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. Saumache (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. @Saumache I've added sources and quotes for the entry. Graearms (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2025 (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)
- I've touched up the page since getting my hands on a Mauritian Creole dictionary. The main sense given, "shocking news" is idiomatic, plus it mixes Hindi and French etymons. Even the sense "death/funeral announcement" from literal Hindi "mourning news" doesn't strike me as SOP (and it's a set phrase). Lalit also gives both senses. I vote Keep. Ultimateria (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2026 (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)
- What if we use
{{no entry}}? MedK1 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)- The potential issue with
{{no entry}}is that its text says it's intended for things that don't meet CFI, and that isn't really the case here; it's rather that it's a sort of grammatical fiction. Benwing2 (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- The potential issue with
- 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)
- Because as I pointed out, you can build tons of noun phrases with this adjective; there's nothing special about this specific one. PUC – 14:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hey, I am completely sympathetic to the idea of deletion and relegation to a collocation together with mot fétiche and the like. A new sense will simply need to be added. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Because as I pointed out, you can build tons of noun phrases with this adjective; there's nothing special about this specific one. PUC – 14:51, 14 February 2026 (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)
- Keep, simply because it was useful for me to find it here; i would waste some time if "escambo" had not a hyperlink to "es-", leaving me uncertain of the etymology of the word. I apologize for not knowing the criteria for whether to include an entry or not. ~2026-15100-71 (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2026 (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)
- Delete. I looked through the Internet Archive and couldn't find a single actual usage of this phrase in a Latin text. It seems like it did not exist as a set phrase in any period of Latin. Graearms (talk) 13:21, 14 December 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 workgroup: 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 workgroup: Benwing2, GianWiki, Jberkel, Imetsia, Sartma, Catonif, Trimpulot, Emanuele6): Ultimateria (talk) 23:43, 24 June 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)
- @MedK1 Based on this, I'm expanding contado to include both senses you mentioned (the ones in dinheiro contado and dias contados). Davi6596 (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Polomo @Trooper57 @Stríðsdrengur I already expanded it, is it enough to strengthen the case for deleting the nominated entries? Davi6596 (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- I already thought both com os dias contados and dias contados were SoP, and now that we have appropriate definitions at each part, I think all concerns should be resolved? — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 01:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- I guess. Trooper57 (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Polomo @Trooper57 @Stríðsdrengur I already expanded it, is it enough to strengthen the case for deleting the nominated entries? Davi6596 (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- @MedK1 Based on this, I'm expanding contado to include both senses you mentioned (the ones in dinheiro contado and dias contados). Davi6596 (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2026 (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)
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)
- @Jberkel @Juwan @Stríðsdrengur @Trooper57 @Ultimateria What are your thoughts on this? Davi6596 (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Common misspelling, I'd keep it. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jberkel @Juwan @Stríðsdrengur @Trooper57 @Ultimateria What are your thoughts on this? Davi6596 (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2026 (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)
- Keep, but I still don't know what's the metric to consider a misspelling common or not. Trooper57 (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2026 (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 just retracted from this vote. sub-sargento should be kept: tho I didn't find it in Corpus do Português, it was more common last year than subsargento according to Google searches. But sub-tenente should be deleted, as it was less common than subtenente last year. Corpus do Português shows the same fact. Davi6596 (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2026 (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)
- I'd like insight from @Polomo, @Trooper57, and @Stríðsdrengur on this. Davi6596 (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don’t actually have any stakes in this. I wanted to bring it to everyone’s attention so it can be subject to the subjective “misspelling” criterion. If y’all think this is common, then it should be kept. I note also that just because a misspelling is less common than the correct spelling, that doesn't mean it's not common [enough for inclusion]. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 16:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Actually, I meant it's much less common than the correct spelling (17% in that search). IMO it's too low for me to deem it a common misspelling. Davi6596 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don’t actually have any stakes in this. I wanted to bring it to everyone’s attention so it can be subject to the subjective “misspelling” criterion. If y’all think this is common, then it should be kept. I note also that just because a misspelling is less common than the correct spelling, that doesn't mean it's not common [enough for inclusion]. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 16:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'd like insight from @Polomo, @Trooper57, and @Stríðsdrengur on this. Davi6596 (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2026 (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)
- @Polomo There's mais louco que o Batman, which seems idiomatic, isn't it? Davi6596 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2026 (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]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)
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)
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): [19], [20], [21]. ‑‑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)
November 2025
[edit]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)
RfD-kept.Keep. The entries MedK1 mentioned set a precedent. Davi6596 (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)- I'll change
{{lb|pt|social media}}to{{lb|pt|Facebook}}then. Trooper57 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'll change
- I hadn't !voted on this, but I also think this should be kept. We allow quite niche slang as long as it fulfills WT:ATTEST (along other bits of policy, but this is the main one). The only exclusion would be WT:FICTION, which this is not. But have we checked to see whether the term from Facebook wasn’t generalized to other social media apps? I’ll look and say something here if my search confirms it. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 15:18, 18 February 2026 (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 workgroup: 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)
December 2025
[edit]Romanian SOP, literally ‘to finish school’. — This unsigned comment was added by Ktom (talk • contribs).
