Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2006/10

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning This is a discussion archive created in October 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.


Mandarin Chinese[edit]

Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. This definition also goes way beyond defining the phrase.--M55 05:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks short & to the point to me, but even if what you are suggesting is true - the entry should be cleaned, not deleted. --Versageek 05:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Even with cleaning, the subject of the definition is not appropriate. Should we go into listing geographical locations and other words that aren't English? Further, the phrase is the sum of its parts. Both are already defined seperately.
On another note, when I nominated this for deletion, Connel MacKenzie blocked me without warning for an indefinite period of time, writing "POV vandalism" and then removed the RFD tag. This corruption is so disgusting I actually feel nauseous. I logged in as another user, and TheDaveRoss blocked me, saying, "block evasion" even though the original block was just crude retaliation! Do you guys have something along the lines of a request for comment? I mean, I'm doing Wiktionary a favor by uncluttering your site with this stuff. If instead you guys want to keep on trying to punish me for doing what editors do on a wiki, then I can talk to some people on Meta and we can take it from there.--Ger2 06:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Process note: Monre was blocked as POV vandal for placing the {{rfd}} tag. Two accounts, Ger2 and M55 were reportedly created to protest the block, restore the rfd tag, and complete the rfd nomination. Note that although the new accounts have posted in the RfD, they have not voted. --Hroðulf 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia, and this article is not encyclopedic. The term is not the sum of its parts in any sense that I can think of, and even if the shorter form, Mandarin is much more frequently used, both are indisputably part of the English language (or are you disputing that part?) and belong on the Wiktionary as much as, say, High German or Southern accent. The idea of a dictionary is that a person should be able to look up any term with a decent amount of usage and get its etymology, pronunciation, and meaning. And yes, this includes proper nouns like language and dialect names, as well as places. The idea is that if you see Mandarin Chinese in running text you should be able to come here to understand what it is. Jun-Dai 09:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; I've removed the encyclopedic information. This is not necessarily a sum of parts definition; Mandarin Chinese doesn't necessarily mean Chinese that is Mandarin, much like Old English doesn't mean English that is old. There is no problem with defining geographic locations, either; see Canada or Mount Everest. If Mandarin Chinese is equivalent to Mandarin, it should be pseudoredirected (like Standard Mandarin). —[admin] Pathoschild 18:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It does not matter that it’s the sum of its parts, it is a set phrase. Also, yes, we certainly do list geographical locations and other words that are not English. —Stephen 14:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a common English term, a synonym of Mandarin. It is important to document common English usage with an entry, if only to record that the word Chinese adds nothing to the term except to disambiguate it from mandarin. The encyclopedic information is gone. --Hroðulf 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. I read (at User_talk:Connel_MacKenzie#POV_vandal) that the original nominator has an indefinite block as being a sockpuppet of a vandal. Since this nomination does not make sense anyway, someone please close this debate early. --Hroðulf 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    Huh? You're the one who just put the RfD tag back after someone (IMHO correctly) removed it ... Robert Ullmann 17:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course Keep. It is a standard English language phrase. SemperBlotto 16:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

RfD passed (okay?) tag removed. Robert Ullmann 17:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Some bizarre characters entered, instead of a language name. --Connel MacKenzie 02:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no other name for the language in common use than !Xóõ. (Ethnologue lists a couple of others, "Ng|amani" (whence the ISO code nmn, presumably) and "Tsasi", under neither of which the English research on this language has been published, AFAICT.) —Muke Tever 02:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
!Xóõ is the correct name for this language. The Khoisan languages of Africa, also known as click languages, employ several different click sounds, one of which is spelt ǃ (palatoalveolar click). Other clicks are ʘ (bilabial), ǀ (dental), ǂ (palatal), and ǁ (lateral). Therefore, many of the Khoisan languages have very odd-looking names, including ‡Hõã, !Kung, !Xũũ, Ju/’hoan, and ‡Kx’auǁ’ein. —Stephen 09:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Tag removed. —Stephen 09:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my complaint is not that they look odd, it is that non-English language names are instantly nightmarish to parse. I'll simply exclude such things from statistics, cleanup lists, etc., if Wiktionary/Ethnologue will insist on using non-Romanized names. In my opinion, such ridiculous manglings are unnecessary, serving only to make those languages "invisible" to English speakers who might wish to study them. --Connel MacKenzie 18:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

moral order[edit]

