are valid. Purplebackpack89 20:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
       Virtually no-one, bar a handful of ideologues, is liberal or conservative on every single issue. There are at least two groups of "conservative Democrats" in the US - social-conservative Blue Dogs and fiscal-conservative New Democrats (I can find cites calling both conservative Democrats). Not all conservative Democrats fit the definition given, it seems, and I'd be surprised if all "liberal Republicans" do either. Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
           Well, I doubt they use LR and CD to refer to people who are 90-10. But you do concede that this definition is a valid description of some people, Murray? Purplebackpack89 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
               Do I think that there are Republicans who are (relatively) liberal and Democrats who are (relatively) conservative? Sure (as you can see from the citations I linked). Do I think that liberal Republican means anything more than a Republican who is liberal? No. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
                   But, Murray, isn't your second question an RfD one instead of an RfV one? Purplebackpack89 23:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
   Comment: Following @DCDuring's concerns about headwords, I have moved the primary definitions to liberal Republican and conservative Democrat. I have left the RfV templates on. Purplebackpack89 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
   SOP. These "terms" exist, but as no more than collocations of “liberal | conservative” + “Republican | Democrat”. The definitions as given in the current terms at liberal Republican and conservative Democrat are unsupportably narrow, as noted by Smurrayinchester above.
   Delete, or move to RFD, then delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
   I think the only way to find out if this is SOP is to read every use of LibRep and ConsDem on Google Books and find out if, in practice, the terms are always used the way Purplebackpack89 has defined them. Let's do some researching! Khemehekis (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been sitting here for over a year, because it is an argument that belongs in RFD not RFV. I have cited both entries. I would vote for delete if this were moved to RFD, but as an RFV issue, I must say it has passed. Kiwima (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep all: and restore the definition Kiwima removed. Purplebackpack89 16:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete all. - [The]DaveRoss 11:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


This is a misspelling of farvel, which already has an article for both Nynorsk and Bokmål. All relevant information is already in those articles.--Barend (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • If it's a common misspelling or an archaic spelling, we should keep it. Is it either of those? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's particularly common, and I don't think it's archaic.--Barend (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
It is a misspelling, and I even found "Kapp Farvell" (Kapp Farvel of course). Anyway, delete. DonnanZ (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, is a redirect a good way of dealing with misspellings? DonnanZ (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

cost a pretty penny[edit]

SoP, pretty penny, can also "make", "earn", etc. Equinox 20:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Um, that would include the translations, ones that don't appear at pretty penny. I like the Spanish one, cost a testicle and a half. DonnanZ (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Those aren't direct translations for "cost a pretty penny" but general idiomatic equivalents of "cost a large amount". bd2412 T 22:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Not that I disagree with your basic point, but translations are "general idiomatic equivalents". Ƿidsiþ 06:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
        • A synonym is cost an arm and a leg, which went through the indignity of an RFD in 2009, and got redirected to arm and a leg. An arm and a leg are two different things, and the idiom only makes sense in full. We don't need a repeat of that disaster. DonnanZ (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
In other words, keep this entry in its present form. DonnanZ (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to pretty penny. DCDuring (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect or keep. The definition line could be changed to "To be [[expensive]]; to cost a [[pretty penny]]". The entry is in http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/cost+a+pretty+penny, where it seems to have two entries, one marked as "Farlex Dictionary of Idioms. © 2015 Farlex, Inc, all rights reserved", another one marked as "McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc." The full phrase is in Macmillan[20], but most OneLook dictionaries only seem to have "pretty penny": a pretty penny at OneLook Dictionary Search (Merriam-Webster, Oxford Dictionaries, Collins, Dictionary.com), cost a pretty penny at OneLook Dictionary Search. I seem to like these longer phrase entries with a verb; they seem more natural to me (like cost an arm and a leg). However, I'll grant there is some force in the argument for deletion, including there being other verbs used: cost a pretty penny, pay a pretty penny, make a pretty penny, earn a pretty penny at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

be in on[edit]

SoP, be + in on. It's hard to find it without be, but it seems perfectly possible that it could be used with e.g. wish or announce. Just found this: "Although more entrepreneurs wanted in on their success, only four Top Hats were ever opened." Equinox 02:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think also get in on, bring in on, let in on, and probably slangy synonyms for most of the above. DCDuring (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)















per WT:BRANDsuzukaze (tc) 04:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Some entries are poorly formatted and use wrong PoS headers (e.g Noun, not Proper noun) but they all seem to have English equivalents, for which we have entries. To me, they are just normal proper nouns. Tentatively keep. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


Not IMO a prefix. Feels more like an adjective. There's virtually always a hyphen when it's used in longer words, and it doesn't have any particular special meaning beyond the usual noun. Equinox 19:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree, delete. I could only find one hyphenated entry (twin-engine) anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
It's never used as an adjective though. Nothing is very twin, or so twin, or more twin/twinner.... keep Leasnam (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
You can, it's just rarer now. Eg in Twelfth Night, "An apple cleft in two is not more twin…". Ƿidsiþ 08:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I have a surprise for you, Oxford, Cambridge and Collins all regard twin as an adjective, e.g. twin sister, twin town etc. DonnanZ (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
attributive. that would be like saying sister in sister city is an adjective. it's not imo. there is also twin-chamber, twin-car, twin-deck Leasnam (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
You can't say, my sister is twin (adj). Leasnam (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue with those dictionaries. The concept that adjectives must be comparable is rather bizarre. Anyway twin as an adjective can be discussed in the Tea Room if you want to do that. DonnanZ (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@Donnanz: Comparablity and gradability are two sufficient conditions in out decision making about whether a candidate term to be considered an adjective. The only necessary condition is that it modify a noun, without which condition the adjective PoS would probably be speedily deleted. We follow the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language for PoS tests where possible. DCDuring (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I would call it a modifier. But it's all good. It's being used as a prefix even if we don't call it one; I'm satisfied with that. The concept that a prefix cannot be a standalone word is bizarre to me. But it's the consensus here, and I respect that. delete :) Leasnam (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
It is not attributive, it's an adjective. It just feels attributive now because the noun is so much more common. Ƿidsiþ 08:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I suppose you're right--it was an adjective in Old English (alongside ġetwinn which was the noun). It must have survived unrecorded in ME to this day. I'll update the entry Leasnam (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The "very", "so", etc. tests are useful evidence for an adjective but not necessarily required. Equinox 23:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Examples are easily paraphrased to use twin as a separate word: the plane has twin engines-->it's a twin-engine plane. The fact that it's attached to the following word is merely an artifact of how phrases are treated when used as modifiers.
The matter of whether twin as a modifier is an adjective is a bit murkier. It obviously started out as attributive use of the noun, but it's hard to be sure that it hasn't changed into something else, whether an adjective or a determiner, I'm not sure. There's also the matter of having two as opposed to being one of two: twin engines may be twins to each other, but they aren't twins to the plane, and someone with sisters who are twins to each other but not to them could say "I have twin sisters", but not "I have a twin sister". Chuck Entz (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete; the word can also be used without the hyphen, as in Chuck's example of "twin engines", which strongly suggests that hyphenated use does not represent a prefix; compare "ownership-based society" in which "ownership" is neither a prefix nor an adjective. This is independent of the question of what part of speech "twin" is in "twin engines". That it was an adjective in Old English, and that a few examples like "more twin than" can still be found, suggest it may be an adjective (compare Talk:aliquot). - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017[edit]

ложное срабатывание[edit]

SoP and a wrong definition. It refers to an alarm system that was triggered by something, eg. a malfunctioning alarm worked but there was no security problem. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, isn't that approximately what a false alarm is? Benwing2 (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
For the sense, ложная тревога is normally used in the direct or figurative senses, "ложное срабатывание" means a "false firing/functioning". This is SoP, IMO. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Miles Christi[edit]

Tagged but not listed. Seems SOP, too. - -sche (discuss) 02:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Trivially attestable, so I've moved -sche's post from RFV here to RFD. There were two senses originally in the entry, one for "soldier of Christ", which is patently SOP, and one for the Miles Christi religious order, which is patently not Latin (and which I have therefore removed). Looking at actual attestation, however, I see that some writers have used miles Christi or miles Dei to refer not only to crusaders or other soldiers motivated at least nominally by Christianity, but to all Christians in general. I presume that this metaphorical usage is not exactly lexical, however. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The first sense is in the wrong case form anyway, it should be at miles Christi if it is to be on any entry at all (and I don't think it should be). The second sense is encyclopedic imo and not dictionary material. Delete.Kleio (t · c) 17:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
If it to be kept, then it needs the normal Latin formatting, along with inflection. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
It could also be an English entry under a wrong language header, cp. this older revision with its likely English references and English see also terms: this revision. For English it wouldn't be SOP and as an English entry it doesn't need Latin inflection. - 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


Just as SOP as democratic revolution. Note to closer: if this fails, be sure to delete the pinyin as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete unless @Tooironic has a good argument for keeping it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The Chinese entry can stay as it passes the Lemmings test, being in the 现代汉语规范词典. The English entry is yet to be created. It is a term used in political science. See the Wikipedia entry. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Justinrleung, Wyang: I don't find this convincing, but I don't know Chinese; what do you guys think? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
    I think I would be happy keeping this entry. It is found in multiple dictionaries. Wyang (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


SOP? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


A football club. Nibiko (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent. It may be keepable. There are other club entries, such as Arsenal or entries in Category:zh:Football. Wyang (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Arsenal is a single word, unlike A.C. Milan. These entries were added by an anon who just linked the definitions wholesale to English Wikipedia. Given that the construction of this term is the same as the English equivalent, this fails WT:CFI. The same also applies to K聯賽, J1聯賽, and J聯賽. Nibiko (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sum of parts, basically. bd2412 T 23:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)




Malay, Indonesian language names with bahasa in Category:ms:Languages,[edit]

Delete or redirect all Malay and Indonesian language names with bahasa (language) in Category:ms:Languages and to lemmas without "bahasa". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


是非 ("please") + ご一読 ("read") —suzukaze (tc) 03:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

CRT television[edit]

Sum-of-parts. 2602:306:3653:8440:B979:122F:5C44:E2AD 16:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I think therefore I am[edit]

Along with all the translations. Seems like a Wikiquote/Wikipedia situation; it has cultural and philosophical relevance, but it isn't lexical, idiomatic, or worthy of keeping as a phrasebook entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep. I disagree that it's entirely unidiomatic, and the fact that it is snowcloned is evidence of lexical value. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Zen Buddhism[edit]

SOP; just [[Zen]] [[Buddhism]]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep. My feeling is to keep it at least as a translation hub but I am not sure I find enough supporting translations. When I was entering the Czech translation today, I was almost certain there is "zenbuddhismus", which is a manner of compounding no so common in Czech; it further occurred to me there could be "zenový buddhismus", and I verified that to exist. Thus, by having the entry, we spare someone the little lexico-work I did today. Furthermore, the lemming heuristics applies: present in Collins[21]; en.oxforddictionaries.com has it as an "also" item in boldface in its Zen entry[22]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

manual capture[edit]

delete as SOP. Kiwima (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

forced update[edit]

Both created by the same anon. Not sure if they fulfil WT:CFI – could they just be SoP? --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

country bumpkin[edit]

A bumpkin from the country. Keep translations, though.__Gamren (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm leaning towards keep as it seems to be one of those common collocations. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Country bumpkin is much more common than just bumpkin. In fact, the former term probably came first. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep, more or less a set phrase. DonnanZ (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. It is SOP. Kiwima (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Reference added. DonnanZ (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It can also be cited as country-bumpkin. Leasnam (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep using the lemming heuristic: in Collins and Macmillan. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • RFD kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


Adjective: "Falsely presented as having medicinal powers". That's the noun, isn't it? 12:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The definition is not expressed as a noun, so perhaps you can clarify what you think the problem is? There is a usage example of the adjectival use: "Don't get your hopes up; that's quack medicine!". — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It does feel like attributive use of a noun; cf. "that's doctor talk!". Equinox 04:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Hmmm. I do see some usage of the superlative quackest, though they may be facetious or non-standard uses: [23], [24], [25]. However, I didn't see any use of quacker in the comparative sense. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Found one cite for more quack than: [26]. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian military terms, part 3[edit]

More terms that are likely SOP:

@Atitarev Benwing2 (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete all. When learning foreign vocabulary, it's probably better to use collocations, so US army personnel used these word combinations to learn Russian but they are all obvious SoP's. Thanks for pinging. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Боевое отделение is not a SOP. 22:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are a few more possible ones:

@Atitarev Benwing2 (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete all. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

One more:

@Atitarev Benwing2 (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

college is the new high school[edit]

Snowclone, X is the new Y. DTLHS (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What about the implied standard of living aspect? And if this really is a "snowclone" shouldn't we have an entry for "is the new"? Because there are so many terms with the layout "X is the new Y". PseudoSkull (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. In every "X is the new Y" snowclone, there is some reasoning by which to explain why that particular "X" is the new "Y". bd2412 T 02:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think the definition is apparent, and unless it isn't attested without the context explaining or implying what is meant, there is no good reason not to keep it. I don't think "it's just a snowclone" is sufficient reasoning to delete, since in this case, the meaning isn't deducible from "college" + "is the new" + "high school". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    One can also find community college is the new high school, A Bachelor's degree is the new high school degree. "I was a little taken aback to see that apparently preadolescence is the new adolescence or junior high school or middle school is the new high school". Preschool is the new kindergarten. the white T-shirt is the new little black dress. Many Xs fit [X] is the new black.
    Delete It's an instance of a snowclone. We've never figured out how to make snowclone entries that would be useful to someone using standard mainspace search. DCDuring (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    I still think it's worth having those entries, as long as they have fairly consistent definitions (if "college is the new high school" refers to all sorts of different aspects of college and high school, then it's not worth keeping, but it fairly consistently refers to educational expectations, it's worth including). I don't think it's at all harmful to have such entries. If space was a concern, then sure, but it really isn't and you can't necessarily figure out what the phrase means based on the sum of its parts ("is the new" relating to colour is pretty consistent in meaning, but with other phrases it's more ambiguous and it is thus worth it to create separate entries). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete per bd. - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. I wouldn't necessarily know why college is the new high school, but I don't think this justifies the entry. The possibilities for "X is the new Y" are virtually unlimited, and I don't think a dictionary can be the place to explain the "why" of all of them. 21:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep per WT:CFI: The meaning cannot be obtained from the meaning of separate components, and "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means". We are not running out of database space. Also per Andrew Sheedy: we are able to single out the particular regard in which college is the new highschool, and thereby provide value to the user. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that we would need [[the new little black dress]]. I didn't find "the old little black dress".

Oxford has an entry for little black dress, but omits figurative use, probably relying on its more sophisticated average reader to infer any figurative meaning in context and a fortiori what modification by the new might add. the new black (new black?) is also in widespread use. Other cases are (person X (eg, Obama, Trump, Cruz) is) the new Reagan. DCDuring (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, this snowclone is covered at Appendix:Snowclones/X is the new Y. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

just like[edit]

A Wonderfool entry. I could also say "just as" or "just how". Perhaps we need to extend the definition at just. On a more RFCish kind of note, this isn't even a preposition, and prepositions are also labelled "prepositional phrases" here on Wiktionary when there's more than one word. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a prima facie case that if like is a preposition, so is just like. Normal parsing of uses of just like [x] would have just as an adverb modifying the prepositional phrase like [x]. That is, just like is not a grammatical constituent in any standard use AFAICT.
I don't see why we should have an entry for just like. DCDuring (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, SOP, as the very definition proves: "exactly" = "just"; "in the same way as" = "like". Actually, there is a missing sense: "He walks just like a penguin" = "He walks in exactly the same way as a penguin", yet "He looks just like his father" = "He looks exactly the same as his father". If retained this sense should presumably be added, but I don't see why the entry should exist at all. Mihia (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

จับได้, จับตัว[edit]

(Renomination) Sum of parts. Wyang (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


Sum of parts. —suzukaze (tc) 23:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete (you can use {{delete}}). Wyang (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Western classical music[edit]

SOP: Western + classical music. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • What other types are there? It's shown as a synonym of classical music under classical music. DonnanZ (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Donnanz: China and India had fairly extensive systems of art music and methods of notation before the modern era. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, you can find uses of "Eastern classical music" or "Chinese classical music" (and many other modifiers). DTLHS (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

disentir verb forms[edit]

Lots of the verb forms of disentir are incorrect as should be deleted. --WF

元讓, 吳景, 吳璟, 周奐, 周毖, 周泰, 喬瑁, 夏侯嬰, 夏侯淵, 孫仲, 孫武, 王尋, 王方, 王莽, 王頎, 胡軫, 華雄, 袁遺, 趙岐, 趙岑, 趙弘, 鄭泰, 陶謙, 韓遂, 韓馥, 馬騰, 魯馗, 鮑信, 鮑忠, 袁逢, 袁隗, 典韋, 邊讓, 荀緄, 張闓, 張燕, 宋憲, 成廉, 魏續, 曹性, 郝萌, 侯成, 何儀, 皇甫酈, 呂奉先, 周尚, 張昭, 張英[edit]

People's name. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Delete. —suzukaze (tc) 21:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Don't forget to delete the simplified forms as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

曹嵩, 曹騰, 曹豹[edit]

Delete, and speedy delete any future ones. Wyang (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

高昇, 种邵, 管亥, 穆順, 方悅, 郭阿多[edit]

Delete, and speedy delete any future ones. Wyang (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

呂範, 楊奉[edit]

Delete. Wyang (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


Delete. Wyang (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


suzukaze (tc) 05:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


? —suzukaze (tc) 05:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

嚴綱, 嚴白虎, 任峻, 何曼, 何顒, 呂洞賓[edit]


Sum of part? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Delete. (@Tooironic) —suzukaze (tc) 21:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


—This unsigned comment was added by 2001:da8:201:3512:bce6:d095:55f1:36de (talk).

