Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Italic
| Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Requests for verification
Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.
|
Requests for deletion
Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.
|
Requests for deletion/Others add new request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other namespaces, such as appendices, templates and modules.
|
Language treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, mergers and splits.
| ||
| Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request | history | archives Discussion of proposed moves, mergers and splits of entries or other pages.
|
Category and label treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's categories or labels, including additions, deletions, renames, mergers and splits.
| ||||
| Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.
| |||||
|
| |||||
| All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5 |
This page is for entries in any Italic language, i.e. Latin, its sister languages (e.g., Oscan, Faliscan), and its descendants, including Romance languages (e.g., French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Catalan).
- For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English.
- For Chinese/Japanese/Korean entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK.
- For reconstructed entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Reconstruction.
- For all other entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English.
Scope of this request page:
- In-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”
- Out-of-scope: terms whose existence is in doubt
Templates:
{{rfd}}{{rfd-sense}}{{rfd-redundant}}{{archive-top|rfd}}+{{archive-bottom}}
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. The most common reason for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "green 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 words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Disputes regarding whether an entry falls afoul of any of the subsections in our criteria for inclusion that demand a particular kind of attestation (such as figurative use requirements for certain place names and the WT:BRAND criteria) should also go to RFV. 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 [[green 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 once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because there is no consensus, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. The threshold for consensus is hinted at the ratio of 2/3 of supports to supports and opposes, but is not set in stone and other considerations than pure tallying can play a role; see the vote.
- 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: In some cases, like moves or redirections, 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 is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.
2024
[edit]Latin. The participle “1. rung, jingled, having been jingled. 2. cried, screamed, having been screamed in a shrill voice.” was removed by @Imbricitor on 9 February. I was told on the talk page that the participle forms tinnītī, tinnītae, etc. should also be removed, but made this section here as we usually discuss deletions. J3133 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe an RFV would be a good idea. Lewis and Short says the verb is used both intransitive and transitively, so a passive participle seems like it should theoretically be possible. I could find no examples in the PHI classical corpus or the Corpus Corporum, but Google Books might have something (e.g. I see "tinnivit & tinnitam percepit rem" here).--Urszag (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The word is neuter and the adjective doesn't seem to have ever existed. If not consider this request as RFC. I will edit gerundivum accordingly. Tim Utikal (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Mauritian Creole. SOP? literally "mourning news". Protegmatic (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- In Hindi newspapers the Hindi etymon seems to be the title of "Deaths" sections. A better definition might be "sad news". --Lambiam 11:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Spanish, etym 5, sense "a cheap drug...". From my understanding of it, this is cocaine paste, and typical "paco" would have this stuff in it, in varying amounts.
(Also, is "paco" found in Spain? It's always mentioned in connection with Argentina and its neighbors, as far as I know.) CitationsFreak (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- FailedVealhurl (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
False content, see French Wiktionary. Golmore (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Then we should fix the content, not delete the entry. --Lambiam 10:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- But we have to start from zero. Golmore (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- What's "false" exactly? PUC – 17:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- it's not short for à bon entendeur salut but a different saying. Golmore (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- What's the difference in meaning? PUC – 23:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- it's not short for à bon entendeur salut but a different saying. Golmore (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- What's "false" exactly? PUC – 17:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- But we have to start from zero. Golmore (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like this was resolved a while ago. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 02:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
January 2025
[edit]Latin. Quite a strange entry: it just says see coest
, with the usage note This is the headword given in some dictionaries. However, this form does not occur, as the verb is impersonal.
We don't do this for other impersonal verbs, so I'm not sure why we're doing it for coest. Theknightwho (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I added this. Here was my thinking:
- Other dictionaries use this headword, so it looks like a lacuna when Wiktionary doesn't also have it. Hence it should be a hard redirect, just like we hard-redirect other dictionary forms like hold your breath → hold one's breath.
- If no other language had an entry for consum, I would have made it a hard redirect to coest. But this wasn't possible. This was my strongest reason for creating the entry.
- It's very plausible that someone would run across coest or confuit in a text and look it up under consum. Yes, we have non-lemma form entries to take them to the right place, but I imagine many people directly search for the lemma if they (think they) know what that is.
- The disappearance of "n" in forms before a vowel is rarely seen in Latin verb forms - it may even be unique for this verb, I'm not sure. (Other con- + e- forms insert an -m- instead, I think.) have This makes the job of the lemma-seeker even more challenging.
- I won't offer a keep or delete vote, but I hope you can see I didn't create it without careful thought beforehand. This, that and the other (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @This, that and the other The TLL lemmatizes it as confuit. This seems fitting, as confore = evenire. Nicodene (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @This, that and the other Thanks - I wonder if we should have some agreed-upon way of handling these. In theory, the same issue also applies to all impersonal verbs, as they're reasonably rare, or even deponent ones, though they're common enough that I expect it isn't a problem for those. @Nicodene @Benwing2 Thoughts? Theknightwho (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is similar to a ghost word, a word found in dictionaries that doesn't actually exist. The most famous ghost word is dord, which we don't have an entry for (our entry dord is for an unrelated term). One possibility is to delete it but put a usage note mentioning that the word is sometimes lemmatized under "consum" or confuit. That way someone searching for it might (conceivably) come across it (although the other consum words in other languages will be an issue), especially if they search for it in conjunction with another principal part that actually exists. Benwing2 (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another possibility is the keep it but put the usage note in the definition as a non-gloss defn, something like sometimes used as the lemma of coest, but not attested. @Theknightwho I don't think there's a general practice to be found here; this is a sui generis case and we only need to do the same for other impersonal verbs if they're also lemmatized at a made-up first person singular. Benwing2 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is similar to a ghost word, a word found in dictionaries that doesn't actually exist. The most famous ghost word is dord, which we don't have an entry for (our entry dord is for an unrelated term). One possibility is to delete it but put a usage note mentioning that the word is sometimes lemmatized under "consum" or confuit. That way someone searching for it might (conceivably) come across it (although the other consum words in other languages will be an issue), especially if they search for it in conjunction with another principal part that actually exists. Benwing2 (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Latin. This is a duplicate of onomatopoeia, where the trema is included in the headword.
It doesn't make sense to treat tremas in Latin titles any differently from macrons: the form exists as a pronunciation aid. Yes, it can be attested in real Latin works, but so can the macron, and we don't include that either. We already strip the trema from Latin links anyway for precisely this reason, and this is currently the only Latin entry with a trema in the title anyway.
It was kept after an RFD discussion back in 2015, with only two votes (one keep, one abstain), but the sole vote for keep was by a user who doesn't actually edit Latin. Theknightwho (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- We do include Latin terms containing macra (though admittedly not the sort that indicate long vowels), and making entries for attested typographic variants is not against our policy. Personally I would have no problem with somebody submitting Latin words attested with diaereses, but I would not feel deeply hurt if we decided to officially ban them either. Abstain. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Romanian, meaning ‘political party’. Now, I believe every entry consisting of the words for ‘political’ and ‘party’ should be reconsidered, but this here case is more unambiguously inexcusable: the characteristically European polysemy of the word ‘party’ is not an issue in Romanian, and the word partid has no other meaning than ‘political formation’. In consequence, the ‘political’ designation is redundant and optional, with the term being even less than the sum of its parts, and the entry should be demoted to a collocation. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
February 2025
[edit]French SOP PUC – 11:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t see how this is SOP. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 12:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Ktom: Compare mot fétiche, expression fétiche, numéro fétiche, chemise fétiche, etc. PUC – 19:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- In that case a new sense needs to be added to fétiche#Adjective; my reaction owed itself to the impression that this sense of the word is exclusive to this expression. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- So we could compare it to the adjective form of "pet" like in pet peeve, pet name, or pet phrase?
