Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

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

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFDs


August 2016[edit]


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

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

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

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

No consensus to delete, but deleted through RfV for lack of verification. bd2412 T 18:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


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

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

No consensus to delete. Note that the RfV discussion remains open and unresolved. bd2412 T 14:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted through RfV for lack of verification. bd2412 T 18:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]


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

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

Deleted. bd2412 T 14:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


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

Thai entered to mean to recite a mantra. The sum is สวด ‎(“to recite”) +‎ มนต์ ‎(“mantra”).
I am inclined to keep since this is present in http://dictionary.sanook.com/search/สวดมนต์ as "to pray", but that is a weak argument. One difficulty is that Thai does not use spaces for word separation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep. I think this word simply means "to pray" (intransitive) สวด(sùuat) + มนต์(mon) (มนต์ is a variant of มนตร์(mon)). The verbal noun การสวดมนต์(gaan-sùuat-mon, prayer) is included in Sanook as well.
สวดมนต์(sùuat-mon) is also defined in two other online dictionaries: [4] and [5]. The definition is "to pray". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

As a native speaker, I'd like to confirm that "สวดมนต์" never means "to pray". To pray (to offer a prayer) is generally translated as "ภาวนา" in Thai. "สวดมนต์" just means to recite/chant a mantra (or any other religious formula). --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

No clear consensus to delete. bd2412 T 14:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


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

Thai entered to mean "to ransom somebody". The sum is ไถ่ ‎(“to ransom”) +‎ ตัว ‎(“body”). Before diff, it was entered as a noun, to mean "ransom". dictionary.sanook.com has it, as a verb[6]. Thai does not use spaces to separate words. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 14:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


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

Deleted. bd2412 T 14:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


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

  • Now defined as "act of making food" but was defined as "cooking". Created by User:Alifshinobi, who is Th-3. The sum is การ ‎(“abstract noun prefix”) +‎ ทำ ‎(“to make”) +‎ อาหาร ‎(“food”). I would submit that not every making food is cooking; does this only mean cooking? Seems absent from dictionary.sanook.com[7]. "cooking" is consistent with Google Translate. If this means cooking, it is not sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 18:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

bless á meðan[edit]

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

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The English translation is "bye for now", and google books:"bye for now" phrasebook finds some phrasebooks including Spanish Among Amigos Phrasebook, Collins Gem Afrikaans Phrasebook and Dictionary, and Yacky Dar Moy Bewty!: A Phrasebook for the Regions of Britain: With Irish Supplement. Thus, use something like the lemming heuristic based on the English phrases. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    SOP phrasebook entries in CFI: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 18:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

bless í bili`[edit]

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

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The English translation is "bye for now", and google books:"bye for now" phrasebook finds some phrasebooks including Spanish Among Amigos Phrasebook, Collins Gem Afrikaans Phrasebook and Dictionary, and Yacky Dar Moy Bewty!: A Phrasebook for the Regions of Britain: With Irish Supplement. Thus, use something like the lemming heuristic based on the English phrases. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    SOP phrasebook entries in CFI: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 18:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

viltu tala svolítið hægar[edit]

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

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The English translation is "please talk more slowly". google books:"please talk more slowly" phrase does find German Phrases For Dummies, Korean at a Glance: Phrase Book and Dictionary for Traveler and Colloquial Polish: The Complete Course for Beginners. Thus, apply the lemming heuristic for the English phrase. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    SOP phrasebook entries in CFI: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep if not SOP. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 00:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

það er rétt[edit]

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

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The English translation is "that's correct"; google books:"that's correct" phrasebook" finds phrasebooks with such entries, and I would use something like a lemming heuristic for phrasebooks, based on search for English terms. And it feels intuitively to be a suitable phrasebook entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    SOP phrasebook entries in CFI: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 18:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

það var leitt[edit]

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

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain. The English translation is "that's a pity"; google books:"that's a pity" phrasebook find at least one book that looks like a phrasebook, Phrases for everyday communication: die richtigen Worte zur richtiger Zeit, John Stevens, 2009. I am not sure one book is enough, and whether that one book is even a phrasebook proper. However, it feels intuitively to be a suitable phrasebook entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    Keep: this could be also translated as "what a pity", and google books:"what a pity" phrasebook yields The Spanish Teacher and Colloquial Phrasebook, Francis Butler, 1864; Fijian Phrasebook, Paul A. Geraghty, 1994; The Rough Guide to Portuguese Dictionary Phrasebook, Lexus, 2000; Baltic Phrasebook, Eva Aras, ‎Jana Teteris, 2001‎; etc. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    SOP phrasebook entries in CFI: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 18:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

гость дипсотрудника[edit]

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

On one hand, the entry claims that this form is used on visas; if that's true, I would expect it to be found on other government papers (enough to meet wt:attest). And if this shortening is really used on visas with this meaning, the difference from the literal meaning might increase its idiomaticity. But on the other hand I can only find a few hundred Google hits (including this one) and no Books hits, which suggests the term/meaning is not used. (So abstain. If the term survives RFD it could/should ve RFVed.) - -sche (discuss) 15:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
It may appear on the visa but the translation is wrong and there's nothing idiomati about it. The meaning is "guest of a diplomatic officer" or "diplomatic worker's guest". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I've added entry дипсотру́дник(dipsotrúdnik) with a usage example. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Atitarev, -sche: Oh hi guys, thank you for following the entry! Well, since some of you claim that дипсотрудника should be established as an independent entry, then this phrase is potentially deletable .. However, I do want to point out it may be the case that, this phrase (appearing on a Russian visa) is the only instance of usage of дипсотрудника. Anyone has a good old Russiphone friend? :P -- SzMithrandir (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


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

Rename to 大正時代. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete There are too many eras, and I think that, as with place names, era names should not have a specifier. Nibiko (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
明治時代 and 大正時代 are worth having entries, as well as 奈良時代, 平安時代, etc. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

excuse me[edit]