Is this rescuable? SemperBlotto 13:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There. It’s in better order now. The noun phrase itself sounds plausible enough. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well done. SemperBlotto 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; I appreciate it. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is a reasonable definition. However, I have not been able to find references that support the def. Regretfully to rfd. Andrew massyn 18:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just started looking, and there seem to be a good proportion of books.google quotes where the extended context implies this def, eg [1]...though this one does make my head spin a bit. Will cite over the next few days. --Enginear 17:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Cites added, some with considerable context supporting the definition. --Enginear 20:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


It was determined in the Beer Parlour that Romanizations of Ancient Greek words really needn't be wikified; therefore phugē (among others!) ought to be deleted. Medellia 02:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional Romanizations in need of deletion:
Thanks once more. Medellia 03:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Although I don’t think these are particularly useful and should not be encouraged, they are harmless, and it’s conceivable that somebody might find them beneficial someday. As long as we have them already, keep. —Stephen 17:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Although I agree there's not much point in linking to the romanization from the Greek word, I'm not convinced these entries shouldn't exist. I think you already made the point that they could be helpful in locating the word.
The problem is that the minute you say they should exist, with ==Greek== and say ===Orthographical romanization=== headers, someone comes along and insists that we should list every part of speech on the Romanized page, essentially duplicating all of the information, which simply isn't realistic IMO. So I think I'll have to abstain from this decision.
Anyways, don't stop adding the Ancient Greek. DAVilla 20:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
We don't actually have an ===Orthographical romanization=== heading, do we? I agree they should be kept, but I disagree with the concept of hiding the part-of-speech information, even on ancillary entries. --Connel MacKenzie 15:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No, they should go something like ==Greek== ===Noun=== nosos # Romanization of νόσος. —Stephen 18:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You're not listing every definition, but you are making the parts of speech clear. That's quite a bit less ambitious than what I thought had been proposed. This, I would take it, is the result that's already been reached with regard to discussions of other languages. I'd have to retract the objections I needlessly raised then. DAVilla 13:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Entries have been cleaned up and untagged. DAVilla 14:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you (all!) for your help, and I apologize for any problems I may have caused. Medellia 20:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


Second sense. Boys collectively. --Connel MacKenzie 06:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The OED has this sense (and a third), but doesn't have any good cites for it. --Ptcamn 22:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense, but in the absence of citations, rfvfailed. To Rfd. Andrew massyn 14:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem with losing the second noun sense as suggested above, but what about the sense of "my boyhood home". (better cites can be provided) . Is this an adjective or a noun modifier?--Dmol 14:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hold it Andrew, this was RfV only on the second sense. The entry and the first sense are not in dispute. Doesn't belong in RfD. Tag changed back to RfV. Robert Ullmann 20:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I only rfd' it for the second sense. I fully agree that the first sense should stay. Sorry for the miscommunication. However, we need a community descision on the second sense which is why I put it at rfd for that sense only. Now that that is cleared up, can we have a vote on the second sense? Thanks. Andrew massyn 19:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Except that isn't the way it's done. RfD is for deleting the entry. If the RfV-sense fails, the sense goes away. This entry doesn't belong here. Discussion of the sense is there. Robert Ullmann 18:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


The Huntress[edit]

Fictional character with no attributive use. --Connel MacKenzie 22:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Deleted - content is purely encyclopedic. bd2412 T 00:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


This is a neologism as stated: "This word was first coined by Jon Stewart on the October 3rd, 2006 episode of the Daily Show." // [admin] Pathoschild (talk / map) 04:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 06:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

bloody good![edit]