- Pvanp7 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Pvanp7: Yes. PUC – 10:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Then why delete the page? This term seems distinct enough. Pvanp7 (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Pvanp7: Yes. PUC – 10:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- In that case a new sense needs to be added to fétiche#Adjective; my reaction owed itself to the impression that this sense of the word is exclusive to this expression. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Ktom: Compare mot fétiche, expression fétiche, numéro fétiche, chemise fétiche, etc. PUC – 19:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Why should this be deleted? Pvanp7 (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
French. Rfd-sense: “a major boulevard in Paris”. WT:CFI says Most manmade structures, including […] individual roads and streets may only be attested through figurative use.
. Even if there is figurative use, this wouldn't be the right definition, yes? Polomo47 (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Purplebackpack89 Your votes have no value without a rationale. You can't just vote keep on every single RFD entry, as you are wont to do, and not provide a reasoning; otherwise your votes will be ignored. That said, this particular street undoubtedly has a shit ton of figurative uses given its iconic status; but it needs an additional definition indicating this. Compare the entries on Rodeo Drive and Pennsylvania Avenue (and note that there are a lot of streets in Category:en:Named roads that need review whether they belong). Benwing2 (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. MedK1 (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep for figurative uses. See [1], which produces:
- [2] "Hampton Roads is not the Champs-Elysées of the South, but a long wet stretch of track east of Virginia"
- [3] "You haven't lived until you've taken the number 33 bus from Venice Beach, all the way down Venice Boulevard — the Champs Elysées of this city — to Union Station in downtown L.A."
- [4] " ... as well as the fine Parque 3 de Febrero. Lined on both sides by handsome residences it is the fashionable driveway , the “Champs Elysees,” of Buenos Aires."
- Benwing2 (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps figurative definition could be something like (by extension) a wide, fashionable street known for its mansions and upscale boutiques. Benwing2 (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, but I'd like to note that this is a French rfd-sense (pertaining to an actual road in France), not an English rfd. I have seen figurative uses for it; in English and even in Portuguese... but that's just not what this RFD is about. Maybe this keep vote should be retracted? MedK1 (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- @MedK1 But it's equally easy to find figurative uses in French: [5] [6] [7] etc. This means it should be defined both in English and French with figurative uses, not deleted. Benwing2 (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- That's better, but still, it's an rfd-sense. I'm thinking we should delete the sense at hand (sense #2, the one about a specific French avenue) and instead add the figurative one. MedK1 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, because WT:CFI isn't clear to me on whether, when including a road, company or the like based on figurative usages, you also include the literal sense. It would seem logical to do so, and this does seem the practice in cases like Rodeo Drive and German Mercedes. Benwing2 (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- That's better, but still, it's an rfd-sense. I'm thinking we should delete the sense at hand (sense #2, the one about a specific French avenue) and instead add the figurative one. MedK1 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- @MedK1 But it's equally easy to find figurative uses in French: [5] [6] [7] etc. This means it should be defined both in English and French with figurative uses, not deleted. Benwing2 (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, but I'd like to note that this is a French rfd-sense (pertaining to an actual road in France), not an English rfd. I have seen figurative uses for it; in English and even in Portuguese... but that's just not what this RFD is about. Maybe this keep vote should be retracted? MedK1 (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps figurative definition could be something like (by extension) a wide, fashionable street known for its mansions and upscale boutiques. Benwing2 (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep for figurative uses. See [1], which produces:
Portuguese. I’m sitting here wondering if this was ever productive within Portuguese, or if it was productive in Old Galician-Portuguese... or if it was never productive at all! In the latter two cases, we wouldn't list it — and the two usage examples currently provided in the entriesare the third case, said to derive from reconstructed Vulgar Latin words.
I think it's great that @Protegmatic created the entry. We may need to think this further, though. Polomo47 (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- One more useful piece of info: if I'm right, the prefix es- started being spelled that way after the reforms of 1911 and 1943, which standardized the spelling of words previously written either way... extender ~ estender. I assume there must have been some criteria, like looking at how Latin ex- descended in other contexts.
- Anyway, the main question remains. Polomo47 (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Keep
- It's a prefix common to many romance languages, used in etym sections, so productivity is irrelevant for the argument; if you want to delete this, you'd have to delete all the other ones using the same logic, I honestly don't understand why was this even rfd'd, tu tá maluco, moleque?
[...]the prefix es- started being spelled that way after the reforms of 1911 and 1943 [...]
In older Portuguese, they were spelled differently, since they were also pronounced differently, as is still the case for some people. Sérgio Santos (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)- I nominated this because a prefix can’t really be called a prefix if it was never productive within the language. If only words formed with the prefix — but not the prefix itself — were inherited, then we can’t have an entry for the prefix. Nevertheless, I’ve looked at some of the other entries in the derived terms category, and I guess it checks out. Polomo47 (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Wait, how were they spelled? Also, Polomo has a point. If the prefix wasn't ever productive in the language and words were simply inherited whilst already having it, then it's no prefix at all. To say otherwise is to argue for the inclusion of al- because of álcool and alface. MedK1 (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- Not an apt comparison: the Arabic definite article was never interpreted as a prefix, as far as I'm aware. Plus, the prefix was clearly productive in Portuguese (and other romance languages): palma > espalmar; quente > esquentar; buraco > esburacar; some of these words can be derived directly from the Latin form, but many cannot. Sérgio Santos (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- Those that weren’t inherited from Latin were still likely formed in OGP and inherited from there. I haven’t yet nominated the “not productive” sense of -ão, even tho I’ve wanted to do it for a while: all of the words with it are seemingly inherited from OGP, seeing as they have Galician cognates. Polomo (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- Not an apt comparison: the Arabic definite article was never interpreted as a prefix, as far as I'm aware. Plus, the prefix was clearly productive in Portuguese (and other romance languages): palma > espalmar; quente > esquentar; buraco > esburacar; some of these words can be derived directly from the Latin form, but many cannot. Sérgio Santos (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as @Polomo already mentioned it was never productive in Portuguese. Davi6596 (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- I’m not sure about this, actually. It would need looking deeper at derived terms, which I have shamefully yet to do myself. For some of them, we do give them as being formed with this prefix. It remains to be seen whether they are attested in OGP and how other dictionaries treat each case. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 02:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Polomo I see, thanks for your clarification. Davi6596 (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- I’m not sure about this, actually. It would need looking deeper at derived terms, which I have shamefully yet to do myself. For some of them, we do give them as being formed with this prefix. It remains to be seen whether they are attested in OGP and how other dictionaries treat each case. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 02:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
March 2025
