Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2006/08

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning This is a discussion archive created in August 2006, though the comments contained may not have been posted on this date. Please do not post any new comments on this page. See current discussion, or the archives index.

Kept[edit]

Brangelina[edit]

Discussion moved from WT:RFV. I think we all agree that the term has been verified. It is however a person's name, and we discourage such people's names, seemingly unless they're historical or biblical (e.g. King David). --Dangherous 15:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Connel MacKenzie T C 05:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 Million google hits say (for better or for worse) that Brangelina is now a word in the English language. For reference, the word "persimmon" has 2.7M google hits. — This unsigned comment was added by Brholden (talk • contribs). Thanks, forgot to sign Brholden 17:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would (unfortunately) say so. Dictionaries are descriptive of language, not proscriptive. They promote good use of language, but are secondary to use of the language itself. If an utterance or scribble conveys a widely understood and lasting meaning to a language's users, then that utterance or scribble is unambiguously in that language and should be in its dictionaries. Brholden 17:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should call the "Person's full name? Remember that we are not Wikipedia." guideline that we find on This page. --Dangherous 18:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are four attributive uses of Brangelina
It's a word. Brholden 18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Tweaked links above Brholden 14:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. It should, however, be marked as utter nonsense, and a contrived corruption. It certainly does not seem like dictionary material, to me. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about just nonsense and not utter nonsense. The use of the phrase "Brangelina-like mayhem" in the link above to predict what the scene will be at Wimbledon when Andre Agassi announces his retirement conveys meaning succinctly and clearly to me. It conveys to me in three words "a scene where reporters are running around and tripping over each other trying to get a quote or a photo". That took me 20 words to say. This goes back to what I said above about dictionaries being descriptive and not proscriptive - promoting good language use as a side benefit of providing a good description of a language. Brangelina is exactly the sort of word a user will look to a dictionary to define. A person reads one of the 4M uses that Google found and looks to a dictionary to find the definition. It would be an omission if its definition was not there. Brholden 01:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'd never heard or seen Brangelina before this discussion, and I don't think it's an obvious concatenation, so if I found it in a newspaper, I'd definitely want to look it up (unless it was obvious from the context that it was utter nonsense). Chiefly US? Or perhaps generally US, in the 1960s British sense, (not yet defined here; not sure if it was short for utter shite; it was certainly bowdlerised to useless)! --Enginear 09:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By "utter nonsense" I meant only that it was nonsense, undeniably. As an American, I did not know that 'utter nonsense' formerly had another meaning in British English. --Connel MacKenzie 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Brangelina[edit]

What happened here! I would say that this word passed its RFD debate as a "Keep" as per the discussion above in early July, yet it was deleted anyway. The word was verified and 4 attributive uses were given. There was no clear concensus to delete it. It should not have been deleted and should be reinstated. It is a word in the English language that is used attributively and belongs in the Wiktionary. Brholden 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Pitt is appropriate as a Wikipedia page, but he does not merit mention on Wiktionary. Brangelina is only of interest to his fans and groupies, and people such as that want to see a full Wikipedia page with photoes and lots of information, not a little Wiktionary entry. The only purpose for adding it to Wiktionary would be to try to engender a sense of respectability and acceptance as a proper English word that the word does not deserve, and we do not lend ourselves to that use. Brangelina is a good candidate for urbandictionary, and you might also add it to our list of protologisms. —Stephen 22:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted for the course of this discussion on account of the quotations in the section above and these requests. Consensus on this term would be nice. DAVilla 22:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much to my chagrin, there previously was no strong consensus to delete. I agree with Stephen that entries like this, if they do somehow pass CFI, should not be promoted/encouraged here in this manner. I still think that something like WT:VOTE would allow us to confirm/deny the community opinion on specific aspects of WT:CFI. I agree that this belongs at urbandictionary, not Wiktionary. --Connel MacKenzie 17:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as no consensus with no discussion in three months. If you still feel this should be deleted, please open a fresh nomination and, if possible, summarise these arguments. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

who writes this stuff?[edit]

Well, we know who writes this stuff. Who keeps this stuff? --Dangherous 22:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, we had a citation right here, just the other day! :-) —scs 22:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is what triggered the RFDing. Here can be found a fair bit of RFDable stuff. --Dangherous 23:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, this is actually an interesting expression in a linguistic sense, but only at a pragmatic level. DAVilla 22:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Athletics[edit]

