Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English
| 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 deletion of entries in any language for which there is no specialised RFD page according to this list:
- English, Middle English, Scots, Yola and Fingallian → Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English
- Chinese, Japanese, Korean and any other language using an East Asian script → Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK
- Italic (Latin or Romance languages) → Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Italic
- Reconstructed languages → Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Reconstruction
- All other languages → this page
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.
April 2018
[edit]Russian. These are not suffixes: the preceding а is a part of the verbal stem. It can be a suffix on it’s own or another а-final suffix like -ывать (-yvatʹ), but in any case it will be present throughout the inflection. The participle suffix is just -ущий (-uščij), -ющий (-juščij). Guldrelokk (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Move to -ущий, -ющий.
- Speaking of metanalysis, I've always wondered whether our analysis of nouns ending in -ание was right. Don't these always come from a-stem verbs? If yes, I think we should consider parsing описа́ние as описа́ть + -ние, the same way we parse Latin words ending in -atio as "a-stem verb + -tio"; see interpretatio for example. I only know of two cases of a genuine -atio suffix: gradatio and *coratio; are there similar counterexamples in Russian?
- @Benwing2, Wikitiki89, Atitarev, what do you think? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- IMO, they are suffixes, e.g. ука́зывающий (ukázyvajuščij) = ука́зыв (ukázyv) + -ающий (-ajuščij). The stem is -казыв- (-kazyv-), not -казыва- (-kazyva-). And there are several forms of present participle active forming suffixes.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Atitarev: Why do you think the stem is not указыва- (ukazyva-)? It is present in all forms of the verb. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- For verbs yes, better examples are: де́лающий (délajuščij) = "дел-" + "-ающий", призыва́ющий (prizyvájuščij) = "призыв-" + "-ающий". "-а(ть)" is part of the first class of verbs. -Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- The stem of делать (delatʹ) is дела-, the stem of призывать (prizyvatʹ) is призыва-: that’s why it is present throughout the inflection. Guldrelokk (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think the problem we're having is that native speakers tend to naturally think of the а being part of the ending and not the stem, when historically it's part of the stem. --WikiTiki89 17:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a problem unless/until it's being misapplied in word-formation (or, in this case, conjugation). Are there people who misconjugate non-a-stem verbs?
- Or are you suggesting we should apply the POLA? --Per utramque cavernam 12:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- This logic would require doubling all suffixes: for example, the agent noun of призывать (prizyvatʹ) is призыватель (prizyvatelʹ), which has a suffix -тель (-telʹ) with the same а in front of it. Guldrelokk (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think the problem we're having is that native speakers tend to naturally think of the а being part of the ending and not the stem, when historically it's part of the stem. --WikiTiki89 17:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- The stem of делать (delatʹ) is дела-, the stem of призывать (prizyvatʹ) is призыва-: that’s why it is present throughout the inflection. Guldrelokk (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- For verbs yes, better examples are: де́лающий (délajuščij) = "дел-" + "-ающий", призыва́ющий (prizyvájuščij) = "призыв-" + "-ающий". "-а(ть)" is part of the first class of verbs. -Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Atitarev: Why do you think the stem is not указыва- (ukazyva-)? It is present in all forms of the verb. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- May I suggest moving it to -щий? The correct decomposition of such a participle is, for example указ-ыв-аю-щий. The stem is указ-, followed by a imperfective modifier -ыв-, followed by the infinitive suffix -ать, which is conjugated to 3rd person plural -ают and trimmed to -аю, followed by the participle ending -щий. Otherwise, all of the following would have to be created: -ащий, -ящий, -ущий, -ющий. These are not different forms of the same suffix, but different conjugation classes of the base verb. Nonetheless, I do agree that initial а/я is not part of the suffix. Quaijammer (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- IMO, they are suffixes, e.g. ука́зывающий (ukázyvajuščij) = ука́зыв (ukázyv) + -ающий (-ajuščij). The stem is -казыв- (-kazyv-), not -казыва- (-kazyva-). And there are several forms of present participle active forming suffixes.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep all (process forms. A-OK) - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 19:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Russian. Same goes for the passive participle. уваж-ать, уваж-а-ю, уваж-а-емый. Guldrelokk (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Guldrelokk Let's think this through before just deleting these suffixes. My motivation for -аемый is that for many verbs, the passive participle suffix clearly replaces the infinitive suffix, e.g. терп-е́ть -> терп-и́мый, ма́зать -> ма́ж-емый, hence the same could be said here, e.g. уваж-а́ть -> уваж-а́емый. This is the same reason I prefer to treat -ание (-anije) as a suffix, parallel to -ение (-enije), rather than having two suffixes -ние (-nije) and -ение (-enije) that behave in non-parallel ways. Since I've been the main person working on adding etymologies, you'll find lots of words with etymologies that reference -ание (-anije) , and so it's not so simple to just delete that suffix. -аемый doesn't have so many words referring to it but we should maintain consistency of analysis. Benwing2 (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, as per the topic above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: But compare терпим and уважаем. Verbs that drop the stem-final а, like писать (pisatʹ), пишем (pišem), do not have this participle at all, so there is simply no way to treat а as part of the suffix: it would be plainly wrong. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
мажемый (mažemyj) does not exist, for example, if only as an extreme occasionalism. It is not grammatical. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
To the active participle: note how писать (pisatʹ), пишу (pišu) has пишущий (pišuščij). So to summarise: -ющий (-juščij) only occurs after а when the stem invariably has it. Whenever it is possible to ‘replace’ the vowel, it does that. Thus, in уважа-ющий -ющий is clearly suffixed to the stem уважа-, which has no allomorphs altogether: if it could drop its а like писать (pisatʹ), it would be уважущий (uvažuščij). On the other hand, -емый (-emyj) only occurs after those stems in а which have no allomorphs altogether: for other verbs of the first conjugation the corresponding participle does not exist. So again, уважаемый is clearly уважа-емый, because if уважать (uvažatʹ) could lose its final а, it wouldn’t have a passive participle.
I think that -ание (-anije) is a way harder and a very different question. I’ll need to think a lot about it. But the participle suffixes I requested for deletion are unjustifiable: removing them will not change anything globally. Guldrelokk (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Move to -емый (-emyj); I favour correct segmentation over artificial consistency. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- As per my reasoning in the section above, I suggest Move to -мый (-myj). The е/и is governed by the 2nd person plural conjugation of the verb (-ем/-им). It is not part of the participle suffix. Quaijammer (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Consistent with what I learned when I learned this language's grammar. - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 19:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
February 2019
[edit]Incorrect uncontracted forms of Ancient Greek verbs
[edit]I think the following uncontracted forms of ἀγαθοεργέω (agathoergéō) created by RexPrincipum, are incorrect. This is the fault of Module:grc-conj, which currently gives some uncontracted forms if you set the dialect to Koine rather than Attic. But Koine contracts in the same way as Attic, thus ἀγαθοεργοῦμεν (agathoergoûmen) not *ἀγαθοεργέομεν (*agathoergéomen), ἀγαθοεργῶσι (agathoergôsi) not *ἀγαθοεργέωσι (*agathoergéōsi).
- ἀγαθοεργέοι (agathoergéoi)
- ἀγαθοεργέοιεν (agathoergéoien)
- ἀγαθοεργέοιμεν (agathoergéoimen)
- ἀγαθοεργέοιμι (agathoergéoimi)
- ἀγαθοεργέοις (agathoergéois)
- ἀγαθοεργέοιτε (agathoergéoite)
- ἀγαθοεργέοιτον (agathoergéoiton)
- ἀγαθοεργέομεν (agathoergéomen)
- ἀγαθοεργέον (agathoergéon)
- ἀγαθοεργέουσα (agathoergéousa)
- ἀγαθοεργέουσι (agathoergéousi)
- ἀγαθοεργέωμεν (agathoergéōmen)
- ἀγαθοεργέων (agathoergéōn)
- ἀγαθοεργέωσι (agathoergéōsi)
- ἀγαθοεργεόντων (agathoergeóntōn)
- ἀγαθοεργεοίτην (agathoergeoítēn)
- ἀγαθοποιέει (agathopoiéei)
- ἀγαθοποιέειν (agathopoiéein)
- ἀγαθοποιέεις (agathopoiéeis)
- ἀγαθοποιέεσθαι (agathopoiéesthai)
- ἀγαθοποιέεσθε (agathopoiéesthe)
- ἀγαθοποιέεσθον (agathopoiéesthon)
- ἀγαθοποιέεται (agathopoiéetai)
- ἀγαθοποιέετε (agathopoiéete)
- ἀγαθοποιέετον (agathopoiéeton)
- ἀγαθοποιέῃ (agathopoiéēi)
- ἀγαθοποιέῃς (agathopoiéēis)
- ἀγαθοποιέησθε (agathopoiéēsthe)
- ἀγαθοποιέησθον (agathopoiéēsthon)
- ἀγαθοποιέηται (agathopoiéētai)
- ἀγαθοποιέητε (agathopoiéēte)
- ἀγαθοποιέητον (agathopoiéēton)
- ἀγαθοποιέοι (agathopoiéoi)
- ἀγαθοποιέοιεν (agathopoiéoien)
- ἀγαθοποιέοιμεν (agathopoiéoimen)
- ἀγαθοποιέοιμι (agathopoiéoimi)
- ἀγαθοποιέοιντο (agathopoiéointo)
- ἀγαθοποιέοιο (agathopoiéoio)
- ἀγαθοποιέοις (agathopoiéois)
- ἀγαθοποιέοισθε (agathopoiéoisthe)
- ἀγαθοποιέοισθον (agathopoiéoisthon)
- ἀγαθοποιέοιτε (agathopoiéoite)
- ἀγαθοποιέοιτο (agathopoiéoito)
- ἀγαθοποιέοιτον (agathopoiéoiton)
- ἀγαθοποιέομαι (agathopoiéomai)
- ἀγαθοποιέομεν (agathopoiéomen)
- ἀγαθοποιέον (agathopoiéon)
- ἀγαθοποιέονται (agathopoiéontai)
- ἀγαθοποιέου (agathopoiéou)
- ἀγαθοποιέουσα (agathopoiéousa)
- ἀγαθοποιέουσι (agathopoiéousi)
- ἀγαθοποιέω (agathopoiéō)
- ἀγαθοποιέωμαι (agathopoiéōmai)
- ἀγαθοποιέωμεν (agathopoiéōmen)
- ἀγαθοποιέων (agathopoiéōn)
- ἀγαθοποιέωνται (agathopoiéōntai)
- ἀγαθοποιέωσι (agathopoiéōsi)
- ἀγαθοποιεέσθω (agathopoieésthō)
- ἀγαθοποιεέσθων (agathopoieésthōn)
- ἀγαθοποιεέτω (agathopoieétō)
- ἀγαθοποιεέτων (agathopoieétōn)
- ἀγαθοποιεόμεθα (agathopoieómetha)
- ἀγαθοποιεόμενον (agathopoieómenon)
- ἀγαθοποιεόμενος (agathopoieómenos)
- ἀγαθοποιεόντων (agathopoieóntōn)
- ἀγαθοποιεοίμεθα (agathopoieoímetha)
- ἀγαθοποιεοίμην (agathopoieoímēn)
- ἀγαθοποιεοίσθην (agathopoieoísthēn)
- ἀγαθοποιεοίτην (agathopoieoítēn)
- ἀγαθοποιεομένη (agathopoieoménē)
- ἀγαθοποιεώμεθα (agathopoieṓmetha)
- ἀγερέει (ageréei)
- ἀγερέειν (ageréein)
- ἀγερέεις (ageréeis)
- ἀγερέεσθαι (ageréesthai)
- ἀγερέεσθε (ageréesthe)
- ἀγερέεσθον (ageréesthon)
- ἀγερέεται (ageréetai)
- ἀγερέετε (ageréete)
- ἀγερέετον (ageréeton)
- ἀγερέῃ (ageréēi)
- ἀγερέοι (ageréoi)
- ἀγερέοιεν (ageréoien)
- ἀγερέοιμεν (ageréoimen)
- ἀγερέοιμι (ageréoimi)
- ἀγερέοιντο (ageréointo)
- ἀγερέοιο (ageréoio)
- ἀγερέοις (ageréois)
- ἀγερέοισθε (ageréoisthe)
- ἀγερέοισθον (ageréoisthon)
- ἀγερέοιτε (ageréoite)
- ἀγερέοιτο (ageréoito)
- ἀγερέοιτον (ageréoiton)
- ἀγερέομαι (ageréomai)
- ἀγερέομεν (ageréomen)
- ἀγερέον (ageréon)
- ἀγερέονται (ageréontai)
- ἀγερέουσα (ageréousa)
- ἀγερέουσι (ageréousi)
- ἀγερέω (ageréō)
- ἀγερέων (ageréōn)
- ἀγερεόμεθα (agereómetha)
- ἀγερεόμενον (agereómenon)
- ἀγερεόμενος (agereómenos)
- ἀγερεοίμεθα (agereoímetha)
- ἀγερεοίμην (agereoímēn)
- ἀγερεοίσθην (agereoísthēn)
- ἀγερεοίτην (agereoítēn)
- ἀγερεομένη (agereoménē)
- ἠγαθοποιέεσθε (ēgathopoiéesthe)
- ἠγαθοποιέεσθον (ēgathopoiéesthon)
- ἠγαθοποιέετε (ēgathopoiéete)
- ἠγαθοποιέετο (ēgathopoiéeto)
- ἠγαθοποιέετον (ēgathopoiéeton)
- ἠγαθοποιέομεν (ēgathopoiéomen)
- ἠγαθοποιέοντο (ēgathopoiéonto)
- ἠγαθοποιέου (ēgathopoiéou)
- ἠγαθοποιεέσθην (ēgathopoieésthēn)
- ἠγαθοποιεέτην (ēgathopoieétēn)
- ἠγαθοποιεόμεθα (ēgathopoieómetha)
- ἠγαθοποιεόμην (ēgathopoieómēn)
There might be other cases to deal with, so I named this thread generally. — Eru·tuon 21:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Added uncontracted forms of ἀγαθοποιέω (agathopoiéō). To do: uncontracted forms of ἀγαλλιάω (agalliáō), ἀγανακτέω (aganaktéō), ἀγαπάω (agapáō) maybe, ἀγείρω (ageírō). — Eru·tuon 22:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen your comment, but the thing is that, as a rule, these verbs also contract in koine, they still appear in their uncontracted forms throughout the corpus of text, although rarely. But do correct me if I am incorrect, I am not the most experienced. RexPrincipum (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- @RexPrincipum: I'm haven't heard of uncontracted forms ever being used in Koine (except in short verbs like πλέω), but if you can find any evidence of them, I'd be glad to see it. — Eru·tuon 01:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Erutuon: Eh, It's just something I remember my greek teacher saying, I may be wrong. RexPrincipum (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- The dual was completely extinct by the time of Koine, wasn't it? If so, then setting the conjugation template to
|dial=koishould suppress the dual column, and all the entries for dual forms of Koine-only verbs should be deleted too. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)- In ἀγαθοεργέω, non-contracted -οε- in the middle of the word looks wrong in combination with contracted endings. My edition of the New Testament reads ἀγαθουργῶν (2x contracted) in Acta 14.17. Akletos (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- But ἀγαθοεργεῖν (non-contr - contr) in 1 Tim. 6.18. Akletos (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- In ἀγαθοεργέω, non-contracted -οε- in the middle of the word looks wrong in combination with contracted endings. My edition of the New Testament reads ἀγαθουργῶν (2x contracted) in Acta 14.17. Akletos (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
August 2020
[edit]Translingual. Entered without any definition, just a description of what the glyph looks like, visually. In the wording of CFI, terms have to "convey meaning".__Gamren (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- “Incomplete infinity” is a concept that is discussed in the literature.[4][5][6] I have no evidence,though, that the symbol ⧜ is, or has been, in actual use with that meaning. --Lambiam 13:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Do we not have entries for all Unicode characters? Just wondering. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think so. @Erutuon? PUC – 21:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- No; as of the July 20th dump, we have mainspace pages for for 42,300 code points (out of 143,859 according to Wikipedia). — Eru·tuon 04:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think so. @Erutuon? PUC – 21:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Do we not have entries for all Unicode characters? Just wondering. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Requested by "STIX Project of the STIPUB Consortium", as documented at w:Miscellaneous_Mathematical_Symbols-B#History > 00-002 and 00-094. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
September 2020
[edit]Min Nan. Quanzhou dialect not actually used to write (full) POJ. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 07:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Deleted by @Fish bowl (diff) but reinstated (in another form) by @Wikijb. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 00:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Full POJ has been widely used in Taiwanese Hokkien (including Quanzhou-like and Zhangzhou-like subdialects). Literature can be found at http://ip194097.ntcu.edu.tw/nmtl/dadwt/pbk.asp. Wikijb (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Wikijb: Can you show an instance of hîr in such literature? — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 01:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, hîr (魚) appears in some Koa-á books, such as 新選笑談俗語歌 (1841) and 新歌林投姉 (1955). Wikijb (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Wikijb: Those are not POJ works, which means there is no attestation of the exact spelling of hîr in any POJ works so far. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 03:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I spoke too fast. I should say that these works were not originally written in POJ, and the pronunciation is given after, as far as I can tell. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 03:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's right. There were written in Han characters and then transcripted into POJ works. Wikijb (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, hîr (魚) appears in some Koa-á books, such as 新選笑談俗語歌 (1841) and 新歌林投姉 (1955). Wikijb (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Wikijb: Can you show an instance of hîr in such literature? — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 01:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Albanian. Tagged but not listed nearly two years ago with the reason "It is misspelled; the correct spelling is dëgjoj". We do have an entry for dëgjoj, but degjôj is labeled {{lb|sq|Gheg}}, and there's a citation for the inflected form degjôn, so I suspect this is a valid spelling for Gheg dialect if not for the standard language. But I know virtually nothing about Albanian, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. Pinging @HeliosX, PlatuerGashaj as the creator and deletion proposer respectively. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- In Dhurata Ahmetaj's song, the verb is pronounced like this only the first time during the first minute. You can search the song online if you like to review its pronounciation. It can be noted that the rhyming word "preokupon" is pronounced here with the vowel [e] too but the pronunciation of the second verb can't be altered because of that only. HeliosX (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- So is this spelling attested in writing anywhere? Or is only a presumed spelling of a pronounced form? —Mahāgaja · talk 12:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- It will be highly difficult to establish this spelling in writing because Gheg is nearly always written without any circumflexes and often without the diacritic of the schwa letter. HeliosX (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- So is this spelling attested in writing anywhere? Or is only a presumed spelling of a pronounced form? —Mahāgaja · talk 12:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
[edit]Thai. Tagged but not listed by @Octahedron80 as "SOP". If it's a simile, can we get a literal translation?__Gamren (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Looking up the parts in Wiktionary, I arrive at “to be afraid like a mouse is afraid of a cat”. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Thai. Tagged by @Octahedron80 with the reasoning "ชยันโต only used as verb in speaking". Created by @Miwaki Sato.__Gamren (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I forgot to post here :P --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Arabic possibly incorrectly hamzated forms
[edit](Notifying workgroup: Atitarev, Mahmudmasri, Metaknowledge, Wikitiki89, Erutuon, ZxxZxxZ, عربي-٣١, Fay Freak): An IP marked the following forms for speedy deletion:
All of them were created by my bot several years ago, based on Module:ar-verb. When I created that module, I did a careful analysis of hamza spellings based on several sources. I documented my findings in detail in w:Hamza, where they still remain. I don't think I made any mistakes but you never know; this particular area of Arabic spelling is very hairy, and there are disagreements among different authors. The IP apparently thinks spellings like تسوءوا are more correct. If you look at what my module generates, you'll see it generates both spellings, and lists the IP's preferred spelling first. The dual spellings are intentional, since there is author disagreement in this case. Am I right or is the IP right? Benwing2 (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was taught that following Quranic orthography, it was valid to write the hamza without a seat for e.g. سَاءُوا (sāʔū), but that doesn't even seem to be one of the options presented. That would be to avoid two wāws in a row, but for MSA usage where that rule is not generally applied, the wāw should be used as a seat instead. I don't know of any justification for using a yā', but based on w:Hamza, I would guess that it follows the trend of certain medial hamzas being typeset with yā' as the seat rather than seatless, even if not historically justified. So the IP is seemingly right from a prescriptivist perspective, but given that we're descriptivist, I don't see a problem with keeping anything attested (maybe labelled in some manner). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: The w:Hamza article mentions Barron's grammar books. I've got his 501 Arabic Verbs. The third-person masculine plural past active of جَاءَ (jāʔa) is given only as جَاؤُوا (jāʔū) (not جَائُوا (jāʔū)) but the third-person masculine plural non-past active indicative is given as يَجِيؤُونَ (yajīʔūna) (not يَجِيئُونَ (yajīʔūna)).
- A Student Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic by Eckehard Schulz, however gives يَجِيئُونَ (yajīʔūna).
- I couldn't find the verb سَاءَ (sāʔa) but it has أَسَاءَ (ʔasāʔa). Barron: the third-person masculine plural past active is given as أَسَاؤُوا (ʔasāʔū) and the third-person masculine plural non-past active indicative only as يُسِيئُونَ (yusīʔūna). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've reached out to the IP user but I am not sure they will engage in a discussion. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- As far as I recall I've seen the forms with ء (ʔ) only in older Quranic writing. I've never seen hamzas preceding a short or long u in the form of ئ (ʔ), but ؤ, as mentioned by Anatoli. --Z 14:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is يَجِيئُونَ (yajīʔūna), because i takes precedences before u. As no i vowel environs those third person male past plural forms they cannot be written with ئ (ʔ). If in some Arabic country the opposite is considered permissible, I plead ignorance; search engines even hardly find forms like شائوا and correct to شاؤوا even if in ASCII quotation marks. Forms like شائوا should be removed from the conjugation tables at least owing to undue weight. Following experiences like on Talk:هذا we have to expect that Arabic grammars also contain wrong forms. Fay Freak (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
No kasra or ى around the glottal stop, then it can't be ـئـ. These are basics in Arabic orthography. No damma or و around the glottal stop, then it can't be ؤ. Some words are acceptable to be spelled with either, but in the eighties, one of the Arabic language academies (in Egypt?) favored the ء on the line for some words over ؤ that was commonly used, e.g. دؤوب (traditional style); دءوب (newer style). — This unsigned comment was added by Mahmudmasri (talk • contribs) at 20:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC).
- I have never seen an unseated Hamza in front of a non-vocalic letter, I must admit. Apart from that, I too prefer شاؤوا or شاءوا to those forms with a Yā'-seat, because they should only ever appear next to unrounded high vowels.
- Also, on a side note, this discussion is open since 2020. When is a good time, generally, to either close a RFD or act upon one? Who archives inactive discussions? -Konanen (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Benwing2 it looks, to my uneducated eyes, as though there is now enough information for you to close this discussion. Whether that's keep, delete or otherwise, I can't tell! This, that and the other (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'll try to read through it all and figure out what to do. Benwing2 (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Benwing2 it looks, to my uneducated eyes, as though there is now enough information for you to close this discussion. Whether that's keep, delete or otherwise, I can't tell! This, that and the other (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
November 2020
[edit]German. SOP: just an (adjective, predicative only) + copula sein. --2003:DE:371B:BD06:1404:1693:E7A8:CED2 12:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Move to ansein with a usage note that this spelling has been superseded in the 1996 spelling reform by an sein. (Compare ansein at the German Wiktionary.) -- — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 18:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC).
Keep-- The mere fact that it's possible to write it as ansein and then label it as superseded or historic or whatever means we should keep it. There's no need to play games with ourselves. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)In light of IP editor's comments: send to RFV. — Dentonius 11:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Is ansein really valid, would it pass RFV? All I see in google books is this:
- Ansein (n.),
- ansein as OCR-error of an sein (preposition + pronoun),
- mentionings (e.g. in Duden and a book about the spelling-reform),
- 1 usage ("eine Lampe, die beim Fernsehen immer ansein mußte").
- --2003:DE:371B:BD12:6895:8452:AB79:88C1 20:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. This one is in Duden with the definition "eingeschaltet sein" (to be on). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Literally "to be" + adjective. Fytcha (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. This is in my German textbook. RealIK17 (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- ansein doesn't quite look attestable. I also don't understand the argument that "it's in a learners' textbook so keep"? I'm sure pass me the salt is in some English learners' textbooks too. What's more, the adjective an can be used with other verbs too, like machen. How do we feel about creating an machen, aus sein, aus machen etc.? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- (Notifying workgroup: Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Atitarev, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak): To have more natives' opinions. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ChemPro, Skunkassociation: Can I have your opinion on this matter? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. If we kept an sein it would be hard to argue why we shouldn't allow lemmata like zufrieden sein (zufriedensein until 1996), vorhanden sein (vorhandensein until 1996) or fertig sein (fertigsein until 1996) (and countless more, like ab sein, auf sein, aus sein, dabei sein, weg sein, zu sein). I second user Lambiam's suggestion to move to ansein and note the superseded spelling. Skunkassociation (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Move. I agree we might add the superseded version for posterity's sake with an explanation ("compounded from an + sein"), and maybe add that to either "sein" (or "an", or both?) under compounds? -Konanen (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
So... I ask that these kinds of entries be deleted, because they contain a postposition, which is hard to translate in English as one word. Currently have found four words: ანგელოზი-ვით, აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ, აღმოსავლეთ-ის-ა-კენ, მათ-თვის. Now 1st can be translated as "like an angel", second and third "towards east", fourth as "for them; by themselves..." and other nuances the postposition carries. I don't think it's proper to have these forms on Wiktionary, since the pages would pile up and bad translations would arise. Just study grammar... I haven't actually looked whether this qualifies at all by the Wiktionary rules, so I'mma ask y'all. For comparison to other languages, these forms are kinda like if Korean 미국에서 (migug-eseo, “from America”) entry existed. I'll also ping @Dixtosa, Reordcraeft. Additional questions if we decide to delete them... would there be an easier way to actually find them? -Solarkoid (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Our concepts of SOP and words aren't all that good at dealing with agglutinative languages. A few precedents I can think of are "-que" in Latin and "'s" in English (forms with both of which are deleted as they're clitics that can go on syntactically-unrelated words), prefixed prepositions in Hebrew (prefixed forms excluded by Hebrew community consensus), and case endings in highly inflected languages such as Latin and Finnish. Latin accusative can be used for toward, ablative for away from, and locative for at. I'm not very familiar with Finnish cases, but there are a variety of cases with prepositional meaning. Then there are the long and complex German compounds that native speakers consider SOP, but that the overall community decided to keep. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ye that's understandable, to be honest. However, additionally the thing is, none of the postpositions listed there: 1) Can mean anything on their own 2) Aren't considered as cases by anyone; none of them were given names. Akaki Shanidze, a well-respected Georgian linguist, considered things like -ში (-ši) cases, since 1) they didn't show the case marker 2) they could be isolated as a case per meaning (like Locative case). Georgian, like any language, deals with postpositions like word-case marker-postposition, where pp can either be a isolated one or suffixed. -ვით (-vit) means "like (close to in shape, size, features...) for example, შესახებ (šesaxeb) means 'about' and is spaced. But like, I don't know what to do with them. I guess since Hebrew excludes the prefixed prepositions and Korean also does that with their "markers", there should be no need for ones in Georgian, since they don't just change meaning for one word or another, they're systematic. I'll look at different responses, see what other people think. Also see if Dixtosa responds, he hasn't been active muchito. Thank you for your answer. -Solarkoid (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Solarkoid: Why do you suggest deletion if the only problem is that the definitions are imprecise? We can treat them just like any other form-of entry. No? Dixtosa (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- I partially agree. Forms like ანგელოზი-ვით can be deleted, but there are so many non-lemma forms for other languages, I doubt we should make it our priority at this point. When it comes to words like აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ (eastward, eastwards), I think we can keep them. These words are useful when it comes to navigation, whether on foot or by sailing a boat or flying a plane. All in all, we should look at the usefulness of each entry and not delete them in broad sweep. --Reordcraeft (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly just because it has a one word translation in English using -ward doesn't mean it should be an entry in Georgian. I have more problems than imprecision in definitions. Typically, inflection of would be used for cases or conjugations and others, but not postposition. What inflection are you going to specify აღმოსავლეთისკენ as? LOCATIVE? Locative is a case, so is Ablative and others, so unless proven or discussd to be a case (like in case of -shi, -ze cf. Shanidze), you can't just assign them values like that. As for further problems with აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ: It's like so unnecessary. -k'en is a suffix for movement towards something. ANYTHING at that. You can select any noun and damn straight it'll work because it's a postposition. It is suffixed to a noun in genitive case, so, imho, keeping cases is fine and is in good will, while keeping postpositions is just unnecessary UNLESS you have linguistic proof that it can be considered a case. Also for "These words are useful when it comes to navigation" Well they can be built as easily by a person learning even a little bit of grammar as useful it is. Since there is no exact rule on agglutinative languages here, I think it's for community's best interest to deem such entries impractical, because they are so easily guessable from the root word. Unless you prove me that every little bit has to be here in this dictionary, then let's add entries like მიკაქალ, პაკა, ბაი, ოკ, სახში, ტვალეჩი (ngl last one kinda deserves an entry) since they are so widely used. Also მხოლობითი which I've heard far more than მხოლოობითი but is not attested in a dictionary. However: for Mingrelian and Laz these are cases and should be treated as such, but that's for future and they are clearly cases, so I'm not going to bring that here. I feel like I'm in court. Nothing further, Your Honor. Also I'm partially going off from Korean entries here too. @Karaeng Matoaya In your expert opinion, should entries like 엄마처럼/엄마같이 (not saying sole, dictionary words like 쏜살같이) and 왼쪽으로 be created? I'm asking you because it's kind of the same matter here, though y'all view those as particles instead. But I kinda have that problem too with some entries having -ც. -Solarkoid (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think what Solarkoid is trying to say here put very simply is that this is SOP, since these postpositions can be attributed to any noun by exactly the same method. This seems to me to be as SOP as any monoword compound can be, but with an enormous amount of entries to be created. Is there any point of not deleting them (for example Georgian speakers or learners not being able to recognize the suffix being a postposition)? If not, then a strong delete from my part. Thadh (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, there are good reasons why we should not delete them. Someone may want to look it up, wow. That someone is probably neither a native speaker nor a learner though because it is pretty easy to guess any postpositional form from two basic forms (genitive and plural). But, have you ever looked up a word in a language you knew nothing about?
- Now, is there any reason for deletion? Dixtosa (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think WT's objective should not be to include any variant of any word that anyone could find anywhere. The reason to delete this is so that it doesn't fill up the mainspace with words that can be deducted very simply. This isn't different from any SOP except for the fact it doesn't use a whitespace. Why not add whole sentences in Scriptio continua? Thadh (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dixtos, Wiktionary has this convenient little feature called "words containing..." under the search if the word you're looking up isn't an entry. We could even do redirects to the main entry where they can open the inflection table and see it for themselves. Like look up the word "დიდედისთვის", which doesn't exist, and it will tell you, that the word "დიდედა" contains the word, so I still stand by my opinion, that it doesn't matter. And if they can't find it that way still, let's just let them add it to entry requests, add main entry and add a redirect even. Redirect has to be discussed still, but we'll see. -Solarkoid (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Given the small number of languages using this script and their being limited to a relatively small area, the risk of overlap with words in other languages seems pretty small, and the likelihood that at least some Georgian editors will be able to spot it seems pretty high. That means you can be much more liberal with redirects than for scripts that are widely used by lots of languages with no connection to each other. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think what Solarkoid is trying to say here put very simply is that this is SOP, since these postpositions can be attributed to any noun by exactly the same method. This seems to me to be as SOP as any monoword compound can be, but with an enormous amount of entries to be created. Is there any point of not deleting them (for example Georgian speakers or learners not being able to recognize the suffix being a postposition)? If not, then a strong delete from my part. Thadh (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly just because it has a one word translation in English using -ward doesn't mean it should be an entry in Georgian. I have more problems than imprecision in definitions. Typically, inflection of would be used for cases or conjugations and others, but not postposition. What inflection are you going to specify აღმოსავლეთისკენ as? LOCATIVE? Locative is a case, so is Ablative and others, so unless proven or discussd to be a case (like in case of -shi, -ze cf. Shanidze), you can't just assign them values like that. As for further problems with აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ: It's like so unnecessary. -k'en is a suffix for movement towards something. ANYTHING at that. You can select any noun and damn straight it'll work because it's a postposition. It is suffixed to a noun in genitive case, so, imho, keeping cases is fine and is in good will, while keeping postpositions is just unnecessary UNLESS you have linguistic proof that it can be considered a case. Also for "These words are useful when it comes to navigation" Well they can be built as easily by a person learning even a little bit of grammar as useful it is. Since there is no exact rule on agglutinative languages here, I think it's for community's best interest to deem such entries impractical, because they are so easily guessable from the root word. Unless you prove me that every little bit has to be here in this dictionary, then let's add entries like მიკაქალ, პაკა, ბაი, ოკ, სახში, ტვალეჩი (ngl last one kinda deserves an entry) since they are so widely used. Also მხოლობითი which I've heard far more than მხოლოობითი but is not attested in a dictionary. However: for Mingrelian and Laz these are cases and should be treated as such, but that's for future and they are clearly cases, so I'm not going to bring that here. I feel like I'm in court. Nothing further, Your Honor. Also I'm partially going off from Korean entries here too. @Karaeng Matoaya In your expert opinion, should entries like 엄마처럼/엄마같이 (not saying sole, dictionary words like 쏜살같이) and 왼쪽으로 be created? I'm asking you because it's kind of the same matter here, though y'all view those as particles instead. But I kinda have that problem too with some entries having -ც. -Solarkoid (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- I partially agree. Forms like ანგელოზი-ვით can be deleted, but there are so many non-lemma forms for other languages, I doubt we should make it our priority at this point. When it comes to words like აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ (eastward, eastwards), I think we can keep them. These words are useful when it comes to navigation, whether on foot or by sailing a boat or flying a plane. All in all, we should look at the usefulness of each entry and not delete them in broad sweep. --Reordcraeft (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
January 2021
[edit]@Hk5183 Sense "to have sexual intercourse with". It doesn't seem lexicalized to me, and AFAICT it's quite rare, too. Looking cursorily, I found one cite, and there is another on DDO, both of which seem like nonce euphemisms by romantic authors (Femina is a women's magazine). ODS lists a large number of minor semantic variations, but not this one.__Gamren (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- I personally have never encountered this meaning in reading (only in DDO), so I cannot attest to it's usage. I agree that it is not at the core of the word's meaning, so delete it if you think best. Thanks! Hk5183 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- The English verb unite is also used as a euphemism for the sexual act: [7], [8] – not a reason to add this as a new sense. --Lambiam 13:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
[edit]Seems as SOP as Allah's Messenger would be in English. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 08:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Which isn't very SOP. Without real-world knowledge of Islam, how is anyone supposed to know who Allah's Messenger is? —Mahāgaja · talk 09:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- The answer is easy: It’s always the one relevant in the narrative of the religion in question. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Lean delete, which religious titles to include and which not can be difficult because there are many metaphors and allusions involved, but this one is rather straightforwardly descriptive. So it is closer to Holy One of God (imo excludible) than to Lamb of God (imo includible).