[edit]French. Not my field, but it smells like sum of parts. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not used to SOP-solving and don't know if my demonstration would be enough: try saying "at the moment when I saw him, I shivered", it sounds off. Saumache (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- It is not clear to me what the point is you are trying to demonstrate. Here are some uses of "at the moment when I": [8], [9], [10]; they seem natural enough to me. Is the sense different from the French phrase? ‑‑Lambiam 12:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I guess I had not realized "at the moment when" was a thing in English, the French sentence is at least as common, as "dès que" nowadays, perhaps even more (with a slight difference in meaning), with "aussitôt que" falling out of use in day-to-day conversations. I don't know if any of this weighs in on it being SOP or not, anyhow. Saumache (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- It is not clear to me what the point is you are trying to demonstrate. Here are some uses of "at the moment when I": [8], [9], [10]; they seem natural enough to me. Is the sense different from the French phrase? ‑‑Lambiam 12:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. At the very least it is SOP in the sense of being à + le moment où, the second component of which is easily attested ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15]). But this second component is also SOP; the noun can vary: la seconde où,[16] l’heure et la minute où,[17] l’époque où.[18] ‑‑Lambiam 10:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Latin. No actual definition. The only sense line is &lit. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:BD8F:976:A4DC:6C26 17:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, this entry seems to only exist in order to be an etymon for the english entry above it. However we can just take from the example of habeas corpus (and other similar entries) and link each word individually. NS1729 (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Italian. ci sono, ci sei, ci siamo, ci siete
WT:SOP/"proclitic + word spelled as separate words" o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- Also ci fui, ci fosti, ci fu, ci fummo, ci foste, ci furono,
- ci sia, ci siate, ci siano,
- ci fossi, ci fosse, ci fossimo, ci fossero Emanuele6 (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- Per our Discord discussion, I would keep ci sono as it's such a common locution (compare English there are) and the kind of person who would look this up (someone knowing little about Italian) is unlikely to know to look under esserci. Likewise, it's the plural of c'è, which is a single word and so no SOP can apply. All the others should probably be deleted esp. the first-person and second-person ones, which can't have any existential meaning and are purely SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
esp. the first-person and second-person ones, which can't have any existential meaning and are purely SOP
. Well, I don't think that is exactly true: where in English you would say "there's me", "there's me and Laura", in Italian it would be "ci sono io", "ci siamo io e Laura" with first-person singular/plural, same for second-person. You would never use something likeci sono noi/c'è noifor there's us: ci siamo noi. What there is is the subject of esserci, not the object/subject-complement to a dummy subject.- I guess esserci is different from the equivalents in the other Romance languages (e.g. French y avoir) that are impersonal, and from third-person only English there be; it is literally simply (t)here + to be inflected to the appropriate person. You could also use starci with stare instead of essere and get a pretty much equivalent meaning.
- There is no real difference between "there be" and "to be there" except maybe preferred word order; I wasn't really even thinking of that possible meaning when proposing to delete those pages: I was simply thinking of them as "I am (t)here"/"I am present"; "They are (t)here"/"They are present"; etc.
- Also note that not all possible inflections currently have pages; that is only a subset: notably future ci sarà, and conditional ci sarebbe are missing. Emanuele6 (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete all but ci sono per Benwing. (@Emanuele6 please wait until the discussion is resolved before tagging entries for deletion.) Ultimateria (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Ultimateria The discussion was already over before @Benwing2 commented in my opinion. They were tagged before there was any reply on this discussion. Since I thought it was pretty obvious there going to get deleted, I orphaned them manually and improved the pages that were linking to them in the process. Emanuele6 (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Also, after the comment, something is currently being discussed I think, so maybe we should wait and actually discuss it. "ci sono" is only a possible translation of "there are", the indicative mood present; for example: "I think there are" would be translated as "penso ci siano", and "I think there is" as "penso ci sia" with the subjunctive mood present. Maybe we think "ci siano" and "ci sia" subjunctive should also be kept? o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- I mean formally, someone needs to strike out the title and say "RFD-passed" or "RFD-deleted", ideally after several votes. I'm going to change those pages for now to clear up Category:D.
- Regarding ci sia / siano, I don't think they have the same Italian 101 ubiquity and simplicity as ci sono that make the page a good candidate to direct people to esserci. Ultimateria (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- I guess I don't really see what is special about the third-person inflections specifically, but if you both think the third-person plural present indicative is worth keeping, you can keep it. Emanuele6 (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah I agree with @Ultimateria here; c'è and ci sono are much more basic from a learner's perspective, and someone who encounters and can't find ci sia may well know enough Italian to look up c'è or ci sono and get directed to esserci. BTW we have no usage examples of defn #1 "there (to) be" of esserci; there definitely need to be such examples. Benwing2 (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Added some examples, @Emanuele6 please make sure they sound idiomatic as I'm not a native Italian speaker :) ... Benwing2 (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Benwing2 They are good! "in ..." at the end of the sentence rather than before "ci" sounds a bit weird/descriptive in speech, I think; and I personally tend to omit the optional che before a subjunctive, but it's fine.
- Please note however that I believe defn #1 is supposed to include also
- In quell'aula, c'eravamo solo io e Luca
- In that classroom, it was just me and Luca
- Where c'eravamo is first-person plural indicative imperfect because "io e Luca" are first-person plural.
- I don't think that is any different from ci sono, c'è for what concerns Italian: we exist at ci (the place). But, when we are not dealing with third-person, in English, we tend to avoid "there be" as you pointed out on Discord (even though on reverso "c'eravamo io" about half of the results use it); and we tend to prefer "it be" over there be.
- If I add examples that don't use the third-person to clarify it is not third-person only, as one may think, would you prefer if I add that as a separate definition? o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's fine to include them among definition #1, and add a usage note below that English often uses 'it was ...' instead of 'there was ...' when the grammatical object/logical subject is a pronoun (this also applies to third-person pronouns, "It was just him in the room" sounds better to me than "There was just him in the room"). Please do correct my Italian examples to make them more idiomatic. Benwing2 (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Added some examples, @Emanuele6 please make sure they sound idiomatic as I'm not a native Italian speaker :) ... Benwing2 (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah I agree with @Ultimateria here; c'è and ci sono are much more basic from a learner's perspective, and someone who encounters and can't find ci sia may well know enough Italian to look up c'è or ci sono and get directed to esserci. BTW we have no usage examples of defn #1 "there (to) be" of esserci; there definitely need to be such examples. Benwing2 (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- I guess I don't really see what is special about the third-person inflections specifically, but if you both think the third-person plural present indicative is worth keeping, you can keep it. Emanuele6 (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Benwing2, @Ultimateria Will they be deleted or not? Emanuele6 (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Emanuele6: I would still like to see more input, regardless of the time elapsed. I'll ping the workgroup. (Notifying Benwing2, GianWiki, Jberkel, Imetsia, Sartma, Catonif, Trimpulot, Emanuele6): Ultimateria (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the issue here. If we generally keep inflected forms, as we do for Latin (stuff like animadvertistis) and Greek (like βαίνετε), then we should also keep the various ci sono, ci siete, ecc. The verb esserci is not an SOP. When I ask a friend or friends "ci sei/ci siete/ci siamo?" meaning "are you ready?" or "do you understand me?", that's not SOP. esserci is not the same as, say, scriverci ("to write there") in "Devi scriverci il tuo nome" ("You need to write your name there"), it's more like entrarci, in "Quello non c'entra nulla." ("That has nothing to do with it."). This would be a keep for me. — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 12:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- So this is saying that inflections of verbs with idiomatic meanings always pass WT:CFI; sono cazzi, saranno cazzi, sarebbero cazzi, furono cazzi, etc. would also be accepted if they were created because they are inflections of essere cazzi; me ne frego would also pass it for fregarsene.