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

Isn't it sometimes said huffily to someone who has barged into you? Equinox 10:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. That seems to me like a more sarcastic/figurative usage of what I described above, but I'll have to think about it some more. --WikiTiki89 14:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the "You're an idiot!" / "Excuse me?" usage is a special case of "Said as a request to repeat information", but it may be special enough to deserve its own entry (or at least a separate usage example). There is another possible use, "Excuse me!" (exclamation mark not question mark, emphasis on "me"), which expresses the speaker's outrage, I suppose possibly implying a demand for an apology. Usage examples would be very valuable in this entry. Mihia (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I feel that we need to put intonations or at least punctuations (?!) on each sense, cuz they really don't sound the same. -- SzMithrandir (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep the province names. 黑龍江黑龙江 (Hēilóngjiāng) and 黑龍江省黑龙江省 are different. 四川 (Sìchuān) includes Chongqing while 四川省 doesn’t. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
How does 四川 include Chongqing in current usage? Yes, it was part of Sichuan before becoming a direct-controlled municipality, but I don't think that would mean 四川省 is not SOP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete proper noun A + 省/市/區/鎮/縣/島/鄉 which is synonymous with pn A itself. I like the format at 平潭. Wyang (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete per Wyang. —suzukaze (tc) 06:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleting one by one. It will take a while.--Jusjih (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jusjih Is this task still in progress? bd2412 T 02:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. As an administrator of 12 wikis, I prefer to delete gradually while also watching other wikis. Any other administrator is also welcome to delete excessive sums of parts.--Jusjih (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I respect your level of commitment to the project as a whole. I'm more directly concerned with clearing this particular board. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Just Jusjih's way of keeping adminship while doing minimal work, in all 12 wikis. Wyang (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted all.--Jusjih (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

aibhleog bheo[edit]

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

I've added the relevant sense to beo, so this can be deleted. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
What is live coal? Renard Migrant (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
See sense 14 of live#Adjective. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 18:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


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

Thai entered to mean "To study." The sum is ทรง ‎(“royal auxiliary verb”) +‎ ศึกษา ‎(“to study”). dictionary.sanook.com does not seem to have it[8]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

acción programada[edit]

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

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

yo soy británica[edit]

yo soy británico[edit]

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

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

October 2016[edit]


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

It is rather a (New) Latin prefix. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

international airport[edit]

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

Delete per previous discussion. Equinox 18:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Plenty more of these to be found elsewhere, e.g. # is "the ID selector in CSS". Equinox 18:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep and add more programming language symbols. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you think your keep in based on CFI? Do you intend the Translingual in the entry to mean trans-programming language? Shall we include JOptionPane (Java), std::cin (C++), equ (Win Batch), foreach (Perl) as quasi-attested in source code? All keywords and all APIs in computing languages, quasi-attested in source code? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
That is a direly needed thing, for the world in general, you must admit. Especially for users of this project who have the questionable pleasure of acquainting Lua... Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Some people also need to know how to change a tire, but that doesn't make it dictionary material. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Let's add JOptionPane (Java), std::cin (C++), equ (Win Batch), foreach (Perl). Above all, let's add all symbols such as $, &&, ==. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
That is an insane thing to say. Are you saying we should include every class name in the Java standard library? DTLHS (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
That's no less than insane (I chose the same word before the edit conflict with DTLHS above). JOptionPane isn't even a keyword but an API/framework class. Extending this to .NET, to take one lone example, we would be creating (undefinable!) entries for many thousands of classes such as XmlSerializer, ToolStripSeparatorRenderEventArgs and AsymmetricSignatureDeformatter. And that's before we get onto the property, method and constant names within each of those thousands of classes — just in .NET, not C++, Java or any of hundreds of other frameworks! Equinox 22:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
There's endless variation between programming languages in exactly what a given token "means", with a lot of it coming from the architectures of the different languages. Even details of the implementation of languages on different operating systems and of different versions/builds on the same system can make significant differences. This is a massive can of worms that should be avoided at all costs. Besides, this looks like a matter of operating systems rather than programming languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. DCDuring TALK 03:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments. 1. I suspect use as a range operator is attested in running English on Usenet and the like (derived from Perl or somewhere). If so, the definition can be broadened and the sense kept. 2. This is not only a range operator but also a flip-flop operator, and, if kept for its computing senses, is missing that sense.​—msh210 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

One way to phrase my deletion rationale is as a series of questions: Shall we include JOptionPane (Java), std::cin (C++), equ (Win Batch), foreach (Perl) as quasi-attested in source code? All keywords and all APIs in computing languages, quasi-attested in source code? --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

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


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

Keep Delete but add a new sense at ":" meaning "protocol delimiter", for the same reasons we keep "@" as:
  1. (computing) The symbol used as a separator between a username and a domain name in an e-mail address ("at" the domain name).
    My e-mail address is psychonaut@example.com.
There are people who are not aware of how URLs work and may wonder why they have a colon and two slashes at the beginning. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
There are people who wonder what happens if you mix ammonia and bleach (don't try it!), but we don't need to include that in a dictionary either. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
That was funny. I agree that what happens if you mix ammonia and bleach is not dictionary material. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
delete, the definition is actually completely wrong. The delimiter (after the protocol name) would be just the colon, the double slashes that come after that start a URI path. As such it is possible to have links in webpages that start with // and the browser will automatically fill in http: or https: depending on whether you're currently using a secure connection or not. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. We have a related networking sense at // which could be further edited with that information. The entry : does not have the "protocol delimiter" sense... I'm not willing to add it now, because the inclusion of computing symbols is under discussion, but it can be added eventually if people agree. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete. In addition to what Pedrianaplant said above, this is not used in human language. --WikiTiki89 13:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
"Human language" as opposed to what? URLs are for people to read and use. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Not primarily. Humans do not instinctively think in phone numbers or URLs; we have to mentally map "Bob's new mobile number" or "the address of that funny blog" to a phone number or URL in order to use a system, to which that format is native. Equinox 14:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
We have ("figure dash") defined as "Used to separate digits in telephone numbers." Admittedly, I'm partially responsible for that definition -- I believe the entry did not make a lot of sense before I edited it. Feel free to see the history for yourself. You mentioned telephone numbers. Is the figure dash definition not acceptable? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I too was going to use the example of phone numbers. Phone numbers are for people to read, right? Are they words or idioms? Do we want entries for all attestable phone numbers? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we're not on the same page. Creating entries for phone numbers feels like creating entries for specific website URLs. The way I see it, a phone number like 555-1234 could be interpreted as simlply a SOP of 5 5 5 - 1 2 3 4. The figure dash () appears to be used in telephone numbers, and personally I would expect that dash to be kept as an entry. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Well what about pictures? Pictures can convey information, shall we include those too? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
In User talk:Equinox#emoji monster, I discussed some of my opinions concerning emoji and pictographs. I support deleting most of our emoji entries that only have the Unicode codepoint name as their definition. I support keeping those that are correctly attested in running text. Either way, they are not the same as URL delimiters. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
The :// is actually composed of : (protocol delimiter) and // (network root symbol) and they just come together in URLs. As sometimes you can see :\\ (backslashes) either. --Octahedron80 (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom: Not human language. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete: it is just the protocol delimiter (:) and the network root ([[//]]). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 18:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


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

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


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

dans un temps donné[edit]

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

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

myeloid cell[edit]

