Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

Requests for verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for verification/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

This page is for entries in any language other than English. For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English.

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”
  • Out-of-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use



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. One of the reasons 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 requests for deletion in other namespaces such as “Category:” or “Template:”, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others. It is also not for requests for attestation. 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 when a decision to delete, keep, or transwiki has been reached, or after the request has expired. Closing a request normally consists of the following actions:

  • 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: The above is typical. However, in many cases, 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 consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry’s talk page using {{archive-top|rfd}} + {{archive-bottom}}. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:piffle, Talk:good job. Note that talk pages containing such discussions are preserved even if the associated article is deleted.

Time and expiration: Entries and senses should not normally be deleted in less than seven days after nomination. When there is no consensus after some time, the template {{look}} should be added to the bottom of the discussion. If there is no consensus for more than a month, the entry should be kept as a “no consensus”.

Tagged RFDs

June 2017[edit]

многоквартирный дом[edit]

SoP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Russian entered to mean apartment building, and then there are other senses. Literally multi-apartment building, I guess. Is this the most usual way to render apartment building into Russian? How would I know that I have to use "много-" instead of just квартирный дом? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is the most usual way to render apartment building into Russian and those are, indeed "multi-apartment building", not two or three. It's still an SoP. The attributive adjective кварти́рный (kvartírnyj) is used for words related to apartments, not having multiple apartments, e.g. "квартирная плата" - "rent" (for the apartment), "квартирная хозяйка" - landlady. многокварти́рный (mnogokvartírnyj) means "multiapartment". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I have provided a usage example at многокварти́рный (mnogokvartírnyj), so that there is no loss of information:
многокварти́рный до́мmnogokvartírnyj dómapartment complex; mansion
--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
If that is so, I think this is better kept since I would not know this is the right term. It seems also no more SOP than apartment building; the English term is in rather many dictionaries, per apartment building at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. apartment building is arguably SOP as well, and its entry only serves as a translation hub, imo; the Russian entry has no such fonction. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Nobody would get the idea of searching such a term. Fay Freak (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2017[edit]


Originally tagged for speedy deletion, but I don't think it qualifies, so I'm bringing it here. We do have entries for roots in other attested languages, notably CAT:Sanskrit roots, but for most languages we don't list roots, and for Ancient Greek this is the only one (so far, at least). At the moment I'm somewhat undecided as I see arguments both for (it would be convenient to have a place to gather all the terms derived from this root, like γίγνομαι (gígnomai), γείνομαι (geínomai), γένεσις (génesis), γένος (génos), γονή (gonḗ), γόνος (gónos), γενέτωρ (genétōr)) and against (this form is more of an abstract concept than a genuinely occurring form of the language), so I'm hoping for an active discussion that will help me make up my own mind. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I created this entry, but I think this and other roots (Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit) should probably be moved to appendices. They are theoretical concepts, particularly so for Arabic and Hebrew roots, and can't meet the criterion of attestation. (@Wikitiki89's comments in a discussion about Arabic patterns is what convinced me of this. If patterns should go in appendices, roots should too, because the two are interconnected.)
Having a list of roots and their allomorphs (here, γεν-, γον-, γιγν-, γειν-) might help users to identify the origins of words. I don't know what form this should take: a single page with many or all roots, individual pages (subpages of something like Appendix:Ancient Greek roots). And I'm not sure how or if it would be linked to entries in the main namespace. But I think it would be useful in some form. — Eru·tuon 04:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Putting roots in Appendix space does seem like a good idea. How would we name Appendix pages for roots? Now that reconstructions have their own namespace, we could names like Appendix:Ancient Greek/γεν-, Appendix:Sanskrit/जन् for roots, and link to them using √ (the square root symbol) as a prefix, the same way we already use * for reconstructions. Thus {{l|grc|√γεν-}} would link to Appendix:Ancient Greek/γεν-, and {{l|sa|√जन्}} would link to Appendix:Sanskrit/जन्, etc.  Alternatively, the pages could be named Appendix:Ancient Greek/Roots/γεν-, Appendix:Sanskrit/Roots/जन्, etc. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea of using a character to link to the root appendix, but the root symbol is difficult to type, and would discourage people from linking to roots. (Asterisks, by contrast, are on my keyboard, at least.) It would be good to use either the root symbol or an easier-to-type alternative that Module:links can display as a root symbol, preferably something that doesn't otherwise occur in page titles.
I guess I would prefer Appendix:Ancient Greek roots as the prefix. It's a little more clear about what its subpages should contain than Appendix:Ancient Greek (whose subpages could be anything, including all the existing appendices with the prefix Ancient Greek). If we used Appendix:Ancient Greek/Roots, I'm not sure what we could put on the page Appendix:Ancient Greek, so it would be an empty page and a redlink on each root page. Appendix:Ancient Greek roots, on the other hand, could contain general information on roots: for instance, how ablaut and other sound changes affect the form of roots. — Eru·tuon 18:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Why should roots go in appendices but not affixes? They're tied together. Also, we'd have to fix almost every PIE link across Wiktionary. Oppose. —CodeCat 18:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
No, PIE roots could stay in the Reconstruction namespace. If you oppose moving roots to the Appendix namespace, why did you propose deleting γεν- (gen-)? Why should Ancient Greek not have root entries at all? — Eru·tuon 20:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Are roots well defined for Ancient Greek? There's a tradition of treating Sanskrit and PIE roots, but not for Greek. —CodeCat 20:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Not that I know of, but it's pretty easy to extract this root at least. — Eru·tuon 20:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
It is unobvious that we want to have Ancient Greek roots in mainspace. They are quite unlike prefixes, IMHO. Roots seem to require much more analysis/speculation than prefixes, that is to say, they are much less raw-observational than the kinds of entries that we keep in the mainspace. Category:Ancient Greek roots currently has γεν- as the sole entry. On the other hand, we could keep even hypothetical entities in the mainspace as long as they carry the proper badge of warning; we could have done that with reconstructions as well, where the reconstruction entries could have started with an asterisk. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

ge- -t[edit]

I don't think this should be considered a circumfix. German past participles have an ending, which may be -t, -et, or -en, and they may or may not have a prefix ge-. These choices are not related in any way; all combinations exist: gelegt, gerettet, getrieben, zitiert, errötet, beschrieben. So, it's a prefix and a suffix, not a circumfix. Kolmiel (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

ge- only appears if -t, -et or -en is added, there is nothing like geleg (without any ending). In certain cases only an ending and not ge- is added. Thus it should be ge- -t (ge- -et, ge- -en) and for certain cases (some derived terms or compounds like beschreiben (be- + schreiben) and foreign words like zitieren (from Latin)) just -t, -et, -en. In literature one can also read that ge- -t is a circumfix, e.g.:
  • 2014, Michael Schäfer and Werner Schäfke, Sprachwissenschaft für Skandinavisten: Eine Einführung, p. 110: "vom Zirkumfix {ge- -t}"
  • 2016, Roland Schäfer, Einführung in die grammatische Beschreibung des Deutschen, 2nd edition, p. 324: "das Zirkumfix ge- -t (schwach) bzw. ge- -en (stark)" 03:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Suffix plus separate prefix per Kolmiel. There's also a few cases where the prefix or its variants appear without a suffix (e.g. Getreide, glauben, gönnen). Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep. —CodeCat 12:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Getreide, glauben, gönnen do not contain a NHG prefix ge-. The OHG or MHG terms might have gi- or ge- in it, but that's not visible in the NHG terms anymore.
Better examples might exist in (older?) dialectal/regional German like geseyn instead of sein (or seyn). Some terms similar to this might also exist in 'standard' High German.
Anyway ge- alone doesn't form the past participle (unless it's somewhat strangely analysed like in ge- -t ("with ge- (for strong verbs)") and and ge-#German (the second prefix)). And if ge- -t gets removed, the sense would belong to -t (and -en, but not ge-). In -t it then should be something like "forms the past participle; usually together with ge-, but sometimes just -t". - 15:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: The fact that there are other ways to mark the past participle is not relevant. The question is whether the elements ge- and -t in, for example, gelegt have distinct meaning on their own, the way un- and -ed do in unnamed. They don't; they only have meaning when taken together as the marker of the past participle. Therefore, they should not be analyzed separately; they have to be considered a circumfix. So also with ge- -et and ge- -en. — Eru·tuon 00:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
What are you talking about? All endings have several distinct meanings of their own, one being that they are the ending of the past participle, with or without the prefix. E.g. entlarvt, verschnitten, erduldet etc. which are past participles, marked by the respective ending, without the respective prefix. ps.: New High German begins around 1400, so having an entry for a prefix 'ge-' for words like gesitzen is absolutely in the scope of Wiktionary's de code. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm talking about the meaning in the word in question, gelegt. Does the -t mean one thing and the ge- mean another in that word? — Eru·tuon 16:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
No, Peter Gröbner (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
NHG begins around 1350 or around 1500 depending on definition or view. The ISO code gmh ends around 1500 (which would imply de starts around 1500). Regardless of the beginning of de, NHG has a prefix ge-. And not just one forming collectives, but also one in verbs, as in "gesein" or "geseyn" for "sein" (once also "seyn") (infinitive) and "gewesen" (past participle). Those prolonged verbs usually are obsolete now, but there might be exceptions as "gebrauchen" versus "brauchen".
But is e.g. "gefragt" somehow analysed as "ge- + frag (stem) + -t", with -t marking the past participle and ge- being something else?
It's analysed as "ge- + frag (stem) + -t" with ge- ... -t being a circumfix at least by some (two sources were given above), and this might be the more usual analysis. - 21:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll say it frankly: I'm pissed off by your underhand tactics of pulling the musing that 'something might be X' out of your arse. It might also be a nutty fringe interpretation only upheld by your two sources. But who's helped by me mentioning that? If I wanted random guesses, I'd buy a magic 8-ball, if I wanted people subtly influenced with the mentioning of possibilities, I'd buy Frank Luntz. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep. It is not a combination of the prefix ge- and the suffix -t, because there is no intermediate stage: gesagt, *gesag, *sagt. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, or rework. Analyzable as prefix + suffix, a view reinforced by the separate presence of the ge- prefix and -t suffix in other words. In addition, the entry currently at ge- -t doesn't provide much utility, and it's unclear how a user would ever arrive at this page via search -- the only apparent avenue would be by clicking through from another entry, which could just as well link to something else instead.
Incidentally, the entry at -t looks woefully inadequate, and apparently wrong to boot -- the def is given as "-ed (used to form adjectives from nouns)", but then the terms in Category:German_words_suffixed_with_-t all seem to be derived from verbs...
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll throw in my view again: The entry is completely sum-of-parts. The parts being a participle prefix, which occurs without this suffix, and a participle suffix, which occurs without this prefix. And five people voting to keep doesn't make it less sum-of-parts. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to say keep, but the fact that native speakers want to see it deleted must be saying something. Abstain. Per utramque cavernam 19:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC) 
Keep, though the entry could probably use some work. I have seen no argument to delete that is convincing enough to outweigh the point mentioned by TAKASUGI Shinji above. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 07:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I have a potential argument. :)
Granted, sagt doesn't exist in strict terms as a preterite form. I believe this is due at least in part to a collision between weak-verb present third-person singular suffix -t and present second-person plural suffix -t with preterite suffix -t. For weak verbs, German differentiates the third-person singular present from the third-person singular preterite by adding -e to the preterite. This vowel might be analyzable as preterite -t + third-person -t, with vowel -e on the end either simply to differentiate present from preterite, or as some kind of excrescence in the presence of an otherwise-geminate -tt ending.
If we accept that the core person-less form of the preterite is *sagt, then the progression of forms is clear: present verb root sag, preterite root *sagt as present sag + preterite -t, participle gesagt as preterite root *sagt + participial prefix ge-.
@Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n], it's been a while since I've done much work on German derivations -- is the above analysis echoed by any German-language sources? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
While factually correct in terms of etymological theory that weak verbs' past tense is stem + *dʰeh₁, I've never read anyone describing it in these terms. That said, I'm neither a linguist nor is High German of great interest to me, so my acquaintance with works on German, and of course teaching materials, is more than superficial. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Kept: no consensus to delete. PUC – 11:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2017[edit]


Sum of parts. —suzukaze (tc) 23:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep. In most contexts it specifically means a regime change between the LDP and a non-LDP party. For those who are used to two-party system it may not sound special, but in the conservative Japan it is a historical event. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
If this is a change in which party rules, then the current definition "a change in who holds political power; regime change" seems misleading, or at least the "regime change" part. Maybe instead of deleting the entry, we should make sure it is accurate, clear and unambiguous. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
+1 —suzukaze (tc) 22:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

September 2017[edit]


This is a weird misspelling of 有利 and it looks more like a name. Nibiko (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Viewing the few previews available for purported hits at google books:"優利な" (yūri na, “superior? advantageous?”), all I see are scannos for 便利な (benri na, convenient). The other hits that do not offer preview, but only "snippet view" (only showing the results of Google's often-wrong OCR), also seem to be scannos.
This spelling is also missing from any of the references aggregated at Weblio or Kotobank.
That said, Breem's WWWJIDIC does have an entry for this spelling, and the Microsoft IME for Japanese (on Windows 10, anyway) offers up 優利 as a kanji conversion candidate for the ゆうり kana spelling.
If we can find enough cites to meet CFI, this could presumably be kept as an alternative spelling stub entry, pointing to the lemma at 有利. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I just went through the few Google hits for "優利な" that also had preview. I found one cromulent hit, in this work. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@BlueCaper: Any opinions as the creator of the entry? —Suzukaze-c 06:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

kde se nachází[edit]

Czech fragment, corresponding to where is. Thus, "kde se nachází nemocnice?" may be rendered as "where is the hospital?". If taken as a pattern or a template for the phrasebook, it would be at kde se nachází .... But I do not like such patterns or templates in the phrasebook. Furthermore, I don't think the word "nachází" is preferable over "je"; thus, "kde je nemocnice" sounds better to me, less literary.

google books:"where is the hospital" phrasebook suggests we may create where is the hospital. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

être dans des transes[edit]

Translation unclear; unidiomatic, and it always has to be determined with an adjective: être dans des transes affreuses, effroyables, horribles, continuelles; you can't use it as a standalone. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

kan du snakke engelsk?[edit]