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)- Is a lean delete more gentle than a fat delete? --Lambiam 12:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't trust a delete with a lean and hungry look. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Speaking from a background that leaves me rather ignorant of much of Islam, I can only guess at what or who "Allah's Messenger" would refer to -- Might this be an angel? Any of the prophets? A specific prophet? I don't know.
- In other words, I agree with Mahāgaja's point, and I cannot agree with Fay Freak's contention, that "[i]t's always the one relevant in the narrative of the religion in question" would mean any English speaker would perforce understand this in a sum-of-parts manner.
- As such, keep, and ideally also include Allah's Messenger (if that is indeed an often-used term). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 08:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Is a lean delete more gentle than a fat delete? --Lambiam 12:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- In fact, Muhammad is the main messenger of all messengers of Islam. — This unsigned comment was added by Adamdaniel864 (talk • contribs) at 06:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC).
May 2021
[edit]This construction isn't really a word (not in Dehkhoda), and the attempt to treat it as a verb has produced the convoluted usage notes. The relevant information is now contained in منتظر#Usage notes, which I think conveys the information rather more succinctly.
I propose a hard-redirect to منتظر.--Tibidibi (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
June 2021
[edit]All of the entries for Barngarla on Wiktionary follow the standardised spelling (as specified here), except for one entry kawu, and two other entries kauo and kawi that specify themselves as alternate spellings of kawu. The version of this word with standardised spelling can be found at gawoo (and possibly also gabi). The Barngarla Language Advisory Comittee prescibes that Barngarla should be written according to the modern standardised spelling. These other spellings are not part of any sort of obsolete spelling system, but rather are just arbitrary spellings that some linguists used to transcribe Barngarla words prior to the modern spelling standardisation. Therefore I propose that these entries be deleted. --AndreRD (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as per AndreRD's detailed explanation. Gawoo is the spelling and already appears in the Wiktionary. Native-title (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please delete the Barngarla lemma warradya too, as the correct form is warraidya. Native-title (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- I looked into the situation here. The Barngarla language fell out of use by 1964, but has recently been revived thanks to an effort spearheaded by Ghil'ad Zuckermann, a linguist. Apparently Zuckermann himself developed a new orthography for the language. There are plenty of old pre-1964 texts with attestations (at least mentions) of Barngarla words not written in Zuckermann's orthography, but the evidence suggests these writers were using ad-hoc orthographies and there was no written standard. I suppose the most logical thing to do is to delete these old ad-hoc spellings - otherwise we'd clutter the dictionary with all sorts of one-off spellings for all kinds of LDLs. Do we have a common practice in these situations? This, that and the other (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Of course, Wiktionary is not paper. Incidentally, while we are at it, should we get these pre-1964 texts burnt? A sane compromise is to by default require 2 independent mentions with the same spelling if there are no examples of use. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
July 2021
[edit]This idiom does not add การ-. --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- This is a tricky one to analyse. There are 784 raw Google hits, but the problem is that killing an elephant for its ivory is exactly what the poachers do, and examples referring to that would be straightforward SoPs. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I've found a quotation that clearly isn't about elephants. Unfortunately, it's about the killing of Rama VIII (the current king's uncle), from a book that's banned in Thailand. It does, however, clearly show the use of the abstract 'noun' of the idiomatic phrase, so as with the request above we need a clearer explanation of why the abstract noun from the idiom should be excluded. The example shows the noun as the object of a preposition, ถึง (tʉ̌ng) (or a verb acting like one, depending on your taste in grammar). --RichardW57 (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
See my message above. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
This idiom does not add การ- or ความ-. See การสีซอให้ควายฟัง --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
SOPs. Not sure about ورځ په ورځ though. SAb54iudwe1 (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
August 2021
[edit]Dutch, "vicar apostolic", SOP of apostolisch (sense 4) and vicaris (sense 1). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think I'd understand the meaning from the components. A vicaris is not, in general, a titular bishop, and apostolisch also does not imply bishopric. --Lambiam 07:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Lambiam But a vicar is often enough a substitute for a bishop, and a vicar apostolic in a sense is also a substitute for a bishop. I agree it's not a slam-dunk though.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)- A vicar apostolic has usually been ordained and consecrated as a bishop and stands as such in the apostolic succession, so they may perform the sacrament of holy orders. They do not represent a bishop other than the Pope. A vicar acting as the representative of a Catholic diocesan bishop is usually not themselves a bishop; they have vicarious administrative or judicial powers, but not sacramental ones. --Lambiam 15:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Lambiam But a vicar is often enough a substitute for a bishop, and a vicar apostolic in a sense is also a substitute for a bishop. I agree it's not a slam-dunk though.
December 2021
[edit]RFD-sense "(transitive) to give water to, to quench the thirst of, to hydrate". Tagged but not listed (diff). --Fytcha (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Rationale not given, but it does appear redundant with the sense above. An Arabic speaker should simply merge them. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sense 1 is ditransitive (takes two objects, the person and the drink) while sense 2 is transitive (takes only one object, the person being hydrated). I see no redundancy nor opportunity to merge. Keep. This, that and the other (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
Macedonian, tagged but not listed. Ultimateria (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- (Notifying workgroup: Dimithrandir, Горец, Martin123xyz): Any opinions on these? Are these WT:SOPs as is claimed in the RFD reason? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- "мајко моја мила" is SOP, but I'm not sure about "леле мори мајко". Gorec (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed (diff by @Atitarev). Reason given: "Phonetic respellings should be handled differently". --Fytcha (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Created by @Crom daba. The inclusion should be based on the usage. We don't create entries for "phonetic respellings" but we have (frequent) misspellings, alternative forms, etc. If the usage can be verified, the entry can be kept but as
{{alt form|mn|баярлалаа}}or{{misspelling of|mn|баярлалаа}}--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)- @Crom daba, LibCae, Fytcha: Still unresolved. It may not be just a "phonetic respelling" but a "common misspelling" (because it's how it's how it's pronounced). If this spelling is attestable, then it should be kept but needs a change of the label. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed (diff by @Atitarev). --Fytcha (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Similar to above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Tagged but not listed (diff by @Atitarev). --Fytcha (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Similar to above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
These are the unlinked vowel harmonic variants of -наа (-naa), so should be deleted if that term is. Theknightwho (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
January 2022
[edit]@ZomBear, Russianrye, PetrGruko, Vedac13, Atitarev, Useigor, Tetromino, Fay Freak I don't know who the Rusyn editors are here so I am pinging the people who worked on штыри and штири, along with a few other likely suspects. What seems to have happened is that User:Vedac13, User:PetrGruko and User:Russianrye created шти́ри (štýry, “four”), marking it as Prešov. Recently, however, User:ZomBear created an entry under шты́ри (štŷ́ry) with the same meaning (marked as regional), and marked шти́ри (štýry) for speedy deletion. I don't know much about Rusyn but this looks fishy; I suspect there are competing standards for Rusyn spelling, which may have political ramifications. Benwing2 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Kercha (2012) gives the forms четыри, четверо and штыри as forms of the numeral "four". AFAIK, Rusyn orthography is pretty phonemic, with a three-way contrast ы-и-і. I'd say send to RFV. Thadh (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Benwing2, Thadh, ZomBear: Sorry, can't help with this. I lost my Rusyn dictionary. On "четверо" I wonder if it's a noun with the sense "four people", rather than a numeral "four".
- Trying to find what is right in Rusyn can be frustrating as different authors can use very different words and spellings. There are multiple standards but it seems to be no standard. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Here is another source шты́ри (štŷ́ry) — Horoszczak, Jarosław (1993), “шты́ри”, in Перший лемківско-польскій словник [First Lemko-Polish Dictionary][9] (in Polish), Legnica: Stovaryshynia Lemkiv, page 248
- I did not come across in Rusyn dictionaries шти́ри (štýry). --ZomBear (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
February 2022
[edit]Hebrew.
SOP. Sartma (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
April 2022
[edit]Following the deletion of English Joan of Arc (proper noun). ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 07:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Japanese term ジャンヌ・ダルク (Jannu Daruku) has no other meaning than the name of the historical person. As written in WT:NAMES, particularly WT:NSE, we must delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- RFV issue. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and undelete the literal sense in Joan of Arc. The deletion of the person sense from Joan of Arc was incorrectly justified. In Talk:Joan of Arc, we can read "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia" as the justification for deletion. But this does not mean there can be no senses for people, only that the senses should not describe the people in encyclopedic manner. The quoted sentence also refers to places, and under the incorrect interpretation of the sentence, we would also need to delete senses for places from place names, which we do not want to do and have not been doing. It was further said that "Most terms in Category:en:Individuals are not entries about individuals but about terms named after individuals", which is not obvious to me and even if it were true, many of the entries there are for specific individuals, e.g. Aristotle: "An ancient Greek philosopher, logician, and scientist (382–322 B.C.E.), student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great." We did see some efforts to get rid of senses for specific individuals in the past, but that never achieved anything like consensus; see e.g. Talk:Xenocrates. And in Talk:Joan of Arc I do not see 2/3-consensus for deleting the literal sense, so the closure does not appear correct as for consensus either. In Talk:George VI I do not see the required 2/3 supermajority for deletion either. WT:NSE does not require us to delete Joan of Arc's literal sense, from what I can see. As pointed out elsewhere, we have other multi-word names such as Jesus Christ, Alexander the Great, Darwin's Bulldog, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Mary Magdalene, Robin Hood and I have just checked that they contain senses for specific people. “Joan of Arc”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows support of multiple lemmings, so we can even use WT:LEMMING as an arbitrary aid. Thus, the deletion of Joan of Arc person sense contradicts the usual interpretation of the part of CFI quoted for the support for deletion and contradicts common practice shown on very many of the entries in Category:en:Individuals even if not all of them, and contradicts WT:LEMMING, which can help us when we feel undecisive about what to do as part of WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- I now restored Joan of Arc person sense since I carefully verified there was no 2/3-consensus for the deletion of the literal sense and documented that in Talk:Joan of Arc. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- As for WT:NSE's "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic", "of Arc" is neither a family name nor a patronymic, so this does not apply. The notion that we exclude all person senses from multi-word person names was refuted above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Revisiting this a bit late.
- From the WP article at w:Joan of Arc, particularly the #Name section, my understanding is that the of Arc or d'Arc portions of the name are in fact patronymic, at least as understood by the chroniclers who first recorded (something like) this version of her name roughly 24 years posthumously.
- The EN entry at Joan of Arc currently has no proper noun sense, only the figurative sense -- which seems correct to me inasmuch as I understand the policy at WT:NSE.
- The JA entry at ジャンヌ・ダルク (Jannu Daruku) currently has only the proper noun sense -- which seems like an entry we shouldn't have?
- Bringing this back up in an effort to resolve the RFD still in place for the Japanese entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all unless figurative senses are attestable. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Added 3 quotations from some books to the Romanian entry. Bogdan (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have struck Ioana d’Arc. The quotations check out and the entry is thus outside the (intended) scope of this RFD. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep the figurative senses of these entries, at the very least (I'd have no objection to keeping the literal senses either but whatever approach we take should be consistent across entries). If attestability is in doubt then RFV is the appropriate forum to discuss that, so it's not relevant to discussions here. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The suffixes -li/-lı/-lu/-lü and -siz/-sız/-suz/-süz can be added to any Turkish noun to form adjectives meaning “with ...” and “without ...”. For example: şekerli kahve = “coffee with sugar”; şekersiz kahve = “coffee without sugar”. IMO there has to be a specific reason to have entries for such adjectives, such as that they have a specific idiomatic meaning (tatlı = “sweet”, not the regular “having taste”), or that there is a dedicated corresponding English adjective (ünlü = “famous”). --Lambiam 17:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- If we go based on these 2 rules we'd have to delete a lot of pages. Maybe mirror other dictionaries.
{{R:TDK}}has the +-li form for some fruits, for example. Mainly those used as flavouring or in bakery. To my surprise they also have abajurlu and abajursuz. Then I came to discover that there's lampshaded. --Whitekiko (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete MhmtÖ (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep abajurlu. Weak keep abajursuz --Whitekiko (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
May 2022
[edit]- Discussion moved to WT:RFDI.
- Discussion moved to WT:RFDI.
June 2022
[edit]South Levantine Arabic. — This unsigned comment was added by AdrianAbdulBaha (talk • contribs) at 13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC).
South Levantine Arabic. — This unsigned comment was added by AdrianAbdulBaha (talk • contribs) at 13:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC).
South Levantine Arabic. — This unsigned comment was added by AdrianAbdulBaha (talk • contribs) at 13:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC).
South Levantine Arabic. — This unsigned comment was added by AdrianAbdulBaha (talk • contribs) at 13:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC).
- @AdrianAbdulBaha What is the reason you think these entries should be deleted? This, that and the other (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- They're not used in any dialect I am personally familiar with, and they were added by a non-native speaker I know who was adding words from a vocabulary list that is somewhat dubious. The question of whether a word that is attested in Standard Arabic may be considered to be attested in the dialect is a difficult one with no clear answer, because Standard Arabic vocabulary may be borrowed when specificity is required, as in the case of "arm" and "temple (of the head)". But I argue that they don't have any currency outside of those settings. (Note that this is different from terms labeled as "formal", which may be borrowed from Standard Arabic but are valid in the dialect and have the function of elevating the register of speech.) I would basically argue that just as we have started using Arabic dialect language sections on Wiktionary to include dialectal terms (instead of trying to accommodate them within the Standard Arabic banner), it doesn't make sense to use the dialect sections to accommodate all Standard Arabic terms that could be conceivably used in the dialect, which is nearly an infinite list. AdrianAbdulBaha (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
(Notifying workgroup: Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak): German adverb. I thought we don't have these null-morpheme, 100% predictable conversions. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't we? I see nothing at WT:ADE forbidding it. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Mahagaja: Because every German (and Romanian) adjective can be used as an adverb without morphological change. It's not insightful and just needlessly clutters Category:German adverbs as well as the adjective entries. It is also more or less de facto policy to not include these (seeing that we have 1.8k adverbs and 13.7k adjectives). Further, no major German (or Romanian) dictionary includes these conversions as separate adverb entries. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- WT:CFI is actual policy, and it says "all words in all languages"; this is a word in a language. On the other hand, CFI says nothing about excluding completely predictable derived forms without morphological change. We're not paper, so we don't have to worry about saving space like major German (and Romanian) dictionaries do. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Mahagaja: Because every German (and Romanian) adjective can be used as an adverb without morphological change. It's not insightful and just needlessly clutters Category:German adverbs as well as the adjective entries. It is also more or less de facto policy to not include these (seeing that we have 1.8k adverbs and 13.7k adjectives). Further, no major German (or Romanian) dictionary includes these conversions as separate adverb entries. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't mind them being there, and it might be useful to add quotes under a more appropriate heading, instead of lumping everything together. – Jberkel 11:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this principle for German, but in this individual case I am not sure whether it has not sufficiently detached in development, for many sloppy speakers interchangeable with sehr (“very”). Rightly we also list derbe (adverb), and also others linked on Thesaurus:sehr. Fay Freak (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Worth noting that the majority view among grammarians is to not consider adverbially used adjectives to be adverbs but adverbials:
- w:de:Adverb#Alternativen:_Das_„Adjektivadverb“: "Die soeben dargestellte Auffassung, dass die adverbielle Verwendung eines Adjektivs keinen Übergang in eine eigene Wortart Adverb bedeutet, ist in der Sprachwissenschaft heute deutlich die Mehrheitsmeinung.[11]"
- w:de:Adjektiv#Syntaktische_Funktion: "Die Wortart Adjektiv ist unabhängig von ihrer syntaktischen Funktion.[4]"
- — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Fytcha It's probably worth defining what adverbial means in this sense, because the current definition doesn't explain what distinguishes words like this from adverbs. There is also the separate question of whether all adjectives can be used this way. Theknightwho (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: Usually, Adverb refers to a lexical and Adverbial to a syntactic category:
- 2016 December 17, Peter Eisenberg, Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik[10], Springer, →ISBN, 6.1 Abgrenzung und Begriffliches, page 204:
- Kein terminologischer Glücksfall ist das Nebeneinander der Begriffe Adverb und Adverbial. Meistens - aber längst nicht immer - wird Adverb als kategorialer, Adverbial als relationaler Begriff verwendet. Wir folgen diesem Usus und gebrauchen ›Adverbial‹ synonym mit ›adverbiale Bestimmung‹ als Bezeichnung für eine syntaktische Relation (s.u.).
- (please add an English translation of this quotation)
- As to whether all lexical adjectives can relationally be converted, the following book argues no:
- 2016 February 16, Wolfgang Imo, Grammatik: Eine Einführung[11], Springer-Verlag, →ISBN, →OCLC, page 78:
- Dafür spricht auch, dass alle Adjektive attributiv verwendet werden können, aber nicht alle Adjektive auch adverbial oder prädikativ. Das Adjektiv klein kann z.B. nur attributiv (das kleine Auto, der kleine Junge etc.) oder prädikativ (Das Auto ist klein. Der Junge ist klein.) verwendet werden, nicht aber adverbial (*Das Auto fährt klein. Der Junge läuft klein. etc.). Adjektive wie monatlich oder jährlich können nur attributiv (das monatliche Erscheinen der Zeitschrift; die jährliche Feier) oder adverbial (Die Zeitschrift erscheint monatlich. Die Feier findet jährlich statt.) verwendet werden, nicht aber prädikativ (*Die Zeitschrift ist monatlich. ?Die Feier ist jährlich.).
- (please add an English translation of this quotation)
- Maybe creating Category:German adjectives that cannot be used predicatively and Category:German adjectives that cannot be used adverbially is an idea worth considering. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- If such categories are necessary, then your original assertion that these adverbial forms are 100% predictable is no longer the case. The 2016 passage suggests that such exceptions are common. Am I right in thinking these generally correspond with English adjectives that can be suffixed with -ly, or are they far more common than that?
- To contrast, every English noun can be used attributively and every English verb has a gerundive form that conjugates in the same way as the present participle. That's why we exclude those forms, because they're inherent to what it means to be a noun or verb in English. That reasoning doesn't seem to apply here. Theknightwho (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: My first post was not that clear, apologies. What I wanted to get at with that part was semantic predictability: almost all adverbially used adjectives mean exactly what you'd expect them to mean (hence, they're predictable); the ones that have gained additional semantics in adverbial usage (e.g. schnell) are of course to be included.
- I did assert that every adjective can be used adverbially but, looking back, that's not even all that important of an argument. The most striking argument is that the majority of grammarians don't consider these forms (adverbiale Adjektive) to be adverbs.
- Also, contrary to what is claimed in Wolfgang Imo's book, I'm currently not convinced that klein cannot be used adverbially.
- 2014 January 29, Melanie Thomas, Taking a Punch at the Queen?: Die Darstellung von Königin Victoria in den Karikaturen des Satiremagazins "Punch" 1841-1901[12], Tectum Wissenschaftsverlag, →ISBN, →OCLC, page 97:
- Russell wird im Punch durchgehend winzig klein gezeichnet.
- (please add an English translation of this quotation)
- How is this not an adverbial use? The reason why his examples don't work is because they are semantically absurd. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Now that I think about it, this usage exists in English as well, though it's generally informal: "eat healthy", "fit snug" etc. Theknightwho (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, none of these in either German or English are adverbs.
- The manner specifically of eating has no bearing on it being healthy (you can eat like a pig and it would be equally healthy), rather it is the subject categorized as healthy, the one who eats has a healthy attitude towards nutrition and thus eats healthy food. In Latin it would be in the nominative, apparently covered for Latin by German Wikipedia as Participium coniunctum and for German as Prädikativum#Freie Prädikativa, leading us to the term depictive as correctly categorizing their syntactical function.
- Where as in the German example “klein gezeichnet” it is a resultative, covered by Prädikativum#Resultative Prädikativa. Fay Freak (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose the reason one cannot say *Das Auto fährt klein. Der Junge läuft klein. etc. is the same as why one cannot say *The car drives small. The boy runs small. – what would it mean? --Lambiam 08:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak: Thank you for the links, interesting. In that case, the book is probably right in asserting that klein cannot be used adverbially. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Fytcha @Fay Freak Having looked at these again, they seem to be used with copulative verbs, so as Fay Freak says, the adjective describes the subject. Cars might not be able to drive small, but one can certainly drive unsteady, perhaps after going large. As well as depictive and resultative, they can also be inchoative. Theknightwho (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is a very old thread so apologies if it is not the done thing to add to it. I am in favour of keeping the separate listing of adverb sense, because while for German the categories are perhaps less valuable, we are an English language dictionary and for English the distinction is important. As mentioned, extrem does have usage in colloquial German that doesn't not fit with the adjective sense. This particular example also occurs (I'm sure much to prescriptivists' disgust) in the bare comparative, extremst, which is clearly not available to adjectives: extremst überteuert, extremst reich and so on. And on the topic of klein, I think the issue with most of the (counter)examples proposed is that they try to fit it with motion verbs, which evidently don't work very well here. But you can definitely say klein / groß einkaufen and I think this is clearly adverbial, it's essentially synonymous for viel / wenig einkaufen. Btw klein in kleinschreiben is usually classified as a verbal particle, which is why it is also generally written together, as for instance in the Duden. Helrasincke (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Separate from the question of what POS extrem is, you raise a good point that our coverage of -st forms is currently quite lacking; we have no entry (under any POS) for schnellst either (nor langsamst, etc). Schnellst, extremst et al are attested words (and not new: I can find cites of extremst from a century ago), and need to be included... which, as you say, forces the question of what POS to include them as... - -sche (discuss) 05:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- This is a very old thread so apologies if it is not the done thing to add to it. I am in favour of keeping the separate listing of adverb sense, because while for German the categories are perhaps less valuable, we are an English language dictionary and for English the distinction is important. As mentioned, extrem does have usage in colloquial German that doesn't not fit with the adjective sense. This particular example also occurs (I'm sure much to prescriptivists' disgust) in the bare comparative, extremst, which is clearly not available to adjectives: extremst überteuert, extremst reich and so on. And on the topic of klein, I think the issue with most of the (counter)examples proposed is that they try to fit it with motion verbs, which evidently don't work very well here. But you can definitely say klein / groß einkaufen and I think this is clearly adverbial, it's essentially synonymous for viel / wenig einkaufen. Btw klein in kleinschreiben is usually classified as a verbal particle, which is why it is also generally written together, as for instance in the Duden. Helrasincke (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Fytcha @Fay Freak Having looked at these again, they seem to be used with copulative verbs, so as Fay Freak says, the adjective describes the subject. Cars might not be able to drive small, but one can certainly drive unsteady, perhaps after going large. As well as depictive and resultative, they can also be inchoative. Theknightwho (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Now that I think about it, this usage exists in English as well, though it's generally informal: "eat healthy", "fit snug" etc. Theknightwho (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: Usually, Adverb refers to a lexical and Adverbial to a syntactic category:
- @Fytcha It's probably worth defining what adverbial means in this sense, because the current definition doesn't explain what distinguishes words like this from adverbs. There is also the separate question of whether all adjectives can be used this way. Theknightwho (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete – in general we do not include such entirely predictable uses. In Dutch and Turkish too, it is a property of the language that adjectives can be used adverbially without morphological change, meaning in a ... way. For example, o güzel bir şeydir means “that is a nice thing”, and aferin, çok güzel yaptın means “bravo, you have done it very nicely”. --Lambiam 08:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC) — PS. In English, adjectives can predictably be used as nouns for a collectivity of people: The people have three worries: that the hungry will not be fed, that the cold will not be clothed, and that the tired will not get rest.[13] In almost all cases we do not have the corresponding noun entries for adjectives. (However, we do have this noun sense for rich and poor, and also for hungry, in the latter case without indication that it is grammatically plural. We do have a noun entry for cold, but it is not this collective sense.) At least for Turkish, several verb forms can predictably be used adjectivally: meyve olgunlaşacak “the fruit will ripen” next to olgunlaşacak meyve “the fruit that will ripen”; bu meyve olgunlaşmaz “this fruit won’t ripen” next to bu olgunlaşmaz meyve “this fruit that won’t ripen”. --Lambiam 09:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep. In general, I'm not a fan of the idea that predictable or formulaic (non-SOP) entries should be removed for that reason alone. The overwhelming majority of plural forms are easy to guess, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have entries. The same applies here. Binarystep (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Delete per Fytcha. Binarystep (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)- May I take it then as a predictable that you’d support listing the entirely predictable noun sense[14][15][16] of predictable? — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 15:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC).
- @Lambiam Bad example, because those show predictable being used as a noun, and we can even see the plural predictables. In fact, predictability is a total red herring here and should not be used as a basis for deletion: the real reason why extrem is not an adverb is because it never actually describes the manner in which a verb is done. If the water “runs red”, that doesn’t make “red” an adverb, because it refers to the water, not the manner of running. The same applies here, because it’s used with copulative verbs. This also applies to your Turkish example - ripen is a copulative verb in English, too. Theknightwho (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe “regular” is a better term. But if the grammar rules of a language state that adjectives can be used adverbially without morphological change, then it is predictable that such regular uses can be attested. The point with predictable was that this is another example of the regular use of a term as another part-of-speech (here noun) than the most typical one (here adjective); that this boundary transgression is possible is not an exception but an instance of a general rule. The use of PoS labels on Wiktionary is a bit loose; we assign adverb to in brief and under the influence, while these are prepositional phrases most often (but not exclusively) used adverbially. And we label the verbal phrase come in from the cold as a verb, verb phrase being explicitly disallowed. I don’t get your point about olgunlaşmak; I don’t think it is copulative, and certainly not in these examples, where there is no complement. --Lambiam 17:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- The example was poor because it doesn’t hold true for English. You cannot use every adjective that way, even if it might be obvious what it means in certain circumstances. In any event, you’re ignoring that these German examples are copulative uses, because they describe the subject.
- I read too quickly with the Turkish example - they seem like participles. Theknightwho (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe “regular” is a better term. But if the grammar rules of a language state that adjectives can be used adverbially without morphological change, then it is predictable that such regular uses can be attested. The point with predictable was that this is another example of the regular use of a term as another part-of-speech (here noun) than the most typical one (here adjective); that this boundary transgression is possible is not an exception but an instance of a general rule. The use of PoS labels on Wiktionary is a bit loose; we assign adverb to in brief and under the influence, while these are prepositional phrases most often (but not exclusively) used adverbially. And we label the verbal phrase come in from the cold as a verb, verb phrase being explicitly disallowed. I don’t get your point about olgunlaşmak; I don’t think it is copulative, and certainly not in these examples, where there is no complement. --Lambiam 17:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Lambiam Bad example, because those show predictable being used as a noun, and we can even see the plural predictables. In fact, predictability is a total red herring here and should not be used as a basis for deletion: the real reason why extrem is not an adverb is because it never actually describes the manner in which a verb is done. If the water “runs red”, that doesn’t make “red” an adverb, because it refers to the water, not the manner of running. The same applies here, because it’s used with copulative verbs. This also applies to your Turkish example - ripen is a copulative verb in English, too. Theknightwho (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- May I take it then as a predictable that you’d support listing the entirely predictable noun sense[14][15][16] of predictable? — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 15:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC).
- @Binarystep: It's not "that reason alone". The most important reason is that adverbially used adjectives aren't adverbs (i.e. don't belong to the lexical category of adverbs) per the majority view of German grammarians as I've already laid out above. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Binarystep: Are you going to address this point? Why exactly are you in favor of including something that doesn't exist per the majority of the experts? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, I don't always remember to check back on discussions. Reading over this again, it's pretty clear I was wrong. Binarystep (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Binarystep: Are you going to address this point? Why exactly are you in favor of including something that doesn't exist per the majority of the experts? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is terrible reasoning. Vininn126 (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. To paraphrase others' arguments- if grammarians do not regard these forms as adverbs, and if they are entirely predictable adverbial uses of adjectives, it doesn't make sense to mark potentially several thousand adjectives as adverbs. An exception can be made for cases where the adverbial usage has developed new senses. Nicodene (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
On a balance, delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 17:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)- Switching to keep, at least while Helrasincke's point above about this having adverbial inflected forms is evaluated: it seems like only some 'adjectives' (including this one) have such forms, which could support the view that those relatively few 'adjectives' (including this one) are also adverbs, even if we dismiss as non-adverbs the 'adjectives' which lack such forms. This would be similar to how any English adjective (and not just adjectives!) can be nominalized with no change (the dirty, the incorrect and the recently wounded and divorced), but some have noun-specific inflected forms (namely plurals) which prove that those need ===Noun=== sections. - -sche (discuss) 05:20, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- On one hand, Duden has it only as an adjective and I believe those who say that German grammars traditionally treat these only as adjectives. On the other hand, one needs an adverb if one wants to enter the near-synonym sehr, which is never an adjective. Compare Thesaurus:sehr, which lists pure adverbs such as äußerst and adjectives+adverbs such as ungeheuer. How do you enter an adverb-thesaurus link into an adjective-only entry extrem or adjective-only entry ungeheuer? de:extrem lists äußerst as a synonym and even a definition of an adjective sense; that looks odd. And de:extrem translation table is incomplete in so far as it does not include any -ly translation yet that is applicable if this also covers adverbial usage. Furthermore, if it is true that "nicht alle Adjektive auch adverbial [verwendet werden können]", then one cannot say this is an exact analogue of English attributive use of nouns: each noun and gerund can be used attributively without modification. I don't think we are listing English adjectives as synonyms of English nouns. As for "semantic predictability", that's not particularly relevant since -ly adverbs are perfectly semantically predictable from their base adjectives. As for English "the hungry", our poor entry does have a noun section for "the poor". Since not every adjective can be used adverbially and since true synonymy does not hold between adjectives and adverbs, having separate adverb sections contrary to German grammatical tradition has considerable merit. About adverb vs. adverbials, I would say that what these grammars are saying is that all adjectives are so readily used as adverbs that it makes no dictionary sense to document them as such. The question whether they "truly" are "adverbs" probably means almost nothing: they behave like adverbs, and the rest is a matter of conventional treatment. From looking at Category:German adverbs, what is being discussed here seems to be a proposed change to a widespread previous practice, impacting possibly hundreds of entries, and "we don't have these null-morpheme, 100% predictable conversions" seems contradicted by observation: we do have these and they are not 100% predictable since not all adjectives produce adverbial behavior. Some examples from "f": feige, fachlich, fassungslos, figürlich, fleißig, förmlich, fragend, freudig, and furchtbar. I say keep in RFD: it makes no sense to delete hundreds of entries via individual RFDs. This needs to be adopted as a policy change via a proper channel so that one can then start removing these adverb sections in volume without RFDs. Our de facto policy so far has been to allow these adverb sections, and the nominated entry is no lone outlier. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/german-english/extrem is a German-English translation dictionary that shows extrem as both adjective and an adverb. This makes it possible to state extremely as a translation. So do https://en.pons.com/translate/german-english/extrem and https://www.dict.com/german-english/extrem. By contrast, https://www.wordreference.com/deen/extrem indicates German extrem only as an adj, but lists both adjectival and adverbial English translations. If we want to list adverb translations, these most naturally fit into an adverb section. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- If one dislikes categorizing them as adverbs, one can put them into a separate category such as "Adverbial adjectives" or "Adjectival adverbs" and use a dedicated template for the purpose. That's an easy fix. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
July 2022
[edit]Reduplication in Basque is a regular process which can be applied to virtually all adjectives. In all cases the reduplication of [adjective] means "very [adjective]", so this expression is certainly not idiomatic.--Santi2222 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English § m/s, m/s².
Based on precedents above. Might be more controversial as they're more common and somewhat "standardised" for what use them. I'd prefer them deleted. —Svārtava (talk) • 16:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, it seems a bit strange to delete terms as common as these while keeping stuff like YWb. Not saying we should delete YWb, but m/s in particular feels lexicalised. I can’t quite put my finger on why, though. Theknightwho (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- YWb is an abbreviation and is entry-worthy (just like km), while the nominated terms are SoPs. Delete. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 05:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- We find m/s used without further explanation in articles written for a general audience, not just in the scientific literature or science magazines, so the unwashed masses are assumed to know its meaning. --Lambiam 09:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- What made User:Eyesnore (diff) and User:J3133 (diff) think these are restricted to metrology? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I followed m/s, which is Translingual and has a metrology label; I am not against removing it. J3133 (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I took it as a topic label in a broad sense - they can always be a bit fuzzy. Theknightwho (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I followed m/s, which is Translingual and has a metrology label; I am not against removing it. J3133 (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Maybe adding a note to WT:CFI somewhere is an idea at this point seeing how many of these compound units people have created. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's almost like some people find them useful, or something... Theknightwho (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- If these are deleted, the Unicode characters should be kept, which were redirected by @Octahedron80 and @Mahagaja, respectively. J3133 (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- m/s² was originally at ㎨ (the single Unicode character); I moved it to m/s² because of the RFM now archived at Talk:㍹. If we want to keep the Unicode character but not the string, then maybe we should simply move it back to its old name and not delete anything. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep – m/s is the standard SI unit for speed, m/s² is the standard SI unit for acceleration. If you break up these symbols into smaller parts, they loose their meaning. -- Sloyment (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know why this wasn't closed but a belated keep as per WT:FRIED. As above, m/s specifically as a unit of speed is arguably its own unit, with a meaning more specific than its constituents. 🌙🐇 ⠀talk⠀ ⠀contribs⠀ 08:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- (And same for m/s² as a unit of velocity.) 🌙🐇 ⠀talk⠀ ⠀contribs⠀ 08:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Encyclopedic. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- What about God Save the Queen, O Canada or Hatikvah? Meghmollar2017 (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- They have been nominated for deletion as well: see WT:RFDE#God Defend New Zealand. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 09:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- If the name were a single term like *বঙ্গগীতি (compare Deutschlandlied), then it would be entry-worthy. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 09:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Presumably, a “single term” means here, “a term that is written without spaces”. This is obviously a problematic criterion for languages that are traditionally written without spaces. Is 中華民國國旗歌 a single term? It also “favours” more agglutinating languages. IMO, Tietoyhteiskuntapuolue is not part of the Finnish lexicon and should not have a dictionary entry. --Lambiam 15:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
August 2022
[edit]Akkadian. This is a misspelling. It should be spelled 𒆳𒆪𒋛. See Ashurbanipal 061 — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 22:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 23:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't it better to move this to 𒆳𒆪𒋛? Also note that this cuneiform spelling is not listed at Kūsu § Alternative forms. --Lambiam 08:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Lambiam: What do you mean with "move"? A redirect? I can't see the use of it. That entry is misspelled, why keep it?