Punctuation in entry title. --Connel MacKenzie 18:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but is not a set phrase either. "Bloody" is an adjective that can qualify any other. "Bloody good", "bloody awful", "bloody silly" and even "bloody bloody" have no special status. — Paul G 11:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Cute - move to WT:BJAODN or WT:LOP? --Connel MacKenzie 20:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Moved from WT:RFC

I'm going to refrain from putting this straight on rfd, just because I haven't heard of it. However, from the few mentions I can find, this doesn't seem to be the right definition, exactly. --Wytukaze 00:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Moved to rfd. Nonsense, delete. --Connel MacKenzie 04:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Deleted SemperBlotto 07:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to mention that I re-created the article, with the correct definition, at the correct capitalization, Mexifornication, with citations to counter the nonsense argument. If you feel this is still subject to rfd then please say so. DAVilla 16:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


박훈은 잘생겼다. 그리고 착하다. 헤헷.

Unsigned comment by, only contribution. No such page title. Nonsense? DAVilla 09:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
"Park-hoon", a personal name. Ignore. —Stephen 16:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Declaratory Theory[edit]

--Connel MacKenzie 05:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • This had no content that attempted to define anything. Deleted SemperBlotto 07:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Second Class Honours Division Two[edit]

I will retract if this is universally as defined. DAVilla 13:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It was a Wonderfoolism. Deleted. By the way, he has now given us sufficient information to identify him in the real world (with a bit of digging). SemperBlotto 07:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Jedi Order[edit]

Content already exists on the starwars wiki. --Connel MacKenzie 04:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Deleted along with the other Jedi entries by the same person (may the force be with him). SemperBlotto 07:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

ほほえ and hohoe[edit]

Misspelled entries remaining as redirects after being moved. --Tohru 01:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. You can use the {{delete}} tag for things like this, doesn't need RfD. Robert Ullmann 14:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


This redirect is a lowercase form of Qomolangma (capitalised), the native name of Mount Everest. Lowercase qomolangma doesn't mean anything itself that I know of. —[admin] Pathoschild 18:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

We used to keep differently-cased entries, but now that the wiki software automatically redirects to the existing case, I don’t think we need to keep this. Deleted. —Stephen 18:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

judicagenic injustice[edit]

Moving from RfV to RfD. bd2412 T 14:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Four Five months after the article creator swore up and down that this phrase (his only contribution) was a phrase in use in the courts of Ontario, there is not a single legit Google (or Google books) hit for either the phrase, or even for the word "judicagenic". All hits are smoke and mirrors (wikimirrors, that is). For good measure, I did a LexisNexis search in every database I could think of, and it came up nowhere in cases, articles, legal news, or elsewhere. bd2412 T 09:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of the term either. It is not British jurisprudence or South African. Andrew massyn 10:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm no lawyer, but the general UK population seems to be content to use judicial injustice, since the -genic sense is usually clearly implied by the context. Perhaps the same is true in Canada too, except for the one lawyer who coined it. Certainly, if the word was coined 12 years ago, as suggested on the talk page, it is remarkable that it has NO independent hits from any of Metacrawler's search engines (and nor have 'judiciagenic' or 'judicogenic'), and has not been encountered by lawyers from two other English speaking countries whose legal systems share, I believe, a number of relevant concepts. --Enginear 13:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Note: "judiciogenic" gets two Google hits, one of which states:
Justice is not purely a law or court concept. As Denise Breton and Stephen Lehman point out , "judiciogenic misery goes everywhere." Our paradigm involves authorities who have power over us, and who we’re led to believe always act fairly on our behalf. Quoting Denise Breton and Stephen Lehman, The Mystic Heart of Justice, 2001.
The only other Google hit is a parroting of the first. Spelled differently from the term at issue, not used with the word "injustice", and hardly enough to verify any kind of usage - but an interesting note. bd2412 T 00:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Unverified, no legit Google hits for this phrase (including spelling variations), not legit Google hits for the word "judicagenic". bd2412 T 14:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete. —Stephen 14:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Deleted - so sue me. SemperBlotto 16:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

dreaded lurgy[edit]