Do we allow Athletics, and other baseball teams into Wiktionary? I would've thought not. --Dangherous 17:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. This entry is correct and should be kept. — This unsigned comment was added by 220.255.50.172 (talk).
Keep - How is this different than Toyota, Microsoft, IBM, IANA, or Bic? It is also used attributively as in: Bob is on an Athletics-like sales streak. Similarly, I run my business Athletics-style - the old Moneyball. Brholden 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

phonetic alphabet[edit]

I don't think this phrase is idiomatic, so it probably doesn't belong here. Am I wrong? - dcljr 18:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should probably explain your smack downs a little better than that. Hrm... Looking at both phonetic (adj.) and alphabet, we get: "An ordered set of letters used in a language..." "...relating to the sounds of spoken language". However, viewing the definitions for phonetic alphabet we see it has more meaning than the sum of its parts. Thus, it'll probably be good to Kilo echo echo papa this entry. –Gunslinger47 15:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Various Registered Trademarks[edit]

I am unsure of our view of such things : do we allow, or do we delete,

Burger King[edit]

That? Beobach972 23:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see having McDonald's...therefore deleting Burger King would be not be NPOV. Keep. --Connel MacKenzie 15:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like McDonald's.--Jusjih 14:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete this and below. There should be objective justification beyond popularity of the brand. What is the reason for keeping McDonald's? DAVilla 22:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The target of eponymic words should have a referent. McDonald's should be kept, as it is used idiomatically with the attribution capitalized. Would you like fries with that?  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 16:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is part of our criteria then it would not be NPOV to keep McDonald's but not, say, "Gaylord's". DAVilla 23:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. McDonalds is the quintessensial fast food joint. It has spawned words like Mcjob; has been used extensively in writing, e.g. Stephen King, (Mc Donalds, - the great tits of America)- who could forget that phrase? ; it is the subject of a fascinating trademark case; and in general has moved beyond what Walter Kroch first envisiaged. Similarly Kentucky fried, has its own urban legends, jokes etc. This does not apply to Burger King. Andrew massyn 18:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as no consensus with no discussion in two months. If you still feel this should be deleted, please open a fresh nomination and, if possible, summarise these arguments. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Corn Flakes[edit]

That? Beobach972 23:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This trademark seems to have been diluted by generic use. Keep. --Connel MacKenzie 15:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And add Raisin Bran. bd2412 T 19:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but isn't it usually cornflakes when it's being used generically? —Celestianpower háblame 19:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, so it is :). —Celestianpower háblame 19:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wendy's[edit]

That? Beobach972 23:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep em, after all, they are fairly common in mainstream english -- Tawker 01:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —Stephen 12:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no problem with listing trademarks, but I believe the trademark status should be clearly indicated. Do we have a policy on that? (I've been wondering, because a few I spot-checked the other day, e.g. Kleenex, Google, aren't very clearly indicated. Coke, on the other hand, looks okay.) —scs 21:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Tash[edit]

Tash should not redirect to tache. Arguably tash should not either. —scs 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celestianpower cleaned it up 11 Aug. Keep, now that it has been corrected. --Connel MacKenzie 19:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck this nomination as the capitalization will be deleted sooner or later anyway as part of automated routine. DAVilla 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

original research[edit]

This entry keeps on being deleted, as if it were itself original research. Since it's not, it shouldn't be deleted. This is a request to protect it from being deleted, rather than a request to delete it. Fark 22:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps those prior deletions were because the definition as listed was formerly of a too-narrow, wiki-specific sense. I've rewritten it to admit the more mainstream meaning and usage of the term. (Would-be-deleters: please review before any knee-jerk redeletion. :-) ) —scs 22:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the talk page with this conversation and changed the talk page to rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 18:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GENERAL MOAN: WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK TALK PAGES ARE FOR!!! Andrew massyn 18:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not mind seeing WT:RFD/WT:RFV/WT:RFV/WT:TR become simply links to talk pages, with all conversations limited to the talk pages. --Connel MacKenzie 19:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A section like this would be {{Talk:original research}} and the talk page would start with ==original research==. --Connel MacKenzie 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the general page is visited more often and promotes fuller discussion and would recommend keeping in their present format. However, once it is clear that the discussion has petered out, then that discussion should be moved to the talk page, (and any updates similarly moved at the appropriate time). The headword on the RFV / RFD / RFC page should then be struck to indicate that the conversation is closed and the discussion has been moved to the talk page. Andrew massyn 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. It is very useful to scan the "diff" of WT:RFV, etc, from when one last checked it, to see if I want to contribute anything more. It would take much longer to link to each entry of possible interest, only to find that in 95% of cases I've nothing to say. --Enginear 09:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

seventy-first[edit]