- That cuneiform spelling is not listed in Kūsu because I usually only give the nominative (which would correspond to the entry). Phonetic cuneiform spelling are just given as examples anyway, I don't try to be exhaustive. — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 13:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, shouldn't the page 𒆳𒆪𒋛 be created and the info (Proper noun Cuneiform spelling of Kūsu) be moved over to there? --Lambiam 18:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Moving the entry preserves the edit history. Seems like a better option. Theknightwho (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Lambiam, @Theknightwho: 𒆳𒆪𒋛 (Kūsi) is the genitive of 𒆳𒆪𒌑𒋢 (Kūsu). We don't even have inflected Akkadian entries at the moment, so it makes no sense to give their cuneiform spellings. We didn't even cover the basic vocabulary...! Akkadian cuneiform entries are not a priority at the moment, so I'm not creating them. But you're more than welcome to go ahead and do so yourselves.
- I'm just asking for the misspelled entry to be deleted. — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 00:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve added 𒆳𒆪𒋛 (kurku-si) to Kūsu. — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 17:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- No problem. Might be worth adding acceleration for the Cuneiform spellings, so they're trivial to add. Up to you, of course. Theknightwho (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: I'm not familiar with acceleration. How would it work? — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 14:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Sartma Do you have the gadget enabled in your preferences? It makes certain links go green, and if you click on them it automatically generates the page for inflected/alternative forms.
- WT:ACCEL can explain much better than I can, but in essence it automatically generates the appropriate
{{form of}}on the definition line. Setting it up involves adding some extra parameters to the{{l}}templates in the{{cunsp}}template that tell it what to put. It's pretty straightforward once you've done in a couple of times, to be honest. Once it's done, it's literally a two-click process to create the page. Theknightwho (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: I'm not familiar with acceleration. How would it work? — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 14:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- No problem. Might be worth adding acceleration for the Cuneiform spellings, so they're trivial to add. Up to you, of course. Theknightwho (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, shouldn't the page 𒆳𒆪𒋛 be created and the info (Proper noun Cuneiform spelling of Kūsu) be moved over to there? --Lambiam 18:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't it better to move this to 𒆳𒆪𒋛? Also note that this cuneiform spelling is not listed at Kūsu § Alternative forms. --Lambiam 08:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
September 2022
[edit]Hindi transliteration. نعم البدل (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Hindi transliteration - IP address adding new unreferenced terms for Urdu. نعم البدل (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- https://rekhtadictionary.com/meaning-of-ikaidamii uses the word to explain the meaning of a different form of the same word. Rekhta Dictionary is still under development but I think this should be taken as a reference here. RonnieSingh (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Hindi transliteration - IP address adding new unreferenced terms for Urdu. نعم البدل (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@Surjection, Hekaheka What do you think? YYA-sopimus obviously qualifies, but this seems encyclopedic. I do not know of a site-wide policy on the names of deals and agreements. brittletheories (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think this can be deleted as encyclopedic (it can be described under YYA-sopimus if need be). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. YYA-sopimus is short for ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus, not the other way round. We have alternative spellings of many other terms even if they can be described somewhere else. A dictionary is made for users. If someone sees term A in a text, how helpful is it for them if the term is "described" under term B? Keep. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Also, it is labeled "historical". The term used to be quite common. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Hekaheka Similar issues were discussed at length in Wiktionary:Votes/2022-06/Updating CFI for names of organizations. To me, linking to Wikipedia from the acronym is enough, but there is no consensus on this. However, the term is historical, as we define the word, and has been for 30 years. brittletheories (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- YYA-sopimus being short for the full form is correct, but we can just link to Wikipedia from the template. This is done a lot in English entries (just one example: NBA). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 05:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Also, it is labeled "historical". The term used to be quite common. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. YYA-sopimus is short for ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus, not the other way round. We have alternative spellings of many other terms even if they can be described somewhere else. A dictionary is made for users. If someone sees term A in a text, how helpful is it for them if the term is "described" under term B? Keep. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Did you know that the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 wasn't the only agreement of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance the Soviet Union made. In fact it had similar agreements with many other countries. On top of bilateral agreements the Warsaw Pact was officially a Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. Thus, the term does not refer to individual agreement but to a type of agreement. I edited the text of the entry accordingly.--Hekaheka (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the term ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus refers to any of those other agreements. The Warsaw Pact is "Sopimus ystävyydestä, yhteistyöstä ja keskinäisestä avunannosta". — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- That's its full name, yes. Which happens to be the full name of Finland's YYA-sopimus as well. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, but I have never seen "ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus" used to refer to anything else than the Finno-Soviet pact and cannot find any such usage either. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- That's its full name, yes. Which happens to be the full name of Finland's YYA-sopimus as well. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the term ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus refers to any of those other agreements. The Warsaw Pact is "Sopimus ystävyydestä, yhteistyöstä ja keskinäisestä avunannosta". — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Labeled "historical". --Hekaheka (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Found usage not related to Finland on Parliament of Finland's web page[17] and in YLE[18]. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
October 2022
[edit]Old Mon.
The essential problem is that the author misencoded repha in the page title as <RA, ASAT> instead of <RA, ASAT, VIRAMA>. I have moved the file to the correct name, and am requesting removal of what was the residual redirect. To show what was happening, I have copied the original content from အကုသလကရ်္မ္မပထ to အကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ before making further modifications. It is အကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ whose deletion I am requesting. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
An additional complication is that the author was User:우습게, who has been banned as a 'sockpuppet' of User:咽頭べさ 'Dr Intobesa'. Is there any point in opening communication with him via the Mon Wiktionary to seek his approval to the deletion? Communication with him has not been entirely fruitless. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @RichardW57: Both user accounts have not been blocked from editing their talkpage (yet), so you could try communicating with them there. At this point, I wouldn't presume they know much more on the topic than you do to be honest. Thadh (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- I have asked his opinion of the deletion at User talk:咽頭べさ#အကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ. If he agrees, I believe the deletion can be speedied, without having to find someone else who knows enough about mediaeval Sanskrit spelling or even Old Mon. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- He has replied, "Just do as you like". --RichardW57 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- I have asked his opinion of the deletion at User talk:咽頭べさ#အကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ. If he agrees, I believe the deletion can be speedied, without having to find someone else who knows enough about mediaeval Sanskrit spelling or even Old Mon. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Indonesian. Tagged in 2021 but not listed. Austronesier (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. SOP. –Austronesier (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be interested to know if the buah word meaning fruit is more often used with this than with others. If not I'd say that we could just delete this and move on. —Soap— 09:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
November 2022
[edit]A Nahuatl word for which our sole sample sentence spells it as two words, and which seems like it would be sum-of-parts even if the spaceless spelling was an acceptable alternative. Also, does Nahuatl have geminate stops? Thanks, —Soap— 20:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- It seems that the distinction between ichtequi and ichtecqui is gemination, so I can believe the spelling is accurate, but this still seems like the very sum-of-parts thing we look for in other languages as a rationale for deletion. However, if we delete this, we probably need to point out on the ichtecqui page that the final vowel rotates to -a when it is juxtaposed in this fashion (maybe it's the genitive case marker?) Thanks, —Soap— 09:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Turkish. The definition is wrong but the correct interpretation is simply -n- + -de; -n- also combines with the other case suffixes so this is best documented in just one location, at -n-. @Anylai as the creator. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- What about -y-? I saw AZ suffixes with the postvocalic forms so I did the same but in TR schools -y is also taught as an interfix, a "glue letter". Should we delete the postvocalic forms and create -y-?
- Delete, also -nde. --Lambiam 23:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
December 2022
[edit]Delete all pages under Category:Thai rhymes
[edit]Please delete all pages under Category:Thai rhymes EXCEPT the page Rhymes:Thai. We will use rhyme categories instead that they do not need to be updated. Another reason is that Thai word list take lots of memory for transliteration; it cannot handle thousand words in one page. Octahedron80 (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- At this point we need to vote on keeping or deleting the Rhymes namespace entirely rather than decide on a language-by-language basis. Ultimateria (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, considering that the rhymes template automatically creates templates, any rhymes pages that match the categories are obsolete. Vininn126 (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Is it possible to generate a table with clickable links like Rhymes:Thai in the category namespace too? —Soap— 09:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
January 2023
[edit]Old English. To my knowledge, hīersum isn't attested (cf stīele). The old Leasnam would have loved to create hīersum, and I almost did, but I've been converted. The WS hȳrsum is the most common attested form, the other being hērsum. Leasnam (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Unless you feel the need to create a reconstruction entry, delete.
I don't think anyone would have cared either or.-- Skiulinamo (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC) - Ah, I see @Hundwine believes normalizing spellings without marking them as reconstructions is the way to go. I disagree and find that practice outdated and misleading. --Skiulinamo (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Normalizing spellings is not outdated at all. It's easy to find recent works that normalize spellings, e.g. Fulk's A Comparative Grammar of the Early Germanic Languages and Ringe & Taylor's The Development of Old English. All dictionaries that I'm aware of do it, including wiktionary.
- As far as it being "misleading": has anyone come out and said, "I was misled"? Or is this hypothetical? I talk to people who study Old English all the time, and no one has ever complained that the normalized spellings on wiktionary caused them any problems. In fact it makes looking up words easier, since you can often tell what the normalized spelling of a word will be by glancing it at, whereas idk how anyone's supposed to predict which alternative spelling is gonna be prioritized for each word if the normalization is done away with. Some words appear with dozens of different spellings.
- In fact, requiring all spellings to be attested, and not just all words, would cause huge practical difficulties. Presumably this would have to go for every inflection of a word, since those are supposed to have pages too and they're automatically linked to on the mobile version of wiktionary. That greatly multiplies the number of spellings that have to be checked for attestation and the number of new reconstruction pages to be created, to the point where the category for reconstructed words will be unusable or the same declension tables will be full of different spellings from different dialects, depending on which ones are attested. It's a ton of work just to make the site inconsistent and unwieldy. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure there is no source that lists every attested spelling of every word, so the task is not just onerous but impossible. Much better to just keep the normalized spellings. Hundwine (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- For the record this was relatively recently discussed at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/October#Normalization of Umbrian (@Catonif), perhaps
{{normalized}}should be used for OE as well. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)- I find normalizing the spelling of these types of vowels to be misleading or potentially misleading. (I certainly don't have an issue with normalizing the spelling of letters with the same pronunciation, such as ƿ > w, ð > þ). To give a specific example, even with the disclaimers at ielf, I didn't realize that that form is alleged to be completely unattested until reading the following statement in The Meanings of Elf and Elves in Medieval England (by Alaric Timothy Peter Hall (2004): "Nor is *ielf, the i-mutated form of West Saxon */æulβi/, attested (the form <IELF> on coins being an epigraphic variant of <ÆLF>: Colman 1992, 161– 62; 1996, 22–23); the absence is worth noting because ielf is frequently cited in grammars and dictionaries" (page 212). I wonder whether the same applies to derivatives such as ielfisċ or ielfcynn, which do not even include any disclaimers. Even if this word is a special case, the fact that the form ælf could be "borrowed into West Saxon at an early date" indicates that this kind of inter-dialectal borrowing was possible. I wonder whether this kind of issue is particularly likely to occur with "ie", which seems to be pretty limited in terms of actual attestation (I think it only occurs in Early West Saxon)?
- Aside from vowels, another point that I was misled on is the existence of infinitives of modal verbs such as mōtan and sculan: apparently they are not attested ("The evolution of surviving English preterite-present verbs (āgan, cunnan, *durran, *magan, *mōtan, *sculan): a corpus-based study", Magdalena Tomaszewska, 2019) and it has been argued in some linguistic literature that this absence was not accidental, but grammatically determined ("Grammaticalization of modals in Dutch: uncontingent change", Griet Coupe and Ans Van Kemenade, March 2009, in Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory (pp.250-270), Editors: Paola Crisma, Giuseppe Longobardi; see page 4). There probably will not be many similar cases of defective verbs; although it's typical to cite verbs in the infinitive, maybe it would be worthwhile for us to add an asterisk or note to these verb's inflection tables?--Urszag (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't mind normalised spellings either, but we need to decide one way or the other on this. There needs to be consensus. If there were simply ONE attested form as hīersum (and 10 of another spelling), I would have made the entry as hīersum, heck that IS the most etymologically perfect form. But other editors have pulled me the other direction. Please, let us decide on one and stick with that. I edit across multiple languages, and I cannot keep track of micro-preferences for each. Leasnam (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
February 2023
[edit]- Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Grease pit/2023/February.
Please delate the page -zki (and it feminine version: -zka) In Polish, there is one ending -ski, but it shifts some consonant cluster to -cki (when the last letter represents some voiceless consonants in our alphabet, e.g. Sopot + -ski = sopocki) or -dzki (when the last letter represents voiced consonant, e.g. Łódź + -ski = łódzki) -- both are pronounced the same.
The only reason that English Wiktionary has 3 forms, is because it has also 2 forms for -izna (-izna, -yzna) that also depends on the last consonant before it.
There is no "special" -zki ending in Polish language. And the link to the page should be for -dzki. There is the difference (both pronounced the same) between: Francuzki 'French women' (Francuz 'French man') and francuski 'French' (adj.).
If your language has a word with -zki, you should add it as part of that language, because in Polish -z- here is a part of the digraph in -dzki.
Regards. Caslonc (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep; -d- is part of the stem; -zki is the voiced allomorph of -ski. PUC – 18:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm only now noticing we've had -zki instead of -dzki from the very beginning, but I'd be inclined to change it per the request if we're to analyze either as separate from -ski. I don't really see how -zki can be the voiced allomorph of -ski; the -k- devoices the preceding obstruent, so it never is actually voiced, and given together with the -d- stem it constitutes the digraph dz, making it pronounced identically to -cki, it makes no sense to analyze it as separate (nor have I seen others do so prior). Hythonia (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Hythonia, and considering there are many natives who see it this way, I'm inclined to speedy (but I won't). Vininn126 (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Move to -dzki and mark it as an alternative spelling of -ski. But I think we should get rid of Category:Polish terms suffixed with -cki and Category:Polish terms suffixed with -zki and move all suffixed terms to Category:Polish terms suffixed with -ski.--Urszag (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, I was wrong about the sonorization, but -cki and -dzki still aren't suffixes: in both cases the real, underlying suffix is -ski. That -s- is written differently when next to a dental doesn't change that fact; it's simply a spelling feature. So: keep -ski, explain everything there, and delete the rest. PUC – 13:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- FYI the general practice is to keep entries for allomorphs of suffixes and soft-redirect them to the canonical form. This is done in several languages. Benwing2 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Benwing2 The underlying suffix is "-ski", these are merely orthographical variants that shouldn't affect our analysis at all, jeez. Delete Shumkichi (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- also, who cares how other languages are treated? that's not a valid argument. change them too, here, problem solved. Shumkichi (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Shumkichi Being consistent across languages and esp. Slavic languages *IS* important IMO. Benwing2 (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- tl;dr delete voices: 4 (sorry, 5, if we count the person who proposed it); keep voices: 1. delete Shumkichi (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Shumkichi Being consistent across languages and esp. Slavic languages *IS* important IMO. Benwing2 (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- also, who cares how other languages are treated? that's not a valid argument. change them too, here, problem solved. Shumkichi (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Benwing2 The underlying suffix is "-ski", these are merely orthographical variants that shouldn't affect our analysis at all, jeez. Delete Shumkichi (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Soft redirect from -dzki per Urszag and Benwing. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Two unencoded entries
[edit]Middle Persian. These two terms are supposed to be in the Book Pahlavi script, but it hasn't been encoded in Unicode yet. As such, they're using codepoints that haven't been assigned. I suspect they're using suggested codepoints from some kind of application to encode the script, but the document Unicode link to from their roadmap doesn't have them. Not that it matters much, as we wouldn't be able to rely on mere applications anyway.
I should stress that this is very different to the situation we had a few months ago with some Kaktovik characters. Those were added a few months before Kaktovik was added in Unicode 15, but after the codepoints had been finalised (meaning they were very unlikely to change). Book Pahlavi hasn't even been accepted into Unicode yet - and may not be for several more years - so the whole block might end up somewhere totally different; nevermind the fact that the characters within it are very likely to change, too.
It's just not tenable for us to have entries like this, as they're essentially unusable.
Note: we also have Module:Phlv-translit, which is a transliteration module for Book Pahlavi that suffers from the same problem. I've nominated it at WT:RFDO. Theknightwho (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, they ain’t much good. Fay Freak (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sadly, unicode approval of
Phlvgot derailed from when I created Module:Phlv-translit, while communicating with Roozbeh Pournader. I would move it under my userspace but"Scribunto" content is not allowed on page, so please just keep for now. Delete the two entries though. -- Sokkjō 21:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)- @Sokkjo You can put modules in your userspace by prefixing them with
User:Sokkjo:. Technically it's still in the module namespace, but the software treats it like it's your userspace anyway. Theknightwho (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)- Feel free to try, but I get the error above. -- Sokkjō 21:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Derp - I meant
Module:User:Sokkjo:. Theknightwho (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- Derp - I meant
- Feel free to try, but I get the error above. -- Sokkjō 21:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Sokkjo You can put modules in your userspace by prefixing them with
- @Victar you moved one of these to a different encoding some time ago. Would you be able to apply the same treatment to the other one? Or shall we get rid of it? This, that and the other (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
March 2023
[edit]U+0085 and similar redirects
[edit]We have an entry at [19] (not sure how else to link to it) that is a redirect to Appendix:Control characters#C1 set. This and other non-printing control chars in the C1 plane are listed in Appendix:Unicode/Latin-1 Supplement. Pywikibot actually chokes on the U+0085 entry, throwing an InvalidTitle error. I don't see the point of this at all and it creates technical issues, so delete it. Benwing2 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete and salt. That sounds like a bug in Pywikibot - my guess is that it’s set to assume all control characters are bad titles, when in fact that only applies to the C0 codes. That being said, allowing C1 codes as titles is probably a bug in the first place - this was flagged way back in 2006, and it’s still not fixed: [20]. I’d normally be ambivalent about having them, but since they’re almost certainly useless, we should get rid of them to stop any technical problems they’re causing. Theknightwho (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Czech. Encyclopedic material. Vininn126 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Benwing2 (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, names of political movements seem to be included in en.wikt, see e.g. New Labour. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
April 2023
[edit]Cebuano. @Carl Francis. If anything, it should be an Afrikaans name. It's equivalent to having, for example, a Guarani name labelled "van Helsing". Kwékwlos (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- We have Lomboy as an English surname from Cebuano, Leblanc as a German surname from French, and Zaldarriaga as a Cebuano surname from Basque. If these are possible, why not this one? It is more likely, though, if attestable as a Cebuano surname, that it should be defined as a Cebuano surname from Afrikaans. --Lambiam 19:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Many non-canonical (i.e. not native or from Spain) family names permanently have made their way into the Philippines via migration or intermarriage. I have mentioned the well-known Tausug family name Schuck in a related discussion. This is not a matter of "weil nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf", but we need solid attestations. The creator of these entries (@Carl Francis) still owns us a proper explanation about what motivated them beyond their stupid comment ("This is stupid") in the Beer Parlour[21].
- @Kwékwlos: Please take them to RfV, not here. It would be best to consolidate all into a single section. Austronesier (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Cebuano. @Carl Francis. Why did you add an Austrian name when this should be a German entry instead? Kwékwlos (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Take this to RFV. Theknightwho (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Translingual. This is used in Internet slang to indicate that the user is grinning. However, the enclosing < > symbols can be replaced with * * or even ( ). Furthermore, any word (or sentence) can be used in a similar manner (common examples include the unabbreviated <grin>, <facepalm> and <sarcasm>, see also the list at * *). I've added an identical sense to g#Noun, so this entry is now a sum of its parts (g + < >). There is also German *fg* (“cheeky grin”), which could probably be moved to fg. Einstein2 (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, delete and move. Fay Freak (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Arabic. Any verbal noun can be used that way. It’s called مَفْعُول لِأَجْلِهِ (mafʕūl liʔajlihi). --2001:16A2:EBBD:1F00:5C20:928E:3C40:C0FD 01:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#یوگیہ.
Czech. Respectively "insurance contract", "rental contract". Both seem SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Vininn126 (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Abstain for now, it's a grey area imo.
- We have an entry for insurance policy (insurance contract is a synonym-of entry), and there are several translations there themselves worthy of an entry.
- We don't have an entry for rental contract or lease agreement, but imo we could. Although they probably wouldn't be protected by THUB in its current version, gathering translations there (French contrat de bail for example) could still be useful.
- What about kupní smlouva (“contract of sale”) and pracovní smlouva (“employment contract”)? PUC – 09:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per arguments by PUC. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Finnish. SOP: "a bird-hunting dog that fetches [birds] from the water". @Hekaheka as creator — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 17:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- SOP - yeah, in Finnish it is, but it is not self-evident nor easily or in fact at all guessable that this is water dog in English and not a "bird dog that fetches from water" nor a "from-water-fetching bird dog". One important function for an interlingual dictionary is to help people find foreign-language equivalents for precise (even if they are SOP-) terms in their own language. Unless you can come up with a better way to tell to the users that this term actually translates as "water dog" into English, I would keep it. Are we writing the dictionary for actual users or for some other purpose? --Hekaheka (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- We can have it as a collocation and keep it as a translation for water dog - that ought to be enough. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. Delete, move to collocation. Vininn126 (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Besides, it's actually wrong. water dog is not technically restricted to dogs that hunt fowl. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- We can have it as a collocation and keep it as a translation for water dog - that ought to be enough. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Czech. SOP, meaning is "Ancient Roman law". (We could have any number of similar terms referring to specific cultures, and all would be SOP.) Benwing2 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Vininn126 (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- We do have Roman law, though. I don't know how I feel about French droit romain. Abstain for now. @Fay Freak? PUC – 16:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as it is corresponding to Roman law. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
May 2023
[edit]Swedish SOP: ingen (“nobody”) + alls (“whatsoever, at all”). Glades12 (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Alla tajders, Mårtensås What do ya'll think, is "ingen alls" a valid term in Swedish?Tollef Salemann (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- That is not relevant. No one will dispute that none at all is a valid term in English, yet it does not meet our criteria for inclusion|. --Lambiam 13:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, as per nomination. Valid Swedish, but entirely SOP. VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Czech. "Financial statement", for which we don't have an English equivalent in Wiktionary, which strongly suggests this is SOP. I have created závěrka, and one of its meanings is "(financial) statement". Benwing2 (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Leaning delete, however there might be a case for WT:PRIOR. Vininn126 (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per WT:PRIOR. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Russian. I'm not sure whether we should keep this, hence why I have put it to RfD rather than using {{d}}. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's not a dictionary material, IMO, even if if something may find it interesting. Lean on deleting. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Arabic. SoP. Regular derivation of adverbs. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 09:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- We normally allow pages for inflected forms. If the rule for Arabic is different then Wiktionary:About Arabic should have an explanation of the policy. Or do you mean it should simply be defined as an accusative case and not as an adverb? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete or rather convert to non-lemma form. SOP is the wrong argument, as there are no parts to sum. But the adverbial form of an adjective in Arabic just is the accusative case as far as I can tell, so the formation of adverbs is just a point of grammar for which we don't need separate entries. This, that and the other (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Arabic. Same as above. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 09:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Kazakh. Misspelling of بەلە (bele). LibCae (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Whoever created this page was probably imitating the orthographic norms of 19th century Croatian and NDH (1942—1945). The problem is that in this word 'ie' is not correct according to those norms, cf. the NDH orthographic manual – it's just ljepota. The form may have been used somewhere before the 19th century, but without an attestation that's just speculation, there's no attestation even in the JAZU dictionary. — Phazd (talk|contribs) 01:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Phazd: This is incorrect. I have no difficulties finding mid- and late-19th century texts having this word, and others of the same stem, in this spelling. Fay Freak (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak Fair enough. I must however question whether noting the endless variety of pre-Vuk/-Broz spellings of BCMS has any value at all, even for professional linguists. — Phazd (talk|contribs) 18:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
June 2023
[edit]It appears that some 1,350 words in this language use a transcription system that is, to put it lightly, completely made up. The guide for the transliteration (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Ubykh_transliteration) given has no basis in Ubykh literature and in the user talk pages you can see these editors discuss what letters are used for the transliteration.
The only writing system this language has used in recorded history was the Turkish Latin alphabet and a transcription system based off of this snippet is in the back of A Grammar of Ubykh (ISBN-10: 3862880508) which can be visually shown here. ~ Burned Toast (talk)
- You’re not wrong. This was done on the basis that it’s used by Ubykh revivalists, as it’s an extended form of the Abkhaz alphabet, but I’ve not actually seen anything that suggests it’s actually in use. @Thadh, Apsaros1921? Theknightwho (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Vahagn Petrosyan. Thadh (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is an unwritten, extinct language. The language is attested in scholarly works, each using a different transcription system. There is no standard. We can choose whichever system we want and even devise our own one as long as the spelling normalization rules are clearly documented. Vahag (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Piggybacking on this comment, since Russia generally doesn't generally have a high tolerance of non-Cyrillic writing systems (to put it mildly), most languages will eventually develop a Cyrillic orthography one way or the other, if any is developed at all. The only exceptions to this I can think of are Finnic languages and communities in Siberia whose mainstream counterparts live outside of Russia. Hence, if we are to create a writing system based on the fact that the language is undocumented, since Ubykh was spoken on the territory of Russia, I indeed believe it's best to devise a Cyrillic-based orthography. Thadh (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- However, most ethnic Ubykhs live in Turkey since the Caucasian war with the Russians (1864). Sure, it could make sense to base it off of Cyrillic since their native land is modern day Sochi but most of them live Turkey or other places that use a non-Cyrillic writing system. Burned Toast (talk) Burned Toast (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- In that case I don't see any problem in adopting a different kind of orthography. I was making general statements more than anything else, since I'm not familiar with Ubykh myself. Thadh (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- The ethnic Ubykhs have forgotten their language. We can choose Latin to make it easier for them to study their ancestral language. Or we can choose Cyrillic for consistency with all the other Northwest Caucasian languages. It doesn't really matter. These things are usually decided by the active editors of the language. Our only active editor is Apsaros1921 and he prefers Cyrillic. Vahag (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- That is not an acceptable answer. Burned Toast (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- The ethnic Ubykhs have forgotten their language. We can choose Latin to make it easier for them to study their ancestral language. Or we can choose Cyrillic for consistency with all the other Northwest Caucasian languages. It doesn't really matter. These things are usually decided by the active editors of the language. Our only active editor is Apsaros1921 and he prefers Cyrillic. Vahag (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- In that case I don't see any problem in adopting a different kind of orthography. I was making general statements more than anything else, since I'm not familiar with Ubykh myself. Thadh (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- However, most ethnic Ubykhs live in Turkey since the Caucasian war with the Russians (1864). Sure, it could make sense to base it off of Cyrillic since their native land is modern day Sochi but most of them live Turkey or other places that use a non-Cyrillic writing system. Burned Toast (talk) Burned Toast (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Is it solely attested in scholar's works? CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, yes. Vahag (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- The issue in this case is that the most recent publication of Ubykh literature has Fenwick state that the language has three vowels, which contrast in quality not length: [ɐ ɜ ɨ]. The entries use a very old dictionary with a transcription system (which the user has based his off of) which can't accurately describe the language as it includes vowels that don't exist - such as /oː/ which has been rejected by everyone else in the field - or excludes consonants from words that should exist. So none of the entries are correct on two points. If we are going to include any Ubykh at all, we should include a citation to A Grammar of Ubykh since it is the most up-to-date work in the field. Burned Toast (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Expand Wiktionary:Ubykh transliteration by adding columns for all available transcription systems for Ubykh like I did for Laz at Wiktionary:Laz transliteration. Choose one of the columns as Wiktionary standard. Convince Apsaros1921 to use it. Describe the normalization rules from all other systems to your system. Vahag (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Piggybacking on this comment, since Russia generally doesn't generally have a high tolerance of non-Cyrillic writing systems (to put it mildly), most languages will eventually develop a Cyrillic orthography one way or the other, if any is developed at all. The only exceptions to this I can think of are Finnic languages and communities in Siberia whose mainstream counterparts live outside of Russia. Hence, if we are to create a writing system based on the fact that the language is undocumented, since Ubykh was spoken on the territory of Russia, I indeed believe it's best to devise a Cyrillic-based orthography. Thadh (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is an unwritten, extinct language. The language is attested in scholarly works, each using a different transcription system. There is no standard. We can choose whichever system we want and even devise our own one as long as the spelling normalization rules are clearly documented. Vahag (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Just تو + را. Not in any dictionary I can find.--Saranamd (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Khalaj. Tagged {{d}} by User:Xenos melophilos, no rationale given. - TheDaveRoss 15:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Here's why: what I have seen is that in a word where a vowel is followed by "y" (for example bôyun and oynamaq), the "y" is dropped and replaced with vowel length (so oynamaq becomes "ônamaq" and "bôyun" becomes "bôun"). In the case of "bôun", this becomes"bûun" because of diphthongization. Xenos melophilos (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Thai. A sum-of-parts. --Miwako Sato (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
July 2023
[edit]Chinese Pidgin English. SoP: one (=English one) + piecee (classifier). The same construction is valid for other numerals, for example:
- 1862, 唐景星 [Tong King-sing], 英語集全 [Chinese English Instructor], volume IV, marginalia, page 65; republished as “Pidgin English texts from the Chinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews, Geoff P. Smith, editors, Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics[22], volume 10, number 1, 2005, pages 79-167:
- 米其地快都卑士
*mai5 ki4 di6 faai3 du1 bi1 si4
makee divide two piecee
divide this into two
- 米其地快都卑士
- 1862, 唐景星 [Tong King-sing], 英語集全 [Chinese English Instructor], volume VI, marginalia, page 43; republished as “Pidgin English texts from the Chinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews, Geoff P. Smith, editors, Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics[23], volume 10, number 1, 2005, pages 79-167:
- 合吉地⿱竹厘卑時毡地文甘顚拿
*hap6 gat1 di6 li1 bi1 si4 zin1 di6 man4 gam1 din1 naa4
hap got three piecee gentleman come dinner
3 gentlemen dine with me
- 合吉地⿱竹厘卑時毡地文甘顚拿
- 1862, 唐景星 [Tong King-sing], 英語集全 [Chinese English Instructor], volume VI, marginalia, page 33; republished as “Pidgin English texts from the Chinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews, Geoff P. Smith, editors, Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics[24], volume 10, number 1, 2005, pages 79-167:
- 合吉昔士卑士林安黎科卑士𠲟忒記巴臣治
*hap6 gat1 sik1 si6 bi1 si4 lam4 on1 lai4 fo1 bi1 si4 gen6 tik1 gi3 baa1 seon4 zi6
hap got sixee piecee room only four piecee can takee passenger
6 rooms but only 4 to spare
- 合吉昔士卑士林安黎科卑士𠲟忒記巴臣治
- 1862, 唐景星 [Tong King-sing], 英語集全 [Chinese English Instructor], volume VI, marginalia, page 32; republished as “Pidgin English texts from the Chinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews, Geoff P. Smith, editors, Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics[25], volume 10, number 1, 2005, pages 79-167:
- 昔士地卑士文輝卑士烏文
*sik1 si6 di6 bi1 si4 man4 fai1 bi1 si4 wu1 man4
sixty piecee man five piecee woman
60 males and 5 females
- 昔士地卑士文輝卑士烏文
I think the reference (Gow) is correct in interpretating this as "one" for the purposes of a guide book, but from a linguistic point of view it's simply sum of parts. – Wpi (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, solid argument is made for it being SOP. Can be given in translations for a as [[one]] [[piecee]]]. This, that and the other (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
(Translingual section)
Supposedly translingual when the entry is actually for Burmese. RichardW57m asked about this kind of edit at the Beer Parlor, and was told that the 'translingual' header is for translingual items, and that words/letters of specific languages need to be under the header for that language. Yet he continues to edit-war over the issue, calling for a "ban" of anyone who attempt to correct his abuse.
Burmese belongs under 'Burmese'. Since this entry already has a Burmese section, the 'translingual' section should either be deleted as redundant or turned into a translingual section. Easiest to delete it and let someone create a proper translingual section in the future if they wish.
BTW, I have tried changing these bogus sections to proper translingual ones, only for RichardW57m to revert me. This isn't a confusion over what "Burmese" means, e.g. of the country of Burma or of the Mon-Burmese script -- he admits that means specifically the Burmese language and alphabet (ဇ is the 8th letter of the Burmese alphabet, but may have a different sorting order in other Mon-script alphabets.) These are supposedly "translingual" because of the Burmese Army. kwami (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. It is the Burmese script representative of the 8th letter of the Brahmi alphabet, which originally represented a voiced unmurmured oral stop (and its descendants prototypically still do) and we are confident that it is the 8th consonant letter of the Burmese, Mon, Pali and Sanskrit alphabets. As there is currently a moratorium on editing single character entries, here are some examples for its translinguality:
- Burmese ဇစ် (jac, “zip”)
- Mon ဇၞော် (jnok, “big”)
- Pali ဇယ (jaya, “victory”)
- Rakhine ဇာလောက် (“how many”)
- These languages are using the same letter! The letter is best known for its rôle in the Burmese alphabet because the Burmese conquered Burma prior to its conquest by the British, with a massive dimunition in the rôle of Mon. The domination is also demonstrated by the use of the ethnic name of the Burmans to denote the territory in English (and Thai พม่า (pá-mâa), for that matter). --RichardW57m (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and turned it into what I consider to be a proper translingual section about the letter. Yorwba (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.