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
January 2026
[edit]Portuguese. Rfd-sense: "former penitentiary". I don’t think we can have this, actually, because buildings and (most) other manmade structures are excluded by WT:PLACE. This is harder because it is more notable than other prisons for various reasons, but there are many, many notable streets and buildings across the world, so it’s irrelevant to WT:PLACE. — This unsigned comment was added by Polomo (talk • contribs) at 12:57, 31 December 2025.
- Delete. Trooper57 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. We probably shouldn't be too quick to delete it. See #Champs-Élysées. MedK1 (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Romanian SOP, ‘drop of water’. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Romanian SOP. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from WT:RFDN.
Spanish.
This contradicts the etymology for pellizcar but the ll-ñ alteration is non-standard in Spanish. AztecWarrior28 (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I do not see a contradiction.
- What is the rationale for the requested deletion?
- --Lambiam 08:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is, apparently, also a variant form peñiscar.[22][23] --Lambiam 08:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- This should be an RFV issue and am contemplating just moving it there. AG202 (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- The OP did not claim the term was not attested (which is what RFV is for), but solely that it contradicted an etymology in some unspecified way and that the alteration was non-standard. The latter point is not an issue arguing against inclusion – while there is no standard for alterations, many observed alterations are in some way anomalous, such as the unexplained shift from -o- to -e- in Esperanto tendeno, borrowed from English tendon. That is not an RFV issue. We should try to avoid internal contradictions, but absent an indication of what the claimed contradiction is, it is difficult to discuss it, but this too is not an RFV issue; etymologies should be discussed in the Etymology scriptorium. I think we should close this for failing to present a rationale. --Lambiam 12:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Let's at least do the OP the courtesy of a ping: @AztecWarrior28 can you elaborate on your reason in light of Lambiam's comment? This, that and the other (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
No progress on this in over 3 years. Can any Spanish editors shed any light on whether any action needs to be taken here? This, that and the other (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- @This, that and the other: we might have more luck if we moved it to the Etymology scriptorium, since it's about verifying an etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
French SOP. No more entryworthy than œuvre littéraire, œuvre picturale, œuvre architecturale, œuvre musicale, etc. PUC – 10:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- delete Saumache (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Jberkel 19:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from WT:RFDN.
Fake participle formed from the fake supine of abambulō above:
Theknightwho (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, I can't find any uses of any of these forms, even in post-classical Latin. - -sche (discuss) 22:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per my comment at Talk:abambulo. In short, we aren't in the habit of verifying every individual form of a Latin verb and only displaying/including those that are attested. There is absolutely no doubt that, if a Latin writer wanted to use the future active participle of this verb, they would use this form. Moreover, I can't see a reason why this particular verb should lack a future active participle. This, that and the other (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- Easy keep per comments at Talk:abambulō. MedK1 (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from WT:RFDN.
Fake participle formed from the fake supine of abnatō above:
Theknightwho (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, I can't find any uses of any of these forms, even in post-classical Latin. - -sche (discuss) 22:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Our entry for this verb, at abnatō, shows it as lacking a supine stem, which formally means it doesn't have a future active participle. By that logic these entries should be deleted. However, I am not sure why the entry has been set up like that. There is absolutely no doubt what the verb's supine stem ought to be. Nor is there any doubt that, if a Latin writer wanted to use the future active participle of this verb, they would use this form. Moreover, I can't see a reason why this particular verb should lack a future active participle.