We don't have seventy-second, or sixty-eighth, or indeed any ordinals contiguously past twenty-ninth and thirtieth. If we keep seventy-first, that argubly means someone could and should add thirty-first, thirty-second, thirty-third, ..., all the way up to ninety-ninth. So I'm thinking we could just quietly delete it.

I'm working on a table of number forms, a potentual future Appendix, which I think is a better venue for this sort of repetetitive information. I've put a draft up at User:Scs/Number forms. —scs 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add them all the way to ninety-ninth. It doesn't take up much space. Wiktionary is virtually infinite. Fark 19:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fark. That should be our new motto - "Wiktionary, the virtually infinite dictionary that anyone can edit." (but do the appendix as well). bd2412 T 19:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My understanding was that 1-101 should be here, from the get-go. I thought they were, actually. --Connel MacKenzie 02:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We've got the cardinals through ninety-nine, one hundred, and one hundred and one, but fewer of the ordinals (just first through thirtieth, then the decadeths fortieth, fiftieth, etc., plus the odd seventy-first). —scs 05:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adding more ordinals should be useful.--Jusjih 14:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict: keep. DAVilla 22:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I've started a file for quotations from literature using the cardinal and ordinal numbers. If you come across an example of one of the larger numbers (higher than 25th), I'd appreciate hearing about it. --EncycloPetey 23:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else turns up, the ordinals from first to fifty-first are used in referring to the States. Hawaii is the fiftieth State, Iraq (Mexico, Canada, etc.) is the fifty-first State. —Stephen 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Islamic fascist[edit]

Andrew massyn 22:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because a fascist, whatever his religion, nationality or allegiance remains a fascist. Andrew massyn
Interesting point, but small minded. As a linguist you have to look beyond the simple and realize that the English language is always evolving into something bigger and better. Cordially 70.48.55.61 12:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this argument of Andrew's should affect what goes in a dictionary. Yes, Islamic fascists might not be true to the ideals of fascism put forward by some of the "great fascists". But that only makes the phenomenon more interesting. It would be hard to find any extremist group whose positions didn't involve some contradictions. And that has nothing to do with criteria for inclusion in a dictionary. But the discussion below contains the real issue, in my view. Ccrrccrr 14:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Red Indian is not a communist indian. An Islamic Fascist is a fascist as is an American Fascist as is a Christian Fascist as is a Jewish / Zionist / Israeli Fascist. There is no distinction. Andrew massyn 13:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Andrew, you may not like the "F-word" used in different contexts, but it is happening in real-time and the proof is in the citations. Please read this article for your interest and enlightenment [3]
I have no problem with fuck at all. Please explain why an Islamic Fascist deserves a seperate entry. If it does, will there be a seperate entry for fascists of every nationality and creed? Andrew massyn 13:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My dear youngling, the "F-word" in this context is "Fascism"... Please wash your mouth out with soap :)
WHOOPS! I blush! Andrew massyn 14:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Andrew is trying to say is that Islamic fascist is no more than the sum of its parts. He’s right about that. —Stephen 13:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Whether the President is right or wrong, or whether Islamic fascists exist, is irrelevant to whether the term gets a dictionary entry. It would be an argument for inclusion in an encylopedia article. Wikipedia has one (...ism not ...ist), and there's a request for improvements up there, so I would suggest that the propoenents on inclusion contribe to that effort and drop effort to include it here. Or add an argument that it's more than the sum of its parts. I can prove that red flowers exist--does that mean we need an entry for that? No. But there is an entry for red herring--because red herring means something different from "a herring that is red." Delete. Ccrrccrr 14:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Widsith 11:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Our definition of fascism seems to cover this aspect. SemperBlotto 11:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there's going to be a dictionary entry for "Islamic Fascist" with the definition "A Muslim proponent of fascism", then shouldn't there be a similar entry for "Islamic Maoist" or an entry for "Red Car" with the definition "An automobile which is red in colour"? 66.46.226.34 18:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Shall we force the issue by adding an entries for "Islamic carpenter", "Islamic baker, and "Islamic bus driver"? I still see no argument indicating it is more than the sum of the parts. Ccrrccrr 22:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a neologism, but it's something people will look up. That said, it could use some significant expansion (particularly in the usage statement), and a companion entry at Islamofascism. Mostly, the article needs to articulate that the term isn't generally used descriptively (i.e., people using it aren't really talking about fascists, per se), but rather just as a technical-sounding pejorative for Islamic extremists/fundamentalists. To those who say it's not idiomatic: if you were to use a term Islamic capitalist, one could rightly expect that you were talking about Islamic people that are capitalists. But if you say Islamic fascist, it's not at all clear, based on current usage, that you are actually talking about fascists. Therein lies the specific meaning of Islamic fascist that is not merely the sum of its parts. For additional information, see the wikipedia entry at w:Islamofascism. Jun-Dai 00:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is too offensive, and not used so often except by islamophobics 155.69.5.236 07:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Offensiveness is not a criterion for deletion; neither is use by a sub-group. There are many words that are offensive to many people. We still include them in the dictionary so that people can look up their meanings. In cases such as this word, they can also find out that the word is considered offensive. --EncycloPetey 14:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was on the fence for this word for a long time. However, the word now is used by a variety of extreme conservative groups in America -- I even heard a (controversial) TV preacher use it last weekend. The entry should note the controversial political connotations and offensiveness of the word to Muslims. --EncycloPetey 14:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as no consensus to delete: various IP address, Allamakee Democrat, Jun-Dai, Robert Ullmann, and EncycloPetey argue in favour of keeping, while various IP addresses, Andrew massyn, BD2412, Ccrrccrr, Stephen G. Brown, Widsith, SemperBlotto, DAVilla, Connel MacKenzie, and Cberlet argue in favour of deletion. If you'd like to renew discussion, please renominate it and preferably summarise the above arguments. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Javazon[edit]