Sum of parts. Dylanvt (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Entered in the wrong section. DonnanZ (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)'
- Not a Russian-speaker but if public opinion (+ opinion publique etc.) isn't SOP it seems unlikely that this one is. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Is there any reason to believe those other ones aren't SOP? They seem to be to me. Dylanvt (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- public opinion arguably involves an idiomatic expansion of opinion (senses 1 and 2), given that strictly speaking an opinion can only be formed and held in the mind of an individual. public opinion is a shorthand for the opinions of individuals considered in aggregate. Voltaigne (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Lean on keeping per Voltaigne, also for the terms in other languages. I have expanded translations on public opinion. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- At the very least it involves WT:FRIED since "public opinion" does not just mean "an opinion that is public". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Lean on keeping per Voltaigne, also for the terms in other languages. I have expanded translations on public opinion. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- public opinion arguably involves an idiomatic expansion of opinion (senses 1 and 2), given that strictly speaking an opinion can only be formed and held in the mind of an individual. public opinion is a shorthand for the opinions of individuals considered in aggregate. Voltaigne (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Is there any reason to believe those other ones aren't SOP? They seem to be to me. Dylanvt (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Probably delete. What Al-Muqanna says is true in English, but I'm not so sure that applies to the Russian word, given another meaning given for общественный (obščestvennyj) is "common", and Google offers "communal" as a translation. "Communal opinion" would be SOP in English even if it were a set phrase. This, that and the other (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Polish. SOP. Better as a collocation, which WSJP has. Vininn126 (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
August 2023
[edit]Albanian. SOP. Moved to the collocations of kafaz. Catonif (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Russian. SoP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Should англо-америка́нский (anglo-amerikánskij) and а́нгло-еги́петский (ánglo-jegípetskij) also be taken into consideration here? Voltaigne (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Vininn126 (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Polish. SOP, collocation in WSJP, not even in PWN. Vininn126 (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Polish. SOP. The term stosunek by itself can mean this. Vininn126 (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Not saying it's not SOP (I'm on the fence; let's add it as a collocation at least), but I think your argument isn't good; if anything, it would seem to indicate that stosunek płciowy and stosunek seksualny are pleonastic. I suspect that sense of stosunek arose by ellipsis from stosunek płciowy / stosunek seksualny. PUC – 10:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the full designations are shortened in speech because it has been perceived as indecent to talk about sex, so the noun without attribute could only mean the same as the noun with attribute after the wieldy term has been established. Thus German Verkehr is entered in dictionaries as “euphemism” and the like. This one though claim to not stand for sexual intercourse but for sexual relation in general, so you hear Verhältnis in old films said with a certain tone for Liebesbeziehung, and even English affair apparently also shortened “euphemistically”. So why do we even have sexual relation? Or as another obvious example, French fille, of which not the most transparent compound term would be SOP to mean “prostitute”, likewise German Dirne if one opines that written-together terms can still be SOP, because the shorter term in this meaning is only secondary. (WT:JIFFY.) Fay Freak (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- I believe it might depend language to language - one can see evidence of stosunek being the original metaphor and later collocations being added - I wouldn't exclude it being under influence of other languages however. Agree with PUC it should at least be a collocation. Vininn126 (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- In English one can say that two people are “having a relation”, which is usually understood to be romantic and to include (probably, but not necessarily) sex, but also hanging out together socially. This also applies to “having a long-term relation” but not to “having a good relation”; when someone states they have a good relation with their boss, there is no romantic connotation. If one says two people are “having a sexual relation”, it implies that this is not just “sexual intercourse” (the first definition given at stosunek płciowy), but repeated sexual intercourse during an extended period. The connotation that they are hanging out together socially is absent. I don’t know how this is for Polish, but if it is similar, the term is a SOP. --Lambiam 06:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Polish. SOP. The term stosunek can mean this by itself. Vininn126 (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- We don't have this definition at stosunek, but more importantly, this feels like a case like vacuum cleaner, where the original term had both words and over time got clipped/shortened to just the first term. CFI says we should keep those (WT:JIFFY?). MedK1 (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Arabic. SOP. --2A02:9B0:405B:196:F13E:9AD8:6C42:C3C6 17:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 04:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- As a non-Arabic editor I see no good reason for deletion. Arabic is written with spaces and is not (as far as I know) a highly agglutinative language like Turkish. If single-word terms of this kind are to be considered SOP in Arabic, even in spite of Wiktionary's strong general presumption towards keeping single-word terms, some guidance at WT:AAR would be highly beneficial. So I would say
keepbut am prepared to be persuaded otherwise. This, that and the other (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)- @This, that and the other: First of all, languages like Hebrew and Arabic have clitics (prepositions, determiners, etc.) that attach to the first word of a phrase. We've deleted Latin terms ending in -que where the only difference was which end of the word the clitic attached to. Secondly, since the correspondence between word boundaries and spacing in the Arabic script isn't exactly one-to-one, it might be better to give this the benefit of the doubt. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- I see, the first element is more of a clitic. Fair enough; delete. This, that and the other (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Basque. SOP. Santi2222 (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Interesting cultural difference but this is pure SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't trust what it says about cultural differences: this was created by an Indonesian IP who was convinced that finding ads in any language with floor listings made them qualified to add translations and entries for those languages. To give you an idea, here they're explaining Finnish floor numbering to a native speaker. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Arabic. SoP. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 04:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, I thought if would be a good idea to create the page بمن, as you can also find لمن, عمن, ممن. Why should it be deleted? Mbursar (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Arabic. Determiner. SoP. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 04:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, I thought if would be a good idea to create the entry كمن, as you can also find لمن, عمن, ممن . Why should it be deleted? Mbursar (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
September 2023
[edit]Polish SOP; compare suicidal thoughts (I'm not sure suicidal ideation deserves an entry either.) PUC – 10:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have mixed feelings on this one - on one hand it seems SOP, on the other it seems lexicalized. Furthermore, I suspect that it's usage in psychology might mean it has a specialized meaning? Unsure. Vininn126 (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
October 2023
[edit]Hindi. Possibly SOP. Kutchkutch (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete can't find any instance of use except by rekhta dictionary. SOP as, सहीफ़ा(originally: book/writing; in islam: divine scripture) + ख़्वाँ (reader) कालमैत्री (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Polish. I'm RFD'ing this to open a broader discussion in general - I feel this definition is already covered in pokazać. Vininn126 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- What is the topic of the wider discussion? --Lambiam 10:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Namely if you look at the usage notes/alt forms of the Polish entry, you'll see that the pronouns can vary widely, meaning we can "boil" them away, leaving us only with "pokazać". I believe this is the same for English. Furthermore, English "show" as in "threaten" can be in the past tense as well. So the broader subject is "the Polish and English forms should just be at the verb". Vininn126 (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
November 2023
[edit]Uyghur. SoP — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 01:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
December 2023
[edit]Bulgarian malformed verbal nouns
[edit]In Bulgarian, a verb can have a verbal noun derived from it, which in turn can form its own plurals and behave like a noun in its own right. Some of these, such as the ones that end in -е (-e), are able to form the plural form by adding -та (-ta), e.g. бране (brane, “picking, gathering”) + -та (-ta, plural suffix) → бранета (braneta, “pickings, gatherings”). In some cases, they can further be made definite, with the prefixed meaning "the", by suffixing -та (-ta) again, e.g. бранета (braneta) + -та (-ta) → бранетата (branetata, “the pickings”).
However, sometimes, forming the plural is done with the -ния (-nija) suffix instead, and the -та (-ta) suffix is invalid or rare. In the majority of cases, it's -ния (-nija), although there are also times when only -та (-ta) is acceptable. Now, we have recently discovered that there are a lot of entries that were created by mistake using the -та (-ta) rule, many of which by User:ArathVerbFormBot (see бушуванетата) once upon a time. User:Chernorizets sifted through many of these candidates, and we found almost all of them were not worth keeping. As a result, the following ~800 pages, all malformed -та (-ta) plurals and their definite forms, have been found to be in need of deletion (all are totally empty besides the bad Bulgarian content.): User:Kiril kovachev/RFD BG Verbal nouns. If you need to delete these using a bot, I also have them listed in plain text (no wiki formatting, each word on its own line) at User:Kiril kovachev/RFD BG Verbal nouns/plain. Thanks very much, Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 23:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- P.S. For discussions and to see how we arrived at this conclusion, please see Module talk:bg-verb#Verbal nouns are not handled correctly in several ways and User talk:Kiril kovachev/Verbal nouns to check. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 20:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
January 2024
[edit]Urdu. SOP: exchange of ideas/thoughts Word0151 (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Old English: "sword's edge"
This seems SOP, even though it's used metaphorically/poetically- more of a collocation than something lexical. This is just one of many possibly-SOP phrase entries that @Wuduweard has created in Old English, Old Saxon and Proto-West-Germanic. I'm nominating just this one to make sure there's consensus in order to avoid disruption if I'm mistaken. If we do decide to delete, there are many more where this came from. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, the reason I created these is that these collocations seem to be reconstructable formulae often limited to poetic contexts, though that is definitely debatable. I'm fine with them being deleted if there's consensus. wuduweard (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Acehnese. Nominated for speedy deletion with rationale "not a lemma, it’s two being combined. From ‘jak’ (obsolete spelling: djak) and ‘woë’". Ultimateria (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Ultimateria: In general, I don't see how this automatically stops it also being a word. Additionally, will a user automatically recognise it as two words? Keep, but open to dissuasion. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, the lemma being written is spelt in an obsolete spelling system (djak instead of jak) and is incorrectly spelt (both in old and modern spelling, "wo" is spelt as woë or woe), and it should've been spelt with a space instead of as a singular word (jak woë instead of jakwoë). Jakwoe is also SOP where you can deduce the meaning by looking at the individual meanings (jak: to go, woë: to return, to go home). Zayn Kauthar (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Polish. Potentially SOP. The adjective podcałkowy is used with funkcja podcałkowa most likely the most, but wyrażenie podcałkowe is also used often in the same meaning. Aside from that I was able to find dodajnik podcałkowy [26], element podcałkowy [27], iloczyn podcałkowy [28], and a couple of others. Hythonia (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have mixed feelings - I'm not sure how much WT:PRIOR applies here. Vininn126 (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Failed all. Keep the quotes pls Denazz (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Kinda hard to call it failed when one person says potentially SOP and the other says potentially WT:PRIOR. Vininn126 (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
February 2024
[edit]SOP innit PUC – 14:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
SOP innit PUC – 14:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.
This isn't a Welsh word. The creator of this entry misunderstood the initial element of the compound form barúg-wallt as being a stand-alone word when in fact, the acute accent is solely a consequence of its being part of a compound. (Modern spelling would dispense with the hyphen, which in turn would obviate the use of the acute, to give barugwallt.) Llusiduonbach (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Llusiduonbach This is a matter for WT:RFVN. Theknightwho (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Given the backlog at RFVN I'm reluctant to move this discussion there. If there are no further comments I'd be inclined to delete the entry, since the OP's argument appears strong. This, that and the other (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
Finnish.
I don't think we should have entries for nonstandard suffixes. I'm not opposed to entries for words that are actually used, like tahalteen if properly labelled. But we should not give a non-suspecting user the possibility for misunderstanding that this suffix could be used generally as replacement for -llaan (which we don't even have). --Hekaheka (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Nonstandard suffixes" are fine IMO. No opinion on whether we should have this as an entry, though, but we should probably either have this and -llaan, -lleen, etc. or none of them. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 13:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- WT:CFI states:
- "All natural languages are acceptable."
- Wiktionary isn't a dollar store Kielitoimisto. -lteen is a common and productive suffix, and should be included. -llaan is SOP, in my opinion. brittletheories (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Unless anyone can point to any source for ẏ being considered a separate letter from y in any form of Welsh (I don't believe it is), this really should be deleted. Also if the editor is using the Laws of Hywel Dda/Howell the Good on Wikisource, this is Middle Welsh (wlm) not Modern Welsh (cy). Arafsymudwr (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Arafsymudwr Would it not be better to convert this to Middle Welsh? Also, this belongs at WT:RFVN, not here. Theknightwho (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho thanks, I'll remember that. It should be deleted rather than converted (which I have already done for other Middle Welsh mistakenly marked as Welsh), for the same reason that Latin amō goes on the page amo rather than getting a separate page. Arafsymudwr (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Arafsymudwr Makes sense, and that is a valid reason to request deletion here. Theknightwho (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho thanks, I'll remember that. It should be deleted rather than converted (which I have already done for other Middle Welsh mistakenly marked as Welsh), for the same reason that Latin amō goes on the page amo rather than getting a separate page. Arafsymudwr (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
March 2024
[edit]Sorry to put this up, but this is SoP dōn (“to put”) + on (“on”). :( Leasnam (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Arabic. SOP --Etisop (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, SOP, inasmuch as the English version that occurs. Fay Freak (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Barngarla. See kawu. Request for deletion was added in june 2021. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Finnish. I've learned about SOP since adding this entry, and I see now it's clearly just "taakse" + "poistu"--Wikiuser4815162342 (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC).
- Delete — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- This seems like a set phrase to me. There's no other way to communicate the same command to a formation of soldiers. The English transmission is missing, though. Keep. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- shouldn't there then be a page for "vasemalle - poistu", "eteen - poistu" and "oikealle - poistu"? Wikiuser4815162342 (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do these commands exist? I did my military service 50 years ago and only remember taakse poistu. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- I believe they do, they're just barely ever issued. See page 34 of this pdf of the 2016 sulkeisjärjestysopas, under 2.15 Poistuminen ja järjestyminen. Wikiuser4815162342 (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do these commands exist? I did my military service 50 years ago and only remember taakse poistu. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- shouldn't there then be a page for "vasemalle - poistu", "eteen - poistu" and "oikealle - poistu"? Wikiuser4815162342 (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- This seems like a set phrase to me. There's no other way to communicate the same command to a formation of soldiers. The English transmission is missing, though. Keep. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Urdu. Tagged by @Rodrigo5260 but not listed. Delete. The correct form is at دَرْپَن (darpan), former redirect.
[Middle] Tamil.
I have no clue whether we should treat Middle Tamil as a separate language from Tamil and Old Tamil, but this isn't the way one would do it. All the language codes are "ta", so all the categories say "Tamil". As it stands now, Middle Tamil is treated on Wiktionary as a variety of Tamil, so we shouldn't have entries under a separate Middle Tamil header Chuck Entz (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Lithuanian. Rfd-sense: Vocative singular (slỹva) of 'slyvà'.
The lemma, which we name using the nominative singular, 'slyvà', and the vocative singular, 'slỹva', have the same orthogragraphic form, 'slyva'. Therefore, we should not give the vocative singular and the lemma entires in the same section, just as we have no entry for Latin ablative singular mēnsā next to its lemma mēnsa (“table”). --RichardW57 (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that this page should be deleted because it is an orthographical error; omitting the trema on ë in written Albanian is certainly informal, but it is very common and not any more wrong than it is in Russian, yet alternative spellings of words with ë in Russian are maintained on Wiktionary MaxenceLE (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Malay.
This and many other Malay entries created by User:Pgrasie such as imejinesyen and federesen, while made in good faith, have clearly been made up by said user. This is most obvious when one googles for any of these supposed terms whereupon no relevant results in the Malay language would pop up. --GinormousBuildings (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Don't forget that if they're ever used, Malay speakers would likely spell them unadapted. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
April 2024
[edit]This is not really a definite form. It's essentially some of parts: an adjective with the definite article, "the first". They are just written as one word. In Hebrew, the definite article ה can be added to almost every noun and adjective, it's mostly consistent in orthography, and it's not considered a grammatical form.
(The same could apply to all or almost all entries in Category:Hebrew adjective definite forms, of which there are very few. This is just the first one I encountered.) Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. ―Biolongvistul (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Turkish. To me it makes very little sense if any. Correct: many nationalists would like to clean up loanwords in some specific language. Pretty soon we may decide to kick "PUTIN'" out of Russian. Rational? Not necessarily! — This unsigned comment was added by 64.114.129.169 (talk) at 02:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC).
Moksha. Can't find a reason not to consider them SOP. Thadh (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Slovincian.
Not a noun but a construction akin to German "entweder ... oder", as denoted by Lorentz. Should be converted to a collocation. Vininn126 (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is identical to Polish albo-albo which also is translated as "entweder - oder", no reason to delete. Sławobóg (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain that was not the intention of the entry in Lorentz's dictionary. Vininn126 (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Turkish, SoP, not recognized by {{R:tr:TDK}}. Orexan (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The synonymous term sonraki is far and far more common. The literal meaning of the term önümüzdeki is “that is in front of us”. In English it is much more common to use “next week” than ”the week that is in front of us”, and Turkish is not different. However, the term is easily attested. The question is whether it is a transparent sum of parts, for which we do not have a satisfactory criterion in the case of agglutinative languages. Note that the person can be varied, as in önünüzdeki yıl, “the year that is in front of you, which IMO shows the form is transparent. --Lambiam 20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I think your arguments are pretty valid but I just want to clarify that Turkish is way more different than English. If we go by literary translation Turkish doesn't have a proper word for "next" since sonraki also literally means "which is after" and in English we wouldn't say "week which is after". I also don't think that person variability matters since the meaning of "next" is usually lost when the person is changed as in "önümüzdeki yıl" being "upcoming/next year" while "önünüzdeki yıl" being "the year that is in front of you" and not "the next year". So I think its an entry we should have. Kakaeater (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I vote to keep, even if SoP argument is valid. We can put some usage notes. I’ve come across the word in a textbook, which treats it as a word. I wonder if other suffixes are equally common in “ahead of time…”. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:37, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, I think your arguments are pretty valid but I just want to clarify that Turkish is way more different than English. If we go by literary translation Turkish doesn't have a proper word for "next" since sonraki also literally means "which is after" and in English we wouldn't say "week which is after". I also don't think that person variability matters since the meaning of "next" is usually lost when the person is changed as in "önümüzdeki yıl" being "upcoming/next year" while "önünüzdeki yıl" being "the year that is in front of you" and not "the next year". So I think its an entry we should have. Kakaeater (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Hajksenmeista
[edit]This looks like a misspelling of Hakjsenmeista. Note the spelling of the source word Hakjs.Linguoboy (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Sanskrit. Currently a redirect, this form was a pure invention by the original creator of the page (a class 1 verb instead of a class 7 verb from अववृज् (avavṛj)). Exarchus (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Sum-of-parts. Trooper57 (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- RFD-kept. Forgor to close this. Trooper57 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Old Dutch. Moved to lut, shouldn't use a macron. Preupellor (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
May 2024
[edit]Polish. This also concerns -óg#Kashubian and -óg#Old_Polish. These stopped being productive in these languages and only exist in inherited forms. Do we want non-productive affixes? Why not include non-productive affixes from PIE as well? Vininn126 (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep all three. There is no rule against having unproductive suffixes. They are still morphemes and people might want to know what they mean(/meant) and where they come from. There are many entries for unproductive suffixes, e.g. English -en (feminine), Hungarian -ű (present participle). —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand. This morpheme was NEVER productive in Lechitic after the Proto-Slavic period. It's not a morpheme that was productive and stopped. Allowing for such morphemes would allow for the creation of "inherited" morphemes from any time period. Vininn126 (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- Chuck Entz (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Category Polish terms suffixed with -óg not found
- I don't think you understand. This morpheme was NEVER productive in Lechitic after the Proto-Slavic period. It's not a morpheme that was productive and stopped. Allowing for such morphemes would allow for the creation of "inherited" morphemes from any time period. Vininn126 (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per above comment. Saighneánach (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Kashubian, same as above. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Chuck Entz (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Category Kashubian terms suffixed with -óg not found
Old Polish, same as above. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Chuck Entz (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Category Old Polish terms suffixed with -óg not found
Estonian. Tagged but not listed as "incorrect" by User:Joonas07. Ultimateria (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Estonian. Potentially SOP, but page pärit doesn't exist yet. Ultimateria (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- It should exist because come from exists, it also has its own entry in the Estonian dictionary Sõnaveeb. From a learner's point of view, it is very helpful to see the conjugation as it is not clear that the words change order when conjugated, and which case the verb governs ("olema" and "pärit olema" governs different cases). Honestly this is the kind of entry that a learner of Estonian would realistically search for on this website. Supevan (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sõnaveeb isn't a great source. pärit should be a separate entry and the usage can be illustrated in the examples. Including 'olema' in the entry is redundant. Joonas07 (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well "pärit" doesn't even exist as an entry, at all. So that's not happening.
- As long as "come from" exist in English, there should be translations of it - if you disagree with that it's best to argue your request for deletion on the English entry, instead of the translations. 78.110.38.9 07:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, that's not how it works - an English term meeting CFI doesn't mean the translations automatically do. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sõnaveeb isn't a great source. pärit should be a separate entry and the usage can be illustrated in the examples. Including 'olema' in the entry is redundant. Joonas07 (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete once pärit has been created. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Estonian. Tagged but not listed. Ultimateria (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- This literally means "devour with one's eyes" and is glossed in our entry as "to stare at someone or something very single-eyed, greedily, longingly".
- The õgima entry has an example: "Naine õgib meest etteheitva pilguga. ― The woman is devouring the man with a reproachful look." If this is a typical way of using that verb, then it is SOP (and should be added more explicitly to the verb's entry).
- This really needs input from an Estonian speaker. This, that and the other (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
June 2024
[edit]Cornish. Given in a list of birds on this site as a suggested term to be used. However, the Akademi Kernewek's "Terminology Panel" has already opted to borrow Welsh bras instead. There also does not seem to be any consistent or widespread use of this term (see these sites).
Người mang giấm (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. "Suggested term to be used" implies no real-world usage. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
German.
Big pile of completely SOP, non-lexical entries created by an IP (they have no more meaning than "five euro banknote" would in English). They also created a lot of synonymous entries along the lines of Zehnmarkschein, but since those are more debatable as one word terms I'll leave them for now. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Smurrayinchester: Must be kept due to WT:COALMINE. 😆 IP put the coalmines under hyponyms at Eurobanknote, and even with amounts in words and the whole terms without hyphens they are all valid spellings, as seen edited in FAZ writing Hunderteurobanknote. It is only a question of time till they all have more hits, journalists have a habit of not wasting too much space so far, so 100-€-Banknote wins and in tabloids 100-€-Schein, since the colloquial prefers Schein for Banknote, so start at Fünfeuroschein, more readable than Fünfeurobanknote, yet of equal validity, which in German does not depend so much on actual usage as the English one does. The IP had systematic considerations here. Fay Freak (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think German should be treated like Chinese, i.e. an SoP term is not automatically accepted if it is written without spaces and adequately attested. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts: Preferably. Editors make analogical considerations when deciding whether an entry is even useful, which the IP apparently didn’t, mechanically applying the coalmine rule, which was enacted with an unclear set of languages in mind. Fay Freak (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts: I'd be strongly opposed to that. Luckily, there's long precedent to keep these solidly-written SOPs, see WT:ADE. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak: But the digits make 100-Euro-Banknote a different term to Hundert-Euro-Banknote (which I wouldn't ever expect to see written that way). COALMINE certainly doesn't apply to those, unless a 100eurobanknote exists. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Smurrayinchester: No, it is an
{{alternative spelling of}}. It is not that a language has words for numbers but there are number symbols for the numerals in a language. Fay Freak (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Smurrayinchester: No, it is an
- I think German should be treated like Chinese, i.e. an SoP term is not automatically accepted if it is written without spaces and adequately attested. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete? TooSimilarT0DaFollowingUsername (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Slovene. The name of the symbol The name of the symbol ȃ.
Isn't this just "circumflexed a"? Seems SOP. Theknightwho (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Eastern Pwo. SOP: Just "one" + "ten". Thadh (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Eastern Pwo. SOP: "elephant + male" = "male elephant". Eastern Pwo has scriptio continua, so it's not a situation like in German. Thadh (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
[edit]Russian. SoP of министерство (ministerstvo, “ministry”) + внутренних (vnutrennix, “interior; domestic”) + дел (del, “affair”). Also cf. the RFD discussion of Talk:ministry of education.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. It is clearly idiomatic. 178.49.152.129 16:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as SOP. Nothing idiomatic about it. Nicodene (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- 'Внутренние дела' is an idiom which is not used in any other context. 178.49.152.129 04:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's not what an idiom is. It's precisely as trivial as “internal affairs” in English, of which it is a calque (or both calqued from some other European language). Nicodene (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is no way to deduce the sense of that expression from its constituent words. 178.49.152.129 08:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose that's possible if someone is illiterate and can't make sense of the shapes in front of them. Nicodene (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is no way to deduce the sense of that expression from its constituent words. 178.49.152.129 08:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's not what an idiom is. It's precisely as trivial as “internal affairs” in English, of which it is a calque (or both calqued from some other European language). Nicodene (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- 'Внутренние дела' is an idiom which is not used in any other context. 178.49.152.129 04:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Old English.
The instance of ⟨biliþe⟩ in the Daniel poem is now regarded as a corrupt spelling of blīþe (“happy”).
Alternatively it could be made into an alternative spelling page for the aforementioned word, with perhaps a note regarding the abnormality and its widely perpetuated misidentification. — This unsigned comment was added by YthedeGengo (talk • contribs) at 05:59, 20 July 2024.
All terms in Category:mul:File formats
[edit]Are we going to include everything in w:List of filename extensions? How does CFI even apply for "words" used by computers? Ioaxxere (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This are not lexical terms. --Lambiam 11:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
SOP: des te + meer Stujul (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note that, from an etymological point of view, the bracketing is not des te + meer but des + te meer. --Lambiam 11:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- True, but my point is more that meer can be substituted with any comparative adjective.
- Stujul (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- On the other hand, all the more gets an entry. Aren't the exactly parallel cases? Can we say that as an adverbial phrase it's idiomatic? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- As I said in my comment above, des te can be used with any comparative adjective. This is true both adverbially (see this example) and as a determiner (see this example). Therefore, I think des te meer is not a special case. The same is true in English with all the (more). I suspect the entry was put under all the more, rather than all the, because English just uses more more when constructing comparatives. Note that one of the example sentences uses all the harder.
- In my opinion, the question is more under which lemma we should put this, as currently it's spread out over des, des te, and des te meer. Considering Lambiam's comment above, I think des makes the most sense, linguistically and etymologically speaking. However, I think it's fair to say that native speakers view des te as its own lexical unit. At least, that was my reasoning for creating the entry.
- Stujul (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Choctaw. Ignoring the misspelling for now, User:Kmack says "unsure if merits its own entry regardless", which sounds like SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
August 2024
[edit]Finnish. "three quarters of an hour" is naturally 45 minutes and is not idiomatic. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure. 1) One never uses any other number as specifier together with vartti in the sense "15 minutes". 2) We have the equivalent English expression three-quarters as entry. 3) In other context than time "quarter" is translated into Finnish as neljäsosa. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- 1) is because there are more natural ways to express the same concept. Nevertheless, the others are fully understandable and occasionally used; kaksi varttia is probably attestable from BGC. 2) IMO does not mean much, and I'd rather say the English entry should also be deleted. 3) is irrelevant, as vartti itself already means "quarter of an hour", and it is not really possible to interpret kolme varttia any other way. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Yoruba. Rationale was "This page is to be deleted for not following the rules of Yoruba languages entires, in addition to the fact that Ṣábẹ̀ẹ́ has its own ISO code making it its own language". Ultimateria (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. It should be moved to mɔ and put under the Ede Cabe header with proper orthographic rules. I can get to it sometime later if no one else does. AG202 (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @AG202 could you take a look? This, that and the other (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Indonesian for "ministry of education and culture" and "minister of education and culture". Probably SOP to clear redlinks from acronyms(?) Kemendikbud and Mendikbud. Ultimateria (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
German.
I could be wrong, but this doesn't seem like a true suffix- just einander in cases where something gets tacked on in front. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have the same impression. Pinging @Tajoshu. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- It could be seen as just a clitic rather than a true suffix, but there are many formations with -einander that are treated as lemmas by Duden and have their own entries on Wiktionary. Ssome potential -einander formations are rare compared to the standard ones. So I think there is a degree of lexicalisation here, it acts like a productive suffix in my opinion. Some other arguable clitics also have entries like this, such as -e (etym. 3) and -n't, as well as all of German's "separable prefixes" (e.g. auf- vs auf have separate articles), which are also more like clitics, but have lexicalised combinations; I think the latter are in a similar situation. There are even combinations of separable prefixes and -einander acting as a separable prefix themselves, like aufeinander (aufeinanderfolgen etc), which could also be seen as just auf + einander + folgen that happens to be spelled without spaces. In my opinion, it makes sense to distinguish between einander used without a preposition, and einander used with a preposition (the latter spelled as a suffix in standard orthography), so it's not like it's a complete duplicate. Of course, they are essentially the same in form and there is still a lot of things shared between them that doesn't need to be duplicated (hence why I said to refer to the usage notes of einander in the -einander entry).
- So this is basically what my line of reasoning was. Tajoshu (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Coptic nominal states. The latter is currently formatted as a lemma which is incorrect according to User:Sérgio R R Santos. Ultimateria (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep all, but reformat the last one appropriately. These should not be lemmas, but they should exist, just as we have inflected form-of entries in any language (the relevant policy is at Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Inflections). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 18:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is this a discussion or is it already settled? - i dont know, it's my first time in this space. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Sérgio R R Santos: Hi! It’s basically a discussion over whether or not to delete on the basis of our current policies/practices. A change to our policies themselves would take a little more work, but can be done through creating a discussion at the WT:Beer Parlour and getting community consensus there, if you so wish. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 00:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Sérgio R R Santos If you feel these are unattested, WT:RFVN would be better. There are descriptions of the use of these fora at the top of their respective pages. Vininn126 (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- well, in my opinion the policy of criteria for inclusion mentioned by @Vorziblix that wiktionary currently has always annoyed me a little bit: what is the point of having a whole page that just says "this is an inflexion of such and such" - that's basicaly a full fledged redirect page. Even if a user is searching a non lemma form of a word, and that secific form doesnt have its own page, as long as that word is mentioned in the lemma page they'll ultimatly get to that page, even if indirectly, in the search results.
- Now having said all that, regarding the current discussion, i thing they should be deleted if all they say is "this is a particular form of x", which like i said just sounds like a redirect page to me, but i think they should be kept when they provide further information, like usage examples or quotation of that form beig used.I dont know how difficult that distinction would be able to be put in practice, but I gess in this particular case we're just talking about half a dozen cases. Sorry for the long and meandering response, i'm incapable of going straight to the point. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- As mentioned, if you wish to change that policy, please go to the beer parlour. As it stands, if these forms are attested, then they pass RFV and would need to be sent back here for RFD if you somehow manage to convince everyone to not include pages for inflections. Vininn126 (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- then do what the policy sais.i for now am just entertained with adding and improving coptic pages; if semeone wants to create non lema pages, good for them, it doesnt bother me. I might some day ending up going to the beer parlour, but it better have some beer! Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- coincidently, i just made a search in my coptic dictionary and the very first (unrelated) entry that came up includes pretty much all verb forms for all dialects - except the absolute form for bohairic. so i gess in certain cases having a page for a non lemma form is unavoidable. or... inevitable. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll reformate the page in question appropriately. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- coincidently, i just made a search in my coptic dictionary and the very first (unrelated) entry that came up includes pretty much all verb forms for all dialects - except the absolute form for bohairic. so i gess in certain cases having a page for a non lemma form is unavoidable. or... inevitable. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- then do what the policy sais.i for now am just entertained with adding and improving coptic pages; if semeone wants to create non lema pages, good for them, it doesnt bother me. I might some day ending up going to the beer parlour, but it better have some beer! Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- As mentioned, if you wish to change that policy, please go to the beer parlour. As it stands, if these forms are attested, then they pass RFV and would need to be sent back here for RFD if you somehow manage to convince everyone to not include pages for inflections. Vininn126 (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is this a discussion or is it already settled? - i dont know, it's my first time in this space. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
September 2024
[edit]Czech suffix. The three words which use this purported suffix (koleso ← kolo, sloveso ← slovo, těleso ← tělo, to which we can add nebesa (pl.) ← nebo) come from Proto-Slavic words with a -s- in their paradigm (*kolo, *slovo, *tělo, *nebo), so it's simply analogical levelling at play. As can be seen at *kolo, Czech is not the only language where this happened. PUC – 07:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- If these are our only words, then delete and change etymologies to say "relevelling" somehow. Vininn126 (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Arabic. We have an entry for the verb at زال. I don’t think we need this. --Etisop (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, not helpful, not likely looked up, though even if unlikely we may have hard redirects for all possible forms. Fay Freak (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Pannonian Rusyn. SOP. @Vininn126, Insaneguy1083 Thadh (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Vininn126 (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Is this SOP? In English we don't have to have this argument because of COALMINE, but I'd argue it isn't SOP because it isn't just any sauce made with apple as a key ingredient: the apples have to be pureed to make so-called "apple sauce". This, that and the other (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
October 2024
[edit]Russian; SOP. Tetromino (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Akkadian. Wrong cuneiform.
Is it only me who find this entry being weird? Especially the part mentioning some company. Tollef Salemann (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- "being weird" is not grounds for deletion (so in the absence of a rationale for deletion, my vote is keep - it looks keepable enough in its current state).
- If you think the entry could use some work, feel free to improve it (or slap an
{{attention}}or{{rfc}}on it and hope for the best). - If you are unsure if the term is attested, the proper venue is WT:Requests for verification/Non-English. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Slovene. It's just a phrase formation, the same as saying in English "acute a" Linyker¹²³ (talk)
- Delete, SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
German.
Doesn't seem to have any meaning beyond the literal SOP "horse and rider", although I'm willing to be corrected on this if there's an additional definition we need. Not to be confused with Ross und Reiter nennen ("call a spade a spade"), which is idiomatic. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as is. Can be recreated later if an idiomatic sense is found. This, that and the other (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
November 2024
[edit]Dutch. Not really a prefix; listed derived terms can be easily explained as deriving from min. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
December 2024
[edit]Indonesian. An WT:SOP entry, also not listed in KBBI. Alfarizi Mokoginta (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Finnish. Not idiomatic; this should be a collocation. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I edited this today according to how it's stated in the Finlex Data Bank, for example [30]. Should this be edited akin to voimassa oleva? 86.50.68.196 16:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Icelandic. Yes, User:BiT created this too. Also nominating of mikið. Seems transparently "too" + "much". Benwing2 (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete both. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think this Sanskrit template should have been created (by blocked user). The 3 pages that link to it are just feminine forms of the vriddhied adjective on -a. Exarchus (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Icelandic. Created in 2005 by User:Schneelocke. This is glossed as "something else" and looks like a transparent SOP to me. I strongly suspect the masculine and feminine equivalents "someone else" exist as well. Benwing2 (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Could be listed as a collocation at one of the constituent terms. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Tagalog. SOP. — This unsigned comment was added by Mar vin kaiser (talk • contribs) at 11:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC).
- Delete. 𝄽 ysrael214 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Tagalog. SOP. — This unsigned comment was added by Mar vin kaiser (talk • contribs) at 11:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC).
- Delete. 𝄽 ysrael214 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
January 2025
[edit]Tagalog. SOP
dahil sa = due to, because of
All usages involving the sense "to; of", will involve sa (for nonpersonal names) or kay (for personal names). Papunta sa tao (going to the man), papunta kay Manny (going to Manny)
Usage notes is enough, which it already is included in sa and kay pages. 𝄽 ysrael214 (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
South Levantine Arabic. Marked as SOP, "speaking of". Ultimateria (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Unrelated terms but all tagged as SOP and not listed, recently nominated for speedy deletion. Ultimateria (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
February 2025
[edit]Seems to be a misspeling of bērs. Burzuchius (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Possibly an error from доӏах. There is nothing similar in the dictionaries. ɶLerman (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Possibly an error from дийхк. There is nothing similar in the dictionaries. ɶLerman (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like both this and the Chechen form above were taken from the Intercontinental Dictionary Series site: Chechen, Ingush --Ivadon (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
There is no source indicated, and I doubt that there is an Alemannic dialect that diphthongized short /i/, as implied by the spelling. Flœœru (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
SOP Suku Melayu (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
mathematical symbols with no definition
[edit]The definitions of these characters are no more than a fleshed-out version of their Unicode names. No indication of what they mean or how they're used.