- An analogy for the benefit of non-Latin editors: imagine if we decided to remove kepplitated from the headword line of a rare English verb kepplitate ("to throw apples into a kettle") because the word kepplitated is not attested, even though it's perfectly obvious that's what the past form of this verb should be, and there's no semantic or other reason why the past form is unavailable. This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- The page being set up the way it is implies the verb is some sort of irregular/defective. Is there no chance that that's the case? The fact it's been marked as 'no supine, no passive' for pretty much forever sure makes me think it is the case.
- I'm more skeptical about the "no perfect" label Theknightwho added. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence and all that. MedK1 (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- @MedK1 no, there's no chance this rare verb is defective or irregular. The "no passive" part just comes from the verb being intransitive; there's nothing remarkable about that.
- As for the origin of the "no supine" label, the entry's creator appears to have been importing entries from Lewis & Short and/or Gaffiot, who would have omitted these forms if they didn't occur in their Latin corpus. As I observed in my previous comment, there is no grammatical reason why that should be so. This, that and the other (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Keeping makes sense in that case then, I think. MedK1 (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- I still can't find a single occurrence of any of these forms, neither on Google Books nor on Google web; as far as I can tell, none of the forms of this word (the participle) exist. Since we are presenting this not as a mere
{{inflected form of}}some other word, like kepplitated, but as a separate word with its own inflected forms (seemingly more analogous to having a noun kepplitation with plural kepplitations), that seems like a problem, though admittedly an RFV problem more than an RFD problem. Could we make this a reconstruction entry, so people are still informed of what the forms hypothetically would be? - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 7 January 2026 (UTC)- Participles inhabit a strange limbo between lemma and non-lemma forms. Strictly speaking, they should be non-lemma forms (traditional paper dictionaries present them this way), but we have to format them as lemmas because they have non-lemma forms of their own. For RFV purposes we should treat participles as non-lemma forms. The analogy with kepplitation is not strong, as in both English and Latin alike, this would not be a mere non-lemma form of the verb, but a separate noun. This, that and the other (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
February 2026
[edit]French SOP, from orfèvre + en la matière; compare expert en la matière. PUC – 12:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- We don't have a sense at orfèvre corresponding to "expert" or "skilled person". It's unclear to me based on the TLFi entry whether such a sense would be purely poetic. Ultimateria (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Romanian. Seemingly sum-of-parts. See Talk:Cyrillic alphabet. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 02:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
March 2026
[edit]Spanish. SOP Vealhurl (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- I think the grammar is too unusual to be SOP. Literally means "I am" (with, for some reason, no object and a sí, which would normally be used when the speaker is told beforehand that they're not something. Also, the sense that was at sí soy before was a literal translation to English, and it actually means something like (as a response, usually to social media posts or text messages) "relatable" or "(that's) me". Edit: clarity Randomcanarian (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- The usual Internet sense is under some king of post, to imply that the persone relates a lot with what the situation describes, not to state that he is the literal person depicted. — This unsigned comment was added by ~2026-33656-67 (talk) at 18:44, 6 June 2026 (UTC).
- Keep. MedK1 (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfd-sense: to beat up, get into a fight. The part that makes this mean "to fight" or "to beat up" is the 'na porrada'; 'eu vou te pegar' doesn't have the same meaning.
Consider the sentence without "na porrada". Yeah, the implication is some sort of altercation, a retribution of some kind, but I'd think it'd be akin to a cop or an angry cartoon character saying "I'm gonna get you!"