Norwegian Bokmål, phrasebook entry. Not particularly common on Google Books and certainly not in phrasebooks. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe snakker du engelsk? (another entry) is more common [1] than [2]. DonnanZ (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it's rarely used, there's no reason to have it as a phrasebook entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Some searches: google books:"kan du snakke engelsk", google books:"snakker du engelsk". When I click to the right, as I have to with Google searches to see the actual number of hits, the latter search does not yield all that many more items. The entry was created by User:EivindJ, who used to declare themselves as Norwegian native speaker. The phrase is e.g. in Ny i Norge: Arbeidsbok by Gerd Manne, 1977. I think the searches for phrasebooks to apply something like the lemming heuristic are most useful for English phrases, and much less for non-English phrases. I'd say week keep, but input from Norwegian speakers would be welcome, and absent that input, I would err on the side of keeping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    That is a good point, "can you speak English" is more common in phrasebooks. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam 22:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: Would you consider to clarify whether that delete has anything to do with WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, where phrasebook is mentioned, and which observations, measurements and searches you considered in deciding your "delete"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: None. It suffices me to observe that no dictionary that I know of includes phrasebook sentences in its main body; AFAICT those are always gathered in a separate section, with a distinct colour code for example. If the CFI allows them, it means I disagree with the CFI. Per utramque cavernam 21:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so the above is a CFI override. WT:CFI: "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. Although these are included as entries in the dictionary (in the main namespace), they are not usually considered in these terms." A category: Category:English phrasebook. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Do you know of any dictionary that includes proverbs in its main body? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: The 2005 paper version of Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary has the saying charity begins at home, just below charity and as a separate subpoint of that entry. At English, it also has the sentence do you speak English?, but only as a usage example, not as a separate subpoint. Per utramque cavernam 21:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The fair entry in that same dictionary has several subpoints dedicated to idiomatic expressions, among which: to be fair, by fair means or foul, fair and square; and a final subpoint, labelled as a "saying": all's fair in love and war. Per utramque cavernam 21:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Let me then point out that we will have sentence entries in mainspace anyway--proverbs--and in addition to that, we can keep useful phrasebook entries: there are not so many to flood the mainspace. There is no consensus for abolishing the phrasebook concept as per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-12/Removing phrasebook. Some entries I find very useful, such as I'm thirsty, which in Czech is mám žízeň (I have thirst); more is at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#Usefulness of phrasebook. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Bold keep per my posts above; no Norwegian speakers have provided input, and instead, we received a CFI-overriding delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
If it's not "particularly common" as the request states, it doesn't meet CFI, given it states "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers." (emphasis mine) — surjection?〉 13:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Note that my statement about its uncommonness was in particular about Google Books. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Changing to keep. Most Norwegian phrase books on BGC seem to be without any preview, therefore biasing BGC as a heuristic. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I know this is an old thread, but I figured I'd chime in as a Norwegian speaker, albeit non-native. In Norwegian there are several ways to ask whether somebody speaks a language: "Kan du snakke...?", "Snakker du...?" are two options. There's also a third worth mentioning, the one that I've encountered the most often: "Kan du...?", eg "Kan du engelsk?" This one is the most idiomatic--it doesn't amount to basic part-by-part translation like the other two. To me, "Kan du snakke engelsk?" and "Snakker du engelsk?" don't quite feel like "phrases" per se, but rather just different ways to word the question. "Kan du engelsk?" feels like a phrase, and would probably merit inclusion in a phrasebook. All that said, I work very little with the phrasebook part of the project so I'll abstain from offering a 'keep' or 'delete'. --Uisleach (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

October 2017[edit]

conserver un suivi[edit]

Not a set phrase, and SOP. See also the RFV debate. @Widsith --Barytonesis (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I disagree that it's sum of parts. I read it somewhere and didn't understand it, which is why I put it in. Beyond that, I don't have strong feelings on it. Ƿidsiþ 11:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the pestering, but I don't think "I didn't understand it" is a sufficient reason for saying it's not SOP. It's simply conserver (to keep) + un (a) + suivi (tracking, monitoring). And it's nowhere near as idiomatic as keep track. --Barytonesis (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I disagree. For it to be sum of parts, it would have to be normal (or at least comprehensible) to say in English that we conserve a monitoring of something, but not only do we not say this in English, it's not even clear what it is supposed to mean. Furthermore it's not obvious why a "monitoring" should be "conserved" rather than "held" or "maintained" or whatever. As far as I'm concerned, that makes it idiomatic. Ƿidsiþ 13:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
        • I think you're reading too much into this. The three quotations are just poorly written French, and it looks like they picked the first verb that came to mind. It's not unclear because it's idiomatic, it's unclear because it's bad prose. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I reiterate my stance: this is unidiomatic and should be deleted. PUC 14:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

tiếng Afrikaans[edit]

A Vietnamese SoP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Will possibly apply to many or all "tiếng" words, see CAT:vi:Languages. A similar cleanup happened with a few languages to get rid of entries containing the word "language" in that language. @Fumiko Take, Wyang. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I know absolutely nothing about Vietmamese, but do the two words have to go together? There is no separate entry for Vietnamese Afrikaans. DonnanZ (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I would say so, though I'm still tempted to parallel them with Japanese (go) words (I've hardly ever bothered with them though), and I'm a little ambivalent about a few cases like tiếng Anh or tiếng Việt. Unlike Japanese, Korean and Chinese, Vietnamese doesn't distinguish "the UK", "Great Britain" and "England", so it's probably fine to consider tiếng Anh an SoP. Việt could be consider a free morpheme, but then it's usually used in a few compounds in non-literary contexts, so it's harder to tell if tiếng Việt is an SoP. Geez, Vietnamese, give me a break already. Personally, I'm not comfortable with tiếng Afrikaans even being a Vietnamese entry, but this is also a good opportunity to re-evaluate Japanese (go) words, Korean (eo) words and Chinese words too: are they also SoPs? They do seem to parallel with instances such as 奈良県 (Nara-ken), ネコ科 or ドラゴン (Doragon-zoku), which feature apparent bound morphemes, but also are coined very easily without consideration on how the morphemes would be affected by compounding like, say, Latin Felidae. ばかFumikotalk 11:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Fumiko Take: Thanks. I am suggesting to have separate CFI for languages with no clear word boundaries or w:scriptio continua, so that inclusion rules could be decided once and for all, hopefully. tiếng Việt might be one of the few exception, I understand why you hesitate. Is Việt really a productive adjective? tiếng, (), () (go), (eo) or "人" words could be part of the CFI discussion - do we or do we not include words with these suffixes (prefixes) as words? In fact, there is little idiomatic about 中國人中国人 (zhōngguórén) - China person or 中國話中国话 (zhōngguóhuà) - China speech but dictionaries do include them, so do we. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's worth saying that when a page exists in the Vietnamese Wiktionary tiếng Việt appears in the left-hand column. DonnanZ (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
It's true that there is no Vietnamese entry Afrikaans and many other foreign proper nouns, for which there is no equivalent created in Vietnamese or it's rarely used. For a Vietnamese entry Afrikaans, it would be necessary to provide the phonetic respelling but native speakers usually frown upon these words as they are not really considered Vietnamese. For example, "Pakistan" has a native Vietnamese words Pa-ki-xtan, even if English "Pakistan" is also commonly used. It's still an SoP, unless we decide that words containing tiếng merit their entry. For comparison, Thai, Lao, Khmer, Burmese entries with the word "language" have been deleted, as was agreed by knowledgeable editors or native speakers in RFD discussions.
For example, Thai language can be expressed in various ways in Burmese:
ထိုင်းနိုင်ငံhtuing:nuingngamThailand (country)
ထိုင်းစာhtuing:caThai language (written)
ထိုင်းဘာသာhtuing:bhasaThai language
Thai: ภาษาไทย
paa-sǎa tai
Thai (language)
tiếng Thái LanThai (language)
tiếng TháiThai (language)
Even if it's common to use the word "language", the pattern is predictable, so there is no need to "boost" the number of entries by these combinations. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
tiếng means language, in one of the senses. In general, I am ok with keeping "X language" entries in various languages, especially if the "X language" pattern is the usual way of expression in that language, which I do not know for Vietnamese. Thus, if "tiếng Afrikaans" is more often used than "Afrikaans" to refer to the language, I'd prefer to keep "tiếng Afrikaans". --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 21:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2017[edit]

aktuelle begivenheder[edit]

I don't see how this is more than the sum of its parts.__Gamren (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't the same apply to current events, current affairs? Maybe it's good enough for a phrasebook entry? - 15:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it is. I am not sure of the rationale for including current events, but aktuel is a little more specific than current.__Gamren (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep if actually equal to English 'current events', which is more than sum of parts because it's not literally all events currently happening (i.e. current events), it's those events currently happening and currently part of public debate or attention. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
As I said above, relevant isn't equivalent to current. It means "topical", as in, "being a topic that's currently widely discussed". So, aktuelle begivenheder are "events that people currently care about".__Gamren (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2017[edit]


A weird and rather rare Spanish misspelling. --Lirafafrod (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

temps primitif[edit]

Sum of parts? The English translation doesn't seem to mean anything to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Probably SOP as temps = tense, primitif = primitive = original, not derived. An examples of a primitive tense could English present simple (I go, thou goest, he goeth or goes only contain a form of go and no helping verb), while perfect and non-simple could be non-primitive (I am gone, I am going are composed a form of be and a form of go). However, temps primitif needs an explanation how a tense is primitive and through the explanation primitive = formed without a helping verb it's not so SOP anymore. Additionally, other tenses (Category:en:Tenses) and grammatical terms (Category:en:Grammar) might be somewhat SOP-like too but do have entries. - 15:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, IP is right. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep per IP. PUC – 11:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Could this be primary tense (= present and future), as opposed to secondary tense (= past/preterite, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect)? —Mahāgaja · talk 13:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Mahagaja: I don't think so, at least not in the context of Latin grammar learning, which is where I've heard it used. In that context the "temps primitifs" are the present tense, the perfect tense and the supine (which is not a tense, but anyway), because from their stems you can derive other tenses (pluperfect and so on). For example, a teacher might ask a pupil to "réciter les temps primitifs du verbe amāre", to which the answer would be "amare, amo, amavi, amatum". PUC – 13:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Unsurprisingly, it's also used for Ancient Greek. It's probably used for other languages as well. I'd say that in any language, a "temps primitif" is a tense conventionally used to remember a stem from which you can build other forms. Together, the "temps primitifs" provide all the stems you need to conjugate a verb. To me that term is associated with highschool grammar learning. PUC – 14:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Also, primary tense would be temps primaire, and secondary tense temps secondaire. PUC – 14:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    @PUC: It sounds like the English equivalent is principal part, specifically a principal part of a verb, as I assume you wouldn't call puella and puellae the temps primitifs of puella, would you? —Mahāgaja · talk 14:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Mahagaja: Yes, it sounds like it! And indeed, it's only used for verbs. Would you keep it? PUC – 14:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    So I opt for Keep, because it is just like principal part but only usable for verbs. I retract this view if I see that “primitif” can be used with other parts of speech thus (unless these are cases analogical to “temps primitif”, WT:JIFFY); in that case primitif needs a grammatical sense. Fay Freak (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    I agree with that line of thought. I don't think it's used with other POS; nothing springs to mind right now. PUC – 14:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep; this conversation makes it pretty clear that knowing what temps and primitif mean does not imply knowing what temps primitif means. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

January 2018[edit]


A Spanish particle only used in inter caetera.

What criteria should we use for the inclusion of {{only in}} definitions? Surely we don’t need an entry for every string that only occurs in one or two set phrases. I don’t think it’s likely that someone who comes across inter caetera would consider looking up just caetera in the same way they might look up cuentapropia. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't mind if it's deleted. --Gente como tú (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, as it's a single word in a language which one might run across and want to look up. I don't see why it hurts to have "an entry for every string that only occurs in one or two set phrases"; there surely can't be so many set phrases consisting of words not otherwise used in the language that it will overwhelm the dictionary. In any case, I can certainly imagine myself looking this up. This, that and the other (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    You wouldn’t mind creating omne and hoc due to the existence of et hoc genus omne? Audi, alteram and partem due to audi alteram partem? — Ungoliant (falai) 00:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    Not at all. If one doesn't know a language very well it can be difficult to spot set phrases like this. Although before doing so I'd like to be certain that they are in fact English phrases, since both of them lack citations. This, that and the other (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    I sure hope we never go down that road. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Phrases like this should use |head=inter caetera and the like to prevent links to the individual words when the individual words aren't words of that language. I think it would be silly to have English entries for déjà and vu that say "used only in déjà vu". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. All words, all languages. A beginning learner would look it up. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to inter caetera. 16:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    It can't be hard redirected, because it's a string in another language besides Spanish. It's already a soft redirect. - -sche (discuss) 23:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Is inter caetera only used in Spanish, or is it a Latinism used in many languages? If the latter, then there is less argument for having a Spanish (and a French, etc) "only in" at "caetera", and I would rather the Latin entries for "inter" and "caetera" link to a Latin entry "inter caetera". If it's mostly just Spanish that uses "inter caetera", then I think our "only in" at "caetera" pointing to "inter caetera" is OK to keep, but only if somebody creates [[inter caetera]]! It doesn't make sense to point to a page that doesn't exist! If no-one creates [[inter caetera]] or it gets deleted, then delete this. - -sche (discuss) 22:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete, it looks to me like inter caetera is mostly (only?) used in Spanish when referring to a papal bull. So there would be no reason for either caetera or inter caetera as Spanish entries despite its importance for Spanish and Latin American history. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


Sum of parts. 痛いに遭う、大変な目に遭う、酷い目に遭う… —suzukaze (tc) 03:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
There's also 酷い目に遭う. Nardog (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Week keep. That is no more productive and I have a difficulty in creating a new phrase. Daijisen has an entry: [3]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


See above. —suzukaze (tc) 04:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


maybe this one too? —Suzukaze-c 06:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete. That is not a lexical unit. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


There is a proper noun sense, as a common name for Odontoceti, but I fail to see how this is separate from the noun plural. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I would lean towards keeping it. Zahnwale (many toothed whales) is not the same as Zahnwale (order Odontoceti). --Hekaheka (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete, not even a proper noun, but a noun plural. Fay Freak (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

All entries in Category:Turkish noun forms[edit]

Thanks to User:Sae1962's sloppy editing, this category contains so many incorrect forms that it would take forever to fix them all. —Rua (mew) 00:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

That does not seem to be the right way to go about this. A native speaker should be able to scan them for errors relatively quickly. A more technological approach might be to run a script that could isolate those forms which get below a certain threshold of ghits, and then assess those separately. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

escala de piedras[edit]

Looks SOP --Gente como tú (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

To me it looks idiomatic. If you didn't know better, you might think it meant "rock scale", "rock ladder", "rock stopping point", or "rock list". —Stephen (Talk) 08:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep or improve the entry for escala. By reading the entry one would never guess the term translates into English as "rock climbing". --Hekaheka (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ultimateria? PUC – 11:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@PUC: Thanks for the ping, I've expanded escala and it doesn't mean "climbing" on its own. In fact, there are no hits on GB, so I'll send it to RFV. Ultimateria (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


This word, to lead the dead, seems to have only been used once, and in the participial form νεκραγωγοῦντα (nekragōgoûnta), yet it has inflection tables for six tenses and entries for many inflected forms. Unless this word is used more often than a search of Greek Wikisource and the Perseus website indicate, I propose deleting all the inflection entries and moving the entry to νεκραγωγοῦντα (nekragōgoûnta). I see no point in having inflection tables and entries for unattested forms.