Two of these, ⅀ and ⅉ, have already been deleted kwami (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- [⅀ has now been recreated, again without a definition]
- So why not just add their definitions then? The latter four at least have "sometimes used for…" descriptions in the Unicode charts. I know Wolfram Mathematica at least uses double-struck symbols as default representations of some constants in its interface, and probably provides the alternate symbols to not clash with variable-name usage needs while allowing natural-looking code (e.g. in interactive TraditionalForm). Online docs: ⅆ ⅅ ⅇ ⅈ; ⅉ (same as previous) ℽ (Euler–Mascheroni constant) ℼ (no default assignment). That leaves ⅀, ℿ (likely just n-ary sum/product) and ℾ (likely the gamma function). Hftf (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- If someone who knows what they're doing is willing to do that, that would be great.
- The mathematicians I know say that double-struck letters have no real mathematical use -- they're just handwritten substitutes for bold letters, which is how they should be typeset in print. kwami (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- The symbols and meaning the set of the natural numbers, are used without distinction in meaning. The open typeface is called “mathbb“ in the widely used AMSFonts package for LaTeX, where “bb” abbreviates blackboard bold. It found its way into typesetting because some authors appreciated the aesthetic appearance. I don't think I've seen uses of blackboard bold symbols with another meaning than the plain bold version. In only a few and rare cases is a bold letter used in mathematical publications with a specific commonly understood meaning (as opposed to an ephemeral meaning defined for local use in one publication). The use in Wolfram Mathematica is interesting, but not sufficient for the criterion of attestation of use in at least three independent instances, as given by our CFI. --Lambiam 21:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Many symbols, especially in math, are used without distinction in meaning – so therefore, they can be synonyms/alt forms, just like <= and ≤.
- I respect the attestation criteria. I'm not one to say Wiktionary should mirror Unicode, and I don't think Unicode does nearly enough to define characters much of the time. Unicode already has its own attestation/whatever requirements and these must have met already it some time ago (25 years). We read that major math publishers asked to encode them [1, with original meaningful character names] [2]. Lots of our symbol entries have no citations sadly. Has anyone at least tried googling "mathbb d" or "mathbb gamma" or "mathbb sigma"?
- At this stage in time, regarding blackboard-bold/double-struck letters, both "they're just handwritten substitutes" and "they have real mathematical use" are true. Rarely are they distinct in meaning (ignoring nonce usages so common in math), but sometimes they are the preferred form. It is at least definitely the case that today, if looking at an 𝐍 with no context and a ℕ with no context, the latter is going to have less ambiguity; if you "ask mathematicians" to close their eyes and see in their mind the symbol for natural numbers, they will imagine just "the letter ℕ", not a composite lexicon entry like {printed , handwritten drawing of N on blackboard like
} or {printed 𝐍, handwritten ℕ} or anything like that. Which isn't surprising – this is no different from how new full-fledged words and meanings are gained, e.g. #. - By the way, your recent additions of "A handwritten form of" at ℕ etc. and "The original print form" at 𝐍 etc. really make no sense, especially not inside the definition/gloss. Perhaps in an etymology, but I would rather just link to Wikipedia's blackboard bold which is going to do a better job with that information. We don't define & as "the handwritten form of and" – it's not true, it's not its meaning, and it's not relevant. If you admit you don't know what you're doing, why do you keep doing it? And "mathematicians I know say…" doesn't do us much good. Hftf (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, moving it to the etymology section would work well. I'll do that.
- I'm doing it because no-one else is. But that's also why I'm here.
- Many many of our articles were created by people who didn't know what they were doing, with no more reason than that they are characters in Unicode. Consensus has been that's not enough. We don't create an article for every emoji, for example.
- Unfortunately, Unicode often does not have adequate attestation for their characters. An example offhand is the letter 'oi', which is really 'gh'. The proposal didn't even get the distinction between vowel and consonant right. For another, the alchemical block has duplicate Latin letters 'C' and 'T', which isn't supposed to happen. They've been replaced with poorly attested composite forms to avoid the duplication, but they weren't justified to begin with. There are also numerous allographs in that block, which again isn't supposed to happen, because the proposers at the Newton Chymistry Project didn't understand Unicode criteria, and Unicode didn't understand alchemical symbols. There are also blocks of early symbols that were added for compatibility with other computer encoding systems, with little reasoning preserved in the documentation.
- The mathematician I'm speaking of, who is a prof at a major university, witnessed the addition of the alphanumeric block to Unicode, and says that the person drawing up that proposal was ignorant of actual mathematical usage, and that the people at Unicode were unable to judge. Two series of script letters should've been added, for example [they're now handled with variation selectors, with poor font support], and the four sans-serif series have no basis in mathematics. I'm not asking you to make decisions based on my sourceless reporting of second-hand accounts, but I do think we should follow Wk attestation criteria for math symbols the same as we do for English words. kwami (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- But back to the deletion request -- those characters have no definition, and so shouldn't be on Wk. They can always be recreated if someone can attest to a meaning to give them. They shouldn't remain just because someone who didn't know what they were doing created them. kwami (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think some kind of indication that these are unused duplicates of other characters and linking to the correct ones would be useful enough to keep the entries- basically like a "misspelling of" definition. It might prevent someone from using them by accident, or help them to recognize and correct bad OCR artifacts. The part about how they got into Unicode by mistake might go in the etymology, I suppose. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, but sourcing might be a problem. The mathematician I talked to has very strong opinions on this but wanted to remain anonymous because he knows the people involved. But his source is 3+ decades of experience in the field, nothing we could cite even if he was willing to share publicly.
- The blackboard bold characters C N P Q R Z are frequently used in print as alts to regular bold, and the undefined ones above presumably are as well. None of the sans-serif characters or monospace currently have articles, and if we wanted to preemptively warn people about them, I don't know what we'd say they're equivalent to. I suppose roman sans-serif and monospace = ASCII and bold and italic sans-serif = regular mathematical bold and italic. But I don't know how I'd defend doing that if challenged. kwami (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- Of these blackboard bold characters, is the only one that (as far as I’m aware) is not a standin or alternative for the plain bold letter. ‑‑Lambiam 21:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Do you mean for probability? Is that only ℙ and not 𝐏? I'm actually only finding italic P. kwami (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Of these blackboard bold characters, is the only one that (as far as I’m aware) is not a standin or alternative for the plain bold letter. ‑‑Lambiam 21:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think some kind of indication that these are unused duplicates of other characters and linking to the correct ones would be useful enough to keep the entries- basically like a "misspelling of" definition. It might prevent someone from using them by accident, or help them to recognize and correct bad OCR artifacts. The part about how they got into Unicode by mistake might go in the etymology, I suppose. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- The symbols and meaning the set of the natural numbers, are used without distinction in meaning. The open typeface is called “mathbb“ in the widely used AMSFonts package for LaTeX, where “bb” abbreviates blackboard bold. It found its way into typesetting because some authors appreciated the aesthetic appearance. I don't think I've seen uses of blackboard bold symbols with another meaning than the plain bold version. In only a few and rare cases is a bold letter used in mathematical publications with a specific commonly understood meaning (as opposed to an ephemeral meaning defined for local use in one publication). The use in Wolfram Mathematica is interesting, but not sufficient for the criterion of attestation of use in at least three independent instances, as given by our CFI. --Lambiam 21:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Polish. Just a common compound element. Vininn126 (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Keep as a combining form, per #światło- and #ćmawo- above. There probably needs to be a wider discussion about combining forms in Slavic languages in general rather than nominating individual entries in individual languages, which will inevitably lead to more inconsistency and confusion. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- I can agree a broader discussion would be useful. Vininn126 (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. PUC – 15:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, per Mahagaja. We should take a consistent approach across the Slavic lanugages, taking into account Czech staro-, Russian старо- (staro-), Ukrainian старо- (staro-), etc. I can see the argument for dispensing with staro- in instances where the compound can be analyzed as a simple derivative of a collocation formed of stary/a/e (adjective) + noun, e.g.:
- Stary Testament → stary + -o- + testament + -owy → starotestamentowy.
- stara panna → stary + -o- + panna + -ski → staropanieński.
- But there are other compounds with staro- that seem not to lend themselves so easily to this type of derivation, e.g. starodawny, starosłowiański, starokatolicyzm (the latter denoting something more specific than katolicyzm that is stary). Voltaigne (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- In staying consistent, I would delete those as well. This is not how we handle most compounds for other languages, either. Vininn126 (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Polish. Created as "non-productive" meaning these aren't really suffixes in Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - These are outcomes of Latinate borrowings undergoing naturalisation. vxern (Dorian M. Oszczęda) (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Polish. All -istka nouns are just -ista + -ka, it's not a unique suffix. Vininn126 (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per OP. (See also -істка (Ukrainian) below.) Voltaigne (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. BigDom 10:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- A lot of suffixes in Polish come from a combination of two previous suffixes, take for example -arnia, -arka, what makes -istka different? I'm not against removing it, I am genuienly asking. To te umarłe słowa (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Polish. All -ystka words are just -ysta + -ka, not a unique suffix. Vininn126 (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per OP. (See also -истка (Ukrainian) below.) Voltaigne (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. BigDom 10:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Czech. Same thing as above in Polish. F. V. Lorenz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per OP. (See also -істка (Ukrainian) below.) Voltaigne (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Old High German. appears to be a simple typo or misread, the listed source in the entry (Schatz) iists a name "Helidin", not Heldin. Inummerable citations of Heldin, but none appear to be OHG — This unsigned comment was added by Griffon77 (talk • contribs) at 06:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC).
delete rd's from digits in the Appendix:Unicode/Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols
[edit]Clarification: the appendix is correct as it is. I'm only proposing that we delete some of the redirects and thus turn blue links into red links, when the blue links don't lead the reader to a definition of the symbol.
These symbols have specific mathematical definitions, at least theoretically,* and are not simply digits. They should therefore not be redirects to the articles for the basic digits. For example, 𝟏 [or equivalently 𝟙] is the indicator function in set theory, not the number/digit 1. The two characters 𝟏 and 𝟙 are the only ones that we give definitions for; the others are just rd's and should be deleted. I haven't tagged them since there are so many.
I think we're justified in treating numerical characters from other blocks, i.e. superscript, subscript, fullwidth and segmented [digital clock form] digits, as mere graphic variants and therefore appropriate as redirects and in the character variant info boxes where they are now. The monospace variants are probably justified as well; AFAICT they are not defined mathematically, and good fonts provide monospace digits as character variants for column alignment.
BTW, italic C, D and beta should be deleted for the same reason, but I tagged them individually because there's only the three of them.
*I say 'theoretically' because, AFAICT from talking to mathematicians, the four sets of sans-serif letters and digits in the alphanumeric block have no definition, and were encoded into Unicode in error.
kwami (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Can you explain the meaning of “rd” in this context? AFAICT the page presents a faithful listing of the “Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols” (Range: 1D400–1D7FF) of The Unicode Standard, version 16.0. If we decide to change it, we should make it very clear that this is a modified listing. ‑‑Lambiam 11:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to modify the appendix, which is correct as it is, but to delete the redirects from it. We have for example a redirect from 𝟑 to 3. But those characters don't mean the same thing -- 𝟑 is intended as a mathematical symbol, possibly for a function or something, not as the digit 3 -- and we don't explain the symbol 𝟑 at the article for digit 3. Including it would be like redirecting 'honeybadger' to 'honey' and then not explaining what a honeybadger was on the honey article. The only one of this series we get right is 𝟏, which has its own article. But we can't create an article for 𝟑 without knowing what it means. Even if we hope to figure out what it means in the future, the rd is inappropriate as we don't explain it now. kwami (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- So the answer to the question actually asked would be "in this context, an 'rd' is a 'redirect' ", or more precisely: "a link to a redirect"... Chuck Entz (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to modify the appendix, which is correct as it is, but to delete the redirects from it. We have for example a redirect from 𝟑 to 3. But those characters don't mean the same thing -- 𝟑 is intended as a mathematical symbol, possibly for a function or something, not as the digit 3 -- and we don't explain the symbol 𝟑 at the article for digit 3. Including it would be like redirecting 'honeybadger' to 'honey' and then not explaining what a honeybadger was on the honey article. The only one of this series we get right is 𝟏, which has its own article. But we can't create an article for 𝟑 without knowing what it means. Even if we hope to figure out what it means in the future, the rd is inappropriate as we don't explain it now. kwami (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Polish. All are formed from the masculine. Vininn126 (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per OP. Voltaigne (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. BigDom 10:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
March 2025
[edit]Polish. Just -cie with regular alternation of ą and ę. Vininn126 (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. BigDom 10:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Polish. The emerging -ęc- is from the stem. Vininn126 (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per OP. Voltaigne (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. BigDom 10:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Polish. Not an actually productive suffix. Vininn126 (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Affixes do not need to be productive to have entries at Wiktionary. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Would you mind pointing me to where this is stated? There's a few problems with making such a general statement: 1) there's a difference between no-longer productive and never productive. 2) We can in theory create compound affix entries ad-nauseum if we allow ones that have never been productive. Vininn126 (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Also did you look at the entry in question, or are you just making contrary general statements for the sake of it? Vininn126 (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know whether it's stated in black and white anywhere, but you only have to peruse CAT:English suffixes to see that the current practice is that we do allow nonproductive affixes. And the entry in question says nothing at all about the current or former productivity of -iczek, so of course my comment was made in response to your argument for deletion. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Also did you look at the entry in question, or are you just making contrary general statements for the sake of it? Vininn126 (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Would you mind pointing me to where this is stated? There's a few problems with making such a general statement: 1) there's a difference between no-longer productive and never productive. 2) We can in theory create compound affix entries ad-nauseum if we allow ones that have never been productive. Vininn126 (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Persian. Rfd-sense: "the UK or England." I would like evidence that this specific sense is lexicalized separate from the sense of "fox, cunning person."--Saranamd (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- delete — BABR・talk 06:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Polish. All of the feminine forms here are formed from the masculine. Vininn126 (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per OP. See also -ська (Ukrainian) below. Voltaigne (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. BigDom 10:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Polish. All of the feminine forms are formed from masculine. Vininn126 (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. BigDom 10:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Polish. Inflectional ending. Not a suffix. Vininn126 (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. BigDom 10:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Polish. Inflectional ending. Not a suffix. Vininn126 (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. BigDom 10:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Polish. Inflectional ending. Not a suffix. Vininn126 (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. BigDom 10:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Only 4 usages https://goaravetisyan.ru/lv/chto-takoe-kislotnye-svoistva-kislorodnye-i-vodorodnye-soedineniya/ https://forums.dieviete.lv/forums/topic/82334-suna-vards/ https://winplast.ru/lv/serebristo-belyi-radioaktivnyi-metall-radioaktivnyi-metall-i/ https://lv.alegsaonline.com/art/84907 Sayoxime (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Four usages is enough to pass RfV, and no reason for RfD. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Polish. None of the mentioned forms are actually affixed, they are blends. Vininn126 (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep until we decide where we can place this entry or how else to classify it. vxern (Dorian M. Oszczęda) (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Esperanto. Fails WT:BRAND just like English did. Ultimateria (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- The actual name of the brand is not Spotifajo, though, but Spotify. We do include nicknames of brands, why not foreign adaptations? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- In its current form the page is presented as a translation and not a nickname. Ultimateria (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Polish. SOP. prawo#Polish sense 4. Listed as a collocation by WSJP. Vininn126 (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Not used like German Recht haben (“to be in the right”). Create mieć słuszność. Fay Freak (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think you mean mieć rację... Vininn126 (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
and the vast majority in Category:mul:Chemical formulae, per WT:CHEM. Hftf (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom. Juwan (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- As it stands, this RFD is not really actionable. We would want to keep stuff like H₂O and delete stuff like TiBr₄, but it's not immediately apparent where to draw the line. Strictly speaking, WT:CHEM is an RFV question, but I think it makes sense to summarily delete the chemical formulas of relatively obscure compounds that have little or no chance of being attested outside a scientific context. Erring on the side of deletion makes sense here, because (a) there is no special lexical information at these entries, and (b) the chemical formulas can be searched on Wikipedia.
- @Hftf @Juwan would either of you like to go through and sort these into deletes and (tentative) keeps? The latter group can then be taken to RFV if wanted. This, that and the other (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete probably all formulas—User:Vealhurl (talk 08:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Vietnamese. PhanAnh123’s comment for @Minhandsomely: “SOP. Find a better example please, you chose a really bad example (liếm gót giầy) to illustrate the idiomaticity of this.” Doesn’t actually mean to kiss up but to lick the heel. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- As much as I can find, the phrase in question is a calqued translation of an actual word, bootlicker, in English and it does have idiomatical meaning, not just "to lick the heel" as you might think. Minhandsomely (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- The fact that it is a calque is irrelevant. The correct translation of the example you gave would be “licking the Westerner’s heel”, making it not idiomatic. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- You can do your own reseach and will know that "liếm gót giày" and "liếm gót" are just the same. Minhandsomely (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- Telling other people to do it is not how collaborative projects work. And whether or not they are the same is irrelevant to the question of idiomaticity. Have you read our criteria for inclusion yet? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- You can do your own reseach and will know that "liếm gót giày" and "liếm gót" are just the same. Minhandsomely (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- The fact that it is a calque is irrelevant. The correct translation of the example you gave would be “licking the Westerner’s heel”, making it not idiomatic. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
No coherent arguments in favour of keeping, so RfD delete. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Declining deletion request and reopening. This clearly seems idiomatic because it doesn't mean to literally "lick the heel" as inferred by it's components - similar expression being in English doesn't make it SOP. Keep. – Svārtava (tɕ) 03:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Old English. @Mahagaja, I would like to ask you to reconsider deleting this entry. Here I list two more reputable sources, to add to those that I previously referenced, discrediting Stephens' reading of the Collinham Stone inscription.
Page, R. I. (1999), An Introduction to English Runes, →ISBN, pages 131-6. Vieter, Willhelm (1897), The Collingham Runic Inscription. Modern Language Notes, 12(2), 60–1. Hempl, George (1897), The Collingham Runic Inscription. Modern Language Notes, 12(2), 62. Stevens, William O. (1904), The Cross in the Life and Literature of the Anglo-Saxons, page 48.
From these, and this high quality photograph, courtesy of "The Megalithic Portal", I think it is apparent that the rune just right of the center of the cross is most certainly ᚦ, and therefore a reading of ᚩᚾᛋᚹᛁᚾᛁ cannot be possible. And since the leftmost runes are entirely unreadable, and were reportedly already so in Stephens' own time, it is simply better then that this inscription not be referenced in the creation of Old English entries, due to its illegibility and controversy; especially as it has lead to likely false, or at the very least otherwise unverifiable, assumptions about the progression of the Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law and the dating of cross itself.
And here can be found the original claim for further reference: Stephens, George (1866) The Old-northern Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and England. Vol. I, pages 390-1. (A summary version appears on pages 121-2 of his Handbook of Old-northern Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and England (1884)) Yeldred Gengo (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Ukrainian. It's an inflected form (feminine nominative singular) of -ічний (-ičnyj). I'm unaware of instances where this is an independently generative suffix in its own right. Voltaigne (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and changed this entry from a suffix (lemma) to a suffix form (non-lemma). See Special:Diff/86608254. Voltaigne (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Ukrainian. Same issue as -ічна above. -ична is an inflected form (feminine nominative singular) of -ичний (-yčnyj, adjective-forming suffix). Voltaigne (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Ukrainian. Rfd-sense: "female equivalent of -ський (-sʹkyj)". It is a inflectional form (feminine nominative singular) of -ський (-sʹkyj, adjective-forming suffix). Female equivalent suffixes are those that produce female equivalent nouns. Voltaigne (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Ukrainian. It's an inflected form (feminine nominative singular) of -лявий (-ljavyj, adjective-forming suffix), not an independently productive suffix AFAIK. Voltaigne (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Ukrainian. It's an inflected form (feminine nominative singular) of -ливий (-lyvyj, adjective-forming suffix), not an independently productive suffix AFAIK. Voltaigne (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Ukrainian. It isn't a distinct suffix. It's just -ка (-ka) added to nouns ending in -іст. See also -istka (Czech and Polish) above. Same principle. Voltaigne (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and removed all entries from Category:Ukrainian terms suffixed with -істка. I hereby reiterate my request for deletion of -істка (-istka). Voltaigne (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Ukrainian. It isn't a distinct suffix. It's just -ка (-ka) added to nouns ending in -ист. See also -ystka (Polish) above. Same principle. Voltaigne (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and removed all entries from Category:Ukrainian terms suffixed with -истка. I hereby reiterate my request for deletion of -истка (-ystka). Voltaigne (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Ukrainian. It isn't a distinct suffix. It's just -ка (-ka) added to nouns ending in -їст. Voltaigne (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
April 2025
[edit]Ukrainian. Again, this is not an independently productive suffix. It is an inflectional form of other suffixes. Voltaigne (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Hebrew. Reviewed per RfV. Unattested. Seems most likely a misreading of חסרי-אוריינות, or, less likely, some mutilation of רב אוריינות, Multiliteracy. Danny lost (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Kashubian.
Digraph. Vininn126 (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Hebrew. Following RfV. No attestation. Probably a misreading of פוץ (“putz”). However, קוץ can also be used in the same sense, as a clipping of קוץ בתחת (“pain in the ass”), that is also influenced (or vice versa) by klutz. Danny lost (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. No such word.
- Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Dutch. SOP: zo ("if") + niet ("not"). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- I feel like zo in the meaning of “if” is rather restricted in modern speech, and it feels like modern expressions that use it are becoming set phrases. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Indeed, as another native Dutch speaker (for 50 years), I never heard real-life people use "zo" as an independent word/conjunction in the sense of "if". That is an archaic sense, only surviving in about four set phrases "zo ja", "zo nee"/"zo niet" and "zo mogelijk" and the archaic polite formula "Zo het (gewenst/mogelijk) is.
- More proof:
- Dutch wiktionary says about "zoniet": "samenstelling van zo bijwoord en niet bijwoord, als verkorting van "zo dit niet het geval is""
- As even Dutch wiktionary in above article claiming "zo" in "zoniet" is an adverb and not a conjunction, and the article totally ignoring every (archaic) sense of "if", that is more proof that 21st Dutch speakers do not perceive it as a combination of a conjuction + something but as a set phrase. "Zo" has lost here the function of an independent word. I have won several dictees in the past but I would even write the set phrases as one word: "zoja", "zonee", "zoniet". DovaModaal (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Indonesian. Possibly SOP. Also, this entry doesn't have any definition. Alfarizi M (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Indonesian. Same as above. Alfarizi M (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Hebrew (‘to break the law’). While certainly a collocation, it is clear that this sense of the word can be applied to a range of objects. I admit that dictionaries do not give this as a dedicated meaning for עָבַר, relegating it instead to its derived expressions, but I find this contrary to Wiktionary principles.
Milon Even-Shoshan gives in its list of expressions featuring עָבַר the combinations עבר על מצווה, עבר על דין, עבר על דברים, as well as the transitive עבר את מצוותו, עבר את פיו. (Perhaps a native speaker may lend his expertise and inform us of nuances of register, frequency and currency—which professional Hebrew dictionaries never bother to do.)
In consequence, I propose deleting this entry and adding the following to עָבַר:
- (transitive or intransitive) to break, violate [with עַל or (eventual qualifier) direct object]
- עָבַר עַל הַחֹק ― avár al hakhók ― to break the law
―K(ə)tom (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Such a change would have prevented me from learning about this idiom as a consequence of looking up חוק. I would recommend leaving the reference and duplicating it for עבר. SwiftSurge (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- A collocation (as suggested above by me) is more prominent than a mere link, but it’s true that we should duplicate the information across עבר and חוק. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- The phrase is common and not vulgar. It has a colloquial feel but actually is standard in legislation (העובר על חוק זה צפוי ל... the transgressor of this law is to be...). With variations of preposition, the collocation goes back to the dead sea scrolls, and (more loosely) even to Isaiah 24:5.
- I'm not sure about idiomacy: the combination with the preposition על seems to be reserved to a. these, b. to pass by, ignore (an insult), c. to "go over" (a draft etc). The only direct object for the verb עבר that uses this sense is עבירה, AFAIK. Danny lost (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Tamil. @Pixelpito There seem to be a lot of online citations for this term. Could you elaborate on why it should be deleted? For example, is it an improper adaptation from English? Kutchkutch (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
May 2025
[edit]This supposed suffix is only attested in ǣmenne, and there is no reason to interpret this as anything but ǣ- + mann + -e with umlaut. I see no reason why we would have a page for it when there's no indication that it truly existed. Vergencescattered (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Polish. SOP. Listed as a collocation on WSJP. Vininn126 (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. BigDom 10:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Azerbaijani. Tagged since May 17, 2022, but not listed. No rationale for deletion was given. ‑‑Lambiam 09:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. This is not an infix, but a duplicate of the Azerbaijani entry -ş, which can occur word-final (e.g. in tanış, the second-person singular imperative of tanışmaq). ‑‑Lambiam 09:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Turkish. Tagged since May 18, 2022, with the rationale "not a prefix but a noun, see kayın", but not listed. ‑‑Lambiam 09:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. If this was a noun in compounds such as kayın + baba, kayın + birader, kayın + peder and kayın + valide, one should see the nominatives *kayınbabası, *kayınbiraderi, ..., instead of kayınbaba, kayınbirader, and so on. Compare dere + ot → dereotu, hanım + el → hanımeli. (I suspect that the noun kayın in its familial sense is a clipping of kayınbirader.) ‑‑Lambiam 09:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Turkish. Tagged for verification on December 6, 2022, but not listed. I think this should be deleted, even if it can be "verified". For one thing, this is a clearly transparent sum of the noun sahip (“owner”) and the "reconstructed" verb *imek (“to be”). You can say, "sahip imişsiniz" – "apparently, you are the owner". You can likewise say, "baba imişsiniz" – "apparently, you are the father", "şef imişsiniz" – "apparently, you are the boss", and so on and so forth. Then, to own is transitive, whereas sahip *imek is intransitive. Furthermore, when you specify the item possessed, you need to use the possessive, changing the form of the noun: "Bu evi beğendik. Sahibi imişsiniz." "We like this house. Apparently, you are the owner." ‑‑Lambiam 12:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Faroese, SOP: deciduous + bush / shrub. Ultimateria (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Sanskrit. This is just two words in a sandhi contraction (वसधा + एव). Therefore, this entry is non-idiomatic. It also doesn't have the declension listed since एव is indeclinable — This unsigned comment was added by Stromchaser1 (talk • contribs) at 08:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC).
- Delete Exarchus (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Indonesian. SOP: zona (“zone”) + industri (“industry”) = industry zone. Alfarizi M (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Indonesian. SOP: zona (“zone”) + iklim (“climate”) = climate zone. Alfarizi M (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Indonesian. SOP: zone (“zone”) + ekonomi (“economy”) = economy zone. Alfarizi M (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- But what's an economy zone? I feel like even the English phrase isn't SOP, since I know what the individual words mean but not what the compound means. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
June 2025
[edit]Indonesian. SOP. ayah (“father”) + biologis (“biological”) = biological father. Rentangan (talk, contribs) 05:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Wrong spelling. Moved to что ни делается, всё к лучшему. — This unsigned comment was added by Tollef Salemann (talk • contribs) at 12:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC).
Wrong spelling, incorrect etymology and a duplicate entry (see the correct term: მოლურჯო). --Reordcraeft (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. I found one online grammar guide that contains this spelling, but it confuses მო- -ე (mo- -e) with მო- -ო (mo- -o). Voltaigne (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Tagalog parami nang parami, padami nang padami
[edit]This can be applied to anything
- palakas nang palakas = keeping on getting stronger and stronger
- pahina nang pahina = keeping on getting weaker and weaker
- palamig nang palamig = keeping on getting colder and colder
- parami nang parami = keeping on getting more and more
- pa-Espanya nang pa-Espanya = keeping on going to Spain
- pa-ugly nang pa-ugly (code switch) = keeps on getting uglier and uglier
this form just tells some manner that keeps progressively more intense of some sort
3 Philippine editors including me in the count, considers this as SOP in Talk:parami nang parami 𝄽 ysrael214 (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Russian. Added by @User:Bolshye1. Totally wrong, the main form doesn't compy with the dictionary standard either. The user doesn't know Russian.
I have redirected and fixed his entry at во всём ми́ре (vo vsjom míre). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per OP. Voltaigne (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Ukrainian. It's just -лог (-loh) + -иня (-ynja). That is, female-equivalent feminine nouns ending in "...логиня" are derived by suffixation of -иня to the corresponding masculine noun ending in "...лог". Voltaigne (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- (P.S. see also -істка, -истка and -їстка above. Same principle.) Voltaigne (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I've searched far and wide but cannot find any real attestations of "konata mono" as an Esperanto translation of "cash". Using Glosbe, it would appear that the usual translation of "cash" in Esperanto is rather "kontanta mono", and indeed I can find plenty of attestations of that across the Internet, and Esperanto Wikipedia itself has a page for "kontanta mono" but not "konata mono". So I'm figuring that this "konata mono" page is in all likelihood a Wiktionary user's eggcorn or otherwise misspelling of the actual term "kontanta mono".
The Macaroni Man (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with Macaroni Man's assessment. konata mono (literally: known money) does not idiomatically express cash. TranqyPoo [💬 | ✏️] 00:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Indonesian. SOP. cangkok (“graft; transplant, transfer”) + jantung (“heart”) = heart transplant. Rentangan (talk, contribs) 17:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Indonesian. SOP. cangkok (“graft; transplant, transfer”) + ginjal (“kidney”) = kidney transplant. Rentangan (talk, contribs) 17:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Indonesian. SOP. cangkok (“graft; transplant, transfer”) + rambur (“hair”) = hair transplant. Rentangan (talk, contribs) 17:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Indonesian. SOP. cangkok (“graft; transplant, transfer”) + sumsung tulang (“bone marrow”) = bone marrow transplant, stem cell transplant. Rentangan (talk, contribs) 17:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
July 2025
[edit]Serbo-Croatian. The correct form of this suffix is -nje. The "a" comes from the preceding verb stem and isn't a part of the suffix itself. Vouckal (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- This is incorrect. Take for example the verb trčati, from which trčanje is derived. If the stem of this verb was indeed trča- rather than trč- as is being suggested, how do we then explain the present forms of the verb - trčim, trčiš, trči, trčimo, trčite, trče? The proposed analysis is incorrect - the verb stem is trč-, the infinitive suffix is -ati, and the suffix that forms the verbal noun is -anje. ~2026-44622-43 (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
Serbo-Croatian. The correct form of this suffix is -nje. The "e" comes from the preceding verb stem and isn't a part of the suffix itself. Vouckal (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Incorrect for the same reason as the deletion suggestion for -anje. Take for example the verb leteti from which letenje is derived - its present forms contradict the suggestion that the verb stem is lete- rather than let-. ~2026-44622-43 (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- Additionally, consider verbs such as noćiti and saopćiti which form verbal nouns noćenje and saopćenje. ~2026-44622-43 (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
Serbo-Croatian. For the reason, see the above topic about -anje. This is the same lemma, but in Cyrillic. Vouckal (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Of the four deletion suggestions for the various forms and spellings of this suffix, this is the only one that is actually valid, but not for the stated reason. Rather, the correct spelling of this suffix in Cyrillic is -ање, not -анје. ~2026-44622-43 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
Serbo-Croatian. For the reason, see the above topic about -enje. This is the same lemma, but in Cyrillic. Vouckal (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Incorrect; see reply to deletion suggestion for -enje. ~2026-44622-43 (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
Somali. — This unsigned comment was added by Protegmatic (talk • contribs) at 08:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC).
- Listed as meaning 'tongue', but that's carrab. I wonder if this might be the Somali word for 'Arab', though, unless that's capitalized Carab. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Old Prussian entries at Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#wurbuwīs
[edit]@Surjection All of these are unsourced, represent revived "Old Prussian", and should thus be deleted. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything 20:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Indonesian. Rationale was "this is not how Indonesian verbs should be treated. 'kau-' is just a proclitic, not a (obligatory) person marker. The definition is also wrong, this is not passive."
Previously passed RFD on a technicality. Ultimateria (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
This isn't a prefix, but rather a word found as an element of some ancient personal names. @Mnemosientje --{{victar|talk}} 08:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- and with a declension change (normal for u-declension cf. frid from fridu) in the form had at the end of names. entries of words found only in personal names are frequently entered as prefixes or suffixes when they appear in both positions. I suggest move to hadu with qualifier "only in personal names and their derivatives." Griffon77 (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Like most u-declension nouns however it regularly passed into the a-declension, and hadu only survives in older compounds where the u serves as a linking vowel. The regular lemma form is had, with the dative frequently as a prefix. I'd therefore suggest moving it to had with usage notes. Griffon77 (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- Are you erasing all the references to descendants of *rīks as well? Griffon77 (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- Do you understand anything? In Old High German, Proto-West Germanic u-stems regularly pass into the a-stem, with only a few exceptions. Even fridu, which mostly retains the u-stem declension, has an attested a-stem variant, which is the form regularly used in personal names (fem. names use an alternate root frida from Proto-Germanic *frijaz+*-iþo, giving a long /i:/ vowel, cognate with OE freoðu f.). Although the same thing happens in Old Dutch, there's no evidence it happened in Proto-West Germanic, as early u-stem forms are sometimes attested in the daughter languages (OE more often retains the u-stem). https://archive.org/details/altbairischegram00scha/page/114/mode/1up?view=theater Griffon77 (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Are you erasing all the references to descendants of *rīks as well? Griffon77 (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- Like most u-declension nouns however it regularly passed into the a-declension, and hadu only survives in older compounds where the u serves as a linking vowel. The regular lemma form is had, with the dative frequently as a prefix. I'd therefore suggest moving it to had with usage notes. Griffon77 (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Old High German. cited references have no mention of the term or its etymology, doesn't appear to be attested in any form anywhere else. previously listed descendants do not exist or have other origins. remaining German name is Plattdeutsch, not High German. the majority of the entries created by this user seem to be based on Soviet-era communist propaganda, still available on early the Belarusian Wikipedia, denying the existence of Lithuanians as a separate people from the Germans with their own language. They urgently need to be removed.
Faroese prefix meaning "sea urchin". The only two derived terms are descended from Old Norse. Ultimateria (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Russian. Seems SOP to me. Thadh (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Thadh I agree. Several years ago we deleted a whole arsenal's worth of SOP military terms; apparently we missed this one. Benwing2 (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Is it any more SOP than English rocket-propelled grenade? If we keep rocket-propelled grenade, we ought to keep ручной противотанковый гранатомёт as the original etymon. Tetromino (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Ancient Greek. (Koine) The letter υ (upsilon) of the Ancient Greek alphabet, used with a rough breathing in specific phonetic contexts.