- Nothing to comment or suggest about the fact that these pages are and would be orphaned since
{{it-conj}}only links to the individual words. - Does this take deserve any respect? o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Sono cazzi is an idiom formed by an inflected verb and a noun, not the inflected form of a verb. ci sei/ci siete ecc. are inflected forms of the verb esserci, which doesn't only mean "to be there", and therefore is not just essere + ci, in the same sense that scriverci is, and only is, scrivere + ci. Again, when I say "Ok, ci siamo.", that might mean "ok, we are there", given the right –extremely marked and therefore very unusual– context, but the vast majority of times it simply means "ok, we are ready" or "ok, (now) we got it". As for fregarsene: yes, we should have all inflected forms. That's clearly not an SOP (no-one in their right mind would understand fregarsene literally as "to fuck oneself of it", it just means "to care little about something". — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 14:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- The personal forms of esserci (ci sono, ci sei etc.) have no existential meaning, as their use in phrases such as c'eravamo lui e io (“there was him and me”) conveys not the meaning of “to exist”, but rather of “to be [physically] present (in a given location)”; and, in that regard, they are merely sums-of-parts:
Therefore, I think there are grounds for deletion.- EDIT (after reading @Sartma's comment above): Nevermind, I think mine was a rushed judgement. In other non-impersonal meanings, esserci is a verb just like any other. Keep. — GianWiki (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Weak keep. They're so common that they've become essentially expressions in their own right. And we generally have separate subpages for individual verb inflections. Imetsia (talk (more)) 13:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- There's a fundamental difference everyone is overlooking between forms like animadvertistis, βαίνετε, etc. and ci siamo etc. which is that the former are one word and the latter is two. We generally don't include all inflections of multiword phrases; it's true that we often do this for English but I think this is a mistake and am going to propose we remove most of them. We don't, for example, include all inflections of Spanish reflexive verbs, even the ones that are idiomatic and reflexive-only, and I don't think we should do that here, either for esserci or fregarsene. Benwing2 (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- I do see your point, but I would still argue that "me ne frego" is one word. It is phonetically. It's just a matter of orthography that in Italian clitics are spelled separately when in front of a verb, but together when they come after it.
- "Me ne frego" (I don't care) looks like it's 3 words and "fregatene!" (don't care about ti!) one. But phonetically they are both one word: /me.neˈfre.ɡo/ and /ˈfre.ɡa.te.ne/. It's not different from German ausgehen that has gehe aus and ausgegangen. I'm fine with not having multiword phrases like "me ne frego", but then we should remove also sfuff like gehe aus and ausgegangen. — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 15:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- There's a fundamental difference everyone is overlooking between forms like animadvertistis, βαίνετε, etc. and ci siamo etc. which is that the former are one word and the latter is two. We generally don't include all inflections of multiword phrases; it's true that we often do this for English but I think this is a mistake and am going to propose we remove most of them. We don't, for example, include all inflections of Spanish reflexive verbs, even the ones that are idiomatic and reflexive-only, and I don't think we should do that here, either for esserci or fregarsene. Benwing2 (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the issue here. If we generally keep inflected forms, as we do for Latin (stuff like animadvertistis) and Greek (like βαίνετε), then we should also keep the various ci sono, ci siete, ecc. The verb esserci is not an SOP. When I ask a friend or friends "ci sei/ci siete/ci siamo?" meaning "are you ready?" or "do you understand me?", that's not SOP. esserci is not the same as, say, scriverci ("to write there") in "Devi scriverci il tuo nome" ("You need to write your name there"), it's more like entrarci, in "Quello non c'entra nulla." ("That has nothing to do with it."). This would be a keep for me. — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 12:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Emanuele6: I would still like to see more input, regardless of the time elapsed. I'll ping the workgroup. (Notifying Benwing2, GianWiki, Jberkel, Imetsia, Sartma, Catonif, Trimpulot, Emanuele6): Ultimateria (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
May 2025
[edit]Portuguese. Sum-of-parts, right? English pepper mill, coffee grinder may be kept by any combination of WT:COALMINE, WT:THUB, and even WT:LEMMING, but not the Portuguese equivalents. A moedor de café can be anything from a hand-powered device to an industrial apparatus, so I don't think WT:FRIED applies. Polomo47 (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Sérgio R R Santos Polomo47 (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Funny, a similar debate occurred a few months ago in pt.wikt, which was what made me create the en.wiki entries. I think they shoul be kept, because they refer to specific objects, like camião do lixo/caminhão de lixo. Sérgio Santos (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Also funny that just before I saw this notification I was going to see if wiktionary had the entry pimenta no cu dos outros é refresco no nosso, which it only has the abrigded version pimenta no cu dos outros é refresco which I guess is the one more common in Brazil. By the way, sorry for not yet having provided a reply to your inquiry, it is part laziness and part difficult to answer, but I will reply. Sérgio Santos (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well, maybe moedor de pimenta does, but there are a thousand different types of moedor de café (“moedores de café”). I do get what you mean with the peppermill, though... I don't think there is anything like an industrial peppermill, and it's always that specific shape. Polomo47 (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
but there are a thousand different types of moedor de café
- Yes, but there are also many types of watermills or windmills in terms of functioning and construction, but they all fulfill the same purpose, and so share a common name. Also I don't think there are "thousands" of coffee mills (although I didn't do research on that); there's the manual ones, - which naturally are rare these days -, the electric ones that are used in coffee shops (of which I am only aware because I fixed one some months ago), and then theres the industrial ones.I don't think there is anything like an industrial peppermill
- well, you can buy powdered pepper, so there must be one - I'm sure the companies aren't griding all that pepper by hand! Sérgio Santos (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)- But moinho de vento and moinho d'água are not SoP insofar as they do not mill wind nor water. Polomo47 (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I get it, but I think the word de means different things in each word, just like a camião do lixo is not a truck made of garbage (although that would be pretty cool!), but a monte de merda (the first example I could think of) is a mount made of shit (even though it's used figuratively).
- I saw that you also added a request for deletion on pt.wikt; like I said above and as it was explained to you by an admin, we already had that discussion (and I think it was the same admin who started the discussion); I voted to keep all except moedor de pimenta preta and moedor de pimenta-do-reino [19], which I found redundant (I later abstained from moedor de pimenta-do-reino, since pimenta-do-reino is not used in Portugal); they all got kept, however.