Pinging @GianWiki, who created the lemma and entries for its non-lemma forms. — Eru·tuon 02:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on unattested form entries, but I find the inflection tables OK. As soon as the lemma exists, the inflected forms are defined unless there are forms that cannot be used. Even if nobody ever used in writing the ablative singular form of pöytä (table) > pöydättä (without a table) I can use it any time I wish and will be understood by other Finnish speakers.--Hekaheka (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if I should be posting here or in WT:RFM, because I'm proposing the deletion of inflected-form entries, but the moving of the lemma. — Eru·tuon 02:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

If only the participle is attested, then everything should be deleted except the lemma form of the participle, which is νεκραγωγέων (nekragōgéōn). The attested form νεκραγωγοῦντα (nekragōgoûnta) is an inflected form of that. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Aren't participles considered non-lemma? What I'd do is keep not only the (non-lemma) entry for the participle (i.e. νεκραγωγέων), but also keep the (lemma) entry for the actual verb it belongs to (νεκραγωγέω, which is also listed in L&S), but delete all form-of (non-lemma) entries except the one attested form (νεκραγωγοῦντα). That at least is how I've been handling scarcely-attested Gothic verbs, which not uncommonly are attested only as a single participle form. (Probably will want a note on the lemma page anyway that it's only attested once) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mnemosientje: Participles are categorized as non-lemma forms, but Ancient Greek participles do also have their own inflected forms, so perhaps they should also be categorized as lemmas. It's a confusing case: they are a form of a verb, but they have their own inflected forms. There is currently at least one participle that doesn't have a corresponding verb entry: βιβάς (bibás). LSJ's practice of having the entry at a first-person singular present indicative even if it's unattested may not be appropriate for Wiktionary. (It's worse in the case of other verbs that don't have any present forms.) — Eru·tuon 00:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Gothic participles similarly have their own inflected forms, hence why I made the analogy. LSJ's practice is how I've been doing Gothic verbs and their participles all this time, tbh -- the lemma forms (due to the regularity of the morphology) are really predictable even on the basis of a single attested inflected participle form and pretty much every other dictionary seems to work that way. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 00:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Participles are sort of a hybrid. They're the lemma form of their own inflected forms, but at the same time they're inflected forms of the verb they're from. In a case like this, where the participle is the only form of the verb that occurs, we could probably get away with calling it an adjective rather than a participle. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
True. However, our categorization system (as encoded in templates), which puts participles (at least for the languages I actively edit in) in the non-lemma category, does complicate that a bit: this suggests that technically for Wiktionary purposes they aren't in fact the lemma form of their own inflected forms. (Whether or not this system is optimal is another matter admittedly.) Imo then, if we want to be consistent in how we categorize these things across languages, we should keep the current verb entry (as long as the verb lemma can be deduced with some certainty from the morphology of the inflected form). Perhaps we might include a usage note to the verb entry clarifying that its inclusion is based only on this single attestation. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 05:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
For the record, my vote here is keep for now: unless there is some meta-discussion on this, perhaps to bring Ancient Greek in line with Modern Greek (where currently participles are listed as lemmas, confusingly: I don't know any other language that does this on Wiktionary), the precedent would suggest it is to be kept, and as a bonus we get to follow the precedent set by other dictionaries as well instead of having to reinvent the wheel here. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

So far we have, in short:

  • User:Mahagaja and User:Erutuon voting to delete (arguing the rest of the verb paradigm shouldn't be supposed based on a participle form only and that the lemma should be at the base participle, not the verb theoretically underlying the participle);
  • User:Mnemosientje voting to keep (arguing that participle forms have usually been seen as attestations for the underlying verb that at least in theory can be supposed to exist and that it's not a bad idea to follow existing dictionary practice).

That's not a lot of input. Does anyone else have opinions on this, so it may be resolved? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep. HeliosX (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Japanese US state names with 州[edit]

Are these terms SOP and should be redirected to names without 州?--Zcreator (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

These could be interpreted as SOP. But then, so could English New York City and New York State.
In terms of usage, some state names are more commonly found online with the (-shū, state) suffix, like Michigan or New Jersey. Other state names are more commonly found without the suffix, like Hawaii, which is well-known in Japan as a popular vacation destination. The suffix provides useful context, explicitly noting that the referent is a state, which is useful information when the name alone might be unfamiliar to the audience.
I see some usefulness in these entries, and no real harm from having them. Weak keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with the situation in Japanese (suffix vs. free morpheme), but we have decided for Chinese that the analogous entries (e.g. 新澤西) for Chinese placenames are SOP. The current practice for Chinese is to have {{zh-div}} to indicate the type of political division. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg SupportSuzukaze-c 04:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This RFD appears stalled at "no consensus". Despite that, User:Fumiko_Take is now deleting the ~州 entry content and turning these entries into hard redirects to the un-suffixed forms. This appears to be in violation of policy and procedure -- the RFD did not finish with a clear "delete" decision, and I don't think the hard redirects are the accepted way of doing things.
@TAKASUGI Shinji, Suzukaze-c, Wyang, other JA editors -- what is your take on this? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 15:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, there weren't any notices placed on the entries themselves. —Suzukaze-c 17:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
It is violation of policy, but he might not know this deletion request. How about voting now? I prefer keeping them, and I’m okay with redirecting. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


Added to speedy candidates by User:Ilham151096 on 1 Jan. Reason was "typo". RFD may be more appropriate. Wyang (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

From a cursory Google search this seems to be used in Indonesian mean bagasse, not baggage. This, that and the other (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

February 2018[edit]

えう, げい, ごち, ごつ, ざく, ざん, せう, でい, でん, ひち, ぶく, へき, へつ, もく, らい, りき, りち, わい[edit]

Poorly formatted Japanese entries with hardly any usable content, nominated for speedy deletion by User:Suzukaze-c in late Dec 2017, but no one has been brave enough to delete them in the meantime. Sent to RFD. Wyang (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

(It is related to Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Template:ja-kanji_reading. —suzukaze (tc) 03:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC))
Most of these are like らい and need reworking rather than deletion (i.e. cleanup): these are valid kanji readings, and the practice has been for kanji readings to get hiragana soft-redirect entries.
At least one of these is an historical reading, (せう, discussed previously in August 2016), where I'm not sure quite what the consensus view is -- I think it's to keep historical readings, but I'm unsure. I think えう is another historical reading.
There are a couple I've run into like ごち, that appear to be reconstructed kanji readings that don't show up in actual use in the historical record. Again, I'm not sure what the consensus view is for these, if there even is any consensus. Do we keep reconstructed readings, even if there's no evidence of actual use? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Am non-user, but I found my way to one of the pages and was pointed in the right direction. It was useful to me. I came here via the delete notice. Please consider cleaning up rather than outright deletion. 2606:A000:4001:5300:E534:C86:9F16:4BEC 03:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


  1. Make an Appendix page.
  2. No need for an appendix; use Category:Japanese kanji by on reading.

Suzukaze-c 08:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. Let's have a look at えう. It says On-reading of , , . Usage note says "All the above on-readings are archaic and obsolete in modern Japanese." I don't see anything wrong that relates to RFD process. If these items cannot be attested in use (WT:ATTEST), we have WT:RFV for that. The anonymous note "It was useful to me" above should not be ignored either. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment is Japanese restricted to only the modern form, all prior pronunciations being deleted form Wiktionary? We have extinct langauges on Wiktionary, so I don't see why these are being deleted for being archaic. Isn't there a tag for that? (lb|ja|archaic) -- 23:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


SOP --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Miwako Sato Check in dictionary first -> ราชบัณฑิตยสถาน 2554 it has this word. --ZilentFyld (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


Czech. Delete as rare misspelling, having only 3 hits in google books:"pětnáct"; one of these hits even mentions the spelling as a would-be entity, not a real one. Regulation: WT:CFI#Spellings, "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included." --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


This isn't a word. I think it's been autogenerated in the mynd conjugation table and then someone has made it into an entry.Llusiduonbach (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


This isn't a word. I think it's been autogenerated in the mynd conjugation table and then someone has made it into an entry. Llusiduonbach (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

If you doubt that the word exists, WT:RFVN is the correct place to bring it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait, I see that @Mahagaja created them. Maybe he can resolve it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I got them from Kathryn Klingebiel's 234 Welsh Verbs: Standard Literary Forms (→ISBN), but it's true they aren't listed in {{R:cy:GPC}}. BGC shows them both being listed in various 19th-century Welsh grammars and dictionaries, but actual use in running text is quite rare. I did find this for mutated fynedadwy and this for mutated fynededig. Since Welsh is an LDL, I think even those two uses should be sufficient to keep them. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete. The forms are not used anymore, apparently. HeliosX (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

US states in Arabic[edit]

There are a bunch of full names of US states, like ولاية نيو جيرزي, which links to State of New Jersey. I'm pretty sure we don't want these Arabic entries for the same reason that the English is a redlink. The full list can be found here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018[edit]

virage en lacets[edit]

SOP, not particularly lexicalised. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


Not exist. Perhaps misspelling of គូថ (kuut). --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

There are a lot of Google hits for it. It is also listed in Tuttle Practical Cambodian Dictionary (page 14). There is a song named រាំបិទគូត (rom bət kut). I think it exists, but it might still be a misspelling or dialectal. It needs the eye of a native speaker. —Stephen (Talk) 12:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I confirm this spelling exists in the dictionary and prefer to keep it, although there are only two results in Google books. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Is it a slang or something? --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Octahedron80: It must be a slang. Although we should only keep verified terms, slang or neologisms should probably use some other criteria. Khmer must be still an exotic language for digitised book, especially slang. It has been confirmed that it exists in a published dictionary, though. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I changed to RFV instead. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Hits in Google Books are very unreliable for Khmer, because they rely on OCR. OCR programs work well for English, but very poorly for most other scripts, such as Arabic, Thai, Tibetan, Lao, Telugu, Burmese, and especially Khmer. Most or all hits will be scanos, and virtually all valid cases will be completely overlooked. OCS has not caught up to the complexities of most non-Roman scripts. In any case, គូត (kuut) would not be slang, since the pronunciation is identical to other spellings. At worst, it could be a misspelling. I don't think it can qualify as a misspelling, though, because it is acceptable in Khmer to spell words in other ways that achieve the correct pronunciation. Most cases of Khmer misspellings involve subscript consonants, since the subscripts of some consonants are identical to those of other consonants. —Stephen (Talk) 06:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)




(Norwegian) Inflections of suffixes aren't usual in my experience, but I am not sure what the policy is in other languages. I doubt that this is of any use, users are more likely to look for inflections of complete words using the suffix. . DonnanZ (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, including the forms at the suffix lemma page is definitely useful. However, this doesn't look like a proper suffix to me, e.g. islending isn't is + -lending ("inhabitant of ice"?) but Island + -ing with a vowel change in land. Same for utlending (< utland), sørlending (< Sørland(et)). Same thing happens in Danish, but spelled -lænding.__Gamren (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete; per Equinox, inflected forms are made by inflecting the full word, not by inflecting the suffix. And per Gamren, it's even worse: -lending should be deleted too. --Per utramque cavernam 14:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
While I agree that both should probably be deleted (though without outright supporting it), I contest your statement that “inflected forms are made by inflecting the full word, not by inflecting the suffix”: in Germanic, especially Nordic, languages, nominal suffixes usually form the basis of the inflections of the words they derive, determining properties such as gender and countability. The same can be observed in much of the rest of Indo-European.  — J​as​p​e​t 20:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
There may be two schools of thought with -lending, “-lending” in The Nynorsk Dictionary., and for example “islending” in Det Norske Akademis ordbok (NAOB)., where it asserts it is Island + -ing. Thus I am not proposing the deletion of -lending. DonnanZ (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
In Russian, which is heavily inflected, we also inflect suffixes where appropriate. For example, -ский (-skij). —Stephen (Talk) 05:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


SoP --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


Same as above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

These two terms are no more SoP than flat tire. Also, while both are composed of the same two words in different order, their meanings are different. As they are not SoP, both are included in Khmer dictionaries, such as the SEALang. —Stephen (Talk) 07:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks you for fixing បែកកង់ (baek kɑng). To me, flat tyre and flat tire are also SoP's and they haven't been through an RFD process. If flat tyre and flat tire are kept, these may be kept as well. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

ciruela albaricoque[edit]

Probably an invention by our old friend Luciferwildcat. --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Move to RFV: no RFD rationale given, and while most hits on BGC are enumerations, there do seem to be a few that have this as a single noun phrase. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Seems okay to me. Less commonly, ciruela de albaricoque. It is a variety of Prunus domestica (European plum) or pluot. —Stephen (Talk) 07:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

tomber sur le nez[edit]

(it might be an RFV matter) I don't see how it's an idiom. If there's no other sense than the one that's already on the entry, it's SOP. @106 for now? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete unless a more figurative sense is forthcoming. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn’t it also describe people who don’t fall nose‐first? — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 16:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep. From a literal point of view, falling on your nose is not the same as falling on your face. Falling on your nose would hurt a lot more. —Internoob 04:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

April 2018[edit]

Cebuano fractional numbers[edit]

Some entries in the Category:Cebuano fractional numbers should be deleted. I don't think we need to create entries for mixed numbers. See tulo ug usa ka sikatulo, and duha ug usa ka sikatulo. Carl Francis (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not up on Cebuano, but in many South and Southeast Asian languages, fractional numbers are idiomatic and deserve a separate category. —Stephen (Talk) 07:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown Those aren't idiomatic. Plus, we dont have entries like two and one third (tulo ug usa ka sikatulo), five and two thirds (lima ug duha ka sikatulo) and one and three thirds (usa ug tulo ka sikatulo). In the case tulo ug usa ka sikatulo, it can be split into tulo and usa ka sikatulo. Carl Francis (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete per proponent. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

træt af[edit]

Danish. I'm sorry, @Gamren, but tired of is SOP and has never had an entry. It is my opinion that træt af is essentially træt + af, just as tired of is just tired + of. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologise. I looked for instances of træt outside of træt af denoting "fed up", but it feels difficult to separate it from the "in need of reprieve" sense. Here are some (unedited, i.e. haven't checked year and translator, if any) QQ excerpts:
    • 2016, Grete Roulund, Setans porte, Lindhardt og Ringhof (→ISBN)
      I Cambodia bliver der aldrig fred, vi gravede massegrave op, vi så nogle af khmerernes videoer, og jeg siger dig, Troyat, man bliver så træt, man bliver så træt af mennesker, at man til sidst siger til sig selv: Lad dem dø, der er alt for mange af dem, og de er overalt, lad dem dø ganske naturligt af pest og kolera og aids, jeg er ligeglad, der er alt for mange, nedlæg medicinalfirmaerne og lad dyrene være i fred og lad menneskene dø af det, de nu skal dø af, de vil få et meget bedre liv.
      In Cambodia there will never be peace, we dug up mass graves, we saw some of the Khmers' videoes, and I say to you, Troyat, one becomes so tired, one becomes so tired of humans, that eventually one says to oneself: Let them die, there are far too many of them, and they are everywhere, let them die quite naturally from pest and cholera and aids, I don't care, there are far too many, close down the medicine companies and leave the animals alone and let the humans die of whatever they're dying of, they will get a much better life.
    • 2011, Anna Perera, Fanget på Guantanamo, Rosinante & Co (→ISBN)
      Han bliver så træt ved tanken om,at det emne skal forfølge ham resten af livet, ...
      He becomes so tired at the thought of that topic pursuing him for the rest of his life, ...
    • 2014, Vibeke Marx, Af ingenting, Modtryk (→ISBN)
      Bliver så træt, og indimellem vred, over altid at frygte noget, endda noget hun ikke rigtig ved, hvad er.
      Becomes so tired, and sometimes angry, about always fearing something, and on top of that something she doesn't quite know what is.
It is definitely my impression that the "fed up" sense is usually found in the construction træt af. @PseudoSkull Can you perhaps find some occurrences to support your implied statement that træt alone contains enough meaning to account for træt af?__Gamren (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Since PseudoSkull didn't respond, I am putting this as RFD kept.__Gamren (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I am restoring everything without being an administrator since you placed this here yet nobody even decided to keep it by writing this in bold letters as it is done habitually. The section starter implied its deletion and I also made my choice or suggestion here based on the meanings and the two terms conjoined comprehensibly despite not having dealt in particular with the Danish language on its own anyhow. Both German and Danish are in general Germanic languages but, in the regard of comparable or synonymous terms, they differ inasmuch as the German words müde or satt can take the accusative case instead of a preposition so that this comparison should be excluded from any considerations. More notably, in English the term tired has got as well the senses "frustrated" or "annoyed", included in its entry, and in such senses it is seemingly employed only along with the preposition of. Nonetheless there is no English entry "tired of". A sum of parts may also have a different meaning than its parts separately in case that it is still semantically very close or expectable. I think that "tired", as shown in the entry of the English term, could still be sufficiently approximate to "frustrated" or "annoyed". I am adding a mention of User:HenrikKbh, User:Mortense, User:Pinnerup, User:PseudoSkull, User:Sarrus, User:So9q and User:VladikVP. HeliosX (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
For the record, everyone here is an administrator except you, and deletion requires consensus- not just one more vote. It might have been better to close this as "No consensus to delete", but I see nothing to justify deletion. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I didn't know this apparently by accident. Maybe administrators should generally be allotted to administrator categories or perhaps all have it written on their user pages because otherwise there might not be any limpid indication and looking at the separate administrator page would require a link to it or just a particular reason that may not necessarily be deduced instantaneously. The outcome at that time was surely not to keep the entry because only one user hinted at keeping it with two users suggesting not keeping it. HeliosX (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
My admin status doesn't give my comments in RFD processes any extra weight. The fact that I a) took the time to look up some quotations, and b) actually speak the language in question natively, however, does. I wasn't sure whether this is SOP, but I was sure that PseudoSkull never presented a convincing argument to that effect.__Gamren (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