There are a lot of words on this entry, but it doesn't seem to be saying anything that isn't inherent to the rough breathing mark. Theknightwho (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- The notes should be rewritten to be less confusing, but I don't think this should be deleted, since there is some evidence that ὗ (hû) was used as the name of the letter. E.g. LSJ says "ὗ is aspirated in AP 9.385.20 (Steph.Gramm.), 11.67.1 (Myrin.) cod.Pal.; the Coptic name he (cf. Arm. hiun) may indicate that the early name was ὗ, which seems also to be implied by Serv. ad Verg. A. 1.744: alii dicunt Hyadas dictas vel ab Y littera, vel ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑός".--Urszag (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- I added quotations and did substantial rewriting, and think this is now a clear Keep.--Urszag (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Çoban Yıldızı is a proper noun and is capitalized in the official Turkish dictionary (TDK Sözlük; https://sozluk.gov.tr/), so the lowercase form should be deleted. KawaiiAngelx (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- That may be the official orthography, but the term is found used in lowercase, just like sabah yıldızı (not in TDK) and akşam yıldızı (only as Akşam Yıldızı here and in TDK); see e.g. [31], [32] and [33]. ‑‑Lambiam 07:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
This is not a suffix that existed in Old English. OE lāf does though. @Leasnam, Urszag --{{victar|talk}} 05:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'll take a look, but more explanation would help. Obviously names ending in "-lāf" existed in Old English. Assuming our inflection tables are correct, there is a difference in inflection class between lāf f (ō-stem) and -lāf m. (a-stem), which is not just an automatic consequence of the adjustment in gender, since in contrast names ending in -mund like Ċēolmund are, according to our tables, ō-stem nouns like the base noun. The definition Griffon77 wrote indicates that the meaning also could be different, although I'm not really sure how to figure that out.--Urszag (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify, no compound elements in dithematic names are suffixes or prefixes, including Old English lāf. The name element may indeed be an a-stem, or it may have been reanalyzed as such to conform to male names. Since you brought it up, trying to assign a meaning to lāf as a name element that differs from the noun lāf is speculative at best. --
{{victar|talk}}04:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify, no compound elements in dithematic names are suffixes or prefixes, including Old English lāf. The name element may indeed be an a-stem, or it may have been reanalyzed as such to conform to male names. Since you brought it up, trying to assign a meaning to lāf as a name element that differs from the noun lāf is speculative at best. --
August 2025
[edit]It appears to be a misspelling of खूबानी (khūbānī, without the nuqta) and not an actual Hindi word at all. Sumxr (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Indonesian. SoP. Rentangan (talk, contribs) 05:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Serbo-Croatian. For one thing this is misspelled (it should be divergentni niz) but for another thing it appears SOP. The equivalent in English, divergent sequence, is a red link as it's simply a mathematical sequence that is divergent (in the mathematical sense). (This actually makes me question whether divergent series, which exists, is SOP, along with all its translations.) Benwing2 (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Serbo-Croatian. Apparent misspelling of sanjke. May be speedy-able. Likewise the Cyrillic equivalent санке. Benwing2 (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- this is not a misspelling; it is the standard eastern variant Pokerinb (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- let me fix it
- this is a standard serbo-croatian noun. it isn't a misspelling; it's the common word for a sled or sleigh. it's even listed in the serbian wiktionary (here https://sr.wiktionary.org/wiki/sanke) and there is no request for deletion Pokerinb (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Malay. Rationale was "Word is not idiomatic. Only "guru besar" and "pengetua" are used." Ultimateria (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, I only remember people using the terms you mentioned above in daily life. TNMPChannel (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Bulgarian. Added by an IP two years ago, unsourced, and I can't find this word anywhere... DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 18:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Bezimenen, might it have been you, by any chance? Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 17:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
seems to be a misspelling of लाड. It never exists as लाड़. लाड़ is something else MurjhayaAanch (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- @MurjhayaAanch Are you talking about the Hindi entry? See [34] and [35]. It is cited with ड़ in the dictionary. ड is maybe an alternative spelling. Dragonoid76 (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- ٓActually, this matter got sorted already, check this out. I just forgot to delete this entry, sorry😅 MurjhayaAanch (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Vietnamese SoP. Not because it's common means that it can be made an entry (it doesn't even have the ambiguity to pass the empty space test). This expression can be placed in the Usage notes at trầm kha if deleted. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Clearly SoP. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Linh Huynh (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Clearly SoP. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- Agree to delete all three. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Apparently HungKhanh0106 did not add the {{rfd}} templates to the pages prior to nomination. @Queen Duck edited the first entry in the meantime and may have an opinion. Let’s wait (at least) another month. Also pinging the workgroup for in case (Notifying workgroup: Mxn, PhanAnh123): . MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
Two more months passed and only more votes to delete, so RfD delete. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Old English. Same as with hafian; this paradigm has been assumed based on the regular imp.sg. of secgan and minority 2/3sg.prs.ind. sagas(t)/sagaþ. No other forms compatible with a wk II classification occur.
Yeldred Gengo (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- @YeldredGengo Should this be moved to a reconstruction page based on gesagian, which has a BT entry? Otherwise delete Vergencescattered (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- No, same problem. In fact, it's even worse there, because even 2/3 *gesagast/*gesagaþ are unattested, so it's based 100% off of the normal sg.imp. of gesecgan — gesaga.
- I have a few usage notes I prepared for the weak class III verbs that I think I'll go ahead & add, although I was never fully satisfied with my wording...
- Yeldred Gengo (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Hebrew. Sense: “in the context of wikipedia, wikitionary, and related projects, it is to turn a red link into a blue link by creating a new article with that name, or redirecting to an existing article that relates.” J3133 (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Translingual. As Equinox pointed out in the talk page for the first, this is equivalent to listing a WT:TYPO or scanno. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 01:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Bartanaqa (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Polomo: If we are deleting computer-generated errors, does this also apply to medireview? J3133 (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- That one also appears similar to a typo in nature, unless it really is used deliberately. It could go either way for me. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 10:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Polomo: Should sense 1 of buttbuttin (“(ghost word) Erroneous, computer-generated form of assassin.”) also be deleted? J3133 (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- IMO, probably. That part could well be said in the etymology section. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 16:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Polomo: Should sense 1 of buttbuttin (“(ghost word) Erroneous, computer-generated form of assassin.”) also be deleted? J3133 (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- That one also appears similar to a typo in nature, unless it really is used deliberately. It could go either way for me. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 10:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- I would weakly keep the & one. I don't have a strong reason for wanting to do so other than "you might want to know what it means", as evidenced by its presence in published books. Apparently Robert Burns used it! Definitely worth keeping for that. Its usefulness is diminished by the fact it's hard to search for.
- Delete the dysmelic shrug. This, that and the other (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Forms no longer present in the declension table because ग्ना is declined like a root noun (confirmed by Macdonell in Vedic Grammar p.248). Exarchus (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I made some changes to the declension module, and these forms can be kept after all.
- RFD-kept Exarchus (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Serbo-Croatian. "hereditary disease"; SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Serbo-Croatian. Literally "history of illness". SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Turkish. SoP of farkında + olmak. Bartanaqa (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's a valid idiomatic phrase, see here. M Ali Kara (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Norwegian Bokmål, symbol: “(metrology) symbol for degrees Celsius”. Redundant because of the translingual entry; no other language has a sense for the symbol. J3133 (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. Juwan (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Also adding these senses:
- C (Roman numeral hundred; 100)
- (metrology) Symbol for coulomb, an SI unit of electric charge.
- (chemistry) carbon (the chemical element (symbol C) with an atomic number of 6)
J3133 (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- Roman numeral hundred (100)
- the hundredth (100th)
- (chemical symbol) C: initialism of karbon
J3133 (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
J3133 (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
September 2025
[edit]Polish.
SOP, plenty of colors can be złamany. Vininn126 (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- Delete covered by złamany. BigDom 10:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Ukrainian. It currently only has one definition: "female equivalent of -як / -яч", but female equivalent nouns ending in '...ячка' are actually formed as [stem]як or [stem]яч + -ка (-ka). I propose that -ячка (-jačka) be deleted unless one or more instances of its use as an independently productive suffix (without intermediate forms ending in -як/яч) can be found. Voltaigne (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. вертя́чка (vertjáčka) appears to be a valid instance of -я́чка (-jáčka) as an independently productive suffix. There is no *вертя́к (*vertják) or *вертя́ч (*vertjáč). Voltaigne (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Translingual.
"This character isn't currently supported by Unicode, but can be approximated by combining the character ɢ with the palatal hook ◌̡." Chuck Entz (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Why delete for that reason? BodhiHarp (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Also, this palatal hook letter is attested.[1][2] BodhiHarp (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- @BodhiHarp: You can approximate the appearance of Occitan cap in Cyrillic, but the fact that Tajik сар (sar) has the same definition is just a coincidence. No one actually uses the combination in question for the obsolete IPA character. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
This isn't a Cyrillic letter. Maybe you confused it with what the combination ԍ̡ would be.Edit: Maybe it's not the confusion of a Cyrillic letter. BodhiHarp (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)- I argue that ◌̡ while not canonically equivalent to precomposed characters like ꞔ is used when no precomposed character exists. Also, when this character is encoded, we can move without leaving a redirect. BodhiHarp (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Looking for one second, a Wikipedia article uses this combination. BodhiHarp (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Kwamikagami should this be kept or deleted? BodhiHarp (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Looking for one second, a Wikipedia article uses this combination. BodhiHarp (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- @BodhiHarp: You can approximate the appearance of Occitan cap in Cyrillic, but the fact that Tajik сар (sar) has the same definition is just a coincidence. No one actually uses the combination in question for the obsolete IPA character. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Also, this palatal hook letter is attested.[1][2] BodhiHarp (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- I vote keep. BodhiHarp (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- keep it's in the unicode pipeline for next year. presence or absence in unicode isn't the criterion for having an article, but notable things like IPA letters are generally created when they're in unicode. the unicode request notes that it occurs in Michael Job (1981) Grammatischer Wechsel im Lesgischen, Bedi Kartlisa 39, 279–296.
- and yes, when people need to type a retroflex or palatalized letter that's not directly supported by unicode, they do indeed use the combining diacritics that are provided for that purpose. the two options [composed and atomic] are not canonically equivalent, but that's an error in unicode and not our concern. when the unicode character becomes available, we can move this article there, same as when we have articles with unsupported titles. kwami (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- And by the way, shouldn't the nominator have notified me on my talk page? BodhiHarp (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Keep iff citations of it actually being used in the transcription of a language can be found, otherwise delete. Unicode has said they're not creating any new characters that can be formed by combining existing characters. If the entry is kept, the Usage note should be rewritten, because the character is in fact directly supported by Unicode, namely with "U+0262 U+0321". It's not a precomposed character, but that doesn't mean it's not supported by Unicode. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- palatalized and retroflex characters are an exception to that rule, partly because unicode messed up early on and they are not decomposable into letter + diacritic, but also because that rule applies when the diacritic and letter do not intersect or overlap. there are 24 characters with palatal hook in the pipeline for unicode 18 next year. kwami (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
@Ultimateria Can you close this and other discussions. BodhiHarp (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Irish. SOP: earraí (“goods”) + bearrtha (“of shaving”) = earraí bearrtha (“shaving products”). —Mahāgaja · talk 07:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Also SOP: ioncam (“income”) + íosta (“minimal”) = ioncam íosta (“minimum income”). —Mahāgaja · talk 09:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Also SOP: leagáid (“legate”) + an (“of the”) + phápa (“pope”) = leagáid an phápa (“papal legate”). —Mahāgaja · talk 11:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Also SOP: ionad (“site”) and láthair (“site”) + oilithreachta (“of pilgrimage”) = ionad/láthair oilithreachta (“pilgrimage site”). —Mahāgaja · talk 15:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
These are so SOP, they're just Irish-language explanations of the English term: scaradh (“separation”) + cadáis (“of cotton”) = scaradh cadáis (“separating cotton, i.e. ginning”); inneall (“machine”) + scartha (“of separation”) + cadáis (“of cotton”) = inneall scartha cadáis (“machine for separating cotton, i.e. cotton gin”) —Mahāgaja · talk 07:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Another that's just an explanation: scríobh (“writing”) + na (“of the”) + staire (“history”) = scríobh na staire (“writing about history, i.e. historiography”). —Mahāgaja · talk 07:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Also SOP: stát (“state”) + daonlathach (“democratic”) = stát daonlathach (“democracy (state with a democratic system of government)”). —Mahāgaja · talk 15:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Another that's just an explanation: X-ghathú (“X-raying”) + cíche (“of (the) breast”) = X-ghathú cíche (“X-raying the breast, i.e. mammography”). —Mahāgaja · talk 16:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- Delete all on the nominator's reasoning. Presumably they are present in translation tables and need to be modified so each part is linked separately. This, that and the other (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Turkish. Not dictionary material. Bartanaqa (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Arabic. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 03:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Irish. SOP: ábhar (“material”) + greamaitheach (“adhesive”, adjective) = ábhar greamaitheach (literally “adhesive material, i.e. an adhesive”). —Mahāgaja · talk 10:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, same as the Irish entries above. This, that and the other (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
FVS1 error. New page ᠨᠣᠮᡠᠨ ᡥᠠᠨ᠋ created.
This form doesn't exist. It's meant to be жабуу. Entry created by an unfamiliar editor who was unaware of the phonomorphological shift p>b. Dylanvt (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: the nominator's reason. BodhiHarp (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Written Oirat. Misspelling of ᠠᡋᠠ ᡐᡇᠷᠠ.
Arabic. SOP --Etisop (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
October 2025
[edit]Sorry for misspelling үл. LibCae (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Pumpokol.
No actual content:
- Alternative forms
- ha (M., W.)
- Etymology
- Misrecording of ha (“day”).
- Further reading
- Werner, Heinrich (2005), Die Jenissej-Sprachen des 18. Jahrhunderts, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, →ISBN, page 184
Chuck Entz (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Indonesian. Tagged for speedy deletion by User:Rentangan: copy pasted from KBBI by a particular user; this is clearly marked with Ukp/ungkapan ((foreign) phrase) there
. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 02:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Vietnamese, SoP: trường + cao đẳng. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Same. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Same. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Same. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Same. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Same. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Same. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Same. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Same. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Hindi. Tagged by @सौम्य: SOP. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 18:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Translingual.
Number above 100, which violates the CFI; compare this with 365 and MCC above (both also at RfD). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Marwari. Not mentioned in the reference provided: https://omniglot.com/writing/marwari.htm. @AleksiB 1945 pointed to ru:w:Марвари in the change that added the Marwari section but it doesn’t use the letter either, at least not anymore. --Moyogo (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Omniglot seems to have taken it from Younis Kashali (2006-2008) Proposal for Marwari writing system [36][37] which is listed on the Marwari page but not used anymore. --Moyogo (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Marwari. Same as ख़#Marwari just above: Not mentioned in the reference provided: https://omniglot.com/writing/marwari.htm. @AleksiB 1945 pointed to ru:w:Марвари in the change that added the Marwari section but it doesn’t use the letter either, at least not anymore.
Omniglot seems to have taken it from Younis Kashali (2006-2008) Proposal for Marwari writing system [38][39] which is listed on the Marwari page but not used anymore. --Moyogo (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
November 2025
[edit]Term not attested in Inscriptional Pahlavi. --{{victar|talk}} 11:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Silt'e. This form seems to have originated in Wiktionary, the Amharic-Silt'e dictionary spells it as መይ instead. Santi2222 (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Polish. SOP, byle can be combined with basically everything. Vininn126 (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Thai. Sum-of-parts. From พบ ("to meet") + กัน ("each other"), just meaning "to meet each other". --Flamevine (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Thai. Sum-of-parts. From ออก ("to get out") + จาก ("of"), just meaning "to get out of". --Flamevine (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Georgian. This appears simply to be a misspelling of ორგანიზაციულად (organizaciulad). Voltaigne (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Slovak. The entry was created as an alleged suffix extracted from kostra. However, after revising the etymology of kostra on the basis of credible sources (Rejzek, Králik), it is clear that the word is not simply segmentable as kosť + -ra. No evidence supports the existence of such a suffix elsewhere in the language, and the formation of kostra is explained through inherited Proto-Slavic material rather than productive Slovak morphology. The suffix entry therefore lacks justification. The inflected forms should be deleted too. TomášPolonec (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Undefined characters from the Latin Extended Additional block and Latin Extended-A
[edit]Per @Polomo's RfD above, I'm nominating several articles linked from Appendix:Unicode/Latin Extended Additional and Appendix:Unicode/Latin Extended-A that have no definition, or that have a translingual section with no definition. Instead of a definition, these pages have the Unicode name or a similar physical description of the letter, but no description of usage.
I have been asked to RfD such character articles together rather than individually. I'm restricting myself to this one Unicode block for now, but there are similar non-definitions of characters from other blocks.
The characters with no definition:
and with no definition in their translingual sections:
I recommend deletion unless people find examples of usage that we can describe. (I have looked for all of them; those above are the ones that remain unaccounted for.)
In the case of ḁ, we do list the IPA usage, but this is sum-of-parts and as such is ineligible for an article/section.
Pinging @Moyogo and @BodhiHarp, who commented in the previous thread. kwami (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- ḁ is used as an alternative form of ạ in Rotuman.
- ḕ, ṑ are used in Tagish.
- ḯ is used in Belanda Viri.
- ṍ, ṹ are used in a few languages like Bribri, Gokana, Kaansa, Lyélé, Tee, Tucano, Wajiara.
- ṻ is used in Romanisation of Svan.
- ḝ, ṥ, ṧ, ṩ are used in the ISO 259:1984 Romanisation of Hebrew.
- For the others it’s not always super clear why they are as single characters in Unicode, besides some other Romanisation or phonetic transcriptions. --Moyogo (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding those. Most articles are now just for section deletion.
- For ṻ, I can't access Oniani 2005, but Palimaitis & Gudjedjiani 1986 and Tuite 1997 both have ǟ, ȫ, ǖ with the macron on top. Omniglot seems to be an outlier in using ṻ, perhaps because the Unicode character was available, or interference from the Georgian script. kwami (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- Gudjedjiani & Palimaitis 1986 uses ǟ and ā̈ (maybe there’s a logic or not). Tuite 1997 was using phonetic transcriptions æː œː yː but updates like Tuite 2020, 2023 or 2024 do use ǟ ȫ ǖ along with phonetic transcriptions. --Moyogo (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- We might say that ṻ is alt alt form of ǖ, but that wouldn't tell us why it would have a Unicode point. kwami (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- For most cases ṻ is likely variations of ǖ, one exception might be Johan Storm’s transcription in Englische Philologie (1892) where the macron is systematically under the other diacritics like ā̊ ā̇ ā̈, etc. ṏ (in the list above) is in a similar situation where it can be found were ö̃ is expected (for example when ä̃ etc. are used). In any case, ṻ and ṏ are peculiar in Unicode, as one would either not expect them to be there in the first place or would expect the others in sets using them to be there as well. I guess it’s fine to remote them. --Moyogo (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- We might say that ṻ is alt alt form of ǖ, but that wouldn't tell us why it would have a Unicode point. kwami (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- Gudjedjiani & Palimaitis 1986 uses ǟ and ā̈ (maybe there’s a logic or not). Tuite 1997 was using phonetic transcriptions æː œː yː but updates like Tuite 2020, 2023 or 2024 do use ǟ ȫ ǖ along with phonetic transcriptions. --Moyogo (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Zulu.
We have a Zulu entry for this because this Greek "Q" letter kinda sorta looks like an obsolete letter that Norwegian missionaries used to spell a click sound, and Unicode doesn't have a codepoint for that. I'd rfv it, but its use dates to long before the digital era and so this is basically the equivalent of a scanno. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- Tempted to say we should speedy this. @Kwamikagami has a long-standing habit of assuming that Unicode codepoints are a free-for-all if there's some kind of vague resemblance between characters, despite that being against one of the primary underlying design principles of Unicode, which is that codepoints refer to character identities, not the glyphs used to represent them, which is why Latin A, Greek Α and Cyrillic А are three separate characters, for instance. Theknightwho (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- My understanding was that our articles are supposed to be about letters or symbols, not Unicode characters, and that whether Unicode unifies or disunifies uses or forms of a letter/symbol is not directly relevant for Wiktionary.
- In this case, the Zulu entry might be deleted or split off as an unsupported characters like the others in its set. kwami (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think (as I suggested in July) we should move the Zulu section to be an "unsupported title". - -sche (discuss) 06:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Given that Wk is case-sensitive, shouldn't titles in that list like 'Latin small Q-chi ligature' be lowercase? kwami (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Nivkh. Misspelling of ӈойӄ. Dylanvt (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Georgian. I'm fairly certain this an SOP. Graearms (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as SOP per nominator. See also the discussion at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#ფრანგული ენა. Voltaigne (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
Old Slovak. Created by a dubious Korean IP, with no sources cited, around 8 months ago. I was unable to find evidence that the word actually exists. That's why I'm making this request. Missileboi (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Chihunglu83 (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Ket. We already have the entry at силюп хаттат. The problematic second part of the compound is spelled as хаттат, not хатәт, as written in Словарь Кетско-Русский и Русско-Кетский (Heinrich K. Werner, 2002:104,) which is the primary source for the official orthography used for Ket. I've tried to nominate it for deletion, but the changes were taken back. — This unsigned comment was added by Chrysanthemum1319 (talk • contribs) at 03:54, December 1, 2025.
(Edit: 13:16, 7 December 2025) - I've made it so the incorrectly entered entry now redirects to the proper one. I believe this makes this request for deletion unnecessary.
See Talk:ΘΚΣ#RFD discussion: January–February 2022 and Talk:Nomina sacra § μητρός = ΜΗΣ or ΜΡΣ, accusative and dative forms, and Θεοτόκος = ΘΚΣ?. No evidence these nomina sacra actually existed. ~2025-38049-82 (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Chaná for "motherless" and "fatherless". SOP, literally "without" + "mother" / "father". Ultimateria (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Cornish. Tagged for speedy deletion by @Akhaeron, who said misspelling of a-dro dhe
. I am not sure what sort of misspelling this is (or if it even is one) and note that misspellings may be included if they are common. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 15:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- I realize other pages have been tagged for deletion as “misspellings”, which I doubt they are. If this is an alternate Cornish orthography, then there needs to be consensus about whether entries should only use one orthography before deleting all of these. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 15:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Translingual. Proper noun: "Ellipsis of Aetokthonos hydrillicola"
In a context of a discussion of species of a single genus or few genera, all specific epithets can be used to refer to the species without the need for the full genus name. This is not part of the lexicon as a proper noun. DCDuring (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Tagged for speedy deletion by @Vergencescattered: appears once as a calque of Latin prius aut posterius but does not appear to be idiomatic in either language
. Sum-of-parts entries go to RfD. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 00:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry about that. Thank you for putting it here. Vergencescattered (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.
- Didn’t realize I typed in the wrong language code... — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 01:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Guaraní, said to mean "house". Per User:Eirtharlaus, this is not recognizable as a Paraguayan Guaraní term (which all other "Guaraní" terms are), nor recognizable as belonging to any other variety by the native speaker sources consulted by Eirtharlaus. We do have an Old Tupi word oka (“house”), whose cognate in Paraguayan Guaraní is óga, which we do have an entry for already. So this might be someone's misinterpretation of some source. In fact the history shows this was created way back in 2006 in [40] by User:JarlaxleArtemis, who is now globally banned from all MediaWiki sites, so there's a very high chance it's just garbage. Benwing2 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Ktunaxa. Rationale was "Ktunaxa does not have a phonemic nor phonetic 'e' sound." The reference given is an English-language LGBT encyclopedia, not a linguistic work. Ultimateria (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Lower Sorbian. Created by a dubious Korean IP, who has edited and modified pages regarding Slavic languages (Sorbian, Old Slovak, and others) with no sources. The word does not seem to exist in the known sources. Unless if this person has better, more reliable sources, I see no reason for this page not to be deleted. Missileboi (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- I can't find it in any of the usual dictionaries, though Upper Sorbian porst is real. If this exists at all, it's probably archaic and/or dialectal. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply, but I can confirm that Upper Sorbian porst does in fact exist. If someone has a reliable source to back this word up, then we shall keep it. Unless, we can safely delete the entry. Missileboi (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Yug. This language is not written. The last native speaker passed away in the 1970s, before any official otrhography was ever developed. All that remains from this language are phonetic recordings. ка' and ур seem like impromptu transcriptions (ка' is also written incorrectly for a term that represents [χaˑ˧˦] phonetically.) I request these to be deleted until further research is done on this language, except in the case of Дьуʼк. Chrysanthemum1319 (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
December 2025
[edit]Albanian. The whole page is nonsense. The entry is a copy and paste of the proper zot page. The creation of the page comes from the belief that Albanian zot comes from an older/archaic zota, which is wrong. Zota is merely the plural of zot used by old authors such as Buzuku. The alternative forms section has an entirely different word with no connection to the word zot (if they so wanted, they could have at least made it a synonym instead). The derived terms are also copy and paste from the zot page, which unironically includes "zota" as being derived from "zota". The archaic/old indefinite singular form of zot was just "zot", used as such by all the old Albanian authors, with only one instance being "zotë" (the author also used the form zot). Shqypëtari (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Old English. I believe these are SOPs. Graearms (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
Esperanto. Rfd-sense: non-. See: ne-. Is there any case where ne by itself can be translated as non- (or similar prefixes)? TranqyPoo [💬 | ✏️] 17:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Esperanto. Here is an instance where a suffix is conjugated per its verb form. -igi, -iĝi, & -i (verbal suffixes) list a conjugation table in their entries. Should we have a conjugation table (and subsequently, entries for each conjugation) for suffixes? These entries would be most suitable (or perhaps purely for) Etymology headers. We do not add etymologies to non-lemmas and if we do (in the case of multiple etymologies for a mixed lemma/non-lemma entry), we add {{nonlemma}}. So, by this practice, we would never link/use the conjugated suffixes in an entry and therefore, have no need for them. TranqyPoo [💬 | ✏️] 23:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Esperanto. The only word linked to this prefix is ateisto, which according to KEV, entirely comes from Latin/Ancient Greek. I found nothing in PIV and ReVo to indicate this prefix exists. TranqyPoo [💬 | ✏️] 01:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
"Proto-Circassian" Adyghe entries
[edit]I've identified the following entries which were created as Proto-Circassian reconstructions then mistakenly converted to Adyghe lemmas: цӏуэи, цӏуцӏэ, цадльэ, суэу, суыз, мызуэ, лъэ, кхъулъфыгъэ, кхъэ, кхъуайэ, зуагъуэ. I believe a miscommunication in an RFD discussion led to their conversion. The creator frequently confused labels and language codes and didn't know our protocol around reconstructions, so these entries were mistakenly understood to be modern Adyghe terms.
These entries have (or had) reconstructed pronunciations and Synonyms sections that actually list Descendants. They are also linked to in Adyghe and Kabardian entries as Synonyms labeled "Proto-Circassian". I propose either converting these entries into proper reconstructions or deleting them. Their current value is low and they further confuse the already confused language boundaries in our Circassian entries. If I open an RFV it will languish, so maybe we can agree to call this a "Created in error" situation. Pinging editors who have worked in Proto-Circassian: @ɶLerman, TheSilverWolf98. Ultimateria (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Ultimateria: I still don't understand your complaints. Lerman (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- His complaint is that the some of the aforementioned words simply don't exist and are instead Proto-Circassian words entered using Adyghe alphabet. Do you понимаешь english, Lerman? The following words are well-attested in dictionaries though and I don't understand what the issue with them is: лъэ (lˢɛ), кхъэ (qꭓɛ). And while you're at it trying to fix this dumpster fire, our editors seem to be undecided as to which unicode codepoints to use in Proto-Circassian and so use turned e and schwa interchangeably which resulted in a duplicate reconstruction: *gʷǝ vs *gʷə. I'd assume all those reconstructions should be converted to a schwa... კვარია (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I understood you well, however, all these reconstructions and so on can simply be deleted. Lerman (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- His complaint is that the some of the aforementioned words simply don't exist and are instead Proto-Circassian words entered using Adyghe alphabet. Do you понимаешь english, Lerman? The following words are well-attested in dictionaries though and I don't understand what the issue with them is: лъэ (lˢɛ), кхъэ (qꭓɛ). And while you're at it trying to fix this dumpster fire, our editors seem to be undecided as to which unicode codepoints to use in Proto-Circassian and so use turned e and schwa interchangeably which resulted in a duplicate reconstruction: *gʷǝ vs *gʷə. I'd assume all those reconstructions should be converted to a schwa... კვარია (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Adding кхъужъы. Ultimateria (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Translingual but the two listed derived terms are one formed within Latin (septendecennium) and one English derived from Latin (septendecennial). The related terms incorrectly called combining forms are in fact Latin numerals. J3133 (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as translingual, but keeo (and fix) as an English prefix. This does indeed make no sense as a prefix of either septendecennium or septendecennial. Compare that decennium should not be analyzed as dec- + annium. But we have the English prefixes undec-, duodec- and quindec-, and this one fits in with this bunch as being a prefix in septendecillion. ‑‑Lambiam 09:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Lambiam: The prefix used for forming names of large numbers in this system is septem- or septen- (as listed in the Wikipedia article) rather than septendec-, hence septenvigintillion, septentrigintillion. Otherwise, these would have septenvigint- for twenty-seven and septentrigint- and thirty-seven. Moreover, we would need more than one derived term to have an entry, and this is a surface analysis as it is from Latin septendec(im). J3133 (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- Then I assume you also consider undec-, duodec- and quindec- to be misguided entries. ‑‑Lambiam 12:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Lambiam: My comment was specifically about septendecillion, which uses the system by Conway and Guy which specifies septen-/septem-. As you can see in the article, there are prefixes for units, tens, and hundreds: e.g., septen- + septuaginta- + septingent-, respectively (+ -illion): septenseptuagintaseptingentillion, but if you think we should have septendec-, one term is not enough (and which is furthermore only in a surface analysis). J3133 (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- Then I assume you also consider undec-, duodec- and quindec- to be misguided entries. ‑‑Lambiam 12:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Lambiam: The prefix used for forming names of large numbers in this system is septem- or septen- (as listed in the Wikipedia article) rather than septendec-, hence septenvigintillion, septentrigintillion. Otherwise, these would have septenvigint- for twenty-seven and septentrigint- and thirty-seven. Moreover, we would need more than one derived term to have an entry, and this is a surface analysis as it is from Latin septendec(im). J3133 (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
January 2026
[edit]Arabic. SoP. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 06:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment: The spelling is irregular. في is not typically connected to the next word. ~2026-24358-43 (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Irish dependent stem, eclipsed, or non-lenited relative verb forms
[edit]These dependent stem (abrós, etc.), eclipsed, or non-lenited direct relative verb forms do not occur in Irish. The unique direct relative verb form only occurs after the direct relative pronoun "a" which causes lenition and is followed by the independent form of a verb. They were added to the manual irregular verb conjugation templates years ago and had non-mutated base forms created which linked to and were linked to by the lenited and eclipsed forms.
- abróchas
- abrós
- beireas
- bhfaigheas
- bhfeicfeas
- cloiseas
- cloisfeas
- cluineas
- cluinfeas
- déanfas
- dtabharfas
- dtabhras
- dtagas
- dtarlaíos
- dtarlós
- dtéas
- dtiocfas
- dtiubhras
- dtugas
- feicfeas
- gabhfas
- gcloiseas
- gcloisfeas
- gcluineas
- gcluinfeas
- mbéarfas
- mbeireas
- n-abróchas
- n-abrós
- n-inseos
- n-íosfas
- n-itheas
- ndéanas
- ndéanfas
- ndéarfas
- ndeireas
- ngabhas
- ngabhfas
- ngeobhas
- tabharfas
- tabhras
- tarlaíos
- tarlós
- téas
- tiocfas
- tiubhras
Saighneánach (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete all. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- I tried to remove bíos from the list the other day but it is still there when I view the page. In case it’s there for others, bíos should be excluded from deletion since it’s an exceptional form immune to lenition in some dialects. Saighneánach (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- I had the same experience, so I edited the whole page instead of the one section and found it in the source using my browser's text search capability. It may be relevant that the word was out of alphabetic order in the source, but the display was sorted- it may be that there was some kind of interference betweeen the two versions. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
Sum of parts Saighneánach (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep and add the Phrasebook template (unless it's mistranslated). See WT:Phrasebook. Ultimateria (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- The translation seems fine to me and I’ll add the phrasebook template. However, I think this sort of phrasebook sentence is better off being reduced to a translation which links to components in the translation box at the English entry rather than an entry, especially in cases like this where the utterance is Búdaí mé is likely to have been used an extremely limited number of times (if at all). Saighneánach (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Bengali. The English entry does not exist, and if the English word cannot fulfill WT:BRAND, I find it highly unlikely that the other languages’ translations can. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 08:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Barely used. Nobody even uses it. They didn't even say it was just a calque, they just noted it as a derivation, even though উক্তি probably means quote (though I hear nobody say it). TooSimilarT0DaFollowingUsername (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Thai. The English entry does not exist, and if the English word cannot fulfill WT:BRAND, I find it highly unlikely that the other languages’ translations can. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 08:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Apisite — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 08:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- Replaced with
{{no entry}}. --OctraBot (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Thai. The English entry does not exist, and if the English word cannot fulfill WT:BRAND, I find it highly unlikely that the other languages’ translations can. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 08:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- Replaced with
{{no entry}}. --OctraBot (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Turkish. The English entry does not exist, and if the English word cannot fulfill WT:BRAND, I find it highly unlikely that the other languages’ translations can. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 08:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Embryomystic — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 09:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Russian. The English entry does not exist, and if the English word cannot fulfill WT:BRAND, I find it highly unlikely that the other languages’ translations can. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 08:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Bengali. The English entry does not exist, and if the English word cannot fulfill WT:BRAND, I find it highly unlikely that the other languages’ translations can. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 08:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- @AryamanA — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 09:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Hindi, Nepali. The English entry does not exist, and if the English word cannot fulfill WT:BRAND, I find it highly unlikely that the other languages’ translations can. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 09:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Persian. The English entry does not exist, and if the English word cannot fulfill WT:BRAND, I find it highly unlikely that the other languages’ translations can. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 09:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Arabic. The English entry does not exist, and if the English word cannot fulfill WT:BRAND, I find it highly unlikely that the other languages’ translations can. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 09:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Russian, Tajik. The English entry does not exist, and if the English word cannot fulfill WT:BRAND, I find it highly unlikely that the other languages’ translations can. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 09:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Esperanto. The English entry does not exist, and if the English word cannot fulfill WT:BRAND, I find it highly unlikely that the other languages’ translations can. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 09:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Georgian. The English entry does not exist, and if the English word cannot fulfill WT:BRAND, I find it highly unlikely that the other languages’ translations can. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 09:05, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#बरैया.
Tagalog.Teddycross (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. Redirect to main entry only and the Baybayin is gaining popularity for the past decade or so. You can look up the Baybayin of haribon on Facebook even. 𝄽 ysrael214 (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. Baybayin entries are a normal part of Wiktionary, see https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Tagalog_lemmas&from=ZZ for the list of just Baybayin lemmas. — 🍕 Yivan000 viewtalk 11:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- RFD-kept Teddycross (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Vietnamese. The topic should be CJK, but I suppose there are more relevant contributors here. I have not seen any Sino-Vietnamese L2 heading with Japanese modification before. I looked it up in a Hán-Việt dictionary and still, this form is not the prescribed form. I know Korean words with such Japanese influence in hanja form, but I know none in Vietnamese. Frankly speaking, I know almost nothing about Vietnamese, either, so I may be 100% wrong. This just looks dubious to me. Maraschino Cherry (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Persian.
