Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

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

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFDs


November 2015[edit]


Reposting in RFD; PB89 closed it last time despite nobody else having commented. From last time: "The Translingual definition should be deleted for the same reason we don't have an entry relative molecular mass; many things in chemistry can be relative, and the standard way to denote that is to place a subscript r after the notation used for whatever is relative. As an aside, it doesn't even have the right entry title, which would be Mᵣ, so even if you vote to keep it should be moved." —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete. The previous nomination had 100% support. It shouldn’t have been kept. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
It had one vote, Ungoliant, and it was dead for over a month. There certainly wasn't a consensus for deletion... Purplebackpack89 14:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. The nomination was posted in the proper channel, was active for more than the required time (in other words, went through the typical protocol), and despite this no one expressed their opinion that it should be kept. Please stop trying to impose needless bureaucracy on Wiktionary. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
You know, for editing a dictionary, you have a poor idea of what "consensus" means. You can't have consensus of one; you shouldn't delete articles just because a single editor wants them deleted. If you thought it should've been deleted before, why didn't you a) vote in the previous discussion, or b) close the discussion yourself as delete? Also, you're one to talk about needless bureaucracy, as you opposed the reforms I suggested to RfD a few weeks ago. Purplebackpack89 15:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I (and everyone else) opposed your reforms because they were stupid.
And it’s not like Metaknowledge secretly deleted the entry or held a secret RFD. He went through the proper channels and if people wanted it to be kept, they could very well have said so.
Re a) and b): because I didn’t care. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
If you didn't care then, why care now? Oh, right, you only care now because it's an excuse to discredit me. Gotcha. As I said, I stand 100% behind my decision to close this as "no consensus", and will continue to close any discussions without obvious deletion votes other than the nominator's as "no consensus". Deleting an entry is serious business, and, except in speedy deletion cases, it should require the assent of multiple editors. Purplebackpack89 15:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Woah! You saw right through me! Indeed I’m in a murderous jihad against poor innocent Purplebackpack.
By the way, Purplebackpack, only one user commented on your hat collection request. Apparently you don’t mind that. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Setting aside the misuse of the charged term "hat collecting" and the complete lack of comparability between user rights and RfD, I count two users: the OP and the granter, both of whom supported granting rollback. The previous discussion I closed had an OP, but nobody else. Had an additional editor supported deletion, I probably would not have closed it the way I did. Purplebackpack89 16:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I've seen entries kept for lack of consensus before when only the nominator has commented. It's not a new practice by any means and I see no reason to single out Purplebackpack89 for that reason. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete, but I think PB89 was justified in closing the RFD as "keep" - a lack of objection is not the same thing as support. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I think PBP was technically correct in closing it this way, but the polite thing to have done would have been to tag it with {{look}} and/or have said something like "I plan to close this in a week as 'kept, no consensus'. Does anyone object?", and to have waited a reasonable period for a response before closing. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This sounds like an RfV question to me. Is it ever actually used this way, perhaps by people whose keyboard lacks a convenient way to make the formal notation? bd2412 T 16:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    It's not an RFV question, because it's a notational sum of parts (just as relative molecular mass is). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    You mean in the sense that 2x in an algebra problem is literally just 2 and x? bd2412 T 03:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    Seems to me this is less like 2x and more like ln. Purplebackpack89 03:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    But the first post in this thread points out that "r" means relative in general. You can't put the "n" from "ln" on anything else: "ln" is a unit. Equinox 03:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    You know, the more you guys keep talking, the more I'm convinced I made the right decision the first time, and we shouldn't even be having this time. Keep. This is an abbreviation, and abbreviations can be kept even if they abbreviate something that is SOP. Purplebackpack89 03:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    LOL, I smashed your bad analogy and so now you're jumping back to "lala, I can't hear you". Delete then. Equinox 09:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think you have, @Equinox...is the "r" a separate number? If so, is it a variable or a constant? Seems to me that Mr is a (single) variable in and of itself. Also, smashing the "ln" analogy doesn't result in automatically voting deleting. You, @Equinox, haven't even given a reason for delete, while Ungoliant's reason seems to be "delete because it shoulda been deleted before and I hate PBP". The OP's rationale was that the term this is an abbreviation of is SOP; but abbreviations need not be abbreviations of CFI-passing words to be kept. If Mr itself is SOP, then we'd have to create an entry for [[r]]. P.S.: You can't pull the "n" from "ln"...but you can pull the l, because the l stands for logarithm and you can have logarithms of numbers other than e. Purplebackpack89 14:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    We should have an entry for , that's true (putting sub tags in [[]] is bad markup, by the way, and won't produce a link). It's not an acronym nor an abbreviation, but instead a notation, and an SOP one at that. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The prime symbol might be a better example. You can attach the prime symbol to a wide variety of letters, but it always means essentially the same thing. Similarly, you can have Cr (relative concentration), ρr (relative density), Qr (relative charge), and you can stick r onto any other quantity whenever you have a problem that's easier to solve with relative measurements rather than absolute ones. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Is this comparable to the "G" in Gm, Gmol, Gcd, etc.? bd2412 T 15:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    • In a way, yes. But "gigamole" is one word, with "giga-" as a prefix. "relative mass" is two words, and the "relative"/"r" is an adjective. Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    • IMO, it doesn't really matter if it's one, two or three words, if it's an acronym or abbreviation... Purplebackpack89 18:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Smurray. - -sche (discuss) 17:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • PBP closure was fine; one supporter does not consensus make. Abstain so far. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

absent oneself from[edit]

Doesn't look like a phrasal verb to me. --SimonP45 (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Move to absent oneself, making appropriate adjustments to definition. [See below: 13:39, 6 February 2016] DCDuring TALK 14:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to absent oneself per DCDuring. bd2412 T 15:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I would say delete, because this is just sense 1 of absent#Verb. Compare how we don't have an entry for "remove oneself", "withdraw oneself (from consideration, etc)", etc. - -sche (discuss) 16:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
    Perhaps, but we would need to modernize at least the reflexive sense at absent#Verb and redirect searchers to that definition. DCDuring TALK 16:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to [[absent#Verb]] (or else delete).​—msh210 (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain. The "from" seems extraneous in the lemma, and there is only one OneLook dictionary having "absent oneself" per absent oneself at OneLook Dictionary Search, namely this one[1]. I don't object to deletion and I don't object to moving to absent oneself if people deem such an entry worthwhile, although to me, on the face of it, absent oneself seems unnecessary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    At absent#Verb I have corrected the transitive definition (archaic?) and added a reflexive one (with usex), so the verb PoS section doesn't read like that from a 200-year-old dictionary. Feel free to revise or revert. Delete. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

agree with[edit]

Doesn't look like a phrasal verb to me. --SimonP45 (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

  • This has been covered for some time now at agree, sense 6: "(intransitive) To suit or be adapted in its effects; to do well: the same food does not agree with every constitution." - -sche (discuss) 16:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
    Has this meaning of agree ever occurred without with and other than in the context of something ingested since, say, 1945 or 1920? DCDuring TALK 18:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
    I don't know; my cursory search didn't turn up any evidence that it had been used without with. I suppose we could move the sense. I think this is a circumstance where one of the definition lines of agree should then retain some kind of pointer, like {{only in}}. - -sche (discuss) 18:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
    That would be a good experiment to run: to see whether users - or contributors - got confused by such a presentation. Such an approach would slightly reduce the size of the verb component of such expressions, which is desirable for the highly polysemic verbs that are the most common ones used in phrasal verbs. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
    I also don't know, but there is some use of agreeable in this sense, fwiw.​—msh210 (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

send above[edit]

Doesn't look like a phrasal verb to me. --SimonP45 (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Is there even a specifically nautical sense of above worth distinguishing from "to or on a higher level". DCDuring TALK 12:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think that above means aloft in nautical terms (so the definition doesn't even look correct). SemperBlotto (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I would think that aloft would mean "in or on the rigging of a sailing ship or up or on a mast of a sailing ship" and above would relate to decks. DCDuring TALK 12:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015[edit]

riddle me that, Batman[edit]

Doesn't make any sense. No formatting. Bad capitalisation. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Per https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Tea_room/2015/November#Riddle_me_that.2C_Batman. My keyboard broke yesterday, and I am using a virtual keyboard to type this key by key, hence the formatting issues. Batman is capitalised because it is a proper noun. Tharthan (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup or RFV as necessary. No valid reason for deletion given. (The bad capitalization refers to the "Riddle", which should be "riddle".) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • What Angr said, of course. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to riddle me that and reword as an alternative form of riddle me this. The "Batman" is irrelevant, and occurs in under 2% of uses of "riddle me that". bd2412 T 18:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    It looks to be riddle#Verb + me + that/this, ie SoP, without the "Batman". DCDuring TALK 19:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    But does that verb sense exist outside of this phrase? --WikiTiki89 20:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    COHA has "They'll riddle it out quickly enough," {riddle = "figure, puzzle") and "Riddle me your riddle", as well as a greater number of riddle me this/that cites. DCDuring TALK 04:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Riddle me ree ≠ Riddle me that, Batman. Tharthan (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    The difference seems to be the same as the difference between no shit and no shit, Sherlock, with the added fictional character name implying that the subject of the comment should have already thought about it. However, I don't know that "Batman" is necessary to make "riddle me that" have that connotation. bd2412 T 15:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Delete, in light of the foregoing discussion. bd2412 T 15:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
    Keep I don't think that the general use of this phrase is the same as the bare form (i.e. the non-"Batman" form.) I think that there is a bit of a different nuance to this phrase as well comparatively-speaking. Tharthan (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If it is now being kept, could someone edit the "definition" so that it makes some sort of sense? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    How would that be done? "Said after something to emphasize a question about it that someone hasn't considered or hasn't wanted to consider." In other words: "This phrase is said after something to emphasise a question about that something that someone hasn't considered or hasn't been willing to consider". That's pretty clear-cut, is it not? Tharthan (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. As demonstrated by the arguments above, this is not a fixed phrase, and we already have the relevant senses covered at riddle. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Uh... no. The arguments above demonstrate the exact opposite. It is a fixed phrase. I don't know what hat you pulled that statement out of. There are also enough attestations of this phrase to warrant inclusion. Tharthan (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Riddle me this" may be a fixed phrase, but it doesn't need to invoke Batman. People may be familiar with it because of Batman, but it's still a normal English phrase, the meaning of which is completely independent of whom it's addressed to, or whether the addressee is named at all. P Aculeius (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per P Aculeius.​—msh210 (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per P Aculeius. --WikiTiki89 15:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • In that case it is at least an alternative form of the phrase. It is used enough with "Batman" following it that meets the criteria for inclusion. Tharthan (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain: Not a sum of parts: The person addressed is not actually Batman. However, the phrase is not terribly common and I feel there is something about it which makes it less includable. The part before "Batman" will either be understood from riddle or will even be included on its own, alongside riddle me this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    May I quote you on that? That's an argument of very broad potential application. DCDuring TALK 14:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, although riddle me this, Batman actually seems the more common form. (Incidentally, the this form is used to introduce the conundrum, while the that version acts as a postscript. Coming afterwards seems to give the latter a different emphasis, more on the supposed difficulty of the riddle. The "Batman" seems just to add a general emphasis, and a certain colloquialness, to the statement.)— Pingkudimmi 07:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I wonder whether the this "forthcoming" - that "just passed" pattern is followed widely. DCDuring TALK 12:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I would regard it as a temporal reinterpretation of the use of this for something physically close and that for something distant. As such, it seems natural enough, but is basically a metaphorical usage.— Pingkudimmi 07:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

these kingdoms[edit]


  1. (obsolete, figurative) the United Kingdom, considered as a union of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland

I'm not so sure that the presence of a non-kingdom in the list (Ireland) renders this idiomatic, so I thought I'd run it by everyone here. I especially wonder if this is a set phrase, or just a concept that could be expressed in various ways. I admit, this is borderline, so I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if no one else sees any problems with the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

At the time that England and Scotland were separate kingdoms, Ireland was a separate kingdom too. However, the quotes date from a time when there was only one kingdom: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, so I would regard it idiomatic to use the plural "these kingdoms" to refer to a single kingdom. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
How is the phrase not equally applicable to any set of kingdoms elsewhere identified by the speaker (even if using the phrase to refer to a unitary set including the speaker, without naming them)? P Aculeius (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. How is the use in the citations different from these United States, this green and verdant land, this community? They all seem like simple deixis to me. DCDuring TALK 09:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It's tricky to decide whether to have entries for these sorts of euphemisms. A little while ago, I considered creating an entry for "these islands" (a chiefly Irish term for the British Isles), but it's hard to argue that it's not just "these" "islands". If there are citations where "these kingdoms" isn't being used by someone in the UK, I'd keep. I tried searching for "these kingdoms" + America, but didn't find anything obvious. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. In agreement with DCDuring and P Aculeius. Example from the Bible. Daniel 2:44 - It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever. - I don't think Daniel was referring to the UK here. -- ALGRIF talk 11:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying it can't be idiomatic; just questioning whether there's any grounds for believing that it is. For instance, is there any way of knowing which kingdoms the speaker is referring to, other than "whatever kingdoms the speaker is standing in the midst of"? P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If plural "these kingdoms" is referring to a single kingdom, that is idiomatic, like "these parts". The fact that the phrase may also be used non-idiomatically is perhaps grounds for adding {{&lit}} but not for deleting the idiomatic sense. "these kingdoms" would only be used within the UK, which makes it deictic but does not stop it being an idiom. (green and pleasant land is a quotation not an idiom.) Jnestorius (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete per DCDuring, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
From reading the above comments, I'm not sure the pro-delete voters understand the intended sense. That would be a reason for improving the wording of the definition, but not for deletion. I don't think a foreigner standing in England in 1870 and hearing someone say "blah blah blah these kingdoms blah blah" would be able to work out what was being referred to. Jnestorius (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Speaking for myself alone, I feel confident that I understand the intention. However, I think that a foreigner in England in 1870 would understand this kingdom to refer to England or the United Kingdom, and these kingdoms to refer to the same plus any others belonging to the same group identified by the speaker. Who could perhaps be referring to England, Scotland, and Ireland, or to the United Kingdom and Spain, or Denmark, or Belgium, or the Netherlands, or Norway and Sweden, etc. Which group the speaker intended would have to be indicated by context; even a native Englishman would have needed some context to be sure of which kingdoms the speaker was describing. Was "these kingdoms" generally treated as a proper noun? That would support the meaning in question. P Aculeius (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. If we keep this we need to point out that it can only be used when the speaker is physically located within the UK! That shows how silly it is. Equinox 16:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • How is the phrase not equally applicable to any set of kingdoms elsewhere identified by the speaker
    • applied to a set of kingdoms is {{&lit}}, but applied to a single kingdom is idiom.
  • these sorts of euphemisms
    • I think "grandiloquence" or "pomposity" would be a more exact description than "euphemism"
  • How is the use in the citations different from these United States
    • There are multiple states in the United States; there is only one kingdom in trhe United Kingdom. Referring to the USA as "these republics" or "these federations" would be analogous to "these kingdoms" in its unexpected use of the plural.
  • this green and verdant land, this community // it can only be used when the speaker is physically located within the UK! That shows how silly it is. //
    • Yes, it's deictic, but it can be deictic and an idiom. They are not incompatible characteristics. See for example yours truly, your man, in this day and age, here you go. In fact, if it was a simple deixis, one might expect "those kingdoms" to work outside the UK; the fact that it doesn't suggests something more subtle is going on.
  • is there any way of knowing which kingdoms the speaker is referring to, other than "whatever kingdoms the speaker is standing in the midst of"?
    • I'm not sure what you're driving at. In the given usage, the speaker is only standing in one kingdom and referring to one kingdom. Someone who was under the illusion that England and Scotland were separate kingdoms might arrive at the correct interpretation by accident. Someone who knew they were a single kingdom might guess that the speaker was using some kind of poetic licence, just as one might guess the meaning of any unfamiliar word from the context.
  • "these kingdoms to refer to the same plus any others belonging to the same group identified by the speaker"
    • but there are no others and the speaker has not identified any.
  • even a native Englishman would have needed some context to be sure of which kingdoms the speaker was describing
    • well, some context to be sure the speaker was not describing any group of kingdoms. True of any {{&lit}} expression. Or any expression at all really, for small values of "some" context.
Jnestorius (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


Excerpt from Excerpt from Lancelot du Lac, 1488 edition, from the Bibliothèque Nationale Française.

Test case; Middle French variant of avec. WT:AFRM#spelling The thing is, u v share a glyph in the Middle French period as they do in Old French and Latin, but they're really separate letters. We don't have an entry for Latin dvx (or DVX for that matter) which is how dux appears in the Bayeux Tapestry. Addendum: I was simply going to discuss it with the entry's creator Zo3rWer (talkcontribs) but since he's indef blocked, that's obviously going nowhere. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

He can respond just fine. Can't you, @SimonP45? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • We have a usage note at u explaining the evolution of u and v. Words like this can probably be covered by the usage note. I'd note that the usage note as presently written covers auec, but not bayevx and dvx. Purplebackpack89 13:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • By way of analogy, our entry is cat but I write cɑt. You have to focus on what the letters are not what they looks like. If you look at the image I've just added, the 'v' of 'voyant' looks more like a b, the 's' of 'si' looks more like a theta (Θi). The idea is not to get as close to the original image as possible. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    • There should be usage notes for at least the common variations. For example, don't you think a should mention that in handwriting/hand printing it is usually rendered as ɑ? As for the other renderings, we don't need to mention the very rare or very archaic ones...but I think I see a ſ somewhere in that ancient text, and that ought to be mentioned at s.