غير قانوني[edit]

As SOP as not legal. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I specifically saw this in an ad, but I'm not going to claim all ads with Arabic have good Arabic in them, so I'll defer to people with more expertise. Finsternish (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
With that said, look here: It seems to be idiomatic, as Al Maany is reputable. Finsternish (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Apart from that it also turns up a lot of Google results and seems to be in regular use. Finsternish (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not disputing that it is real; not legal is also real. I am stating that is the sum of its parts, and therefore not dictionary content. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I see. I misunderstood the rule on "idiomatic," thinking it meant only common collocations were permitted. Finsternish (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, غير‎ is different and unusual. It is often translated as a negative non-, un-, in-, dis- (which superficially seem just like the English), but that's not its meaning. غير‎ ("change") is a noun, from the verb غير‎, meaning to change, be dissimilar, be different, to differ. As a noun, غير‎ means change, and includes the connotation of different from, unlike. So غير قانوني‎ is literally "change legal", but means illegal. —Stephen (Talk) 05:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, although I'm rather late. غير قانوني‎ doesn't literally mean "change legal" — it literally means "other than legal", as that's the literal meaning of prepositional or nominal غير‎ (it doesn't mean "change" except as a verb). So there's in fact nothing special or unusual about غير‎ here, making the full phrase an SoP comparable to not legal as already stated. M. I. Wright (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Yaghnobi entries of User:Rajkiandris[edit]

In my opinion these need to be all deleted as they were taken without credit to the author from: https://yaghnobi.wordpress.com/online-yaghnobi-lexicon/, unless someone wants to contact them and ask for retrospective permission. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I spent a few minutes looking at the entries they made and comparing it to the source, for anyone interested. I'm inclined to say that they're innocent, or they at least didn't rip all of them. As for what to do, I think a more experienced editor should weigh in.
асп vs. "N. English: horse. Tojiki: асп. From: Tajik."
хоҳак vs. "V. English: want. Tojiki: хостан."
панир not in source
нун vs. "N. English: bread. Tojiki: нон. Etym: Tajik?."
хварак vs. "V. English: eat. Tojiki: хурдан. See: жавак."
тиреза vs. "N. English: window. Tojiki: тиреза. From: Tajik."
пун vs. "Adj. English: full. Tojiki: пур. Etym: Yaghnobi, from Tojiki?."
панч vs. [pantʃ] Quant. English: five. Tojiki: панҷ. Hom: панч2. / N. English: key. Tojiki: калид. Syn: калит; Hom: панч1.
зивок vs. "N. English: language. Tojiki: забон."
Gormflaith (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The editor in question added a lot of bad entries and was quite uncareful; we know for a fact that some are copied from that site. We also don't have anyone equipped to assess whether they're correct. Unless such a person appears, I think we may have to delete them to be safe. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I think they should all be deleted as well, but also because Yaghnobi should be written using more accurate Latin characters. Using Cyrillic is nationalist propaganda claiming that Yaghnobi as closely related to Tajik, which is unquestionably not at the case. --Victar (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
After looking a bit more, I agree with you guys... I shouldn't have been so quick to judge (in favor). Side note: some of the etymologies had straight up zero links 😕 – Gormflaith (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Nationalist propaganda? Everything printed in Yaghnobi is in Cyrillic. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Gormflaith for looking at the entries in more detail. If this is agreed upon then, then they ought to be deleted sooner rather than later, as once the data is re-used by Wikidata under a different licence I think it will be impossible to delete, won't it? @Metaknowledge Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

If it's decided to delete all of this user's Yaghnobi entries, note that some Yaghnobi entries were not written by this user, so look at the edit history before deleting. - -sche (discuss) 20:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Could you take care of this please? It's months later and nothing has been done. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: I really don't have the time nor the energy nor the interest to do this all myself. I told User:Victar (and this applies to you too): if you go through and mark them all with, say, {{delete|Mass deletion of entries per RFD}}, I will finish the job and delete them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
There has got to be a bot option for that. @DTLHS? --Victar (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how easy it would be to program a bot to do that, and DTLHS may not have time to write one, but if we all look over a few entries a day we can get this knocked out in a month or so. I've started going through the entries in Category:Yagnobi lemmas, removing the ones I can't find evidence for in books (I am using Google Books to check for English or Russian books that contain the word and its gloss in those languages). - -sche (discuss) 03:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I would have to look at the page histories of all Yagnobi entries to see that Rajkiandris actually touched the page, unless you have a list already. DTLHS (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
To echo what I wrote before, all the Yaghnobi entries should be deleted. Using cyrillic is nationalist propaganda taken from the site Rajkiandris sourced. --Victar (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I've found references attesting Yagnobi words in Cyrillic script from at least as early as the 1970s; based on that and Guldrelokk's statement above, your claim seems overbroad. I don't have a problem with romanizing those sources/entries if it is felt that the Latin script is preferable, though. I can go ahead and move/recreate the entries I've found attested in Latin script straight to Latin script entries. - -sche (discuss) 17:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@-sche: Mirzozoda from the Tajik Academy of Sciences is the spearhead behind spelling Yaghnobi using Cyrillic, an otherwise unwritten language. The modified Tajik Cyrillic alphabet he uses was invented by him, but it is completely inept at properly representing Yaghnobi phonology. He also asserts that Yaghnobi and Tajik are closely related, which is demonstrably false, harkening back to my nationalist political propaganda comment. --Victar (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I've gone through the ёs, аs, бs, вs, дs, еs, жs, гs, иs, яs, ғs, ӣs and ԝs and removed the ones I couldn't find other references for (which was most of them, about 50 entries so far). - -sche (discuss) 05:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

core Caryophyllales[edit]

Caryophyllales, like many higher plant taxa, has been undergoing revision in order to render it monophyletic. Some authors wish to discuss the monophyletic grouping without redefining the term (in order to avoid confusion), and therefore refer to it as the "core" of the taxon as usually defined. I don't think this kind of terminology is a true taxonomic name, just a delimiting noun plus a taxonomic name. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

For that matter, it's also not Translingual — it's English. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The English problem might also be a matter of core and its related terms, and several other terms like angiosperms. - 13:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
It is a term with specific hyponyms and hypernyms, somewhat variable over time, and synonyms used much more specifically than core + Caryophyllales. DCDuring (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Almost all the usage at Google "core Caryophyllales" (BooksGroupsScholar) indicates to me that core Caryophyllales is used in a manner clearly parallel to that of other taxonomic groups with names that follow the older taxonomic naming practices. That the name is used in two of the databases in the entry suggests that it has gained sufficient currency when referring to a particular group of families to be used for an entry or section title. The usage may turn out to be relatively short term, as Caryophyllales is used by more authors to have the same families as core Caryophyllales. As long as both concepts are being used, the need for a distinguishing name may continue. That the name can be interpreted as SoP in the minds of a broad population of readers does not mean that it is so interpreted by the authors and their fellow professionals. DCDuring (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

-ающий, -яющий, -ающийся[edit]

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)
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)


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)


Well, uh, we don't have an entry for English IndyCar... —Suzukaze-c 23:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Searching about here and there, 1) this appears to be a brand name, and thus 2) it should be a proper noun, from what I can find, and 3) this is only used in specific contexts, c.f. w:ja:インディカー and google:"インディカー", where Google throws up a suggested English hit in the right-hand sidebar (for me, anyway) for the IndyCar Series, a series of races apparently sponsored by Verizon.
Dunno if this meets CFI from the perspective of WT:BRAND, however. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


This is not a lexicalized term, but simply 神木 (shinboku, sacred tree) with the honorific prefix (go).

Some terms in Japanese that include this prefix have indeed lexicalized, like 御飯 (gohan, food, a meal, literally honorable + cooked rice), and such terms merit inclusion. However, 御神木 is not one of these, and is purely SOP.

Moreover, just comparing usage patterns, the unprefixed form is much more common.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Daijisen does list 「御神木」, with the description 「『神木』に同じ。」 ("Same as 「神木」."). (I don't have an opinion as to whether it should be included in Wiktionary.) --Ornilnas (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
(weakly keep) in my (I am Japanese native speaker) opinion, there are bit difference between (しん)(ぼく) (goshinboku) (()(しん)(ぼく) (goshinboku)) and (しん)(ぼく) (shinboku). I think (しん)(ぼく) (goshinboku) means sacred (large) tree in Shinto shrine or other sacred area and (しん)(ぼく) (shinboku) means (purely) sacred tree (or twing or bough). Google search cannot be used as the evidence in this RfD because search results include place name and Japanese family name.
Japanese place name with "神木" (According to jusyo.jp)
  1. 神木(しぼく)(ほん)(ちょう) (Shiboku Honchō), Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa
  2. 神木(しぼく) (Shiboku), Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa
  3. 治郎(じろ)(まる)(しん)(ぼく)(ちょう) (Jiromaru Shinbokuchō), Inazawa, Aichi
  4. 神木(こうのぎ) (Kōnogi), Mihama, Minami-muro County, Mie
  5. (かみ)()(ちょう) (Kamikichō), Moriguchi, Osaka
  6. (へい)(そう)(ちょう)(こう)() (Heisōchō Kōgi), Kakogawa, Hyogo
  7. (じん)() (Jingi), Ano, Kamiyama, Myozai County, Tokushima
  8. (みょう)(じん)() (Myōjingi), Saijo, Ehime
Kawasaki and Moriguchi are large city and related search results are numerous. 神木隆之介 (Ryūnosuke Kamiki) is Japanese famous actor and seiyū. 片割れ靴下 (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


German and Dutch. SoP; -in (feminine suffix) + -en (plural suffix). The double < n > is to keep the < i > checked. Can be explained in the usage sections of -in. – Gormflaith (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. SOP applies to multiword phrases, not polymorphemic words and affixes. Otherwise we'd have to delete English boys and English walked and all sorts of things as being SOP ([[boy]]+[[-s]], [[walk]]+[[-ed]], etc.). —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Mahagaja: But boys and walked both are free morpheme + bound morpheme. -innen is just two bound morphemes, which I don't think deserves an entry. -in isn't a stem; you can't add morphemes to it. In forming the word Schülerinnen, I believe it's: Schule + -erSchüler + -inSchülerin + -en = Schülerinnen. By the -innen logic, should we have an entry for -erinnen too? I feel like that's going a bit overboard. And there's not a clear precedent with this: we have -esses and -rices, but not -ers, -ettes, -ees, -ings, -oids, etc. – Gormflaith (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I see your point, but we do also have -schaften and -ungen, not to mention 874 entries for suffix inflections in Latin. Rather than decide these on a case-by-case basis, we need to develop some sort of general policy either allowing or disallowing inflected forms of bound affixes. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I agree; I didn't know there was 1000+ suffix forms here. I'm going to be bold and say that I think they all should be deleted and confined to declension tables... though you can't really decline a suffix. I might create a vote for this. Even if it doesn't pass I think there should still be a policy about this. – Gormflaith (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
          • @Gormflaith: Do you still intend to do this? I'd support it. I think you should take it up to the Beer Parlour first though. --Per utramque cavernam 21:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
            • @Per utramque cavernam: Kind of, but I'm not confident in making a proposal that would affect tons of languages I don't know anything about. I'll start a BP discussion tomorrow when I have a bit more time so I can get more input. – Gormflaith (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Can't remember which entry now, but there was a discussion at one point about suffix entries having plurals (!) e.g. ism, plural isms: this is sth that struck me as silly because you don't pluralise until you have formed a complete word, i.e. you don't morphologically do true + -isms but rather (true + -ism) + -s. If that applies here (I only know a couple of words of German) then delete. Equinox 19:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Equinox: Yep, exactly. Even the entry for Schülerinnen says "plural of Schülerin" not, like, "plural of Schüler, but now they're girls". – Gormflaith (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Devil's advocate: what if there is some strange plurality that comes from the suffix, e.g. loaned -ium may become -ia? Does that change things? Equinox 01:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking about that too. I actually like how it is now: no plural on -ium (but useful notes about it in the defs) and "Used in forming plurals of nouns in -ium and -ion." at -ia. It specifies that the nouns are being pluralized rather than the affix. However, for all the actual Latin suffix forms, I'm not sure. Looking at the word patrium: I think it's best analyzed as an inflection of patrius, rather than pater + -ium, right? But what about metallāria? Should it be analyzed as metallum +‎ -āria, or an inflection of metallārius? I don't know... Gormflaith (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete per Gormflaith and Equinox. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm on the fence, leaning weakly towards keep because of the added n. I note that the verb-forming suffix -ieren was deleted on de.Wikt on these grounds: that it's "really" -ier(-) + -en. - -sche (discuss) 03:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if I agree with the -ieren deletion. -ier isn't really a morpheme in German. (I think). – Gormflaith (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not sure I agree with that either. We shouldn't take parlieren (parlier + -en) as evidence of a suffix -ieren, but that doesn't mean that the suffix doesn't exist; otherwise how do you explain buchstabieren, halbieren, etc.? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@-sche, Gormflaith What do you think of this? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I've tweaked it to note that -ier(en) is the/a traditional rendering of e.g. -ire, -iare and other non-homographic suffixes. -ier is a morpheme in German, btw: besides being a noun-forming suffix, it was argued by one of de.Wikt's resident professional linguists (against some of the standard dictionaries!) that -ier is the true verb-forming suffix, visible in e.g. imperatives, to which the infinitive suffix -en is added to form the infinitive. (Which is a plausible-enough analysis, though I think it was unhelpful that it was then used to delete all trace of -ieren as a verb-forming suffix, because dictionaries normally lemmatize the infinitive for German, and it's odd for de.Wikt to instead lemmatize -ier here.) - -sche (discuss) 14:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Since Gormflaith reads German, she might be interested: de:Wiktionary:Löschkandidaten/Archiv_2012/2#-ieren_(erl.,_verschoben) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@-sche, Per utramque cavernam The rebracketing explanation is what I interpreted this as. parlier as the verb stem borrowed from French, plus the native -en verb forming suffix. Like how we say "the alcohol" (I once read an absolutely ridiculous pop linguistics article about how we should not use "the" with alcohol, alchemy, etc). And then rebracketing to get -ieren for halbieren, buchstabieren, usw. But the argument over at de.wikt is interesting. To me -ieren looks good it right now (thanks for the edits). But I'm not a morphology expert. (Also: our entry at -en is "A suffix of all verbs in their infinitive form.", which would exclude -ieren form being an infinitive suffix). – Gormflaith (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep: We do already say "plural -innen". Usage note at -in would be the last place to look for orthography hints, when the meaning is already clear. Or if the page can' t be found.
I'd also argue that this may be parsed as a suffix by some speakers. The doubt about a slippery sloap to -erinnen is interesting but not entirely convincing, because Zugführerinnen is not formed from' 'Zugfuhre, nor Zugfahrt. While it could instead be derived from the root verb plus agent suffix, I'm not even convinced -innen was -in + -en. Rather -in might be -innen / -en. That's probably inconclusive or perhaps outright wrong.
Nevertheless I am trying to make the case that -innen is attached to male plural forms, so the singular + in would be a backformation.
On a related note: -en as adjectival suffix (sense 3, e.g. golden), makes me think that the plural suffix was derived therefrom.
So, -en was perhaps more often applied to female terms because women were often objectified (materialistic, pun intended). This -en was MHG -in!
Now, the ety for -in mentions -inne next to -in, but that doesn't have an entry. That's the most important point. If -inne was a suffix, -innen surely is from plain -in + -en. The ety for that -en is not really informative either. Could someone clarify?
Would you rather delete if uncertain or keep and improve? I dislike incorrectness as much as anyone else, but this one wouldn't really hurt to keep.
By the way, could such a development compare to Beamtin, for a perhaps similar development? Beamtinnen should be virtually non existent, whereas Beamtenin seems (to me, slowly loosing focus) seems more natural. The point however is that die Beamte very impersonal, derived from a property. 05:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Having entries for inflected forms of lemmata is uncontested common practice in Wiktionary, I don't understand why we have this discussion. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    It's not uncontested for suffixes. --Per utramque cavernam 13:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I am not contesting it, however, so I'm standing behind my Keep. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: I see no harm in keeping inflections of suffixes as long as they make sense. It is not sum of parts in WT:CFI#Idiomaticity parlance since it does not arise from separate components; and furthermore, it is a combination of a derivational suffix with inflectional suffix. Above, Mahagaja shows a long-standing practice of including inflections of suffixes: Category:Latin suffix forms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. On a balance, I think it's more useful to have this, especially to explain the added -n-. I note that de.Wikt has an entry for it, despite their relative scepticism of 'inflected suffixes' which I note above. Incidentally, it can house an etymology section noting that it goes back through Middle High German (vriundinnen) and possibly Old High German (friuntinnen). - -sche (discuss) 16:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I notice that some people justify having the entry on the grounds that the added n may be unexpected. I think it needs to be realised that having an entry for a form and merely listing it as a form on the lemma page are two different things. Inflection tables and headword lines do not have to generate links to the forms they list; they can show forms without a link. I am 100% in favour of listing all possible inflections on affix entries. It's valuable information, because it tells you how to inflect a word that is formed with that affix and can sometimes also tell affixes apart if their lemmas coincide. However, I see less of a need to have actual entries for all of these inflections. The basic principle is to provide entries for things that someone might encounter in a text. Neither affix lemmas nor affix inflections are encountered in texts under normal circumstances, so that counts against including them. Entries for affixes are invaluable for the purposes of understanding word derivation and etymology, but the same can't be said for their inflections. The only pressing reason to have entries is so that they can have pronunciations, but I'm not sure of this because what you always end up pronouncing is a full-formed word that includes the affix, and the pronunciation of the affix may be different in the full word than it is in isolation. —Rua (mew) 20:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