# "death to Israel", "down with Israel"
cf. the deletion for "death to America" Talk:مرگ بر آمریکا and the entry مرگ بر. —Fish bowl (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Clear SOP. Graearms (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
All entries created by User:Numberguy6 and tagged for deletion by Special:Contributions/194.237.233.86.
194.237.233.86 did not provide a rationale, and my knowledge of Pecheneg is aproximately zero, but the usage of the modern w:Common Turkic alphabet immediately stands out as being very curious. —Fish bowl (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Fails independent attestation from a cursory look, no citations given. Originates in a book series, all instances I could find are in reference to the books. As a German native speaker familiar with the book, I attest it is not in general usage in my environment other than as an in-joke or reference to the book.
Also possibly isn’t idiomatic if we discount the reference to the book, bürgerliche Kategorie would be a more appropriate lemma, das ist/sind doch is a productive and more common construction. Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Bulgarian умнокрасивитет
[edit]Added by some new user whom I'm going to nominate for banning soon.
Wrong on multiple levels:
- The term does not have wide distribution and clearly established meaning. Questionable if it satisfies Wiktionary's CFI.
- Etymology is entirely butchered. Of the three provided theories, only умнокрасив (umnokrasiv) + -итет (-itet) is grammatically sound, which the author refutes for some reason. She (or he) claims erroneously that suffix -итет (-itet) is not attested. It actually reflects Latin -itās (gen. -itātis) and is back-formed from loanwords like квалитет (kvalitet), просперитет (prosperitet), неутралитет (neutralitet), etc.
- The other theories: умнокрасивите (umnokrasivite) + -т (-t) and умнокрасивите (umnokrasivite) + -та (-ta) are morphotactically wrong. Again, the author erroneously claims that suffix -т (-t) is unattested (for which, see Proto-Slavic *-tь). That, however, is not the issue here. умнокрасивите (umnokrasivite) represents the def. form of pl. умнокрасиви (umnokrasivi) + the enclitic -те (-te). Attaching any kind of suffix (extant or not) to it is the same as adding derivational morphemes to the article the or the inflectional ending -es after the negating particle -n't of doesn't in English. In short: Utter nonsense.
- The entry mimics some sort of neutrality, but other contributions by the same author do not. Based on their previous activity, she (or he) apparently tries to push anti-liberal, anti-European, and broadly anti-Western political narratives. The provided usage example is exactly in this spirit and I suspect the whole entry is created with the mentioned purpose in mind. PS I'll discuss this issue with administrators separately.
- The entry has little to none encyclopedic value.
Безименен (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Dutch. Rare misspelling of tweeënzestig. ‑‑Lambiam 14:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. @Lambiam, you forgot the
{{rfd}}template. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
February 2026
[edit]German notleidender Kredit
[edit]as well as werthaltiger Kredit. SOP entries. Entries for the attributes shall suffice. The adjectives are used in other contexts and these are quite blatant collocations. Fay Freak (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- First add the relevant sense to notleidend and add an entry for werthaltig before deleting anything. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Mahagaja: Added content. Fay Freak (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
German. Not a suffix PUC – 20:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that this is merely an instance of the productive use of -ig with a noun and a numeral or adjective, not a standalone suffix. The presence of the -r- is slightly irregular (which may have obscured the pattern to whoever created the entry) but not entirely unexpected for nouns with plurals in -er (also happens for Glied, Blatt, Feld) - I added a usage note about this in -ig. PhoenicianLetters (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
This is a regional Croatian (probably Kajkavian) word: partecetl. It is not used in Serbian, and is not attested in Serbian dictionaries or online sources, so the Cyrillic variant is unnecessary. — Phazd (talk|contribs) 00:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Basque. These forms are actually present indicative forms with the conjunction -la. While they can take a hortative/imperative meaning, they aren't listed as separate imperative forms in the reference book Euskal Aditz Batua or other works. The listed imperatives are betoz, betor, bego, bebil, bebiltza, beude. Santi2222 (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
The correct spelling of the word meaning "cow" is with 𐎀 (ả) and not 𐎓 (ʿ), and a page with the correct spelling already exist: 𐎀𐎗𐎃. See: G. del Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition (Brill, Internet Archive), Brill, 2015, p. 98 (there is no entry there for a spelling with the ʿ); a word "𐎓𐎗𐎃" does not exist in Ugaritic texts, as indicated in: M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, Word-List of the Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts, Ugarit-Verlag, 1996, p. 162. פעמי-עליון (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from WT:RFDN.
This should be merged with *alamann-. There's no need for a separate page. Ethnonyms in this language are also generally not capitalised. — This unsigned comment was added by Haimariks Wandilaz (talk • contribs) at 16:00, 11 October 2024.
- Keep. Proper nouns are intended to be capitalized. --
{{victar|talk}}03:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC) - Merge. Tollef Salemann (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- The two entries seem to be highly duplicative and overlapping. On the other hand, I agree with Victar that this should fit with our practice of capitalising proper nouns. To eliminate the need to synchronise the two entries, I'd suggest to strip the A- entry to the bare minimum details and defer to the a- entry for everything else, including declension. This, that and the other (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Baluchi. Yes, I created this page, but that was a long time ago. I have now realised that this is definitely not a real word. Only Mansel Longworth Dames’ A Textbook of the Balochi Language has ‘mal-machh,’ however, that book is definitely not reliable, it is old and has many other words that cannot be found elsewhere and would not be known by any speaker. This word cannot be found in any other dictionary or text. —SultanOfRedistan12 (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Ukrainian.
Not attested anywhere; possibly made up. --囑囔囔 (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Russian and Ukrainian; not attested anywhere, possibly made up. --囑囔囔 (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Esperanto. Seemingly sum-of-parts. Compare Talk:Cyrillic alphabet. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 03:05, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Esperanto. Sum of parts, where: tuj → immediately, post → after. TranqyPoo [💬 | ✏️] 00:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Persian. — BABR・kurwa? 20:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- The definition and example here indeed belong to "حال", but I'd keep the page for "هال" meaning "hall" (given as a Persian translation in the entry for English "hall"). ~2026-23735-89 (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
French. I suspect the term is simply made-up by the account that created the page. Gabbe (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Thai. SOP. Just meaning "to drop a torpedo explosive device", from "ทิ้ง" (to drop) + "ระเบิด" (explosive device) + "ตอร์ปิโด" (torpedo). -- Flamevine (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Thai. SOP. Just meaning "to drop bombs", from "ทิ้ง" (to drop) + "ระเบิด" (bombs). -- Flamevine (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
March 2026
[edit]Turkish. A retired editor added an RFV template which I changed to RFD because the term is said to be a sum of parts. Hot + water + bag. I agree, delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem any more SOP than English hot water bottle. Just as with the English term, I suppose that not every bag that happens to have hot water in it is a sıcak su torbası. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- As to a potential restoration of the RFV template, this term is easily attested.[41] ‑‑Lambiam 21:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Arabic. SoP. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 12:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I see this was deleted as failing WT:SOP, but why delete it if we have ʀ̥, ɬ̼, and many others? @Kwamikagami: Should this entry have stayed? - Bᴏᴅʜı ***** Hᴀᴙᴩ** 17:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- No, those two other articles should be deleted too.
- Meanwhile, I removed some nonsensical wording from the first. kwami (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- OK, so I have tried to create a list of other IPA diacritic combos other than the ones I already mentioned:
- And should we also delete UPA ʀ̤ or not? - Bᴏᴅʜı ***** Hᴀᴙᴩ** 03:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, it's also SOP, as are k̤, ɢ̤, g̤, r̤, ɹ̤, ð̤], all of which are uvular in UPA and breathy-voiced in IPA. If we want to keep a list somewhere, it could be at ◌̤ (and similarly for the other diacritics), but the examples we currently have in the definition are probably enough.
- Also ʡ̮.
- There are potentially thousands of combinations of a single phonetic letter + a single diacritic, with no line I can think of between the ones that we do have and the very many more that we do not. Without some expressed limit, there is no reason not to create the thousands of others. That would be a huge headache to maintain in comparison to the minimal use it would be to readers. We have pages for orthographic letters that include diacritics, but then those are seldom SOP, and where they are (e.g. vowel letter + tone mark), they can arguable be deleted as well. kwami (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: if you go to the page for e.g. an Egyptian hieroglyph that doesn't have an entry (like 𓃳), something (MediaWiki:Noarticletext?) automatically adds a character information box, which in turn automatically tells you that it is Unicode character such-and-such. Can we make it so that if a user goes to a page for one of these character + combining diacritic combinations, like ɴ̥ (even when that's a redlink), there is a similar little box explaining that it is a combination of U+0274 ɴ and U+0325 ◌̥ (ideally complete with links like that to the entries for the component parts), so that users can click through to those entries? It is not easy, if you're looking at a document that contains ɴ̥, to isolate and copy only the ◌̥ so as to look it up, so I suspect the number of people who look up these combinations is nonzero, and spot-checking several of the characters linked above, they've been getting 10+ views a month, people are indeed using them: more people look at ʀ̆ each month than look at entries we're not proposing to delete like northern greater galagos ([42]), so if we could make the no-entry pages provide links to the component parts, it would be helpful. - -sche (discuss) 05:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be ideal.
- Another possibility, if that isn't practical to implement, would be to turn them into redirects to the diacritic article. But, again, there would potentially be thousands of them, which someone would have to watch to prevent vandalism. kwami (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Ottoman Turkish. SOP. Bartanaqa (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. We also have no entry (not even as a translation hub) for oh, how lovely. ‑‑Lambiam 20:09, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Fijian.
This is an old transwiki from Wikipedia. The entirety of its content when it arrived here:
The word Kahalauaola has its origins in Fijian language. It is now derived into the word you see now from Fijian word Kahalauaola Majakopulu Hawaiappapa Noakoamuna Pulauapo Likiasala Wapomakii Opuappa Umpaula Oui. This literally translates to, "The tooth of the great white shark which broke off and fell in the ocean to become this little dry fishing island where nobody lives."
In its short form, it translates to, "Little Island".
Its current form:
kahalauaola
- little island
- Kahalauaola Majakopulu Hawaiappapa Noakoamuna Pulauapo Likiasala Wapomakii Opuappa Umpaula Oui.
- The tooth of the great white shark which broke off and fell in the ocean to become this little dry fishing island where nobody lives.
- ...
In fact, "kahalauaola" is the name for a cave on the small Hawaiian island of Kaʻula. The content is completely unsourced, and probably made up by someone with little, if any, knowledge of Fijian, Hawaiian, or any related language. What little content there is seems to be complete nonsense. Even if it isn't, "kahalauaola" isn't a Fijian word for "little island", and it would take a lot of research to figure out whether the "usex" actually means anything.
In other words, every part of this entry is at least partly wrong, and there's no easy way to make sense out of any of it. If someone had created this today, I would have no qualms with speedily deleting it as "no usable content given". I think we should still delete it on the same grounds, even if everybody missed the opportunity 21 years ago. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete as Fijian, but possibly salvageable as etymology-worthy in Hawaiian, since I can't find any word in Hawaiian for either shark or cave that comes anything close to Kahalauaola. As I wrote here, I suspect someone just threw some words together in 2005 when we didn't care so much about accuracy. This could explain why it was labeled as Fijian ... aren't those tropical languages all the same anyway!?
- —Soap— 19:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- the phrase ka Halau-a-ola turns up in Hawaiian texts, so this is most likely the source of the placename. I think the second word is actually hālau with a long a. This shoudlnt be too difficult to figure out, if we accept it as entry-worthy in Hawaiian. But it definitely does not translate to "shark cave" and I think this is just a case of a place having two unrelated names. —Soap— 19:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Adding a comment here, having a look on Ulukau Books (a valuable site for Hawaiian texts, by the way), there are some sources that do list the placename - including this one called Index to Sites of Oʻahu, the 1978 edition. Perhaps if we move that page to the capitalised version, it can still be salvaged - just not sure if the source properly marks macrons or even ʻokinas though; e.g. "Kaalawai" as written in this book should be written "Kaʻalāwai"... — oi yeah nah mate amazingJUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 02:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Hebrew, Hungarian, Japanese, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish, Swedish: e-mail symbol senses. The Translingual section covers the corresponding sense. The local names of the symbol can be moved to the translation table in at sign. Einstein2 (talk) 11:18, 2026 March 26 (UTC)
April 2026
[edit]Sanskrit. This stem is given by Monier-Williams, but the instrumental sg. हि॒मा (himā́) is nowadays rather considered to be from हि॒म (himá).[1][2][3] The possibility of a stem हिम् (hím) can be mentioned there if necessary. @Pulimaiyi
- ^ Wodtko, Dagmar S.; Irslinger, Britta; Schneider, Carolin (2008), Nomina im indogermanischen Lexikon [Nouns in the Indo-European Lexicon][1] (in German), Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, page 163; 168
- ^ Mayrhofer, Manfred (1996), “himá-”, in Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen [Etymological Dictionary of Old Indo-Aryan][2] (in German), volume II, Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, page 815
- ^ Lubotsky, Alexander (2011), “himá-”, in The Indo-Aryan Inherited Lexicon (in progress) (Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Project), Leiden University, page 227
Exarchus (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- How exactly are they deriving inst sg हि॒मा (himā́) from the a-stem हि॒म (himá)?
- @Exarchus:. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬) 12:55, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- With ending -ā, see Whitney §327c: "the normal ending ā — thus, yajñā́ , suhávā, mahitvā́ (for yajñéna etc.) — is also not rare in the Veda." Exarchus (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- Are you saying Vedic preserved the Proto-Indo-European inst. sg. suffix *-oh₁ ? -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬) 13:29, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Presumably. Avestan has instr.sg. -a/ā for a-stems. Exarchus (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Are you saying Vedic preserved the Proto-Indo-European inst. sg. suffix *-oh₁ ? -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬) 13:29, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- With ending -ā, see Whitney §327c: "the normal ending ā — thus, yajñā́ , suhávā, mahitvā́ (for yajñéna etc.) — is also not rare in the Veda." Exarchus (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Anachronistic. Also, very unusual stress. Tollef Salemann (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Category:Italian rhymes/ʌ-
[edit]https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Italian_rhymes/%CA%8C-
No phoneme /ʌ/ exists in Italian that is in opposition with /a/, /ɛ/, /e/, /i/, /ɔ/, /o/, or /u/. So this page should not exist. ~2026-23154-49 (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. The only entry listed is ha, which doesn't even say it's pronounced with /ʌ/.
—Mahāgaja · talk 21:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
I'm not GOOD at S.K., but I assume this fails WT:SOP. TooSimilarT0DaFollowingUsername (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Swahili. Redundant with ki-; the upper case letter is not really part of the prefix. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- @HeavenlyAestheticist, do you have any comments as creator of the entry? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
- No, not really. You can go ahead with deleting the page. HeavenlyAestheticist (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Please delete this. The idea was for çelët, a form of çelur (opened), but those are/will be created properly, with a leading ç. -Mondiad2 (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Czech. -pis is not a true suffix in Czech. Words ending in -pis are derived from a deverbal form of the verb psát. Dan Polansky likely marked this as a suffix due to a lack of knowledge about morphology. Due to the editors' lack of attention, the suffix was passed on to several entries erroneously, producing one category and several erroneous etymologies. F. V. Lorenz (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Vininn126 (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Voltaigne (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Kazakh.
This page should be deleted because the second word (وزەن) lacks a possesive suffix which indicates ownership or belonging. Possesive suffixes in Kazakh noun phrases cannot be omitted in most cases.
In addition, there is already a formal name of Argun in Kazakh, which is Арғұн. (see https://kk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%80%D2%93%D2%B1%D0%BD)
Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
May 2026
[edit]Turkish. Pretty much everything about it is wrong. The term isn't attested as modern Turkish in {{R:tr:TDK}} or {{R:tr:OTK}}, but only as Ottoman Turkish in {{R:ota:Redhouse}} and that's only as the Persian borrowing from ﺳﻮﺩﻩ (sude). The Arabic borrowing isn't attested in Ottoman in {{R:ota:Redhouse}}, {{R:ota:Kelekian}} or {{R:ota:Sami:1899}}, and the Arabic ancestor term seems to be made up.
The entry also incorrectly labels the term as a given name, but proper nouns are capitalized in Turkish, as in Sude, where the Proper noun section can be moved to, as a Persian borrowing. Orexan (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Very shaky word for many reasons. First of all, it doesn't match Fijian phonology of how loanwords are adapted (English /h/ is usually silent; cf. Odurasi (“Honduras”) or idi (“hinge”)), therefore it should be Itila if anything. Secondly, proper nouns, especially of non-Fijian origin, are typically written as in English anyway without adaptation; see this screenshot from a Fijian newspaper. Finally, in a Fijian context, this just doesn't fit with established naming patterns. — oi yeah nah mate amazingJUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 11:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Turkish. Aside from the fact that it's created by an IP and not attested by any Turkish dictionary, that it only comes up on a handful of social platforms as an unofficial unadapted borrowing, it isn't the most necessary or useful word in any context. Orexan (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- Being a somewhat useful term is not a condition for inclusion. The question is, is it likely that someone would run across the term and want to know what it means? ‑‑Lambiam 12:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Turkish. Self-motivated adaptation from Azeri qohumbazlık (“nepotism”) (don't know how strongly attestable that is), but apparently derived from qohum (“relative”), and this form doesn't exist in Turkish. Someone's been striving since early 2020's (2017 at the earliest) to make kohumbazlık a real Turkish word, adding its info on Wiktionary, Turkish Wikipedia, and any other independent websites they could find, but other than that practical usage and acknowledgment is non-existent. Orexan (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
This word has no new or special meaning other than its surface meaning, acquired through agglunation zengin-leş-tir-ici. While still a meaningful and real word, since Turkish is an agglunative language, counting all such forms would create an unreasonable amount of entries, and it has been the policiy of Wiktionary to create seperate entries for such words only when they are especially common, noteable, or have a meaning outside its surface-level meaning, which is not true for this entry. Moreover, this entry has been in requests for verification since 2025, with no activity. I believe this entry should be deleted. Sinus46 (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. This suffix cluster can be applied to any adjective and it would create new adjectives in the fashion of "en<adjective>ing" or "adjectifying" and not all of these warrant a lemma page.
- Orexan (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. There are quite a few entirely unattested Turkish suffixed SOP terms (some of which I listed in the nomination I just added below), but this isn't one of them. I can also probably find some attestations. Does Wiktionary have a policy for suffixed SOP terms as apposed to one for separate words? If so, I will readily change this vote to delete. Wreaderick (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- We have no clear policy. The notion of “word” in our rules is very Anglocentric. A similar issue arises with Dutch and German closed compounds, which often are nonce creations (Sondertopf,[43] zeilmeisje[44]) whose meanings are compositional in the contexts in which they are created. ‑‑Lambiam 21:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah I was wondering how they deal with German compounds. I believe there needs to be some policy discussion on this matter, though it might not be very fruitful, given how fuzzy the concept can be. I quite like this word for keeping, even though I do find it to be SOP (though I can't really imagine it being used in a monetary sense). On the other hand, words such as abajurlu and abajursuz are clearly nonsensical derivations. Wreaderick (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
- We have no clear policy. The notion of “word” in our rules is very Anglocentric. A similar issue arises with Dutch and German closed compounds, which often are nonce creations (Sondertopf,[43] zeilmeisje[44]) whose meanings are compositional in the contexts in which they are created. ‑‑Lambiam 21:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
German. At first glance this looks entirely sum-of-parts to me: it's just "entrance and exit" with the application of a suspended hyphen. The only quirk is that "Ein- und Ausgang" is somewhat more likely to refer to a single doorway acting as both, compared to "Eingang und Ausgang", though not necessarily so. But does that really count as enough of an idiomatic meaning? — This unsigned comment was added by PhoenicianLetters (talk • contribs) at 15:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC).
- I'm leaning delete as SOP. ScribeYearling (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Turkish. There is no such thing. The term isn't listed on {{R:tr:TDK}} or {{R:tr:OTK}}, doesn't even bring up any meaningful result on a Google search. The closest thing is a variety of Turkish delights produced by an Azerbaijani brand named Pamuk. Not a joke. Orexan (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Were they thinking of pamuk şeker? Other creations of the editor are also suspect, such as that of “Turkish” olca (now removed). ‑‑Lambiam 20:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per all above. The editor who created this entry in 2012 seems to have intended it to mean marshmallow judging by their edit summary. Wreaderick (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Georgian. Sum-of-parts? See provincial capital. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 16:09, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
- It is, yes. Nicodene (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Russian. Collocation. Vininn126 (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Vietnamese, SOP. Billcipher123 (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. SoP of móc (to penetrate by finger) + lồn (vagina or penis)
- I'd also add some usages: móc khu (dialectal: to insert a finger into the butthole), móc thức ăn (to pick out food from the teeth or braces), móc túi (to pickpocket). These examples support my opinion of móc lồn being SoP. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Vietnamese, SOP. Billcipher123 (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. phọt in this sense is not only used for cứt, but also for nước miếng (examples), óc (citation), máu (citation). HungKhanh0106 (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Linh Huynh (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Vietnamese. SOP. Billcipher123 (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- The “literal” sense is obviously SoP (and is actually the etymology, so I edited it), but I fail to see how the “vulgar” sense is SoP. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- @MuDavid: Uhm, actually, I think the vulgar sense is still SoP, since "bắn" can also carry the slang meaning "to ejaculate." In which case, "tùm lum" is just an adverb. Billcipher123 (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with Billcipher123's sentiment. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- @MuDavid: Uhm, actually, I think the vulgar sense is still SoP, since "bắn" can also carry the slang meaning "to ejaculate." In which case, "tùm lum" is just an adverb. Billcipher123 (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Vietnamese, SoP. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Linh Huynh (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Contrived Turkish causatives
[edit]I'm pinging both @Bartanaqa and @Orexan because we had a perhaps tangentially related discussion recently.
(I also apologize for the double ping, I put this in the wrong discussion page earlier, I felt it would be however be more confusing not to have a ping to this page.)
There are a lot of weirdly contrived Turkish entries that seem to have been created by the now-inactive Sae1962, such as yontturtmak, süslettirmek, ayarlattırmak, parçalattırmak, and büktürtmek, all double causatives. I propose deleting all Turkish double causatives (they also have badly written definitions). The only exception would be yaptırtmak (“to have have done”), because of the commonality of yapmak. Wreaderick (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- More eyesore entries by the same "contributor." Some of his fascinating work was purged a while back; see here.
- Delete instead of putting
{{causative of|tr|yontturmak}}, the entries should be removed altogether.
- Delete instead of putting
- Orexan (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- Wow that was satisfying to see, I'm almost impressed given that it seems these additions were not automated and that some strange words were used like psikozla. Wreaderick (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- Is there any way to filter through this guy's "contributions" to only find his Turkish edits/page creations? I can't seem to find a way to do it. Like yesterday I came across the monstrosity that is öldürtülmek. He has also added a whole bunch of "synonyms" and "antonyms" like the red link yaşatılmamak under öldürülmek that I removed yesterday. I'm sure you've seen these terms suffixed with the negative -me everywhere. All this stuff just needs to be mass deleted. Wreaderick (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Wreaderick I don't think there's an easy way to do that, and it's unnecessary to scan through thousands of Turkish entries/edits of his. Instead it would be a more fruitful effort to look through Category:Turkish terms by suffix for weird suffixes and weird entries in them, since he was kinda obsessed with but poorly informed about suffixes. Just browsing through I come across Category:Turkish terms suffixed with -si (weird), it has a bunch of entries that shouldn't be there, one of which is metresi, it has a nonsensical Noun sense with a usage example, and it turns out to be created by this same contributor. For a mass deletion proposal, you need to very clearly define the proposal, not vague like the title of this section, make a definitive list of entries and post it either here or WT:Beer Parlor, and ping a bunch of active contributors of the Turkish section. That's the only way real and swift action will be taken. Orexan (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
- While I am favour of a clean-up sweep of such contrived double causatives, some double causatives are in common use and should be left alone or restored. An example is öldürtmek:
- ‑‑Lambiam 20:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
- Yes I neglected to realize that when I first made this proposal. öldürtmek is different from the ones I listed in that ölmek is intransitive, though even certain other entries of this form such as ağlattırmak are contrived because "to make cry" isn't as base a meaning as "to kill" ("to make die"). I will make a better-structured proposal sometime soon. These entries must be removed. Wreaderick (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Old Uyghur. Self-explanatory. I thought the quotation (which is the only attestation I could find) was in Turkish (for some reason), but it's actually in Syriac (obviously). I cannot find it in VATEC, nor in any other source. Better removed than presented as given.
(EDIT: Might as well give the original in full, from here [48]:
[in Syriac script:] ʾwnglywn qdyšʾ d.mrn yšwʿ mšyhʾ (...) krwzwtʾ d.ywḥnn
[in Uyghur script:] ʾwnklywn qty-šʾ dmrn ʾyšwq kʾrwẓwtʾ dlwq̈ʾ mʾrqws
Needless to say, this is just the case of Syriac text being written in the Uyghur script, which is rare but not unprecedented.) AmaçsızBirKişi (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Turkish. Does not have a sense for anything other than the name of a company. Orexan (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about Turkish capitalization, but it sure looks like SPELLING IN ALL CAPS is supposed to indicate some sort of corporate status- in which case this spelling wouldn't be used for anything that meets WT:NSE. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Chuck Entz I don't think the ALL CAPS spelling was thought through very deeply, @Moonpulsar probably just copied the company logo as is or something. Speaking of which, most of the brand examples given on the RfD discussion for Sony are in ALL CAPS but lemmatized in Title Case. But that's irrelevant since ROKETSAN doesn't have a noun sense. Orexan (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, when I saw the ASELSAN page, I thought why not give it a go. It was an edit I made late at night, so I didn’t give it much thought. If it violates the rules, we can certainly remove it. Moonpulsar (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Regardless of the capitalization, in no way has this company name entered the Turkish lexicon (see WT:COMPANY). ‑‑Lambiam 14:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Chuck Entz I don't think the ALL CAPS spelling was thought through very deeply, @Moonpulsar probably just copied the company logo as is or something. Speaking of which, most of the brand examples given on the RfD discussion for Sony are in ALL CAPS but lemmatized in Title Case. But that's irrelevant since ROKETSAN doesn't have a noun sense. Orexan (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
June 2026
[edit]Translingual. page same as -w- Plural of qaws (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
- RfD-failed as technical request. Juwan 🕊️🌈 11:46, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
Translingual. Rfd-sense:
- one-eyed creatures in Ancient Greek mythology
First of all, this should be covered by entries in various languages, such as we already have at (lowercase) cyclops for English and Latin. I don't think we treat any other non-scientific terms from Latin that have been widely borrowed into various other languages as Translingual.
Second, capitalization and the plural aren't all that consistent between languages, which is further evidence against this being independent of all of them.
Although we don't have any entries in specific languages with this spelling in uppercase, the usage is out there- I think the only reason we have this as Translingual is that we already had an entry for a genus of copepods, and it was just too easy to add it there. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- Delete, although I have created an English entry for "Alternate case form of cyclops". In fact, on Google Books almost all the hits are capitalised, even when they aren't referring to Polyphemus specifically, so maybe the capitalised form should be the main lemma. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Chuck Entz, Smurrayinchester I have just deleted the translingual sense, since the term is spelt differently in different languages, including cyclope in French, ciclop in Catalan and Romanian, Zyklop in German, ciclope in Italian, cyklop in Polish, cíclope in Portuguese and Spanish, etc. Note that all have dropped the 's' in original Greek. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Turkish. Non-lemma forms created with poor understanding of exceptional cases in declension. devir would lose the final vowel when it takes a suffix that starts with a vowel, as per Ünlü düşmesi, and become devri, devrime, devrine respectively.
Some other words that go through this process are;
fikir + -i → fikri etc. Orexan (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Delete as very rare misspellings of devri. devrime and devrine. ‑‑Lambiam 14:09, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Turkish. Completely made up. No dictionary lists them, no result on Google except their WT page. Orexan (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Tatar. Misspelling and trivial deformed (Russian letters-only) spelling of күбрәк (kübräk), which is an inflection of күп (küp, “numerous”, adjective). @Underfell Flowey —Fish bowl (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Tatar.
# {{alternative spelling of|tt|үлем}}
Trivial deformed (Russian letters-only) spelling. —Fish bowl (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Turkish. This term does not appear to have survived into modern Turkish from Ottoman Turkish. It's so obsolete that the latest edition of the {{R:tr:TDK}} doesn't even mark it obsolete. It simply does not list it at all. Do we really need entries for terms that 99.99% of the population would have no clue what the word means? The reference used for the entry cites several sources, two of which point to works released 100+ years ago, before the language reform in 1928. The other two don't bring up any results. Orexan (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Sounds like a case for WT:RFV. If enough attestations in modern Turkish can be found, it should be kept. If not, it shouldn't. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- GBS shows a few genuine uses,[49][50] which appear to be of an adjectival sense, “unable to work”. ‑‑Lambiam 14:09, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
- I revised the entry. I think it's compliant now. The variant is the vulgar of amelmande, which makes it difficult to attest. M Ali Kara (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Indonesian. Sum of parts for simply meaning media that's interactive. Also, the definition links to interactive media which doesn't exist. HyperAnd (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Deleted. There are unfortunately a ton of Indonesian SOP terms that need to be deleted. Someone who knows Indonesian needs to scan through the terms in Category:Indonesian multiword terms and identify the SOP ones (not an easy task as there are 7,702 such terms currently). Part of the problem is that Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia ("Great Dictionary of the Indonesian Language") has a lot of SOP collocations in it and that leads people who don't know or care about Wiktionary SOP policies to mechanically add such collocations. @Ateofen has made their lack of respect for SOP principles clear in their talk page messages (@Xbypass is another such user who creates Indonesian SOP terms and doesn't seem to respect SOP principles either); IMO if they continue to create SOP entries and refuse to stop, they may need a block. Benwing2 (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- The problem is the criteria of SOP it self.
- "Part of the problem is that Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia ("Great Dictionary of the Indonesian Language") has a lot of SOP collocations in it...." Your sentence is the evidence that it fulfill the Wiktionary:Idioms#Tests of idiomaticity, particulary on Lemming test.
- So, instead of had bad faith as "@Ateofen has made their lack of respect for SOP principles", have you read the criteria or the test for SOP yourself?
- " Ateofen (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- You completely misunderstand the SOP rules. The lemming test is not in WT:CFI but in WT:Idioms, which (as it says at the top of the page) is not a formal policy page but a think tank, merely expressing ideas. Furthermore, if you read the text written under "Lemming test" itself you will see
- Having entries in lexical sources that are frequently referenced (e.g. general monolingual dictionaries, such as the Oxford Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, etc. for English) is often used as an argument for keeping challenged entries.
- That doesn't say that inclusion in another dictionary is sufficient to make a term non-SOP. In fact, if you actually look at the vote to formally include the lemming test in WT:CFI you will see that it failed. In general, the Lemming test is one of the least reliable tests for idiomaticity. Have you actually read and tried to understand WT:CFI? You look like someone who would rather wikilawyer trying to come up with reasons to include non-idiomatic terms instead of someone who is actually trying to understand and follow the SOP principles. Benwing2 (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- I tried to understand and follow what is written there, hence I wrote the problem is on the rule itself. Instead on the "fail" vote [officially, no consensus], I think you misunderstand that the vote is "on the proposed action, not on the rationale". I actually read and tried to understand WT:CFI, but it still unclear on the objectivity such as in the "easily derived" on WT:CFI. You look like someone who would rather wikilawyer to exclude technical terms (technical meaning within a certain field, "Prior knowledge" test) and specific terms (terms that have specific restrictions to the meaning of constituents, which could not be surmised pragmatically) instead of someone who is actually trying to understand the actual problem. Ateofen (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- The SOP rule has served us well for years and I have never heard a complaint that the "rule itself" is broken, hence I seriously doubt the problem is the rule. A term like "interactive media" is transparently SOP because it just means "media that is interactive"; whether it tends to occur more often in a specific field does not negate its SOP nature. Benwing2 (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- I should add, it appears to me that you do understand but do not like the prevailing interpretation of SOP, and are essentially ignoring this interpretation in favor of your own belief about how it should be interpreted. This is not helpful when it comes to creating a collaborative dictionary. I would ask you to follow the prevailing interpretation whether you like it or not; if you keep adding SOP terms, eventually you may get blocked. Benwing2 (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- The SOP rule has served us well for years and I have never heard a complaint that the "rule itself" is broken, hence I seriously doubt the problem is the rule. A term like "interactive media" is transparently SOP because it just means "media that is interactive"; whether it tends to occur more often in a specific field does not negate its SOP nature. Benwing2 (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- I tried to understand and follow what is written there, hence I wrote the problem is on the rule itself. Instead on the "fail" vote [officially, no consensus], I think you misunderstand that the vote is "on the proposed action, not on the rationale". I actually read and tried to understand WT:CFI, but it still unclear on the objectivity such as in the "easily derived" on WT:CFI. You look like someone who would rather wikilawyer to exclude technical terms (technical meaning within a certain field, "Prior knowledge" test) and specific terms (terms that have specific restrictions to the meaning of constituents, which could not be surmised pragmatically) instead of someone who is actually trying to understand the actual problem. Ateofen (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- You completely misunderstand the SOP rules. The lemming test is not in WT:CFI but in WT:Idioms, which (as it says at the top of the page) is not a formal policy page but a think tank, merely expressing ideas. Furthermore, if you read the text written under "Lemming test" itself you will see
Turkish. Categorically doesn't exist and made up by a notorious contributor. Honestly just feels like sloppy AI translation, except the entry was created in 2012. TR term that corresponds to hard disk is "sabit disk". Orexan (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. There are a ton of software terms of this sort such as hiper bağ that should just be deleted en masse. I should collect and nominate them for deletion sometime. Wreaderick (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- Please do see if you can find the time to do this. Benwing2 (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for reminding me to do this. I can most certainly find some time to do so this week, probably even within the next few days. I actually believe there are a good deal more Turkish words that need deleting, but the discussions I started did not result in any action being taken. See here, here and here. How would you suggest I go about taking care of these? Thanks Wreaderick (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Sometimes it takes awhile for RFDs of non-English words to go through, especially when there are collections of terms to be deleted, because there aren't that many editors who have the requisite knowledge to properly determine which terms should stay and which ones should go. In complicated cases it can take some months, e.g. Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Reconstruction#Deleting_Proto-Italic_entries_with_one_descendant, where you can see it took about 7 months between the initial proposal and the eventual deletion of the terms. That said, in more obvious cases, it can go pretty quickly, e.g. at one point we deleted several thousand made-up Manx terms that (IIRC) were clearly all derived from a single-source attempt to create a Neo-Manx conlang. Even just supplying a list of likely terms to delete is helpful in getting the ball rolling, but to be most helpful, you should try to be as specific as possible as to what the issue is with each term (as @Graearms did with the bad Proto-Italic terms); this makes it possible for someone like me who doesn't know Turkish to evaluate the evidence for deleting the terms. Maybe as a first approximation, group the software terms into sets based on what the issue is. E.g. Who added them? Are they total fabrications made up by the editor who added them, or if not, where do they originate? Were they attempts at linguistic prescriptivism that just went nowhere, or did they have some usage but have since gone obsolete? Etc. Benwing2 (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- As can be seen, many of these dubious if not outright incorrect entries (not just the computing ones) were added by one Sae1962 years ago. He seems to have not had a good command of English given the Turkish entry he made as a translation of Boolean treats -ean as a language-making suffix and his many many bad definitions. It hurts seeing one user have such a bad legacy of creating harmful content that takes many more years and editor-hours to clean up.