Purplebackpack89 23:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added u#Middle French and v#Middle French. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


This is one specific formulation of oil named according to a general standard of naming; see [2]. Therefore this feels rather like having an entry for a specific temperature (30°C) or a specific chemical formula (yeah, I know we have a tiny handful of those). If the W stands for something, that would be more deserving of an entry. Equinox 01:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The W stands for weight, doesn't it? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
"Winter", apparently. See Wikipedia-logo.png Motor oil#Grades on Wikipedia.Wikipedia:Motor oil#Grades. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete. SOP. No one will ever look this up in a dictionary.​—msh210 (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Abstain. I vaguely remember some discussion about these ID-like looking terms. One might argue that this is not a sum of parts since there is no space, but I don't want to go that road at this point. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


Rfd-redundant: “(reflexive) to commit suicide”

Not a distinct sense, just the primary sense (“to kill”) used with a reflexive pronoun (“oneself”). — Ungoliant (falai) 18:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think it might be appropriate as a subsense. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
From what I understand, I would delete it as redundant to 'to kill' with specific pronoun 'se'. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete, not a separate sense, maybe add as one of the examples of sense #1. Siuenti (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
It's one of those if you just removed it unilaterally I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
You’re right. Too late now. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely keep. I don't understand the reasoning. You can say the say of almost all reflexive verbs; it's normal in translating dictionaries to translate the reflexive sense separately, especially when, as here, there is a different common translation. Ƿidsiþ 12:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
That’s not true at all. If that were true, every Portuguese-English dictionary would suddenly have twice as many senses for transitive verbs. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Not so really; dictionaries won't list French se tuer separately to tuer because the translation is the same ("to kill") just the direct object is se. Not lexically any different to tuer un homme ‎(to kill a man) which simply has a different direct object. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete Otherwise, why don't we have a reflexive sense at kill? In this case oneself is pretty much analogous to se. See also Talk:kill oneself. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 22:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

who knows[edit]

Rfd-sense "A rhetorical question asked to express the idea that anything is possible or that anything could happen.", as it is redundant to the first sense "A rhetorical question asked to show that the person asking it neither knows the answer nor knows who might." --WikiTiki89 17:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The "anything is possible" version is more comprehensive, delete the other one. Siuenti (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "more comprehensive"? They both attempt to say the same thing in different ways. Furthermore, the "anything is possible" one incorrectly implies that anything is possible (when you say "Who knows where that's been." you are not saying that it is possible for pigs to fly.). --WikiTiki89 21:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep I think they express two different tones. In the second sense, it's more a sarcastic way of saying that you're fairly sure something will happen. If I say "He's failed every test so far, but who knows, perhaps this is his lucky day", I'm not really saying I don't know whether he'll pass but heavily hinting that I think he won't. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Acadian epoch[edit]

Not sure about this one, but do we really want entries like this rather than just the entry at Acadian? It certainly goes against our preëxisting standards; e.g. we have Jurassic but not Jurassic period, Phanerozoic but not Phanerozoic eon. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd happily delete but I think we'd have to improve the definitions at Acadian to cover that it's an epoch from blah to blah. Easily done though. Reminds me a bit of English language and the like where the meaning is entirely predictable provided English has enough detail. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
See User:DCDuring/Geology for a fairly comprehensive table from WP with the data required for pretty good definitions and many etymologies. See this page at the geowhen database for Acadian. The geowhen database is more complete than the WP table and could be imported and formatted for use as a source for entries. DCDuring TALK 23:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't care whether we keep Acadian epoch, but we need a good entry for Acadian. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it would be a helpful redirect as a search would otherwise suggest Acadian as the first result. So no. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The redirect could be to a senseid. DCDuring TALK 14:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I have created Middle Cambrian (epoch), of which Acadian (epoch) is a synonym. The boundaries of such geological/stratigraphic periods have more stability when defined by the fossils found than by time-period intervals, though the time periods allow for more convenient comparison and use. DCDuring TALK 23:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per talk:free variable and Talk:nominative case reasoning; keep red dwarf, prime number, algebraic number, algebraic integer, bound variable, etc.. The sense of Acadian that would make this a sum of parts is "Of or pertaining to the Acadian epoch". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    I hope you'll be adding raspberry bush, blueberry bush, cypress tree, yew bush (to go with oak tree (a previous item you argued for using a parallel argument). (What about blueberry leaf, blueberry flower, blueberry inflorescence, blueberry fruit, blueberry twig, blueberry sapling, blue berry seed, blueberry canker, blueberry blight, etc while we are at it?) There should also be at least one two-word entry for each of the one-word proper nouns that name geological time periods and stratigraphic layers. Perhaps also entries such as Acadian stage and Acadian substage. I'll try to provide substantive entries for you to supplement in this way. Perhaps a bot could speed the process, as little thought or knowledge is required. DCDuring TALK 19:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Acadian epoch is not <noun> <noun>, it is <adjective> <noun>. The noun Acadian is a result of shortening of Acadian epoch, to the best of my estimation. Therefore, raspberry bush, blueberry bush, cypress tree, etc. are not analogues of Acadian epoch. As for Talk:oak tree, I said 'Keep, as the space-free form "oaktree" is citable', which is per WT:COALMINE, a different argument. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Later: This seems to be of the pattern the Atlantic Ocean - the Atlantic, the Caribbean Sea - the Caribbean, but also Paleolithic period (redlink) - Paleolithic. The main OneLook dictionaries do not have "Paleolithic period" and "Acadian epoch" - Paleolithic period at OneLook Dictionary Search, Acadian epoch at OneLook Dictionary Search; they have Paleolithic and Acadian - Paleolithic at OneLook Dictionary Search, Acadian at OneLook Dictionary Search. By contrast, "Atlantic Ocean" is in AHD[3], Collins[4], and Merriam-Webster[5]. "Atlantic Ocean" is written with capitcal "o", suggestive of its proper-namehood.
    About the option of having a hard redirect from Acadian epoch to Acadian: the hard redirect has inferior usability: whereas on Acadian epoch the reader immediately lands on the definition sought, in Acadian it is the last definition in the proper noun section, and the entry starts with the Adjective section. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    Re: "I'll try to provide substantive entries for you to supplement in this way. Perhaps a bot could speed the process, as little thought or knowledge is required": You mean like a bot for edits like diff? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    If I could trust a bot to gender those birds, I would try to recruit one. DCDuring TALK 18:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Μετάknowledge.​—msh210 (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Metaknowledge or redirect per DCDuring. IMO the red dwarf / free variable test is not met / applicable here, since in those cases both elements have to be present for the meaning to be imparted, even if the order is changed (to "the variable is free", etc). As Dan points out on Talk:free variable, a person could try to make "red dwarf" SOP by adding "Of a dwarf star, small and relatively cool [and] of the main sequence" to [[red]], but "red" only has that meaning when "dwarf" is present. Here, however, one can say "These fossils date to the Acadian." or "This type of plant was especially common in the Acadian." and never use the word "epoch"; the meaning is present in "Acadian" alone. (Also, a few of the hits for "Acadian period" show that "epoch" isn't the only time-word that can collocate with "Acadian", although many hits for that phrase are referring to a different, more recent period.) I don't oppose redirecting the various epochs to specific senses of [[Acadian]], etc. - -sche (discuss) 22:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @- -sche: As for "These fossils date to the Acadian": the SOP claim has to be made in relation to the adjective Acadian, not the noun; otherwise, I would accept your point. Like, in "Atlantic Ocean", "Atlantic" is an adjective despite the existence of the noun "Atlantic". --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

lexical warfare[edit]

SOP by Riverstogo. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. I had to look at the definition to find out what it meant, and having done so, I think it would be SOP if it were "semantic warfare". (In other words, "semantic warfare" would be a better term for this.) In order for "lexical warfare" to be SOP, it would have to be fighting over things like whether to call nonalcoholic carbonated beverages "soda", "pop", or "coke"; or, less trivially, over whether or not to use euphemisms or PC terminology in some context and if so, which terms to use. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it has a 'definition' per se so much as it's warfare in the figurative sense of a lexical nature, where the meaning varies depending on the context, in the same way 'big' varies depending on the context; a big planet is very different from a big insect. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Angr I don't think that every attestable sloppy use of language needs to be in even the most complete dictionary. I particularly don't see why a mistaken use of a word means that every attestable collocation involving that mistaken use needs to be in a dictionary. If you took this entry as an indication that users don't use the word lexical with the definition we find appropriate, and therefore added a definition to lexical, I could understand why and possibly agree. Given the poor quality of our entries for individual words, it seems like an indication or cause of the impending death of the project for us to piss away our individual and communal time on an entry like this. DCDuring TALK 14:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete (just to be clear). Since lexical does mean 'relating to a word or words' and this actually is warfare (figuratively) relating to a word or words it's entirely predictable from the sum of its part. The fact that 'semantic' would be better choice is not relevant. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I added the term to WT:RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

play the gender card[edit]

play the race card[edit]

These should be redirected to gender card and race card, respectively. There are other verbs that could be used, which is just to say that this is not idiomatic, but merely the most common collocation. That means it deserves redirection, not lemmatisation. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That seems to make sense, but... does anybody do anything with the "race card" (probably the original form) other than "playing" it? P Aculeius (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Users trying to determine the meaning of the idiom could probably be served by either redirects to perfected NP entries or by keeping these predicate entries.
We have a harder time trying to help users who were trying to decode other uses of the playing-card metaphor: "the China card", "the fear card", "the sympathy card", "the victim card", "the ethnic card", "the racial card", etc. All of these are used near forms of the verbs play, use, and others in COCA. I don't think entries for play the card or play the something card will seem like good entries for anyone looking up the expressions.
IMO the most important question is whether the card-game metaphor is usefully presented by any dictionary or encyclopedia entry. I think that in virtually all cases the meaning in contextn of the metaphor is fairly obvious to any likely reader of a text in which the expression metaphor is deployed. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see you are playing the likely reader card here. In the case of other snowclones we have entries for the most common versions, is there a reason why that shouldn't be the case here? In my experience the idiom is play the X card where X card is non-idiomatic outside of the phrase. - TheDaveRoss 17:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I wish I/we had "likely reader" facts instead of a mere "card". Snowclones are fun for us, but we have never figured out how to make most of them plausibly usable for normal users. Metaphors have a structure that in general is different from that of snowclones or idiomatic expressions. Typical examples are "life is a card game", "life is a game", "life is a game of chance", "love is a battlefield". "the world is a stage". Our entries barely begin to capture the variety of expression that such metaphors allow. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
IMO, any argument that hinges on the claim that something is "fairly obvious to any likely reader", particularly one without any stats to back it up, is inherently a weak one. I'm inclined to agree with Dave and Aculeius that playing the race card is far-and-away the most common usage and therefore should be kept. BTW, shortly after weighing in, I intend to create gender card. Purplebackpack89 20:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Even on the most obvious things relating to the desired characteristics of landing pages, we fail to use standard practices. We don't use best practices for lexicography other than copying what can be legally copied. I sincerely doubt that the availability of statistics on user behavior would make the slightest difference: we would continue to run the show for our own amusement. DCDuring TALK 21:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I entered "play the * card" into Google, and it gave me a dictionary entry for "play the —— card"; interesting. dictionary.cambridge.org has "play the race card"[6]. play the gender card,play the race card at Google Ngram Viewer. I think we should better give the reader a couple of most common instantiations of a snowclone rather than a sort of a formula for the snowclone. I expect that the readers are better at extrapolating from examples than using formulas. And the examples are the thing attested. As for lemmings, "play the race card" is in Collins[7] and dictionary.cambridge.org[8]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not bothered if these are deleted, but we should at least have a usage note at race card etc. stating that the usual verb is "play" (because of the card-game metaphor). It's not the only verb. Equinox 00:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
So what are the other verbs? I'd like to check Google Ngram Viewer for frequency. --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick skim on Google Books: "the perpetrator is accused of using the race card"; "a liberal throws down the race card"; and (doing things other than playing it) "growing pressures to put down [i.e. cease playing] the race card"; "she dismissed the gender card". Equinox 00:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Based on this, I looked at played the race card, used the race card, dismissed the race card, put down the race card, play the race card, use the race card, dismiss the race card, throw down the race card, throws down the race card at Google Ngram Viewer. Seeing that "play" is very predominant, I would be unhappy to see the combinations with "play" deleted from the dictionary. Hard redirects would be the very minimum, but my preferred option is to keep the nominated entries full blown. --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind keeping when one collocation is by far the most common, which seems to be the case here. A couple of attestations for 'use the race card' don't make 'play the race card' unidiomatic. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem I see is not with the word play, but with the fact that any "card" can be used in this phrase: "the race card", "the gender card", "that card", "the sympathy card", "the black card", "the kid card", "the Nazi card", "the victim card", "the veteran card", and the newly re-defined "the Trump card". An interesting thing to note is that Google's automatic dictionary (I'm not sure what source dictionary it uses) shows the entry for "play the —— card" when you search for "play the race card" and calls it a "phrase of card". --WikiTiki89 00:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I had thought of that, too. But I see no way round that. Even if we added a sense to card that's 'only used in combination with another noun' I can't see race card, gender card (and so on) being deleted by majority consensus. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I would like to play the mental health card. But I can't. Obviously. We need to play with a full deck, to be one card shy of a full deck, let alone two, smacks of full-deckism. If we try to delete every harmless snowperson clone another fool card will be along shortly; probably at the same time every year, to keep building them up again. --Riverstogo (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but nothing you say makes any sense to me. --WikiTiki89 22:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I get the feeling that sentence is either a) intentionally nonsensical, or b) Wonderfool complaining that people don't like him. Purplebackpack89 16:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant, race card is a figure of speech and therefore would pass CFI. Also, the "price" of getting play the race card deleted is keeping race card. Purplebackpack89 16:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


The traditional form of 采风 should be 采風, as seen in the Revised Mandarin Dictionary and Chinese Linguipedia. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 21:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, delete, wasn't paying attention. The alt trad form is 採風.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Converted to a redirect to 采風. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


寀 is not used for the meaning of 採; this is probably due to wrongly converting simplified 采 to 寀, as seen with 寀風. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 21:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Converted to a redirect to 採集. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

throwaway line[edit]

SoP? Hard to believe this is only used in the context of movies. Equinox 09:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article has more. Throwaway lines may become significant later, but that's not part of the definition of the term. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Also mentioned here [9]. Donnanz (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
You can have a throwaway comment, throwaway remark, throwaway response etc. - they all seem equally SoP. Keith the Koala (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Lots of things can be "throwaway". What makes a line different, in the sense that you can't figure out what the phrase refers to from the words alone? P Aculeius (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom and per Keith. - -sche (discuss) 22:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


This is just the suffix -tio combined with the stem-final vowel of the preceding word. It's not a separate suffix. We also don't have -itio, which has the same composition. —CodeCat 18:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as a compound suffix per previoux RFD at Talk:-atio, where I mentioned multiple sources mentioning the suffix. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

-atus, -atum[edit]

As above. The adjective-forming sense is actually a distinct etymology, and should be kept, though. —CodeCat 18:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

request of deleting my entry of ahmad alkandari thanks

  • Keep as a compound suffix. The "as above" mentioned by the OP would be this: "This is just the suffix -tio combined with the stem-final vowel of the preceding word. It's not a separate suffix. We also don't have -itio, which has the same composition." Searches I perused: google books:"-atus" suffix, google:"-atus" suffix. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Pop nicknames[edit]

A bunch from a banned sock of WF (I guess?), these don't meet CFI do they? J-Lo, K-Stew, Scar-Jo, Sam-Cam, Li-Lo, Posh and Becks, Le-Le, Ri-Ri, Su-Bo, A-Rod, K-Rod, R-Pattz