Sum of parts? (any cell made in the bone marrow) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

wel,no,fe.fibroblast(presntinmarowncausingmyPMFasefectorcel=NOTconsiderdasM.CEL(butasCONECTIVTISUECEL)~(metastaticfe.liver)cancercelinblood=NOTbloodcel(similarCONCPT),c?ta4elpw/restho!:) 17:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I need shampoo[edit]

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

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

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

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

hot plate[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

I suppose this should be an RFV. I recently changed it to a misspelling while checking plurals etc. I think Romanophile created a ton of en- forms for in- words at some stage and they might not all be legitimate. Equinox 10:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we should just keep it as obsolete spelling like these two: enform, entention. All three are mentioned in this source [9]. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

frame work knitter[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

Utterly ridiculous. This is clearly widespread use. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/“angery” — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 21:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has bothered to address my legitimate observation. If this continues, I’ll be forced to terminate the nomination by myself. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 15:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

No objections; nomination deleted. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


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

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

All of Reconstruction:Lombardic[edit]

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

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

accd'g to[edit]

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

My first instinct was to simply move it to accd'g, leaving a redirect, but now I'm not so sure. Is the abbreviation "accd'g" ever used without the "to" after it? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Irrespective of whether it is used without "to", accd'g is the lexical unit at issue, the "to" being a transparently SOP addition. bd2412 T 12:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
If according to is not SOP, then accd'g to isn't either. Likewise, if accd'g to is SOP, then according to is as well. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
As Angr, create accd'g and leave accd'g to as it is (unless accd'g is unattested outside of accd'g to). Renard Migrant (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
At the moment accd'g is a hard redirect to accd'g to, on the assumption that the former appears only as part of the latter. If that turns out not to be the case, then the redirect direction can be changed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
That’s good. Clearly it is not an abbreviation of just according. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought I found a use of "accd'g" without "to", but it turned out to be an awkward line break in a table. I concede that if such a use exists, I can't find it. bd2412 T 15:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I vote to keep it, since now it is cited (with examples from Usenet). --biblbroksдискашн 17:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 18:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

image satellite[edit]

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

  • What is considered SoP in one language is not in another: compare with satellittbilde (Bokmål) and satellittbilete (Nynorsk). I find this entry quite interesting, I would say keep (providing it's correct) and create a corresponding entry in English for satellite image. DonnanZ (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Why? Please don't say that 'why' is an inappropriate question. By 'why' I mean what is your reason for wanting to keep it? Delete per Benwing2, nouns in French can be used as ad hoc adjectives. Satellite image seems unremarkable as an 'image from a satellite'. No entry for telescope image or camera image. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
That's one point that is not covered at French satellite, its use as an adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Because it isn't, it's a noun, and it is covered as a noun. Satellite is of course an ambiguous definition and needs improvement, but nonetheless this is just the word image followed by the word satellite. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Having said that, fr:satellite#Adjectif, it actually is an adjective. It agrees in number with its referent and everything. Much to my surprise. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Yesss, also in the external link at satellite, and here [10]. DonnanZ (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
French isn't a language I study, but I notice the plural seems to be either "images satellite" or "images satellites". Strange. DonnanZ (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Since a noun used attributively is invariable, if satellite is a noun the plural is "images satellite" and if it's an adjective it's "images satellites". That's how I was able to 'prove' that satellite is an adjective, because "images satellites" is attested. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]


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

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

social commerce network[edit]

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

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

petits récits[edit]

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


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


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

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


SOP: หญิง + ชาติชั่ว (I believe this is created to attack a former Thailand's PM.) --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


SOP: ขน + รักแร้ --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

dried shrimp[edit]

"Shrimp that have been sun-dried and shrunk to thumbnail size, as used in Asian cuisines." -- Isn't this just a "dried + shrimp"? --Hekaheka (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as SOP; dried, sense 2. bd2412 T 14:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reason given by the nominator. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe or maybe not. Thai's name called it กุ้งแห้ง which mean "dried shrimp" and (idiomic) "very skinny". Does the dried shrimp can mean "very skinny"? If so, keep the entry. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "dried shrimp" in English would have any meaning of "very skinny". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 01:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

al-Qaeda in Iraq[edit]

Encyclopaedic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete. — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete, al-Qaeda should suffice, and they make their presence felt everywhere, not just in Iraq. DonnanZ (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep if this was the name of a specific group, and not just used for Al-Qaeda members operating in Iraq. Would need to see the cites. Ƿidsiþ 13:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


"The Count of Monte Cristo". Do we include things like this? —suzukaze (tc) 05:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

  • No, we don't. Delete. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Inclusion of names of works is governed by WT:NSE, and it is up to each editor to decide. I support keeping single-word attested names of works such as Lysistrata, Decameron and Odyssey. This seems to be a multi-word name of a work, for which I am undecided. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 02:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


龍山 "Longshan" + 文化 "culture". Sum of parts or encyclopedic. —suzukaze (tc) 06:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


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

Aztec pyramid[edit]

The definition is literally "A pyramid built by the Aztecs". Not even Wikipedia has an article on this so it really can't be idiomatic. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Nebraskan pyramids? Nebraska would become famous. But if there's a difference in style, it may be a tentative keep. DonnanZ (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I am no archeologist but I cannot tell the difference between an Aztec pyramid and a Mayan pyramid. They both look just about the same. I doubt such a difference is reflected in texts and if it is, it would need to be attested as such rather than just meaning "a pyramid built by the Aztecs/Mayans". -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Mesoamerican pyramids are different from Egyptian pyramids, but I'm sure Mesoamerican pottery, textiles and weapons are also different from their counterparts in Egypt. The fact that two different things are called by the same name doesn't mean that any phrase based on the name that applies to one, but not the other is idiomatic. For instance, a rubber means something completely different to someone from England as opposed to someone from the United States. That doesn't mean we should have an entry for "American rubber" and English rubber".
Are "American rubber" and "English rubber" attested with these meanings? bd2412 T 02:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Note, I have improved the definition of Mesoamerican pyramid to note that it is "typically a step pyramid with a temple at the top". bd2412 T 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, personally – I never understood why these pyramid terms so famously survived RFD. Am open to being convinced otherwise though. Ƿidsiþ 13:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete, and ancient pyramid by the same token. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

read on[edit]