It looks like "A generally despicable person." is just rewording the def "bastard, shit, son of a bitch". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep: One is an interjection, the other an appelation of sorts, a noun anyway. Now, I don' t expect this page would lead to prolongued discussion of the need to separate differences between interjections, nouns, but have to note that those are separate at yuck. 03:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018[edit]


Discussion moved from WT:RFVN.

This was marked for speedy deletion by User:Fumiko Take on the grounds that "Furansu is not normally written in hiragana". Given that the entry has been there for 8 years, and that there are hits in Google Books, I didn't think this merited speedying. Of course, hits aren't necessarily actual usage, especially since Google has problems with non-Latin scripts and with languages without clearly-visible word boundaries.

Note: if this passes, there's the possibility it could be challenged in rfd as a rare misspelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

All the previewable Google Books results are of children's textbooks (except for this one bizarre "Glossika" result), and all of the same sentence. Katakana is one of the basic Japanese scripts alongside Hiragana, and I'm guessing the textbooks are for children who haven't learned it yet. It is as legitimate a spelling as English FRENCH or french. —suzukaze (tc) 03:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Meh. Attestable, albeit not very common. It's valid, and there's no harm in us retaining this. Keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I said "not normally" which means some authors do use the hiragana form for ruby in certain ways in their writings. It's not a "normal" (=commonplace) practice though. ばかFumikotalk 03:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I concur with Eirikr: it's not at all common, but it is legitimate (especially, as suzukaze-c notes, in children's books). I don't see any harm in keeping it more or less as is, perhaps noting that it is uncommon. Cnilep (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to move this to RFD because it seems attestable, and users above seem to agree it's attested, the argument is that the books it's attested in are rare or oriented to children. - -sche (discuss) 23:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Moved from RFV. Discuss: is an uncommon spelling which is mostly attested in children's book and language-learner books includable? - -sche (discuss) 23:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

よーろっぱ, ゆーらしあ, おーすとらりあ[edit]

suzukaze (tc) 02:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to move this to RFD, as above. - -sche (discuss) 23:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


See also Talk:porta-.

Pace the Italian wiktionary, this is not a prefix but a verbal compounding form. Although I find it unnecessary (we could put the list of compounds at portare), I'm ok with keeping the entry itself since it exists in other dictionaries; see Treccani for example.

Note however that Treccani does not describe porta- as a prefix, as opposed to pre-. Saying it's a prefix makes as much sense as saying cutthroat is cut- + throat, or killjoy is kill- + joy, or spitfire is spit- + fire.

Category:Italian words prefixed with porta- needs to be deleted. --Per utramque cavernam 08:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I Symbol support vote.svg Support deletion, though I’m fine with keeping it different from a prefix, too. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] (parla con me) 10:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

June 2018[edit]

pointe aux âmes[edit]

Sum of parts. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


Spanish, user's only contribution. Has sparse cites, none of which correspond to the given def. Ultimateria (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, per the RAE's official Spanish dictionary:

La palabra arroñar no está registrada en el Diccionario. La entrada que se muestra a continuación podría estar relacionada:

  • carroñar

Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
It's listed in "Boletín del Instituto de Estudios Asturianos, Issues 71-74" (1970) with the definition segar. Also in "Estudios sobre escritores montañeses" (José María de Cossío, 1973) as "Hacer roeños." DTLHS (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
How would you translate this? "Este cerco amurallado a medio caer, este castillo arroñado que sirvió para defender el puente hoy inexistente y anegado, este campo labrado o el patio de armas lleno de amapolas ... " (Mi libro de Zamora, Luis Cortés Vázquez, 1975). DTLHS (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Any chance this is a mistake for, or development from, arrollar? That fits the meaning.
Looking etymologically, arroñar could be ad- + roñar, the latter of which shows up in the RAE entry with apparent senses of to groan, grunt, grumble; to take a piss; to sting (if I've understood things correctly).
Alternatively, it might be a development from roña (dirt, grime; rust; meanness; mange; grudge; trick). The first two senses point towards dilapidation or degradation, which would also seem to fit the quote above. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The RAE dictionary is not like the OED. The RAE dictionary makes no attempt to list all Spanish words and it comes nowhere near to doing so. arroñar means collapse, fall apart (usually said of old structures, old houses, etc.). Also used of a person who is falling apart, or, due to bad health, cannot stay upright. Synonym for derrumbarse. —Stephen (Talk) 03:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Este cerco amurallado a medio caer, este castillo arroñado que sirvió para defender el puente hoy inexistente y anegado, este campo labrado o el patio de armas lleno de amapolas …This crumbling walled enclosure, this collapsed castle that served to defend the now missing and flooded bridge, this tilled field or the poppy-covered parade ground …
  • Re: how the RAE operates, thank you for the note -- I realized after posting that they aren't shooting for full coverage.
Re: the derivation of arroñar, do you have any additional information? Is it a derivation from (or otherwise related to) noun roña? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 15:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the etymology is. Possibly from roña, I guess, but I think it might be from arruinar, modified to arroñar by speakers of the Asturian language of northwestern Spain. —Stephen (Talk) 06:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I do believe that arroñado is an adjective (barely citeable, so I won't add it), derived, as Eirikr points out, from roña. All the GB results for arronado and its forms could be understood as "grimy, filthy, dirty, rusty": "Un mendigo, por arroñado y en mal uso ..."; "los mástiles estaban arroñados — ¡caray con la humedad de Bilbao!"
The quote provided likely means "fallen" but potentially "filthy". There is one other cite that definitively fits the "fallen" definition: "los magníficos castillos ideológicos de cartón piedra son arroñados como simples castillos de naipes". But @Stephen G. Brown would have to provide a third citation for this to pass. I can't find any more. Ultimateria (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

July 2018[edit]

dar pitaco[edit]

SOP. dar + pitaco —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2602:252:d2b:3aa0:85a2:1a9e:d7f7:47bc (talk) at 12:23, 8 July 2018‎.

Keep. There is no need to delete it. It's a valid expression, and it's even indexed in some online dictionaries. CaiusSPQR (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


RfD-sense of "Very pleasant situation". This seems like nothing more than figurative use of sense 1. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Many fairy tales tell a fairly nasty story, including those in which “they lived happily ever after”. The statement “My life is like a fairy tale” implies that it is unfolding in a way that it’s hard to believe it is for real, not that it is particularly pleasant. So if in Dutch use the pleasantness rather than the incredibility may be an implied sense, it may be worth recording this. By the way, Turkish masal may have the same sense of a dream come true – which may be a better definition than “very pleasant situation”.  --Lambiam 00:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]

anh hai[edit]

Tagged by 2405:4800:52a7:99c:4104:f793:b3d:b0c0 but not listed. Comment: "SOP; compare bác hai, chị hai, cậu hai, etc." SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 20:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

atterrare a motori spenti[edit]

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 16:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

atterraggio senza motori[edit]

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 16:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

That IP has quite a few more entries that could qualify as SOP, actually... SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 16:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I suspect this is Angelucci (talkcontribs), who was already a problematic contributor a few years back. Per utramque cavernam 16:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

замын машинд дайгдах[edit]

Seems to be a sum of parts, literally "to be taken by a car" Crom daba (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


See Talk:Pippi Longstocking. —Suzukaze-c 23:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

en bonne santé[edit]

Sounds pretty SOP to me; yes, it's the usual way of translating healthy into French, but we can link the components separately (which is what we're already doing, in fact). And we don't have en mauvaise santé. Per utramque cavernam 12:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I'm surprised to see that in good health has never been created, but I'm sure it would have been RFD'd too. Ultimateria (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)





Per utramque cavernam 11:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


This entry was originally a general "Nahuatl" entry covering multiple varieties. For some reason it got changed to "Classical Nahuatl" even though this word is not attested in Classical Nahuatl. If we don't want to treat Nahuatl as a single language, then the individual varieties should each have separate entries, and this pseudo-Classical entry should be deleted. --Lvovmauro (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm reseach this word, calatl is a Huacteca Nahuatl, a tree frog., Thank you by the comentary. No delete calatl, other option in Classical Nahuatl, a diferent word by cueyatl.--Marrovi (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
In that case, "Classical Nahuatl" should be changed to "Eastern Huasteca Nahuatl" and/or "Central Huasteca Nahuatl" as appropriate, and the Mecayapan information should be deleted since it's a different language that uses a different spelling. --Lvovmauro (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Lvovmauro: So the Huasteca Nahuatl entries should be at kalatl? Can you please clean this one up yourself so it can be closed? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to touch it since I don't have a source. It's not listed in the dictionary of Central Huasteca Nahuatl that I have.
I did fix up ca̱la̱ꞌ though. --Lvovmauro (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

September 2018[edit]


SoP? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably Keep, maybe Move to 一鍵式 considering we already have 一站式, among others. I just can't think of a English equivalent... --Tsumikiria (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018[edit]


This together with inodiatus and perodiatus are taken by L&S from Forcellini (edit: on another look odiatus doesn't occur even there; the other two words do). However, in Forcellini itself it says "word to be removed from the Dictionary, occurs only in Not. Tir. p. 77." This is what it's referring to: as far as I can tell, it's a manuscript/codex of Tironian Notes shorthand, and is indeed the only place I've found those words in. I don't know if misreading or scribal mistake is more likely. The words themselves reflect presumable proto-Romance forms (e.g. odiato) based on the verb odiare which doesn't exist in Latin. Those forms cannot derive from odīre - the perfect participle from that would have been *ōdītus or *ōssus. Unless someone can provide dictionary entries for those words from Medieval Latin dictionaries or cite examples from medieval texts, I think it's fair to conclude that the editors of Forcellini have mistakenly included them (forgot to remove them), whence they've found their way into L&S, but are not actual Latin words. Perhaps they have a place in the newly-emerging proto-Romance section.