also, WaPo? - TheDaveRoss 05:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Either way, this list should also include J-Law. bd2412 T 13:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Of course they meet CFI, why wouldn't they? He even asked first. Keep all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Relevant: Wiktionary:Tea_room/2015/August#Celebrity_nicknamessuzukaze (tc) 07:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
We have many abbreviations of terms, such as names of organizations, which terms we choose to exclude. DCDuring TALK 14:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Which is a mistake IMO. Purplebackpack89 16:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all they all pass CFI. Just because they were created by a semi-crazed sock doesn't mean they have to be deleted. Purplebackpack89 16:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I can't see a compelling reason to delete them. (BTW, not all are celebrities, or individuals: Led Zep, Apop, Codies.) To me they are no worse (and perhaps less bad) than e.g. Einstein being defined as a specific person (Albert) who bore that surname. Equinox 16:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
It isn't totally clear to me how these meet the CFI, nicknames are certainly not specifically addressed, they aren't "given names" in the sense that I read it. Tabloid papers generate dozens of these types of names on a weekly basis. Is notability of the subject a factor? How about nicknames for celebrity couples (Brangelina)? How about buildings (the House that Ruth Built)? How about nicknames for fictional characters (the Boy Who Lived)? It seems to me that if we aren't going to include Kristen Stewart we ought not include KStew. - TheDaveRoss 19:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Which part of CFI do you think they fail? AFAICS, they are governed by WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I suppose. Just a failure of the CFI. - TheDaveRoss 20:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
WT:NSE gives you a discretion: "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. However, policies exist for names of certain kinds of entities."
Thus, you can figure out the reason for which they should be excluded, present the reason, and try to convince other editors to support their deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss One of the quirks of CFI as currently written is that abbreviations or nicknames tend to almost always pass CFI, even if the things they would abbreviate would not (My personal remedy to this is to allow anything with an abbreviation that passes CFI be allowed to also pass CFI). Purplebackpack89 22:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Let's clear up one thing first. We include certain names like Einstein, Napoleon, and Benedict Arnold because they are used to describe others with characteristics associated with the original person, not because they are used to identify the person. Unless we have citations to the use of J-Lo in the sense of describing somebody other than Jennifer Lopez as "a J-Lo", then including this is no different than including any celebrity known by a mononym (Cher, Björk, Bono, Sting). bd2412 T 14:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    Did you look at Einstein and Napoleon? Compare the proper and common nouns there. Equinox 14:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    I had thought we only included the proper noun versions because they also have the common noun usage. In the same way that it is acceptable to include a non-idiomatic definition in addition to an idiomatic definition if a term is used both ways. - TheDaveRoss 14:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all (all words in all languages) and add Cher, Björk, Bono, Sting. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Are the nominated forms actually words, though? Take J-Lo, for example. J as used here is a first-initial abbreviation for a name starting with "J", in the same way that the J in J. R. R. Tolkien is a first-initial abbreviation for John. Lo is being used as an abbreviation for Lopez. In theory, a John Lopez or a Jessica Lowell could just as easily be called J-Lo. The fact that a unit combines abbreviated forms with a hyphen can not itself be a reason for inclusion, or we would have an entry for every attested hyphenated surname combination (Johnson-Ferguson, Joyner-Kersee, Baron-Cohen, García-Huidobro, Greiner-Petter-Memm, etc.). —This unsigned comment was added by BD2412 (talkcontribs) at 10:14, December 28, 2015.
      @BD2412 An analogous slippery-slope argument can and has been made about MWEs and terms formed by conventional morphology. What makes abbreviation morphology different other than a personal reaction?
      Most abbreviations are highly context-dependent for their correct-in-context interpretation, eg, DCD, BD, DanP, TDR, SB. What differentiates these, IMO, is that their meaning is much less context dependent. Even I knew 6 of the 13. I might have wanted to know the meaning of the others and would not be able to figure it out for myself very easily. DCDuring TALK 16:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
      I can tell you exactly what makes these kinds of nicknames different from other MWEs: the "[n]o individual person" provision of Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Names of specific entities exists. It may be much easier to figure out the meaning of tennis player from its components than fire engine or red line, but in none of these cases is the meaning derived merely the name of an individual person. Nor do we (or should we) have an entry for The King of Pop, The Queen of Soul, or The Chairman of the Board. bd2412 T 18:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
      I see no slippery slope fallacy. As I understand the bd2412 argument, a proper name consisting of two separate parts and referring to a human individual is more liable to be deleted; Albert Einstein was deleted. Albert Einstein, out of context, uniquely picks a human individual yet that did not save the entry from deletion (although I see no discussion for the entry). J-Lo, out of context, fairly uniquely picks a human individual yet that might not save the entry from deletion, unless one would claim that the hyphen is much more tightly bonding than the space in Albert Einstein. But if hyphen were accepted as tightly bonding for the purpose of "separate components", we might need to keep Johnson-Ferguson, etc. From what I remember, some editors wanted hyphen to be treated as tightly bonding, but there is no established consensus either way, AFAIK, and some hyphenated compounds were deleted, AFAIK. On another note, "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic" clearly applies to Albert Einstein but less clearly applies to J-Lo, not because of the hyphen, but because of "Lo" per se being no surname but an abbrev of a surname. But editors could use their policy-granted discretion and vote J-Lo out of wikt, noting that (a) hyphen is not tightly bonding and (b) "Lo" is close enough to being a surname. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
      I often don't read the provisions of pages like CFI very carefully myself, but usually I am called out for it. This time the tables are turned. Here is the most germane passage from CFI:
      No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic.
      I didn't find any other wording which would lead to the exclusion of these names. DCDuring TALK 21:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
      In "J-Lo", J is almost like the given name, and Lo is almost like the family name. I say almost, since they are abbrevs of these. Thus, the quoted regulation seems to almost apply, with emphasis on almost. And I emphasized the policy-granted discretion. So we have a specific regulation that almost applies, and we have a generic regulation that grants a discretion; it is the combination of the two that yields a possible delete vote. But I am repeating myself. Maybe you should read the above posts again. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
      That would be a self-inflicted cruel and unusual punishment, hence unconstitutional. I was principally responding to BD, who did seem to ignore the exact wording of the text he invoked, and to TDR.
      DanP's argument hinges on these "almost"s. I find the near-equation in a dictionary of "J" and "Jennifer" preposterous on its face. (Is & "almost" the same as and?) It may well be that the Vote on which the section of CFI was modified was badly drafted, but those words seem to be the applicable ones that we ought live by. As I read the argument all I could really see was a legalistic argument in support of what seems to be an over-arching bias in how we use our discretion: to suit our tastes, not our responsibilities.
      BTW, JLo would seem attestable in print newspapers. So COALMINE would apply. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
      Suppose we were to redefine J-Lo (and JLo) as "an abbreviation for a person whose given name begins with the letter J, and whose surname begins with the syllable Lo"? I don't think we're about to add a sense to Lo for either Lopez or Lohan, but obviously it is used to abbreviate "Lo"- surnames. No doubt we could find copious evidence that "J" is used as an abbreviation for given names starting with "J" (see, e.g., JJ Lin, JR Shaw, JD Alexander, etc.). bd2412 T 13:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
      The definition "Jennifer Lopez" has pretty much driven out any other meaning of the combination J + Lo. I suppose that the definition proposed would be formally satisfactory, but it would not serve any users without, at least, an especially clause pointing to Jennifer Lopez. DCDuring TALK 14:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
      We have, at times, made sure that the special cases are reflected in example quotes. I'm sure it would be trivial to find a quote noting that "Jennifer Lopez" is also known as "J-Lo". bd2412 T 14:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
      For almost any typography of J, L, and O the meaning "Jennifer Lopez" prevents any other definition from gaining traction in general use. Even if one's friend's name were Jean Lomax, using J-Lo to refer to him would have an element of humor in it, IMO. I think the best treatment is one analogous to the use of {{&lit}} for idiomatic MWEs: two separate definitions. At some point in the future, should Wiktionary outlast Jennifer Lopez's reputation, the definition would need the label dated. DCDuring TALK 14:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record, I am unstriking the nomination since the discussion is still ongoing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    These entries are all totally sweet. BTW, "semi-crazed sock" is a nice phrase. --Stubborn Pen (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Sod knows, I think Dan Polansky's right that these are names of specific entities hence CFI says there's no real rule on these, so it literally is just voting. Also, I'm not convinced any of these are words, so "all words in all languages" may not apply. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
If the only relevant language is that supporting discretion, why are there three bullet items that limit such discretion? I'd have thought that the principal need for discretion was for the names of specific entities other than those for which specific language exists. Please note the wording in the NSE section that precedes the three bullet items:
"However, policies exist for names of certain kinds of entities. In particular:"
Isn't that wording clear enough? This whole discussion seems to me to be an effort to nullify a policy vote because the application to certain entries doesn't suit elitist taste. DCDuring TALK 12:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Those policies are all exclusionary, e.g.:
  • No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney.
However right above the clause you mention it states:
  • 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.
I might be elitist for feeling that these terms are not worthy of inclusion, but the vagueness of this language does seem to leave a ton of discretion. The spirit of the entire rest of the naming section seems to lean towards genericism, no personal names unless they are generic names, no companies or brands unless they have been genericized. The NSE section is the only one which we might interpret to allow specific, non-generic names. I do agree with you that changing the language of the CFI is not within the scope of this discussion, but I don't think the language is clear on this topic. - TheDaveRoss 13:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
A "spiritual" reading should also acknowledge our "All words in all languages" slogan, the inclusionist definition-in-practice of "term" in CFI that permits idioms, symbols, letters, variant typography, and abbreviations of many kinds, and "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means."
BTW, the arguments given would not seem to apply to an abbreviation like WaPo (one which I have used), at least as deserving as Grey Lady. DCDuring TALK 14:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I am happy to concede WaPo, I was unfamiliar with it but it does seem to have a fair amount of currency, especially on Twitter. The "All Words in All Languages" should probably be restated to "All* Words* in All* Languages*", since four of the five words* used in phrase become very subjective very quickly. In this particular case, I might run across Jennifer Lopez and wish to know what that means, however we have decided that names of specific people are outside of the scope of the work we are trying to do here. I am not sure why J-Lo is excepted from that, since it is a name which refers to a specific person. The morphology is common enough, as you can see by the number of entries at the top of the page. J and Lo are probably even attestable as given names at this point... I am not being obtuse, I understand that there is some difference between Jennifer Lopez and J-Lo, I am merely suggesting that the difference is not sufficient that the second merits inclusion. - TheDaveRoss 14:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that in our slogan even in is not used entirely intuitively.
Virtually all abbreviations of proper names have relatively brief definitions: the proper names themselves. This is true whether the named entity is a person, a political party, an airport, a stock ticker symbol, or the name of an organization. We can choose and have chosen to exclude some of these proper names for whatever reason, But, generally, I think the reason is that any material about the referent of the proper name is inherently encyclopedic and unlikely to be satisfactory unless much longer than a dictionary definition. I think the service we perform for users with respect to abbreviations of proper names is to speed them to the relevant encyclopedic material by giving them a canonical name for the referent, possibly even with disambiguation (eg, JFK: president, airport, bridge(s), high schools etc). Here at enwikt we can even provide a hyperlink to the encyclopedic material.
The hyphenated abbreviated-names morphology is by no means universal. Even within the discourse realm in which it is current, it seems only to apply to names of sufficient popularity and suitability. The morphology argument applies just about as well to abbreviations like op. cit., ibid, et al, et al.. DCDuring TALK 19:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
BD has created a BP discussion about this topic, so we can dig into whether the current wording and interpretation is really what we want it to be. I can't disagree with you about the morphology, this is very grey-area stuff. Concerning listing things with the intention of providing easy access to Wikipedia... that feels like another can of worms entirely. That same justification should apply to all names of famous people in general, etc. - TheDaveRoss 19:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
We have handled links to WP selectively with {{no entry}} and its accompaniments. DCDuring TALK 21:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep all and restore 成龍成龙, Jackie Chan's Chinese nickname. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
(relevant: 鳥叔 and 梅姐) —suzukaze (tc) 12:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Fairly meh about most of these, but Delete Posh and Becks since Victoria is called "Posh" and David is called "Becks" outside this compound. (The Cockney rhyming slang looks a bit dodgy too, although admittedly rhyming slang doesn't always delete the rhyming element when it's a proper name) Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

oft mentioned[edit]

This seems to be a sum of parts. It would be protected by WT:COALMINE if "oft mentioned" were significantly more common than oftmentioned, but it is approximately similarly common per oft mentioned, oftmentioned at Google Ngram Viewer, and therefore, does not seem protected by WT:COALMINE.

By contrast, oft-mentioned with hyphen is protected by WT:COALMINE since it is significantly more common per oft-mentioned, oftmentioned at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Not idiomatic and not a work in a language. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

raisin sec[edit]

Indeed, a raisin is just a "dried grape". But that doesn't make it deserving of an entry meaning just "dried grape", does it? We can keep the translation and just link each word separately, and get rid of this SOP entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep, strictly speaking this means "dry grape", not "dried grape" (which would be raisin séché). If you wash a grape and dry it off with a paper towel, it's a [[raisin]] [[sec]] but not a [[raisin sec]]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    Delete. French uses sec for other dried fruits as well, nothing special about grapes. --WikiTiki89 18:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed, fr:sec does have this meaning. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    And yet fr:raisin sec is considered entryworthy and is glossed "Grain de raisin séché." And a raisin sec doesn't stop being a raisin sec just because it gets wet. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    Your second point is irrelevant now that we've established that sec is being used with a different meaning (i.e. the meaning of "having had its moisture evaporated"). --WikiTiki89 19:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    But we don't have that sense of sec. I also note that http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/raisin considers a separate sense for raisin sec desirable; it even distinguishes between "Raisin(s) séché(s) au soleil ou à l'aide d'une source de chaleur artificielle" and, by metonymy, "grains de raisin ainsi séchés". I admit I'm not sure what the distinction between raisin(s) and grains de raisin is, though. (By contrast, http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/banane, http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/pomme, and http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/abricot do not have separate lines for "banane sèche", "pomme sèche", and "abricot sec", suggesting that their lexicographers feel that there is something more lexical about raisin sec than about other dried fruits. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    We do now. As to other dictionaries, I've never been a fan of WT:LEMMING. --WikiTiki89 20:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm a fan. If we don't have LEMMING (which, btw, needs a name change to something more positive), there will be dictionaries that have entries that we don't, and therefore people will use those dictionaries and not ours. Purplebackpack89 01:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: We need ways to explain that raisin in English and raisin in French aren't exactly the same thing. Keeping this entry is one of those things. Purplebackpack89 17:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    That's why we have separate English and French sections for raisin. If we can't explain the difference adequately there, having an entry for raisin sec won't help. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Isn’t this a special sense of sec that can be used with any fruit? — Ungoliant (falai) 19:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and seemingly other foods, such as fish, as well. --WikiTiki89 19:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep since this seems to be the main or only way to say "raisin" in French, and "raisin" is a single word with many single-word translations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: Since when was that a criterion? --WikiTiki89 16:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's not in CFI. It's one of those ad-hoc criteria that some people use to salvage some sum of part entries, based on the widespread notion that the principle that "each and every sum of parts entry shall be excluded " is to be rejected. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, having a SOP entry in a foreign language is confusing, leading people like me to scratch their heads as to why it exists. Siuenti (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep per my previous comment, which seems to have been accidentally deleted. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: What was you previous comment? --WikiTiki89 18:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep. There's a difference between raisin sec and raisin séché. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete. It's a common collocation, but that doesn't make it non-SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

te ono and all members of Category:Maori ordinal numbers[edit]

Maori ordinal numbers don't really need or deserve their own entries; they're all SOP, formed from te (the definite article) followed by the cardinal number in question. The creator of these entries does not seem to know any Maori. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm.. what about four-th, six-th, thirteen-th etc. Or one hundred and one, one hundred and two, one hundred and three, one hundred and four, one hundred and five,...--Hekaheka (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
It's a regular feature of the grammar in this case. I doubt any Maori dictionary would list it separately (mine doesn't); it's just one of the functions of te. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, it's not specific to ordinal numbers- I would be surprised if te ono only meant first. It just happens that ordinals are nouns, and nouns can be definite, while adjectives (which are stative verbs in Maori) can't. In other words, the te isn't a lexical part of the construction, it's just part of the context. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep for three reasons: 1. per Hekaheka's 101 2. For structural reasons. (I.e. we have ordinals in all languages, I don't want just a few missing them.) 3. Most importantly, the reasonining given for deletion doesn't apply. I don't see how it's SOP that the + one produces 'first', as 'first guy that came' clearly is something else than 'the one guy that came'. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The average speaker of English wouldn't understand why one would say mir ist übel instead of *ich fühle übel. That just means that you need to understand the grammar to use the correct words, or have a note at words like übel. As for needing ordinal numbers- we have those: ono is the ordinal number one, etc. What you're suggesting is like having an entry for mit einen Messer for the German instrumental case, or zwei Augen for the German dual number- other languages have those marked morphologically, so of course German has to. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
      • At no point do either the entry or Metaknowledge state that you can use a number as an ordinal without the article. So if ordinals must be formed by using te + number, I don't see any difference to English number + th, which is grammar you need to understand too. And yes, th is not a word and te is, but that makes no difference at all to me. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Wegen always takes the genitive or dative in German. If German were like Maori, that would be expressed by a particle before what follows wegen. Would you create an entry for wegen + the particle, or would you include a usage note explaining that wegen always takes the dative or genitive, as you have now?
        • Now, how about some actual data: here are the entries at maoridictionary.co.nz for first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth. The first thing to note is that none of them include the article in the headword. All of them except for second say: "when used with this meaning it is preceded by te and followed by o" (second just says "(when preceded by te)."). In case you're wondering, o isn't part of the numeral phrase. It's a particle that sort of makes what follows possessed by or linked to or modifying what precedes it ... sort of. In some ways it reminds me of the role of the construct state in Hebrew. In other ways it's sort of like a conjunction. At any rate, that makes all but te rua wrong even by your standards. Then there's the matter of all the words with the numeral prefixed with tua-, such as tuatahi, which are also translated as first, second, third, etc., though they're not numerals (I'm a bit fuzzy on the distinction between the two types). Suffice it to say that the reality behind these is far more complicated and alien to European language conventions than initial appearances might indicate. I don't consider myself qualified to create ordinal-number entries in Maori, and I've actually studied one or two Polynesian languages. The person that added these did similar sets in a dozen other unrelated languages at the same time, and obviously doesn't know the first thing about this one. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Chuck Entz, are you explicitly in favour of deleting? In any case, I really wish more people actually familiar with Polynesian languages would comment. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Absolutely- DELETE!!!. It's hard for people who only speak highly-inflected languages to wrap their head around the fact that some other languages don't have lexically-significant ways of saying some things that are a basic part of inflected languages' morphology. @Hekaheka. Maori ordinal numbers are like Finnish masculine or feminine pronouns: yes, you can express the concept, but it's not part of the structure of the language. Just as any translation of "he" or "she" would include some kind of word for male or female, so a translation of "first" or "second" would include the definite article. @Korn. Like Maori, German usually has a definite article in front of numbers when they're used ordinally- should we have an entry for der dritte or der Dritte? Chuck Entz (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the right people aren't aware of this: pinging @Eirikr, DerekWinters, Makaokalani. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Ditto Chuck's comments: Delete. The te preceding article and o following particle are grammatical requirements, and not lexically part of the ordinal term.
By way of comparison, Hawaiian is quite similar. The online Wehewehe Hawaiian dictionary has bilingual entries for second, fourth, and fifth illustrating the Hawaiian analog to the Māori construction. A quick Google search confirms that the same construction can apparently be used for first as well.
My take on this: Polynesian ordinals and numerals are the same thing, differentiated not in form but in usage. Māori te ono o ngā rākau translates out word-for-word into English as the six(th) of the trees. When we talk about ordinals of something in English, we often use this same construction, the [ORDINAL] of the (whatevers) -- but the the preceding article and of following preposition are similarly grammatical requirements, and not lexically part of the ordinal term. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
after e/c -- PS: The definite article te necessarily indicates a singular referrent. Māori has a separate term used as the definite article for a plural referrent, ngā. To talk about six trees out of a group of trees, one would instead say ngā ono o ngā rākau. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • [edit conflict] One thing ahead, then I'm back on topic: No, German does not usually have a definite article in front of numbers when they're used ordinally. German ordinals are regular adjectives and take or don't take an article as often as any other adjective. As for the wegen-example and Maroi: We actually do have an entry like the example you give there: trotzdem, rather than a usage note on "trotz", because the combination is just that common (as indicated by spaceless spelling). It's 100,00% SOP, even if written in one word. You could turn the entry into a usage note easily. But no dictionary does that, because simplicity. And that's where I'm coming from: From the way it gets described to me, ordinals are made by the fix phrase 'article [cardinal]o'. So it all comes down to the point I mentioned initially and which you've still failed to address: Can you use 'on' as an ordinal without the addition of an article 'te' and a particle 'o' or can you not? If you can, then I am for deleting it. If you can, but nobody would ever say it like that, then I'm for deleting it. However, if it is that specific phrasal combination which is required to turn a numeral into an ordinal sense, then yes, I am for keeping it, no matter how SOP and regular grammar it is, because that is exactly how I would want a dictionary to handle a matter like this as someone who wishes to inform himself on how an ordinal looks in Maori. You can always put a usage note there and say it's regular grammar and SOP and not actually a word, and what have you. Also: Translation targets anyway. I'm strictly against having red links in translation tables. This is not a Maori dictionary but an English dictionary. And English is a somewhat inflected language which does have ordinals and I don't see a point in greatly inconveniencing people by sticking fiercely to the internal system of a foreign language when talking about it. As long as the information we provide is not wrong. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I fully support the notion that we should have something somewhere that can be linked to, as an explanation of the Māori ordinal construction. However, I don't think te ono etc. is the right place for this: anyone looking up first in English and clicking through to a translation in Māori would be just as well served by landing on the tahi page, provided that page explains how ordinal sense first and numeral sense one can both be conveyed using the term tahi. Having te tahi as a headword strikes me as much less useful: anyone unfamiliar enough with Māori to be looking things up word-by-word will have no reason to view the combined phrase as a single "term" for Wiktionary purposes, and will instead look up te and tahi separately. Anyone more familiar with Māori will understand how numerals and ordinals in Māori are the same terms, just used differently.
Basically, I fail to see any usage case where a user would reasonably expect to look up te tahi and find something -- leaving me unable to see any rationale for maintaining an entry at that address, rather than simply including the relevant senses and usage information at tahi instead. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

What about this as future state of affairs:

  • The Maori translation to "first", "second" etc. links to two words like this: te tahi
  • The Maori entry for "te" explains (as separate "sense") that it is used to make ordinals out of cardinals
  • There's no separate entry for te tahi etc.