It doesn't necessarily mean they'll get into a full-on brawl, does it... ~2026-17065-95 (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- We can change the definition to sense 23 of get, sure. Regardless of that, though, what do we make of pegar na porrada? Is that idiomatic? I think so! — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 19:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
French SOP: élever (“to raise a number to a certain power”) + carré (“second power”). Compare French élever au cube; English raise to the power of 2; English raise to the third power. PUC – 11:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete and make a collocation. Ultimateria (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Spanish. Not SOP per RAE. Fundéu "montar a" is only used with horses, while "montar en" can be used with any animal. idk why my name didnt get added to this i had to add it manually Randomcanarian (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Spanish. (interrogative) which thing? what? - supercommon, SOP???Vealhurl (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- literally means "the what" Randomcanarian (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- It's an interrogative used specifically for echo questions. It isn't normally "la/los/las qué" either, unless you're practically emphasizing you did hear the article but not a noun from the other speaker. Not SOP in my view.--Ser be être 是talk/stalk 23:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Emanuele6 (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- It's an interrogative used specifically for echo questions. It isn't normally "la/los/las qué" either, unless you're practically emphasizing you did hear the article but not a noun from the other speaker. Not SOP in my view.--Ser be être 是talk/stalk 23:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
April 2026
[edit]Portuguese. Sum of parts with lavar, although our definitions in that page are quite lacking. Maybe I’ll expand it. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 13:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- Delete, SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. SOP; see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English § non-avian dinosaur. Juwan 🕊️🌈 13:19, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: Most responses for the English term's RfD seem to be leaning towards keep. But I haven't seen anybody use this term in Portuguese yet — does it pass RFV? Also, is it relevant at all that it'd also be correct to write it as "dinossauro não-aviano" with a hyphen? MedK1 (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- It is no longer correct to write it this way. My impression is also that this type of hyphenated spelling was never correct (for sum-of-parts formations), but I haven’t seen anything for or against this impression. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 12:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- AFAIK the AO90 doesn't mention it and so, both forms are assumed to be correct. Unless it was already wrong beforehand, but for some reason I doubt that. MedK1 (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- The Brazilian Academy’s practice has been to remove the hyphenation in their orthographic vocabularies, so, regardless of whether a general rule exists forbidding it, nevertheless the compounds have all individually lost their hyphenation. Look up
nãoon VOLP and you’ll see forms such as não agressão. Although it seems the Lisbon Academy maintains the hyphenation in their vocabulary, so I guess I have to tweak these entries. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 02:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- The Brazilian Academy’s practice has been to remove the hyphenation in their orthographic vocabularies, so, regardless of whether a general rule exists forbidding it, nevertheless the compounds have all individually lost their hyphenation. Look up
- AFAIK the AO90 doesn't mention it and so, both forms are assumed to be correct. Unless it was already wrong beforehand, but for some reason I doubt that. MedK1 (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- Use of "não(-)aviano" in Portuguese: https://www.blogs.unicamp.br/colecionadores/2023/03/20/o-que-os-olhos-nas-asas-de-um-inseto-fossil-podem-nos-dizer/ Trooper57 (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- It is no longer correct to write it this way. My impression is also that this type of hyphenated spelling was never correct (for sum-of-parts formations), but I haven’t seen anything for or against this impression. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 12:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Romanian, ‘mineral spring’. No equivalent English entry either. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
June 2026
[edit]Spanish. Seems SOP —User:Vealhurl (talk 10:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. Delete. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 12:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Polomo It is a medical term with a Wikipedia page (beware of pictures):
torsión testicular on the Spanish Wikipedia.Wikipedia es - Shouldn't this be kept? Emanuele6 (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- Many medical terms are SoP. We deleted osteonecrosis of the jaw, and I've nominated entries like testicular cancer (still at RFDE, with many in favor of deletion), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (closed as "kept" but really "no consensus"). — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 18:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Polomo If it's the name for a specific thing, it is hard for me to see how it can be "sum of parts", so I would not vote in favour of deletion, but if there is precedent, I guess you are correct in wanting to be consistent and I cannot object to that.
- Anyway, I thought Wiktionary kept entries for these things for translations, etc. I guess I was misremembering. Emanuele6 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- Many "specific things" can have SoP names. And WT:THUB only keep English entries, not their translations. To be fair, I’m not that against this specific entry, just leaning more towards deletion. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 19:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think there is a difference between a description and an actual name for a specific thing that may be formed using a relational adjective or attributive noun.
- I was talking about the other English examples you mentioned not this specific instance. I meant that I was surprised you are getting testicular cancer, etc. deleted.
- I guess even in the context of torsión testicular, it would be testicular torsion on WikipediaWikipedia , but it does not matter.