Very typical use of "on", similar to "I paused, then walked on", or "I stopped the car at the traffic lights, then drove on". Equinox 10:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. Adverb sense 2 at on, "Along, forwards (continuing an action)" should cover it. If felt not to cover it adequately then that definition should be enhanced rather than having a separate entry for "read on". Mihia (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete per above. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • This seems comparable to move on or go on; at the very least, it can be used as an imperative, e.g., 2008, M. Robert North, Jodi, p. 216: "What a temper," Emil whispered to himself. "What?" She asked, "Nothing. Just read on." bd2412 T 05:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
    Re: imperative: So what? Read further is a synonym in all moods, tenses, and aspects. Does that warrant an entry? DCDuring TALK 02:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
    Is go further a synonym to go on? These seem to be comparable. bd2412 T 02:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
    Sense 3.
    What does that have to do with the matter at hand?
    In read on, on assumes one of its adverb senses: "Along, forwards (continuing an action)."
    I still don't understand the so-what for the imperative. DCDuring TALK 03:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
    I propose that in numerous uses such as 2013, Timothy L. Warner, Hacking Raspberry Pi, p. 171: "Finally, how do you combine multiple pieces of dynamic data? Read on, friend... read on", the phrase "read on" is idiomatic, and does not retain the same "truths will be revealed" sense if substituted with "read further". If this means that our existing definition needs to be improved, so be it. bd2412 T 03:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
    "Read further" sounds a bit stilted and formal, but I think e.g. "keep reading" would be totally synonymous in your example. Equinox 04:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
    Is that any different from "keep going" being synonymous with "go on"? They still seem one-to-one comparable to me. bd2412 T 15:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
After e/c:
But seriously, folks, there would seem to be more justification for including the allusive erstwhile cliche "lead on, Macduff" (an alteration of the Shakepearean "Lay on, Macduff".
In the case of the citation above, the implication that more would be revealed seems to be derived from the context and not from the collocation. Also, the imperative form may be more memorable but the collocation has the same meaning in other moods/tenses/aspects: "If you will just read on, you will find [] ", "As he read on, he learned [] ", etc. DCDuring TALK 15:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

national average[edit]

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

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

Sidebar: clarity on "translation targets"[edit]

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

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


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

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

lekker stuk[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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


This is no more than a misspelling in Spanish. --Derrib9 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 02:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


SOP --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep. This is listed in official dictionary. It is the technical term for optics, geography and astronomy "umbra". Analogous to เงามัว. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Unstriking: not enough time has passed to close based on consensus or its lack. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


SOP (+ nonexistence) --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep. It is the technical term for optics, geography and astronomy "penumbra". Analogous to เงามืด. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Unstriking: not enough time has passed to close based on consensus or its lack. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


SOP: เมา + เหล้า. The term เมา(mao, to be intoxicated, to be drunk, to undergo impairment of faculties, to feel vertiginous, to feel dizzy, etc) can be applied to anything that is the source of such condition, such as เมายา (drug), เมาตด (fart), เมากลิ่นปาก (bad breath), เมาเต่า (body odour), เมารถ (car), เมาเรือ (boat), เมาเบียร์ (beer), เมาม้า (meth), เมากัญชา (hemp), เมาหมัด (punch), เมารัก (love - as in the famous verse by Sunthorn Phu: 'ไม่เมาเหล้าแล้วแต่เรายังเมารัก สุดจะหักห้ามจิตคิดไฉน ถึงเมาเหล้าเช้าสายก็หายไป แต่เมาใจนี้ประจำทุกค่ำคืน'), etc. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete. PS. some เมา- terms may be compound word or have idiomic sense so we can include those e.g. เมายศ เมาอำนาจ. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 02:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


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

two thousand and one[edit]

sum-of-parts. similar to the two hundred and one above.

  • I'm tempted to say keep. There's two ways of saying the year 2001, two thousand and one and "twenty-oh-one". Two thousand and one is probably the more common of the two. DonnanZ (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't that same rationale dictate keeping every individual number in the two-thousands through the nine-thousands? bd2412 T 16:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as sum of parts. I don't think we can make an exception for years, because that would justify the reintroduction of all cardinal numbers. However, I think we can consider an addition to "Appendix:Numerals" or a separate appendix ("Appendix:Dates") explaining how years (and dates) are indicated visually and read out. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Years are labelled with numbers; they are not a separate dictionary sense for a number. Equinox 16:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 20:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


The "adjective", which is purely attributive use of the noun. The quotations can be placed under the noun. DonnanZ (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete; put "often attributive" on the noun senses. The existing adj isn't well thought out: it was marked as comparable (!) and only defined as "having the properties of collecting water", whereas a "catchment area" can also be e.g. a region where children go to a certain school, or any noun sense of catchment. Equinox 03:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
It was only added last December, less than a year ago. DonnanZ (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 14:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Sense deleted. bd2412 T 02:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


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

take a dump[edit]

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

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


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


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

emotionally stunted[edit]

Sum of parts. Needs formatting properly if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Against deletion: It's thorough, but could maybe do with a nip/tuck. —This comment was unsigned.


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

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


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


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

December 2016[edit]

work together[edit]

SOP. Nibiko (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I would keep and add a sense for people, parts, or materials that function in combination to achieve a result. There are two distinct things going on here. If two people work for the same company, they "work together" even if they do completely unrelated tasks and the work of each is unaffected by that of the other. If two people must combine their efforts to achieve a result, they "work together" even if they do not share an employer (and even if they do not directly interact with each other at all). In other words, it is possible for people to "work together" even if they do not "work together". Moreover, the second sense also applies to, e.g., parts of a machine. The gas tank and the engine "work together" to make the car move, though they are not "workers" as in the first sense. bd2412 T 16:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete existing sense. If a non-SoP sense is added, then {{&lit|work|together}} should accommodate the existing SoP definition and other meaning that arise from combining the various senses of the two words. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, a synonym of collaborate as well. DonnanZ (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    • So is "work on the same thing with another person". Chuck Entz (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I have added senses. There are three distinct ways that this phrase is used as a set phrase; one where people interact because they have a common employer (even if their tasks and goals are unrelated), the second is where people collaborate, even if they do not share an employer, and the third is where things function as parts of a whole, such as where two chemicals, once mixed, have an effect. bd2412 T 23:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

be silent[edit]

Someone said we should not have this entry. But to me, this is an excellent example of translation target, per existence of single-word non-compound translations into a variety of languages, including schweigen, zwijgen, taire, taceo, молча́ть(molčátʹ), mlčet, callarse, etc.