--Hekaheka (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

These proposals all are sensible. But is breaking up key constructions which are SOP not internally incoherent when we include phrases like so far, além disso, et_cetera#Latin as single entries? Especially et cetera is both as SOP and as rigidly phrasal as it can get and seems very comparable to this situation. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I object to 'structural reasons'. We shouldn't invent words for languages just to satisfy our own sense orderliness. Having said that, I have absolutely no idea on this specific issue. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Re: Hekaheka's proposal, I think the information about ordinality belongs on the number term's entry, not under the te entry for the singular definite article. Ordinality is a property of a number, not of an article. To analogize, English ordinals can often take the, but the ordinality is not part of the article.
Looking deeper into this, one class of Māori ordinals is simply the number word preceded by singular definite article te and frequently followed by possessive/genitive particle o and the pluralized noun indicating the group of things to which the singular ordinal belongs -- this is the main subject of this thread so far. The second class is formed using tua-, a Māori prefix commonly added to numbers 1 through 9 to create a different class of ordinals: tuatahi ‎(first), tuarua ‎(second), tuatoru ‎(third), tuawhā ‎(fourth), tuarima ‎(fifth), tuaono ‎(sixth), tuawhitu ‎(seventh), tuawaru ‎(eighth), tuaiwa ‎(ninth). These can be used after a noun to indicate the nth such noun: te akomanga tuawhā ‎(the fourth class, the fourth course), te ara tuatoru ‎(the third way, the third path), etc.
Counterproposal: Add usage information to the number entries tahi, rua, etc. to explain how to create ordinals using te. Also, add entries for the tua- prefix and derived ordinals. Otherwise, delete the entries of the form te tahi, te rua, etc. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I support the counterproposal. It could also be a separate sense with something saying (preceded by te) first for tahi DerekWinters (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Counterproposal sounds fine otherwise, but I think the entry for "te" should mention that it is used to make ordinals out of cardinals. If I understand Μετάknowledge correctly, "te" is the element that changes an ordinal to a cardinal - a bit like "-th" in English. The role of "the" in front of English ordinals is different. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not just the te that indicates whether a given number word is an ordinal: the whole context and construction is required to make that clear. For instance, one can say te ono in Māori without indicating the sixth, but rather the six: whakareatia te ono ki te whitu ‎(literally multiply the six by the seven). Ordinality is again a function of the number word, and not of the definite article. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 10:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete. The Maori construction te ono o... would mean "the sixth one of...", a noun-like construction. After a noun, ono may sometimes mean "sixth" even without an article. Polynesian numerals typically have many meanings, cardinal and ordinal. Notice that te rua also means "the pit, the cavity", besides "the second one" and "the two". The fact that te ono &co are defined as adjectives is a proof that the creator of these entries did not know much about Polynesian grammar. I support Eirikr's counterproposal. --Makaokalani (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
All right, delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

tongue kiss[edit]

Not idiomatic. DTLHS (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

But is it though? Are other kisses known by which parts of the mouth make contact? And it has to be tongue-to-tongue contact rather than just one person using their tongue. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't seem NISOP to me. --Stubborn Pen (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep for the encoding direction: it is unobvious this phrase would exists. In Czech, we don't have *jazykový polibek, only francouzský polibek. Frequency comparison: French kiss,tongue kiss at Google Ngram Viewer. Furthermore, Renard makes a good point: "And it has to be tongue-to-tongue contact rather than just one person using their tongue." --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

slippery slope fallacy[edit]

This seems purely SoP, either as slippery slope + fallacy or as (slippery slope [metaphor]) + fallacy.

No OneLook dictionary has this as an entry. It might be worth keeping as a redirect to slippery slope or as a {{no entry}} pointing to w:Slippery slope fallacy. DCDuring TALK 22:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect to slippery slope. Harmless. bd2412 T 03:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as sum-of-parts. Anyone who looks up "slippery slope" will find that entry before the redirect. P Aculeius (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: if you delete this, it will only be a matter of time before you end up deleting everything else too. Pandeist (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that would be a better example if the connection between this and everything else were apparent. P Aculeius (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
What Pandeist said is an excellent example of a slippery slope fallacy. I think it was a rather brilliant joke. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
(doffs hat, nods) Pandeist (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
A nice example. Note that I would never know this is called "slippery slope fallacy". Even if this is easy for decoding (which I am not convinced of), it is not easy for encoding, i.e. finding the English phrase that names the thing in question. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I point out that the fallacy sense of slippery slope is currently in RFV, and may be removed. Once it is removed, slippery slope fallacy will not be sum of parts; I reject the claim that "slippery slope-sense 1 [metaphor] + fallacy" unambiguously yields you the sought definition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. It's simply "slippery slope + noun", and it makes no difference if that noun is "fallacy, argument, assertion, metaphor, discussion, refrain, point, attack, foolishness", or any similar word. Can you provide a demonstrable meaning for "slippery slope fallacy" other than "a fallacious slippery slope argument"? Currently, that's how the definition for "slippery slope fallacy" appears to read: "A fallacy of argument consisting in making an unjustified claim that taking the first step in a certain direction will unleash further steps or events in that direction, resulting in a negative outcome." That's just "fallacy + slippery slope", although the word "unjustified" really isn't inherent in "slippery slope", but implied from the assertion of fallacy, and the negativity of the outcome necessarily depends on one's point of view, although it may be usual for the person making the argument to assume that it is negative (but only if he or she is trying to dissuade someone from initiating a chain of events; one could conceivably use a slippery slope argument to persuade someone to initiate it). P Aculeius (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete (or redirect per bd). As P Aculeius points out, this does not seem to be any more idiomatic than "slippery slope argument" or any of several other phrases. - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


Local day on another planet. Not capitalized AFAIK. DAVilla 08:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

What's it a misspelling of? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
sol lowercase. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 22:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Pedantic but that's the same spelling, only the case is different. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a misspelling. Delete it if it's really rare, tag it an {{alternative case form of}} if it's only moderately rare. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Since it's not a misspelling I would just delete it. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]


The untouched noun is "e(i)t smil" (a smile), neuter, and it is "smilet" (the smile), not "smilen". You can check this in the official Norwegian bureau of language's dictionary here: http://www.nob-ordbok.uio.no/perl/ordbok.cgi?OPP=+smil&ant_bokmaal=5&ant_nynorsk=5&begge=+&ordbok=begge

  • Keep. Your link shows that smil can be either masculine or neuter in both varieties of Norwegian; that's why it says "m., n1". If you click on "m." you get a popup window showing the masculine definite form smilen alongside the neuter definite form smilet. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Well that's the end of that. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • RFD kept: the nominated items are Norwegian inflected forms, and Angr above explained why the concern of the OP is invalid: the very source used by the OP shows the inflected forms as possible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

do donuts[edit]

Surely this is just do + donuts (sense 3)? Keith the Koala (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say so, although when I've heard this it's always involved sense 1 (doughnut). Let's do coffee and see if this phrase has sprinkles. P Aculeius (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah very strong delete. I have nothing to add, Keith's got it spot on. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not quite sense 3 of donut, since it is a deliberate driving in circles rather than a skid. I suspect it also meets the fried egg rule, since it is only for a stupid driving thing, and not any other type of "donut". OTOH, I never heard this used before, and would like to see some verification of this use as common enough to warrent an entry. RFV? Kiwima (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I've heard this used. It is definitely SOP do + donuts, but a more appropriate sense of donut must be added. By the way, you're misusing the fried egg test. The fried egg test just means that the sum has features more specific than choosing the correct definitions of the parts. In this case do + the correct definition of donut is 100% accurate. --WikiTiki89 19:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
There's no implied knowledge here, it is just do + donut. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I'm pretty sure that you can "do" any shape or motion that a car can be driven in (figure eights, three-point turns, fishtails). bd2412 T 22:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The rationale that has been advanced about similar light-verb constructions (those involving verbs such as do, make, have, get, give, take, etc together with an adjective or noun [eg, donuts] that provides most of the specific meaning [See Wikipedia-logo.png light verb on Wikipedia.Wikipedia:light verb.]) is that we need entries for them because it is not always obvious which light verb goes with which noun or adjective. In this case perhaps make or give might seem appropriate to an English-language learner. See Appendix:Collocations of do, have, make, and take for a variety of such expressions.
I've rarely agreed with the rationale, but it is fairly clear that when we vote on such matters we often vote based on specific familiarity with and attitude toward the activity involved. In this case doing donuts is a red-state, blue collar, American thing, so it is easy to get disapproving votes. In contrast we approve the activities of making amends and having an affair and therefore, I believe, of the expressions. This seems like a hell of a way to run a railroad. DCDuring TALK 00:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
In this case "do" is just a coincidental verb. One can use "make donuts" to mean the same thing (see 2014, Jae Byrd Wells, The "Tail" Begins - Book 1, page 111: "One jeep, occupied by two male passengers, arrived and made donuts in the parking lot hoping to drown out any harsh sounds"; Nerd Girl, chapter 23, page 1 : "We still had a solid twenty minutes before they arrived so us being teenagers made donuts in the parking lot"; 2015, Krystal Callais, Benton, Ky Teen Arrested After Found Driving Recklessly: "The deputies said that the truck then continued to make donuts in the parking lot next to the church"). bd2412 T 13:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
With this sense of "donuts", either "make" or "do" would work (in fact, "make" would be more natural). But there's no requirement that one use either, is there? Any equivalent verb suggesting the creation of said would work, just like "making breakfast" or "baking pies" or "flying loop-de-loops" (or loop-the-loops, if you prefer). In the example "making amends", there's hardly anything else one ever does with amends than make them; and the use of some form of "have" in "have an affair" is the signal that tells one that a "love affair" is almost certainly the sense intended; if "there was an affair" it could mean any sort of occurrence. I'd say that "do donuts" fails the fried egg test because, however restricted the use of the phrase may theoretically be, the meaning of "do" is still obvious once the sense of "donuts" is known, while "do" could easily be replaced by other verbs without altering the meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


Rfd-sense "gropingly" (adverb). This is just an ordinary use of the instrumental case. --WikiTiki89 23:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. "ощупь" is now mainly used in "на ощупь" or "ощупью". The meaning of "ощупью" is not immediately obvious from the original sense and is used wider. Also, there are lemmings - "Новый большой русско-английский словарь" and "Русско-английский словарь под общим руководством проф. А.И. Смирницкого". Keep--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Well part of the problem is we have an inadequate definition of ощупь. It can easily be worded to make it obvious what "ощупью" and "на ощупь" would mean. But I do take your point that this word might not be common in any other expressions. This Ngram reveals that about 88.2% of the uses of the exact form "ощупь" are in the phrase "на ощупь", the form "ощупи" is very rare, and the other forms other than the instrumental don't even have Ngrams. Thus, I'll withdraw my nomination. --WikiTiki89 00:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

ниша для радиоаппаратуры и укладки имущества[edit]

SoP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 22:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
It might have translation value. But the phrase seems unattested: google:"ниша для радиоаппаратуры и укладки имущества" finds mere 7 hits. RFV or speedy RFV-fail? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Why would we delete this? Unless you give a reasonable rationale, I vote keep. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
It's a local abbreviation with little value for Russians and Russian learners, for which there could be hundreds other. I don't have a strong rationale at the moment. I'll wait for more input and let the community decide. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Why not send it to RfV, then? bd2412 T 14:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Because I don't have doubts that the terms exists. I'll send, anyway. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Definition: Pskov Regional Assembly. Governed by WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
It does look suspiciously like a word in a language. Reasonable doubt test? If there's reasonable doubt that it's a word in a language, keep it. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Why is this a word in a language and Verizon is not? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Verizon is - if it used attributively to identify the characteristic of a thing other than as a trademark. bd2412 T 00:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
If Verizon is only used literally to refer to the company or its services, why is it not a word in a language while ПОС is a word in a language, especially given that ПОС probably has no "attributive"/figurative/non-literal use? Like, both Verizon and ПОС each refer to a human organization, one commercial and one non-commercial. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Dan. It seems silly that a derived word of an organization can pass CFI, but the organization itself can fail it (I know others respond to this anomaly by saying we should fail both; I say keep both). Purplebackpack89 15:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Start a vote then. Equinox 15:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@Equinox I started a BP discussion about this "donut hole" at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/January#‎Filling the CFI donut hole Purplebackpack89 15:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
If Dan's comment was aimed at me, I'm saying I think it is a word in a language. But I don't want to weight in too heavily on a debate about a Russian word. Even the nominator's unsure if we should delete this or not. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: No real explanation how this violates SOP or any other aspect of CFI. If it is truly a very uncommon regionalism, it would fail RfV, but commonality isn't really an RfD matter. Purplebackpack89 00:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Purple B. and because I think we should keep acronyms in general. Maybe a vote on 'treat all entity as we treat personal names' might not be a bad idea. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Marxist philosophy[edit]

Sorry, Tooironic, but this is a good topic for an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. It's simply SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete, no different from Western philsophy or capitalist philosophy. It's just copied from the Wikipedia article which for our purposes isn't even correct. Marxist philosophy refers to the philosophy, not the works that employ a Marxist philosophy. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete per above. DCDuring TALK 16:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete as really transparent SoP. Equinox 04:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

馬克思主義哲學, 马克思主义哲学[edit]

As above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It's 馬克思主義马克思主义 (mǎkèsīzhǔyì, “Marxism”) + 哲學哲学 (zhéxué, “philosophy”). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure if SOP by our current definitions. My idea of 'Marxist' is 'pertaining to Marxism proper', whereas as written now, this seems to be 'not part of the philosophical system of Marxism but influenced by Marx' concepts'. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
It's nothing but SoP.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад)|


SoP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Is ペットボトル SoP too? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Do we have an entry [[PET bottle]], which has passed RFD? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I would also check a bunch of requested Japanese entries by Daniel Carrero at WT:WE, some look like SoP or borderline. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
IMO "PET bottle" is a strange construction that should be kept. (I'd give better reasoning for keeping but I suck at explaining my thoughts...) —suzukaze (tc) 13:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
PET doesn't have a Japanese section. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, this is the answer to the question "how do you say 'plastic bottle' in Japanese"... seems like Wiktionary should have that information somewhere. Siuenti (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
PET comes from polyethylene terephthalate, but everyone read it as 'pet', including my country. (ขวด PET, ขวดเพ็ท or something) About mixed-script words, many entries in Wiktionary can have them, for example in top list of Category:Chinese simplified forms. So PET doesn't need to have a Japanese section. --Octahedron80 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Presumably it needs a translingual section, then. Per your own comment. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
PET is a loadword from English both in Japanese and in Thai. There is no need to create a translingual section. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep. PETボトル is common while PET is not, and a Japanese chemist would pronounce the latter as pī ī tī to avoid a possible confusion with ペット. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As ancillary evidence suggesting SOP-ness, there are also the collocations google:"PET袋" (petto-bukuro, “PET bag”) and google:"PET箱" (petto-bako, “PET box”). I would hazard that PET has become something of a synonym in Japanese for “plastic (especially of a particular thickness and/or strength)”. /petto/ is certainly easier to pronounce than /puɺ̠asʉtikku/. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep besides the reasons mentioned above, mainstream dictionaries, which have generally the same approaches to inclusion, all have it--at least Kōjien, Meikyo, and Progressive do. Honestly I can't think of any other way to say "plastic bottle" (simply botoru refers to glass bottles) nor can have I heard another use of "PET" in the sense of plastic. PET箱 and PET袋 get few results and they tend to be web pages of manufacturers. --Haplogy () 05:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for confirming the existence of this phrase. However, the question is not whether the phrase exists, but whether it is idiomatic. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Wiktionary:CFI#Names_of_specific_entitiessuzukaze (tc) 09:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Japanese entry entered to mean "Fan Li", which, per W:Fan Li, was an ancient Chinese advisor. Wikipedia's entered Pinyin is Fàn Lǐ. Applicable or nearly applicable part of WT:NSE: "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney". --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


This is mongering used in compounds, not a suffix. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep: Awmygawd, something can be both a word and a suffix. Especially when most of the derived words are used much more frequently in today's parlance than the root word. Also, if Ungoliant's actually being rational about this, instead of just stalking my contributions, he should also nominate -monger for deletion. Purplebackpack89 15:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know this isn't a suffix, inasmuch as nothing is actually suffixed with -mongering. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
There are clearly words that end in -mongering, and they all generally involve selling products and/or concepts. And, for the record, do you feel the same way about -monger?. Purplebackpack89 16:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
It's tricky as we're talking about formation, either stem plus suffix or stem plus another word. It's a mentality question in this case. If monger and mongering are obsolete, perhaps all formations nowadays are by suffixing. But what about older forms? Perhaps ironmonger is a compound of two nouns but hatemonger is noun plus suffix. Bloody awful isn't it. We might have to divide up the derived terms based on when monger became obsolete. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the distinction you're making, Ungoliant. But even if -mongering isn't a suffix, it's certainly suffixed to a number of words. Since it supplies meaning to such words, it seems like a perfectly logical thing to define. P Aculeius (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
A suffix is necessarily a bound morpheme, which means that it can’t be used without another lexeme. The word mongering can (i.e. “All this mongering is pissing me off”). Just because it is often used in compounds without a space, it doesn’t make it a suffix. No more than -wall is a suffix because of firewall or airwall.
Even if you disagree with the above, keep in mind that mongering is used more often with a space than without. Hate mongering is more common than hatemongering, fear mongering is more common than fearmongering. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Still not convinced about the distinction, even after trying to read up on it. From what I can tell, words ending in -mongering actually seem to be more common and appear earlier in print than those ending in -monger. There are three forms: spaced, hyphenated, and unspaced. The spaced forms seem to be the most common in general, but all three seem to have been in general use since at least the 1930's. Frequency should not govern whether there's an entry here, since people should be able to find a word no matter which of multiple "acceptable" ways that it's spelled, so that's really not a factor. However, I do note that other compound words, such as the ones mentioned here, ending in -house or -wall (among many others) include definitions that indicate that they are sometimes, often, or usually used in combination with other words. Someone looking up "monger" would find the same thing. If you search for -house or -wall you don't get any results at all. But they're quite common as independent words. I can't recall ever hearing about a monger or the act of mongering, even though it seems possible to do so. It seems likely that people will assume that it's always a suffix and try to search for it that way. Is there any disadvantage in having an entry that either redirects or links to the main entry for "monger"? P Aculeius (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
It is an odd one. What about -mongered and -mongers (plural) and -mongers (verb form)? They all exist but clearly they are typical noun and verb inflections. That should not be the case with a suffix, IMO. Equinox 19:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a real suffix. --WikiTiki89 22:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reason to duplicate content in suffix and noun or verb entries. I don't see how the metaphysics of whether a term is or is not an affix matters if the meanings appear under another PoS, unless, possibly, the other PoSes are backformations from the affix, which is not the case here. DCDuring TALK 23:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Alright, but should this entry at least be made a redirect to the unhyphenated form? It seems likely that many users will assume that it's a suffix, look it up with a hyphen, and get no results. P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
That would be a good idea — and not just for this term. It would warrant discussion at BP, though it would seem to me not to need a vote. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Aside from the issue of whether it's a suffix, this is really just an inflection of -monger: fearmongering is what a fearmonger does; he or she fearmongers. It can function as a participle: "you're fearmongering"/"fearmongering demagogues" or as a gerund: "I try to avoid fearmongering". Also, monger isn't obsolete in foodie contexts: "ask your monger which fish are in season". Chuck Entz (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Alan Partridge ("We're asking, what is the worst monger? Iron, fish, rumour or war?"). A fairly decent test of whether something is a true suffix is whether "XY" still makes sense if you rewrite it as "Y of X" or "Y that is X": steampunk is not "punk of steam" or "punk that is steam", so -punk is probably a suffix here. doghouse is "house of a dog", so -house is not a suffix. warmongering is "mongering of war" , so that's also probably not a suffix. Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete; this entry merely evidences a lack of understanding of basic linguistics. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • That seems a bit harsh, @Metaknowledge, and you'd also have to levy that complaint against whoever created -monger. Eagerly awaiting your delete vote in the discussion below. Purplebackpack89 08:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I am perplexed by your eagerness. I didn't know that entry existed, or I would have RFD'ed it myself. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


If -mongering isn't a suffix (which, IMO, it is), -monger isn't either, sorry. Per the Partridge test above...a fishmonger is a monger of fish and a hatemonger is a monger of hate, making -monger a compound word, not a suffix. Purplebackpack89 07:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


Redundant to sense 1 (we typically merge "person from" and "citizen of" senses - see eg German or American). Not sure why it's marked historical - the UAE is a recent state, and before its creation it was called Trucial Oman. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. But I suspect this is not the full story; maybe they wanted to add a definitions saying emirati was someone from any emirate, copied the first definition and forgot to change half of it. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Merge and look at sense #3 because I don't know what it's on about and why it's not the same as #1 and #2. What Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV just said in other words. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Federal Bureau of Investigation[edit]