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


—This unsigned comment was added by 2001:da8:201:3512:bce6:d095:55f1:36de (talk).

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No opinion on this, but if they are deleted, please at least add them as collocations (example sentences) at the respective entries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

wank fodder[edit]

SoP. Equinox 03:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Usex in wank and esp. fodder? DCDuring (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Can see a few hundred uses of "bin fodder" (sometimes another phrase, e.g. "bargain bin fodder") in Google Books. However, I don't see what this adds to the sense of "fodder". It's a bit like "material": you could say that a pornographic film is wank material, junk mail is bin material etc. Equinox 19:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think. Ƿidsiþ 12:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


Just frei used in compounds. - 18:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. German Wiktionary has it as a suffix. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. It isn't clear which of the senses of frei even corresponds to this suffix. It's as much a suffix in German as -free is in English at any rate. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above Leasnam (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
    • By en.Wikt's definitions it might indeed be unclear and at best be "1. free" in frei with "5. Without" in free, but it's not unclear in general. The adjective frei already has the meaning 'without'. In German one can say 'er ist frei von Sorgen' (= sorgenfrei or carefree, literally 'he is free of sorrows'), 'es ist frei von Kohlensäure' (= kohlensäurefrei or noncarbonated, literally 'it's free of carbonic acid' which is 'it's without carbonic acid' or 'it's noncarbonated') etc. And the word can also be declined like "Ein [...] von Schmerzen freier Tod [...]" (a painless death, literally 'a death free of pain' or 'a death without pain') and "[der] von Sünden freie Gottessohn" (literally 'the Son of God free of sins').
      Additional information: Some derived adjectives ending in frei are listed at frei#Derived terms (while some others can be found in Category:German words suffixed with -frei).
      Another additional information as it might be rarer and uncommon in English: Adjectives can govern a case which can also be seen in "ein kaum des Schreibens mächtiger Bauer" with mächtig and the genitive "des Schreibens". And 'mächtig' too has derived adjectives like 'zaubermächtig' (= des Zauberns mächtig). - 17:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment What IP above says. Just plain [atm] definition 1. of frei#German used in a compound. If you find that keepworthy, go ahead, but the entry is more a case of completeness-of-forms than a proper additional entry. I mention here again the idea of having compound forms (haupt-, augen-, -frei) listed in the headline of the actual lemma. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • RFD kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


How is this a noun?-- 14:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Not really sure. It's found in 台日大辭典, which only gives the definition (國)  (せき) (きょく) (てき) (sekikyokuteki). The Taiwanese translation is given as (日)正面向前進取ê精神. It might be better to send it to RFV instead. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@Hongthay Any input on this would be appreciated. Wyang (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
From what I can tell, he just took this from TDJ. I did find two uses in the Digital Archive Database for Written Taiwanese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
It's interesting to note that the earlier quotation actually uses ê after 積極的. This may indicate that it is not SOP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung Do you think this is a noun? If yes the definition should be improved. Also please confirm it's not a short form of SOP phrase (e.g. we don't have a entry for 老的 meaning old people).--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 20:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
AFAICT from the two quotations, it's an adjective/adverb. I'm not sure what you mean by short form of an SOP phrase; I think 老的 merits inclusion. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017[edit]

Berlin Wall[edit]

(as a generic noun) -- moved from RFV. Kiwima (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (politics) Any barrier designed to keep people from crossing a border, e.g. the one proposed to keep people from crossing from Mexico into the United States. Really? -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, really. I am short on time this morning, but in a quick search I came up with the following: [27]






I am, generally speaking, opposed to including these kinds of comparative or "referential" senses unless strongly established in the language. I think it is probably incorrect to say that "Berlin Wall" actually means "Any barrier designed to ... etc.". When people say that some other barrier is "a Berlin Wall", what they are really saying is that it is like the actual Berlin Wall, in my opinion. The possibilities for these kinds of references are open-ended and somewhat limitless. In the floods, I could say, of the stream at the bottom of my garden, that I have "the River Thames" flowing through my garden. It doesn't mean that "River Thames" means "Any stream or river carrying a large volume of water". Mihia (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I think there is a difference between saying 'like the Berlin Wall' and 'like a Berlin Wall'. By using the indefinite article the author seems to indicate that Berlin Wall does not refer to a specific wall, but to a class of wall. Kiwima (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
You may be correct, but I see this as a regular feature of the English language that allows us to liken one thing to another, not a new meaning of "Berlin Wall". For example, I could say that Hillary Clinton "isn't a Barack Obama". It doesn't mean, in my view, that "Barack Obama" has a dictionary sense of a certain type of person/president. Mihia (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree entirely that the principle, "the English language that allows us to liken one thing to another" (justifying exclusion of such definitions), applies to English nouns. But White House at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that other dictionaries find some metonymic construals of proper nouns worth inclusion. The principle does not limit including definitions of common nouns at all. See head#Noun for the numerous definitions that spring from similes, metaphors and metonomy. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I entirely agree with the inclusion in the dictionary of the special metonymic meaning of "White House", but I believe that somewhere between "The White House says that President Obama will veto the bill" and the kind of examples offered above for "Berlin Wall", we pass from a genuine extended meaning to regular patterns of the English language that can apply in the same way to virtually any proper noun. Mihia (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The second refers to the original Berlin Wall, the third is a mentioning or a comparision/simile ("as a "Berlin Wall""), the fouth is a mentioning and maybe an comparison/simile too ("The .. politican .. described this division as a 'Berlin Wall'"), the fifth is a comparison/simile ("like a Berlin Wall"). The first and the sixth could use some rhetorical figure ("the rope/thing that's a Berlin Wall", "lies behind a Berlin Wall of ..."). - 23:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Given these arguments, I think this belongs more appropriately under requests for deletion rather than requests for verification. Any use that is found can be argued to be a similie. Kiwima (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

многоквартирный дом[edit]

SoP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Russian entered to mean apartment building, and then there are other senses. Literally multi-apartment building, I guess. Is this the most usual way to render apartment building into Russian? How would I know that I have to use "много-" instead of just квартирный дом? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

вредоносное ПО[edit]

SoP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Windows, Firefox, XP[edit]

This is an undeletion request - these entries or senses are deleted or removed per RFV. For rationale of the request see Wiktionary:Information desk/2017/June.--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 12:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes. they should all be recreated. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we should have an entry for Windows and XP (especially since the latter isn't the official name). I'm not so sure about Firefox. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Restore Windows. Undecided about others for now. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


SOP?--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 12:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Dokurrat (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


RFD for "Used other than as an idiom" section: we don't need a sense for every incorrect word segmentation. They are very common and never to be completed. (examples of incorrect word segmentations: 鼠标垫增强了鼠标的可用性, 为人民服务, 对这个常数的确定有决定性的意义, 努力学习语法规则)--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 20:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not exactly an incorrect word segmentation; it's just kind of SOP. It might be useful to keep, but I don't really have a strong argument for keeping. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung in my opinion 仲有成百個人排緊隊喎 is better interpreted as 仲有/成百個人/排緊隊/喎.--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 20:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I guess that makes sense. The definition comes from Cantodict, which was why it was included. What about the second example sentence? Do you think it could be spliced as 我手頭上/有成/十幾張飛...? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I think 成 should be a qualifier of the following number.--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 20:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Alright. I think it could be deleted. @Wyang, Suzukaze-c, Atitarev, thoughts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Wyang (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I guess so. —suzukaze (tc) 02:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, delete the non-idiomatic sense. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Greek future tense forms[edit]

These are formed from θα (tha, will) + verb, which makes them just as SOP as will be etc in English. I brought this up to Saltmarsh here. A full list of the verb forms that ought to be deleted can be found here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

金正日, 金日成[edit]

People's names. Wyang (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Johnny Shiz (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted both.--Jusjih (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)



I gather that им- (im-) and ир- (ir-) are prefixes that only occur in words borrowed from Romance languages or English, so they do not merit entries. For an earlier discussion, related to the category "adjective-forming prefixes", see Wiktionary:Tea room/2017/May § им-. — Eru·tuon 07:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


Not exist in dictionaries. However, this is the name of a district in Chiang Rai. (Perhaps it is a minor language?) --Octahedron80 (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Octahedron80, Stephen G. Brown: Why do you think this should be deleted? If you doubt its existence, then it should be sent to WT:RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
See thai-language.com. —Stephen (Talk) 23:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
^The word is บันเทิง; it is not from บัน+เทิง and no such lone เทิง. For เทิ่ง (with mai ek), it is an adverb meaning "obviously; clearly". They both do not relate with any large or big things. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


SOP: ("to go") + 飲茶 ("to have dim sum"). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


Reraising rfd. Obvious SoP for translation purpose. Not a Chinese word. The same can be said of 可閱讀性, 可朗讀性, 可開導性, 可電解性, etc. Wyang (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete.—suzukaze (tc) 11:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd be easier to delete if it went through RFV. Its SoPness is not as obvious. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

炮火的洗禮, 炮火嘅洗禮[edit]

SOP. Handled by 洗禮.--2001:DA8:201:3512:E49E:3757:EDD0:9CB5 12:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

If it is used as English baptism by fire, it should be kept. I suggest sending this to RFV. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The English term is idiomatic does not mean the Chinese one is. baptism does not mean ordeal in English.--2001:DA8:201:3512:98C7:6612:A4DC:CF14 18:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but there doesn't need to be any actual 炮火 involved, right? How is it SoP then? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this is idiomatic enough to be keepable. Wyang (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep because it doesn't literally involve firing at Christians. —suzukaze (tc) 14:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


SOP--2001:DA8:201:3512:E49E:3757:EDD0:9CB5 12:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete, but we may need an entry for 初榨. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Dokurrat (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

hlaupa á glæ[edit]

Same as above. DTLHS (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

WT:SOP might be what you are looking for68.151.25.115 01:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a phrase from the Bible: Philippians 2:16. I'm not sure it merits inclusion, though. — Eru·tuon 16:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. One of the many unidiomatic, seemingly random Icelandic phrases we have had stick around until somebody notices them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to RFV, literally means "run into the sea" so probably not SOP. Can't find as a set phrase in any of the is/en dictionaries though. BigDom 09:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


bogus entry: its a misspelling and was never obsolete. 01:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, no: it's well and truly attested, and it now well and truly obsolete. Although there is a case to be made that the adjectival use in period was actually as an attributive noun... especially given the capitalization in "Prognostick Signs" &c. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 02:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Should be challenged at RFV if anywhere. Now has some cites. Keep. Equinox 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep, of course. 08:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

« », «, »[edit]

Duplicated lemma. We probably don't need a section for every languages the symbol is used.--2001:DA8:201:3512:41BB:786D:20EE:2C4A 13:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, why not? Either all the languages that use the symbol should be listed, or there should be an entry for each of them. Is this different from having an entry for every language that uses the letter a? — Eru·tuon 14:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention that every language has its own rules for when and how they are used and how they are formatted (with or without spaces, etc.). --WikiTiki89 14:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep per above. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

industrial complex[edit]

Hello, I tried to create a page for "industrial complex" because on Wikipedia, there is an article about "white savior" under which the term "white savior industrial complex" is discussed. There are a couple of Wikipedia articles, "military-industrial complex" and "prison-industrial complex", that exist. Beyond these, the term "industrial complex" has been appended in other ways as discussed here, which I had included in the Citations tab for justification. It seems appropriate as a dictionary term since there is no real encyclopedic coverage, but there exists a variety of uses of it. What warranted the rather immediate deletion of this page? Erik (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This says, "The suffix '-industrial complex' has become a convenient (and certainly overused) way to describe the meshing of public and private interests, usually in a manner suggesting that profit motivations have trumped rational policy assessments," with a few examples of its use listed. Erik (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge I restored it temporarily so that it can be discussed. I agree that it has some issues, not least of which is that the definition is a mix of etymology and usage note, without having an actual definition included. It is also not a suffix. But perhaps it can be cleaned up? The citation is also a mention rather than a usage, which needs to be addressed. I do think it was added in good faith, so merits discussion. - [The]DaveRoss 17:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Please let me know what sources would be ideal to help here. I'm happy to look further. Erik (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Dave, your ping didn't work. Anyway, let me copy what I said on my talk-page: "I'm really not sure it is appropriate for Wiktionary. You seem to be supporting a sort of suffix (although your entry didn't say that explicitly), but isn't it rather a case of various blends based on military-industrial complex?" I might add that if it were a suffix, the page title would have to begin with a hyphen. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete if only for the crap so-called definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there anything like "assume good faith" in this particular realm? Why is it exactly "crap" and "so-called"? I am seeing words under Category:English idioms that are less substantial than this. Erik (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment. I've got to agree with User:Erik, that User:SemperBlotto's statement wasn't nice, and was inappropriate especially to whom seems to be a good-faith new user. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Good faith doesn't necessarily prevent you from creating crap. I know this well, sometimes create crap in good faith myself. --Droigheann (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Droigheann But you don't word it that way, especially with new users. Encourage new users to learn further about the system. Using derogatory terms to refer to a good faith entry from a new user is mean, and not only that, but it can lead to new users who could very well one day become essential contributors to the project, feel that they are shunned away and don't come back. you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
New user? Oh, I've forgotten everybody's always sooo polite on Wikipedia ... The way I see it SB & Erik each yapped once, probably on the spur of the moment, and now they have better things to do. And so should the two of us. Pax. --Droigheann (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The concept exists, we just don't happen to be very good at it. The problem with the definition is that it isn't a definition, as was mentioned about by myself and Meta. A definition for this might be something like "a corrupting influence on the government by individuals or companies with a significant financial stake in related legislation". That is certainly not perfect, but it is attempting to describe what the term means rather than the origin of the term or how it is used. Another problem is that the term isn't used (as far as I know) independently of the various specific terms (military-, prison-, etc.). If the term is never independent then it is not worthy of an entry on its own, but should rather exist at each specific use. - [The]DaveRoss 14:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Why does the term have to exist independently? We can set it as "-industrial complex" if needed. Unless suffixes are not allowed? I see that -gate exists. Erik (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Suffixes are OK, if this is in fact a suffix it should be moved to the hyphenated version. The thing is there are lots of words and pairs of words which are common constructions but which are not affixes or terms in their own right. The question here is whether or not "industrial complex" is, in and of itself, a term. - [The]DaveRoss 19:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I can see why that is uncertain. I would be fine with a move to the hyphenated version. What about this from the book Unwarranted Influence from Yale University Press? Erik (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Those look like they are mostly "mentions" rather than uses. I think my inclination is that this is neither an independent term nor a suffix, but rather a number of snowclone terms of the form X-industrial complex. The industrial complex portion is not idiomatic in its own right, and I don't think that it is a proper suffix. - [The]DaveRoss 20:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Metaknowledge that these all look like blends of military-industrial complex with other terms: it derives from the whole phrase, rather from than from any of its parts. It's kind of like one of those images where someone's head is photoshopped onto someone else's body: the idea is to merge the two identities in incongruous ways, rather than treat the body as a modular piece to be swapped for another. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Considering all the different kinds of Wiktionary entries, I'm surprised there is no place for this term here in any form at all. I would have thought that a write-up of the very term in a Yale University Press book would be good enough. What kind of real-world use is warranted for inclusion? Erik (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep, but move to -industrial complex: Mostly per Erik. I also feel like "Delete because the definition is crap" is a rather specious argument for deletion. It's a good argument for fixing the definition, though. Purplebackpack89 18:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
BTW, @SemperBlotto, you wanted the definition reworked? I've reworked it. Purplebackpack89 19:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

We already have military-industrial complex. Therefore, we do not need to re-define it here. "Industrial complex" has another definition, however, which I added. Have a look. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep, I think it's OK as modified. DonnanZ (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I would argue that the new addition is SOP, and that the restated original definition is wrong. This is not short for military-industrial complex, especially not when used in terms like prison-industrial complex. - [The]DaveRoss 11:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


Chinese: This is not Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This is related to "#Flash" above. Would you like to start a full discussion on the issue at the Beer Parlour? — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Personally I'd like to put this one in RFV. —suzukaze (tc) 00:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, move to RFV if there is doubt that the word is used in Chinese. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

connected graph[edit]

A graph which is connected.__Gamren (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

connected graph at OneLook Dictionary Search DCDuring (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

accidente de tráfico / accidente laboral[edit]

SoP. Ultimateria (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. But why do we have road accident? The definition is dubious too. If a bicycle hits a pedestrian on a road, it's a road accident - or am I wrong? --Hekaheka (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I think we should also delete "road accident" (who says that anyway?). Any combination of [setting] + "accident", really. Ultimateria (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, Collins defines it as "a traffic accident involving vehicles, pedestrians or cyclists" [33].--Droigheann (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

zahraniční obchod[edit]