Keep as a translation target. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, "be silent" is in User:Dan_Polansky/Roget_MICRA/Class_IV._Words_Relating_to_the_Intellectual_Faculties, in 585. Taciturnity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep this as an obvious translation target. I'm often surprised at the opposition to "translation target" entries. Over the years I have found Wiktionary to be especially valuable as an online substitute for bilingual translation dictionaries, and translation target entries are part of making Wiktionary useful for this purpose. A translation dictionary would never omit a term that is idiomatic in the other language just because it is not idiomatic in English; so, in order to be a properly useful multilingual dictionary, we should make an effort to include these entries. To do otherwise is to make the translation dictionary aspect of Wiktionary seem arbitrary and frustrating for our readers. This, that and the other (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps we should just have {{translation only}} on the definition line for such terms. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    Like day after tomorrow. Equinox 07:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    I don't like {{translation only}}, but if a this is a preference of a majority, it is better than deletion. For the particular case of "be silent", the particular sense with the translations is more specific, referring to refraining to speaking as opposed to refraining from making noises, and this should be made explicit at least in the head of the translation table. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll go with the flow, keep. A lot of "be" terms are translation targets, but aren't entered. DonnanZ (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Is be silent here equivalent to the imperative silence? --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    No, it's not limited to the imperative. Equinox 11:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    (after e/c): Not really. The lemma is for the verb, like "They were all silent; no one was speaking." --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as transparently SoP in English (this is English Wiktionary, after all). If you think a translation target rationale to be sufficient, you might see which Wiktionaries use such a rationale for inclusion and use that to propose for vote a policy change in favor of translation targets. DCDuring TALK 12:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Why do we need "translation targets" in the first place? I see no problem with writing "# to [[be]] [[silent]]" as the definition line of the Finnish verb vaieta(to be silent). --Hekaheka (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Hekaheka You're thinking about the Finnish-English, not English-Finnish dictionary. I want to be able to say how to say молча́ть(molčátʹ, to be silent) in Finnish and other languages but the English Wiktionary won't have an entry for it if it's deleted. I would need to go to the German Wiktionary to check e.g. if schweigen has a translation into Finnish or French se taire but they don't. So, there's no way to translate some even very common words in other languages into a third language if the English entry is missing. It's a bridge between "молчать" (Russian), "vaieta" (Finnish), "schweigen" (German), etc.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Got it. "Translation hub" would describe this function better. --Hekaheka (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Hekaheka "Translation hub" or "Translation target", not sure what is best. How do you vote - keep, delete, abstain? Now, to translate the Finnish "vaieta" into Estonian (vaikima), next time you go to Tallinn, you don't need to look for a Finnish-Estonian dictionary. It's a problem for me to find certain translations of words, when the English term is not idiomatic or too ambiguous, as in this case. I have to use Russian-other language dictionaries, if they exist. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I like that description - a "translation hub" is exactly what makes sense where there are multiple single-word foreign translations. bd2412 T 03:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per DCD.​—msh210 (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I can't recall how we've handled translation targets in the past, but I vote keep on the condition that the definition consist of "See be and silent" (rather than actually being defined as it now is) with a notice at the top of the entry stating that this is a translation hub of an SOP term, if this is not already how we treat such entries. The translation table should retain the current gloss. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • @Andrew Sheedy: Why not like this:
      (translation hub) To refrain from speaking; to say nothing.
    • And the label could link to Wiktionary glossary explaining what a translation hub is. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
      • @Dan Polansky I'm not a fan of that, mainly for the reason that "translation hub" isn't an actual contextual label. I envision something more like the banner on phrasebook entries (which, come to think of it, do include a definition of the word, so maybe I wouldn't oppose retaining a gloss definition). I just think it should be fairly clearly noted that the term is SOP and exists entirely for the sake of translations. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that translations of "be silent" should go under "silent", suitably labelled. Who would guess that a separate entry "be silent" existed, or think to look there? Mihia (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain until we have a policy on so-called "translation targets" that has been agreed by consensus. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think anyone would look this up and, though the way English handles this idea is not unidiomatic, the copula + adjective construction is too common to work as a lemma IMO. Probably a better way of handling this is by having more flexible translations at silent – so the French translation might say silencieux; cf. se taire(to be silent). Ƿidsiþ 08:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • The question is whether this approach would work for all so-called "translation targets". I have a feeling it would not, but can't come up with any examples... This, that and the other (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep unless there's consensus to have this table separately at silent#Translations, with a header along the lines of {{trans-top|Verbs meaning "be silent"}}. I don't know whether this solution would work for all SOP translation targets, but it would work for this one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm surprised so many people support a keep on this. There are thousands of be + adjective forms which could be one term in a given language, it would be impossible to include all of these on Wiktionary. Surely having the relevant sense at silent is good enough, and indeed that is where most users would look. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    What is another example from these thousands "be adjective" terms that is supported by the translation target/translation hub rationale? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    I can only think of [[be born]] (participle, not adjective), which should be kept for the same reason. We don't need to have an entry for to [[be asleep]], since we have an entry for [[sleep] (verb) but modern English lacks a verb for "not to speak", even if Old and Middle English had a word for it and all Germanic languages do. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as "transliation hub" per above. —Enosh (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain. This matter really needs a conclusive vote. Personally I'd be in favour of something similar to {{no entry}} for translation hubs, with the translations listed, but it the users being pointed to the individual entries that constitute the English SoP term. Either way, it'd be a shame to lose all those translations. They're a valuable resource. — Kleio (t · c) 21:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tooironic. In some languages, it's very common for a stative verb with the meaning "be x" to take the place of an adjective meaning "x". It would be a great disservice to our users to not list these under the translations of x. In fact, they should be listed under the adjective sense, so that if a language happens to have both an adjective and a verb, they should be listed together. For example, for Dutch: {{t|nl|stil}}, {{t|nl|zwijgen}}. This way, the verb zwijgen is offered as a possibility for the user, and they can then themselves decide which fits their use better. —CodeCat 23:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    @CodeCat: Can you please give some examples of these stative verbs? On another note, this discussion is not necessarily about removing schweigen from silent; schweigen is already there, wrongly placed in the first translation table. Removing duplication at any and all costs leads to poor usability. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    It seems some schweigen words were first added to the translation table in silent in diff, in April 2012. I for one would not think to look there to find verb translations for "be silent". If "be silent" were to be deleted, it would be best I think to create a separate translation table in silent with the heading "refrain from speaking; not speak" or the like. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, simply separating translations for different parts of speech by commas won't do any good and would confuse the hell out of users. At least a separate translation gloss is required for the static verb sense ("to be silent, to refrain from speaking" (or similar). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per DCD and Tooironic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    Then again, in relation to what Tooironic said: What are some of those "thousands of be + adjective forms" supported by the translation target/translation hub rationale? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: be green, be blue, be red, be good, be bad, and many others. These adjectives must be translated as verbs in dozens of Bantu languages, for example. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    @Μετάknowledge: Thank you. I am interested in these Bantu terms, above all. If Bantu languages would spoil the translation hub rationale, we would have to refine the rationale to require that the supporting terms are from multiple language families, e.g. at least one Germanic and one Slavic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    Many Amerindian families have similar behaviour. Note that Germanic and Slavic are both Indo-European, and thus belong to the same language family. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    The idea and reasoning of a "translation target" (hub) is misunderstood. It's understandable because it's not defined. We don't create thousands of "be + adjective" entries to cater for Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc., etc. translations. Adjectives have verb meanings and usage in a great number of languages. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    My bad with "language family". If certain language groups such as Bantu and Amerindian would spoil the translation hub rationale, they need to be excluded from the operationalized criteria used for that rationale. In User talk:Dan_Polansky/2015#Let's draft a vote for CFI translation criteria 2, we have "A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is [...] a phrase in a language that does not use spaces to separate words"; I don't know whether that would help here. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    "be silent" has the further distinction that an ancestor language of English itself has a single word for it, as pointed out above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    I didn't mean the use of spaces. I meant that in a large number of languages an adjective (by default) is normally also a verb. There are many other similar cases (e.g. German and Dutch adjectives are also adverbs). We don't need to cater for that. "be silent" is a case when it's different from normal. Even languages where adjectives are not verbs at the same time have a separate verb for this sense and there's a big number of these languages. English actually stands out as an odd one here. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    There seems to be an interesting principle here: the support for "be silent" can be obtained from languages that do not support a great number of "be adjective" terms, and therefore, taking these languages into consideration does not open the floodgates. Let us therefore, in each translation hub deliberation, exclude those languages from the consideration whose inclusion in it would lead to an overflood. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, agreed. This is the status quo, anyway. Consider some example languages where adjective=verb: Chinese 漂亮 (piàoliang, “(to be) beautiful”), Thai สวย(sǔai, (to be) beautiful), Vietnamese đẹp((to be) beautiful), they don't require any special translation targets, which would, of course, cause an overflood for each adjective.
    The Thai sentence เธอสวย  ―  təə sǔai  ―  You're beautiful. literally means "you" + "(to be) beautiful", no copula is needed with adjectives. The adjective is also the verb.
    You can this add this consideration into a future vote on translation targets if you're ever planning to go ahead with this. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as translation target. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. If we keep this, we'll have to start creating some more, like be shy (it's a verb in Chinese, 害羞), be patient (耐心), be happy (開心), be stuck (), etc. I also note we currently have entries for be born and be like, among others. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Tooironic We will avoid the overflood of "be + adjective" entries. See mine and D. Polansky's comments above. "Be silent" and "be born" are special cases to house translations into Indo-European languages including Old English and not claiming idiomaticity. It's interesting that you make so many SoP or borderline entries and are worried about this one. ;) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Haha, I knew you'd say that. :P For the record, for the thousands of entries I've created, only a handful have been found SoP and deleted. I just find it strange one of Wiktionary's basic rules of avoiding SoP can be bypassed simply because a collocation happens to be translated into one word in a particular language family. It screams of slippery slope to me. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
What about "be afraid". It has single-word equivalents in many European languages. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@Hekaheka "To be afraid" has at least an idiomatic synonym - to "fear". --14:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Per User talk:Dan_Polansky/2015#Let's draft a vote for CFI translation criteria 2, Chinese does not count toward translation hub rationale since it does not use spaces to separate words. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky The comment @ "4:27, 17 December 2016" above was mine, I stuffed up my signature.
If I remember correctly, in some instances User:Tooironic voted to keep entries because they had idiomatic translations in Chinese but I can't find such examples right now. I disagree that languages using scriptio continua should be treated very differently but they need an extra clause in our CFI - because determining word boundaries and defining "word" is more complex with such languages. We do have active editors with most languages in these categories - Chinese (all varieties), Japanese, Thai, Lao, Khmer, Burmese, Tibetan. Vietnamese has also a similar challenge, even if it's not a scriptio continua language (spaces are inserted after every syllable in 99% of cases, making it more difficult to determine multi-syllabic word boundaries).
In fact, many Asian languages, which are also scriptio continua have idiomatic terms for SoP's like older brother. The Chinese term 哥哥 (gēge) or Thai พี่ชาย(pîi-chaai) are definitely idiomatic and I don't see why they can't be used for "translation target/hub" rationale. As I said, just the CFI for these languages need to be addressed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete. There is no reason a translation target needs to be a single word. Kiwima (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kiwima I don't know what your comment means ("there is no reason a translation target needs to be a single word") but you comment was inserted in the middle of someone else's. I have moved it down. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I am curious as to whether advocates of keeping this would also favor keeping, say, grow silent, fall silent, keep silent, stay silent (≈ remain silent), or the less common become silent, seem silent, appear silent. Are there no languages that have inchoatives (grow s., fall s., become s.) distinct from statives? Are there no languages that have single words for seem s., appear s. ("seemingly silent, but perhaps not actually so")? What about keep s., which indicates active self-restraint or restraint by others? What about the continuative aspect stay s, keep s.? I also recall reading about a language which incorporates the equivalent of the English as far as I know or last time I looked into verbs to express the epistemic state of the proposition from the speaker's point of view.
Is there a principled basis for limiting the translation-target rationale in any way? Based on the discussions we've had, it seems that our "principle" is simply majority rule of the active interested. DCDuring TALK 14:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Re the first question: I wouldn't, even if there are some idiomatic terms in Slavic languages for "to fall silence". As for the principle for limiting translation-target rationale, I don't see a majority rule applied here. The rationale is not defined yet but it's just for making easier to find translations between languages for very common terms, which exist in many languages. E.g. there's no way to find a Kyrgyz translation using an English-Kyrgyz dictionary, you have to use a different language, e.g. use a a Russian term: [12]. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
To clarify: it's fall silent, as in "When the skater fell, the crown fell silent".
Obviously, it is majority rule in the RfD process, with a bias toward keeping any existing entry ("No consensus to delete"), as if we had a shortage of good entries. DCDuring TALK 13:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment. We list swie as English. We can move all these translations there: voilà, a translation hub. I think that takes care of all the keep-voters' arguments, so even they'd agree to delete. Right?​—msh210 (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