- I must confess that I only started editing pt.wikt at that time (mosly adding Coptic entries, which was what I was interested in during that time) because I got blocked in en.wikt, because I had the brilliant idea of insulting an admin (which I didn't know was an admin at the time), and I got the even more brilliant idea of pinging said admin while I was insulting him. Oh, I was so young and naïve! Or maybe just stupid. Sérgio Santos (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- PS: turns out there was no moedor de pimenta preta; my memory deceives me, soon I'll be dead! 34 is so old... Sérgio Santos (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- What you mean by "not used in Portugal" is a WT:HOSPITAL argument in English Wiktionary terms. However, I don't see why there would've been value in keeping those instead of just pimenta-do-reino and pimenta-preta, which is where the difference in meaning lies. (of course, the entries don't exist here, so it's not especially relevant to this discussion)
- And, yeah, de means something different in each entry, but I’m not sure "de" has a productive meaning like "à base de". On a different basis, caminhão de lixo would be idiomatic in my perception because it's less about what the truck carries and more about its shape. I see tons of smaller trucks with an open bed carrying garbage, but that doesn't make them a garbage truck. Polomo47 (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- We probably won't get far in this discussion with only two people; maybe we should ping other pt speaking editors? Sérgio Santos (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- But moinho de vento and moinho d'água are not SoP insofar as they do not mill wind nor water. Polomo47 (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Funny, a similar debate occurred a few months ago in pt.wikt, which was what made me create the en.wiki entries. I think they shoul be kept, because they refer to specific objects, like camião do lixo/caminhão de lixo. Sérgio Santos (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete all of them and expand moedor and moinho to include a sense about specific types of grinders/mills. Words often have both broad and narrow senses, and they're graspable from context in these cases.
- Also, no dictionary contains those terms, and these entries imply they're SoP: Dicionário Online - Dicionário Caldas Aulete - Significado de moedor, moinho - Dicionário Online Priberam de Português, Moedor - Dicio, Dicionário Online de Português, moinho | Dicionário Infopédia da Língua Portuguesa, and moinho - Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa. Davi6596 (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Keep all. en.wikt has all the equivalent entries, so I don't know why we can't have the pt ones as well. A lot of terms are not in any dictionary; secador de cabelo is only in Priberam, all other diccs giving it the same treatment as the terms above; I couldn't find caixote do lixo in any dicc, despite its ubiquitous usage; same with some expressions like é o que é or dialectal terms like miljangro. Sérgio Santos (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- PS: tudo o que vem à rede é peixe, another well known saying for which I could find no dictionary reference. Sérgio Santos (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Sérgio R R Santos Your examples are clearly idiomatic, but the terms with moedor and moinho don't seem to be. Not being in dictionaries isn`t the main argument but an additional one. Davi6596 (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Your examples are clearly idiomatic
- not all of them; caixote do lixo could be considered SOP, but it refers to a specific object that can be constructed from different materials, like a moinho de pimenta, etc. Sérgio Santos (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)- It isn't SoP, because "caixote" is defined as a wooden crate, but we know not all trash cans are wooden. Davi6596 (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Nor crates! Polomo47 (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever, I keep my vote, lets ping other pt-speaking user and get done with this. Sérgio Santos (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- It isn't SoP, because "caixote" is defined as a wooden crate, but we know not all trash cans are wooden. Davi6596 (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete all. Clearly SoP. MedK1 (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
June 2025
[edit]Italian. Defined as the past participle of multiword verb mettere al bando: I don't think that that qualifies for inclusion.
It probably only exists because a page for messa al bando exists since it is a multiword Noun (indeed a feminine past participle deverbal of that multiword verb), and someone wanted to add its literal meaning as feminine singular inflection of the past participle of mettere al bando.
I have removed the "feminine singular of mettere al bando" definition from messa al bando and added {{it-deverbal fpp|mettere al bando}} as its etymology.
I think "messo al bando" can be deleted. o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- messi al bando also exists, misclassified as Verb; I think that is how I found this. Emanuele6 (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Or do we think we might as well have all the past participle inflections even though they are not linked from mettere al bando since we already have messa al bando? Emanuele6 (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. I believe it's a SOP of com+os+dias contados,. My reasoning being that dias contados, meaning "final moments", does not occur solely with "estar com" but also with "ter" (ter os dias contados, compare Spanish tener los días contados) or even in a threatning tone "os teus dias estão contados". - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Sarilho1 The fact you can say "os teus dias estão contados" proves that dias contados is a sum of figurative meanings of dias and contados. Davi6596 (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've added dias contados to the rfd discussion. - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, seems SoP: dinheiro contado. Delete and we need to expand contado. Polomo47 (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and expand contado. Davi6596 (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Keep dias contados!!! I'm seriously baffled by how the vote's going here. How in the world is "dias contados" SoP? It's a completely different sense from "dinheiro contado" and this meaning is exclusive to when it's used with "dias". There's no shot it's SoP! Delete and redirect com os dias contados though. MedK1 (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm pinging @Davi6596 and @Polomo47 so y'all can reconsider. MedK1 (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- @MedK1 The issue is that the components, dias and contados, can be separated, as in "Os teus dias estão contados". Perhaps we can add a sense to contado for when it's used with dias. Davi6596 (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- I am not sure how the meaning of dinheiro contado is different. Yeah, a primary meaning of contado is “in the exact required amount” — montei a mala prà viagem com as meias contadas — but I think the sense “having a limited amount“ is not exclusive to days either? When I mentioned dinheiro contado as a similar collocation, I associated it with the latter meaning (same as in dias contados), though it could definitely mean the former as well. Polomo (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- Saying your meias are contadas doesn't really imply anything about what's going to happen to them. You just brought exactly the required amount of socks for something. When you say one's dias are contados, though, it's not about having an exact number or required number or anything of the sort, it's an actual threat equivalent to "I'm going to end you soon" or "você não perde por esperar". The meaning is completely different. Consider: "As suas joias estão contadas." ...Tá, e daí? "Os dias das suas joias estão contados." ...Caraças, ele vai me roubar! MedK1 (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- But at the same time, hmm. "O seu tempo está contado" and "Os seus anos estão contados" do carry the same vibes, don't they? I think this sense only works in reference to time though. Maybe it could be an extra sense or even a subsense (if you really think it's close to how we'd say "dinheiro contado") at contado? MedK1 (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Saying your meias are contadas doesn't really imply anything about what's going to happen to them. You just brought exactly the required amount of socks for something. When you say one's dias are contados, though, it's not about having an exact number or required number or anything of the sort, it's an actual threat equivalent to "I'm going to end you soon" or "você não perde por esperar". The meaning is completely different. Consider: "As suas joias estão contadas." ...Tá, e daí? "Os dias das suas joias estão contados." ...Caraças, ele vai me roubar! MedK1 (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm pinging @Davi6596 and @Polomo47 so y'all can reconsider. MedK1 (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- When in doubt, it helps checking the references: both Infópedia and Priberam only have "ter os dias contados", Michaelis has only "estar com os dias contados", while Aulete has both. My suggestion is to have ter os dias contados/estar com os dias contados as alternative forms of each other, and delete the others. Sérgio Santos (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- I’d much rather lemmatize at dias contados than that. Davi mentioned above how being able to separate it — dias estão contados — makes it SoP, but I don't really see that. My argument for SoP is another, and if it turns out it does not hold, then I’d rather keep it at dias contados. Polomo (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Odd Romanian phrasebook entry added by user with a history of bizarre contributions. Gară feroviară (literally “railway station”) is a redundant formation which nobody would realistically use. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- This would fail rfv just based on usage- absolutely nothing that isn't us. Delete. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Spanish. See Portuguese #acabar com (which will later be archived to Talk:acabar com). Polomo47 (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to acabar, without a doubt. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 05:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- RFD-failed. MedK1 (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Misspelling: hyphenated only before a vowel or ⟨h⟩. Polomo47 (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Ping creator @Munmula. Polomo47 (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm. We have mal-feito, which is omega common. Does this affect whether we keep "mal-feitor" seeing as they're related...? MedK1 (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think it does. Keep per MedK. Davi6596 (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- I guess I'm leaning towards keep too then. Can we get someone else's thoughts here? MedK1 (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think it does. Keep per MedK. Davi6596 (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Nominating these also as misspellings. They were originally created as pre-1990 spellings, which they of course are not, so I repurposed them; I don’t think they are common enough, though? Polomo47 (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, they aren't common enough. Davi6596 (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm leaning toward 'keep as misspelling' tbh. I'm pretty sure that's how I'd write these words oops.. MedK1 (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Can anybody else weigh in? MedK1 (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
August 2025
[edit]Portuguese super-hero names; see WT:FICTION, WT:NSE. I believe English Superman has some value as it has many derived senses, but that’s not the case for Portuguese, is it? — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 22:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Super-Homem and Superman per nom. If the derived terms of Batman are idiomatic, it can be kept like its English counterpart; otherwise, delete it. They can be moved to an appendix. Davi6596 (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Latin, RFD. The entry is based on one dubious reading. Was probably added because Lewis & Short list it, but it has not been used elsewhere. Imbricitor (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: According to Wiktionary:Limited Documentation Languages#Citations, “Words can be added for LDL languages based on only one citation, unlike other languages that require three. When a word entry is made based on only one or two citations, the source(s) must be provided.” Latin is a limited-documentation language, and the entry in question cites and quotes the relevant source. 0DF (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: as per above. I don't see what second reading you might produce. Saumache (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfd-sense: "preference for having safe sex"; I believe senses 3–5 are meant. This entry has many near-redundant senses, but I can’t figure out what to change. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 04:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Agreed. Also, I can't see any reason to keep senses 3 and 4 separate. 5 is a bit more debatable though I guess. MedK1 (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfd-sense: sixty (noun). Is there really a second sense for this? You don't call 60-second commercials "sessentas" in Portuguese, do you? The only sense I've seen is the numeral sense... MedK1 (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Just like we don’t have a noun sense at seventy for English, we should not have one in Portuguese. Some dictionaries (not all, which is key) define it as a noun meaning the glyphs
7
,0
in combination, but it’d be the same in English, and we don’t have it there. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 20:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC) - Delete per MedK1 and Polomo. Davi6596 (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- I was actually about to fail this when I decided that I wanted to add a further reading session while I was it. Anyway, long story short is that the definitions at Priberam and Infopédia actually made me less sure that we shouldn't include these nouns. Namely, these definitions:
- O sexagésimo indivíduo ou objeto de uma série
- Idade aproximada entre os 60 e os 69 anos (ex.: já anda nos sessentas e faz esporte regularmente)
this would go in "sessentas" but - o que, numa série, ocupa o sexagésimo lugar
- — Ó, agora é o 60, depois somos nós que vamos entrar no consultório, viu filho?
- — Ah, a Fulana mora ali no 35
- Isn't this some very noun-y behavior? I don't think you can say "She lives in the 35" in English, and for the 1st sentence, you have to specify "#60 comes next, and then we can get into the doctor's office" (#60 = "number 60"). MedK1 (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
September 2025
[edit]enviar um pix, mandar um pix, receber um pix, etc.
[edit]Portuguese, also nominating the various synonyms and alt forms. SOP. Jberkel 07:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- Delete them all. Davi6596 (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Notsonotoriousbig, these entries appear to be sum-of-parts as per our WT:SOP policy; see if you agree with this deletion, so we don’t have to wait a month. In any case, I say delete also. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 23:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Polomo Hey mate. I added the entries because the phrase is actually used all the time in Brazil, and even some dictionaries started adding entries to the term. But if you feel it shouldn't be here, I don't mind. Sorry for all the hustle I still have a lot to learn about Wiktionary. Notsonotoriousbig (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Did you look at the WT:SOP policy? I and others interpret these entries as non-idiomatic (i.e., sum-of-parts), which means they should not be included. Do you believe that they are idiomatic?
- It’s interesting that Infopédia lists the phrases fazer um pix, passar um pix, as though it is. Surely fazer um pix (literally “to make a money transfer”) is sum-of-parts, and I believe the form with passar (sense 2) is too? Literally, “to pass a money transfer”. And even if it’s not that sense, then some other... “me passa o seu número”, “passar mensagem”. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 16:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Polomo I did read, but in my head it falls in the same category as many entries on Wiktionary (fazer xixi / fazer cocô / fazer a barba / fazer sexo, etc.) That's why I got confused. In my perception, fazer xixi (take a piss) should enter because this form is used a lot, maybe even more used than mijar (piss), urinar (urinate), etc. The same thing goes for fazer um pix. You could say transferir dinheiro por Pix (transfer money through Pix) or something, but it's just not as common. But of course you guys know more than me, so I'll agree with whatever you decide :) Notsonotoriousbig (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Notsonotoriousbig fazer um pix is SoP because um pix alone means "a money transaction thru Pix". But xixi doesn't mean urination. Davi6596 (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- Davi6596, it doesn't?! 2804:388:411F:95D:1:0:BEE5:5054 12:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- @2804:388:411F:95D:1:0:BEE5:5054 No, it doesn't. xixi alone literally means urine, not urination: the former is a liquid, while the latter is an action. Davi6596 (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Davi6596, it doesn't?! 2804:388:411F:95D:1:0:BEE5:5054 12:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Notsonotoriousbig fazer um pix is SoP because um pix alone means "a money transaction thru Pix". But xixi doesn't mean urination. Davi6596 (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Polomo I did read, but in my head it falls in the same category as many entries on Wiktionary (fazer xixi / fazer cocô / fazer a barba / fazer sexo, etc.) That's why I got confused. In my perception, fazer xixi (take a piss) should enter because this form is used a lot, maybe even more used than mijar (piss), urinar (urinate), etc. The same thing goes for fazer um pix. You could say transferir dinheiro por Pix (transfer money through Pix) or something, but it's just not as common. But of course you guys know more than me, so I'll agree with whatever you decide :) Notsonotoriousbig (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Polomo Hey mate. I added the entries because the phrase is actually used all the time in Brazil, and even some dictionaries started adding entries to the term. But if you feel it shouldn't be here, I don't mind. Sorry for all the hustle I still have a lot to learn about Wiktionary. Notsonotoriousbig (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. RfD etymology 2, “forms demonyms”. I’ve been putting this off a while, like I mentioned in #es- above.
I do not believe this was productive within Portuguese. Words such as vilão, cidadão were formed in Old Galician-Portuguese. Even folião has a Galician cognate, which must have been inherited from OGP.