Hi everyone just to let you know that the dreaded lurgy definition is correct but it does not come from the Goon Show. In 1967 I worked at a company, Midland Educational, one of my colleagues lived near the Lurgy gasworks in Warwickshire England. He was forever coming to work with one ailment or another, which he blamed on the fact that he lived so close to the gasworks. One morning he arrived and as usual had a runny nose and eyes,I said to him 'How are you? He repled 'Oh you know' Which is when I said 'Oh youv'e got the dreaded Lurgy!'. Well much mirth and laughter,as four or five of us were present. I'm 100% sure you will not find this in any scripts before this date.Maybe some of the guys who were there will remember, we certainly used the phrase frequently in the next few months, And I still do. Midland Educational was on the Mosley Rd. Birmingham. But both it and the Lurgy works are now closed. Yours with a clear memory T.E O'Connell-Davidson.


I make a lot of typos. But I don't think I've ever made this one. Common? --Connel MacKenzie 08:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Transpositions are common typing errors, and because it's a common word it's likewise common typing error. But I won't consider it a common misspelling. Delete away. DAVilla 11:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a common typo, one I am often guilty of. Keep. —Stephen 18:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but a common typo is not quite the same as common misspelling. The latter implies that one is unaware (or at least uncertain) that one is in error, and would still be upon a quick proofread. This falls into the same bucket as teh (the), wiht (with), htis (this), ect (etc.). Of these, only "teh" has an English entry, since it is also used deliberately that way. --Jeffqyzt 20:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
That’s true. However, for all intents and purposes, a common typo is a misspelling. The reason for keeping the entry is that it is so common. Anyone who speaks English reasonably well would recognize it for what it is, but someone whose English is a little shaky might wonder what adn could be. I think it should be treated as a common misspelling. —Stephen 23:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
In that case I would certainly have said to keep ect. since it's not merely a typing error. I would think a number of people actually get confused as to which spelling is right. In fact the most common "misspellings" in English are confusions of its and it's, your and you're, their there and they're. But I don't think we should get too excited about misspellings, especially typing errors no matter how common, until we have a much more systematic way of dealing with them. DAVilla 13:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I don't think we should try to keep typos here, even though Stephen makes a good point. Common misspellings, yes, but having typos seems pretty odd. Jun-Dai 20:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I would say definately keep it. The main question here is - is it useful to someone? And I would say it is - particularly someone with a weak grasp of English who would not pick up on the adn = and that we take for granted. (Much like, if I was reading German and I saw teir instead of tier, I would not recognize it as a mispelling because I am not confident in my language skills). Moreover, adn is a very common misspelling, it is one of the "demons" of typing on Qwerty keyboards. Keep
Typo, not a misspelling. There is an important difference, which I have mentioned before here: someone typing "accomodate" might believe that to be the right spelling, but no one who types "adn" believes that it is correct. The former is a misspelling and people will genuinely want to look it up; the latter is a typo, and no one will intentionally look it up. Someone typing "adn" in the search box will not be surprised to see that they get no results and will quickly realise and correct their error; someone typing "accomodate" needs a little more help.
If someone with little knowledge of English types it in, it is the job of a spellchecker (which we don't yet have) to redirect them to the right page, not ours. DeletedPaul G 15:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Strikking forbudt![edit]

Well, a phrasebook may contain quite a number of reasonably common expressions, no matter how plain. But "knitting forbidden!"? Somehow, I kind of doubt this is something anyone would benefit from... \Mike 15:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I think such a warning would be welcome among sheep! Well, alright... Maybe i went a little over the top ;-) -- 18:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