Is Javazon noteworthy enough? No, IMHO. --Bottletoground 23:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O' what tempation is this! Gets oodles of Googles... not sure I see the harm. bd2412 T 00:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as we usually delete gaming terms (too narrow a context; not in general use; skewed websearch results.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A good deal of Category:Physics isn't in general use either. If the 9th best-selling PC game ever is too narrow a context, we're going to have to be deleting a lot more than just Javazon. antitauon? radiophotoluminescence? --Ptcamn 03:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very persuasive. Keep. bd2412 T 17:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the tests for assumption of knowledge are context, as in Oxford English Dictionary as cited, or figurative use better yet, as in Cinderella, although frankly I tend to give these the benefit of the doubt. DAVilla 14:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is keep. Removing RFD tag...this conversatin can move to its talk page and WT:RFDA in a week. --Connel MacKenzie 18:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin "days"[edit]

I did not realize until recently that the following entries existed. Had I known, I would have nominated them for deletion long ago because they do not meet the RfI.

Each of these entries includes a noun and an inflected adjective, so the POS would be wrong on all of these anyway. There are two reasons I can think of to explain why these items were (wrongly) added to Wiktionary. First, each translated into English as a single word (Sunday, Monday, etc). This line of reasoning is faulty. Just because a phrase in one language translates into another language as a single word does not make it a valid entry. After all, would we consider Saturday evening soccer game ticket to be a valid entry just because it translates into German as Samstagabendfußballspielkarte? I don't think so.

The second likely point of confusion is that of grammar. Latin grammar is different, often in ways that English speakers (or even speakers of Latin-descended languages) don't expect. Someone wanting to say Tuesday in Latin could say dies Martis, but the use of dīēs is really a superfluous formality. That is, the noun can be omited from the expression, and this became the norm rather quickly (consider French mardi). The remainder (an adjective) then functions as a substantive for the day. We have something similar in English, where "The meek shall inherit the earth," is understood as using the adjective meek to modify an implied noun "people". In Latin, however, the grammar of the adjective remains adjectival. Adjectives have inflection patterns that differ from nouns and have a gender that can be changed, unlike the vast majority of Latin nouns. Another way to put this that illuminates another side of this issue: would we include month of February as an entry? No, since the word month is superfluous to the expression. This is what's happening in these Latin phrases, excpet that the second part is not a second noun as in this English example.