In order to "keep" this sense, we need to come up with a word formed with the suffix -ão that cannot be attested prior to 1500. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 23:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- Correction: folião uses a different sense of -ão, as per the plural foliões. Not sure what sense that is, though. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 02:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'd reckon it's sense 6, the same one that gives us Portuguese mijão. Sense 6 specifically words that it has to come from a verb though; assuming that's really how it is, maybe "folião" is actually foliar+-ão? MedK1 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Latin. The entry provides no evidence for this being more than a sum-of-parts combination of "this" and "day".--Urszag (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, tho I think we should create these SOP Latin entries if they have many descendants. Trooper57 (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Clearly SOP. It means "this day", not "today". — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 16:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- RFD-failed. Ultimateria (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Spanish. SOPVealhurl (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. No use as a phrasebook entry. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 20:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- It makes sense to delete it, but do mention it at razonar as an in-line example or something. It seems like it'd be frequent, like "justifique sua resposta" in Portuguese. MedK1 (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- Failed Vealhurl (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfd-sense: pronoun sense 3. How does this differ from sense 2? — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 23:35, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: It's mirroring how "another" is defined. The difference is that sense 2 is synonymous with "mais um" and sense 3 isn't. Ngl I think it's really weird too, but it works the same way on another. Should we RFD that too? MedK1 (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfd-senses: pluralia tantum noun. Isn’t this just the plural of bem (“property”)? — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 01:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- Technically yeah but it's almost exclusively seen in the plural for the 1st sense. I feel there's a way we usually handle these (without deleting the most common form outright)... MedK1 (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Spanish. Rfd-sense: work by Pablo Picasso. See the English RfD at Talk:Michelangelo. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 04:27, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- RFD-failed as it's been over two months. MedK1 (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- What does this mean for Spanish picasso? MedK1 (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Louisiana French. RfD entry. Expression appears neither in the (relatively comprehensive) Dictionary of Louisiana French (Valdman 2010) nor in Tonnerre mes chiens!: A glossary of Louisiana French figures of speech (LaFleur 1999). Almost certainly a mistaken truncation of comment ça se plume. Monsuu (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- You may be right, but shouldn’t this nevertheless be at RfV? Here are some mentions (not uses): [20], [21], [22]. ‑‑Lambiam 16:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, perhaps. But I think it is definitely possible that those mentions are erroneous. It would not be the first time—not by a long shot—that Louisiana French was misrepresented in writing. Monsuu (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
October 2025
[edit]Misspellings Shlyst (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- The page was originally created with claxon listed as a synonym, so it seems the creator was aware of the primary form. I understand this is likely a nonstandard/proscribed, alternate-stress variant? If so, it should be kept as an alt form. Misspellings should also be kept if they are common. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 19:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nobody says "claxón." It is not a variant nor a nonstandard/proscribed variant. It's just a misspelling. Shlyst (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- The Hispanosphere is a large place and I suspect no single person knows all dialects in it. Google Books clearly likes it, so it might just be a common misspelling also, which we would keep. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 20:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Which dialect is "claxón?" Seems a bit ridiculous. You can find "exámen" in Google Books which is just a misspelling of "examen" also.
- https://www.google.com/search?udm=36&q=%22ex%C3%A1men%22
- Unless we would include every single misspelling for every word? I'm not sure what's in accordance with CFI. Shlyst (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- As per WT:SPELL, common ones should be included. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 20:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- The Hispanosphere is a large place and I suspect no single person knows all dialects in it. Google Books clearly likes it, so it might just be a common misspelling also, which we would keep. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 20:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nobody says "claxón." It is not a variant nor a nonstandard/proscribed variant. It's just a misspelling. Shlyst (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Also ping @User:Rodrigo5260. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 20:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Seems to be a common misspelling caused by a misunderstanding of Spanish accenting rules, but it's never pronounced with stress on the last syllable (at least not that I know). Rodrigo5260 (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- The RFD here seems to hinge on the fact that it's a misspelling. Misspellings, especially when common, are accepted by the CFI. I don't see the issue here. I'm leaning toward keep claxón (not as confident about "claxones" because people forget diacritics all the time; we'd need to prove that the "claxones" spelling is not a typo, but someone pluralizing "claxón").
- @Shlyst AFAIK, misspellings are accepted when they a) are understood to be common (or have 3+ attestations) and b) aren't typos. MedK1 (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Claxón seems to be a typo, by confusion of other words usually ending in ón, further proven by the stress not being on ó when pronounced. Shlyst (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- That’s not what a typo is. That’s a misspelling, and misspellings may be included if they are common, which this appears to be. Keep. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 23:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- "by confusion of other words usually ending in ón" That's precisely what makes it not a typo. A typo is when you do it purely by accident, unintentionally. If there's a rationale behind it (even if erroneous), that makes it, by definition, not a typo. MedK1 (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- All right, I changed my mind. I think since I made it, I get to clear it? To compensate, I also created the misspelling exámen which I had previously mentioned as a counterpoint. Shlyst (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Shlyst: The usual terminology is that you withdraw it, but yes, that's fine. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- All right, I changed my mind. I think since I made it, I get to clear it? To compensate, I also created the misspelling exámen which I had previously mentioned as a counterpoint. Shlyst (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Claxón seems to be a typo, by confusion of other words usually ending in ón, further proven by the stress not being on ó when pronounced. Shlyst (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
French.
"This construction combines the conjunctive phrase ainsi que ("as well as") with the prepositional phrase à des ("to some," using the partitive article des for unspecified plural quantities)."
I will leave it to those who speak French better than I do to determine whether that combination is idomatic or SOP. It's all rather verbose and poorly formatted, at any rate. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- delete, natural in "cela fera plaisir à moins fortuné, ainsi qu'à des gens [but better as "ainsi qu'à ceux"] déjà dans le besoin" where it has no idiomatic value whatsoever. I searched for legal texts, where it didn't have any added semantic value either. Saumache (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
November 2025
[edit]Italian. apocopic form of quale
for both the pronoun and the determiner.
No. It's categorically qual; no apostrophe.
- quale in Treccani.it – Vocabolario Treccani on line, Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana
o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Emanuele6 It's the prescriptive form, that's true (but we shouldn't be prescriptive on Wiktionary, right?). A tremendous amount of Italians would still write/type qual' though, and there are extremely valid arguments for actually considering qual' the more correct form, independently of what the current orthographic norm are in this regard. I wouldn't delete the entry, just add a note or something that clarify it's a proscribed form, but still very commonly seen in pretty much every Italian text that hasn't been professionally edited. — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 11:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- RFD-kept. Redefined as a misspelling of qual, but I think you are exaggerating how common it is. Emanuele6 (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Emanuele6 Maybe, but these days everything corrects you, so it's difficult to say. I'm pretty sure that given a pen, a massive ammount of Italians would write in the apostrophe, as they possibly do when typing before Word or their phone autocorrects them. That apart, some people might even use it on purpose, since, as I said in my previous comment, there are very valid arguments to consider qual' the correct form in modern Italian. — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 12:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- If there are valid reasons to consider it correct and people do it on purpose, should it really be called a "misspelling"? Maybe it'd be best to be like "(proscribed) Alternative form ...?" MedK1 (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what @Sartma is referring to there: I have never heard anything regarding this before. Emanuele6 (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Emanuele6: Here the first two articles I found, but there's many more. I'm one of those who use qual'è, and hate people telling me it's wrong, because it really isn't.
- “Qual’è” si può scrivere con l’apostrofo.
- “Qual è” contro “Qual’è”. Sono entrambi corretti e vi spiego perché!— Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 21:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing these articles, and bringing this up. Somehow, I was completely unaware of the fact that there were people intentionally spelling "qual è" with an apostrophe as "qual'è" because it logically is an elision, ignoring the fact it is not generally accepted and it is recommended to always spell it without one.
- I guess it is a situation similar to sé traditionally being spelled without an accent mark when followed by stess[aeio] or medesim[aeio], as e.g. se stesso, while, nowadays, the spelling recommended by many dictionaries is actually sé stesso with no special rule; except for the fact that, as far as I am aware, no dictionary has declared qual'è with no special rule preferred yet.