This rather hilariously links to FBI. Not a dictionary entry. PS WT:CFI#Names of specific entities says there's no consensus on whether entries like this should be included or not, so it really is just voting. Fill ya boots. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete. --WikiTiki89 18:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll add that with the new definition, the page is no longer worthless, but I still feel that deleting it is the best option. --WikiTiki89 15:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to WP using {{no entry}} in [[FBI]] to direct users to WP and using {{w}} or w: in [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] (or delete). DCDuring TALK 19:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 21:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: Because the best way to understand FBI is with a bluelink to this definition. Purplebackpack89 04:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    It's comments like that that really tempt me into proposing to ban you from RFD. --WikiTiki89 04:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    @Wikitiki89 Your dislike of my vote is just a rehash of the disagreement we had at about LOL and laugh out loud: you favor having a really, really long definition at LOL/FBI, I favor having LOL and FBI link to laugh out loud and Federal Bureau of Investigation. There's nothing really preposterous about what I'm thinking. You even considering for one second banning me from RfD because we disagree on this entry strikes me as quite ridiculous; I am entitled to my opinion as much as you are. Purplebackpack89 05:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to make false claims. Moving the same definition from one page to another does not make it easier to understand. --WikiTiki89 15:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    I disagree, that is an opinion rather than a proposition of fact. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    You're right. What I should have said was: You're not entitled to vote on the premise that CFI is wrong. --WikiTiki89 18:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    I am a believer in jury nullification; as long as a person only votes once I think they can vote however they like and for whatever reasons. - TheDaveRoss 18:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Blue linking can be achieved with {{w|Federal Bureau of Investigation}}. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The CFI category linked above doesn't quite say that there's no consensus as to whether "entries like this" should be included. It says that some should be included while others should be excluded, although there is no consensus on comprehensive rules for which entries should be included and which excluded. This is a very different thing, IMO, in that it assumes that some names of specific entities should be included, even though it's not certain which. My reading of the discussion in that subsection strongly suggests that it be included. One of the examples given is Red Cross, which is similar in the sense of an organization, although I understand that it could also be argued on the basis of idiomacity. On what logical basis would we include the former, but exclude Federal Bureau of Investigation? Let's consider some possibilities:
  1. One is an international organization, while the other refers to an agency of one country. Doesn't seem like a valid distinction; what makes international organizations more worthy of inclusion?
  2. There could be other Federal Bureaus of Investigation; not just the U.S. one for which the entry was created. In which case, the definition could be reworded along the lines of "The national policing or detective agency of various states; especially that of the United States."
  3. The entry is encyclopedic, and not dictionary material. The first half of the definition isn't particularly encyclopedic; it's typical of entries in many dictionaries (although in this case the wording seems to have been cribbed from Wikipedia). It merely identifies the specific entity to which the name refers. The second half, which is clearly severable from the first, is more of a description of the FBI, and provides more information than needs to be in a dictionary entry; this could stand to be deleted or at least refactored.
The phrase "Federal Bureau of Investigation" is clearly part of the world's lexicon; as much so as "Red Cross" (perhaps more so in countries that object to the Red Cross on religious grounds, and so have corresponding organizations with different names). As Mr. Backpack mentioned below in the discussion of "Royal Marines", the lack of a national identifier in the name suggests that the phrase carries meaning that is not apparent from the sum of its parts; it does not (usually) mean any federal bureau of investigation; for that matter, while "federal" and "bureau" need no elaboration, it certainly doesn't mean "any" kind of investigation, either. It doesn't search for pirate treasure or paranormal activity. It's an organization responsible for domestic intelligence, security, and law enforcement. So the meaning of "Federal Bureau of Investigation" cannot be intuited from the sum of its parts. It can be defined succinctly, is neither the name of a person, a fictional entity, or a trademark, and is a term readers are likely to encounter without sufficient context to know what it refers to (although they are equally likely to encounter it with sufficient context). So I can't see a strong rationale for not allowing a short definition. P Aculeius (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Redirect, although per WT:LEMMING this (and Royal Marines and Red Cross) should be defined here. - TheDaveRoss 14:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
What a very odd wording for a policy: [t]erms with little of their own merit for inclusion except that they have entries in specialized dictionaries. Doesn't seem to apply here; "Federal Bureau of Investigation" was defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1956), The American College Dictionary (1959), Funk & Wagnall's Standard College Dictionary (1963), The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (1968) (cross-referenced to FBI); Webster's New World Dictionary (1970). Hardly specialized dictionaries! Did find a few dictionaries without it: Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961), The American Heritage Dictionary (1969), The New Grolier Webster International Dictionary of the English Language (1973). Most of these did include similar entries, however, such as "Federal Reserve Board". Didn't have a Thorndike-Barnhart to consult! Surprised that "prime number" is one of the examples of a lemming entry; it's hardly a rare or specialized term, and included in Webster's Third; defined in the New Collegiate, but under "prime" (although the phrase "prime number" was used). I didn't check the others for it. P Aculeius (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The wording is odd, but the spirit is "if others have it, we probably should as well." I think that the presence of the term in general dictionaries is a stronger factor not a weaker one. I just checked OneLook. - TheDaveRoss 15:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to WP using {{no entry}}. Why are we continuing to try to be a short-attention-span encyclopedia when we have an amazing encyclopedia just a click away? DCDuring TALK 14:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The criteria for inclusion policy states that encyclopedic material should be moved to Wikipedia, "but the dictionary entry itself should be kept." All that's called for here is a simple identification of the term; not a history or discussion of the FBI's activities. P Aculeius (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I have no real objection to us having short definitions of such things, along with a link to the Wikipedia article. The OED does not include it, but does have an entry for Federal Reserve. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Royal Marines[edit]

Like United States Marine Corps (which failed RfD), isn't it? DCDuring TALK 01:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

If it were British Royal Navy, it'd be like the USMC. I'm inclined to keep, because a layman wouldn't know this is a British organization without a definition. Purplebackpack89 04:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
A reader would know from context or by looking it up in an encyclopedia. We could use {{only in}} to speed to WP any errant wiktionary user unable to grasp the meaning from context and unaware of WP. I don't know whether other historical meanings exist but fictional-universe meanings are also possible, either of which classes depend on context for their correct interpretation. DCDuring TALK 04:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Might as well save them the trip: I have a hard time believing that defining the Royal Marines as something along the lines of "the naval soldiers of the United Kingdom" is a definition that is overly encyclopedic. Purplebackpack89 04:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
More like Marine Corps, in the sense that some countries use that phrase, while others use "Royal Marines" or some other designation. If the primary (or a principal) usage is the British Royal Marines, then that can't be intuited from the name, which suggests that it be included; otherwise it's an alternative for "Marine Corps" used in at least some countries with a monarchy, which also argues for inclusion. I'm not convinced that redirecting readers to Wikipedia is the best solution. We have to assume that readers encounter phrases without sufficient context to define them, even if they're often found with adequate context. If all that's needed is sufficient context to know what the term refers to, then an encyclopedia entry seems unnecessary—which is why we have Wiktionary. P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep using the lemmings heuristic: present in oxforddictionaries.com[13], Collins[14], Macmillan[15]. Governed by WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per DP. Donnanz (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

DragonFly BSD[edit]

Can't see this brand name being used in the generic sense. It's like having an entry for Windows 95 or something. Equinox 17:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 18:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete. - TheDaveRoss 15:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Abstain; can't figure out why object to deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


Sum-of-parts. This is just the regular negative imperative of 気にする ‎(ki ni suru, to mind something, to worry about something).

If we are not to delete this, the entry must at least be stubbified. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The Japanese phrase isn't as idiomatic. Moreover, the Japanese phrase's structure makes it much more limited in its social acceptability: the plain verb form する ‎(suru, to do) + ‎(na, negative imperative) is a very informal form, and could be interpreted as extremely bossy and arrogant in a way that don't worry wouldn't be. I don't think the Japanese term is appropriate for a phrasebook. Shinji, what say you? Are imperatives (positive or negative) appropriate for a phrasebook? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 09:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    I know the phrasebook project is based on usefulness, and a sum of parts can be accepted. In this case, as you clearly say, a bare imperative is not polite and you can use it only to close friends, children, lower people in hierarchy, or in cheering (行け!, がんばれ!, etc.). Having an entry for 気にするな is probably misleading. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, besides not being the best analogue of "don't worry", this expression is indeed unsafe and cannot be recommended for people unfamiliar with the language or customs and who have distant relationships to their audience, or to put it another way, the type of people who use phrasebooks. --Haplogy () 05:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I struck my vote due to the arguments of the Japanese editors. Perhaps a more appropriate equivalent could be created as a phrasebook entry, though? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've stubbified the entry and indicated that this is a verb form, specifically the plain negative imperative. We don't seem to have a template for this verb form (at least, there's nothing that quite fits over in Category:Form-of templates). If anyone is aware of a better template (or creates one), by all means please replace the call to {{n-g}}. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Strongly Keep though "気にするな" should be categorized in Phrase, not in Verb. All you guys in Wiktionary are so wise that you'd already know "気にするな is a phrase translated from English phrase "don't worry". Wiktionary is supposed to have an entry of those phrases. --Carl Daniels (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If 気にする ‎(ki ni suru) is categorized as a verb, which it should be as it's a phrasal verb, then 気にするな ‎(ki ni suru na) is a verb form, as the plain negative imperative form of 気にする.
Also, did you read the thread above? 気にするな is extremely more restricted in appropriate usage than the English don't worry. The Japanese could come across as fucking don't worry about it, or depending on context, even as fuck off. This is enough of a divergence in meaning and usage that listing 気にするな as a phrasebook entry for don't worry could actually be dangerous to any poor schmuck attempting to use such a phrasebook in Japan.
The entry is being kept, as a verb form of 気にする. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 
  • I still believe "気にするな" should be categorized as a phrase. We can apply a simple analytic approach: <"気にするな"(ki ni suru na)> is <"気にする"(terminate form of verb)> + <"-な"(sentence ending particle)>. "-な"(- na) is additional and grammatically belongs to a group of sentence-ending particles(終助詞), like -よ, -ね, -か, -ぞ, -ぜ, ... . So, "気にするな"(ki ni suru na) is not a verb form, while "気にしろ"(ki ni shiro) is a verb form. (Plese refer Japanese conjugation table of "する" - a1:し(ない), a2:せ(ず), b1:し(ます), b2:し(て), c:する(。), d:する(とき), e:すれ(ば), f:しろ(。or !)) And, don't worry ("don't" is additional) is also registered as a phrase as I said before. I think we have some room to reconsider. In advance, Thank you.--Carl Daniels (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    The な here is not a particle but an inflectional suffix. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry sir! it's a particle! 食べるな, 飲むな, 気にするな, ... All of these "-な" is a sentence-ending particle "な"(na)(禁止の終助詞「な」) it is clear as yo can see here ((禁止)「な」(例)二度と飲むな。)I suppose you are Japanese. You can see it.(私は日本語文法を日本語の用語で理解しています/ I understand Japanese grammar with Japanese terminology.) :) if you have an opinion, you can bring the reference. --Carl Daniels (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • There is also a recognition that this analysis of the plain negative imperative (and even of the plain imperative) may be problematic. See ja:w:活用#活用形の問題点 (“Conjugation#Problems with the Conjugated Forms”) for some discussion of this.
There are multiple possible analyses of Japanese verb forms. What we currently call the “passive” in English could well be analyzed instead as a kind of sum-of-parts, as the irrealis or incomplete verb stem + reru or rareru, with the latter element itself decomposable into ra (as a ligature element or sorts when the verb stem does not end in a) + reru (derived from the attributive form of passive / spontaneous base auxiliary verb ru via regular historical processes that applied to all lower bigrade verbs). But for practical purposes, we treat the passive as a single form. There is no real reason that one could not analyze the plain negative imperative similarly, and indeed some do, even some Japanese authors, such as at least a few of those appearing here on Google Books, using the term 禁止形 ‎(kinshikei, prohibitive form) to refer to this conjugation. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Carl Daniels: As Eirikr said, there are sources on the prohibitive form (禁止形), and it is totally up to you which theory you follow. “私は日本語文法を日本語の用語で理解しています” well, honestly speaking, it doesn’t help. In the traditional Japanese grammar (国文法), all phonologically-dependent non-inflecting morphemes are called joshi (助詞), and it doesn’t distinguish clitics and inflectional suffixes. If you analyze the prohibitive -na, you can clearly see that nothing can be inserted before it, which is a sign of inflectional suffix rather than a clitic.
Prohibitive な Exclamatory な
Don’t eat.
You eat a lot!
You have eaten a lot!
You eat a lot! No?
Anyway this is a digression. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If we are to analyze this as not a verb form, then this is non-idiomatic SOP and not worthy of inclusion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • if you say so, why do we prepare an entry "don't worry" as a phrase? I thought we were able to have "phrase".--Carl Daniels (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by your insistent reference to the English entry. Are we not discussing the Japanese entry? If so, 気にする is currently regarded as an integral idiomatic term that is treated as a verb. Hence, its plain negative imperative is regarded as a form of that verb, and we have therefore applied the template {{ja-verb-form}} in the 気にするな entry. The phrase-ness or non-phrase-ness of the English entry has exactly zero to do with the correct part of speech for the translation of don't worry into other languages.
This also fails to decide the question: if 気にするな is deemed to be not a verb form, then it is a non-idiomatic sum-of-parts, as 気にする + , and thus it fails CFI and should be removed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

вследствие чего[edit]

The grammar may not be easy here but it's SoP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The meaning is "as a consequence of which" - not a word in English either. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


Not an 'alternative spelling of vacuus' but a different interpretation of the characters making up VACVVS. V and U share a single glyph (a single character) until 1600 or something. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I think "alternative spelling" is a good enough description, but it certainly isn't an obsolete spelling, as the page currently says. But this is an issue to be discussed for Latin entries in general, not just for this entry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with "alternative spelling". It's not a spelling at all, merely a typographic variant. If your typeface uses a single character for u and v (or i and j, or uu or vv and w, for that matter), that doesn't mean that it's being spelled differently, or that the writer intends to spell it with a different letter. It's the same letter, rendered in the same shape as another letter. Although to be fair, u and v (like i and j) were considered to be the same letter written in different shapes to indicate pronunciation until modern times. P Aculeius (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
It's more complicated than that, even. For most of the history of u/v (and i/j), they were allographs of word position. "j" was used to mark the last in a series of "i"s, as in a number (xiij), or in a word as a way of avoiding the minim problem ("alijs"). In Latin, anyway. "v" was usually just the variant of "u" used in ligatures and initially. (The Irish ligature of "ui" was "v" with a subscript "i", for example.) So to that extent "v" was to "u" as "ſ" was to "s". I have a facsimile copy of Bacon's Wisdom of the Ancients, and it features the line "vast void vniuerse": "u" and "v" were still positional allographs, not phonetic. The split of "u" and "v" into vowel and consonant is well after 1600 (where I spend most of my research time well before that date). "i" and "j" similarly. But now, they are distinguished in sound value in pretty well every language which uses them. So we are using these letters as they were never used at the time, because we distinguish their values now in a way which they weren't then.
It comes down to how we want to present things regularly now, using the modern values of the letters. If we were to regularly add variants of all Latin words where "v" is substituted for "u" in all places, then do we also include "vniuerse" as a valid obsolete spelling of "universe", and so on? --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
WT:ALA actually does cover this explicitly. Renard Migrant (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, WT:ALA isn't that explicit. Certainly WT:ALA implies that vacuus should be the main lemma, but it doesn't explicitly prohibit uacuus as an alternative form. As for English, we do have aduance, aduantage, aduenture, and aduice, as well as vp, vpon, and vse, so there's precedent for vniuerse. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
If kept, the entry could perhaps use {{obsolete typography of}}. We have tended to keep similar English entries, see Talk:vp and Talk:euery, and we've kept at least one similar Latin entry, Talk:dies Iouis. Is there a better word than "typography"? It does seem awkward to use when the citations might well be handwritten manuscripts; it was chosen because it was felt that this phenomenon was distinct from difference in spelling like "hayduk", "hajduk", "heyduk". - -sche (discuss) 05:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't really have anything to do with the original manuscripts; it's the interpretation of the manuscripts that makes the difference between uacuus and vacvvs. {{obsolete typography of}} looks bang on to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The 1488 early printed edition I'm reading at the moment has an initial u/v character and a middle/end one. The middle/end one is u I think we can all agree, but the initial one is neither v nor u it's more like the shape of a shield. Stuff like this is why staying too close to the original typography is a bad thing; you end up with two, three, four, five (etc.) entries for the same word because they look a bit different. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
It's a bit of a Schrödinger's cat in that when you type up these manuscripts, you have to make some decisions. You really do have to pick one or the other (u/v). Renard Migrant (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Are we getting anywhere near a consensus here? I fear not. All the discussion is relevant but doesn't lead to a conclusion. BUMP. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep per precedent cases like Talk:dies Iouis (and outside Latin, Talk:vp et al), and reformat along the same lines as that entry, to use either "obsolete typography of" or "typography of"... based on the fact that some typed works use "uacuus" where "u" is clearly "u", since the books also use "v" (in English glosses). If the only citations were handwritten texts, it would be another story, because handwriting is ambiguous and we'd have to decide whether a ʋ-shaped thing was v or u. - -sche (discuss) 19:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Thanks to -sche for pointing to Talk:dies Iouis. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as ye artefact of handuuritinge conuentiones miſunderſtoode, & not an alternate ſpellynge. P Aculeius (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Company_namessuzukaze (tc) 08:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

  • This is just the name of a company, and not a terribly well-known one at that. This fails the CFI criteria linked above. Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete: no common-noun usage, and an incorrect name (Jitsugyo no Nihon Sha). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

object-oriented language[edit]

I'm calling SoP here. The key concept is "object-oriented", which has its own entry. This isn't enough of a set phrase to be unbreakable: we can have an "object-oriented programming language", or an "object-oriented formal language", or an "object-oriented dynamic language"; one can also use it in predicative position, i.e. "Java is object-oriented". Looking at this entry's "hyponyms" section further suggests that the creator was being a bit over-enthusiastic on his topic. Equinox 04:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The existence, even prominence, of OOL as a common abbreviation supports inclusion. I doubt that OOPL, OOFL, and OODL are nearly as common. That object-oriented exists is not a reason for deletion. DCDuring TALK 08:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
How is that different from the "we have LOL so we should have laugh out loud"? Equinox 09:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
It is evidence, not sufficient by itself. DCDuring TALK 10:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Initialisms are a matter of convenience, nothing to do with being lexically significant. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Not according to Pawley , who does not, however, view it as sufficient evidence in itself. (A summary, not prepared by me is available here.) DCDuring TALK 18:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
That summary doesn't say anything about these being words or idioms. Linguists study phrases so there's no reason a linguistic couldn't look at big, red balloon. Doesn't mean we should have entry for it. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete. --WikiTiki89 17:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete. — hippietrail (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
delete. - TheDaveRoss 20:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This one's good to go if any admins are reading. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. --WikiTiki89 18:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