In essence then, (1) The POS is wrong for the entries as they stand; it should be "Noun and Adjective", (2) This is moot because the entries don't satisfy the Rules for Inclusion. The entries should be deleted. --EncycloPetey 02:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't nouns followed by adjectives. They're nouns followed by other nouns, in the genitive case. Solis, Lunae, Martis etc. do not further inflect for case or gender. They are actually a lot like "month of February"! --Ptcamn 05:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And noun construction made up of a noun and an adjective, or a pair of nouns, or a noun and some other part of speech, is still a noun. Strictly speaking, it’s a noun phrase, but small, tight units such as this are usually just referred to as nouns, and "noun phrase" is usually reserved for more complex constructions. My only reservation is the capitalization. The usual capitalization for the Latin days of the week is as follows: dies solis, dies lunae, dies Martis, dies Mercurii, dies Iovis, dies Veneris, and dies Saturni. The question of capitalization alone is sufficient reason for keeping these words. Another good reason is their declension in the singular and plural, which is not at all obvious to the average person. —Stephen 19:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How are you determining that something is a "noun construction". If you're using its function in the sentence, then that runs into problems even in English. Consider the following quote from Romeo and Juliet: "Romeo, will you come to your father's?" Logically, there should be a noun serving as the object for the preposition to in this sentence, but no noun appears. --EncycloPetey 02:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:dies_Lunae.
"Father’s" is a noun, and "to your father’s" an adverb. As for Talk:dies_Lunae, Latin constructions with the genitive case very frequently place the genitive before the head noun, exactly as we do in English: solis dies (sun’s day), lunae dies (moon’s day). That’s also way we have the phrase MD (medicinae doctor = medicine’s doctor) ... but you can just as well say "doctor medicinae". Latin, like all highly inflected languages, is quite flexible in this regard. In the case of the days of the week, however, dies solis is more common than solis dies, but both are valid ways to write the days of the week in Latin. The reverse order, lunae dies, is where we get the modern Romance words such as lunedi. —Stephen 21:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Father's" isn't a noun, but it does complete a noun-phrase. --Ptcamn 21:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Father’s" is the genitive of father (or possessive, if you will). It is a noun that stands for a longer noun phrase, but the head noun is not required for comprehension or grammar. It quite normal to let a part stand for the whole. —Stephen 21:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Welshwoman[edit]

Sum of parts. DAVilla 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not dealing with Welsh woman, you know. --Deadmeat 18:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. We've got Dutchman, Dutchwoman, Englishman, Englishwoman, Frenchman, Frenchwoman, Irishman, Irishwoman, businessman, businesswoman, policeman, policewoman, cattleman, cattlewoman, yachtsman, yachtswoman, madman, and madwoman (to name a few), so if we've got Welshman, we ought to have Welshwoman, too. —scs 14:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus seems to be keep. Removing RFD tag, move this conversation to its talk page in a week. --Connel MacKenzie 18:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drittes Reich[edit]

I moved the page to the more grammatical Dritte Reich; the redirect can be deleted. Beobach972 23:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DAVilla 02:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it is not normally used without the definite article, I still think this at least deserves a redirect since it is technically correct and there are very many Google hits. Even the German Wikipedia places the article under Drittes Reich. (Because of the special circumstances with this form, I think a redirect is a better idea than having a separate page as we do for plurals.) —Stephen 16:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the thing back to Drittes Reich. In dictionaries German nouns are listed by the form they attain when preceded by the indefinite article, even if in actual use the noun is almost always preceded by the definite article. Ncik 23:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted[edit]

Various Registered Trademarks[edit]

I am unsure of our view of such things : do we allow, or do we delete,

Cookie Crisp[edit]

That? Beobach972 23:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unless there is evidence that this is so widely known that people use it as a reference point in coversation (e.g., "I like cereal X, but it's no Cookie Crisp" or "he's not a health nut - more of a Cookie Crisp eating type"). bd2412 T 19:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not generic in describing cereals, can't be used out of context to represent some quality of this cereal. DAVilla 22:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Bonza Bottler Day[edit]