- I was curious to see what Luciano Canepari had to say about this since I remember that in his DiPI he hilariously, harshly commented on the traditional se stesso/se medesimo spellings calling them
assurdi e cervellotici
[23], but it seems that he too does not recommend the "qual'è" spelling:kwal • ~ è (↓-l’è) kwaˈlɛ*
[24] - I will try to inform myself more on the general opinion of the qual' spelling, and maybe change the definition to proscribed alternative form or similar.
- o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what @Sartma is referring to there: I have never heard anything regarding this before. Emanuele6 (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- RFD-kept. Redefined as a misspelling of qual, but I think you are exaggerating how common it is. Emanuele6 (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfd-sense: to poke (to notify another user).
The only social media that has a "poke" function that was translated to cutucar is Facebook, the social media label is misleading. If we can't have terms specific to one site, then this sense should be deleted altogether. Trooper57 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, we allow tweet and retweet. Plus "poke" with the exact same Facebook sense exists in English so I really can't say I see the issue. Keep. MedK1 (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Likewise, the entries for words ending in it that have been created by @Redeemed Angle Dust, such as quisquamne, umquamne. I believe that these are all no more than sum of parts, like English "Does any?", "Has .... ever", and so on. It is established policy that we don't have entries for transparent, regular combinations of Latin words with enclitic particles such as -que (see Talk:fasque). The enclitic -ne creates polar questions, and the suffix -quam creates negative polarity items; i.e, words like "anyone", "ever", and so on. Therefore, the meaning "anyone?" for a combination such as quisquamne is no more or less than the meanings of quisquam and -ne, regularly combined. I have not found such combinations listed as words in any other dictionary.--Urszag (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: quisquamne, umquamne, -quamne
- Obvious SOP's, of which I have not found univerbations (though almost purely editorial):
- tammagnus, we have tam magnus as desc hub
- quammagnus
- aliquammagnus
- sicuiusmodi (not found as is or any way else)
- quamque diu "as long as" not "for ever"
- I'd add that his quotes are badly formatted and their text itself is often too short to make sense of the headword, see also quotusquisque where no effort was given to provide the correct declension table and references were not added when available. The minimum would be for him to provide at least one quote each and labels, most of these are not classically attested and it makes one think they are all part of a synthetic, agreed-upon grouping.
- Now I just wonder where he got his list from, that would help. Saumache (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- I included correlatives ending in -quamne because they behave completely differently from correlatives of negative polarity; they are used directly for questions when the verb in question is not in the subjunctive mood, nor does it contain any unrealis particles like si, an, among others. They are clearly not correlatives of negative polarity. Redeemed Angle Dust (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- The reason no additional particle such as si, an or mood is needed is because the interrogative context provides the necessary context to license the negative polarity word. Negative polarity items can be used in polar questions: that is true in Latin and English. (Hence, the "negative" in the name is a little confusing, and some authors prefer the alternative term "polarity item".) The enclitic "-ne" is an optional, but not mandatory marker of a polar question. Here's an example of the negative polarity item quisquam being used without -ne, si, an, or a subjunctive mood in a polar question: "Aenean hominum quisquam divumque subegit bella sequi aut hostem regi se inferre Latino?", which H. Rushton Fairclough translated for Loeb as "Did any man or god constrain Aeneas to seek war and advance as a foe upon King Latinus?" Does that satisfy you as an example where quisquam is used with same sense as quisquamne?--Urszag (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Redeemed Angle Dust compare also "tetigin tui quicquam?" in Terence, which has -n (= -ne), but not attached directly to quicquam, but instead attached to the verb (placing the enclitic in its preferred second-place position). I think this implies that words ending in -quamne such as "quicquamne" are not fixed combinations, but the sum of the independent elements: quicquam and -ne can be put together, but they also have the same meaning when -ne is attached to another word in the same clause.--Urszag (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- Other similar entries that I want to see deleted are utrumne and uterne. These are a little different: uter/utrum are not polarity items, but wh-words. The use of -ne with wh-word questions is uncommon, but it is attested per Pinkster 2015 and Dunbabin 1917; I've added the relevant citations to that entry. Therefore, these two entries are sum of parts, since the use of -ne here is not distinct from the use of the enclitic in other combinations such as quālīne. (Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, Benwing2, Lambiam, Mnemosientje, Nicodene, Sartma, Al-Muqanna, SinaSabet28, Theknightwho, Imbricitor, Graearms): any additional comments are appreciated so we can resolve these entries soon.--Urszag (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- delete Clearly SOP. — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 11:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, after looking at it more closely, utrumne may be different and worth keeping, since Pinkster refers to it as "one particle": its usage is not exactly the polar interrogative -ne but the sense that we gloss as "or".--Urszag (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- As I see it, the use of -ne is here pleonastico-emphatic: already interrogative utrum... an/necne with meaning "whether... or", on its own also polar when alone "whether or not" (with an or necne implied), is reinforced by interrogative -ne. I could see no semantic difference if the -ne was here removed:
- "Non (ita me di ament) quicquam referre putavi,
utrumne os an culum olfacerem Æmilio."
- "Non (ita me di ament) quicquam referre putavi,
- Saumache (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- As I see it, the use of -ne is here pleonastico-emphatic: already interrogative utrum... an/necne with meaning "whether... or", on its own also polar when alone "whether or not" (with an or necne implied), is reinforced by interrogative -ne. I could see no semantic difference if the -ne was here removed:
- delete Clearly SOP. — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 11:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Latin. I fixed up its rather bizarre formatting (headword template under the language header, glosses in Portuguese- really?), but then I wondered if we should be doing "suffix" entries at all for inflectional endings like this one ("Used to form the Present passive infinitive of regular verbs"). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Actually a misspelling: only daruinismo and darwinismo are recognized by VOLP or any dictionaries, and this is a Brazilian form. Is it common enough? Don’t think so. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 03:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
- IDK, it gets a lot of hits online... MedK1 (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
December 2025
[edit]Unused plural form; the noun is uncountable. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] (parla con me) 14:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- how is the noun uncountable? terms suffixed with -ismo are almost always countable. Juwan (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- searching "los lamarckismos" on Google, I can find at least one research paper (republished many times) with the phrase, plus a few other hits from social media. the term is certainly grammatically expected in Iberian languages.
- Claudia Vanney (2008). "Corporeidad y finalidad de la persona humana. Una glosa al pensamiento de Leonardo Polo"
- Juwan (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- searching "los lamarckismos" on Google, I can find at least one research paper (republished many times) with the phrase, plus a few other hits from social media. the term is certainly grammatically expected in Iberian languages.
Portuguese. Tagged by Sarilho1 (talk • contribs) but not created. Trooper57 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Weak keep per WT:EMPTYSPACE, though I'm not sure. Juwan (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per Juwan. MedK1 (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- Keep indeed. The empty space isn’t immediately obvious because rinha also has generalized senses, but I believe it still applies. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 07:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Spanish. SOP. Juwan (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Blatant. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 07:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Spanish. Unless there are language-specific objections, this is the same as WT:RFDE#MediaWiki. I would expect WT:BRAND to be even harder to satisfy in Spanish. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 06:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)