This name, a member of the bijou category Translingual misspellings, is listed under English (as derived from the German Günther) and German (as a variant of Günther). We don't normally have Translingual entries for names as well, do we? Keith the Koala (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose names are generally translingual as your name stays in the same in all languages, generally unless there's a change of script involved. But this isn't the page to propose policy changes. Anyway this isn't even a misspelling as it exists in languages such as English and even in German as a non-misspelling. So delete, it's frankly a very easy case. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Renard: in German, this may be a misspelling or a simplified spelling, but translingually speaking--and the translingual sense is nominated here--this is not a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Do not delete. "Gunther" is just as well an English transliteration of "Günther" as "Nakayama" is of "中山". "Guenther" is the gramatically accurate English rendition, but aesthetically unpleasing. Both, however, are completely accepted in English and are English names of German origin. In fact, in some cases, "Günther" is an acceptable English name. Permitted as a name in the State of Oregon. Also acceptable as an English article title on wiki. Similar to how "José" has become the number one baby name in America, even though it contains non-English letters. 06:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The Translingual entry is being nominated, not English. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The IP is arguing to keep an entry which is not nominated for deletion. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


Unicode wedding symbol.png

I doubt that this is translingual (existing and having the same meaning in many languages). The cross is a Christian symbol. Further, do we have a policy of accepting non-alphanumeric symbols as entries? I thought dictionary is about words, not symbols. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We need use in human language to convey meanings. It's a tough one, we have things like which I suppose is used in human language to convey meaning ("I ♥ Justin Bieber!"). There is the question also of where does language end and pictorial communication begin? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
We need to know where it is used, for one thing. I gather some of the emoji are used as markers on Japanese TV, in rather the same way that a tourist guide might show little knives-and-forks, toilets, and picnic benches next to each venue, indicating amenities. Others are now used in text messaging. How they'd be citable to meet CFI at this stage I can't imagine. Equinox 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
This looks like a job for... WT:RFV! --WikiTiki89 01:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Can I just say that on my computer, this doesn't show up as a cross, but rather a Christian-ish church - which is of course one problem with treating these Unicode entries as anything more than just pre-defined codepoints. The implementation is not consistent across systems; for example, 👮 shows up on some systems as an asexual police officer, and on others as a clearly male one. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
On my computer I also don't see a cross but what I would call a North American wedding chapel. I was under the impression that we had decided to give entries to all Unicode codepoints. I wasn't really in favour of doing so for non-language symbols but didn't mind if that was the consensus, especially given that you can't really draw the line between language-ish symbols and not-language-ish symbols. I would probably prefer such entries to be based foremost on the facts we know from the Unicode docs. Especially given that the actual image can vary greatly between fonts. — hippietrail (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
For reference, here is how this emoji appears in various fonts/systems. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
On my system, I see two different symbols, one in the page heading, a different one in the entry heading (see right). I yearn for the good old days when all we had was punctuation :( Keith the Koala (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I used a Windows tool written by a friend of mine that searches all fonts for any given character on my system. Only two fonts have a glyph for this. In fact the two in the thumbnail up there, but without colour.
It's possibly time to have another discussion or several about whether and how to include support for all Unicode codepoints, all "symbols", and all emoji. — hippietrail (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

בשר חזיר[edit]

Another crappy stub by Hippietrail, but in this case I don't even think it's one that deserves an entry. I think this is just "pig meat" in general, and thus SOP, but a Hebrew speaker should check that this treyf entry is kosher, so to speak. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Another crappy insult by Metaknowledge. I made an entry because it has existed as a single-link translation to the English word "pork" for nine and a half years with nobody addressing its crappiness. In many other languages the word for "pork" is SOP and gets entries both here and in printed dictionaries. Chinese, German, Japanese, Khmer, Lao, Maori, Thai, and Vietnamese are examples. In any case I leave it up to those who are expert in each language here as they each interpret the SOP rules differently. Just remember to fix the translation table if it's decided to delete the entry. Now back to your crappy insults, so to speak. — hippietrail (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
So you made the entry blind with no knowledge of Hebrew, by your own admission? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with editors using available precedents in Wiktionary to create a stub entry in an unfamiliar language for experts to expand later. bd2412 T 15:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a way to mark such stubs, so that the experts know to check them. --WikiTiki89 15:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I have very little knowledge of Hebrew. Just a little bit above "no knowledge". Many templates and maybe some modules add their pages to categories, such as missing nikudot, missing transliteration, etc. I don't know whether that is done for Hebrew or not. Some experts like Stephen seem to regularly check some of them. The kind of stubs on en.wikt are good. Some information is better than no information. Some of the other Wiktionaries are full of the horrible kind of stubs that we thankfully don't get here. — hippietrail (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Personally I prefer a red link than a bad entry, but I know not everyone agrees. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
There's a difference between an entry that is "bad" in that it is for a word that doesn't exist, or is completely unformatted garbage, and an entry that is "bad" in the sense of needing some work to have everything just right. bd2412 T 19:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but someone unfamiliar with the language cannot make that distinction. This is why, something like {{attention|verify information}} should be added. --WikiTiki89 20:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Per Hippietrail himself, some of these entries are inevitably going to end up on RFD. I think Hippietrail is more pissed off by the language used by Metaknowledge than the actual nomination itself. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind if it's deleted. I do think redlinks have a meaning across Wikimedia that they link to an article that ought to exist and that if that's wrong they should not be redlinks. As far as I'm concerned I've either started off a future main entry or brought to light a bad translation entry and that either way the people expert in the particular language come along and improve it either way. That's how wikis work. — hippietrail (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
In many years at Wiktionary you haven't learned that to bring attention to a poorly made entry, you need to add {{attention}}. And you know it's poor. Just look at this revision. Vahagn must have been upset about that. Besides, you know that many editors feel responsible for their work and want to keep some quality and consistence. You and Lo Ximiendo have never matured. No need to be shy about requesting to fix your edits, you're not shy mass adding translation requests to English entries, even for languages we don't have editors for. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Vahagn and myself are friends IRL. If he had any problem with me he'd let me know. You don't get to speak on his behalf. In many years at Wiktionary you haven't learned not to be rude and embrace the Wiki spirit. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] If you wish to communicate with me in the future you will need to do so through a polite contributor. I hereby ignore you. — hippietrail (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Hippietrail I didn't mean to insult you. I am sorry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I am very poor at interpersonal communication, @Hippietrail, so please forgive any offence caused. However, being careful enough to learn how to make a good entry and follow the requests of others would negate this problem. I agree with Anatoli's comment just above mine in full. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
    In any case, I'd like if the Hebrew editors would express their opinion on its SOPness. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
    I apply the {{attention}} template pretty often but I don't always remember. It also seems to have no effect most of the time when I try to keep track of them. Apologies for forgetting in this case. I might start applying it to dubious translation entries so experts can find them in less then nine and a half years too. No offence taken, Metaknowledge. Thanks for that. — hippietrail (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I have added vocalisation and transliteration in case it's kept, feel free to fix now that it's under some attention. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is SOP. What's more, is that the usual way to pork is just with the word חֲזִיר if you don't need to clarify that you're talking about the meat rather than the animal. --WikiTiki89 05:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
    Adding חֲזִיר to the translations at pork. — hippietrail (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    Apparently the usual way to say to (say?) pork is not just with the word חֲזִיר after all. Very confusing: [24], [25]. — hippietrail (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    There was a typo, I meant to say: "the usual way to refer to pork". That doesn't necessarily mean that it "means" pork. --WikiTiki89 22:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    That is confusing. There's quite a number of languages where a single word covers both the animal and its meat, for a range of animals. If Hebrew has no word for "pork" but uses a word that doesn't mean "pork" as the usual way to refer to "pork" then it seems at the very least a Usage notes section could attempt to clarify that. Unfortunately all my Hebrew dictionaries are currently in storage. You've made me quite intrigued about what they say. — hippietrail (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    It's not so confusing. In Hebrew, for most animals whose meat we eat, the meat is not distinguished from the animal and there is no use having separate definitions for the meat and the animal. If I asked you if you have ever eaten "gorilla", you don't need a dictionary to tell you that I'm talking about "gorilla meat". --WikiTiki89 22:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    Well it could be that to Hebrew speakers it is spoken of in the same way as exotic meats I suppose. In English we have several cases. 1) Distinct words for the animal and its meat. 2) Same word but distinct dictionary senses for the animal and its meat (chicken, fish, lamb, turkey). 3) Only one word and one dictionary sense for the animal which is not normally eaten but could be extended to cover its meat by native speakers (snake, camel, crocodile). 4) Probable regional difference between 2. and 3. where Australians might consider kangaroo to have both an animal sense and a meat sense and other English speakers might consider it to only have an animal sense.
    For instance, I can't guess as a native English speaker before looking at an English dictionary whether goat will or won't have a meat sense as well as an animal sense. — hippietrail (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    In my opinion, 2 and 3 are the same thing and only reflect whether a given dictionary decided it was necessary to include the meat sense for a particular word. --WikiTiki89 23:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    Also, for 1, the animal word can always also be used in a meat sense, and even the meat sense can sometimes be used in an animal sense. --WikiTiki89 23:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    This is all a separate issue that has probably been discussed somewhere on Wiktionary in the past. To my personal sprachgefuhl as a native English speaker, especially "chicken" and "lamb" have just as strong meat senses as animal senses. — hippietrail (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    Aren't they always distinct in English, since the "meat" sense will be uncountable and the animal sense will be countable? - TheDaveRoss 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    The senses may be distinct, but we aren't talking about the senses. We're talking about a distinction between words for animals for which a meat sense is included in dictionaries and words for animals for which the meat sense can theoretically exist but is not included in dictionaries. And I'm saying that this distinction is meaningless. --WikiTiki89 21:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    No, #2 and #3 above, which are the subject of this digression, are both about senses when the headword is shared. It isn't meaningless, because they are very often two distinct senses, not a single sense. If one were asked to buy some pork and one bought a pig, that would be an error. If one were asked to buy a pig and bought pork, that would also be an error. If one were asked to buy chicken and bought a chicken, that would be an error. If one were asked to buy a chicken and bought chicken, that would be an error. - TheDaveRoss 22:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    You are completely misunderstanding what we are talking about. Category #2 is for words like chicken, fish, lamb, turkey, for which both the animal sense and the meat sense are commonly found in dictionaries and category #3 is for words like snake, camel, crocodile, for which the meat sense is not commonly found in dictionaries, but nevertheless exists. So I am saying that whether the meat sense is found in dictionaries or not is irrelevant, since the meat sense exists for both sets of words and the only difference between the sets is the frequency of the meat sense (or at least the perceived frequency on the part of the lexicographers). --WikiTiki89 22:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • New subtopic: I had a brief opportunity to scan a Hebrew-English-Hebrew dictionary in a bookshop. In the English-Hebrew side they did give בשר חזיר for pork but did not have an entry in the Hebrew-English side. That's the print dictionary equivalent of our single-link vs split-link in translation tables. But it also included another term in both sides of the dictionary, and which also already had an entry here: בשר לבן. I added this one to the "pork" translation table and as a synonym to the term under RFD here. I added {{attention}} to all appropriate places. The print dictionary labelled it as "colloquial" whereas we currently label it as "euphemistic". We could also consider labelling it as "idiomatic". Anyway, over to the Hebrew experts here. Thanks. — hippietrail (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    @Hippietrail: Thanks. @Atitarev: When vocalizing Hebrew noun phrases, keep in mind the distinction between noun+noun and noun+adjective. Noun+noun (i.e. construct, equivalent to Arabic ʾiḍāfa) uses the construct state of the first noun, while noun+adjective uses the indefinite state (a.k.a. the absolute state). The indefinite state of בשר is vocalized as בָּשָׂר ‎(basár), while the construct state is vocalized בְּשַׂר ‎(b'sar). These states can be found in the headword line of בשר, with the indefinite state being the lemma and the construct state given after it (labeled as "singular construct" for the singular). בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר ‎(b'sar khazír, literally meat of pig, or pig's meat) is noun+noun, and בָּשָׂר לָבָן ‎(basár laván, literally white meat) is noun+adjective. I hope that helps you avoid these mistakes in the future. --WikiTiki89 17:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarifying and fixing. Online dictionaries only give the indefinite state. I might just stay away from compound words if I can't find them with the vocalisation.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, but we do include construct states on Wiktionary, as I pointed out (or at least we try to). --WikiTiki89 20:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    Agreed. In this case I could have used Wiktionary entries as the source. (My own Hebrew sources are quite poor, especially for verbs. I might shop around for a better dictionary).--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    Actually that's exactly why I didn't vocalize it myself even though there was an entry for each word and each having nikudot. I just had a hunch that there could be more than one way to vocalize a word depending on its grammatical role in a compound or phrase. Interesting stuff. — hippietrail (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

bisóodi bitsįʼ[edit]

This is sort of a test case, out of curiosity on how we are to handle Navajo entries: is this SOP? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Just to hazard an opinion, the derived terms at bisóodi bitsįʼ, and the derived terms at bisóodi, both suggest to me that bisóodi bitsįʼ itself is potentially idiomatic enough to warrant an entry of its own. Past there, I've run into the “translation target” argument enough to suspect that this could apply here as well. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    "Translation target" only applies to English entries which may be unidiomatic but can host translations tables. The unidiomatic translations in those tables don't need entries, they can be linked like {{t|nv|[[bisóodi]] [[bitsįʼ]]}} or whatever. (I'm not expressing an opinion on whether or not bisóodi bitsįʼ should be kept, just that "translation target" doesn't apply to it.) - -sche (discuss) 19:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Wiktionary:CFI#Names_of_specific_entities — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Entered to mean Shisun Rui (129 - 195), which would be a politician if I may belive the Google translation translation of ja:W:士孫瑞. The entered Pinyin is Shìsūn Ruì. The following from WT:NSE is either applicable or nearly applicable: "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney." --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


Simplified variant of 士孫瑞. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


Delete the two "sports club" senses per Talk:São Paulo and Talk:UCLA. - -sche (discuss) 22:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we should, the interesting links to Wikipedia would be lost. It's not all that far (10 miles or so) from where I live. Donnanz (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
We could have them as links under "See also". They don't have to be separate sense lines. Equinox 23:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleting the definition doesn't necessarily mean deleting the links to Wikipedia. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep both - the definitions are accurate. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    Accuracy aside, are they different to the definition of the place in London? The Wimbledon in 'Wimbledon F.C.' and 'AFC Wimbledon' refers to the actual place called 'Wimbledon'. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per previous discussion cited above, any sporting club named after a city could then become a definition of that city's name. Do we really want to add separate senses for every sports franchise under its current or former host city's name? For New York, that would mean as many as forty-two different senses (assuming I haven't left any out, which I probably have). What would we find for Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, or Los Angeles? Even small-town America has lots of these. The names of every notable city and town in the world would be engulfed by a parade of sports teams. Even if you argue for restraint, should every city or town also have a sense, "any of various sports teams located in and named after ~"? I think it would be a good idea to make not having such senses an official policy.
1. The New York Giants baseball team (until 1957). 2. The New York Yankees baseball team (Highlanders until circa 1914). 3. The New York Mets baseball team. 4. The New York Knickerbockers baseball team (1840s–1860s). 5. The New York Mutuals baseball team (1857-1876). 6. The New York Metropolitans baseball team (1880–1887). 7. The New York Giants baseball team (Players' League, 1890). 8. The New York Black Yankees baseball team (1931–1948). 9. The New York Cubans baseball team (1935–1950). 10. The New York Giants football team. 11. The New York Jets football team (Titans until 1963). 12. The New York Giants football team (1919–1922). 13. The New York Yankees football team (1926–1929). 14. The New York Yankees football team (1936–1937). 15. The New York Tigers football team (1937). 16. The New York Yankees football team (1940–1941; Americans in 1941). 17. The New York Yankees football team (American Association, 1941). 18. The New York Yankees football team (1946–1949). 19. The New York Yanks football team (1949–1951; Bulldogs in 1949). 20. The New York Stars football team (1974). 21. The New York Knights arena football team (1988). 22. The New York CityHawks arena football team (1997–1998). 23. The New York Dragons arena football team (2001–2008). 24. The New York Sharks football team. 25. The New York Knights rugby football league team. 26. The New York Raiders rugby league football team (2003–2013). 27. The New York Athletic Club rugby union team. 28. The New York Knickerbockers basketball team. 29. The New York Liberty basketball team. 30. The New York Nets basketball team (1968–1977). 31. The New York Rangers hockey team. 32. The New York Islanders hockey team. 33. The New York Americans hockey team (1925–1941). 34. The New York Raiders hockey team (1972–1974, Golden Blades 1973–1974). 35. The New York Rovers hockey team (1935–1952, 1959–1961, 1964–1965). 36. The New York Red Bulls soccer team. 37. The New York City Football Club soccer team. 38. The New York Cosmos soccer team. 39. The New York Cosmos soccer team (1970–1985). 40. The New York Rumble ultimate frisbee team. 41. The New York Arrows indoor soccer team (1978–1984). 42. The New York Magpies Australian rules football team. P Aculeius (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe that any of those teams are just called "New York" are they? SemperBlotto (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Sure they are. "Boston took three of four from New York during their last series." - TheDaveRoss 13:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. You can add then if you have nothing better to do. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should probably include them as it is a standard construction. The same thing applies to virtually every town, at least in the US. We would refer to opposing teams by the names of the towns from which they came, but I don't think "A high school football team from Hanover, NH" is really a definition of "Hanover" etc. They would certainly be citable, though, since the local papers also use the same construction. - TheDaveRoss 13:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Right. The list above is just the tip of the metonymy iceberg. google books:"beat New York at" cricket can be used to cite several sense-lines denoting different small university cricket teams, and google books:"beat Dubuque" shows that even small places will grow by a large number of sense-lines. @SemperBlotto, how about phrases like "[the] Americans won the [World] Cup"; do you think "American" or "Americans" should have a separate sense-line "# The US national soccer (football) team." ? - -sche (discuss) 20:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an unusual case, since the more easily citable team is the one that no longer exists.— Pingkudimmi 14:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, it does still exist, but under a new name in a different town. They are known as the Dons (both teams I suppose, it's short for Wimbledon), a name I can relate to. Donnanz (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Milton Keynes Dons F.C., with a nod to its origins. An interesting philosophical point: is it still the same team if all the members, the management, the location, most of the fans and the name have all changed? Apparently yes, and doubtless there are people who still call it "Wimbledon". And yes, it seems they were called the Dons, as well as the Wombles.— Pingkudimmi 05:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per TDR and Aculeius. This is a particularly generic sort of metonymy. It contrasts with superficially similar metonymy, like White House, Pentagon, Number 10, Whitehall, for which the selection of the building does not follow a standard pattern. It is more like using Albany to refer to NY state government. DCDuring TALK 15:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    Indeed. As I commented on Talk:UCLA, this is just the routine phenomenon that a representative part of a group can be referred to as the group. "[The] Americans won the Fina Cup in Barcelona, Spain." (Not every American; many Americans didn't even compete.) "Wikipedia deleted [[w:Aqua-hoochie]] in 2006." (Actually, it was only deleted by one admin, not by the site itself or by every user working in unison or in sequence.) - -sche (discuss) 18:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • To hell with it, I'm voting keep. An entry for Wimbledon is needed anyway, so the football clubs may as well be included in it for completeness. There seems to be a certain amount of polarisation in the voting so far. Donnanz (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I can only imagine how many definitions United, City and Town will end up with. United will be over 100 for sure. Good luck trying to agree on an order for them! Renard Migrant (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; if kept, do not apply this as a rule. If we are to have anything separate from the main definition for any of these, it should be a single line with a second level of indentation saying, "by extension, athletic, competitive, or demonstrative teams from that location". Outside of athletics, New York could just as easily beat Boston in a chess tournament, a team trivia contest, or a team pie-eating contest. I will concede that Boston would almost certainly win the pie-eating contest. bd2412 T 16:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed: I was thinking of Scrabble, or pub darts. Delete. Equinox 17:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete, as the 'Wimbledon' in the title of the two football clubs refers to Wimbledon, the place in London. Similarly the Leeds in 'Leeds United' refers to the actual city of Leeds. It's not some sort of crazy coincidence that Leeds United is in Leeds. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Funny that, what about at Leeds Castle in Kent? Donnanz (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Leeds Castle is also in Leeds. Keith the Koala (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
No mention of a castle in the article on Leeds, Yorkshire. Donnanz (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
And? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete senses for sports clubs that are in entries for place names. Governed by WT:NSE, and therefore, CFI gives editors discretion on how to handle them. bd2412 above shows how varied and generic this type of metonymy is. As an auxiliary guide, I checked Wimbledon at OneLook Dictionary Search and found no dictionary including sport teams. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is quite transparent: if we imagine Scrilp and Glarg as two cities, then "Scrilp beat Glarg 14-13 in overtime" makes perfect sense. There are all kinds of interesting details about Wimbledon's sports teams, but they're not lexicographically significant. The fact that someone lives near there is irrelevant. I live in Los Angeles, which also has plenty of weirdness regarding sports teams, but I wouldn't want to clutter the Los Angeles entry with the Rams, Raiders, Dons, Lakers, Clippers, Sparks, Dodgers, Angels, Kings, Sharks, Galaxy, Aztecs, Lazers, Wolves, etc. (see w:Category:Sports teams in Los Angeles, California for dozens more). Chuck Entz (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. However, we have plenty of abbreviations of sports team - Man U, LUFC, Atleti etc. Also, we have Arsenal (should probably be deleted), but not Chelsea. --Ce mot-ci (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Not really germane, since this discussion is about Wimbledon, not Arsenal, but: if Arsenal were well known as the name of a city or town, then it would make sense to delete it as a definition. But in fact, it's named after the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich, where the founding members of the football club worked. It's not a city or town, and in fact no longer an active facility, having ceased production nearly fifty years ago. Most people searching for the word will either want the common noun or the football club; curiosity about the original Woolwich Arsenal is likely to be derived from the football club's popularity (though certainly not in every case). So it wouldn't really make sense to delete Arsenal, as it's not merely one of many likely uses of the name of a town or village, as are "London" or "Birmingham" or "Los Angeles". P Aculeius (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Mixed variant character (龞) with simplified characters. Should be 狮虎豹鳖猴狗象鹿. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Prince of Darkness[edit]