--Brutal Russian (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I just tried searching odiatorum and easily found a result; I haven't found anything legitimate for an inflected form of inodiatus, however. I'm not sure whether we should reject something only found in the Tironian Notes in any case, and perhaps they would be better to keep with an appropriate label. Also, for the future, this is the wrong place to post this; WT:RFVN is the forum where you should post entries that you doubt the existence of. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I've found exactly 2 attestations of odiatorum in google: one is this 1591 edition which is corrected to exosorum in later editions; the other I haven't found corrections of. archive.org has been somewhat more productive, showing for instance a quote from what I gather to be a book by a 19th century Italian historian Pietro Martini - which I haven't been able to find - quoting an unidentified parchment. Another is this from ~1700. The word odiatus, as I've made clear in an edit, is absent from the edition of Tironian Notes I've linked to (presumably corrected to odietas as a marginal gloss of odiosus), the word inodiatus has 4 alternative readings, perodiatus one. Ernout, Meillet has this to say, marking odiatus with an asterisk. The words are not in De Vaan. This dictionary follows Forcellini with the same single (and apparently false) reference, and so do some other minor dictionaries.
Here's another article conjecturing that the form odiare must have existed based on that same codex as well as the Romance forms - however, as we've seen, the form isn't truly attested even there, and Romance points to proto-Romance, not to Latin. "Neue Formenlehre..." gives what seems to be a comprehensive list of all attested forms in pre-Medieval Latin, neither odiare nor odiatus are among them - the -ia- forms are presumably subjunctives, whose very existence by itself precludes a verb odiare from appearing. That said, inodiare at least does seem to have inscriptional evidence and is listed. Looking for perodiare will be a bit too much for me right now.
I think this should be enough evidence from me. However, I'd also like to raise a methodological question: if a word that is expressly ungrammatical in Classical terms, is attested during or after the Medieval Period a couple of times with dubious manuscript authority, and corresponds to or is indistinguishable from a proto-Romance form, can be included on wiktionary as a properly Latin entry, then I have to wonder - firstly, what's the point of having the Vulgar Latin category (whose name I take a big issue with and whose link doesn't appear to be working, but never mind)? And secondly - does this mean that I can add a Latin word (naturally marking it as "contemporary Latin" or the like) found in the personalised dictionary, or simply in the writings or speech, of some modern Latin-speaking circle or internet venue? How about a random PDF file with computer vocabulary floating around the net? Is being found on the Latin wikipedia a solid enough ground for inclusion? Certainly it would be more useful for a modern Latinist. Do medieval Latinised Germanisms and Gallicisms such that abound in all those early medieval laws quality as Medieval Latin? What about their corruptions that are firmly-attested by several manuscripts? Last, but by no means least — does Nutella Nutellae and other macaronic Latin qualify? I know this might seem like it's going well beyond the scope of this discussion, but I suspect the answers to this latter part might instead be at the very core of our apparent disagreement over the inclusion of the words in question. By the way, I'm henceforth including the alternative conjugation of odio into this discussion. Also, should we continue this here, at RFVN or at some other place? Sorry, I'm very poorly familiar with community pages. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Brutal Russian (talkcontribs).
Attestations from Vicipaedia or the like do not suffice. The question for mediaeval and modern Latin has been whether a single durably archived use or mention suffices (as it does for classical words), or whether three independent ones should be required. I support the latter position, and we have applied it with some success: it avoids words that just one person coined for, say, Harrius Potter, but still allows in words that seem like "bad" Latin but occur in multiple manuscripts and might reasonably be something that someone would come across and want to know the meaning of (like sewera). My viewpoint therefore leads me to be very inclusive of anything that may be classical (if there are several proposed readings, we can include them all with explanatory labels), and exclusive of things written after the Late Latin period unless they meet our more stringent requirements. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding "WT:RFVN is the forum": If OP's opinion is that words only attested through Tironian notes should be deleted, it would be an RFD or BP and not an RFV matter.
  • Regarding "random PDF file with computer vocabulary floating": That's probably not durably archived (WT:CFI). And even if it were, there would be the mentioning stuff (such as "should maintain a list of materials").
  • Regarding CFI, types of sources (Tironian notes, manuscripts, editions) and types of Latin: 1. Tironian notes, manuscripts and older editions (if they aren't clear misprints or misspellings) should be okay for attestation. There can be labels and usage notes to note such things. 2. Even Contemporary Latin obiously is an LDL too like so many others languages and no constructed language as for example Esperanto. And why shouldn't Latin Harry Potter attest Latin words, when other Harry Potter versions can attest words for other LDLs (e.g. Scots, Cymric or West Frisian)?
- 21:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
It’s a good question what we do with well-attested manuscript corruptions that have creeped into literature. fariō (salmon trout) (whencever people are so sure about the meaning of this hapax) has even been borrowed into English though in Meillet’s and Ernout’s words “sans doute graphie fautive de sariō” (from long ſ to f as it seems). Imho using {{n-g}} and saying what kind of corruption (with what likelihood, if applicable) a thing is is a good idea (even in Medieval Latin “odiatus” is a soloecism). There are lots of examples for ancient languages, considering Semitic languages too, where occurences of “holy” scriptures are corrupt but only later found to be so etc. Because why shouldn’t we if we include misspellings? Traditional dictionaries write things like “so in the Ms. XYZ” (funny if juxtaposed with the three-quotes criterion, and tricky with the templates). Or we need a layout similar to {{no entry}} for corruptelae. You need to let your creativity work. Fay Freak (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Interesting, I've checked the Latin misspellings category and only one item in there can be said to be a misspelling, the hypercorrection pariens for pariēs (the status of nasalisation/nasal in this environment and its timeline seem to be unclear). Other items that aren't abbreviations reflect genuine alternative morphophonetic forms, even if -acius for -aceus is likely to be at least in part a result of phonetic developments. What criterion defines those alternative forms as misspelings? In some non-literary corpora, the rate of omission of the final -M can be well over 50% (data from Adams 2013) - this hardly qualifies for a misspelling any more, but the language of those inscriptions is undeniably Latin. Late inscriptions and early Medieval texts still identified as Latin (even if with reservations) consistently fail to distinguish between the Accusative and the Ablative; Medieval Latin always spells -e- for -ae- in the 1st declension. Why do we not supply these and other things as alternative Late/Medieval forms? Certainly it looks like that's what has been dome in the case of the alternative conjugation of odio, only there a whole paradigm has been made up, apparently on the barely-extant evidence of just the participle - one can walk away from wiktionary falsely convinced that all of those forms are good Latin. Even if we were to confirm that paradigm with more than the current 3 New Latin attestations (+1 emended one) of the participle, I think it's beyond doubt that the form is an erroneous back-conversion from a Romance language for the properly Latin invīsus — and it's in this connection that I've asked about macaronic language, because the only difference here is intention. Would 3 attestations of a macaronic word give it a pass?
It looks like the misspellings category is currently being used as the generic dump for any non-standard form that's either attested or doesn't foreshadow Romance forms, and thus cannot be filed under the reconstructed namespace. This doesn't seem like an optimal solution to me, but filing them under for instance "Medieval Latin" doesn't seem a much better option - indeed, hence my objection to the inclusion of odiatus etc under such a label. I think we need to somehow draw a clear distinction between forms current and accepted in some period and unambiguous corrigenda, non-literary (inscriptional etc), or as of yet unsettled or competing usage (modern Latin vocabulary). For entries currently residing under misspellings I would suggest "Non-literary form", an equivalent of "Dialectal form" in other languages, with a way to specify place and period. For solecisms like odiatus, including those found in dictionaries on shaky or wrong evidence, as well as corruptions, I agree with the above proposal — there has to be a way to clearly indicate the non-acceptance of the former and the corrupted nature of the latter. And I don't think we can have an "alternative" conjugation like that without every form's page indicating its essentially fictional nature — unlike the 1st conjugation there are 2 pre-Medieval attested forms of the 3d conjugation odere - yet those aren't sufficient grounds to make up a whole new conjugation for the verb either. If anything, the reconstructed space seems like just the place for those. As for odiatus, its most solid attestation is a species of midge called Culicoides odiatus — perhaps that's what the page should be provisionally reprofiled to. ♥Brutal Russian (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

to ganger[edit]

(Bokmål) User:Jonteemil nominated this for speedy deletion. I have redirected it here. Personally I don't see anything wrong with it. DonnanZ (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's SOP as it's literally just "two times"? SOP-ness is a proper reason for WT:RFDN. - 19:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
That shouldn't apply when the translation is a single word. DonnanZ (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
It literally means ”two times”. I also added en gång and en gang which literally mean ”one time”. All of these four should be deleted since they aren’t idiomatic whatsoever. Unless you create articles for one time, ten times or seventeen times they can be swiftly deleted.Jonteemil (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Moved en gang and en gång here too. They are not candidates for speedy deletion, be more careful how you use that. DonnanZ (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, my bad.Jonteemil (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Donnanz: IMHO SOP can still apply. It just means, the translations has to be linked properly like this: "Norwegian: to ganger" [ Norwegian: {{t|no|[[to]] [[gang]]er}} ]. The English synonym of twice can be given as two times [ {{l|en|[[two]] [[times]]}} ] BTW. - 21:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I don’t really know what either of those acronyms mean but that’s how it should be anyway.Jonteemil (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, BTW; SOP. - 07:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

två gånger[edit]

And Jonteemil did exactly the same with the Swedish entry. DonnanZ (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

keep "en gång" and "två gånger", but do not create "tre gånger" etc. Reason: it is NOT obvious that no preposition is needed. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

en gång[edit]

As above. DonnanZ (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

keep "en gång" and "två gånger", but do not create "tre gånger" etc. Reason: it is NOT obvious that no preposition is needed. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

en gang[edit]

As above. Perhaps he would like to delete engang as well, as it is derived from en gang. DonnanZ (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Engang and en gang seems to be used quite differently entirely so engang should not be erased.Jonteemil (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
engang is a single word - thus by WT:COALMINE it's ok. (And if en gang and engang would be alternative forms of each other, en gang would be ok too, even if it were SOP.) - 21:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep all of these anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Donnanz: You want the four entries to be kept??Jonteemil (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I said. It's nice to have the boot on the other foot for once, as compound words are two a penny in Scandinavian languages (and there are some that seem to be made up on a whim), but don't always qualify for English equivalents. For example there is an entry for shop window (butikkvindu) but not for kitchen window (kjøkkenvindu) or bedroom window. This opinion you obviously don't agree with, but there it is. And these entries are useful, it can't be helped if there is no Scandinavian one-word equivalent for once and twice. DonnanZ (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Donnanz: Answer me this. If the English translation of kjøkkenvindu doesn’t have an entry, why does two entirely seperate words such as ”en gång” have an entry. I might look up ”I am” or ”nine times” but they don’t deserve seperate entries since you can check up I and am, and nine and times seperately. Only because it’s useful, it doesn’t deserve an entry, right. Then we might as well change this name to wikitranslate where every grouping of words have an entry.Jonteemil (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I was debating yesterday whether to add entries for foreldreløst barn and foreldrelaust barn (translations of orphan) but decided against it - they would have to be minimal entries without inflections, which can be complex. En gang could be considered idiomatic though, and I added a reference to the Bokmål Dictionary. I can't answer why en gång has an entry, I wasn't the creator, but I wouldn't delete it either. I think you're looking from a Swedish point of view, mine is from an English point of view. DonnanZ (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Donnanz: To respond to that I would like you to define ”idiomatic” since it seems to be somewhat of a false friend in Swedish and English.Jonteemil (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Edit: not a false friend. I’m just not too sure about that definition. Please define it anyway so we can avoid ant misunderstandings.Jonteemil (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Donnanz.Jonteemil (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless these are shown to have idiomatic meanings, delete. We don't have nor want an entry for French deux fois, for example. Per utramque cavernam 13:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete the ones meaning "two times", but keep those meaning "once"; both can pass COALMINE and at least en gang can probably pass the Lemming principle as well. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: What are those two terms? I’ve never heard of them. A google didn’t give me anything either unfortunately.Jonteemil (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jonteemil See WT:COALMINE and WT:Lemming principle. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: So if I’m not mistaken, ”coal mine” should exist so that no one thinks that ”coalmine” is the correct spelling. And prime number should exist since it, eventhough seemingly appears as a sum of two parts, exist in dictionaries, such as merriam-webster. If that is true, then en gang should probably be kept so no one thinks ”en gang” is spelt without spaces, the same goes with the Nynorsk spelling ein gong. Since there is no word called toganger though, to ganger and all of the other requests for deletion should be erased.Jonteemil (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jonteemil That is roughly it, though with "common/usual spelling" for "correct spelling". Anyway, I believe that en gang has now been coalmined (see relevant senses at engang). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo I did come across an instance of "en gang" in the negative translating to "even", so I included it as a usex (from Wikipedia, maybe not durable). But I'm still sticking up for "to ganger = twice". DonnanZ (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Can some admin delete to ganger and två gånger?Jonteemil (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
keep "en gång" and "två gånger", but do not create "tre gånger" etc. Reason: it is NOT obvious that no preposition is needed. Page one hundred and one is tolerable but one hundred and two is not. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

November 2018[edit]


And all the codes of {{ccTLD}}. How is this lexical? --Per utramque cavernam 19:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It's an abbreviation with a well-established meaning though. Keep Purplebackpack89 20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete. These are not used with meaning in running text, only in URLs. URLs are outside the scope of a dictionary. —Rua (mew) 21:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep all We are not a normal dictionary, and these might be useful to someone. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
We're not a normal dictionary, but we're still supposed to be a dictionary. Per utramque cavernam 23:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete. These have no semantics, they are computer codes for DNS server software. Guldrelokk (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
They do have semantics, as noted below. This one is a domain name suffix meaning 'associated with France'. Now, the names may be applied sloppily - google.fr may mean 'Google for French' rather than 'Google for France', and youtu.be has nothing to do with Belgium. And they do occur in speech; I've compared prices on amazon.com and amazon.co.uk in a conversation. We could argue that it's a suffix rather than an abbreviation. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Lots of domain names in .fr aren’t associated with France at all. They are sold freely, I could set up a website about Japan in Czech there if I would like. There is really nothing behind the .fr other than being a top-level DNS domain. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Setting up such a domain would be perverse. What would be the motivation? The interpretation of the name would be that there was some connection with France. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Delete; these are not lexicographic lemmata. Why not move that material to an appendix or to a sister Wikimedia project? —Born2bgratis (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep all. I'd expect some folks to come to Wiktionary to look these up. It is advantageous to Wiktionary to be a go-to resource for all kinds of semantic lookup. These clearly mean something, ie, a given country, in the context in which they are used. There is even a grammar in which these are used. Why should users have to learn the arcane rules by which we exclude such things? I'd be inclined to revisit some of our decisions to exclude, say, airport codes, telephone codes for countries and regions, etc. DCDuring (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Why stop at the top-level domains? amazon.com clearly means something, namely the company Amazon Inc., with which its subdomains are associated – in fact, much more consistently than those of .fr. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
There are rules restricting company names on Wiktionary. But if we allowed amazon.fr, then its etymology would have to reference the TLD. There would also be an SOP issue. -- (late signature) RichardW57 (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Strong delete, with POSSIBLE exceptions for the very commonly spoken ones like .com and .net: as a guy who has spent his entire life in an IT career. These are definitely erroneous: the dot is a separator. In a string like bob.users.example.com, the units are bob, users, example and com (which express a hierarchy) and the dots only serve to separate. In everyday slang people use words like dotcom but it is ignorant and foolish to include the dot as part of every TLD in general. It's like having a phone number "0123-456-789" and telling someone that your number is "-456-789" and including that separating hyphen, when you omit the local prefix. Equinox 02:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
To clarify: we could perhaps keep entries like fr, de, jp, but definitely not .fr, .de, .jp: that whole approach is so many shades of wrong. Equinox 02:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe that in normal parlance, where TLD is an unfamiliar TLA, the '.' is part of the expression, just as with file extensions (.doc etc.). I can certainly imagine, "He used a .fr domain for his Czech website about Japan!" How would you account for the '.' in a grammatical analysis? --(late signature) RichardW57 (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think ".fr" is analysable at all within the grammar of natural language. It's simply spelling out the suffix of the domain literally. It can be argued that the speaker has parsed the URL wrong, but that's a matter of the person's understanding of URLs, not their understanding of English certainly. —Rua (mew) 22:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: What about the phrase, "you're the bomb.com!"? Please note that "bomb.com" does not yet have an entry here. Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz Does .com actually have any meaning there? I interpret the sentence as meaning exactly the same as you're the bomb!. The .com part doesn't seem to contribute anything to the meaning of the sentence, and one of the requirements of WT:CFI is that terms convey meaning. —Rua (mew) 22:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
This reasoning is thoroughly, impressively flawed and reads like a willing misinterpretation of CFI. Why do we record kitty-cat when neither part adds any meaning to the other; why do we record pathway when it means the same thing as path; why do we record ninnyhammer when the "-hammer" adds no apparent meaning to the term ninny? bomb dot com, or bomb.com or however it should be spelled, is undeniably a "thing". That's not to say it should have any bearing on the status of .com on its own -- just that to deny it for this swiss-cheese reasoning is patently wrong. M. I. Wright (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@Rua Yes; I agree. Johnny Shiz (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, the POS should probably be a symbol. --Pious Eterino (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete all words that just have senses meaning the TLD itself. .com and .org probably have actual linguistic, figurative meanings (it's my guess), but .az, for example, probably doesn't. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

-aise, -aises[edit]

Not suffixes, but sums of 2 or 3 suffixes (-ais + -e, -ais + -e + -s)! Would you say that -tions is an English suffix? Lmaltier (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, totally SOP.  --Lambiam 21:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, conceptually mistaken. Per utramque cavernam 09:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes I wonder why we don't have -tions as a soft redirect to -tion, and/or at least list it as the plural of -tion on that entry's headword line. I agree these are transparent, and current practice would have us delete them, for sure. - -sche (discuss) 06:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

épater le bourgeois[edit]