...appears to have been invented by the contributor (who has put it on a few message boards etc., but it doesn't seem to be really in use). The 'pedia article has been deleted and I suggest we should follow suit. Widsith 11:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleted SemperBlotto 11:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bonza bottler day - The contributor did not invent the holiday. The Wiki entries and associated references indicate that it was created by Elaine Fremont, now deceased. The Wikipedia article was deleted on the basis that it was insufficiently notable, but Wikipedia articles on Hallmark holidays and Humorous observances, that are no more notable, have not been Afd'd. This issue was raised on Bonza Bottler Days' Afd Talk Page and I was under the impression that all similar "holidays" would be marked for deletion. Since they haven't been, then the article should be replaced both in Wikipedia and Wiktionary (since your suggestion to remeove the Wikitionary item seems to be based on the Wikipedia outcome). Establishing and enforcing consistent standards should be a priority at all Wikimedia! Bottom line: please review the deletion of Bonza Bottler Day at Wiktionary.Froid 16:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, not in common usage. My username (which I am the only user of) returns roughly twelve times more Google search results than this word. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

googolcentplex[edit]

This and several other supernumbers by User:19970819600. —Stephen 16:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Stephen 19:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moblization[edit]

Typo in entry name. mobilization already exists. Lmaltier 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. 10:05, August 4, 2006 (UTC)

To the pain[edit]

One-off use in a film. Might be added to the list of protologisms. Kappa 18:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-cock[edit]

A description of one's internet connection speed. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be valid, but am unsure of the spelling. see "Tell me, would you spell it "eCock", "Ecock" or "e-cock"? I'm slightly confused with all this talk about capitalization mattering" (from a blog site- I have also seen it spelled e-cock" Intend to leave it for the nonce but note that spelling needs to be verified. Moved to July's rfv list. If nothing comes up then, will make a decision as to what to do with it. Andrew massyn 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I am satisfied that it is a term, I am not satisfied with the spelling. To rfd. Andrew massyn 12:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er. . . why are you satisfied that it is a term? I don't see any citations, and I can't find any evidence elsewhere that this exists. Even Urban Dictionary, which has an entry for e-cock (at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=e-cock), has none resembling the definition provided here (and the entries that it does have seem to consist of injokes and/or nonce). Jun-Dai 00:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

parvenu/Citations[edit]

Unnecessary to the article itself. There's no overflow of citations as there's only two definitions.

star wars knights of the old republic 3[edit]

their is littel known about this game. their is not evan a tittel for the game all that is known is that it will be released in late 2006

what article is this about? Kipmaster 20:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ysleta[edit]

This doesn't seem to be legitimate content. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 05:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted 15 August 2006 (UTC)

dissynergy[edit]

--Connel MacKenzie 17:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Cagtegory" Typo[edit]

Typos, requesting deletion:

Technically it's not considered a category, so I didn't request it on the "Others" page. -Rappo 22:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed another last night, Cagtegory:hy:Capital Cities, and tagged the erroneous entry for speedy. These should all receive the same treatment. bd2412 T 14:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These three zapped. --Connel MacKenzie 18:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unclefucker[edit]