Tagged last year [34] but apparently not brought here. Links properly to foreign trade, which is a red link. I think that if we consider the English term an SoP, the same should probably be true about the Czech term. --Droigheann (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

  • As for sum of parts or not, "foreign trade" is at least ambiguous: for a U.K. citizen, foreign trade does not include trading that Germans do among themselves. For whatever reason, foreign trade is currently linked to from User:Robert Ullmann/Missing/e-f and User:Msh210/Duesentrieb/xdv. Furthermore, how would you know that Czechs say "zahraniční obchod" rather than "vnější obchod", analogous to German de:Außenhandel, or "externí obchod"? The German entry has French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish translations that are based on "external" rather than "foreign", information of use for a translator. If the translations entered turn out to be not the most common ones, that can be corrected, provided there is an entry to correct. Admittedly, foreign trade at OneLook Dictionary Search does not help much to support keeping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
That's an argument for the creation of foreign trade. What I'm saying is that as the English->Czech translation is quite straightforward (unlike the English->German &c ones), there's little point in having the Czech entry in the English Wiktionary linking to an non-existent English one. (Incidentally I didn't tag it for deletion, just noticed it in Category:Requests for deletion in Czech entries.) --Droigheann (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
If we focus the argument on the Czech term: zahraniční obchod entry tells you this is the usual phrase rather than *cizí obchod, *vnější obchod or *externí obchod. I don't see how deleting this entry could possibly improve the dictionary and make it more useful. The better course of action is keep Czech zahraniční obchod, create English foreign trade, and add various translations to English foreign trade. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017[edit]

icicle plant[edit]

I found only two legitimate (non-dictionary) references to "icicle plant" when I searched the internet. Neither referred to "A plant of the genus Mesembryanthemum". There is a redirect page in Wikipedia, but I do not think this qualifies the term for inclusion in Wiktionary. I would update the Wikipedia redirect but the "icicle plant" article does not exist at this time.User-duck (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This should be at WT:RFV- but see the citations I have added to the entry. DTLHS (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I added some simple usages to supplement more mentiony cites that support specific definition. DCDuring (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
This is tricky, because 1) Mesembryanthemum used to be a wastebasket taxon containing a large number of species that are now classified in other genera, and 2) plant common names tend to be either a) mentioned along with the botanical name, but not used, or b) used, but not accompanied by botanical information. To complicate things further, Dorotheanthus bellidiformis was mostly known as Mesembryanthemum crinifolium, and Mesembryanthemum is neuter in gender, so specific epithets such as edulis and bellidiformis change to edule and bellidiforme. Allowing for that, it's easy to confirm that all of the species in the ice plant and icicle plant articles (except for Helichrysum thianschanicum of course) have been known for most of their history as species of Mesembryanthemum.
It looks to me like icicle plant, when applied to plants in the Aizoaceae, is just an alternative form of ice plant: the species that look like they're covered in ice aren't shaped like icicles and the species that have long, narrow leaves don't look like they're covered in ice. I suspect that ice plant was generalized from Mesembryanthemum crystallinum to the rest of the genus Mesembryanthemum as it was constituted at the time, with that connection becoming lost after the genus was split up. I've changed the articles at ice plant and icicle plant to reflect the above. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I dread having to cite many of the less common vernacular names because the story seems so often to be as you say. I wonder if we should just buryput some of the dictionary-only names in Usage notes. They may be somewhat useful to some users.
It seems highly likely that any good vernacular name will be (mis)applied to higher level taxa and similar-looking or -behaving organisms. Is it even worthwhile to document this?
icicle plant may be so rare as to fail RfV. DCDuring (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Назарбаев мәңгі өмір сүрсін[edit]

Nationalistic Kazakh phrase that feels weird in a political-neutral dictionary... 12:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, SOP on its face and with no practical value as a phrasebook entry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

underwater handstand[edit]

Sum of parts? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I had never even heard of an underwater handstand, but it seems to be bizarre enough to keep. No images to be found on Commons though, damn. DonnanZ (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The definition makes a point about which parts of the body are above the surface. AFAICS, that's the only possible reason why this should perhaps be kept: if it implies some stuff about body's position relative to the surface, rather than being any kind of handstand done (mostly) underwater. What a nightmare to verify, though. Equinox 07:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I did find images, but not on Commons. DonnanZ (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Is there some kind of official definition of such a performance, as one used in some competitive water gymnastics? That might be worth including if attestable. DCDuring (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some kind of evidence can be found supporting the details about which parts of the body are above the surface, or supporting some kind of official definition like DCDuring suggested. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Herr Ober[edit]

Redundant, badly formatted. – Jberkel (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

足濟, chiok chōe[edit]

Looks SOP. If this is deleted, should 很多 be deleted as well? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

carbon nanotube is a sum of parts[edit]

Does it quality to have an entry? Yurivict (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I would keep this, but I find the reasoning hard to put into words. I suppose it is a translation target for single-word foreign equivalents, and a synonym for the existing buckytube. bd2412 T 16:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Carbon nanotubes were the original nanotubes, so it is possible that the term carbon nanotube predates the independent term nanotube, in which case I would keep. Otherwise it is probably SOP, there are lots of specific nanotubes. - [The]DaveRoss 11:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wyang (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

loose connection[edit]

Sum of parts? SemperBlotto (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


Does this meet WT:BRAND? —CodeCat 12:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

piece of furniture[edit]

Sum of parts, surely. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I remember that years back there was a leeengthy discussion about this and it was kept. If there's ever a need for a translation target, this is the one. If one translates "piece of furniture" word-by-word to almost any other language, one ends up with nonsense. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Not in Chinese, and I imagine many other Asian languages. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Hindi फर्नीचर का टुकड़ा (pharnīcar kā ṭukṛā) is nonsensical. फर्नीचर (pharnīcar, furniture (uncountable); piece of furniture (countable)) can mean both. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 17:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep, a piece of furniture shouldn't be called "a furniture". DonnanZ (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
So, by that rationale, should we add piece of advice, piece of equipment, piece of information, piece of news, piece of stationery, etc.? This is quite a normal English construction that is used to count a mass noun. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
un meuble is not "a furniture". Neither is et møbel. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
And? Why should a feature of a foreign language impact the inclusion of English terms on the English Wiktionary? What you describe would be better placed in a grammar not a dictionary. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. "Furniture" is just a mass noun, and it's normal to treat it this way in English. This translation target stuff is making me roll my eyes a bit. It comes up for everything. We have to either accept at some point that we're primarily an English language dictionary rather than a translation dictionary, or we need to create a collocations section to allow common SOP phrases. I'd much prefer the latter, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be consensus for it.... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't know. We do need to indicate somehow/somewhere that this phrase is the usual singular for furniture (not "a furniture"). That could be a usage note or something at furniture. Equinox 00:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: by all means add a usage note at furniture (note that it is also possible in some contexts to say "a stick of furniture" and "a set of furniture"), but it is clearly SoP as Tooironic says. I take it we are not planning to create entries for "bunch of grapes", "piece of legislation", and so on. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And what about the remaining "translation targets"? Kill'em all? They are hardly more useful than this one. If that should be the policy, I'm ok with it, but let's be consistent. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, this is less of a translation target and more of a clear-cut sum of parts IMO. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Less than ace of diamonds, banana peel, national sports team, model aircraft, birthday card and CD player, just to name a few? --Hekaheka (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
No. Anyway, why don't we just move it to Category:English phrasebook? That category can obviously accommodate anything from could I see the menu, please to I am English to two beers, please, including 59 entries beginning with "I'm ...", from I'm blind (no, it doesn't have a sound file) to both I'm fine and I'm fine, thank you to I'm twenty years old, so why not a few "pieces of" for the cases which, unlike the abovementioned, can't be translated directly? --Droigheann (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Nearly all of the phrasebook phrases are full sentences (even if elliptical, like "two beers please"), not just vocabulary items in a vacuum. Equinox 17:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
And? Does being full sentences make them any less SoPs? Occasionally even sort of "double" SoPs when we have both how do I get to and how do I get to the airport, how do I get to the bus station & how do I get to the train station? --Droigheann (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The inclusion of phrasebook entries has nothing to do with SoP - rather, we include phrases which are commonly used in phrasebooks and actually useful. "Piece of furniture" is just a common collocation, not a phrase with a specific pragmatic function. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
That's where we differ, for me having "piece of furniture" is about a thousand times more useful than having, say, I'm agnostic. But maybe these things are always down to subjective opinions ... --Droigheann (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I'm agnostic is representative of the English phrasebook. Most of the entries we have in there are actually common and useful. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete SoP, follows a standard English approach to "countabilizing" English mass nouns. It would be important to include the common examples of these in usage examples (less desirably, citations) at the various uncountable nouns that show this behavior. DCDuring (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
An interesting contrast in terms of idiomaticity is chest of drawers, which is sometimes (NOT normally) spelled chesterdrawers, indicating a loss of connection of the idiom with its origins and apparent components. In contrast pizzafurniture is very rare in this sense and pisafurniture is only a crossword clue word. DCDuring (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I see no reason why pizzafurniture could not also be a crossword clue word. bd2412 T 01:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Weak keep as a translation target. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 17:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep as a translation target.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete, not even convinced it's the most usual form – I would have said ‘item’. Ƿidsiþ 14:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Russian -ва-[edit]

We already have -вать (-vatʹ), -ивать (-ivatʹ), -ывать (-yvatʹ). --Barytonesis (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

istuic, istuius, istujus[edit]

Long enough unattested and properly would have failed WT:RFVN#illic and istic already. The forms very likely were might up by wiktionary. - 17:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


This entry overlaps significantly with the suffix section of 'd, though it adds usage notes, its own (lengthy) example use, and the annotation poetic. I propose these two entries be merged. Rriegs (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Should very likely be -'d as it's a suffix. Additionally there could be a ===See also===.
Btw: 's and -'s are inconsequent too: at -'s the head is 's (or properly |head=’s) but the lemma is -'s. - 19:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

шкоднае праграмнае забеспячэнне[edit]

Tagged by IP. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

шкоднае ПЗ[edit]

Tagged by IP. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)



Really not convinced that these terms are suitable. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The words seem to exist - but should be defined as plural of the singular. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

صدام حسين[edit]

Full name of a person. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

person of size[edit]

Nominating this entry since man of size and woman of size have been determined in earlier discussions to be sum-of-parts. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Delete. DCDuring (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep , as size here refers euphemistically to overweight, not just size in general, which we do not have at size, so it's not SOP. It doesn't mean a tall person, or a large bodied person, it means an overweight or obese person. It's modelled after person of color. Leasnam (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The purported connection with person of color is their shared use of a standard English construction.
I doubt that "purported" is at all an accurate assessment of the the Washington Post's article regarding the term's origin. Leasnam (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I repeat the comment I made above at #woman of size:
I'm sureI hope you agree that wall of great size is SoP. Isn't woman of great size SoP? I would hope you would agree that wall of size is SoP. I don't think woman of size departs from this normal construction of meaning for these of NPs. DCDuring (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I disagree where woman of size is concerned. It is not a woman of (great) size or necessarily any size, which is precisely why large bodied, stocky (but not fat) women are never referred to as a "women of size". No one uses the term that way. "Woman of size" is a nice PC way of saying "plus-sized woman" (i.e. "fat woman"), a woman with more to love ;) She doesn't even have to be large, just have a little excess fat (you can be petite and "curvy" and be a woman of size, or a "plus size" woman, and be of normal size). As I pointed out in ES about the origin of person of size, it is a collocation with its originator phrase person of color which served as the pattern for why the phrase woman of size was created in the first place. It's like little person, little people for those with dwarfism. They're not strictly just "little + people" (SoP). Same thing here. Leasnam (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring, why again is person of color is not SoP ? Maybe the definition of person of size should be: A non-skinny person. Leasnam (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, if you're comparing woman of size to wall of size, then perhaps you're not understanding what woman of size specifically refers to. It's not always a "large woman". It's a woman who has more body fat than popular culture deems desirable. OTOH, big woman would be SoP, because big can mean "fat" in addition to just large size. Leasnam (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I know English expressions reasonably well, but I may be semantically challenged and unaware of it.
Wall of size is just about synonymous with wall of great size and woman of size is just about synonymous with woman of great size. No OneLook reference has of size or woman/person/man of size. Perhaps the OED does?
I think person of color is inclusion-worthy because color does not mean "dark/brown skin color" AND because the selection of an appropriate name for a member of a group that is sensitive to the names it or its members are called is a matter of GREAT pragmatic concern. (I'm speaking here as a descendant of Huns.)
Not every instance of pragmatically/contextually preferred selection among available expressions warrants an entry, still less one that involves only conventional construction of conventional meaning. In contrast plus-size/plus-sized/plus size do involve departure from conventional usage.
As to the matter of size only being one specific measure of size in woman of size, what of garden of size? In this case size can (almost???) always only mean "area", not "length", "weight", "height". You certainly wouldn't want to have separate entries for each combination of [Noun] and of size because a particular meaning of size was most common when used with [Noun]. DCDuring (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Nowhere at size does it refer to overweight. It only refers (among other things) to dimensions. Leasnam (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The definitions at [[importance]] don't show "great import", even though it has that meaning in "matter of importance". I think that many of the nouns that are conceived as having scalar or ordinal values are often used without a modifier to mean that the scalar or rank is high in context. Examples of such nouns that can be used with of to yield the result are many as are examples that do not have the resulting type of meaning. DCDuring (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Is "garden of size" or "wall of size" a normal construction where you're from? It seems weird to me. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say it was common, just normal, in the sense of following a fairly standard pattern. One can find numerous instances of "player/lineman/back of size" in sports news. It is parallel to "matter of (some/great) significance/importance/weight" and similar expressions. DCDuring (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't have us making entries for garden of size, shoe of size, x of size, what have you...those are clearly SoP. But person of size and woman of size are inclusion-worthy. Like man of God, These are not SoP. I see your concern over the slipperiness of this though--should we create passenger of size, roommate of size, patron of size ? No. JUst like we don't have child of God, passenger of colour, or whatever either. We know where to draw the line. Leasnam (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring: interesting, that's completely foreign to me (but then again, I don't read sports news). Where do you live? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't read the sports news either: I searched Google News, suspecting that something could be found. I'm just north of NYC. But I don't think it's regional. DCDuring (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I think you could take almost any word that could mean a type of individual and add "of size": imagine a dating service for plus-sized people. You could say that you're interested in "dog-lovers of size" or "left-handers of size". If anything's idiomatic, it would be "of size", not person of size, man of size, woman of size, etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Chuck, absolutely ! Either something is missing at size, or we need to consider creating an idiomatic of size. Leasnam (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
This now makes me think that person of color is just person + of color, as you can also say: woman of color, people of color, culture of color, music of color, etc. Leasnam (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to weigh in that my impression is that this really is mainly a matter of of lacking a definition of this kind of thing. Something like denotes that the preceding subject has the quality of the following predicate noun. Hair of gold and days of yore are not made of gold and yore, they're just liken to the implied quality. Seems a standard English construction to me. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

意大利式長麵條, 意大利式長麵條[edit]

These look suspiciously SOP. They look more like a description of spaghetti than an actual name for it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


Originally tagged for speedy deletion, but I don't think it qualifies, so I'm bringing it here. We do have entries for roots in other attested languages, notably CAT:Sanskrit roots, but for most languages we don't list roots, and for Ancient Greek this is the only one (so far, at least). At the moment I'm somewhat undecided as I see arguments both for (it would be convenient to have a place to gather all the terms derived from this root, like γίγνομαι (gígnomai), γείνομαι (geínomai), γένεσις (génesis), γένος (génos), γονή (gonḗ), γόνος (gónos), γενέτωρ (genétōr)) and against (this form is more of an abstract concept than a genuinely occurring form of the language), so I'm hoping for an active discussion that will help me make up my own mind. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I created this entry, but I think this and other roots (Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit) should probably be moved to appendices. They are theoretical concepts, particularly so for Arabic and Hebrew roots, and can't meet the criterion of attestation. (@Wikitiki89's comments in a discussion about Arabic patterns is what convinced me of this. If patterns should go in appendices, roots should too, because the two are interconnected.)
Having a list of roots and their allomorphs (here, γεν-, γον-, γιγν-, γειν-) might help users to identify the origins of words. I don't know what form this should take: a single page with many or all roots, individual pages (subpages of something like Appendix:Ancient Greek roots). And I'm not sure how or if it would be linked to entries in the main namespace. But I think it would be useful in some form. — Eru·tuon 04:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Putting roots in Appendix space does seem like a good idea. How would we name Appendix pages for roots? Now that reconstructions have their own namespace, we could names like Appendix:Ancient Greek/γεν-, Appendix:Sanskrit/जन् for roots, and link to them using √ (the square root symbol) as a prefix, the same way we already use * for reconstructions. Thus {{l|grc|√γεν-}} would link to Appendix:Ancient Greek/γεν-, and {{l|sa|√जन्}} would link to Appendix:Sanskrit/जन्, etc.  Alternatively, the pages could be named Appendix:Ancient Greek/Roots/γεν-, Appendix:Sanskrit/Roots/जन्, etc. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea of using a character to link to the root appendix, but the root symbol is difficult to type, and would discourage people from linking to roots. (Asterisks, by contrast, are on my keyboard, at least.) It would be good to use either the root symbol or an easier-to-type alternative that Module:links can display as a root symbol, preferably something that doesn't otherwise occur in page titles.
I guess I would prefer Appendix:Ancient Greek roots as the prefix. It's a little more clear about what its subpages should contain than Appendix:Ancient Greek (whose subpages could be anything, including all the existing appendices with the prefix Ancient Greek). If we used Appendix:Ancient Greek/Roots, I'm not sure what we could put on the page Appendix:Ancient Greek, so it would be an empty page and a redlink on each root page. Appendix:Ancient Greek roots, on the other hand, could contain general information on roots: for instance, how ablaut and other sound changes affect the form of roots. — Eru·tuon 18:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Why should roots go in appendices but not affixes? They're tied together. Also, we'd have to fix almost every PIE link across Wiktionary. Oppose. —CodeCat 18:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
No, PIE roots could stay in the Reconstruction namespace. If you oppose moving roots to the Appendix namespace, why did you propose deleting γεν- (gen-)? Why should Ancient Greek not have root entries at all? — Eru·tuon 20:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Are roots well defined for Ancient Greek? There's a tradition of treating Sanskrit and PIE roots, but not for Greek. —CodeCat 20:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Not that I know of, but it's pretty easy to extract this root at least. — Eru·tuon 20:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

fair trial[edit]

I feel like a total, complete moron for the above mistake. I must be really, really tired and need to get some sleep immediately. I meant to write "fair trial".