Not an idiom in French. Per utramque cavernam 06:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Three cites: [11], [12], [13].  --Lambiam 11:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Cites aren't lacking; what I'm arguing is that it's not idiomatic. Per utramque cavernam 17:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
So is your argument that this collocation is SoP?  --Lambiam 18:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Though I'm not so sure now; I don't think I would have needed a dictionary had I encountered it in context, but it seems to be a genuine (obsolete) expression. Per utramque cavernam 21:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree: when you use this phrase, you don't take épater + bourgeois, you take it as a part of the French vocabulary. épater is not limited to bourgeois, you use bourgeois only because it's part of the phrase... It's really a set phrase. Lmaltier (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Proof that it is indeed a lexicalised expression in French? Per utramque cavernam 23:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
What would that look like? 21:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


Another odd Translingual entry, but this time not taxonomic, but planetological. Mountains on other planets do tend to be named in Latin, but I don't see how that justifies the existence of a Translingual entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

You may recall that MW3 had a label "ISV", for International Scientific Vocabulary, which they used for many mathematical, scientific, and technical terms.
For us Translingual would seem a natural home for many scientific terms that are used in multiple languages. I see no validity to a claim that scientists aren't capable of combining words and morphological elements into terms that are intended to be understood by international communities of specialists.
Further I see no reason to make it difficult for someone in a specialist community to find common morphological elements by dispersing them into multiple languages and even multiple scripts.
Keep. DCDuring (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018[edit]

salto di qualità[edit]

The Italian IP is back at it again with SOP entries. This seems to literally just be "jump/change in quality". SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 17:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

per favore mi traduce in italiano cosa sono i SOP entries. grazie —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
@SemperBlotto I believe you have mentored this IP editor before?
Non riesco a parlare bene il italiano, perciò perdonami (sto utilizzando un traduttore ora). "SOP" sta per "sum of parts". Sono voci del dizionario che consistono di più di una parola e non hanno significato idiomatico, solo un significato che si può capire dal solo dalle parole. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 17:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it is more than the sum of its parts - but I have changed the translation to breakthrough. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I suspect it is Italian for qualitative leap, which is a key concept in Hegel's dialectical method; Hegel himself called it dialektischer Sprung.  --Lambiam 15:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The term is used in a footnote here in the Hegelian sense.  --Lambiam 17:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
OK. I have added that translation and also a simple definition of qualitative leap that may need improvement. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

cidre de poire[edit]

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 18:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment there are two definitions listed, one an apple-based alcoholic beverage, and one a pear-based alcoholic beverage. -- 23:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

vin de poire[edit]

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 18:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment there are two definitions listed, one a grape-based alcoholic beverage, and one a pear-based alcoholic beverage. -- 23:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

ripassare con lo spazzolone[edit]

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 18:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

There must be a sense missing of ripassare, maybe "to move back and forth" Drunken Skunk (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Lots of senses are missing. Like French repasser,[14] Italian ripassare has a wide range of meanings, many of which are somewhat broad or vague and require context-dependent translations. One of the broad transitive meanings is “to go over (something) (with something)” – which will often but not always be a back-and-forth motion. Ripassare una camicia means “to iron a shirt”, but a combination like ripassare il pavimento is probably best translated as “to swipe the floor”.  --Lambiam 15:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

January 2019[edit]


SOP. See next topic. --Octahedron80 (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


SOP. These are descriptive translations. There are various ways to call the vending machine. One may call it the simplest way as ตู้ or ตู้ขาย... (that still be SOP). --Octahedron80 (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019[edit]

triangle équilatéral[edit]

triangle rectangle[edit]

SOP. See Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English § acute-angled triangle. Per utramque cavernam 18:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete both, SOP.  --Lambiam 11:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

expressão idiomática[edit]

Portuguese for idiom. SoP as "idiomatic expression"; "expression" could be swapped out for any number of terms. Ultimateria (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 19:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Keep. I don't think it's exactly a SoP. Some dictionaries such as Priberam have a specific section for that word. See hereCaiusSPQR (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


Keyword in certain programming languages. We don't tend to include these and shouldn't; the discussion has been had before but I can't remember where. If we did include them by policy, we would immediately be pulling in thousands upon thousands of obscure, supposedly "translingual" words, with varying capitalisation (sometimes allowed to vary, sometimes forced upper, sometimes forced lower) and they could not be defined in a dictionary style since they are programming keywords with a logical interpretation. I hope delteing this will be a no-brainer. Equinox 07:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Is it English like if, else, iff, for, class and also used in regular text (and not only source code)? If so just fix the language. Delete the Translingual; keep the English (if it exists). --QueeroDeera (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not used with the same sense in English (nobody says "do this, elif that, then do another thing"); it can be used to count occurrences ("there are two elifs in this code") but I don't think that's enough to keep it. Indeed I even remember a normal English word having its noun deleted for this reason: something like "two somewhats on the page". Equinox 11:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I have never heard elif used as an English word, and I really don't think we should include programming language keywords. Uranographer (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Also, the definition given appears to be wrong. It claims elif is used "in many programming languages," but as far as I know it is only used in Python, at least in terms of notable programming languages. Basic searching methods don't come up with any results at all for other programming languages that use elif. If some obscure one exists somewhere, that still doesn't make it "used in many." PseudoSkull (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Also used in the C preprocessor. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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).


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=koi should 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)

Rep. Popular de Polonia[edit]

República Popular de Polonia and rep. should be enough for anyone. --Wonderfool early February 2019 (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, it is not English.  --Lambiam 21:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Moved to RFDN.Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It is not really the traditional sum of parts, assuming República Popular de Polonia is not sum of parts. It is República Popular de Polonia, to which a República --> Rep. replacement is applied. Applying WT:CFI#Idiomaticity strictly, this does not yield us the sum of parts claim, per "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

March 2019[edit]

kakilima beratap[edit]

Not attested. Ilham151096 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ilham151096 Attestation is a RFV rationale. Should this be in RFV instead? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


One many bad edits from this user. Latin form is impossible, as PIE *bʰr- would have yield *fr-. --{{victar|talk}} 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I put it as either borrowed from Proto-Germanic *brūnaz, itself descended from *bʰruHnós, or as directly descended from that reflex. The former one is more likely, but I wasn't completely sure so I put both. How does this constitute the deletion of the entire page?
Additionally, I at first had the page as *bʰruHn-, which is listed as the source of brown. It was Bezimenen who moved the page to *bʰruHnós. The only thing I've been doing here is going off of what other pages have. GabeMoore (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@GabeMoore: As the Latin cannot possibly be descended from this PIE form, that only leaves the Proto-Germanic and as we do not allow for PIE reconstructions with only a single descendant, this entry should be deleted. --{{victar|talk}} 23:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@GabeMoore, Victar: Regarding the change to *bʰruHnós: Technically, *bʰruHn- is not a root [at least not within early Proto-Indo-European]. The available literature (mainly V. Orel) points towards it being a Caland adjective and all other Caland adjectives, which I've seen on Wiktionary, are given in their full form. For this reason, I changed it. Bezimenen (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bezimenen, and that was the correct thing to do, but it's really a moot point in light of the issues I listed above. --{{victar|talk}} 23:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*bʰrewh₁- lists *bʰruHnós as a descendant. If the latter is deleted, its descendants should be moved to *bʰrewh₁-. A related issue: The etymology of Proto-Indo-European *bʰébʰrus states that it is from a nominalization of *bʰrew- (brown). Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰrew- redirects to Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰrewh₁-, and the latter gives *bʰrew- as an alternative reconstruction, but the only senses listed are to boil and to brew. Is the sense “brown” mentioned in the etymology section at *bʰébʰrus in error?  --Lambiam 06:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
That has since been deleted as well. --{{victar|talk}} 16:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Orel mentions a plausible Greek cognate, which I've added; this reconstruction seems legit.
He also mentions *bʰébʰrus as evidence for a root *bʰrew- (brown) that supposedly underlies both formations, which is not an unreasonable hypothesis. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I created a more proper entry at *bʰerH-, though it's pretty shaky, which may be why we didn't have an entry for it. --{{victar|talk}} 16:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


SOP --Miwako Sato (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


Incorrect. Should be CA. --I learned some phrases (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep (if it exist). --QueeroDeera (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep This form exists, but according to the official Spanish punctuation rules, it needs an extra space: C. A. Also nominated, but probably valid: C.C.A.A.Jberkel 17:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


incorrect initialism --I learned some phrases (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019[edit]









The presence of derived terms is not enough to prove that the base term existed in that language. Compare English begin and Dutch verliezen; they no more prove that *gin and *liezen exist. Likewise, cranberry does not mean *cran exists. They should only be kept if it can be shown that the derived terms were formed within Gothic and not within Proto-Germanic. —Rua (mew) 10:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  • The fairly regular inflectional morphology of Gothic and the relatively large prevalence of prefixes used to modify verbs (gaggan (gaggan) and atgaggan (atgaggan) as just two examples) provides enough evidence that the base forms exist with reasonable certainty. Incidentally, verliezen is derived from *fraleusana which can be broken up into the prefix fra- and the base leusana. So even if *liezen does not exist, a base form in Proto-Germanic does. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2604:3D08:8E80:7800:B886:B0FD:3282:A842 (talk) at 01:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC).
  1. Reconstruction:Gothic/𐌰𐌲𐌾𐌰𐌽 - Leaning keep. The lack of cognates in other Germanic languages makes me suspicious: if it was so productive in Proto-Germanic as to produce three prefixed inherited terms in Gothic, why did it not leave any traces in other languages? Assuming a Gothic origin doesn't seem unreasonable in the case of its three derived terms.
  2. Reconstruction:Gothic/𐌱𐌹𐌿𐌳𐌰𐌽 - Delete, though it may well have existed. Both "derived terms" existed in Proto-Germanic.
  3. Reconstruction:Gothic/𐌳𐌰𐌿𐌸𐌽𐌰𐌽 - Uncertain, leaning keep; attested with perfective prefix - compare the mirroring pair 𐌳𐌰𐌿𐌸𐌾𐌰𐌽 (dauþjan)/𐌲𐌰𐌳𐌰𐌿𐌸𐌾𐌰𐌽 (gadauþjan).
  4. Reconstruction:Gothic/𐌳𐌴𐌸𐍃 - Uncertain, leaning keep. Köbler says waidēdja is a calque, but it could be *waidēþs + -ja, or it could be wai + *dēþs + -ja. Due to the lack of a cognate (that I know of) in any Germanic language for *waidēþs (whereas other Germanic words with *dēdiz were preserved in many different languages), I am inclined to think that word didn't really exist in Proto-Germanic and the calque was instead done using *dēþs as a productive Gothic element.
  5. Reconstruction:Gothic/𐌵𐌹𐍃𐍃 - Keep for sure, in some form or another. Many of the derivates are considered calques (cf. Köbler, but I am sure other sources confirm this as well: a comparison with the Greek text on which the Gothic Bible was based clearly shows it), e.g. þiuþiqiss and wailaqiss. This shows that as an element in word formation at least it was productive, similar to (and calquing) Greek -logia. Perhaps it should be noted that it may have been a suffix instead, but it should definitely be kept.
  6. Reconstruction:Gothic/𐌷𐌻𐌰𐌸𐌰𐌽 - Probably delete. Likely existed (no other word seems to fill the semantic gap in case of its non-existence in Gothic), but the size and nature of the corpus makes this difficult.
  7. Reconstruction:Gothic/𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐍃 - Probably delete. Likely existed (no other word seems to fill the semantic gap in case of its non-existence in Gothic), but the size and nature of the corpus makes this difficult.
  8. Reconstruction:Gothic/𐍃𐌺𐌰𐍀𐌾𐌰𐌽 - Probably delete. Nonetheless, I'm inclined to think it existed (cf. the verb form scapia in the Vandal Epigram and the agent noun skapa "creator" in the Codex Bononiensis). While the term from the Vandalic epigram may be in the "Vandalic language" according to some and thus fail to attest the Gothic word, I am of the opinion that there is no good reason to see Vandalic as anything other than a variant or dialect of Gothic, probably entirely mutually intelligible. Procopius (6th century historian) notes that the Vandals and Goths both spoke the same language (called Gothic). (Others have hypothesized that scapia may instead be an agent noun, though, corresponding to regular Gothic *skapjan + -ja.) All of this doesn't go far enough to make me vote to keep, though, especially since it's largely based on my personal view of the status of Vandalic vs. Gothic.
I somewhat agree with the IP above, but some of these seem difficult to salvage. Anyway, there's a lot of uncertainty here and I'd be interested in hearing some other opinions. @Mahagaja, perhaps? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I just struck through two of the delete votes I marked earlier, and now vote to keep *hlathan - the verb is so basic that I strongly doubt it did not exist, especially since we currently do not trace afhlathan to PGmc (and the semantics of afhlathan and its prefix are such that I really do not believe people would not understand or use the unprefixed form). I also vote to keep *hroths. It is a more difficult case, since a word for glory wulthus is already attested, but I believe the latter refers more to majesty whereas the cognates of *hroths and its attested derivate hrotheigs refer more to worldly (especially military) triumph (which explains its complete absence in the Gothic Bible and the mere single attestation of the derivate hrotheigs). Given its presence also in Gothic given names, I think there's enough basis to suppose its existence. (Also, Germanic languages regularly have a lot of near-synonyms pertaining to glory; e.g. OE has cognates of both *hroths and wulthus; the demands of heroic alliterative poetry, which may well have existed in Gothic times, render the availability of multiple terms pertaining to glory, majesty, triumph, fame etc. more likely.)
I think that in general the comparison with Dutch verliezen does not really work, given the relative sizes of the corpora (Dutch is incredibly well-attested, Gothic is fragmentary) that the same arguments cannot be used and historical considerations and likelihood from other sources must also come into play. Regarding *skapjan, though, I find my arguments don't work as well; the corpus is such that its attestation would be expected. It seems the Bible translators at least definitely preferred the perfective gaskapjan, and while I again have no doubt the base form existed I don't feel so confident as to vote for its retention.
Also, if nobody adds or objects to anything I say, I will use my own votes as a guideline for what to delete and what to keep in a couple of weeks or so; this has sat here for 3/4 of a year now. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


A mere graphic device. Any word can be written with as many vowels as necessary to represent a drawn-out pronunciation. Guldrelokk (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