This entry was originally (a) obvious vandalism and (b) tagged for speedy deletion. For some reason I was moved to rewrite it (see the article history) and I believe it deserves an ordinary, debated RFD now. See also its talk page. —scs 14:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Stephen 19:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this one is going to be deleted. The arguments were primarily "sum-of-parts", that is as I understand it that first of all the meaning sums from the parts and also that there is no other legitimate reason to keep it. More broadly I'd like to know then if words written without a space do not automatically qualify as having met some criterion for inclusion. Generally in English I would think no space is an automatic ticket, but the question has been brought up before for German and similar languages. DAVilla 15:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If no space were "an automatic ticket", then we could just as well replace "uncle" in this one with "grandma", "sister", "dog", "cat", "donkey", "potato" ... well, you get the picture. bd2412 T 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would assume that all of those are legitimate terms when we're not even certain that this word could be verified. I was speaking more generally, but maybe it doesn't make much sense to consider such a hypothetical question in the first place. DAVilla 20:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They all get Google hits (proving once again what a sick, sad world we live in). bd2412 T 22:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We'd get plenty of Google hits for [[nude women]], but that alone doesn't mean it should be included. The same sum of parts argument applies. :) // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 23:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me, I'd say some-of-parts is irrelevant here. If unclefucker falls on sum-of-parts, then by rights motherfucker should, too. —scs 04:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Motherfucker, at least, has pedigree. As opposed to various South Park inventions such as "ass spelunker", "pig-fucker", "horse fucker", and "donkey-raping shit eater". Let's leave those out. Cheers! bd2412 T 09:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Motherfucker is a set phrase, with idiomatic translations in many or most languages. Set phrases are desirable even when they are, at least in English, merely the sum of their parts. Keep motherfucker, delete unclefucker. (I think Terrance and Philips in Asses of Fire spell it "Uncle Fucka".) —Stephen 21:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think pig-fucker is limited to South Park at all. --Connel MacKenzie 08:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it's still SoP: See South Park: "Why did you call me a pig fucker, Terrance?" "Well, first of all, because you fuck pigs." bd2412 T 12:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll restate it then: pig-fucker has been around as an emphatic set phrase much longer than the show South Park has existed. Therefore, SoP is not a valid reason to suggest pig-fucker be deleted. I agree that unclefucker/uncle-fucker are nonce SoP creations that do not merit entries here. --Connel MacKenzie 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think two criteria should be considered here, which distinguish motherfucker from unclefucker. The word should [1] be in sufficiently common usage to merit a definition, and [2] have a meaning distinct from the sum of its parts. Motherfucker is such a common word that it is nearly a part of the language. It has evolved into an idiom of its own, such that it usually does not refer to fucking one's mother (only one of five senses described concern the sum of parts). On the other hand, unclefucker is a neologism derived from a single movie, and is not in common usage. It is only the sum of parts; it means to fuck one's uncle (definition one of one), and nothing else. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 00:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that we establish a new "Samuel L. Jackson test for such cases. It's SoP if you can't picture Samuel L. Jackson saying, "we got ------fucking snakes on this ------fucking plane." bd2412 T 00:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but would that then eliminate the in between test? I'm trying to imagine how a pause between "uncle" and "fucker" could be inserted. "She's not an uncle lover, she's and uncle... fucker!" maybe? DAVilla 03:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless entry. Andrew massyn 08:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty clear consensus...deleted. (with talk page as well. This conversation will go to WT:RFDA only.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-fication[edit]

Completely unrelated content, probably vandalism. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 03:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted 00:09, August 19, 2006 (UTC)

scream like Rain Man[edit]

Same contributor loading lots of dodgy edits. About this entry: nothing idiomatic at all. If there is any attestation for it, it will likely be discounted as "nonce" usage.

So perhaps, this should move directly to RFD instead? --Connel MacKenzie 00:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move on[edit]

This page has no meaningful content. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 05:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted 00:17, August 22, 2006 (UTC)

wholecaust[edit]

Non-notable neologism used solely by one Rex Curry. Matt Crypto 09:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted 01:45, September 8, 2006 (UTC)

casual gamer[edit]

This article is just a copy of blurb from some site, it smacks of spam to me, need a proper entry or DELETE--Williamsayers79 13:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also should an entry of this size not be one Wikipedia?--Williamsayers79 13:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing attention to it. The article is not spam IMO, although probably all of the specific references and the link to original off-site discussion should be deleted. I doubt even Wikipedia would want that. Also the size of the entry does not warrent its deletion but a clean up. The more relevant question is whether any article should exist here under that title. Personally I'm of mixed opinion. DAVilla 17:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the junky page itself: 'I play games on a casual basis, and by that I don’t mean that I am dressed as if going to the bbq. Nor does it mean that I play them in a careless way, or throw around remarks while playing.' DAVilla 10:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do briefs stink??[edit]

Author removed my speedy tag a few times, so I figured I'd go with RfD, to get a demonstration of community consensus. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE this is total bilge and has no place on Wiktionary!--Williamsayers79 14:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted for a third time 14:19, August 29, 2006 (UTC)

briskt[edit]

There is no usage of the term with the definition given in the first 100 results of Google search 'brisk'. It seems to be used as a type of food, but I found no definition. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 16:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current definition is essentially a "misspelling" of brisked where it is improperly used as a verb. The food is perhaps a misspelling of brisket? DAVilla 17:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fantoogin[edit]

This term doesn't seem to be in popular use; a Google search for 'fantoogin' returns zero results. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 17:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

irony board[edit]

A platform where one can make their ironic statements, and in the mean time smoothe out any unwanted creases with any hot air they may be harboring - Classy, but no thanks Mr. Newnoise.