- If you think there is no reason why this entry should be kept, it's not like I can make one up. I will not vote to keep this. Emanuele6 (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- Many "specific things" can have SoP names. And WT:THUB only keep English entries, not their translations. To be fair, I’m not that against this specific entry, just leaning more towards deletion. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 19:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- Many medical terms are SoP. We deleted osteonecrosis of the jaw, and I've nominated entries like testicular cancer (still at RFDE, with many in favor of deletion), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (closed as "kept" but really "no consensus"). — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 18:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Polomo It is a medical term with a Wikipedia page (beware of pictures):
Spanish. Rfd-sense: determiner. Is there any reason to classify this as a determiner rather than an adjective? — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 12:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- I know it's getting deleted anyway but you can very easily find instances of people using múltiples like English multiple in the determiner sense, here's a bunch of links: múltiples ocasiones, múltiples razones, múltiples finales, múltiples veces. There's a difference between "nacionalidad múltiple" (multiple citizenship) and "múltiples nacionalidades" (several nationalities). Apparently it's only used before a noun. I think it's probably a calque of English, but I don't really have a way to prove that. Randomcanarian (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- Is diverso a determiner as well, then (it can be used the same way, right?)? Or is it a prepositive adjective? I don’t know if múltiple specifically is used this way due to English influence, but there are other adjectives that behave like this. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 22:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- Múltiples can be a determiner because it can be used with a partitive, you can say "múltiples de ellos" (multiple of them), ...fui a múltiples de esos programas.... Like English multiple as a determiner, this is very new and many many people don't use it like this. You can also find múltiple + de + noun, such as in múltiples de personas, which to me sounds pseudopartitive/quantitive and not truly partitive but I think it's worth mentioning because I'm finding many comments with it. About diverso I have no idea, diverso with a partitive sounds a bit weird to me, probably because I haven't heard it much myself. Personally I think I would only use diverso when it can have a "diverse" connotation, for example in "para solucionar esto existen diversos métodos" diversos means that the methods are different from each other, not just that there's multiple of them. "diversas causas", "diversos estudios", "diversos casos", "diversos tipos", etc. Maybe my definition of diverso and múltiple is influenced by English. Randomcanarian (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- The first comment got deleted, here's more Randomcanarian (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Múltiples can be a determiner because it can be used with a partitive, you can say "múltiples de ellos" (multiple of them), ...fui a múltiples de esos programas.... Like English multiple as a determiner, this is very new and many many people don't use it like this. You can also find múltiple + de + noun, such as in múltiples de personas, which to me sounds pseudopartitive/quantitive and not truly partitive but I think it's worth mentioning because I'm finding many comments with it. About diverso I have no idea, diverso with a partitive sounds a bit weird to me, probably because I haven't heard it much myself. Personally I think I would only use diverso when it can have a "diverse" connotation, for example in "para solucionar esto existen diversos métodos" diversos means that the methods are different from each other, not just that there's multiple of them. "diversas causas", "diversos estudios", "diversos casos", "diversos tipos", etc. Maybe my definition of diverso and múltiple is influenced by English. Randomcanarian (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- Is diverso a determiner as well, then (it can be used the same way, right?)? Or is it a prepositive adjective? I don’t know if múltiple specifically is used this way due to English influence, but there are other adjectives that behave like this. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 22:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Spanish. Form of frente a combined with el I think we delete these —User:Vealhurl (talk 15:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Support ~2026-44583-01 (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2026 (UTC)- Support Rcnn (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
July 2026
[edit]Italian.
Not Romanesco for as for
; Italian SOP: a Roma, tanto è inutile (“in Rome, it's useless anyway”).