As below:

"I would not be bold to create fair trial myself, but if you feel free trial in English is idiomatic, then someone please do add it. It's sort of weird to be adding a two-worded entry for another language to which its English translated counterpart has no entry on RFD. I feel it'd be easier if somebody just created fair trial and then we labelled that for deletion. I know, in technicality, the entry doesn't exist yet, so I suppose this vote is more or less about if it should exist. I feel this would be an interesting debate. See also Right to a fair trial.

Should we have this entry here or not? If someone creates the entry, be sure to label it with Template:rfd. If someone creates it it will make this a whole lot less confusing. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)" PseudoSkull (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  • fair trial at OneLook Dictionary Search
  • I think that any non-SoP sense is strictly in a legal context, at least in the US. The definition should be somewhat formal. There are several elements that are needed for a trial to be fair under the law. They might differ according to the legal tradition, nature of the trial (civil, criminal) etc. DCDuring (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I have had a stab at creating a general entry - though legal definitions will differ from country to country.

  • Keep SemperBlotto (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, keep this. DonnanZ (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that this is problematic, to say the least. The elements constituting a "fair" trial vary enough from one country to the next that the definition would ultimately boil down to a "trial" that is "fair" under the laws of the place where it is being held. Not all systems require a public trial for "fairness". In common law countries, one would generally consider it unfair if they were not afforded a right to a trial by jury (complete with peremptory challenges and sequestration), though most of the world does not have the jury trial element at all. bd2412 T 01:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
    Why not just put in one or more common-law definitions, this being English Wiktionary, with other jurisdictions being included under {{&lit|fair|trial}}? DCDuring (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mostly because it doesn't quite compare to a "fun trial" or "boring trial". As for the definition, I don't disagree with BD2412 but I don't think that's a reason not to include it. "A civil or criminal trial that is held in accordance with the laws of the country." Which doesn't mean it's fair by anyone else's standards. You can have a fair trial in Turkey or North Korea. You probably wouldn't call it fair. Anyone from Western Europe could get a trial in the U.S. and may or may not consider it fair because the U.S. legal system is very different and still has possibilities for the death sentence. It would be a fair trial, but it wouldn't be a fair trial. (see what I did there?) W3ird N3rd (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete and I think our definition is overly specific. --WikiTiki89 19:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Care to explain your point of view? I agree with the current definition being too specific. I'll replace it with mine, but @BD2412 and @SemperBlotto should feel free to revert to their version if they feel it's much worse. W3ird N3rd (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

gaijin rikishi[edit]

SOP in English (gaijin + rikishi), as well as in the original Japanese. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete both. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


Possibly sum-of-parts (物#Suffix). —suzukaze (tc) 02:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's SoP. Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

0800 number[edit]

Defined as A telephone number beginning with 0800, the rest is encyclopedic. We do have 1-800 so maybe an entry on 0800 might be warranted. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I would keep this entry. And without the "encyclopedic" explanation, the entry would be meaningless. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. John Cross (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    "A telephone number beginning with 0800, calls to which are free for the caller because the call is paid for by the party called." DCDuring (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    But 0800 number is not a set phrase, other collocations occur too. Or do we need all of 1-800 number, 1-800 hotline, etc.? -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The article Toll-free telephone number in Wikipedia seems to think it's a set phrase. DonnanZ (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete - this is not a set phrase, regardless of what one Wikipedia author thinks. Kiwima (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete. I see "0800" and "1-800" being synonymous with "toll-free", and "toll-free number" is SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
In the UK, I would say that "0800 number" just about qualifies as a set phrase. Whether it merits a Wiktionary entry, or whether it has a self-evident meaning according to general usage of the English language, is another matter. To me, "toll-free" seems somewhat American. In the UK, there is the term "Freephone" or "Freefone". Mihia (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would keep this. I feel like writing a little story. Pardon my Dutch:
Ik liep door de verlaten stad. Ik haalde het briefje uit mijn zak. Ze had haar nummer opgeschreven, maar ik kon het niet lezen. Ik pakte mijn bril. Nul..acht..nul.. Een 0800 nummer. Dit heeft toch ook geen zin. Ik gooi het briefje in de vuilnisbak en vervolg mijn tocht.

In English:

I walked through the deserted city. I took the note out of my pocket. She wrote down her number, but I couldn't read it. I got my glasses. Zero..eight..zero.. An 0800 number. This is no use. I put the note in the trash can and continued my journey.

A letdown, but not unfair.

Now let's change it:

I got my glasses. Zero..nine..zero.. An 0900 number. This is no use. I put the note in the trash can and continued my journey.

This made it slightly more mean. (Americans may interpret this somewhat different as adult entertainment was banned from 1-900, but 0900 is still used for adult lines in many countries) Let's see if it could be worse:

I got my glasses. Zero..two..zero.. An 020 number. This is no use. I put the note in the trash can and continued my journey.

020 is the regional code for Amsterdam (and virtually became a nickname for Amsterdam - even people who never called anyone in Amsterdam are likely to know it), so this is quite offensive. How much worse could this get?

I got my glasses. Zero..zero..three..two.. An 0032 number. This is no use. I put the note in the trash can and continued my journey.

0032 is the code for Belgium, so this borders on discrimination.

I got my glasses. Five..five..five.. A 555 number. This is no use. I put the note in the trash can and continued my journey.

I'm not sure if this is more or less mean than giving an 0800/0900 number. I wouldn't mind if some 0800 variants would be an instant redirect and only one page is left to describe a free telephone number though. In The Netherlands by the way, "tollfree" or "freephone" doesn't exist. We would call it a "free number" (gratis nummer) or an 0800 number and I wouldn't be surprised if the latter is more common. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


"whether, whether or not". Daijirin has this sense but mentions that it is often found in the form of "…かどうか". I think this is important. This entry doesn't mention that, which is why I currently oppose it.

Of course, the question is "why don't I add it"? I don't think having this information at どうか is proper; "…かどうか" seems to me like it should be "… どう ". どうか (whether or not) is not in EDICT. —suzukaze (tc) 08:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete sense. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


Sum of parts. —suzukaze (tc) 03:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep as useful compound. Um ... translation target, anyone? Mihia (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. @Mihia: The "translation target" reasoning is explicitly only for English entries, because we don't place translation tables in entries in other languages (therefore they are incapable of being translation targets). This translation can remain in the table at chimney sweep, but with each of the two component words linked individually. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The "translation target" thing was just my little joke. Sorry if that was unclear. By the way, is the sugested SOP 煙突 + 掃除 + or 煙突 + 掃除夫? I find it a bit surprising that we have 煙突掃除夫 but not 掃除夫. Mihia (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
掃除夫 is also SoP and [doesn't appear in http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E6%8E%83%E9%99%A4%E5%A4%AB any of the wordlists Weblio Dictionaries] relies on. —suzukaze (tc) 10:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
If 掃除夫 doesn't exist then that is a slight point in favour of keeping 煙突掃除夫. As a general principle, I do not believe that Ja entries should necessarily be deleted just because the meaning can be interpreted as the sum of the meanings of individual characters. I believe that well-established compounds that are perceived as one word should be kept, just as we keep "caveman" for instance, even though it is "cave" + "man". Even 煙突 and 掃除 themselves are ultimately SoP, but I don't imagine anyone proposes deleting those. OTOH the issue of "perceived as one word" is harder when there are no spaces, and, I would say, ideally needs a native speaker's input for individual cases, unless we are just to copy what other dictionaries do (I see, by the way, that WWWJDIC has 煙突掃除夫). Mihia (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

road accident[edit]

Pursuant to earlier suggestions, it seems that this is just SOP, and the definition's attempt to escape from that is wrong (that is, to the extent that anyone even says "road accident", it can be just a motorcycle). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The vehicle wouldn't have to be motorized. Don't pedestrians, animals count? DCDuring (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
In order to avoid re-entry it should also be deleted from Index:English/r2. --Hekaheka (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
If someone walking across the road was knocked down by a vehicle, even a bicycle, that would be a road accident. Revise and keep. DonnanZ (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
"An accident that takes place on a road" does sound like a SOP. delete --Hekaheka (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
@Hekaheka What if a car would hit a biker in the middle of the forest or on a parking lot? The biker would have been involved in a car accident, but I suspect it might still be said there was a road accident. Despite there being no roads. Although it's probably not that common. On the other hand, if somebody suffers a heart attack while crossing the street, that really doesn't count as a road accident. Oxford on "accident": A crash involving road or other vehicles.. This refers to a road vehicle instead of a road, although this is just the entry for accident. Two dune buggies crashing into each other on the beach still counts as a road accident, I think. But I'm not fully sure. W3ird N3rd (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Three valid citations showing that that's how the term is sometimes used would be all we need to support a broadening of the definition along these lines. I think that would make a case for a definition that might pass RfD. But it might strike professional lexicographers as a flimsy argument and be used as an example to show that we aren't serious, as many of them have publicly claimed. DCDuring (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
All words can be used lackadaisically but it doesn't mean that we have to record every lackadaisical usage. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
This "lackadaisical" usage would show to my satisfaction that to some speakers the meaning of the term has become somewhat divorced from that of a combination of the component terms. It would be evidence comparable in strength to attestable instances of a term being spelled solid or being misconstructed (chesterdrawers). Apart from the spelled-solid criterion, which we have legislated as sufficient for inclusion, the others are simply fact-based arguments, to be given more weight IMO than the gum-flapping arguments motivated (unwittingly?) by idiolectophilia. DCDuring (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
At least off-road accident is common, but that'll likely be regarded SoP as well. Because of it though, it's virtually impossible to find any citation for road accident being used for that, regardless of such use existing or not. There is https://www.dawn.com/news/1340023 (Two forest guards killed in Dera road accident) which sounds like it probably didn't happen on a road: "But the ill-fated trolley overturned at Mula Khel area. As a result, the two forest department guards died on the spot.".
There are also many roads named "road", so the "Rockingham Road accident" isn't actually a road accident, it's an accident on or near Rockingham Road. (the actual accident happened on a parking lot) So simply due to the nature of search engines and the fact that at least the vast majority of "road accident" uses really is an accident on a road means I don't know how a source ever could be found, regardless of such usage existing or not. I said I wasn't sure and if it would be used this way it wouldn't be common, but for technical reasons I can't rule out (or rule in) the existence of this black swan. W3ird N3rd (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Ƿidsiþ 14:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

gravel road[edit]

A road with a gravel surface—sounds like gravel + road. Compare "brick road", "concrete road", "gravel path". —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • No wonder, you removed a substantial part of the definition. DonnanZ (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    I removed "usually a rural road with little traffic", which I think is probably an accurate generalization about gravel roads (and about dirt roads and other unpaved roads), but it's not part of the definition of the phrase. I used to live on a gravel road in a city, and the fact that it was in a city would not make me hesitate in the slightest to call it a gravel road. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it could be a generalisation, I know of a couple of gravel roads around here in suburban areas - both are privately owned but access is not restricted, and one of them leads to my local railway station. Perhaps the def can be re-expanded and improved. Anyway, keep. DonnanZ (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Could you please explain how this meaning is supposed to differ from the sum-of-parts meaning? —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I think SoP can be a red herring sometimes, I'm not a deletionist. The main question should be whether it's a useful entry or not, but I will have to leave that to others to decide. Its a useful companion for dirt road though. DonnanZ (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh God I just saw that entry and must immediately vote against all forms of gallery. Equinox 16:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I love "believed to be in Russia" ... like gravel roads are so rare we can't find a photo of one in a known location ... Mihia (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Haha. I found Russian text in the description for the image, which gave me the impression that it may be in Russia, but sadly the image provider didn't say where it is. That part can be removed if this entry survives. But the potholes are characteristic of a gravel road which needs a visit by a road grader. DonnanZ (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
No offence intended. Mihia (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete SoP. If ugliness were a consideration, that alone would justify deletion. DCDuring (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Gravel road" is believed to be in SOPland. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Is this the repayment I get for using an entry for comparative tests in image presentation? I'm far from impressed. DonnanZ (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm grateful for such a good illustration of ugliness, but would have preferred one not likely to get RfDed. DCDuring (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Gravel roads aren't exactly aesthetic in appearance, and I have driven on many in NZ. But you're welcome to find and add images of "beautiful" gravel roads. DonnanZ (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I was talking about the overall appearance of entry with the photos in it. Sometimes we only have ugly pictures of beautiful things, but that's a separate matter. DCDuring (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, it's a simple matter to rearrange the images. I think the original idea was to avoid clashing with translations. Yes check.svg Done. DonnanZ (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dirt road is idiomatic, gravel road is not in my experience. - [The]DaveRoss 14:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Dirt road may be idiomatic, but users still need to know the difference between a dirt road and a gravel road. DonnanZ (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, doesn't seem distinguishable from "dirt road" outside of volume of use, but use is certainly sufficient to meet the CFI. bd2412 T 02:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep for translations if nothing else. —CodeCat 11:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


Can't any noun be used analogously, and without specific referent? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete for the reason given – we shouldn't provide the capitalized forms of words like Conquest and Inquisition unless they have a meaning other than "a specific conquest, inquisition, etc.". Similarly, delete sense 3 of War. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Any standard noun can be capitalised, but entries aren't needed. DonnanZ (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Personally, I would also like to lose the capital titles (King, President, etc.). Equinox 23:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

cierro el pico[edit]

This means "I shut my mouth". NISOP --Recónditos (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Should it be moved to cierra el pico? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Or the infinitive cerrar el pico. -WF
  • Move to RFV. This is an RFV issue, not an RFD issue.Granger (talk · contribs) 12:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    @Mx. Granger: What is your reasoning for this? The rationale for deleting it is that it's SOP, which would hold regardless of whether it's moved to the lemma form or not. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for the ping – I misread the rationale. I retract my comment. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

buen apetito[edit]

Spanish speakers don't say this. Keene (talkcontribs) didn't know Spanish in 2007. --Recónditos (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. A Spanish speaker in Uruguay said this to me two days ago. It's true that buen provecho is much more common, but buen apetito exists. Anyway, if the concern is whether or not Spanish speakers say it, it should be taken to RFV, not RFD. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm agnostic[edit]

Silly phrasebook entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It's in the same league as I'm an atheist. If this entry goes, that should go too. DonnanZ (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Same as every "I'm X" entry. Where'd you draw the line? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Delete all of them - then start afresh with a proper phrasebook. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like to use something like a lemming heuristic for the phrasebook. google books:"I'm agnostic" phrasebook does find multiple phrasebooks, although I don't like that they all seem to come from a single publisher. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


Extremly disgusting and no part of the common German vocabulary. --Peter Gröbner (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Please Delete --Udo T. (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
We aim to have entries for all words in all languages. If you think that the word does not exist you should use "Request for verification" instead. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep of course. Having an entry for "paedophile" or "Nazi" doesn't mean we support the ideology. Equinox 11:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Extremly disgusting and no part of the common German vocabulary. --Udo T. (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Either send to RFV or keep, amongst what appears to be a brigade by de.wikt editors. —suzukaze (tc) 11:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being extremely disgusting is irrelevant. If the word is not actually used in German, that's an RFV issue. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto:, @Equinox:, @Mx. Granger: Forget the disgusting-ness. This is a purely linguistic issue. Please read my reply below. Kolmiel (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I also have sent it to RFV now. --Udo T. (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Zitiert von RFV und zur Sicherheit zusätzlich reingestellt:
Da sich um diesen Eintrag sowieso ein Benutzer/Admin mit etwas fundierteren Deutsch-Kenntnissen kümmern sollte, schreibe ich hier mal auf Deutsch, da mir das leichter fällt:

Es dürfte hoffentlich bekannt sein, dass man im Deutschen alle möglichen und auch unmöglichen Komposita bilden kann. Bekannte Beispiele sind der „Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän“ oder noch extremer (und unsinniger) der „Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänskajütentürknaufpolierlappenaufbewahrungskasten“.