(But -- hmm -- for me, "irony board" gets about 1,200 google hits. What browser are you using, D? —scs 19:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry, I meant unique hits, if you get to the 28th page. DAVilla 13:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted 14:29, August 23, 2006 (UTC)

соаз[edit]

Most frequently used alternative spelling is саз. Because of this соаз can be deleted. Eric Utgerd 04:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? Did a policy change, and we no longer allow alternate spellings? Keep. --Connel MacKenzie 08:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted 08:19, September 30, 2006 (UTC)

理想语[edit]

zh:Wikipedia voted 8 to 2, after a rather heated edit war, to delete 理想语 as a term because the consensus was that it is an invented term used solely for advertising purposes[4] A-cai 23:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should trust the zh: sysops. Move to RFD? --Connel MacKenzie 05:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me.

A-cai 10:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To rfd then. Andrew massyn 19:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 7,650 searches for 理想语 through Google.--Jusjih 15:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5,910 for 理想语言
  • 2,210 for 理想语文
  • I have not been able to find an example sentence where 理想语 is used that is not a sentence in which 理想语 is defined or discussed. Jusjih, have you read the discussion on zh:wikipedia? What is your opinion?

A-cai 22:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe the standards we use to judge words in English should apply to all other languages, I do not believe there are enough people here to make such a judement call. Two or three people arguing isn't going to cut it. Indeed, there were barely enough votes on the Chinese Wikipedia. Either find enough contributors to judge this term on our terms, or go by what the Chinese Wiktionary decides to do. DAVilla 22:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus seems to be delete; so, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 18:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taulachhen[edit]

This page was listed on RfC for a month with no language on the page. It is encyclopedic, or nearly so. --EncycloPetey 03:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

off­line[edit]

Speedy candidate. If you can't see it, there's a soft hyphen between "off" and "line". The same content is present at the nonconfusingly spelled offline, and there is also a link from the nonconfusingly spelled (i.e. with a normal hyphen) off-line. —scs 21:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, and for lots of other funny characters as well. It's a project I've been wanting to work on for some time. —scs 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To remove them, right? Soft-hyphens are not supported by any browser that I've ever used (and that is a lot of browsers.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the project I'd like to work on some day is to implement one of the Unicode normalization algorithms, or something similar (perhaps also incorporating parts of the Unicode Security Mechanisms), in mediawiki, so that a search for "it's" would find "it's", "it’s", "itʼs", and maybe "it′s", and so that a search for "offline" would find "offline" and "off-line" and "off–line" and "off­line", and so that a search for "schön" would find "schön" and "schön" spelled with U+0308 COMBINING DIAERESIS (which I now see that mediawiki seems to be normalizing already, or maybe it's my browser) and maybe "schon", and... —scs 01:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted 14:34, August 26, 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales[edit]

(and Jimbo Wales and Jimmy Donal Wales)

Encyclopedic. DAVilla 18:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes Kipmaster 18:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted on sight. --Connel MacKenzie 20:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Describes the relationship between the godfather and the father of a child[edit]

This should be deleted, gell? Beobach972 00:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

niki[edit]

This has an ==English== heading, then says it is a Greek word! The proper noun should start with a capital letter. Παρατηρητής

I can see that niki (=victory) should be deleted (rather than re-headed ==Greek==) since it is written in the Roman rather than Greek alphabet. But I have met several girls in England who are definitely called Niki rather than Νίκη (I live in an area where there are many families with Greek connections) so Niki is a valid English entry. I will modify the entry later today. --Enginear 10:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With lower-case n rather than Niki? DAVilla 13:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DAVilla beat me to it. Thanks. --Enginear 19:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

petrophoria[edit]

Possibly a protlogism. Couldn't find any online references. Jonathan Webley 06:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cockclown[edit]

An employee of some US cable company. Protologism? SemperBlotto 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google "cockclown": 94 results.
Google "cockclown comcast": 1 result, in which the terms are not linked.
The term may have limited usage as an insult, but I don't see a whole lot to link it to that particular company. (0 Google books hits, BTW.) --Dajagr 23:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably added by a person who had a bad experience with the company - Delete Παρατηρητής
The page has been extensively cited, but the cites all link to various gripes about comcast. To rfd. Andrew massyn 18:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted SemperBlotto 07:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:-ore[edit]

See discussion 10:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki:Active lifestyle[edit]

See discussion 10:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Germanic adjectives[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 11:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Povulation[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 11:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:English words[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 11:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:English words from French[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 11:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki:Abstupiate[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 11:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:northern[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 11:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Northern English Dialect[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 11:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:italbrac/first[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 11:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Wonderfoolv[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 11:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:deprecate[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 11:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2006/08&oldid=49611446"