- As for the Turkish Language Association coinages that I nominated, I see that they're only ever given in dictionaries or listed as synonyms (so like in a textbook you would see something like "A [well-known term], also known as [puristic term perhaps no one uses], is a ..."). I don't think these usages qualify for WT:CFI. Wreaderick (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah we have (tried to) get more proactive about blocking editors who don't know what they're doing and produce lots of crap for exactly this reason, that it's a lot of work to clean up after them. Unfortunately this editor's entries are old and they're no longer active (since 2019), so they kind of slipped through the cracks. I do see that they were blocked once in 2013 for 3 months with the note (Disruptive edits: Damage control, see WT:RFDO#Lots of templates by User:Sae1962), which doesn't sound good; usually the first block is less than 3 months, and if they got a 3 month block right away there must have been serious issues. It's unfortunate they weren't permablocked before they did so much damage, but we have gotten more serious in the last few years about indefinite blocks of such people. If the contributions are uniformly bad, it might sense to delete everything they created (to the extent that's still possible), but that would require significant consensus. In the meantime I'll definitely treat anything they created as a red flag, but it would still help if you could enumerate some of the specific problematic entries and mention what the issue(s) is/are. Benwing2 (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- Sometimes it takes awhile for RFDs of non-English words to go through, especially when there are collections of terms to be deleted, because there aren't that many editors who have the requisite knowledge to properly determine which terms should stay and which ones should go. In complicated cases it can take some months, e.g. Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Reconstruction#Deleting_Proto-Italic_entries_with_one_descendant, where you can see it took about 7 months between the initial proposal and the eventual deletion of the terms. That said, in more obvious cases, it can go pretty quickly, e.g. at one point we deleted several thousand made-up Manx terms that (IIRC) were clearly all derived from a single-source attempt to create a Neo-Manx conlang. Even just supplying a list of likely terms to delete is helpful in getting the ball rolling, but to be most helpful, you should try to be as specific as possible as to what the issue is with each term (as @Graearms did with the bad Proto-Italic terms); this makes it possible for someone like me who doesn't know Turkish to evaluate the evidence for deleting the terms. Maybe as a first approximation, group the software terms into sets based on what the issue is. E.g. Who added them? Are they total fabrications made up by the editor who added them, or if not, where do they originate? Were they attempts at linguistic prescriptivism that just went nowhere, or did they have some usage but have since gone obsolete? Etc. Benwing2 (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for reminding me to do this. I can most certainly find some time to do so this week, probably even within the next few days. I actually believe there are a good deal more Turkish words that need deleting, but the discussions I started did not result in any action being taken. See here, here and here. How would you suggest I go about taking care of these? Thanks Wreaderick (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Please do see if you can find the time to do this. Benwing2 (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. ‑‑Lambiam 13:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Norwegian. I have updated the entry "nedvurdere" to fit this sense. Vurdere ned could exist but it should just be a sense under "vurdere", with a link to nedvurdere since they mean the same thing. It's also in "Norwegian" instead of Norwegian Bokmål or Nynorsk. Supevan (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
This is not an actual word in Norwegian, it is just a copy of the English term. I think it should just be deleted. Supevan (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Supevan: We have entries for Microsoft in different languages (such as Hungarian, Polish, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish). These could likewise be called “copies of the English term” if we would follow your rationale. J3133 (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
- Hence keep. J3133 (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
According to modern dictionaries, does not exist in this form. Reference: Altay-Russian dictionary by Chumakaev et.al., 2018, 935 pages Aqyal batyr (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- If it formerly existed in this form, it could be an
{{obsolete form of}}or{{superseded spelling of}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC) - Hello, Aqyal batyr.
- I usually refer to ESTJa dictionary.
- For example, Teleut type - *sǟn- is come from *söyün-, and Ervand Sevortyan was said that this word is originally from *sȫn- in the Seventh Estja Dictionary, 346 pages. 몽골어 물리 (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- Dear @몽골어 물리,
- ESTJa is a great effort in Turkic etymology, but it is not designed as a lexicographic dictionary. IMHO, anything you extract from ESTTJa should be first checked against a proper modern lexicographic dictionary for the appropriate language. For Teleut, I would suggest yo to use the modern Altay-Russian dictionary by Chumakaev et al., which is authoritative and exhaustive. There are dedicated Teleut dictionaries as well.
- Even more so, this form is cited in ESTJa under a question mark, which basically means the authors have doubts about it. So do I: Teleut generally retains the labial character of vowels in the first syllable.
- For this word, ESTJa is citing Radloff's dictionary. Do you have access to its appropriate volume in electronic form? Aqyal batyr (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, Aqyal batyr. Thank you. I usually use pdf files about Radloff's dictionary. 몽골어 물리 (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- + This is ESTJa Dictionaries.
- For example,
- https://altaica.ru/LIBRARY/edtl.php.
- Also, This page is for Radloff's dictionary.
- For example,
- https://altaica.ru/turkic_dictionaries.html#1 몽골어 물리 (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Dear @몽골어 물리,
Simply does not exist. Reference: Kyrgyz-Russian dictionary by Yudakhin. Creator account blocked. Aqyal batyr (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
This page is useless, as the main entry lists that the particle gu causes h-prothesis, and other terms which cause h-prothesis or other mutations don't have separate pages for the term plus the mutation, as the mutation isn't considered part of the particle but part of the term that's being mutated. Altronic (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Delete as we have already done with an t- and na h-. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
பன்முக
[edit]பன்முக (normative is பன்முகம்), as an adjective, does not need a separate entry on Tamil Wiktionary. I have already made an entry for பன்முகம், the noun, on Tamil Wiktionary, and would like பன்முக [51] to be deleted CreatorLang (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- @CreatorLang This is English Wiktionary, and we don't have any control over Tamil Wiktionary. You'll have to post your request there. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, where exactly should I go to request that? CreatorLang (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
July 2026
[edit]This page was deleted as part of a mass deletion of entries created by the IPA ~2026-37666-14. However, there was an effort to clean up the page prior to its deletion. If I remember correctly, it was @SixtyShips who did most of the work. Unfortunately, the page history and my notifications pertaining to the page are inaccessible to me by now, so I hope I didn't ping the wrong person. The individual who cleaned up the entry was a Bulgarian native speaker, so I'd assume they would notice if there were any major inaccuracies with the page. Also pinging @Surjection. Graearms (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Graearms Yes, that was me! Thanks for pinging me. I can confirm that I cleaned up the entry and the Bulgarian definitions and forms were accurate before it was swept up in the mass deletion. I definitely support undeleting it, or at least having an admin restore the text to my user space so I can recreate it." SixtyShips (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- Restored; RFD-resovled. Vininn126 (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
Greek. The page seems to be a relic of old Wiktionary, judging by the fact that it was last edited 9 years ago. It's a typical sum of parts issue, but I think that it's additionally made even sloppier by the fact that it links to a now deleted English page, that was deleted for the same exact reason. — This unsigned comment was added by To te umarłe słowa (talk • contribs) at 10:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC).
- What with the exclamation mark, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! should certainlt be a redlink, but also without the exclamation mark it twice did not survive an RFD: see Talk:Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. ‑‑Lambiam 21:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Dutch. Incorrect, and undermaintained, infinitive of the separable verb zekerstellen. The split form, which is stellen zeker, occurs only in finite clauses. Since the correct lemma already exists and this page contains no well-developed content, it should probably be deleted. Marnixvdb (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- The univerbated form, while meeting the CFI, does not occur in the woordenlijst of the Taalunie. The two-word spelling is also fairly common and is attested in the official transactions of the Dutch parlement.[52][53][54] How clear is is that (from a prescriptive viewpoint – which is not Wiktionary's viewpoint) the univerbation is "correct"? ‑‑Lambiam 20:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- The two-worded form also does not occur in this woordenlijst. I admit that I was led by my own native intuition about the word: I would personally interpret zeker stellen as to suppose with certainty, rather than the lexicalized verb.
- I also want to refer to the Prisma page on these verb combinations, which states: "[Het] ligt niet vast in duidelijke regels." ("[It] is not laid down in clear rules.") I was probably too quick to suggest full deletion. Perhaps zeker stellen should instead be kept as an alternative spelling linked to zekerstellen.
- I do think the univerbated form should be the primary lemma. The aforementioned Prisma treats it as the primary form, and that resource is linked to by OnzeTaal. Marnixvdb (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Does the woordenlijst contain any multiword terms, with the words separated by spaces? ‑‑Lambiam 20:10, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Sanskrit. This doesn't really exist as a stem in Sanskrit, there are only the collocations द्यौष् पिता (dyáuṣ pitā́) (nominative) and द्यौष् पितर् (dyàuṣ pítar) (vocative). A hypothetical genitive would rather be *दिवस् पितुर् (*divás pitúr) (compare πατρὸς Διὸς in Iliad 2.146). Should the etymology be moved to द्यौष्पिता (dyauṣpitā) instead? Exarchus (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Note: Latin Iuppiter links to Ζεῦ πάτερ by linking to the vocatives separately (instead of us having a specific page for it).
- Note also that the Padapatha text marks द्यौष् पिता (dyáuṣ pitā́) (RV 4.1.10) as two separate words (while dvandva's like इन्द्रावरुणा 'indrāvaruṇā' are given as one word). Exarchus (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Bashkir. Does not exist in Bashkir. Not attested in any Bashkir dictionary I was able to consult.Aqyal batyr (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- This is a matter for RFV, not RFD. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
German. Standard: ausgepfiffen, auspfiff, auspfiffst, auspfiffen, auspfifft
These entries seem to be hastily created from a misspecified conjugation template (which has been amended by now). While there is attestable usage of these forms, I have not found any other entries on Wiktionary that list nonstandard weak forms of strong verbs. kr8gz (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- I am inclined to
Support this. While "ausgepfeift" in particular has a handful of google results, we are talking about, like, 10 in total once you discount all the chaff, just about all in the context of football, and it is unclear how many of these are by native speakers (in contrast to ~60k results for standard "ausgepfiffen"). - There is also the option of "auspfeifen" as a secondary derivative from "Pfeife", as in "to finish smoking a pipe", in which case it would regularly be weak: there are a couple of mentions of this to be found on google books (though getting the extracts on google to display correctly is very hit or miss). But I can already tell from the previews that those are all mentions, not uses, in metalinguistic discussions, nothing really citable. PhoenicianLetters (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- There is some tendency to employ pfeifen and derivatives as a weak verb in football or sports, search
"Schiedsrichter pfeifte", it can easily get through without raising many eyebrows, unlike the theater auspfeifen. Probably a function of emphasizing telic Aktionsart, as in weak erlöschen against strong erleschen. Fay Freak (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- There is some tendency to employ pfeifen and derivatives as a weak verb in football or sports, search
Hittite. Duplicate of 𒄷𒅖𒍣. Graearms (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
Italiot Greek.
Please see the talk page. This lemma is just the noun glòssa with the possessive pronoun ma. It should be quickly removed and replaced with the actual lemma. Missileboi (have any questions?) 07:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Unami. Redundant to shis, which was created first. Both were created by @VGPaleontologist. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Polish.
Common compound element, not a prefix, see also User talk:~2026-40201-18. Vininn126 (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Arabic, I misspelt the title while creating and kept the al- when it should just be أدوار جندرية and not الأدوار الجندرية Miyika (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Deleted. This is actually the kind of mistake where you could use the speedy-deletion template
{{delete}}, since it's clearly an error and doesn't really need much of a discussion. Benwing2 (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
Translingual. Was marked for deletion ny someone else but a discussion was never opened. Given that I found the page due to a link being messed up, why not just turn the page into a hard redirect instead of deleting it? — BABR・kurwa? 22:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
August 2026
[edit]Old Persian 𐏃𐏀𐎠 is an erroneous/unattested spellings of 𐏃𐏀𐎠𐎴𐎶. --{{victar|talk}} 18:35, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. Graearms (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
Listed under persian as a regional first person singular subject pronoun. If the dialect has اژ, a.k.a it has PIr ĵ -> j or z as in NWIr instead of ĵ -> d, I don't think it's persian (probably some Central Plateau Dialect). Persian (and even non persian) speaking Iranians love to think all Iranian dialects are just dialects of persian, but I don't think that position should be taken by wiktionary Isama201610 (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
Sanskrit root invented to explain the origin of मञ्जु (mañju) etc. Already indicated as such by Monier-Williams. Exarchus (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
Sanskrit. This is basically a wrong grammatical analysis (by an ancient Vedic commentator) of the genitive ग्मस् (gmás), gen. of क्षम् (kṣám). NWS gives "zu streichen". Exarchus (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Turkish.
delete M Ali Kara (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Turkish. delete M Ali Kara (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Turkish.
Turkish. Probably a made-up name coincidentally exists but only 14 people have it: Nişanyan, Sevan (2020–), “Akıllı”, in Nişanyan Adlar. Türkiye Kişi Adları Sözlüğü [Nişanyan Names. Turkey's Personal Names Dictionary]
Nonsense Turkish computing, software, and internet senses
[edit]@Orexan, @Bartanaqa, @M Ali Kara, @Lambiam, @Samubert96, @Benwing2
I've just spent the past hour looking through the categories for Turkish computing, software, and internet terms, and these are the ones I couldn't find suitable attestations for. I'll just assume without exhaustively checking that they were all created years ago by you-know-who based on dubious translations of English terms, but some have since become just barely CFI-attestable according to my Google searches. I have obviously not included those in the list below. Some of the words that need checking in those categories also have other non-computing related senses; I will go through them when I have the time and delete the computing senses.
Boole'ca, Boole'sal, hiper bağ, soyut arayüz, sözdizimsel tuz, şişman istemci, üst bağ, zayıf istemci, ağ günlüğü, sosyal paylaşım sitesi, sosyal paylaşım Web sitesi, sosyal paylaşım web sitesi, adsız sınıf, çevirme dili, Demeter Yasası, Demeter yasası, desen dili, final sınıf, isimsiz sınıf, kullanım senaryosu, mimari desen, model-view-presenter, programlama prensibi, tekil kalıp, uygulama iskeleti, yazılım tasarımı Wreaderick (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
Strong support. Please just delete everything from Sae1962 (talk • contribs), I don't think they have a single beneficial contribution. M Ali Kara (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2026 (UTC)- I'd like to note that we should also delete all non-lemma forms of these words which many if not all seem to have. Wreaderick (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- Quite a few of these, even if attested, would still not satisfy our CFI, being SOP. Please remove this crud. However, the Turkish Wikpedia has several uses of sosyal paylaşım sitesi, and I also find uses outside the Wikiverse (e.g. here: “Türkiye’de sosyal medya, sosyal ağ ve sosyal paylaşım sitesi/ağı kavramları aynı uygulamaları farklı isimlerle tanımlayan kavramlardır.”), so this term may have some currency. ‑‑Lambiam 19:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Wreaderick Many thanks for doing this work. I support removal of all these terms as well as corresponding non-lemma forms. Also as @Lambiam points out, many of these terms are SOP e.g. programlama prensibi = "programming principle" and yazılım tasarımı = "software design", and there are probably loads more. Any such term whose English equivalent is either a redlink or separate individually-linked words is prima facie an SOP term, since our coverage of non-SOP collocations is overall pretty good. Benwing2 (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- A lot of the other terms in those categories (ones I didn't put in the list above) I was only able to find a handful of (often literally only three) attestations for, mostly on blogs or technical guides/explanations on university websites. It seemed almost like a coin toss which ones would be deleted; I was able to find sözdizimsel şeker but not sözdizimsel tuz. I excluded any that gave the original English term along with the Turkish, I don't think those meet the "conveying meaning" requirement at CFI. I also excluded dictionary definitions and the more common Turkish-English translation website in my search results. Wreaderick (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- While I’m quite familiar with the term syntactic sugar, I’d never heard of syntactic salt. See also Google Books Ngram Viewer: it is hardly surprising that uses of sözdizimsel tuz are hard to come by. ‑‑Lambiam 13:05, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- A lot of the other terms in those categories (ones I didn't put in the list above) I was only able to find a handful of (often literally only three) attestations for, mostly on blogs or technical guides/explanations on university websites. It seemed almost like a coin toss which ones would be deleted; I was able to find sözdizimsel şeker but not sözdizimsel tuz. I excluded any that gave the original English term along with the Turkish, I don't think those meet the "conveying meaning" requirement at CFI. I also excluded dictionary definitions and the more common Turkish-English translation website in my search results. Wreaderick (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
Dolgan. RFD by @몽골어 물리. Reference (Stachowski 1993) added by me. Ivadon (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
Greek. Rfd-sense: Noun: Big Brother (fictional character from Nineteen Eighty-Four)
That is not a "Noun".
Nota bene: The English "Proper noun" sense for the fictional character failed RFV in 2014. Talk:Big_Brother#RFV_discussion:_April–July_2014
o/ Emanuele6 (talk 09:32, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete, for the same reason as for the English proper noun. ‑‑Lambiam 10:17, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
I misspelled the name of the page when creating it. It should have been خنوثة. Miyika (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
Sanskrit. These are aorist forms, see Mayrhofer or Lubotsky or LIV. @Graearms Exarchus (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Presumably it shouldn't be deleted, but instead moved then to the page for the aorist. Graearms (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- If the title does not change, the correction does not involve a page move. Presumably (I have not examined the issue), the correction would be to replace
{{sa-verb|दभ्|1|tr=dábhati}}by{{sa-verb|दभ्|1||aorist|tr=dábhati}}. ‑‑Lambiam 10:33, 2 September 2026 (UTC)- Better yet,
{{sa-verb|दभ्|1||aorist|head=दभ॑ति}}. Thus I vote keep and fix. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:59, 2 September 2026 (UTC)- The 3sg. indicative of the root aorist would be अद॑प् (ádap). दभति (dabhati) would at most be a 3sg. aorist subjunctive. Exarchus (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- Better yet,
- If the title does not change, the correction does not involve a page move. Presumably (I have not examined the issue), the correction would be to replace
Serbo-Croatian.
The entry proposes the existence of a suffix -nje and demonstrates it being used to form the verbal noun branje by appending it to the passive participle bran. But if branje is indeed formed from the passive participle bran rather than the verb stem br-, then clearly the suffix that's being used is -je, not -nje. And indeed, the entry for -je states: "In older grammars also considered to be used in formation of verbal nouns from their passive participle form." So branje is either formed as br- + -an + -je, or if a suffix is being appended directly to the verb stem, then it's formed as br- + -anje. The same is true for all verbal nouns in Serbo-Croatian; either they're formed as <verb root> + -an/-en + -je, or they're formed as <verb root> + -anje/-enje.
--~2026-45909-73 (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- One detail I forgot - an important issue to clear up is whether the verb stem is indeed br-, or bra-. The verb's present forms answer this question unequivocally; if the stem were bra-, the 1p.sg. berem et.al. becomes explainable only by introducing a suppletive stem, and similarly for nearly all Serbo-Croatian verbs.
- The reason the stem seemingly changes form from br- to ber- in the present forms seems most likely to be related to Havlík's law (the word is inherited from Proto-Slavic *bьràti). ~2026-45909-73 (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
Kazakh. Added by @Vtgnoq7238rmqco but not listed.
You can see the usage:
- 2023 February 1, “شي جينپيڭ ۆەنگريانىڭ ۆەنگريا - جۇڭگو قوس ءتىل مەكتەبىنىڭ وقۋشىلارىنا جاۋاپ حات جازدى”, in حالىق تورابى[55]:
- تاياۋدا مەملەكەت ءتوراعاسى شي جينپيڭ ۆەنگريانىڭ ۆەنگريا - جۇڭگو قوس ءتىل مەكتەبىندەگى وقۋشىلارعا جاۋاپ حات جازىپ، ۆەنگريا جاستارى مەن ورەندەرىن جۇڭگونى اناعۇرلىم كوبىرەك تۇسىنۋگە، جۇڭگو - ۆەنگريا دوستىق ىستەرىنىڭ جالعاستىرىپ، دامىتۋدىڭ ەلشىلەرى بولۋعا شابىتتاندىردى.
- tayawda memleket törağasi šıy jıynpıyŋ vengriyänıŋ vengriyä - jüŋgö qos til mektebindegi oquwšılarğa jawap xat jazıp, vengriyä jastarı men örenderin jüŋgöni anağurlım köbirek tüsinüwge, jüŋgö - vengriyä dostıq isteriniŋ jalğastırıp, damıtuwdıŋ elšileri boluwğa šabıttandırdı.
- Recently, President Xi Jinping wrote a reply to students at the Hungarian — Chinese Bilingual School in Hungary, encouraging Hungarian youths and students to learn more about China and to become envoys who carry forward and develop China — Hungary friendship.
- (Can we date this quote?), Қ. Халықов, M. Фрешли, “Венгрия мен Қазақстан мәдени мұраларын сақтау, дамуы мен интеграциялау» ұжымдық монографиясы”, in Central Asian Journal of Art Studies, page 132:
- Презентацияға Венгрия жағынан “Мәдениетаралық Славян Зерттеу тобының” директоры, PhD докторы Михали Фрешли мен орталықтың аға қызметкері Monica Kondola қатысты.
- Prezentacıyağa Vengrıya jağınan “Mädeniyetaralıq Slavyan Zerttew tobınıŋ” dıyrektorı, PhD doktorı Mıyxalıy Frešliy men ortalıqtıŋ ağa qızmetkeri Monica Kondola qatıstı.
- At the presentation, representing Hungary were Mihály Fresli, director of the “Slavic Intercultural Research Group”, and Monica Kondola, a senior employee of the center.
- 2014, Pálóczi Horváth András, Keleti népek a középkori Magyarországon, Budapest–Piliscsaba: Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem, page 291:
- Біздің кітабымыз 10-13 ғасырларда Шығыс Еуропа далаларынан Мажарстан (Венгрия) аумағына келіп қоныстанған, кейін мажар халқының арасына сіңіп кеткен халықтар мен халық бөліктерінің (тайпалардың) тарихын жəне мəдени мұрасын қарастырады.
- Bizdiŋ kitabımız 10-13 ğasırlarda šığıs Ewropa dalalarınan Majarstan (Vengrıya) awmağına kelip qonıstanğan, keyin majar xalqınıŋ arasına siŋip ketken xalıqtar men xalıq bölikteriniŋ (taypalardıŋ) tarıyxın jəne mədeniy murasın qarastıradı.
- Our book examines the history and cultural heritage of peoples and groups of peoples (tribes) who migrated from the steppes of Eastern Europe to the territory of Hungary in the 10th–13th centuries and later assimilated into the Hungarian people.
—— Ping me User:内存溢出的猫 plz!📝瞄？💬喵! 01:18, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Konkani. I believe Konkani is simultanously written in multiple scripts including latin (Romi/roman), kannada, malayalam and devanagari. Konkani is not just spoken in Goa, it is also spoken and written in Karnataka, Maharashtra, Kerala, and in other parts of the world where Konkani speakers migrated to. Allowing only one script of Konkani to flourish will cause injustice to users of other scripts. Also, you cannot force someone to use a specific script they are not comfortable reading/writing in. There exist some english medium books that use the word “Gõy”. E.g. the TSKK (Thomas Stephens Konkani Kendr) book in English language “Romi lipient konknni kors / Konkani course in the roman script” used for teaching and learning Konkani in the roman script. - ChasingVel (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2026 (UTC)ChasingVel
- I am appealing once again to keep this entry and subsequent Konkani entries made in Romi Konkani (bardezi/other dialect of Konkani in latin script). Please allow me to remove the rfd tag from Gõy. Regards. ChasingVel (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Arabic. Sum-of-parts? See also WT:RFDE#free Palestine. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 14:33, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete, SoP. Fay Freak (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Rashed Aljahdali (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
September 2026
[edit]Translingual. Sense "A carbapenemase enzyme produced by K. pneumoniae bacteria". Sum-of-parts. @DCDuring — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 14:03, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
- The uses of the term in this article, mostly abbreviated to KPC, suggest that the story is more complicated. KPC was first found to be produced by K. pneumoniae, but by now 12 more KPC-producing species have been identified. Also, KPC is not the only carbapenemase produced by K. pneumoniae. So a better definition may be, "A carbapenemase enzyme produced by several species of bacteria, first found as produced by Klebsiella pneumoniae." Or, if someone is willing to go through the effort, a definition based on the properties of KPC, with the name explained in the Etymology section. ‑‑Lambiam 20:45, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
Now that our PWG declension tables account for stemmed a-stem nominative singulars, RC:Proto-West Germanic/kamb and ᚲᚨᛒᚨ should be merged into a single entry. --{{victar|talk}} 14:21, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
- Merged how? One is reconstructed and one is attested? ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 11:40, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
- In which direction? SériskaMarka-Lénínattijó (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
A rare non-English entry belonging to a fictional universe. Wreaderick (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
- Shouldn’t this be at RFVN? If sufficient uses of the term can be attested in an out-of-universe sense, like is possible for English horcrux, it van be included. ‑‑Lambiam 21:52, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- I highly highly doubt this word has a genericized meaning as in English. As far as I can tell as a native speaker, Turkish simply does not deal with fictional universes. Almost all fictional universes Turks are familiar with are in English, so it's extremely unlikely they would borrow from them. Wreaderick (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- Turkish children who read the Harry Potter series in translated editions such as Harry Potter ve Ateş Kadehi when they were, say, ten, became familiar with the Turkish term and are now at an age when they may be publishing writings using it. I don’t think this is a priori much less unlikely than English authors using this in an out-of-universe sense. I do agree that it is much more unlikely that we fill find three attestations of use, even if they exist somewhere. ‑‑Lambiam 20:59, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- I highly highly doubt this word has a genericized meaning as in English. As far as I can tell as a native speaker, Turkish simply does not deal with fictional universes. Almost all fictional universes Turks are familiar with are in English, so it's extremely unlikely they would borrow from them. Wreaderick (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
Wrong spelled title. Tollef Salemann (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Hebrew. Fails WT:FICTION, see WT:RFDE#Death Eater. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 16:12, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. I've removed the Harry Potter sense. I think the remaining sense roughly "a follower of an ideology that glorifies death, violence and self-sacrifice" isn't actually close to the sense in the series except for giving the term a bit more of a bite. In the quotes it's used independently of the fictional universe and applied to real politicians / a political group. Which seems fine per WT:FICTION. —Enosh (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- Right, this should’ve been an RfD-sense. Since you’re the entry’s creator and you removed the sense yourself, then I’ll strike this. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 21:26, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Bulgarian. Fails WT:FICTION, see WT:RFDE#Death Eater. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 16:15, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Albanian. Fails WT:FICTION, see WT:RFDE#Death Eater. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 16:15, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Wrong infinitives. Source says it is no such infinitives in given language. They are only possible in a cant related to it, but even there they are not attested. Google search gives no results on requests like "tradre to" or "tradre til", what would be expected if such verb form did existed. Tollef Salemann (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
Norwegian. Rfd vulgar sense by WT:DEROG. Trooper57 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
Old English. Tagged for speedy deletion by @SériskaMarka-Lénínattijó: Unattested form and only made the lemma due to Grimm's connections of the word to the OHG personal name Hruoda, and which only basis is due to superficial similarity. Grimm's own connections with continental month names betrays that the form must be from something like < *Hraidi- since Retmonat could not possibly be from hróþ-. Spellings with ð for d seem to occur occasionally so that will be kept.
The entry content has been duplicated at hrǣdmōnaþ. CC: @Vergencescattered, Widsith, Æzelf89 — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 17:53, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
- An attestation for the month name is given (albeit spelled with <ð> rather than <þ>) in Bosworth-Toller. Either hreþmonaþ or hrædmonaþ should probably be given as an alternative form of the other, and I have no opinion on what should be the lemma, but I see no reason to delete the hreþmonaþ entry. Vergencescattered (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
- First, quick nitpick: The attested lemma from Bede is "Rhed-monath", not "Retmonat".
- Second, what exactly is your source regarding all of this? Cause this is the first time I'm hearing about this. Æzelf89 (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not referring to the form in Bede (thus "connections with continental...") but the Middle High German forms retmonat, redimonet, redtmonet that Grimm brought up as cognates to the OE form. Even if they weren't authentic, Grimm would still be contradicting his own argument as they could not possibly come from OHG hruod- (however, they seem to be from valid sources as far as I can see)
- Besides these cognates, Bede's form Rhedmonath also eliminates any connection to hreþ- "fame" since in Bede's time, and indeed even in late Northumbrian, the unrounding of oe had not yet happened and Latinised OE forms in Bede consistently use the spelling <oe>. Secondly, a derivation from the root of *hrīþ- is much more attractive since it also semantically corresponds with the newer name for the month, hlyda, as both refer to the strong winds of March, and the month/goddess name can then be easily connected by positing o-grade *hraidiz "windy, stormy", which could possibly also give the MHG forms.
- It has also been suggested that the word is connected to hreþ- "fierce", but this is similarly impossible due to it also having an etymologically round vowel like "fame". However, the similarity of these words to the month name may have impacted the attested OE forms. We know that the word hrædmonaþ had definitely become obsolete by classical OE as the only places we ever see it is in glosses while only hlyda is used in normal prose. Thus, it is most likely that these glosses derive from Bede itself, and thus cannot be used as separate evidence. The glossators, presumably unaware of the word's etymology, would also have to reconstruct the OE form based on Latin, resulting in the myriad of forms we see in hreðmonaþ, hredmonaþ, hrædmonaþ, redmonaþ, reðmonaþ, which are basically just independent guesses influenced perhaps by the words hreð "victory", (h)reðe "fierce" and hræd "rapid". Thus, in my opinion, combining the attestation in Bede, the continental forms as well as semantic plausibility, *hræd "windy" is the most likely etymon.
- The main reason I tagged hreþmonaþ for deletion is that it is not an attested form. If I understand correctly only the lemma form is standardised, but alternative forms should just display variant attestations. Thus, if hrædmonaþ is to be made the lemma, then there would be no reason for hreþmonaþ, which is unattested, to exist.
- I'll collect some sources later but this interpretation has at least existed since Tolkien. SériskaMarka-Lénínattijó (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
Serbo-Croatian; tagged by @ChookaChook but not listed and no reason provided. J3133 (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
- Keep as we have Serbo-Croatian Microsoft, this being a form of it. J3133 (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.
- Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK#ngang-garra-moomin-in.
- Entry is literally nonsensical Chroma 379 (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Chroma 379 you're going to have be more specific. It also doesn't help that you posted this to the page for Chinese Japanese and Korean. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Even assuming literally is used as a semantically void intensifier, I cannot see anything nonsensical in the entry. ‑‑Lambiam 19:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Arabic. Sum of parts. --~2026-52469-86 (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- The term is the established translation for English misogyny. It refers to a specific concept; it even has its own Arabic Wikipedia article. There is no reason to delete it. الجهبذ (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Arabic. Sum of parts --~2026-52469-86 (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
ഉഴുവ (uzhuva) for Tiger not attested
[edit]ഉഴുവ is not an attested malayalam word, and was probably added by mistake since உழுவை and other cognates exists, but not for Malayalam, according to this redditor CreatorLang (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Check the olam reference link. It is indeed attested. Illustrious Lock (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Old English. Created by User:Hazarasp. This and many similar "suffixes" (-fōte/-fēte, -hende, -blēde, -flēre, -iēge, -līfe, -menne, -nihte, -sīene, -strenġe, -wille, -wintre, -wyrde) are all simple compound formations based on X + Y + adjectival -e, and better analyzed that way. In fact, the usage examples for -e show many other "suffixes" that could be extracted if we chose: -sċīete "-corner", -genġe "-going", -ǣte "-eating", -fiexe "-haired", -eċġe "-edged", -ċīepe "-cost", etc. I suggest deleting them all and replacing the etymologies with those based on X + Y + -e. Pinging (Notifying workgroup: Leasnam, Lambiam, Urszag, Hundwine, Mnemosientje, The Editor's Apprentice, Alarichall, Victar): Benwing2 (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Vergencescattered @Widsith not in the workgroup. Benwing2 (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- I created this in line with existing practice: -hynde was created in July 2022, postdating -blēde (December 2021), -fēte (February 2022), and -flēre, -hende, -īeġe, -nihte, -siene, -strenġe, and -wille (November 2021) and -wintre (August 2018), and -wyrde (June 2020). I however have no objection to this proposal, especially since since most sources (e.g. Campbell)[1] do not apparently analyse them that way. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:18, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- I don't have strong feelings about this one. Impossible to know now whether speakers felt these to be productive suffixes; I doubt it, but it doesn't matter much. I think analysing them as compounds is perfectly fine. Ƿidsiþ 07:20, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
References
[edit]- ^ Campbell, A[listair] (1959), Old English Grammar[3], London: Clarendon Press, →OCLC, § 204, page 84.
Old Novgorodian. Tagged for speedy deletion by @AshFox, but a reason was not given. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 13:32, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Not an existing proverb, coined by creator of the entry. Таёжный лес (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#каждый день яблоко одно — врачу оставаться далеко.
Ket. Originally marked for speedy by AmaçsızBirKişi calling it SOP. Vininn126 (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
- Well, it is. Not listed by dictionaries, and all I could find was just one instance (in the sources given), translated as "... beautiful blades of grass [flowers]..." to Russian. No need to discuss further, since only I edit Ket.
AmaçsızBirKişi (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2026 (UTC)- Please do not remove RFD tags from open discussions. Rules are rules, they're usually there for good reason, and admins will unlikely break them at request, so we gotta wait it out for a month. Catonif (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
- OK, sorry for doing that. Still, I think this is just needless bureaucracy.
AmaçsızBirKişi (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2026 (UTC)- Perhaps, but we have processes for a reason. 17:59, 12 October 2026 (UTC) Vininn126 (talk)
- Holy, how many tildes were those? Catonif (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
- What should I do to close this request, or do I just have to wait?
AmaçsızBirKişi (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2026 (UTC)- The process is described at the beginning of this page. Catonif (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but we have processes for a reason. 17:59, 12 October 2026 (UTC) Vininn126 (talk)
- OK, sorry for doing that. Still, I think this is just needless bureaucracy.
- Please do not remove RFD tags from open discussions. Rules are rules, they're usually there for good reason, and admins will unlikely break them at request, so we gotta wait it out for a month. Catonif (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Verner's dictionary gives this word with the simple translation "flower", how is this SOP? Thadh (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2026 (UTC)