Der Begriff „Kinderleichenficker“ kann in einer Google-Suche ganz sicherlich gefunden werden, da es nun mal (leider) Menschen gibt, die sich solche kranken Begriffe ausdenken. Der korrekte Begriff für die dahinter liegende strafbare Handlung wäre im Deutschen „Kinderleichenschänder“ oder eigentlich sogar nur „Leichenschänder“. Vor keinem deutschsprachigen Gericht wird jemals der Befriff „Kinderleichenficker“ oder „Leichenficker“ verwendet werden. Auch seriöse Zeitungen oder das Fernsehen würden niemals einen derart obszönen Begriff in ihrer Berichterstattung verwenden.

Man wird diesen widerwärtigen Begriff allenfalls mal an Stammtischen, in irgendwelchen dubiosen Foren und Blogs finden und bei Google Books unter Umständen auch in Büchern von Autoren, die unbedingt meinen, ihrer obszönen Kreativität freien Lauf lassen zu müssen.

Denn: es ist schon schlimm genug, wenn eine Leiche oder gar eine Kinderleiche geschändet wird. Wenn man zur Beschreibung solcher abescheulichen Taten aber dann Begriffe wie „Kinderleichenficker“ oder „Leichenficker“ verwendem würde, dann würde man damit implizit auch noch die Verstorbenen, deren Körper schändlich missbraucht worden sind, auf unzulässige und obszöne Art und Weise entehren. --Udo T. (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The fact that it's digusting, though true, is irrelevant. The user should not have mentioned it, because it only distracts form his other, very reasonable argument: the infinitiveness of German compounds. What we should do is delete. However, that requires a long due change of our policies, namely that compounds in German (and Dutch) must be deletable as sum of parts. English compounds are written in two words, so you delete them. Ours are written in one word, so you say RFV. That's nonsense. Kolmiel (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Or in other words. German Kinderleichenficker is just as unjustified as English child corpse fucker. Kolmiel (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
PS: I've created a discussion about this at the beer parlour. Kolmiel (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming this can be used as a strong insult towards someone. In that case, it'd be a straightforward keep, just like unclefucker or pigfucker in English. --Recónditos (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@User:Kolmiel I disagree. People who don't have knowledge of the German language will want to look up compound words they see. They wouldn't know what is a compound and what is not, necessarily. You wouldn't want to use Kinderleichenficker without knowing what it means lol. Ouch! PseudoSkull (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I do remember times where, with a Germanic languages, I was literally copying and pasting each word into Wiktionary to translate it for myself. That's why compounds should be here, basically. Search reasons. It's an interesting thing to use Wiktionary for. A complete Wiktionary would have translations for almost all of such compounds, letting people copy and paste entire texts into Wiktionary to translate, without even having to know the language. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Closed and kept. There is no call for de.wikt editors to ignore our rules and act as morality police. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    Late keep in RFD per Equinox; move to RFV. This is in keeping with WT:CFI, and with English Wiktionary's keeping words whose referents are disgusting and atrocious. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    What the fuck. This whole discussion is certainly a strong case for not letting anyone but natives or L4 speakers decide RFDs. The term is completely SOP and entirely unidiomatic, it being kept is an embarrassing example of the RFD process failing. Shame on your foreigners who voted keep. Shame on you guys who closed this debate after a single day. This is exactly the kind of no-additiona-value predictable spam the SOP-rule is meant to prevent. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    As far as I know the English Wiktionary generally treats German compounds this way. Compare neuntausendneunhundertneunundneunzig and Zirkusschule, which were kept in RFD. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    If we're willy-nilly throwing it out, then why require idiomaticity in the first place? Why not just keep literally every word in every language and be done with it? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    This shouldn't have been closed; the irrelevance of the moral argument brought forth by the OP doesn't/shouldn't disqualify a priori other potentially relevant arguments. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    A discussion about keeping SOP German closed compounds is at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/July#Delete SoP compounds in languages like German and Dutch; past discussions are at Talk:Zirkusschule (mentioning also "Tanzschule"), Talk:Sportlerherz, Talk:Plastikschwanz, and Talk:neuntausendneunhundertneunundneunzig. I find it only proper that the matter is decided by the general editorship of the English Wiktionary and not only be native German speakers; it is the native English speakers who are the best judges to decide whether they find Tanzschule helpful and worthy of inclusion; this is their dictionary, and if not only theirs, then also of the international audience that uses English as the lingua franca. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Unclosed: This was closed a mere day after opening. Above, Barytonesis rightly points out that even if the original argument does not apply, other arguments may apply, and it is the business of a RFD discussion to examine various possible pertaining arguments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The original argument was the non-existence of the word, the disgustfulness only made the case even more important. Tanzschulbesitzerhündchenhalsband for me is not worth while requesting for deletion. Greetings, Peter Gröbner (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Searching the internet, I found hardly any evidence of this word being used, thus citing "at least three independent instances spanning at least a year" will be difficult. --Abderitestatos (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
That is an RFV issue and is not relevant to this discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I've striken out the delete of German native speaker Abderitestatos since the speaker is not eligible to vote in our votes based on the number of contributions. Arguments are welcome, of course, but those presented are relevant to RFV, not RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
This isn't a formal vote, it's an RFD discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Knowing the fine differences between words or parts of words in German you would recognize, that a word including the coarse term »ficker« has a positive connotation. It implies an voluptuous act which invites to do the same. In connection with the word »Kinderleiche« “body of dead child” it presents at least an approval of a normal thing. It seems to be an invention of a single paedophile under the cloak of an insult. In written German you would express „Schänder einer Kinderleiche“. I'm not a moralist but a lawyer. And in accordance with the law of Germany (§ 184b, StGB) someone will be punished, who distributes or publishes also written child pornography. I would never publish words in Wiktionary, if they are violating the law of an democratic constitutional state. To prevent the project Wiktionary from damages I vote for Delete. --Alexander Gamauf (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@Alexander Gamauf: If you are in fact a lawyer, you should understand that a single word or its definition could not reasonably be construed to represent pornography, and moreover that Wiktionary's servers are in the US and therefore subject to US law. It sounds to me like you are trying to cloak your morality policing as being for legal purposes, even though you know that we incur no liability by having this word. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
By those standards, the German word for pedophile should be deleted as well. Strangely it's indeed not here: Pädophiler. In fact even the English article didn't list any translation. W3ird N3rd (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep until RFV. Wiktionary is not censored. —CodeCat 15:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Strong delete as SoP. Define custom CFI for languages, which form unidiomatic compounds. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Anatoli T.: Do you want to keep Kopfschmerz and why? What distinguishes Kinderleichenficker from Kopfschmerz as far as sum of parts (SOP) is concerned? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I want to keep Kopfschemerz (1) because it's included in most dictionaries. Pretty sure many consider the term (2) idiomatic and because of (3) the existence of headache, also an SoP. I'm not suggesting to delete all German SoP's but we need to define some CFI rules for languages like German, which can't be the same as for English. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev Poppycock. We don't need any special treatment for German. I will not give you one reason. I will give you twenty-three: towelless, fishless, bikeless, streetless, boxless, fireless, woodless, barless, magazineless, goldless, bronzeless, schoolless, cardless, mapless, pantless, sockless, appleless, watchless, morningless, kingless, bossless, condomless, monitorless. W3ird N3rd (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The first word you mentioned is in common frequent use and can be found in printed dictionaries, the second you can read some very few times in fora. That is the difference. --Peter Gröbner (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The question is not what is the difference (any difference) but rather, what is the difference as for sum of parts (SOP). The argument invoked by Anatoli above is SoP. And I ask, if this is SoP, that is, if lack of typographic separation does not matter for SOPness of German words, why is Kopfschmerz not SoP? (For "SoP", see WT:CFI#Idiomaticity.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
If your head aches because of a tilt or sunburning, I wouldn't call it Kopfschmerz in German. Kopfschmerz denotes the feeling which seems to have its origin inside the brain. --Peter Gröbner (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Duden gives "Schmerz im Kopf" as a definition. Anyway, I wonder what sort of explanations you would find for "Zahnschmerz", "Gelenkschmerz", "Himbeergeschmack", "Himbeerlimonade", "Himbeermarmelade" and "Tanz­schu­le", all in Duden. I am fairly certain Duden has a whole lot of two-stem sum-of-parts noun-noun compounds, many of which cannot be argued not to be sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course, you are right in general. I think, the Duden and the Österreichische Wörterbuch (not to forget) list compounds if they are used frequently. For the "Schmerz im Kopf" you mentioned you have to consider the preposition "im" too which is important. Otherwise sum of the part is not that unambiguous as it is in mathematics. For instance a Mädchenhandelsschule ist not a school where you learn about traffic with girls. See also de:Hochzeitsmesse! --Peter Gröbner (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep if attested: first, I don't think the concept of SoP makes sense when applied to compounds; second, the makeup of the compound is going to be opaque to some people who don't know German. — Eru·tuon 19:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Erutuon Agreed, deleting "because SoP" makes little sense and deleting "because ewww" is even worse. The RfV can be found here: Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#Kinderleichenficker and pretty much every single use (including shitty comments) that could reasonably be found (with search engines and searching Twitter, FB and G+) are found at Citations:Kinderleichenficker. It's not a lot and probably won't pass RfV, even though it was first mentioned 14 years ago. W3ird N3rd (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
As the original arguments do not apply (which includes being a matter of WT:RFV and not WT:RFD), it was closed correctly. Of course other arguments could apply but then there could - and better should - be a new RFD discussion.
As for the SOP-ness: 1. It's a general matter and not a matter of this single term, so it should be discussed elsewhere. 2. By WT:COALMINE and common practice, German compounds are included. Just take a look at Category:German compound words and you'll find many SOP-like German compounds. By the way: The German wiktionary does include SOP-like compounds too, and so does Duden. The new Duden is said to contain even more of it. spiegel: "Die 27. Auflage des Duden kommt [...] Entsprechend viele Neuaufnahmen sind zusammengesetzte Substantive, wie Flüchtlingskrise und Mütterrente." 3. There are also SOP-like English terms like assfucker, though by the second definition it's not so SOP-y anymore. As (*)Kinderleichenficker would be rarely used literally and commonly used figuratively as an insult, it's probabaly not so SOP-y too. 4. Also to consider: a) While natives can often analyse a compound, non-natives often can't. b) Some German compounds are nowdays sometimes analysed as word + interfix + word like Altersarmut = Alter + -s- + Armut and not Alters (genitive of Alter) + Armut. (Note: in wiktionary the etymology might be given as simply Alter + Armut without mentioning the s at all.) While natives often have some Sprachgefühl for the insertion of the interfix, non-natives often don't. c) The meaning of compounds can be somewhat unpredictable, compare for example Schweineschnitzel (pork cutlet, cutlet made from pork) and Kinderschnitzel (cutlet for kids, not cutlet made from kids). In case of multi-word-compounds it could be more unpredicable, especially for non-natives. Kinderleichenficker is (Kind + Leiche) + Ficker/-ficker, i.e. someone who fucks child corpses, but compared with e.g. Kinderbürgermeister or Kinderpolizist one could also incorrectly assume Kind + (Leiche + Ficker/-ficker), i.e. a child which fucks corpses. - 00:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I started the discussion not knowing that you (in contrary to the German project) make a difference between requests for deletion and requests for verification as the latter is settled at Wiktionary:Löschkandidaten in the German project. So the discussion should continued at RoV since the term in discussion is not used commonly. By the way, inserting the interfix is not regulated strictly, for example the German call it de:Adventskranz, we Austrians de:Adventkranz. Even more complicated is the situation with the Schaden(s)ersatz. Greetings, Peter Gröbner (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep as single word, if attested. Ƿidsiþ 14:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

several states[edit]

i.e. the USA. Seems SoP to me, with a slightly dated sense of "several", i.e. the many, "all of". Note that the Hooven citation says "the several states which are united under and by the Constitution", which is definitely SoP. Equinox 11:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I always thought this phrase was using the obsolete sense meaning "separate, distinct". It seems SOP to me too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Although it originates in archaic usage, the phrase is still in use in modern legislation. See, e.g., 2010, Code of Federal Regulations, p. 377: "The term “operator”— (A) means any person who operates a website located on the Internet or an online service and who collects or maintains personal information from or about the users of or visitors to such website or online service, or on whose behalf such information is collected or maintained, where such website or online service is operated for commercial purposes, including any person offering products or services for sale through that website or online service, involving commerce— (i) among the several States or with 1 or more foreign nations..." bd2412 T 19:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
If it is used as a set phrase in legal contexts, I vote keep. It is far from obvious from the parts that "the several States" means all the states of the USA, in my opinion. You quote also highlights a capitalisation question: "several states" versus "several States". Mihia (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
"States" is typically capitalized in modern references to the "several States" in legislation. bd2412 T 03:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep per Mihia. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep per above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep, as it continues to be used as a formalism. bd2412 T 02:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: Purplebackpack89 01:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, mostly due to capitalisation issues. I just looked up if "the States" was supposed to be capitalised or not, but when combined with several it doesn't have to be? Confusing enough for me. W3ird N3rd (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Now that I think of it, this has been referenced in w:Gravity Falls, a show for kids:
As president of these several United States, I hereby order you to pretend none of this ever happened.
As said by a president who had been frozen for over a hundred years and is woken up in that episode. This is from the subtitles, I don't know what he literally said because I saw the Dutch version. Only now that I see this Wiktionary entry did I figure he probably said something like "several states". W3ird N3rd (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Totally SOP. Just refers to the several states that make up the United States, in a context in which it is clear that it is not referring to Mexican states or any other states. --WikiTiki89 18:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

idioma montañés[edit]

Probably should me moved into montañés. --Recónditos (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Move. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

tolerant left[edit]

Is this not SoP? e.g. (2015, Benjamin Smith, Market Orientalism: Cultural Economy and the Arab Gulf States) "the citizens of Gulf monarchies fail to elicit a sympathetic response from either the tolerant Left or the militant Right". Equinox 12:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems so to me. Delete DCDuring (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep. I was about to agree to delete this, but having read the description and assuming it is correct (you suggest deletion due to SoP and didn't state quality issues) I've just learned something:
An imaginary characterization of the left, created by rightists, that is unconditionally tolerant of everybody or everything no matter how dangerous their ideas or actions are. I thought tolerant left simply meant tolerant towards immigration and things like that. So the willingness to take in refugees who flee from war or may get killed because of their beliefs or sexual orientation in the country they are coming from. As opposed to the right, who just want to "build a wall!" (which is sadly one of the nicer quotes from that guy) and other lunacy. W3ird N3rd (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

ge- -t[edit]

I don't think this should be considered a circumfix. German past participles have an ending, which may be -t, -et, or -en, and they may or may not have a prefix ge-. These choices are not related in any way; all combinations exist: gelegt, gerettet, getrieben, zitiert, errötet, beschrieben. So, it's a prefix and a suffix, not a circumfix. Kolmiel (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

ge- only appears if -t, -et or -en is added, there is nothing like geleg (without any ending). In certain cases only an ending and not ge- is added. Thus it should be ge- -t (ge- -et, ge- -en) and for certain cases (some derived terms or compounds like beschreiben (be- + schreiben) and foreign words like zitieren (from Latin)) just -t, -et, -en. In literature one can also read that ge- -t is a circumfix, e.g.:
  • 2014, Michael Schäfer and Werner Schäfke, Sprachwissenschaft für Skandinavisten: Eine Einführung, p. 110: "vom Zirkumfix {ge- -t}"
  • 2016, Roland Schäfer, Einführung in die grammatische Beschreibung des Deutschen, 2nd edition, p. 324: "das Zirkumfix ge- -t (schwach) bzw. ge- -en (stark)" 03:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Suffix plus separate prefix per Kolmiel. There's also a few cases where the prefix or its variants appear without a suffix (e.g. Getreide, glauben, gönnen). Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep. —CodeCat 12:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Getreide, glauben, gönnen do not contain a NHG prefix ge-. The OHG or MHG terms might have gi- or ge- in it, but that's not visible in the NHG terms anymore.
Better examples might exist in (older?) dialectal/regional German like geseyn instead of sein (or seyn). Some terms similar to this might also exist in 'standard' High German.
Anyway ge- alone doesn't form the past participle (unless it's somewhat strangely analysed like in ge- -t ("with ge- (for strong verbs)") and and ge-#German (the second prefix)). And if ge- -t gets removed, the sense would belong to -t (and -en, but not ge-). In -t it then should be something like "forms the past participle; usually together with ge-, but sometimes just -t". - 15:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: The fact that there are other ways to mark the past participle is not relevant. The question is whether the elements ge- and -t in, for example, gelegt have distinct meaning on their own, the way un- and -ed do in unnamed. They don't; they only have meaning when taken together as the marker of the past participle. Therefore, they should not be analyzed separately; they have to be considered a circumfix. So also with ge- -et and ge- -en. — Eru·tuon 00:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
What are you talking about? All endings have several distinct meanings of their own, one being that they are the ending of the past participle, with or without the prefix. E.g. entlarvt, verschnitten, erduldet etc. which are past participles, marked by the respective ending, without the respective prefix. ps.: New High German begins around 1400, so having an entry for a prefix 'ge-' for words like gesitzen is absolutely in the scope of Wiktionary's de code. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm talking about the meaning in the word in question, gelegt. Does the -t mean one thing and the ge- mean another in that word? — Eru·tuon 16:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
No, Peter Gröbner (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

abandon to[edit]