Also "..." as three periods in title, and Italian ... link in headword. Emanuele6 (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- For this user (who is blocked and, tangentially, plausibly may be block evading as Special:Contributions/~2026-33131-15 is clearly them and connected to 2-5 IPs, but was not affected by the block), @User:Catonif must comment, given his insistent and, at points, ridiculous defences of their (unsourced, if I may add) additions in User talk:Catonif#bacio "bàʃo"; caciocavallo "caʃocavàllo"; etc., and other discussions. Emanuele6 (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
RFD-deleted marked for deletion.Emanuele6 (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)- One vote against, no one else has even commented, and only 10 days have passed. Ultimateria (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Ultimateria Now we will be able to say that two people commented in the future! Emanuele6 (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- I added the relevant sense under tanto to the best of my understanding. This one can bee deleted. Catonif (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- One vote against, no one else has even commented, and only 10 days have passed. Ultimateria (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
August 2026
[edit]Portuguese. WT:SOP, the sense of "prostitution" is already in job. Pinging creator @Veeatrix. Trooper57 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Emanuele6 (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Weak delete and add as collocation. Juwan 🕊️🌈 17:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- Something WT:EMPTYSPACEy about this? Eh, don't think so. Delete. Agree a collocation is warranted, and we might need to specify “uncountable” or “with definite article” for job sense 2. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 01:33, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- the definition probably needs updating or a usage note, because it is effectively "job (that is prostitution)", as in "she is from the job". Juwan 🕊️🌈 09:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Polomo: then "trabalhar na prostituição" would pass EMPTYSPACE too. Trooper57 (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, which is why I don’t think it really applies. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 15:07, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
Spanish. @Vealhurl it has the same senses as English later, namely "more late" (not idiomatic), "Afterward in time (used with than when comparing with another time)." and "At some unspecified time in the future.". If this somehow makes más tarde non-idiomatic, then English later is non-idiomatic too. I think deleting these senses would be inconvenient for anyone who wants to know they exist, so I would keep them. Rcnn (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfd-sense: I've never seen it used. I could see it as a disphemism/hyperbole where you'd say someone 'beat you up', but you mean it verbally. If I'm correct, then we should delete this sense. MedK1 (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
Asturian. Deleted at the Spanish Wiktionary due to being attested in only one poem:
- Una noche de flemón de Marcelino Flórez de Prado, in Obra conocida (1851-1854). Facsímiles y trescripciones., Llibrería Facsimilar collection, Academia de la Llingua Asturiana, Oviedo, 1997, ISBN 84-8168-084-2:
- (...) Por fin y postre empezanon
- a cantar na carbayera
- los paxarinos del alba
- con xovialidá completa.
- Dixe entós, amaneció,
- y rendidu de flaqueza
- quedem'amormoleciu.(...)
However, this is technically enough to satisfy the English Wiktionary’s WT:LDL policy. Do we want to keep it? CC: @Tmagc — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 15:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Polomo The poem has two versions, in one of them the word is used and in another isn't. This is probably an error of transcription or an adulteration. Even if it wasn't, how can you be sure what's the meaning of the word? CC: @Limotecariu. Tmagc (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- I understand that the poem’s second version is the one that includes the word, right? plus the verses are very different and seem pretty intentional. So I see no reason to disregard the quotation. The word’s definition is also morphologically transparent, so I see no problem with defining what it means.
- What we need to determine in this discussion is basically whether a single source should be considered sufficient for an Asturian entry specifically. I.e., is Asturian’s documentation limited enough that hapax legomenons should be included? Or is it documented enough that a single attestation is too little, especially without documentation in dictionaries? — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 15:42, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Polomo Hello! I don't know the rules or norms for including or not including a word or term in the English Wiktionary, but here are four things about this entry from my point of view:
- 1) The three reference dictionaries for Asturian, the DALLA (normative dictionary), the DGLA (dialectological dictionary), and the DELLA (etymological dictionary), do not include this noun, although they do include the adjective («xovial»), and there's a reason for that. Other dictionaries also do not include this noun (see the reference to all of them in the discussion page for this entry in the Spanish Wiktionary).
- 2) We only have this reference (found by chance by a user who is not the creator of the entry), which, as I explained in the Spanish Wiktionary, could very well be a simple Castilianism used by the author of that poem, due to the minority status and diglossia suffered by the Asturian language, which "contaminates" its lexicon, morphology, syntax, etc. (one of the reasons I understand why this word is not included in any of the reference lexical works cited above). We cannot ignore this sociolinguistic situation, experienced by many minority and marginalized languages: the occasional use of a word does not mean it belongs to the lexical corpus of that language (especially if it doesn't appear in any dictionary).
- 3) The user who created this entry admits to not knowing Asturian, yet still dares to create entries for words that don't exist in this language (in fact, this user cites the DALLA as a reference without even consulting it, since that word isn't registered in it).
- 4) Wiki projects cannot be primary sources. As you say, the meaning of *xovialidá can be understood morphologically: we can explain it from the adjective «xovial» plus the suffix «-idá», ok; but what dictionary supports this? None. We would be the first dictionary to include this noun with that meaning, according to our interpretation, and that is being a primary source. It's important to note that the poem in question dates from approximately 1854, almost two centuries ago, and within the realm of literary usage, and none of the modern dictionaries include it; I reiterate, there must be a reason for that.