My position has been that rare English terms should not be used as translation targets/translation hubs. That position is captured in the criteria draft: User talk:Dan_Polansky/2015#Let's draft a vote for CFI translation criteria 2. For instance, I want Czech anglistika to be in English studies rather than Anglistics. For swie to serve as a translation hub, swie would have to be in the definition lines of the non-English terms, which I submit would be awkward. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Thinking of swie, there is another tentative inclusion principle that I like: a high-frequency multi-word sum-of-parts term should be included if it has at least one single-word synonym and all its single-word synonyms are rare. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems that the main argument for keeping this is "translation target". As far as I know in most languages you can say be+silent by combining be+silent in that particular language. French: être silencieux; Spanish: estar silencioso; German leise sein, Swedish: vara tyst, Finnish: olla hiljaa... --Hekaheka (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hekaheka. The gloss is specific for "refrain from speaking". {{trans-see|silent}} can be added to the bottom. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
My concern is mainly what should be done with languages that have no adjective for silent (or any other) and express such a meaning exclusively with a stative verb. If we have no translation at silent and expect users to know to look at be silent it would be very cumbersome to our users for no real reason. An example I can think of is the Zulu word for "open", which is expressed exclusively with one of two stative verbs -vuliwe and -vulekile, both meaning "be open". These should be placed at our entry open; to have no translation there at all, merely because the Zulu word is not an adjective, would be ridiculous. —CodeCat 00:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Zulu seems not very different from many East Asian languages where adjective=verb (almost). See my post @11:49, 11 December 2016 above. You can just add Zulu translations in silent and open (the adjective sense). {{trans-see}} is very convenient in directing users to correct places for translations, e.g. {{trans-see|to refrain from speaking|be silent}}. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