Failed RFD; recreated by User:WurdSnatcher; seems to have the same problem, i.e. not a true phrasal verb. This seems true of many of WS's entries. Equinox 17:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete for the reason given. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete DCDuring (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Clearly delete. Mihia (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete, seems not a common phrasal verb. Cordialement, et Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


For example, 1370s, 2040s, 1790s. Do we really need these? We could have an infinite number of these. Theoretically, we could also include the 9540s and the 2670s and the 193259020s (though most of those are probably not attested, but hey, ONE DAY they might be lol). Couldn't these decades all be explained perfectly by the entry -s? It's so formulaic; it's basically like {insert number here}0s. Then you have the BC decades. Plus I've also seen them written with 's at the end too, which means we have to repeat all of these countless decades with the alternative forms 's. It's just infinite. It's almost like having addition problems as entries. (If there was already a discussion about these decades, I'm not aware) PseudoSkull (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Partial keep. Some cultures don't use the Gregorian calendar or even the decimal system so "1790" may not make sense to them. I would however restrict this to the decades that are most commonly found in texts. At most this should be the 00s to the 2010s. BC decades (1240s BC) would be SoP. Future decades are generally not referred to this way. 402 pages (00s to 2010s and 00's to 2010's) are not an issue for Wiktionary to handle. W3ird N3rd (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
We should keep all those that are actually used. I can see plenty of hits for 2030s for example. Send any dodgy ones to RfV if you like. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
But why? Should we also have entries for 2030, 2031, 2032, ... as well? It just doesn't seem like these Gregorian decades belong here. Wikipedia already describes such decades in detail, too. I also know that most of these decades are used and attestable, but that wasn't what I was asking. I was asking, should we have them? Are they a clutter of space? Aren't they extremely repetitive? Isn't this information stuff that people could easily find by going elsewhere, or by going to -s, or by visiting Wikipedia's articles about the decades? Similarly, we shouldn't have entries for 1^1, 1^2, 1^3, ... PseudoSkull (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Semperblotto, granted, a few future decades are possibly seeing some genuine usage as well. But beyond the 2100s it probably won't be much. That would mean 420 pages tops, no issue.
PseudoSkull, why not? Do these pages bother you? Any decade that has no real usage would be RfV so they are not endless. For numbers you can go to Wikipedia and you will find silly years like 2098. W3ird N3rd (talk) 06:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see, since these are generated in an entirely predictable manner, the only purpose of having them here is in case someone encounters XXX0s and does not know what it means. In that case, it scarcely matters whether some particular instance is satisfactorily attested according to Wiktionarians' Internet searching. Even if it isn't, someone might still encounter it. If, on the other hand, the perceived purpose is to document existence of usage rather than be a look-up facility, I vote delete all, since basically who cares whether some individual XXX0s is attested to Wiktionary standards. Mihia (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all: I don't see how these violate CFI. And just because we keep these doesn't mean we automatically have to immediately create others. Purplebackpack89 01:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per the decision to treat large numbers as SOP. This doesn't seem wildly different to me. It might help to have such entries when there is potential for ambiguity: something like "the 1700s" could, theoretically, mean one of four things: AD 1700-1799, AD 1700-1709, 1799-1700 BC, or 1709-1700 BC. But dates like this seems fairly transparent to me. There's also the fact that their meaning is heavily reliant on context. The 1700s are not necessarily unique to the Gregorian calendar, so we could end up with all sorts of definitions, unless we choose to be vague, in which case the definitions would be entirely SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@User:Andrew Sheedy "The 1700s" still has a predictable meaning, i.e., any XX00s may refer either to the decade or to the century, so those should still be deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
True, so maybe we should have an entry for -00s as well as 00s. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

spelling nazi[edit]

  • Page created by unregistered user.
  • Crappy source for usage. (spam?)
  • Crappy description has spelling errors and is practically gibberish to me as a native speaker.
  • Ironically incorrectly spelled (compound words have no space in Dutch, spellingnazi or spellingsnazi are more acceptable forms)
  • taalnazi (nl) is a far more common synonym.
  • "de nazi uithangen" (acting like a nazi) is not a thing. You can equally go "de dronkenlap uithangen" (acting like a drunk) or "de clown uithangen" (acting like a clown).

To put it in a more PC way: I think it's a pile of shit. W3ird N3rd (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

(1.; 5.) not a reason for deletion.
(3.) description or definition seems to be ok. The example maybe isn't.
(4.) is that also true for borrowings and is that universal, does it apply to all borrowings? In German compounds are spelled as one word, but some borrowings from English are split anyway or can be split like Hot Dog or Hothog. Category:Dutch terms borrowed from English has the split Dutch term anti-roll bar.
(6.) Do you mean that "de nazi uithangen" does not exist or that it is SOP (sum of parts)? If it is SOP, it could be linked like {{l|nl|[[de]] [[nazi]] [[uithangen]]}}.
Is this a matter of WT:RFV (verification, or attestation) or WT:RFC (clean-up) instead of WT:RFD (deletion)?
- 15:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. —CodeCat 15:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, you are right, I meant the example. The example is crap. 1. and 5. are indeed no reason for deletion, but 1. can indicate a careless edit and 5. is saying it's odd to have some obscure version of a word while not having the commonly accepted variant. As for 4., it is a rule. Exceptions exist but are rare. Golden retriever would be one. Big Mac might be, we won't say "bigmac" but this is a product name, not a regular word. (the word will vanish if McDonalds goes out of business) Cottage cheese is also written with seperate words, but may also be called hüttenkäse. Lapis lazuli comes from Latin, not English and is also known as lazuursteen. Both are officially words. (http://woordenlijst.org/ government-approved source) Hot dog would be wrong. I have never heard of a "Anti-roll bar" in Dutch, but it should be spelled antirollbar. Anti-rollbar is allowed (https://onzetaal.nl/taaladvies/antiaanbaklaag-anti-aanbaklaag) but not the default. In fact, I suspect this would become antirolbar. (English: I roll / Dutch: ik rol) I have performed a few searches on a Dutch car forum and found:
anti rolbar
anti-roll bar
antiroll bar
Found only one instance of each. I found two instances of "antirolbar" but that was the same user.
6. may be SoP but it's also SoP in Dutch. Dutch wiktionary won't allow entries for "brown leaf"/"bruin blad", "large box"/"grote doos" or "acting like a nazi"/"de nazi uithangen".
In order to keep this entry you will need to create spellingnazi/spellingsnazi but if anyone wants to invest their time into that they should create taalnazi instead. With taalnazi created spelling(s)nazi will be a synonym for that. Once all that is done a RfV will be required to verify "spelling nazi" is a common misspelling of spellingnazi and redirect to that. Considering all the contents from this article are useless and it would require a complete rewrite from scratch, I see no point in keeping it. It's like asking a toddler to paint your house. Yes, there will be paint, but it will not help. W3ird N3rd (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

haîsseux d'femmes[edit]

Probably a useful translation but hardly deserving of its own entry. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 09:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If it just means "hater of women" (as I suspect) then delete as SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Misogynist is a single word and it's entered as a translation there. DonnanZ (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC).
@Donnanz: That's not a good enough to reason to keep. The translation line can just as easily say {{t|nrf|[[haîsseux]] [[d']][[femmes]]|m}} if the Norman is SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but if French misogyne or an equivalent is not used in Norman (that needs verification) I would still say "keep". DonnanZ (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep since Frenhc is known to use multi-word phrases where other languages use single words. This is not standrd French, I get that, but the grammar seems to be similare. Lollipop (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Those voting keep seem to be ignoring the grounds upon which a term can be kept. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Woman-hater is a verifiable synonym of misogynist, so I don't see any reason for objection to this. It looks as though the equivalent in quite a few languages is woman-hater instead of or as well as misogynist. All translations are under misogynist though. DonnanZ (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


Simplified-traditional mix. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletesuzukaze (tc) 00:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Dokurrat (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017[edit]

air your dirty laundry in the public[edit]

There is a spelling error; your instead of one's. There is also a page called air one's dirty laundry in the public. Should be deleted. --TNMPChannel (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather redirect the your-entry to the one's-entry: people will often search it under that term, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

keep your rosaries off my ovaries[edit]

This entry is nothing more than the sum of its parts, not really a dictionary definition. Should be deleted. Lollipop (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"Rosaries" meaning "religious intervention" isn't a normal sense. Equinox 20:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
It's simple metonymy, isn't it? --WikiTiki89 21:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep. It's not sum of parts, it's idiomatic. Neither rosaries or ovaries are used in the literal sense. Widespread long-term use.--Dmol (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Have you looked up metonymy? We've long held that metonomy still counts as SOP. --WikiTiki89 21:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep. If my English was poor and I had to explain this without context I would wonder if it might be referring to some odd tradition of some tribe to insert prayer beads in women's bodies. (people in China are huffing rhino horn because they think it cures fevers and rheumatism, would you really expect me to be surprised?) Please note I have never heard of this idiom before reading this RfD, so the meaning is not "obvious" to me. W3ird N3rd (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep. A novice wouldn’t recognise its meaning simply by looking at the parts’ definitions. It’s metaphorical. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 01:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
In light of recent comments, I’d like to stay neutral on this now. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 17:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I disagree that this is SoP, but I think we should delete since slogans are not in scope. - [The]DaveRoss 13:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we would regret establishing a policy of keeping political/popular slogans. We have recently deleted live free or die, which seems comparable. I hope we don't keep such expressions based on the POV expressed, whether that results from conscious or unconscious bias. DCDuring (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Exactly why would we regret that? I know your POV also from another discussion, you would absolutely hate to see Wiktionary become a (typically very expensive) multi-word dictionary. But regrets? Just because including more terms is something you don't want doesn't mean it will be regrettable. W3ird N3rd (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete per DCDuring and TheDaveRoss. If this were a normal idiom, I would vote to keep it, but slogans are a different story. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Clearly idiomatic. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull, Dmol, W3ird N3rd Your votes were based on the idea that this phrase is idiomatic. I would point out that merely being idiomatic is insufficient to keep a multi-word term. Slogans have not been considered within scope in the past, and I think that should remain the case. Proverbs are the closest thing which has been considered acceptable, and there is quite a leap from a proverb to a slogan. - [The]DaveRoss 12:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I never received your ping. It's not much of a leap. If a slogan gets enough usage it can become a saying. In Dutch there is a related saying baas in eigen buik (boss of your own belly) which also started out as a slogan. I'm a big believer of following rules. Unless I find them counterproductive in which case to hell with them. I believe it would be very valuable to have slogans and idioms on a wiki. So my question would be this: do slogans and idioms belong on another wiki project? Yes? In that case, move it there. (to my knowledge there no such wiki but correct me if I'm wrong) If not, we need to ask: should such a wiki be created while we allow them here until that wiki has been created and they can be moved there, or should we simply allow them here? Either way, removing them here is counterproductive so I'm not changing my vote. Simply saying "while valueable, it does not fit our scope, we will never change our scope because we simply won't, we will not have another project with such a scope, we will simply kill everything that's not in our scope" is nothing but pointless destruction. Don't expect me to take part in it because your rulebook says so. That's the worst argument imaginable and only ever leads to misery.
As a side note, apparently I wasn't the first one to think of prayer beads.. Addition: By the way, I may be in a somewhat grumpy mood right now so don't take anything I said personally. I stand by what I said, but it may have been worded harshly. W3ird N3rd (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Two things, this is a direct reference to prayer beads and female reproductive organs. They are exactly what you are supposed to think of when you hear this slogan. So that's not surprise. The other thing is that the purpose of Wiktionary isn't to make people happy, it's to provide definitions of words. --WikiTiki89 18:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I thought #2 and #3 (3 due to the example provided I guess) from rosary#English meant that rosaries are also religious thoughts and ideas and that's what this referred to. And your "Wiktionary isn't here to make people happy" argument is pretty weak too. The definition of Wiktionary is not to make people happy, just to provide definitions of words. And if that doesn't make people happy let's do it anyway. Don't bother with making people happy. Don't bother doing anything that might make sense. Don't bother trying to create something useful. Just do as you're told and don't question it. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Slogans are phrases that take a large part of their meaning from their extra-linguistic context. Explaining what they mean requires going into encyclopedia territory. In fact, they often tend to be used, not to convey meaning, but to evoke that context. Also, they tend to be utterly meaningless outside of that context, and old ones like "Ma, ma, where's my pa? Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha" are hard to understand without reading up on the politics and politicians of their eras. I think that including phrases simply because they're not explainable as the sum of their parts is a bad idea: any good poetry is full of passages that can't be explained by their literal meanings. Movies, TV shows, plays, etc. have lots of catch-phrases that people quote to evoke a scene, or the character/actor who says them. For instance, "What we've got here is failure to communicate" is quoted by lots of people, but you have to know about the scenes in Cool Hand Luke where it's used in order to understand why. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
It's generally not encyclopia territory. "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries" has no Wikipedia entry and if you create it it will probably be deleted. If you're saying "another wiki project needs to be started for these things" that's fine with me. But in the meantime we shouldn't destroy content in a way that makes it hard to recover. If you would merely suggest hiding it (is that even possible?) while waiting for such a project to be started I could accept that. If a general rule would be to move good but out-of-scope content to the talk page of that entry, that would make it more acceptable to delete the main page. I would still prefer to keep it as long as there is no other project that would be better suited for the entry, but I could live with it. But it shouldn't be just this page - it will need to be done for any content that isn't vandalism or gibberish.
I guess the real question is: why isn't there a project for idioms and slogans? Either simply nobody ever thought of it, or those that thought of it figured "well that'll fit in just fine on Wiktionary, why start a new project?". And it's probably not the former because I'm not that clever. So if you then start saying "let's be very strict about being nothing more than a dictionary because we are called wiktionary, even though there is no technical reason why we can't provide idioms and slogans as well" you create a vacuum. I hate vacuums. They suck. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
There's also no place on Wiki for recipes, but that doesn't mean Wiktionary should host them. As for "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries", it's probably not notable enough by itself to have a WP entry, but the subject matter a Wiktionary entry would cover is certainly found at Wikipedia in articles that discuss birth control, abortion and the role of Roman Catholicism in politics. Our entry doesn't really do the slogan justice, anyway, because it misses out on the association in the popular mind of rosaries with Roman Catholicism specifically, and of Roman Catholicism with certain types of moralistic conservatism, and the complete disconnect between the spiritually-pure, sacred prayers of adoration connected with rosaries and the profane matter of sexuality, which adds a layer of incongruity (I doubt anyone would ever mention abortion while saying a rosary). Then there's the matter of Roman Catholicism being a minority religion in places like the US, and the stereotypes that go with that. I'm sure that there are other angles I'm missing, but you get my point. Oh, and in case you're wondering: I'm not Catholic. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
A wiki for recipes is not a bad idea actually. Or they might fit in on Wikipedia. The first reason not to have recipes on wiktionary would simply be because of conflicts: the name of a recipe can be identical to an existing word. This problem doesn't exist for slogans and idioms. Another reason is that the target audience for recipes is completely different from the target audience of Wiktionary. Again, the target audience for idioms and slogans is quite similar to the target audience for a dictionary. Yet another reason is that a recipe would come in a format different from the format used on Wiktionary: it would be a lengthy description with instructions and likely include many pictures. Once more, the description of an idiom or slogan is very similar to the description of a word. Finally, when a slogan is described here it can take advantage of the content already here: keep your rosaries off my ovaries. A recipe can't seriously take advantage of existing content here. I get your point, but a recipe is quite different from an idiom or slogan. W3ird N3rd (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
There are recipes on Wikibooks. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not dictionary material. Mihia (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Slogans are not dictionary material. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete. General metonomy. Dokurrat (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Metonymy doesn't make something idiomatic. And slogans aren't words, just like pop culture references and other things like that. --WikiTiki89 18:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

New definition[edit]

I added a new definition. This is really what I perceived the definition to be here rather than "just a slogan". Find uses of the phrase with this meaning: "Do not interfere with my reproductive rights." rather than "A campaign slogan meaning ..." and voilà! The term is no longer SOP. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Some figured it would be a big leap from a slogan to a proverb and I mentioned baas in eigen buik (a Dutch slogan with similar meaning that got so popular it's now a saying) to demonstrate the only difference is (in some cases) popularity. And I suspect "keep your rosaries off my ovaries" is popular enough to deserve a similar status. W3ird N3rd (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
It's incomplete. There is still an implication that the interference stems from religious belief. In other words, it should say "Do not impose your religious beliefs to interfere with my reproductive rights." I would still consider this merely a slogan, however. Such implications can be derived from many slogans - for example, "You can't top the copper top". bd2412 T 18:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. "copper top" is not here, but "coppertop" is. Which is somebody with ginger hair. The rest I know, so it says "You can't beat a person with ginger hair". Still no clue. My best bet is that the best girlfriend is supposedly a girlfriend with ginger hair, probably in the area of sexuality. (this is not my opinion, I'm just guessing what the slogan might mean) Why anyone would use this as a slogan is beyond me. I haven't looked it up with a search engine on purpose, so I have no idea how close I got.
On second thoughts, assuming you didn't misspell the slogan, it probably means some specific thing is the best when it has a copper top. Copper being an excellent and affordable heat conducting material, my bet is on heatsinks. I know heatsinks exist that have a small part copper that is in direct contact with the source of heat and the rest is made of a cheaper material like aluminium. This may have been a slogan from Zalman, Coolermaster or similar company.
It's not transparent indeed. I wonder what the actual meaning is. Guess I'll have to visit a search engine to find out, I wouldn't mind if Wiktionary could have told me. W3ird N3rd (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Most notably, it is the slogan for Duracell batteries, and is properly included on the Wikiquote page for well-attested advertising slogans. bd2412 T 16:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull I've changed the definition to "A request not to let religion be a guide when creating or advising laws regarding reproductive rights.". W3ird N3rd (talk) 07:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The phrase is not used in a literal sense, and therefore, is not a sum of parts. This deletion, if it proceeds, is not based on WT:CFI: the term is attested and is not a sum of parts. On the other hand, slogans are often non-literal and it is questionable to what extent they would flood Wiktionary. Having non-literal slogans would not necessarily be a bad thing, I think, but I am not sure. As for "slogans are not words", nor are proverbs, which we include. In any case, we have workers of the world, unite, a slogan. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