IMO, this entry and the translations should be deleted because this is not a word that means "the Devil" but a description (like "the forty-third president" or god of the silver bow, see Epithets in Homer) of any of a large number of real and fictional people, including the Devil. For example, Helene Marie Cruz, in An Eternal Affair (2012), says "Satan is a prince of darkness, and he doesn't roam alone; he takes his little band of demons with him." On the first page of Google Books results, I find the phrase used to describe Robert Novak more often than the Devil. Book titles:

  • Prince of Darkness: The Untold Story of Jeremiah G. Hamilton, Wall Street's First Black Millionaire
  • The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington (memoir by Robert D. Novak)
  • Prince of Darkness, Richard Perle (who claims that the designation was first applied to him in error by someone who mistook him for the at the time similar-looking Novak)
  • Sihanouk: Prince of Light, Prince of Darkness
  • Karl Marx, Prince of Darkness
  • Prince of Darkness: Antichrist and the New World Order (the Antichrist is not the Devil)
  • The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of Good ("Chronicles the story of the Devil")

The plural and indefinite forms also exist:

  • Princes of Darkness: The Saudi Assault on the West
  • Princes of Darkness: The World of High Stakes Blackjack
  • Mysterious Secrets of the Dark Kingdom, chapter 11: "The highest level of promotion for a human in the Dark Kingdom is in the Ruler of Darkness hierarchy as a Prince of Darkness. A Prince or Princess of Darkness is among the elite in the Dark Kingdom and has the privileges of a Power."
  • A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (1887), page 363: "For they even say that Adam, the first man, was created by certain princes of darkness so that the light might be held by them lest it should escape."

- -sche (discuss) 19:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You could call lots of people "King of the Jews", but it's still a synonym for "Jesus". A citations where it seems to be a name:
  • 1744, Manly PLAIN-DEALER (pseud. [i.e. Edward Ward.]), Edward Ward, The Wooden World Dissected, ... The Third Edition, page 61
    The real Truth is, any one would guess him to have been a seven Years Apprentice to the Prince of Darkness; for he is never without a Pair of Tormentors in his Hand, and the Devil in his Mouth
  • 1809, The Life and Acts of Saint Patrick: The Archbishop, Primate and Apostle of Ireland, page 57
    Nor let it be marvelled that strangers to the darkness of the true Light which illuminates every man entering this world, should be involved in the darkness of Magicians, who, with, blind and hardened heart worshipped the Prince of Darkness.
  • 1873, The Century, page 238 full context
    And even when the Prince of Darkness entered their conceptions, it was as an official agent of Jehovah. Satan means 'adversary,' 'accuser;' he is the prosecutor in the trial of souls.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks like the same descriptive phrase in all of those cases, to me, especially the first one where the capitalization is clearly part of a General Tendency to capitalize Things. Compare the second citation to "...who obeyed the Mayor of Chicago". "King of the Jews" (and "King of Jordan", etc) are also unidiomatic descriptors of a number of people. - -sche (discuss) 22:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Prince of Darkness is always a reference to the Devil. When the phrase is applied to other persons, the unambiguous intention is to compare those persons to the Devil. We know it's idiomatic because this association isn't at all apparent from the words that make it up. Note we have Prince of Wales and Prince of Peace for the same reason. The Prince of Wales isn't just a prince from Wales. It's the title of the heir to the British throne, something not apparent from the words. Just like the Prince of Darkness isn't just some prince from an insufficiently lighted realm. P Aculeius (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: In absence of any further context, the term is generally assumed to be a reference to the devil. Purplebackpack89 23:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and add a sense by extension for a person considered the most evil in a given setting. bd2412 T 13:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Lóegaire the Victorious[edit]

Lóegaire Búadach[edit]

Conall the Victorious[edit]

Conall Cernach[edit]

Names of specific (possibly fictionalized) persons. Should be redirected to Wikipedia using {{only in}} like Cormac Cond Longas, IMO, for many the same reasons expressed in the RFD of that name: see Talk:Ailill mac Máta. - -sche (discuss) 22:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom. Some dictionaries include purely biographical material, but that is because they don't have an encyclopedia to link to. bd2412 T 00:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]


Mixture of traditional and simplified. Nibiko (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems to be amply attested on google books:"襪带". It also gets lots of Google Image hits which confirm that it has the meaning that is claimed. Keep as a redirect (which is what it is right now), at least. - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, is this at all similar to a "common misspelling" in other languages? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems nonstandard because the latter character seems to have been created in simplified Chinese rather than being a variant. Nibiko (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Try doing ctrl+f "襪带" on any of the pages for those search results. Nibiko (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a common misspelling caused by a conversion problem. We can make it into a redirect or "a common misspelling" entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I just went through all pages of those Google Books search results, and all of those matches were either the full traditional form (襪帶) or the full simplified form (袜带), and none were for this mixed form (襪带). Google doesn't restrict up to the codepoint except for a Verbatim search in the "All" tab. Nibiko (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • As a redirect, this serves a helpful technical purpose. Keep. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
(Weirdly, zh:襪带 exists) Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
That's because a bot made the entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

tennis player[edit]

Fails the tennis player test. Tennis player means a player of tennis, either professionally or not professionally. The 'professional' bit has to be worked out from the context, i.e. by reading the whole passage or document and not just the words 'tennis' and 'player'. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What happened to the fried egg test?
Keep as an important sporting term, and as a translations target. It's not in the same league as a tiddlywinks player. Donnanz (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
What is the difference between the two? Seem the same to me. - TheDaveRoss 16:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
He's saying it's culturally different (but not lexically different). Renard Migrant (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • What has changed since this term was kept in 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2012? I don't think our policy has changed, nor has the meaning of the term "tennis player". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • X-player terms have previously been kept on the grounds that a non-professional X player isn't an X player, which I have refuted more than once. (After all, one can talk about a "keen tennis player", "amateur basketball player", etc. which are clearly not professionals.) So I'll just raise that point again and repeat my delete. Equinox 17:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
    Well consensus can change: for one, accordion player has failed since 2012. 2012 was RFV not RFD so in fact 2009 was its last RFD, aroud 7 years ago. That's a lot. For an organization to have changed its views in 7 years is not very surprising. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete A look at Google books shows that actually, "tennis player" implying professionalism is far from universal. Of the hits for "is a tennis player" where I can see the context clearly, the following are about adults who are amateur tennis players:
The following is about a professional tennis player:
And these are about students who play tennis:
It does in fact seem to be someone who plays tennis in any capacity, not just professional. Smurrayinchester (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete. The claim that a basketball player is necessarily one who plays professionally is at best a no true Scotsman fallacy and at worst an outright lie. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Make it a translation target or delete it, either way overturning the "tennis player test". I don't mind keeping it as a translation target, I just want us to recognize that it's not idiomatic. google books:"tennis player" "robot" shows that even defining this as "a person who plays tennis" is wrong!
  • 1991 April 30, Weekly World News, volume 12, number 30, page 43:
    "Gala is five times stronger than your average male tennis player and never gets tired because she is a machine. Her Japanese researcher has robot tennis player that and plays rings around [humans...]
  • 2015, Felice Arena, Tennis: Sporty Kids (ISBN 0857977369):
    The Rally Robot was a super tennis player.
At Wiktionary:Tea room/2016/February#woodwind_player, it's just recently been opined and I agree that "woodwind player" is SOP and shouldn't have an entry. In that case, we have woodwindist, an idiomatic term, to host translations. Perhaps woodwind player should still exist as a hard- or soft-redirect to woodwindist so that those translations are more easily findable, but woodwind player shouldn't have a full entry with a definition (IMO), and neither should this. - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Who on earth would want to put a translation under woodwindist? Not me. Donnanz (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I come back to the same question I've asked at least twice before. Is it really all about you, Donnanz? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's not personalize the debate like that. I see the point that "woodwindist" is a very uncommon term, perhaps not one where people would think to look for translations. The question, I suppose, is whether people (who are presumably vaguely aware that we don't include entirely unidiomatic strings like "the shirt is blue", and hence who don't expect us to have translations of "the shirt is blue") would expect us to have translations of "woodwind player". If they would, then we should have a redirect of some sort to woodwindist (or, some might argue, an entry) at "woodwind player". (My main concern is that we recognize these things as unidiomatic translation targets, rather than pretending they're something idiomatic, something more than just "tennis" or "woodwind" + "player".) - -sche (discuss) 22:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
That's a much more constructive comment. RM needs to be reminded that users cannot be forced, and they can vote with their feet. Donnanz (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll make the general point then. User should put the good of the project ahead of their own personal preferences. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The "good of the project" is not being served by RFDs like this. Donnanz (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know about overturning it - it's a perfectly good rule (it protects entries like eye doctor and interior designer), it just doesn't apply in the eponymous case. Perhaps it should be renamed the border guard rule or truck driver rule. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete per SMurray's facts, which would seem to trump the other contributions to this discussion. DCDuring TALK 20:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Deletionism is rising again… Job titles for athletes in English are well fixed. No child says “I wanna be a player!” when he/she wants to be a tennis player. If tennis player was an arbitrary combination, you could say player of tennis interchangeably, but at least in modern English everyone says tennis player when referring to a professional tennis player. The cover term of tennis player, baseball player, etc. is rather athlete, not player. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
People also say "my child" far more often than "child of mine," that doesn't mean that "my child" is idiomatic. People say "cook" when referring to professional cooks, yet cook doesn't apply exclusively to professional cooks. - TheDaveRoss 00:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Where else would we put the translations? Benwing2 (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
BTW, in regard to "robot tennis player", this is the same issue of prototypicality as with "glass bird". Our defn of bird says it's an animal with wings and feathers that usually flies; glass birds are none of these (unless you throw them at someone?) but that doesn't make the defn wrong. Benwing2 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
We've been there. The entry was kept. Keep keeping. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Let's try to imagine how this would look in a printed dictionary:
Basketball: a game played by two teams of five players, in which the object is to maneuver a ball, called a "basketball", into the other team's goal, known as a basket.
Basketball player: one who plays basketball.
Chess: a strategy game for two players using a board with sixty-four squares and two sets of sixteen pieces of varying rank and function.
Chess player: one who plays chess.
Tennis: (orig. lawn tennis) a racquet game usually played by two players stationed on opposite sides of a tennis court, with a low net stretched between them.
Tennis player: one who plays tennis.
Just how many examples should I list? I could release quite a volley: baseball, football, soccer, quidditch, hockey, darts, table tennis, croquet, badminton, volleyball, checkers, Monopoly, backgammon, lacrosse, horseshoes, polo, water polo, Marco Polo, one old cat, two old cat, rounders, court tennis, jai alai, poker, blackjack, gin rummy, jacks, tiddlywinks, marbles, pool, snooker... and many others. Who is served by these obvious definitions? I don't mean to fault anyone's intentions, but the mere fact that we often have impressions of some of the persons described by a phrase (such as some of them being "professionals") doesn't seem to point to any pressing need. Such a set of definitions doesn't appear to match what other dictionaries have done; is there an urgent reason for Wiktionary to break new ground? Is there really some advantage to having "tennis player" primarily for non-English speakers who cannot not intuit the meaning of tennis + player? I can't force anyone to agree with me on whether such phrases should be left in or taken out; if people aren't willing to change their minds, resolving this will be a deuce of a challenge. All I can say to them is that the ball is in their court. P Aculeius (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
If you want examples from another online dictionary, which leaves Wiktionary in the shade - [26] (several pages). Some terms such as football player have an equivalent (footballer), but this doesn't apply in every case, including tennis player. Donnanz (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
That's not a dictionary, it's a wordbook. Its sole purpose is to provide translations from English into German, so of course it includes all kinds of examples we don't have or need. Or are you suggesting that we should add English entries for every word or phrase that exists in German? If so, then we need to add accordion player, attacking player, bagpipe player, bass player, billiards player, blues player, Bosman player (as well as Bosman), bowls player, brass player, bridge player, card player, cautious player, cithara player, clarinet player, clavichord player, clean player, club player, concertina player, conservative player, contract player, cricket player, cymbal player, daring player, defensive player, doubles player, experienced player, fellow player, fistball player, flute player, former player, global player, golf player, guitar player, gusle player, harmonica player, harp player, harpsichord player, homegrown player, individual player, intermediate player, key player, keyboard player, lottery player, lute player, mandolin player, market player, midfield player, oboe player, offensive player, opposing player, organ player, outfield player, radball player, reckless player, recorder player, reed player, regular player, rugby player, sitar player, skat player, skittles player, squash player, string player, tambourine player, top player, tournament player, trombone player, trumpet player, tuba player, viol player, viola player, violin player, visiting player, weak player, wind player, woodwind player, young player, youth player, zither player, beach volleyball player, blues piano player, cycle polo player, cycle-ball player, double bass player, English horn player, exceptionally skilled player, fellow skat player, frame drum player, French harp player, French horn player, ice hockey player, international football player, left-footed player, locally trained player, and visually handicapped player, as well as all of the above, and many others, such as Scrabble player, four-square player, kickball player, Calvinball player, wiffleball player, eight-ball player, nine-ball player, ninepins player, tenpins player, duckpins player, rubber-band-duckpins player, ping-pong player, Twister player, Hungry Hungry Hippos player, Operation! player, mumblety peg player, hide-and-seek player, I spy player, bingo player, pinball player, air hockey player, air guitar player, blind man's bluff player, canasta player, cribbage player, Dungeons & Dragons player, duck duck goose player, hot potato player, musical chairs player, king-of-the-hill player, keep away player, kick the can player, monkey in the middle player, Mikado player, mahjong player, dominoes player, dice player, craps player, baccarat player, roulette player, leapfrog player, pattycake player, peekaboo player, pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey player, Poohsticks player, Pick-up sticks player, Russian roulette player, rock-paper-scissors player, seven-up player, hearts player, spades player, crazy eights player, snap player, old maid player, authors player, spin-the-bottle player, tag player, truth-or-dare player, Yahtzee player, trick player, practical joke player, serpent player, sackbut player, sousaphone player, cornet player, contrabass player, soprano saxophone player, alto saxophone player, tenor saxophone player, and many, many, many more. Can you give me one good reason why readers would benefit from these entries? What is it about them that isn't discernible, even by speakers of foreign languages, from the separate and constituent parts of each phrase? P Aculeius (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
You wasted all that space in asking a silly question? The answer is, of course, NO. Donnanz (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
You don't like the question? That's too bad. Nobody made you waste your time reading it. In answer to your query, "did I waste all that space asking a silly question?" the answer is, of course, NO. I wasted all that space replying to a silly suggestion that the challenged entry was justified by its occurrence in a wordbook together with pages and pages of similar entries. P Aculeius (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed that you tend to waste a lot of space wherever you leave your four tildes, not just here. Every entry should be judged on its merits, and I have spent some time deliberating on whether to make an entry, e.g. woodwind player - fortunately I don't create many in English - someone thought this entry is worthwhile and I agree. If it is deleted many translations, quite a few of which are not compound words, will be orphaned as a monument to stupidity. Perhaps you would like to vent your spleen on clarinet-player instead (current RFV). It was entered by the same user who nominated accordion player for deletion, so a double standard was employed. Donnanz (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, bully for you! I'm glad somebody on Wiktionary makes it his personal mission to ensure that nobody wastes too much space. As we know, space is in very short supply on Wiktionary. Each unnecessary jot and tittle uses thousands of photons on each computer screen, and our world has much more need of them for combating hunger and disease! You too can contribute by not attempting to refute other people's arguments with murky reasoning that we should keep "tennis player" as an entry, because a German user would be confused by the notion that tennisspieler merely equals tennis + spieler! If it was not your intention to suggest that all of the above list be turned into entries because they might be compounded into single words in German or other languages, then why exactly did you make the point of how many similar words there were? Perhaps your aggression toward others ("you wasted all that space in asking a silly question? ...NO. ...you tend to waste a lot of spaces wherever you leave your four tildes. Perhaps you would like to vent your spleen...") is a sign of misdirected anger toward your own inability to present a cogent argument based on your opinions. If you think a particular entry is useful and ought to be kept, fine, say so, state your chief reason, and let others present their opinions without the need to imply that their reasoning must be faulty because you can find distantly-related examples that even you don't consider relevant to the discussion. And when such arguments are effectively rebutted by showing what kind of strange results would come of following your reasoning to its logical end, I suggest you give up, rather than attacking what you consider to be the personal faults of the contributor ("your posts use too many Kilobytes! You're killing too many e-trees! You're wrong because you're an angry person!"). I'm sure your talents could be put to better use. P Aculeius (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I had to plough through all that lot of nothingness to get to the bottom line. Yes, you're right in one respect, I have better things to do than argue the toss. I have made my point. Donnanz (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Donnanz you've failed to explain which of those terms should be created and which shouldn't. You say 'of course, NO' and I assumed you'd've have said 'of course, YES'. What criterion are you using to separate these into two groups, then. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Also I don't think you have made your point, unless your personal attack on P Aculeius was your point. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I have reread what I have written, and I can't find one word which constitutes a personal attack. Yes, I have given criticism, but we all have to take that whether we like it or not, and I seem to get plenty. Donnanz (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
dict.cc is a bad "lemming" (in the sense of the "lemming test" some people use), because it functions (as noted above) as a phrasebook, and even includes things like "A car drove past the house. = Ein Wagen fuhr am Haus vorbei.", which I hope no-one wants us to include. - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
If you don't like it you can edit it, unregistered users can do that just like here. Donnanz (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you hear yourself? You can't expect us to have to edit every other editable online dictionary to justify making a change here. --WikiTiki89 01:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
My point is that dict.cc's CFI are fundamentally different from Wiktionary's, because dict.cc routinely includes unidiomatic things up to and including entire long sentences, whereas we don't. Hence, the inclusion or non-inclusion of "tennis player" in dict.cc, which you cite, is not relevant to us. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought you meant the translation was wrong. But I have seen example sentences including translations within entries, which is not such a bad idea. Donnanz (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete per everyone else who voted delete above. --WikiTiki89 23:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete. I'm fairly certain that this is covered by a meaning of player (one needs to be added as a subsense of "one who plays"), and is entirely SOP. It could be applied to any sport, board game, video game, etc. The fact that it's a profession doesn't seem like a good argument for keeping it. By that logic, we'd also have vacuum cleaner salesman among a host of others. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep as a translation target. Do the supporters of deletion really think that we should omit translations from SoP English terms in cases where many other languages use a single-word term for the concept in question? This, that and the other (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
YES WE DO. We've heard that argument 99 times before too. Agglutinative languages often have single words for extraordinarily complex concepts (that-he-was-about-to-pick-up-the-newspaper), or things unknown to Anglophone culture (do we need an English entry for e.g. Maori digging-stick since that's one word in Maori)? Equinox 13:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, obviously. Why else would we be voting to delete? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Do we need entries for fellow student (Mitstudent) and female fellow student (Mitstudentin) and third-party motor vehicle insurance (Kraftfahrzeughaftpflichtversicherung)? Each German word, and each English phrase, is attested. - -sche (discuss) 22:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
That's the perennial problem that we're up against all the time with compound words as used in German and other languages, and it certainly applies to this RFD. Donnanz (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, we clearly need to draw the line somewhere between "water" and "that-he-was-about-to-pick-up-the-newspaper", and it looks like I see this term falling on the "water" side of the line (mainly because it's a reasonably simple, common term that could plausibly be found in the English-to-X part of many paper bilingual dictionaries), while many others see it on the "that-he-was-about-to-pick-up-the-newspaper" side. In my view, deleting entries like this makes Wiktionary worse for our readers. This, that and the other (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete. - TheDaveRoss 13:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I voted Delete in the last 25 discussions about this, and I still vote the same. There has not been a single convincing argument to keep it. --Ce mot-ci (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete DCDuring TALK 22:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Donnanz Purplebackpack89 15:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I have found a whole bunch of hyphenated WurdSnatcher "creations", including accordion-player, yet accordion player was nominated by the same contributor for deletion. Grr! Needless to say I have RFVed it. Donnanz (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as a translation target: single-word non-compound translations include Galician tenista, Italian tennista, and Spanish tenista; many other languages can be listed along as per tennis player. I don't count German Tennisspieler toward translation target since that is a compound. For those who are interested, me and bd2412 have been drafting candidate criteria at User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2015#Let's draft a vote for CFI translation criteria 2; we have drafted rationale at User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2015#Let's draft a vote for CFI translation criteria. From the rationale, let me quote the middleman/hub example: "anglistika → English studies → Anglistik". From what I have seen, the opposers of translation target are using various strawman arguments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    • An example entry is [[elder brother]], where a part of the definition is (This entry is here for translation purposes only.) (it's all it needs) and belongs to [[Category:English_non-idiomatic_translation_targets]]. The entry lets find idiomatic translations (and optionally non-idiomatic) into numerous languages and is a compromise. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't like these "This entry is here for translation purposes only" texts and the template. I don't find it more useful or better. On another note, "tennis player" is in Collins[27]; since Collins shows translations, it may be there as a translation target, but I don't know. Collins does not show "This entry is here for translation purposes only". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
        • I don't insist on that text. It just indicates that the entry was kept or created for the purpose of translations, especially if it's more common to have idiomatic translations in the target languages. If the term appears in Collins, then it passes the lemmings test. We should keep it and stop wasting each other's time. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just wanted to point out that the "translation target" argument previously led to a discussion about twelve-year-old being kept for lack of consensus for deletion. Smuconlaw (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Question: is there some reason why the German entry for tennisspieler can't show the English translation as tennis player (two words, each leading to its own entry)? If it's allowable, why would it be so confusing? Tennis and spieler are both perfectly ordinary German words, and German speakers are perfectly well aware that tennisspieler is simply tennis + spieler, and player is the usual translation of spieler in English. P Aculeius (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Aculeius, you are absolutely right. I do that all the time, see e.g. my recent entries for tennispelaaja ‎(tennis player), osa-aikaeläke ‎(part-time pension). Finnish, like German, uses a lot of closed compounds, many of which are esentially SOP, and I believe it would be nonsense to have an English entry for each of them. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
And it wouldn't simply be easier to include translations under the Czech entry in English Wiktionary, as well as under the German, and the Catalan, and the Polish, than it would be to have an entry in English as the hub, linking to translations in every language. Is that the argument? That does make some sense, but it would seem to be an argument for having an English entry for every phrase that is regularly expressed as a single word in any other language, even if it never is in English. Is there any logical or objective criterion for limiting the scope of such a policy? The number of such entries could easily stretch into the tens of thousands. I'm not sure that people could be counted on to agree to include only words or phrases of a certain commonness, much less on what meets the definition; if tennista produces a list of equivalents in other language, why not tiddlywinkarista (assuming the term exists)? P Aculeius (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
There is an entry on the German site for Tennisspieler [28]. Say no more. Donnanz (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