family guy[edit]

Not idiomatic? I don't think this could be used in the same context as "family man" . DTLHS (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Google ngram viewer has hits from the 1940s (well before the animated series). I've made it a synonym of family man. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

sexual role[edit]

SoP. No Wikipedia article. Equinox 12:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I would understand gender role (OneLook), but sexual role is just not common (OneLook). Nibiko (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


SoP. + 纽约市. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete or hard redirect to 紐約. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

ISA 200[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

Internet predator[edit]

SoP, I think. The entry gives a sexual definition, but it can really be any predator on the Internet, e.g. (2005, Tom Antion, The ultimate guide to electronic marketing for small business) "To best serve your customers, you should know about Internet scams to help protect them from falling prey to financial Internet predators." Equinox 20:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

But there might be a language that needs this as a translation target. DCDuring TALK 21:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
There will always be a language. We'll soon have to add every conceivable sentence. Delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Unless someone presents specific examples of languages to support the translation target/translation hub rationale, I don't think this rationale can be sincerely applied. Above, it looks rather like sarcasm, an unpleasant form of communication all too often arousing negative emotions in the intended recipients, replacing strength of argument with something else, suggesting that strong argument is lacking. I hope these cheap shots at translation target/translation hub rationale will have no or little effect, but you never know. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


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

The rest of Special:Contributions/Jagne[edit]

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


"Dragon Ball". —suzukaze (tc) 02:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

If Pokemon and Final Fantasy can't exist, this can't exist either. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


Deletion reason given by User:Octahedron80: "it must be พระ and พระบรม. ราช is the part of lemma"

Keep The term alone is a lemma and is not created erroneously. Its usage is governed by established rules, as stated in general websites about the royal terms, such as 1, 2, 3, 4, including the Ministry of Culture website (2016-01-19), which contains the full list of the royal headwords and their usage. --iudexvivorum (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep I've added a reference into the entry. It's a standard published by the Thai government. --YURi (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


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

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

Sichuanese Pinyin entries[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

instant mashed potatoes[edit]

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

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

restoring worriable and demouse[edit]

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

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


Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification#XPCOM.

central trait[edit]

"(sociology) A personal trait that is considered central." This doesn't really tell us anything. No WP article (just a generic unhelpful redirect). Equinox 04:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete as defined, per nom. If someone adds an actual definition, maybe we should have that.​—msh210 (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also not found in either the Oxford or SAGE dictionaries of sociology. bd2412 T 16:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

cool gray[edit]

...and cool grey (which is actually given as a usex at cool: "a cool grey colour‎"). It's SoP, like dark orange; almost any colour can be cool, as defined. I think someone batch-imported a lot of Internet colour names at some stage. Equinox 09:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Well, dark orange is virtually the same as burnt orange. I wouldn't class cool grey as a true colour, unlike dark grey, light grey, and silver grey, which can be reflected in translations. Delete, I guess. DonnanZ (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Our noun senses for these terms claim that they refer to specific colors, not to any [[cool]] + [[grey]] color. (And I suspect the adjective senses are meant to claim that also, but were written poorly.) That'd not be SOP then. Keep the noun senses at least, though I wonder whether there's attestation.​—msh210 (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: "Cool" is ambiguous, and I doubt you'd ever find a cool orange in the sense you'd find a cool gray. Purplebackpack89 21:35, 21 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)


English adjective: "Of or pertaining to the executive of a particular nation or state." It's just "first" capitalised by its context. Compare the deletion of "New" (Talk:New). Equinox 01:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  • So far as I can tell, "First" isn't even a surname. bd2412 T 23:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
    • No one said it was. It looks like this is an attempt to capture the "first" in First Lady, and all of the other titles based on it. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
      • My point is that there's nothing for which to even save the namespace. Delete as proposed. bd2412 T 13:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Just for the record, I'm going to have to go with with the 'Deletes. It's sort of like a snowclone: anything or anyone associated with the US president's family can be (often humorously) designated "First X". Whatever it is, it's SOP
          • It's not SOP, just wrong in the given sense. DonnanZ (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
    • As Equinox suggests the def is wrong anyway. It's just a capitalisation of first when used in names and titles. For example, a Presbyterian church in my home town is named "First Church". Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
First is certainly a surname, albeit an uncommon one; (book with "First" author, WikiTree with lots of Firsts). The other arguments seem right to me. Keep surname. - TheDaveRoss 14:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • There is currently no surname sense in the entry to be kept. You can add one. bd2412 T 15:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete adjective PoS section. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Adjective sense deleted. bd2412 T 14:30, 5 January 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)

Great Successor[edit]

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

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


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

Sam Spade[edit]

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

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


SOP --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


法律 + 用語. —suzukaze (tc) 00:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


These entries are made up. This spellings are not used. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:01, 25 December 2016 (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)


SOP --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed RFDs[edit]

A few RFDs that were tagged long ago but apparently never listed on this page. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Lemmings accept all but get above. DCDuring TALK 15:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

ask about[edit]

Delete. Nothing magical attaches about to the verb. We can also ask of somebody, for example. Equinox 01:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

tower above[edit]

Delete. Equinox 15:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

get above[edit]

Delete this one. DonnanZ (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

rise above[edit]

Keep (or at least RFV). I don't see how rise covers figurative senses like "I know he's annoying you, but you should rise above it" (i.e. ignore it by being more mature). Equinox 01:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, keep. DonnanZ (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above, although I question whether there are really two distinct senses. bd2412 T 13:28, 3 January 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)


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

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



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

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

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

double as[edit]