Made by longstanding problematic IP. Wyang (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete. The thank you meaning does not exist in Thai. --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the deletion rationale, sum of parts, non-existence or something else? We handle non-existence via RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


Personal name. Dokurrat (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

雲南十八怪, 云南十八怪[edit]

SOP. Dokurrat (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

十八騎燕將, 十八骑燕将[edit]

SoP. Dokurrat (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


SoP? I'm not sure. If not, we have lots to add. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep: single word beginning with a hyphenated sufprefix is not SOP. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I withdraw my request. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
re: "...single word beginning with a hyphenated suffix.." If you've got one, I'd certainly like to see it- it would be a real first! Chuck Entz (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Prefix. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Those -ass-suffixes make me sick. Although technically -ass is not used as a suffix there. ;-) W3ird N3rd (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's one! :) —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Challenge accepted. "The absence of a -nesslike suffix does not prove that there was no theory" (1983, Hansen, Language and logic in ancient China, page 41). Equinox 16:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I would delete these. The hyphen makes it obviously decomposable into parts. Same with hyphenated anti-. Equinox 10:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Following the rules I just made up the "ex-" prefix can apply to almost anything, so I would delete this. W3ird N3rd (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Really? You could say the same thing about the "-less" suffix, which Equinox pretty clearly supports. People are being so deletionist lately. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't generally support it when the word has a hyphen (which is rare with -less). Equinox 23:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
What are our suffix/prefix entries required to have? A hyphen. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You are missing the point. If an entire word (not just a *fix) has a hyphen, e.g. anti-hospital, it is trivial to work out the components, even for a NNES. But with no hyphen, it's harder: antique might be opposition to que (whatever that is). In the past when this argument came up, I found actual real examples where a word can be broken down two ways, one right and one wrong. Equinox 23:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
A que is apparently a barbeque. Many people are antique, mostly vegetarians though. Antique is included because it has another meaning though. Should you really include anything with anti- you can think of, like antiraisin? Which, as it turns out, is actually a thing. Seriously. W3ird N3rd (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull Calling me a deletionist.. You must be joking. :-) The discussion I linked is about SoP, a sum of parts. Without a space or hyphen, there are (the way Wiktionary sees it) no parts. In fact it turns out Wiktionary doesn't see parts even when there is a hyphen.
That being said, if somebody lost their towel and they would shout out "Oh noes, I'm towelless!" I don't think it would actually be a good idea to add towelless to Wiktionary. Even if they lost their boat and would shout "Oh noes, I'm boatless!", you could ask yourself if it's really a good idea to include every possible combination with -less even if they could just barely pass an RfV. Arguably such -less words could be included if they are widely used - far beyond the three-independent-durably-backed-up-sources rule. You wouldn't really want to lose hope. I mean hopeless. That would be careless. And pointless.
Oh good god.. boatless actually exists.. So does towelless, fishless, bikeless.. Well, might as well add presidentless, cardboardless, plasticless, icecreamless, tinfoilless, displayless, homepageless.. W3ird N3rd (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll remind myself later. PseudoSkull (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Unstriking: A discussion is developing based on the observation that the hyphen may well matter for WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, and its key term, "separate components". --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Similar terms we have include ex-wife, ex-husband, ex-president, and more. I would tend to keep this because it is a prefixed word, not a compound, but that has, I admit, little bearing on separateness. As for lemmings, ex-wife is in Merriam-Webster and Collins. Having these entries starting with "ex-" help us show how far the prefix is productive in these hyphenated constructions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
It would possibly make sense to include these if their usage is vast, so well beyond the three citations rule. But I guess that's policy discussion. At least ex-wife should be included, even if it was only because ex can also mean ex-wife. W3ird N3rd (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@W3ird N3rd: We already have that as Etymology 3 of ex. I don't see how that's an argument for keeping ex-wife, though I'm not in favor of deleting it either. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Trying to accuse boatless of being SOP is not productive. It very clearly isn't. I feel that everything that is not SOP should be kept, i.e., ex-pilot, ex-priest, ex-violinist should all be kept in the situation that they meet CFI. What you guys aren't considering is that usefulness varies depending on the readers. Maybe someone would want to read the entry for ex-violinist, for whatever their reason, which is all the reason to provide that entry if it meets CFI. PseudoSkull (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
If you really want to include "usefulness" as a criteria for CFI, then we have a shitload of entries to delete. :-) For example, backwards time machine. Okay so this is technically not SOP because it does not say a time machine that travels backwards in time, so one cannot DIRECTLY imply that a backwards time machine is one that travels backwards in time. More likely, semantically, it would refer to a time machine that is backwards physically, which is not the case. But most people really could deduce the meaning of backwards time machine anyway, even though it's not SOP. So should we have this entry? Yes, because it's idiomatic and not SOP. You never know; someone one day might not know what a backwards time machine is, and might want to look it up here. We want to provide as much resource as possible to readers, and every inch we take away from that goal is harming the project. PseudoSkull (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep as single word, and any similar that meet RFV. Ƿidsiþ 06:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

no coupling[edit]

"(computing) the case when two modules are not coupled at all". Well that's just... no coupling. Like a recipe in cooking might have "no cheese". Equinox 20:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

uncoupled ? W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be about w:Coupling_(computer_programming)#Types_of_coupling. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm a programmer in real life. This really doesn't strike me as a phrase that belongs in a dictionary. Equinox 21:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I sometimes feel the same way about some words I encounter here in my mother tongue, but when I look them up it turns out they do exist. If "no coupling" as stated in that list is used as a term (and can't just be substituted for "uncoupled") it could be valid. (I don't know if it actually is) W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Knowing the editor who created the entry, I would say they don't know if it actually is, either: they are simply unable to recognize a sum-of-parts phrase when they see it. Anything they encounter in their line of work (programming) that doesn't get out of the way fast enough gets made into an entry- they have over 900 deleted edits, of which at least a couple hundred are creations of new entries that have since been deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Also a programmer IRL, I have never come across this. It doesn't make much sense to me. I would just delete it. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Adam and Eve[edit]

Proper noun sense, and all the translations as well. Simply Adam + and + Eve. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete, also translations. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Is there an English equivalent to German bei Adam und Eva anfangen? --Peter Gröbner (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reinvent the wheel, perhaps? I guess that's slightly different. At any rate, I can't think of an idiom that mentions Adam and Eve, except for Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
No, that is often used in German (das Rad neu erfinden) but means something different. bei Adam und Eva anfangen refers to lengthy boring speeches or discussions. Greetings, Peter Gröbner (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep. I don't think anything will be achieved by deleting it, only if you're a non-believer. DonnanZ (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Purplebackpack89 20:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. See, e.g., 2004, Paul Collins, The Earthborn, p. 71. "In his own unique way, he was a radical—him and that sister of his, Lucida. Radicals with inbuilt longevity—a regular Adam and Eve who would add healthy genes to Earth's decaying gene pool". bd2412 T 21:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
If this can be attested, a new definition should be added. "Two humans, animals or anthropomorphized things who start a new generation that will result in a large population" or something. At least I wouldn't be surprised if some combination of products is called "the Adam and Eve of X" in hindsight.
The next step would be to buy new, livelier dirt to fill the big hole I made. Then dump in my compost full of worms and hope they settle in, finding enough to eat so I won’t just be consigning them to a mass grave. I’d say, “Be the Adam and Eve of the underground! Go forth and multiply!
Sales prospecting is the first step of the sales funnel that comes before lead qualification or any of the sales activity. It is considered as the adam and eve of the sales cycle.
  • In Dutch it's Adam en Eva and we have a TV-series called A'dam - E.V.A. in which the main characters are called Adam and Eva, but it also takes place in A'dam (short for Amsterdam) and the abbreviation E.V.A. also means "En Vele Anderen". (and many others) It seems to me these characters are very connected, but I can see your logic as well. Laurel and Hardy has no "comedy duo" definition either and Pluto doesn't seem to list any orange dogs. I'm not sure about this. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    • If we create a separate sense for the idiomatic use, we could use the literal use to the etymology. bd2412 T 22:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Similar to Laurel and Hardy. I like it. A better definition will need to be written though (and proper citations provided) because my definition doesn't cover it entirely. Perhaps you (or someone else) could improve it, or write something better from scratch. W3ird N3rd (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

without a hitch[edit]

Passed RFV, BTW - NISOP IMHO. --WF on Holiday (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

NISOP – Non-idiomatic sum of parts: a term (such as "brown leaf") that can be understood from its constituent parts and is not an idiom, thus probably not suitable for inclusion in a dictionary.
Alright then. As hitch has 6 possible definitions and the correct one in this case is #4 I say keep. This meaning of hitch is considerably less common outside of the use with the word "without". It seems odd or at least uncommon to say "We've had some hitches while setting up this gig". I think hitches are experienced or ran into and probably most common are "without a". I suspect this use of hitch may actually originate from the knot meaning, which would possibly make it idiomatic. If you have some rope with hitches in it, you can't use that rope before you've cleared all the hitches. If you don't, you'll run into trouble every time you hit a hitch. So, if you grab some rope and while using it find out there are no hitches in it, it's smooth sailing. Sailing, knots.. That might actually be the origin. W3ird N3rd (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, keep. DonnanZ (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Specific meaning of "hitch" makes this a set phrase, which can be contrasted against hitchless. bd2412 T 01:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. See hitch#Noun senses 4 or 5. (Are they redundant defs?)
Most MWEs use a particular sense of the component words. So what? Have wqe taken leave of our senses. There are arguments to be made, but this one is silly. DCDuring (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
There are many ways to use hitch to the same effect. no hitches, not any hitches, and, yes, hitchless.
  • 2001, Philip Vance, Molly Truran, page 48:
    The well-planned service had gone off hitchless
There are plenty of other instances of attestation of the word in the sense in question that should serve to refute factless assertions. DCDuring (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

the only thing one should fear is fear itself[edit]

I can see why someone would create this as a proverb. But it seems to be more of a quote than a proverb, like you can't always get what you want. --WF on Holiday (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not a proverb, just a misquotation of q:Franklin D. Roosevelt#First Inaugural Address (1933). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think the description isn't even right. It means something along the lines of "There is nothing to be afraid of, you can do this". This actually does appear to be a NISOP. Possibly some common wisdom, which is still no dictionary material. W3ird N3rd (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
This has 1 Google Books hit, whereas the only thing to fear is fear itself has thousands. Equinox 18:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and move this modern proverb to the more common form. It might need a US label. DCDuring (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree that it's not really what I'd call a proverb, but people might think it is and expect to find it in Wiktionary. Move to the correct wording, per DCDuring, and link to Wikiquote. P Aculeius (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I've striken out my vote because DCDuring and P Aculeius made some good points. I abstain from voting for now. (might change my mind if other arguments arise) W3ird N3rd (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Added new sense. I still think the original description (Implying one should not be afraid of the things that go on in the world) is rubbish. Improving on what I said earlier: "Whatever you are afraid of is not wat disturbs you, it is the fear itself that disturbs you.". I vote to delete the original "things that go on in the world" sense. As for moving, I don't know. If this is considered a proverb it should be moved to the core of the most common form. (whatever that may be) If it's considered something people could mistake for a proverb and expect to find to here, it should be moved to the actual quote and have proper etymology/wikiquote added. W3ird N3rd (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. We are not Wikiquote. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
You guys often tend to think that just because it originated from the quote always means that any person who says it afterwards is mentioning the quote. Without mentioning Franklin D. Roosevelt and completely outside the context of him when using this quote, citations of this phrase are acceptable. Definite keep. Seriously, people, try REALLY hard to understand the difference between the mentioning of a quote and using said phrase that originated from the quote outside the context of the quote. PseudoSkull (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Weak Keep. Seems to have sufficiently lost its association with the original quote and become more of a saying/proverb. I'm not fully convinced it isn't SOP, however. (Also, I agree with W3ird N3rd's assessment of the current definition.) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a subtle difference between "the only thing one should fear is fear itself" (you should fear nothing at all with the exception you are allowed to fear having fears) and the meaning that ultimately comes down to "fear cripples you". It's not fully SoP but not completely illogical either. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Not dictionary material. Delete or redefine the project. Mihia (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

make beautiful music together[edit]

Not convinced it's an idiomatic phrase. --WF on Holiday (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Seems very idiomatic to me, but perhaps move to RfV? (if this section is moved to RfV my vote should be striked out) W3ird N3rd (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Anyone can make up a metaphor. This would only be idiomatic if it's used commonly enough with this specific meaning, which I'm not sure is the case. I think this belongs in WT:RFV. --WikiTiki89 19:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Possibly dated, but very common in mid-20th century parlance, and frequently parodied. P Aculeius (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep. I think it has been in fairly widespread use or, at least, its use is memorable and fairly common. Do we (or any other dictionary) have the metaphorical sense of music involved? I don't think it's the same metaphorical sense as in either face the music or music to my ears. DCDuring (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

surf's up[edit]

I'm not entirely convinced this is idiomatic. Seems something more like breakfast's up, time's up than what's up. --WF on Holiday (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I think I would interpret this as "are you ready?" / "get ready!" or something, in general. I'm fairly sure I've seen this being used outside any surfing business but I'll check. W3ird N3rd (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep It means something like make hay while the sun shines, strike while the iron is hot. DCDuring (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I suppose those things could be said in roughly the same situation. I'll add some sources to the citations page. W3ird N3rd (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Done: Citations:surf's_up but only two. https://books.google.nl/books?id=iFG-yFjJ4twC&pg=PA20 might qualify as well but is a bit odd to cite, it's hidden on the citations page for now. W3ird N3rd (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep concerning the entry, but after the idiomatic definition has been added I may vote differently if there is a new RfD for the first sense. I'm not entirely sure about our policy on SoP definitions when a term already has an entry because of another sense. For clarity that SoP sense (the current sense) should still be kept I guess, at least in cases where it's not blatantly obvious. (Pandora's box does not need a definition saying "any box owned by anyone named Pandora") W3ird N3rd (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I have added the second definition. Doesn't that automatically invalidate this RfD for the entry as a whole because any negative votes so far (apart from WF there are none in this particular case but there could have been) would have been based on the definitions that were available when the RfD started? W3ird N3rd (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Reasonably familiar phrase not necessarily used with respect to actual surf; but even within the context of surf, the meaning may not be readily apparent to people who haven't heard it, and aren't familiar with surfing or seaside jargon. P Aculeius (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have never heard of it. An American term? DonnanZ (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Donnanz I think so. There's even a song named after it: w:Surf's Up (song). W3ird N3rd (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

kolik to stojí[edit]

Czech. how much is it. -WF

Above comment: 16:40, 9 August 2017‎ WF on Holiday
I fixed the link. I don't know if the translation is correct, all I did was fix the capitals so it can be clicked. Since we have how much is it I don't see why this would have to be deleted so I say keep. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


Discussion moved to WT:Requests for verification/Non-English#Wikcionář.