- I don't think that a single, circumstantial reference is sufficient reason to maintain this entry, which is clearly the original creation of a user who made it without any knowledge of the language. Limotecariu (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Your points 2 and 4 are not supported by our policy, but 1 and 3 are reasonable reasons to delete this. I’ll probably do that once this has been in RfD long enough, unless someone has something else to say. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 17:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think Wiktionary is being a primary source considering the word does show up in an Asturian poem. If Asturian is an LDL, then that'd mean hapaxes are allowed, no? I'd much rather document it with the hapax label, mention in the etymology that it's likely a calque from Spanish and then point to a more common synonym than to just delete the entry and call it a day. It's unfortunate that this sort of contamination happens to languages, but we're a descriptive dictionary at the end of the day. If we keep the word there and point out synonyms, we can at least help out learners/readers who'd independently coin "xovialidá" figure out what else they could possibly have used instead. xuventú? MedK1 (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Polomo Hello! I don't know the rules or norms for including or not including a word or term in the English Wiktionary, but here are four things about this entry from my point of view:
Spanish. Tagged for speedy deletion by @Rcnn: obvious SOP adverb glossed as a noun for some reason, "in(to) one's butt ~ anally", "por el" can be used with any word for butt, "por el culo", "por el ano", "por la cola", and anything you can stick something into or put something through
. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 16:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. WT:SOP. Pinging creator @Notsonotoriousbig Trooper57 (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- arquivo corrompido = corrupted folder
- arquivo danificado = danified folder
- One could assume that the noun is refering to a physical archive that has been danified, altered, etc. (ex: a paper archive that has been torn apart), but the entry uses a well defined specific term in computing. That's why I made the entry. Notsonotoriousbig (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- It being a specific sense of the word still makes it SoP. Also, damaged, not *danified. MedK1 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- @MedK1 Thank you for the correction.
- But I would like to bring forth something I've read in the guidelines about idiomaticity:
- "This criterion is sometimes referred to as the fried egg test, as a fried egg generally means an egg (and generally a chicken egg or similar) fried in a particular way. It generally doesn't denote a scrambled egg, which may nonetheless be cooked by frying."
- Bringing the fried egg example to the case in question:
- Any sort of document can be damaged, altered, corruped, etc., in several ways, but an arquivo corrompido most of times denotes a computer file whose code has been compromised. Therefore, it passes the fried egg test. Notsonotoriousbig (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Notsonotoriousbig: it's "corrompido" that's carrying the sense. If I heard pasta corrompida, foto corrompida, música corrompida etc. I would first think on a digital file, because physical objects can't get corrupted; or we at least don't use corromper with this sense for things outside a device.
- Also, wouldn't a corrupted file inside, say, a phone, a MP3 Player or an external HD also be called "arquivo corrompido"? It's not exclusive to computers. Trooper57 (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- You’re citing a common misinterpretation of that test. WT:FRIED is about phrases that have an additional meaning independent from its parts: the part about the egg’s yolk being sunny side up is not contained in either word. In arquivo corrompido, the part about it being a digital file is contained in arquivo as one of the possible meanings, and the part about the code being compromised is contained in corrompido. Thus, WT:FRIED does not apply. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 23:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Trooper57 @Polomo physical objects per se can't get corrupted, but their content can. One of the meanings of "corromper" is "adulterar" (to tamper).
- Which means there are two distinct meanings to "arquivo corrompido":
- an archive of any kind that was tampered
- a digital file whose code contains an undesired alteration, being done on purpose or not by any sorts of means, including by accident or by a bug
- Notsonotoriousbig (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- It being a specific sense of the word still makes it SoP. Also, damaged, not *danified. MedK1 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete indeed. Possibility of polysemy does not rule out WT:SoP. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 21:27, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. MedK1 (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Uncommon misspellings of grenadine and grenadines. ‑‑Lambiam 08:37, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Spanish. Sum-of-parts, right? — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 16:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
- cf. French accident de travail. Saumache (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Not sure if either of these pass WT:FICTION. Graearms (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 16:16, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Spanish. SOP, this doesn't really refer to goosebumps (skin), it refers to the erect hairs: pelos means hairs (skin hairs or head hairs) and de punta means they are/get erect, de punta can and very often is used predicatively: "tengo los pelos de punta" (not idiomatic, tener works like this in Spanish, compare "tengo las manos frías" "my hands are cold"), "se me pusieron los pelos de punta", etc. The hair on your head can get "de punta" from electricity for example. I think we should add a subsense or sense to de punta and delete pelos de punta. Rcnn (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2026 (UTC)