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

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


No usable content. No formatting. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed(?) —suzukaze (tc) 09:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a good fix. The RFC would be better than RFD in this case, even if the original entry was horrible. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


SOP --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

male genital cutting[edit]

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

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


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

Aztec gold[edit]

Seems a bit self-evident really, the gold of the Aztecs. Equinox 11:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


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

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

va fa Napoli[edit]

This is a fully English creation. Should be immediately deleted because, besides being absolutely ungrammatical, nothing similar is even used in Italian. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] (parla con me) 21:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete unless it has some idiomatic usage (e.g., "get lost"!) in English, not Italian. — Cheers, JackLee talk 04:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep in RFD: no RFD-relevant rationale was provided. The concern seems to be that this would-be Italian phrase indicate to mean "get lost" does not exist in Italian, which is a WT:RFV concern. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Lost numbers[edit]

Set of numbers from TV show Lost. Similar construction to Star Trek episode or X-Files actress. Equinox 05:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as SoP. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete DCDuring TALK 21:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Encyclopedic; no lexical value. bd2412 T 22:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


The adjective is really attributive use of the noun, e.g. nudist beach, but the translations seem to be for both noun and adjective. A bit of a mess. DonnanZ (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep; MW[13] has nudist as not only a noun but also an adjective; so does Collins[14]. One can argue that nudist is an adjective not only for the noun nudist but also for nudism; that's how e.g. Marxist ends up being an adjective. I have even found one quotation of "more nudist" that was the true comparative, but the search for "more nudist" gets a lot of hits like "more nudist beaches" rather than comparatives. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
    Keep There are more than enough instances of women/beaches/village/I/you/they/it being nudist, ie, predicate use. Example:
    1999, Time Out, Time Out Lisbon 1:
    The final stretch is nudist and if ever there was a beach to bare your butt, this is it.
    DCDuring TALK 20:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
    Note: the definition in the entry does not work for most of the subjects for which I found predicate use, eg, women who "are nudist" do not necessarily "encourage or enforce nudity". DCDuring TALK 21:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
    I have rewritten the def. I still disagree that it's used as an adjective in the majority of cases, it's usually attributive, a noun modifier. DonnanZ (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017[edit]

restroom break[edit]

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

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

Redirections to numerals[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

Little Pakistan[edit]

Little Italy[edit]

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

  • On the other hand, if the area is marked on maps as Little (whatever) you would have to accept that it's been accepted as a name. This happens in London with Little Venice, which I think got its name because it's at a canal junction. The name appears in my A-Z Master Atlas of Greater London. DonnanZ (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Are we going to have every name in every map? --Hekaheka (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't honestly know. Try this [15]. DonnanZ (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I found a couple of stations with Little Italy in the name in San Diego [16] and Cleveland [17]. DonnanZ (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Little Pakistan is a little more doubtful [18]. Both entries have Wikipedia links however. DonnanZ (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • A parallel given place name is Chinatown, which is commonly accepted and listed by Oxford, and may not necessarily appear on maps. DonnanZ (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a bit weird, because "little" here converts proper nouns into regular nouns. "Italys"/"Italies" is a very weird word, but "Little Italys" is quite common. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I was not aware of that sense at little when I created these. I think the OED has one or both. I'm not fussed about keeping them. Equinox 15:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Little Italy is in Oxford Online - chiefly North American; "any urban district inhabited predominantly by Italian immigrants or people of Italian descent". No entry for Little Pakistan however. DonnanZ (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


Typo for Moilanen. The google hits are also typos. I thought of instant delete, but maybe it's better to leave a record. [19] No data in Finland. It's an impossible name in Finnish (in theory it should be Moliainen, if the base Molia- existed). --Makaokalani (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

speedy - clear typo and not even a common one. Agree with Makaokalani: Moliainen or even Molliainen could exist, but Molianen just won't do. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Clearly delete. The article creator knows nothing about Finnish. --Quadcont (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Given that Quadcont is the creator, I speedied the deletion. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


SoP. Equinox 12:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete, as per Equinox above. John Cross (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

bisexual erasure[edit]

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

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

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

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

  • Delete, based on earlier discussions. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


Unclear why this is deleted--2001:DA8:201:3512:9AC:2050:31FD:4F68 08:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe Amitābha can be kept as a romanisation of Sanskrit अमिताभ(amitābha) instead of being an English entry, just like the entries in Category:Chinese romanizations, Category:Transliterations of Sanskrit terms, etc. --YURi (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

If it's attestable in English (and I suspect it will be), then it's fine as it is. I agree with Stephen that the version without the macron may be more common in English, in which case the version with the macron can be transformed into the alternative form of that word. — Cheers, JackLee talk 03:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done: I've cited and tidied it up. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Unless there are any objections I think we can consider this one passed. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

round turn and two half hitches[edit]

Literally what the words say: "A hitch knot consisting of a round turn followed by two half hitches". Equinox 14:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You're probably right. WF likes knots, and figured this as this is a popular knot, it should be a WT entry --Quadcont (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it should "KNOT"!! Haha DYSWIDT. Equinox 15:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
BTW, I have a new favourite website Ian's Shoelace Site - Bringing you the fun, fashion & science of shoelaces. The Halloween Shoelace Knot[20] is my favourite. --Quadcont (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

South Florida[edit]

Tagged by Tooironic in March, 2016, never listed here. I vote keep because it is not just a geographical description, but an identifier for a unique environmental and cultural region. Also, idiomatic in that there are some uses of the phrase that define as "South Florida" parts of the state that are north of parts that are not "South Florida". bd2412 T 22:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I will go along with that. Wikipedia article found and added to the entry. DonnanZ (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
isn't it strange how we say south Florida, but southern California? why the inconsistency with states? i'd say keep. 21:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep. There was an identical RFD for North Queensland which ended up being kept, despite not being an official region. --Dmol (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

ist der Ruf erst ruiniert, lebt es sich ganz ungeniert[edit]

I'm pretty sure this would fall under WT:SOP. It's not very idiomatic, is it?Qwed117 (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a proverb, like a bad carpenter blames his tools and a bad penny always comes back. Proverbs are generally SOP, but they are proverbs. As for idiomatic, I'd say it is quite idiomatic, but you have to know German to be able to appreciate the fact (not that that has any relevance, since it is a proverb). —Stephen (Talk) 21:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as proverb. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, it was FWOTD yesterday. DonnanZ (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


Typo of หลัง(lǎng) --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete Not a common misspelling. --YURi (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


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

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


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


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

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

Zhōngxīn Qū[edit]

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

kabellose Netzwerkverbindung[edit]

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

袁術, 袁公路[edit]

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