Nickname of a footballer? Nah...--WF back from hols (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep. We consider single words used to refer to individuals, per CFI. (There are some prior test cases but I don't remember them.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


Not a suffix, and it doesn’t mean ‘son of’, just an abbreviated writing of ms (to give birth) + sw (him). In context (generally as part of personal names), ‘X ms sw’ is literally a sentence, ‘X [is the one who] bore him’. Compare zꜣ-rꜥ (literally son of Ra) vs. rꜥ-ms-sw (Ramesses, literally Ra is the one who bore him). In short, it’s entirely SOP and not a suffix. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 09:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Vorziblix: Is there no reason to keep this as an abbreviation? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Hmm, I guess it depends on whether you’d call it an abbreviation of ms sw or just ms followed by an abbreviation of sw. Since sw does appear abbreviated as s outside this context, I’d be inclined to see it as the latter. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 04:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Vorziblix: I didn't know that. I would be okay with that solution, as long as the relevant sense is added to s. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Relevant senses have been added at ms/msj and s. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 06:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

zꜣ-rꜥ twt-ˁnḫ-ỉmn[edit]

Sum of parts, zꜣ-rꜥ +‎ twt-ꜥnḫ-jmn. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 19:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

käydä kierroksella[edit]

I think this is sum-of-parts. It's simply käydä + kierroksella. I see nothing idiomatic in it. It was created by the same user as the idiomatic expression käydä kierroksilla, possibly to demonstrate the possibility of confusion between them. I will add a usage note to "käydä kierroksilla". BTW, also the English translation "to make the rounds" looks non-idiomatic to me. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

able to get a word in edgewise[edit]

We have get a word in edgewise, which can also be used without able to. I just copied over the usage notes from able to get a word in edgewise to get a word in edgewise, I think the able-to variant can be deleted or reduced to a redirect. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

On closer inspection, able-to is an adjective and get a word in edgewise is a verb.. I don't know our policy on this kind of thing. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Redirect. You could add many different modifiers to the phrase: I couldn't get a word in edgewise, try to get a word in edgewise, capable of getting a word in edgewise. DTLHS (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Practice is to try to stick close to the grammar for heading and make sure that we have the core of any idiom. Sometimes we have the most common extended forms as full entries, sometimes as redirects, often omitted. I disfavor full entries for the extended forms. We can make the redirects go to specific definitions using {{senseid}}.
Able is an adjective; to introduces an infinitive; able-to? There are quite a few adjectives that can be followed by infinitives, eg, easy, hard, ready, eager, willing, anxious, happy, sad, uncomfortable, sorry. DCDuring (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're thinking I think able-to is an adjective, but just to clarify: able-to was just a reference to the variant that includes "able to", that's why I connected able and to. I guess this was left open to interpretation: "On closer inspection, able-to[our entry for able to get a word in edgewise] is an adjective[Wiktionary lists this entry as an adjective] and get a word in edgewise is a verb[according to the Wiktionary entry].." W3ird N3rd (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know what "able-to" was. Able, the adjective, can be used with an infinitive complement and, of course, an infinitive is one of the forms of a verb. So I didn't see why there should be a problem with the different PoS headings. DCDuring (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Btw DCDuring, you created both of these entries (many years ago) so you should know. :-) W3ird N3rd (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I have no knowledge, recollection, or even recognition. For all I know, someone could have hijacked my account. DCDuring (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I see that whoever hijacked my then-new account put in the longer entry in 2008 and that in 2009 I put in the shorter form. DCDuring (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring I assume you have checked any edits you have made during the time your account was hijacked, or should others go over this? W3ird N3rd (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll never learn. DCDuring (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring Your account was never hijacked and you jokingly referred to a younger clueless version of yourself this way? Or your account may get hijacked at any time because someone else has access to your computer/tablet/phone? Or you regret admitting your account was hijacked? I'm sorry, I can't see the look on your face so I just don't know what this means. W3ird N3rd (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
At least you realized that I was trying to joke. I was claiming to have been hijacked to deny inconsistency and responsibility for the 2008 contribution, which is not consistent with my present preferences. DCDuring (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring Sorry, but this is the internet. I can't see the look on your face, you didn't use any emoticons (a ;-) would have made your intentions clear), I haven't known you for years and accounts do get hijacked on the internet. Maybe you had a roommate who had access to your computer at the time. So please, tell me how I was supposed to know you were joking. It's not a bad joke by the way, the only issue is I have no idea how it could be told apart from you being serious. I guess you might have been more upset if you really would have found out you had been hijacked, but considering it's so long ago you possibly wouldn't consider it much of a biggy. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
DTLHS, that's what I was thinking. This is still the right place, right? Or should this go to requests for moves/mergers/splits? I think there's nothing left to merge. W3ird N3rd (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral. I use get a word in edgeways. Much more British. DonnanZ (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Even a redirect seems silly, since get a word in edgewise will be at or near the top of any failed-search page. DCDuring (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. Either one is fine, but it seems highly unlikely that anyone will search for able to get a word in edgewise and not want get a word in edgewise if it's the only existing variation. bd2412 T 23:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • delete - same argument as was presented against "piece of furniture" above: this is quite a normal English construction, i.e. "able to + verb". --Hekaheka (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


SOP? See the talk page. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
If there's no other meaning of this word then Delete. Dokurrat (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I added that eight years ago. Can't think of any good arguments to keep it. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

trattare con arroganza[edit]

NISOP --WF back from hols (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

con tono di condiscendenza[edit]

NISOP --WF back from hols (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

parlare con tono di condiscendenza[edit]

NISOP --WF back from hols (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I don't know a word of Italian but I could work this one out by looking at it. Delete. Equinox 18:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


SoP, anything can be anything-based. Equinox 19:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Clear SOP. Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete (unless a good translation target?) DCDuring (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if I should vote on this as I created this, but this might end up the same as the #ex-pilot. The reason I added this was spelling. I wanted to look up if the correct spelling would be US based or US-based (or maybe "us based" which also seems to occur but unlikely to be the most common) and ngrams says that changed somewhere around 1980. Also, this was a redlink in based so you just might have to file another dozen deletion requests. More actually, about 72. You want me to generate a list? A redirect would be acceptable as far as I'm concerned by the way, as long as based shows what the correct spelling is. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Because Wiktionary is a descriptive, not an evaluative reference we are NOT a source of information on "correctness". And, the most prescriptive authoritative resource on "Correctness" that I know, Garner's Modern English Usage bases its conclusions on relative frequency of usage in edited works in English worldwide. What really is the alternative source of correctness in language. DCDuring (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: Honestly, this is just a good way to get your vote miscounted by someone who is looking closely enough. I'd strike it out if I were you. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep as single word. Ƿidsiþ 06:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Or, slightly rephrased, anything can be anywhere based. P Aculeius (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

ren tital[edit]

I infer from context that "perfect ten" is supposed to mean "a score of ten on a scale in which ten is the maximum", where "ten" can be replaced with any other number. Even if kept, tital (< tal) is neuter, so it should be rent tital. Incidentally, note the horribly wrong inflection that was added.__Gamren (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Gamren is right of course, rent tital is the correct form, but how common is it in Danish? Also how common is it to use ren to mean perfect? Besides, there is no entry for perfect ten. DonnanZ (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

design critique[edit]

"A formal discussion of the good and bad points of a particular design". IMO "formal" is not enough to raise this above the SoP. Equinox 14:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

But it MIGHT be a translation target in some language. DCDuring (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:GAME pls stay out of my RFD. Equinox 16:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Really? I can't express my uncertainty about this? DCDuring (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

individual level[edit]

Created by a new user with only 3 edits (User:Cresentrend). I, and apparently he as well, are both members of speedrunning communities. This is a very SOP term. First of all, the term is most often used attributively, and thus SHOULD be individual-level (as in "individual-level speedrun"). This point has nothing to do with its deletion, but if this entry were to exist, this is the form that should have been presented. Second of all, you could replace the word "individual" with synonyms (like "single", see Google search results for "single level" speedrun). Third, the term is just referring to a speedrun of an individual level. This is not anything alternative in the speedrunning community, as a speedrun can also be defined as a run-through of a single level without explanation (I could say "I speedran level 1-2 of Super Mario Bros.", and wouldn't necessary have to say "I did a single-level/individual-level speedrun of level 1-2 of Super Mario Bros.."). Fourth, "individual level" really could refer to anything; an individual-level video (of a walkthrough of a game), an "individual-level glitch" possibly could be used to refer to a glitch than can only occur in a single level, etc. Fifth, I could make an SOP like this for a lot of things. We don't have individual-chapter, for "individual-chapter reading session"; individual-world, which may refer to a run that does only one "world" in the game; individual-boss, only completes one boss battle, individual-item, possibly a play-through where only one item is collected; individual-game, "individual-game cartridge", rather than a cartridge that contains multiple games (yes, these do exist), it's a cartridge that only contains one game.

I could go on, but you guys get the point. This is very SOP. Very SOP. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom. A good number of definitions are of this type. I venture that any definition of an SoP MWE can be framed (reworded) to make it appear non-SoP, especially by restricting its definition to a context with which the reader is unfamiliar. DCDuring (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

"facultative" and "obligate" SOPs[edit]

facultative biped[edit]

facultative quadruped[edit]

obligate biped[edit]

obligate carnivore[edit]

obligate quadruped[edit]

In biological terminology, an obligate X is inherently only able to be an X, while a facultative X is inherently something else, but can also be an X (our entries aren't very clear about this, but that's how I've seen the terms used).

Thus, a facultative biped is normally not a biped, but they're capable of being a biped (that's not what our entry says, but that's because it's basically a duplicate of the facultative quadruped entry and has it backward).

It follows then, that an obligate biped is only capable of being a biped

Again, an obligate carnivore is only able to eat meat, while a facultative carnivore (we don't have an entry for that one) is a non-carnivore that can eat meat.

I'll leave the others as an exercise to the reader, since it's very easy to figure them out from what I've said so far

There are details in the entries about why these are one or the other, but they're not necessary to the definitions.

Judging by the error at facultative biped, it would seem that these entries were basically created assembly-line style, which wouldn't be worth the trouble if the parts weren't interchangeable.

Finally, I should add that there are facultative and obligate herbivores, omnivores, etc., and there are any number of things that organisms can be obligate or facultative with respect to. Not all of the combinations are SOP, but all of the above definitely are. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Chuck's understanding of the use of the terms in biology is completely correct (unlike the SOP entries). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete all per the above comment and the OP. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete. per above. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete, but doesn't the translation target rationale apply to this as it is claimed to do in so many other cases? If it does, on what basis (other than the whimsical one of voting) do we distinguish this from other cases? DCDuring (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: I created several of these on the basis that they were terms defined in a published glossary of biology; the definitions paraphrase the definitions that were offered in that text. bd2412 T 20:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    I suppose not every entry in every glossary warrants an entry here. Single-word terms may have definitions that are covered in other definitions we have. MWEs may just be transparent, but use words not part of the ordinary vocabulary of the users of the glossary. I think glossaries just expend more effort in customizing/elaborating definitions for their field. 22:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

pꜣ kꜣnꜥnꜥ[edit]

Sum of parts, pꜣ + kꜣnꜥnꜥ. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 08:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Alley Oop[edit]

Comic strip and its protagonist. Equinox 15:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Třídění odpadu[edit]

Please delete the page Třídění odpadu, a page třídění odpadu exists. Thanks

untimely deaths[edit]

SoP? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

subcritical mass[edit]

Is it only me, but I see just "subcritical + mass" here? --Hekaheka (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

More like "sub" + "critical mass", since the term "critical mass" is probably much more familiar than the word "subcritical", and directly related to the topic of this entry. I believe that terms formed with prefixes and suffixes are usually includible, provided they meet the other criteria for inclusion; in this case probably the only question is whether the term is in actual use, and while it doesn't currently have any citations, it looks like it is used with a specific and regular meaning. It's not just any possible use of "subcritical" combined with any use of "mass", like the amount of an optional ingredient in a recipe, or an editorial board that gives insufficient scrutiny to submissions (you could use it to mean those things, but only humorously). So I think this one is a keeper. P Aculeius (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
There are no SOP's! QED. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


It's institutional US military-confined jargon that is not used by the wider English-speaking community. Editor cited military manuals and US military-specific trade/institutional literature only. It is not used in any English-speaking militaries other than the US. It's not a word. Soldier is the word (or serviceman). Are scissors now paperslicingtongs? On top of this it's patently ridiculous and derogatory to define a warfighter as a member of the US military. 01:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be using a definition of "word" that nobody here will agree with. DTLHS (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It's like defining taxspender as 'a politician, especially a member of the US Congress.' It's ridiculous, inaccurate, and offensive (to reduce all fighters of wars to Americans), it serves no purpose, and it is not used by any English-speaking general population including the US. Put it on Urban Dictionary. 01:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
You understand that a definition doesn't automatically make something true? Some people (including the US military) use the word "warfighter". That makes it a word, period. We have no obligation to give a flying fuck whether you find it offensive. You're welcome to start your own dictionary with only strings of letters you personally consider valid. DTLHS (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
So if Microsoft employees (and a few of its vendors in communications to them) start using 'derpaderp' to mean Bill Gates' home, then that nonsense jargon of a single institution is now a word of the English language that belongs in a dictionary? I don't think so. And as I said, to reduce all fighters of wars to American soldiers is utterly, indisputably false on its face, so the nonsense utterance deserves no serious consideration as a word. 01:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Try not to burn yourself when that massive strawman you've built goes up. Your personal sensibilities don't get to decide what is and isn't a word. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 02:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
They're not sensibilities in any way, they're realities: most wars have not involved Americans. Therefore the current definition is nonsense. Though if you want to get political, the US military does in fact fight most wars the last decade or two. But with any kind of long-range view, it's a nonsense definition; and it is not used by the general population, only by one institution and a few of its affiliates. 02:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The citations show that the term is used in such casual and slangish works as Military Review and Combat Stress Injury: Theory, Research, and Management, and refers in all these cases to members of the US military who has experienced combat. There is nothing derogatory or nonsensical about any of those cites: if anything, they seem romantically reverential. I submit that if the "one institution and a few of its affiliates" consists of "The US Military and affiliate health-care and technology providers", then that's probably big enough to count. Your objection reduces to "I don't like this word", and is about as relevant an objection as the Monty Python character who demands a special expurgated Olsen's Standard Book of British Birds because he doesn't like the gannet. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 02:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Without the US qualification, the entry falls flat since no one uses it outside of (a tiny handful of brochure and training manual authors in) the US military-industrial circuit, including the general US population. With the US qualification ('especially a member of the US military'), it becomes false and ridiculous, and smacks of an Army commercial. 'Warfighter' was originally and continues to be a transparent PR technique/strategy and has no place in a dictionary. Your catch-all gannet analogy is inapplicable and fails miserably. 12:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Our motto is "All words in all languages", and we have entries on every vile, obscene, and generally offensive term you can imagine, so please quit with the qualitative arguments. The quotes given are more than enough to meet our Criteria for inclusion. This isn't a word only shared by a guy in Dubuque and his three buddies, this is a word used in publications read by thousands of people, in government documents, etc. Yes, it should be further qualified as jargon used only within the US military sector, but there's no chance whatsoever that it's going to be deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Judging from two of the citations, it doesn't even seem like jargon, meriting a usage label that is military. Yes, the topic is obviously military, but it is not worth a (misleading) label, whatever the value of topical categorization as "military". DCDuring (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The deletion nomination was bogus, and, all in the same day, consensus from all commenters in the discussion, including me, all agree that it's bogus. As such, I'm making the decision to snow keep this entry. I don't want this sitting here for months untouched. Wiktionary is not about opinion; it's about facts. The question to ask is: How is the word really used? Not: How can we define or delete this term so that it least offends its viewers, even if that means putting inaccurate information there? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


(English) I don't think it should be a proper noun. Anything here can be transferred to blitz. DonnanZ (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


Sum of parts. —suzukaze (tc) 09:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


Moved from RFV - this belongs more properly in RFD Kiwima (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Does it fulfil our criteria for inclusion? I'm not all that convinced. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Three quotations are in the entry. The question remains whether they meet WT:BRAND, if WT:BRAND applies. The nomination does not state which specific criterion in CFI is being questioned; WT:BRAND is my buest guess. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

نهر النيل[edit]

SoP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete, every bit as SOP as Anderson County, Bailey County, Caldwell County, and so forth. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


The simplified form is 狮子山共和国, the page of which has been made. "狮子山共和國" is not a correct form.

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

end of the world[edit]

Has four definitions:

  1. End of the planet Earth.
  2. End of habitability for life on Earth.
  3. End of humanity.

Probably a couple can be deleted. --WF on Holiday (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

All can be. SoP. All of the difference in meaning is in differences in meaning of world/World. Delete all of the above. DCDuring (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Reference added. It could be classed as an idiom, people have been preaching that "the end of the world is nigh" for generations. DonnanZ (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
BTW: I'm impressed by WF's Babel rating en-0. DonnanZ (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep but condense or consolidate senses 1 through 3. bd2412 T 16:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep only newly added idiomatic sense. DCDuring (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


This could be deleted per WT:CFI#Numbers, numerals, and ordinals: "Numbers, numerals, and ordinals over 100 that are not single words or are sequences of digits should not be included in the dictionary, unless the number, numeral, or ordinal in question has a separate idiomatic sense that meets the CFI."

Should we expand the entry to indicate that 103 is the emergency number to call in ambulance in Belarus, India and Ukraine, and then keep it? (@bd2412). --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete and don't become a phone book. Equinox 16:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The emergency number sense would be idiomatic if it is commonly used in the way 911 and 999 are. That's more of an RfV question, but since this sense is not in the entry, delete unless someone adds that sense with citations showing idiomatic use. "Don't become a phone book" is not an answer to the question of whether there's a sense there that meets our CFI. bd2412 T 16:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep This Google News search contains about half a dozen cites from Indian newspapers that presuppose knowledge of the import of the numbers, presumably in the general literate population. I found nothing in English for Belarus or Ukraine, so presumably other L2 sections would be needed, also possible for Spanish. DCDuring (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    • The sense still needs to be added. bd2412 T 17:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete according to "WT:CFI#Numbers, numerals, and ordinals" unless there is a verifiable idiomatic meaning. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Protestant Movement[edit]

Protestantism. Seems SoP. Equinox 16:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

woman of science[edit]

SoP, like many others, e.g. "man of law", "person of religion". Equinox 19:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete DCDuring (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


Looks SOP to me. @Tooironic, any reason to keep? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I added it because it's in the 现代汉语规范词典 with the definition "以和平的方式迅速发展", literally, "to develop rapidly in a peaceful way". Not sure if this nuance is present in the English peaceful rise. It could be added as an entry in its own right. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it can be kept; to me it is a political set phrase. Wyang (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, I see. Thanks! Retracting request. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)