We don't need this in the main namespace, although if you can decypher the language and salvage the information, please do. Beobach972 20:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It says: "Appendix:People/Family names/V", and then it lists four possible family names. Spanish family names consist of the father’s last name followed by the mother’s maiden name, so the listed names all have "Vizarreta" as the father’s last name, followed by four different possible mother’s maiden names (although I have never heard of abrigo as a name). This is not a list of famous people, it’s just four rather unusual names out of an infinite number of possible combinations. I don’t see that it has any value at all. Delete. —Stephen 23:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Utterly useless to a dictionary, deleted. bd2412 T 00:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Nothing but pure vulgarity. — Xavier, 01:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 01:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ceamical bonds, scary movies[edit]

Vandalism (new pages). — Xavier, 14:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Both removed. --Jeffqyzt 14:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Kan du være så snill å si meg hvor jeg kan finne nærmeste hotell?[edit]

Phrasebook entries are supposed to correspond to English phrasebook entries, right? --Connel MacKenzie 18:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think English phrasebook entries should correspond to entries in the Norwegian phrasebook!!! That would be much more fair ;-) But seriously, how are you ever going to expand your phrasebooks without a two way system? Meaning a system where phrases need not only correspond to the English phrasebook, but to any phrasebook. That is, if you find a phrase in any phrasebook, you may translate it into the corresponding phrase in your language - or you may add suitable phrases of your own. I'm pretty certain that any Frenchman would frown upon an English-only correspondence of phrasebooks. -- 20:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
My initial reaction was this is a multilingual dictionary, but frankly I don't see why this phrase couldn't be listed at Could you please tell me where I can find the nearest hotel? Maybe the phrasebook should be moved to the Wikisaurus namespace? DAVilla 15:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete, it's sum-of-parts in Norwegian - but would someone care to turn the redlinks in the phrase blue? Cheers! bd2412 T 18:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Sum-Of-Parts never applies to phrase book entries. If we enter the corresponding English phrase, then this has to stay. Or did some rule change again? --Connel MacKenzie 19:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Do we need a phrase book entry on it if someone can figure it out from smaller components? Suppose we have a phrasebook entry on "Could you please tell me where I can find the nearest, then let people shuffle for themselves whether they're looking for a hotel, a hospital, a bathroom, a beach, what have you. bd2412 T 21:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty hard to guess at. The implication of what you say, is that there should not be any phrasebook entries (in any language.) I disagree. The three phrasebook-worthy ones I can think of are "hotel", "bathroom" and "restaurant" so the thin-edge-of-the-wedge argument is inappropriate. --Connel MacKenzie 06:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm for keeping phrasebook entries that are useful to know in that they are needed often or at the very least generally applicable. This one is not. Maybe the entry could be Where is the nearest... as suggested? I vote move to eliminate hotel, which can be provided as an example. DAVilla 18:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. I'm not convinced this is a good fit for any phrasebook. The phrase "Could you tell me" and the phrase "where is the nearest..." both seem like decent candidates, but the combination does not. This seems just a little too sketchy. --Connel MacKenzie 10:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Contributor is kindly requested to re-enter at shorter title if so willing. DAVilla 17:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Happy Halloween. But still, seems very unlikely to be in use. Only books.google.com mentions seem to be arbitrary constructions in secondary sources. --Connel MacKenzie 19:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned it up, and checked it out, I was able to find a few running source uses, looking for more durable ones for cites, but I am pretty certain it is used...once in a while. - [The]DaveRoss 19:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Re-added the rfd, I removed it too soon, still looking for cites that aren't pathetic. - [The]DaveRoss
I see only secondary sources on b.g.c. So, delete? --Connel MacKenzie 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
No arguments in support of keeping. Appears only in "list of phobia" made-up lists, no citations (not even pathetic ones) were ever added. Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 19:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Deleted. See discussion. 11:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Translations to be checked (Slovakian)[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 11:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Sports Film[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 11:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Cleanup by date[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 11:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:de:Male Given names[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 11:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Survived verification process[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 11:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Translations to be checked (Deutsch)[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 11:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)