질이 나쁘다[edit]

Not a word or a set phrase. Wyang (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep Even though the second sense (bad quality) is sum of the meanings of individual words, the first sense (ill-natured) is not. Monni95 (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Just looking at the constituent parts as an effective non-speaker of Korean, both senses look SOP to me: ‎(jil, quality; nature, disposition) + ‎(i, subject particle) + 나쁘다 ‎(nappeuda, is bad) covers both sense lines currently at 질이 나쁘다 ‎(jiri nappeuda): “ill-natured” and “bad quality”. I don't see anything unexpected or particularly idiomatic about this. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • When someone is a bad person, Korean use plain 나쁘다 ‎(nappeuda). Adding 질이 ‎(jiri) in this sense is more vulgar tone, close to English "cheap shit". Monni95 (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
      • This example can be handled well at (jil) and/or 나쁘다 (nappeuda). There is no sense beyond "ill-natured" and "bad quality", both of which can be inferred from the individual entries. Wyang (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Expanded (jil) and 나쁘다 (nappeuda). Wyang (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete. It is a sentence (“the quality is low”), not even a fixed expression. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
In that case, would a move to 질이 나쁜 (jiri nappeun, “cheap; worn-out; decrepit; mouldy”) be warranted ? Leasnam (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It's interesting that the entry exists in Naver dictionary.
  • I don't think Shinji meant that the collocation being predicative as a reason for deletion, predicative verbs and expressions are easily made attributive (example sentence from Naver): 싸고 질이 나쁜 음식냄새고약했다.
    Geu gapsi ssago jir-i nappeun eumsig-eun naemsae-ga goyakhaetda.
    The cheap and nasty food smelled awful.
    --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Right. 질이 나쁜 is “whose quality is low” and the problem persists. As in the example above, 질이 나쁘다 is only as fixed as 값이 싸다 (“the price is low”). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
As for keeping the entry I am neutral on this. Naver dictionary has entries for both 값이 싸다 (gapsi ssada, “cheap, low-price”) and 질이 나쁘다 (jiri nappeuda, “bad-quality”). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The Naver Korean Dictionary doesn’t have an entry for them. The Naver English-Korean Dictionary does, and it is clearly for usefulness over strictness. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


I nominated a citation I moved into the entry for speedy deletion not so long ago and it got reverted. So I'm rfd-ing. Citation moved into entry where it's more visible. Do we want the same citation twice in two namespaces? Does that help anyone understand the word? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how others feel, but I am fine with all citations appearing on the citations page and select citations appearing on the main page as usage examples. - TheDaveRoss 03:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with TheDaveRoss. It's fine to have the citations page have citations that are also in the main entry. --WikiTiki89 03:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Ostensibly a rare misspelling, but apparently only an OCR error: of the first page of Google Books hits for "neandering", of the hits which are English and where Google shows me the actual page, every one actually uses "meandering". - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

LOL, when I saw this I thought it might be slang for "behaving like a Neanderthal!" Delete per nominator's reasoning. The explanation isn't very believable compared with rare but purely accidental misspelling. P Aculeius (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete -- rather than a rare misspelling, I would call it a rare typo (m and n are next to each other on a QWERTY keyboard), and I even found an instance that wasn't an OCR error: [[29]] Kiwima (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

common or garden variety[edit]

SoP: common or garden + variety. (common or garden should be created as an alternative form of common-or-garden.) This, that and the other (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

What are the other nouns common or garden modifies and what is their relative frequency compared to variety. DCDuring TALK 00:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I would say that it's common + garden variety, not common or garden + variety, and RFD common-or-garden at the same time. Just because two synonyms are often used together as alternatives doesn't make them idiomatic. P Aculeius (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
While I would initially have agreed about the common + garden variety, I have done some investigation, and common or garden does seem to be an idiom. There are a lot of quotes that use the term for plants, which is where the term probably comes from, but it is also used for things that have nothing to do with gardens and do not have 'variety' at the end. At this point, I think common or garden should be created as an alternative form of common-or-garden. In any case, common or garden variety is clearly SOP, however you parse it, so I say delete. Kiwima (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's a pondian thing: common-or-garden is used in the UK, but not in the US. The phrase "common or garden Sauine" can be found in John Gerard's herbal of 1597, and "garden variety" doesn't really show up in Google Books until the 19th century. Of course, that's not the metaphorical sense, which might have a different history. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
common or garden is more frequent than common-or-garden at BNC. 17 to 11. Also, though the expressions are used in the US, they are apparently ~25 times less common. (COCA)DCDuring TALK 01:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)













I must condemn myself for the fact that all of them are embodiment of copyright violation. I just copied the definitions, pronunciations and parts of the etymologies from Kinyarwanda-English Dictionary, misinterpreting Non-Commercial terms of CC BY-NC-SA and thinking as if Wiktionary were non-profit. I have responsibility for what I did, and should be punished harshly without any mercy. --Eryk Kij (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Except for the semantic relations, it all seems pretty easy to verify elsewhere. Some of the pronunciations were problematic, but I've removed them. I've untagged the entries, because I really don't think it makes sense to delete them. @bd2412, is there anything more we should do? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge Thank you, but I still regret that each process of entry creation was problematic though the contents themselves are mostly correct. @BD2412 Excuse me, what do you think about this case? --Eryk Kij (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Presuming their entries are factually correct, their claim to copyright should be limited to the arrangement of the work, which is very different from our own. Per Feist v. Rural Telephone, a party can not obtain a copyright in independently verifiable facts, only in the aspects unique to their expression. Even if there was some creative aspect to the selection of words, I would consider this use de minimis even under a fair use analysis. It is important to remember that Wikimedia projects are heavily favored by the four-factor test for fair use (purpose, nature, proportion, effect). First, whether we are technically non-profit or not, we are clearly not seeking commercial gain from our publication; our purpose is educational. Second, the work is factual in nature, rather than creative, so as noted it gets minimal protection at best. Third, apparently this Kinyarwanda-English Dictionary has over 6,000 entries, so we are talking about 0.2% of their corpus. Finally, their own work is freely available on the internet, and they are clearly not selling advertising, so we are not preventing them from potentially obtaining any revenue by our use. I just can't see a scenario under which these dozen uses are cognizable as an actionable copyright violation. bd2412 T 17:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@BD2412: Thanks for easing our minds with that. And thanks to Eryk for fixing my faulty ping. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, @BD2412 Thank you and I am sorry for having bothered you all. I learned again that (case) laws of United States help our activity at least in en.wiktionary. I had behaved just in an incongruous manner. --Eryk Kij (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Phew, I feel much better about using this Pali dictionary for entries now (under CC BY-NC 3.0). —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 21:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

horrida bella[edit]

horrid + wars? (Special:Contributions/ --Romanophile (contributions) 12:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As defined it seems to be sum-of-parts. Delete. P Aculeius (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a quote from Virgil (line 86), but that doesn't make it idiomatic. Delete. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
As a general point, if quotations from famous people are 'idioms' (like the deleted culona inchiavabile) then isn't at Phoebī nōndum patiēns immānis in antrō bacchātur vātēs, magnum sī pectore possit excussisse deum; tantō magis ille fatīgat ōs rabidum, fera corda domāns, fingitque premendō also an idiom as it's a Virgil quote also, Renard Migrant (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


Searching for "blockaid of" and "a blockaid" I find only four relevant hits: "blockaid of Boston", "Blockaid of Quebec", and "my blockaid of dust and clutter", "rather a blockaid than a regular seige". (There is also one or more things which are medical or sunscreen-related called "BlockAid", sometimes spelled "blockaid" or "Blockaid".) The misspelling does not seem to be a sufficiently common misspelling to merit inclusion. It's too rare for Ngrams to plot it. Some hits are scannos of "block aid". - -sche (discuss) 22:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I'm not in favour of misspellings anyway. Donnanz (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


A rare misspelling. I can't actually find any durably uses; most Google Books hits are scannos of "anxiety" (appropriately) broken up by bad OCR, or "anxiously" merged across a line break with something else, again by bad OCR (this is the case with the "Whilst we gazed anxted by vales" hit on Google Books). - -sche (discuss) 22:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Aaaaand delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Misspellings can go, pronunciation and all. Delete. Donnanz (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


Incorrect traditional form. It should be 蜂后 for both traditional and simplified forms. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deleted. It’s just clear. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

on TV[edit]

Not sure about this one. We have on air, but we don't have on the radio, on stage, etc. Im thinking SOP Leasnam (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Funny how we say on the radio but on TV (no definite article). It's been 'restored' by an IP who obviously can't restore things, who's just recreated it with not terribly good content. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
We typically use the definite article on the radio, on the phone, on the computer, on the internet, on the answer machine, on the intercom, on the news. on TV is an exception. 2602:306:3653:8920:F8DB:ECAE:5A18:B0E 13:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The distinction isn't specific to this phrase, though. It is more often "watch TV" and "listen to the radio," etc. This is a feature of TV not "on TV." - TheDaveRoss 14:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
We also have on camera. Should be kept until consensus is reached for deletion, if such consensus is reached. 2602:306:3653:8920:F8DB:ECAE:5A18:B0E 12:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes it should be kept as not a patently ridiculous entry. Who deleted it? How long was it here before it was deleted? In other words, could someone please delete it and then restore all edits please? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I've restored all past versions dating back to September 2013, so anyone interested can see them in the page history. I can't say the current version is significantly worse than its predecessors, though. I agree it shouldn't be deleted without discussion as it isn't patently ridiculous, though I'm not convinced it should be kept, either. Someone wow me with reasons to keep it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's OK now. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I tend to think it's obvious what it means and thus should be deleted. If you know what 'on' and 'TV' mean, you know what 'on TV' means. And if you don't we have entries on on and TV, funnily enough. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Prepositions in English are idiomatic: you are in a meeting but at a party; you do things with help from, but with the aid of. Delete. Equinox 15:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
All preposition? Should we have for TV? of TV? in TV? for TV? If not, what makes on TV distinct? DCDuring TALK 19:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • FWIW, on stage probably passes COALMINE Purplebackpack89 18:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It is not true that on radio is not used. At COCA it occurs nearly 1100 times, vs nearly 3800 for on the radio. Similarly one can find on the TV, sometimes with the same sense as our definition of on TV, though there are other uses of on TV and many more of on the TV. BTW, which uses of on TV are idioms and which are not? How do we direct someone from on TV to binge + on + TV when they parse binge in TV as binge + on TV?
It is common in headlines for definite articles to not be used, even where such would sound strange in speech. 2602:306:3653:8920:F8DB:ECAE:5A18:B0E 19:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete as transparent. DCDuring TALK 19:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
On TV and On the TV have different meanings. On the TV usually refers to a specific TV. That show was on the TV. Which TV? The one in the break room. 2602:306:3653:8920:F8DB:ECAE:5A18:B0E 19:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
That is because TV has more than one sense, the medium and a particular device. - TheDaveRoss 20:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I did take the trouble to make sure what I was saying was true. I had to use a lot of hedges and vague quantifiers to do so. It is NOT true that all uses of on the television mean "on the television set" or "on the television screen", though many do. If you'd like to get more quantitative about it, sign up to use COCA or get facts from some other corpus. DCDuring TALK 20:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I notice it's been altered to a prepositional phrase, which doesn't make much sense; just as a phrase would do. Anyway, we may as well keep it. Donnanz (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

après moi le déluge[edit]

Supposedly English. Little proper formatting. No definition. (might belong on Wikiquote) SemperBlotto (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing much on MW either. Should be in French if anywhere. Donnanz (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the formatting and changed the language to French. I'm neutral as to whether it belongs here at all, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Much better now. As it stands now, I wouldn't have nominated it. If nobody objects, I'll remove the RfD template. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, idiom or quotation? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

ottavo di dollaro[edit]

SOP. This isn't the Italian word for "bit" in the sense of "eighth of a dollar", it's just an explanation in Italian of what a bit is. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete as an entry, but it might be acceptable in a translation table. For an idiomatic translation, you could maybe use pezza da otto, pezzo da otto or reale da otto, but these may mean completely different things. --Romanophile (contributions) 16:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
In the translation table, I would use {{t|it|[[ottavo]] [[di]] [[dollaro]]|m}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


rfd: A novel. Nibiko (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 12:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


rfd: A movie. Nibiko (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 12:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


rfd-sense: A movie. Nibiko (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 12:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


rfd-sense: A movie. Nibiko (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


rfd-sense: A movie. Nibiko (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


rfd-sense: A movie. Nibiko (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


rfd-sense: A movie. Nibiko (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


rfd-sense: A movie. Nibiko (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)