We also list elongated forms if they can be attested, such as, for instance, nooo.  --Lambiam 14:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Why in the world? Can’t any number of o’s be attested three times? Google Books shows hundred of results for nooooooo, noooooooo, nooooooooo, noooooooooo, noooooooooo and so on. I don’t think anyone needs this garbage, may be it is worth changing? Guldrelokk (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
We specifically have a rule, approved by vote, that there can be a maximum of three repetitions of an element. So no, noo and nooo can exist, but not noooo and longer. —Rua (mew) 18:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Writing is a mere graphical device. Generally for Wiktionary, text is conceptually encoded as plain text, split into words and each word with a spelling difference gets its own page. This can be very important for the student, who might well be confused by не-ет or looove.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
He should open some reference on the orthography then. Any letter can be written any number of times in prose, arbitrarily including a few ‘elongated forms’ does not help anyone. I still don’t believe this is dictionary material, but whatever. Guldrelokk (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree.
Wiktionary:Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables. See Talk:seeexy, where I and other people suggest that all of those be disallowed. ChignonПучок 08:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The entry не-ет (ne-jet) is rubbish and should be deleted. (The transliteration "ne-jet" doesn't represent how it's pronounced.)--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Since when has a personal opinion of "rubbish" been a reason to delete? Don't we follow WT:CFI and things?--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
That's not true, at least in English. The complex rules on when consonants are duplicated in English are only resolvable by a dictionary lookup, and I don't think consonants are ever duplicated in English for emphasis. Maybe we can resolve when vowels can be extended, but I'm not sure it's clear to me when vowels can be extended, since digraph vowels are common in English orthography. In any case, we have had a vote on this matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
You don’t need to do it for emphasis. You can do it for countless reasons in prose. You can do it to represent stuttering: b-but, b-b-but etc., or whatever else you want. A dictionary will never be able to help you with that. Guldrelokk (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not whatever you want; in your example, "b-b-but" separates things out with hyphens and leaves the whole word at the end.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The vote Wiktionary:Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables deals with English and reduplications of vowels ("pleeeeeease", not "ple-e-e-e-e-e-ase", not exactly the same we have here with the use of hyphens, which is occasionally used to show the long pronunciations in Russian. I don't know if the vote is applicable to this case. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
No offense to Benwing, who has done exceptional work with Russian otherwise, but this is rubbish; delete. ChignonПучок 11:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, no offence to Benwing2, I didn't even look at who created the entry but there was a ruwikt entry, so, it was sort of expected. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev I created this because it was listed in the 20,000-word Russian word list by frequency. I have no objection to deleting it if others think it doesn't belong. Benwing2 (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

besser ein schreckliches Ende, als ein Schrecken ohne Ende[edit]

only definition given is a literal translation. It really just means the sum of its components. This is not a proverb. -- 19:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The saying is ascribed in this 1924 book to “a leading [Austrian] politician”. It is stated here as an old saying. Some random other occurrences: [15], [16], [17].  --Lambiam 20:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like another of those pseudo-proverbs (traue keiner Statistik, die du nicht selbst gefälscht hast, I'm thinking of you). Canonicalization (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
it's probably more a pun/aphorism than a real proverb, but it is in common use. an etymology will make the entry more useful. – Jberkel 23:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The correct wording is "Besser ein Ende mit Schrecken als ein Schrecken ohne Ende." And yes, this is a proverb. -- 13:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's the usual wording, these days at least. It's absolutely a proverb, just one that is particularly memorable because of the pun involved. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

grattis i efterskott[edit]

SOP, "grattis i efterskott". — surjection?〉 16:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

With the lack of an entry for i efterskott or indeed efterskott I suggest holding fire on this. DonnanZ (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
There should be an entry for i efterskott ("in arrears"?), the Swedish Wiktionary doesn't have one even though it tends to be colloquial. -- 17:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019[edit]


lorsqu' + il. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 10:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Do we have a policy or guideline for contracted forms? In English we have can't, don't, isn't, I've, I'd, and so on and so forth. For French we also have jusqu'à, jusqu'alors, jusqu'ici, lorsqu'on, qu'à, qu'au, qu'elle, qu'elles, qu'en, qu'eux, qu'il, qu'ils, qu'on, qu'un, qu'une, and probably some more I didn't think of. If we delete such contracted forms, we should try to be a bit consistent and not just delete a few random ones.  --Lambiam 14:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
In absence of any policy, keep. Harmless and relatively easy to mistake for a word in its own right, for those who would not define this as a word already. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I was inspired by the request above for #d'une and #d'un. If all of these are included, what would prevent us from include things like qu'Anne? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


Is this a prefix? —Rua (mew) 15:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

For an Ancient Greek word like ἄρθρωσις (árthrōsis), the answer should be that indeed the word was formed from a prefix ἄρθρ(ο)- (árthr(o)-) + a suffix -ωσις (-ōsis). Modern English arthrosis – not a direct loan of the Greek word, which means something else, viz. “articulation” (of speech) – mimics the way Greek words were formed in ancient times, so for the coiner the morpheme arthr(o)- was “morally” a prefix – and if medical researchers need to come up with a new word for something related to joints, they will surely feel quite comfortable to reuse this morpheme. My conclusion: calling it a prefix is a defensible position.  --Lambiam 11:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that it's not prefixed to anything at all. Prefixes form new words by attaching to existing words, this one doesn't. See also Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2019/April#Classical compounds in Category:English words by prefix and Category:English words by suffix where I argued that these are not affixes, but their own type of morpheme that follows its own rules. —Rua (mew) 11:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
So is there a term for a morpheme that is used to form new words but that does not qualify for affixhood sensu stricto?  --Lambiam 21:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I see that I suggested the term “classicistic component” in the prior discussion.  --Lambiam 21:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I thought "combining form" (from WT:POS) might qualify, but I guess it implies that there is a full word that the morpheme is a form of, so it couldn't be used for English morphemes derived from Latin and Greek that don't have corresponding full words, only for the Ancient Greek or Latin versions of the morphemes. So ὑδρο- (hudro-) is the combining form of ὕδωρ (húdōr), but hydro- isn't a combining form because there isn't an English word (*hydor?) that it derives from. — Eru·tuon 21:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
We could go with a generic "morpheme". There's a category for them already, why not use it? —Rua (mew) 21:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete, not a prefix. Canonicalization (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

publika ĝardeno[edit]

SOP. 2600:1000:B111:FB4A:B04B:1245:328E:5BE4 10:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

A public garden is not necessarily a park, and a park is not necessarily a public garden.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Just “park” is not a good definition. A better definition is “urban park” (which is always public), also called “public garden(s)” – I think the plural form is more common in English usage.  --Lambiam 11:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Urban parks aren't always public; there's at least one near me limited to the local homeowners. I'm not familiar with the phrase "public gardens" and using the phrase "garden" to refer to a place with mowed grass and tennis and basketball courts strikes me as wrong. A local park has gardens, where people can grow vegetables. Some of this might be my idiolect or American English, but if this is deleted as SOP, I'd like to see clarification on ĝardeno.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
As seen here in British use, this “Public Gardens” (note that this is grammatically treated as a singular) is really a park (where one would not be allowed to grow veggies), complete with children’s play area and bowling green. In US use, “public garden” appears to mean what I’d call a botanical garden, at least according to the American Public Gardens Association. I think that a park in an urban environment with access restricted to residents, such as Gramercy Park in NY, would be called a (private) neighborhood park; most definitions of “urban park” define it as a public space, like here: “Urban parks are accessible to the public.”  --Lambiam 09:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
When I said "A local park has gardens", I think it sounded more general than I was saying; one of my local parks has a small gated area where people can grow vegetables. (Accessible by request and assignment of space only.) Unless public gardens are more limited in Britain than parks are in the US, I'd almost expect somewhere to have tried something similar, but it's not a common thing here.
It's possible this would be clear with more definition of ĝardeno, but this looks like a calique of public garden, which is opaque to me as an American and seems to be not entirely SOP with respect to British English.
Delete. The distinctions here seem speculative. Fay Freak (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Note sense 1.1 of garden: “(in the plural) [An outdoor area containing one or more types of plants grown for ornamental purposes] to which the public have access.” (The plural form “have” reveals this was written by a Briton.) I don’t see which elements in the above are considered speculative, considering that everything is sourced. While it is obvious that a publika ĝardeno is public, it is less obvious that in this collocation ĝardeno is not a vegetable garden open to public use, but a park intended for recreational use by the public.  --Lambiam 15:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

energia eolica[edit]

energia nucleare[edit]

energia rinnovabile[edit]

energia solare[edit]

All are SOP: the meaning in English is in each case the literal translation.  --Lambiam 11:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Can't the same be said for English and other languages? Canonicalization (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Not for English – for example, “solar energy” could also have meant the energy produced by the fusion process in the Sun’s core, about 384.6 YW, and not the tiny fraction that reaches Earth in the form of sunlight; also, the meaning of the English terms is not a translation – but, indeed, in most cases for many other languages. But not always; for example, Dutch duurzame energie, the equivalent of English renewable energy, literally means “durable energy”. Because of such exceptions, I think the English terms are defensible as translation hubs.  --Lambiam 16:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Couldn't your case for "solar energy" be applied to "energia solare"? Ultimateria (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Anyone can readily see that “energia solare” means “solar energy” in English; we do not need the entry for that. If someone doesn’t know what solar energy is, they may have to look it up. The notion that “energia solare” needs an entry just like “solar energy” because it could also have meant something else, should naturally lead to the conclusion that its definition needs to be rewritten:
energia solare f (plural energie solari)
1. energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation emitted from the Sun; especially that part of this energy that is converted into usable thermal or electrical energy by humans.
 --Lambiam 23:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I hate to be the one to trot out the slippery slope, but there are several thousand multiword entries in Romance languages that could be deleted by the same logic. Perhaps we need to add more concrete rules for non-English terms to the Idiomacity section of CFI, disallowing "literal translations" of English, after first deciding what that means. Ultimateria (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I think it's a grey zone. I've been creating some similar entries in French, but that's one of those cases where I'm not sure I should. Canonicalization (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

fare la paternale[edit]

Another seemingly SOP Italian entry, but I had some doubts, so I'm bringing it here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it is sufficient to give examples at paternale that show the term is typically used with the definite article, and that the verb of choice is fare (and not e.g. tenere or servire). After that, Delete as SOP. I’m not a native Italian speaker, but I have the sense that the term paternale generally has a connotation of being condescending.  --Lambiam 21:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete this one as SOP. Imetsia (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


Supposedly Albanian, but Index:Albanian implies, and the Wikipedia article on the language says it only uses Roman letters. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

During the Ottoman empire several scripts were used to write in Arbërisht: latin, greek, arabic, etc. Arbërisht (αρbε̰ρίσ̈τ) is still written in the greek Alphabet, but only by an minority group living in Greeve (called 'Arvanites' in Greek). Arbëreshë living in Italy use the latin Alphabet, same goes for modern Albanian. Arbërisht is Old Albanian. Also "Arbërisht" (the native term) is called "Arvanitika" in greek tongue. Arvanitika is an endagered language. I don't quite get why my entry should be deleted. Here's the Αρβανιτικα' / Αρbε̰ρισ̈τ - Alphabet (greek and latin script) + Standatd Albanian Orthography.

  • latin/greek/standardAlb. | IPA
  • A a / Α α / A a |[a~ɑ]
  • B b / Ƃ ƅ / B b | [b]
  • C c / ΤΣ τσ / C c | [ts]
  • Ç ç / ΤΣ̈ τσ̈ / Ç ç | [ʧ]
  • D d / D d / D d | [d]
  • Dh dh / Δ δ / Dh dh | [ð]
  • E e / Ε ε / E e | [e ~ ɛ]
  • Ë ë / Ε̱ ε̱ / Ë ë | [ə~ʊ̣]
  • F f / Φ φ / F f | [f]
  • G g / Γ γ / G g | [g]
  • Gj gj / Γj γj / (g) | [gʲ]
  • --- / --- / Gj gj | [ɟ]
  • H h / Χ χ / --- | [x]
  • --- / --- / H h | [h]
  • Hj hj / Χ̇ χ̇ / --- | [xʲ]
  • I i / Ι ι / I i | [i]
  • J j / J j / J j | [j]
  • K k / Κ κ / K k | [k]
  • L l / Λ λ / L l | [l]
  • LJ lj / Λ̇ λ̇ / L l | [ʎ]
  • Ll ll / ΛΛ λλ / --- | [ɣ]
  • --- / --- / Ll ll | [ɫ]
  • M m / Μ μ / M m | [m]
  • N n / Ν ν / N n | [n]
  • Nj nj / Ν̇ ν̇ / Nj nj | [ɲ]
  • O o / Ο ο / O o | [ɔ]
  • P p / Π π / P p | [p]
  • Q q / Κ̇ κ̇ / (kj) | [kj]
  • --- / --- / Q q | [c]
  • R r / Ρ ρ / R r | [ɾ]
  • Rr rr / Ρ̇ ρ̇ / Rr rr | [r(ˑ)]
  • S s / Σ σ / S s | [s]
  • Sh sh / Σ̈ σ̈ / Sh sh | [ʃ]
  • T t / Τ τ / T t | [t]
  • Th th / Θ θ / Th th | [θ]
  • U u / Ȣ ȣ / U u | [u]
  • V v / Β β / V v | [v]
  • X x / DΣ dσ / X x | [dz]
  • Xh xh / DΣ̈ dσ̈ / Xh xh | [ʤ]
  • Y y / Υ υ / Y y | [y]
  • Z z / Ζ ζ / Z z | [z]
  • Zh zh / Ż ζ̇ / Zh zh | [ʒ]

  • Macrolanguage: Albanian (sqi), code sets: 639-2/T, 639-3
    • Identifier | Reference n. | Code Sets
    • aat | Arvanitika Albanian| 639-3

IMIPER (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

In the entry αρbε̰ρ and the text above (Αρbε̰ρισ̈τ) I see a tilde below the ε, but in the table above the diacritic is a macron below. Is there a (formal or de facto) authority for the orthography of Arbërisht written in the Greek alphabet? In this gif from a defunct web site I also see a ligature Ȣ ȣ not represented in the above table.  --Lambiam 12:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
ȣ is there under U.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019[edit]

scuotere la testa[edit]

Italian, shake one's head. SoP. Ultimateria (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


As a sort of testcase, because it was restored by @Robbie SWE, here is an entry for an ISO language code. Note: if we want to have these, we also need to check if they're attestable. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

SOS Alarm[edit]

"a Swedish state owned non-profit organization handling emergency calls". Isn't this encyclopedic? — surjection?〉 10:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I created the article solely because it can be used synonymously with the words 112, 90000, and nittiotusen. It wasn't meant to be more encyclopedic than a dictionary entry.--Christoffre (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Synonym links can also be made to point to Wikipedia entries, although if it serves lexical purpose as a term for the number, it might be worth keeping (but the definition needs to reflect that). — surjection?〉 20:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
There was no Wikipedia entry at the time of writing (but there is one now). Can you give an idea on how to improve the definition to reflect a more lexical purpose, or point towards any certain help article?--Christoffre (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
The way I would personally do it is to either only have a definition that goes something like "synonym of 112 (the emergency number)" and point out that it is actually the name of a company in the Etymology section (along the lines of "From SOS Alarm, the name of the publicly owned company that operates the number.") Naturally, some editors may think otherwise, but as far as I know, there isn't a consistent guideline for this (the closest thing is the CFI policy on company names). — surjection?〉 09:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
When used as a synonym of “112” (or "nödnummer”) in a collocation like “ringa SOS Alarm”, is it still a proper noun, or should it then be classified as a common noun? (Compare the classification of Xerox as (just) “Noun”.  --Lambiam 18:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Banca d'Italia[edit]

Do we want this? Would we want Bank of Italy? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

If it's the central bank it's like the Bank of England. DonnanZ (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
It is just the same as the Bank of England (though some functions have been removed after the lira died). SemperBlotto (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019[edit]


"to have future/prospects". Wyang (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think they are trying to say that this is a metaphor based on the the literal meaning of 出息. idk. Glad to see you back! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep since it's in Guoyu Cidian: 比喻人有用,肯努力. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


"lock gate used to check tickets". Wyang (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Very weak keep or delete but include it in synonym lists. —Suzukaze-c 06:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. It seems to be a common way of referring to a turnstile, not just any kind of lock gate. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


This means "vessel/vascular sclerosis", not "arterial stiffness", but it is SoP anyhow. Wyang (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Weak keep since it's in Guoyu Cidian. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


Tagalog, IP suggests that this isn't a word but a common joke. - TheDaveRoss 12:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

If it is used as such, also as a joke, it is entryworthy – but we should then note it is meant to be humorous. Move to RfV?  --Lambiam 10:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


Term added by Mare-Silverus (talkcontribs), who either is, or is somehow related to, our long-term UK anon who adds lots of problematic Japanese terms.

I think this is SOP, as simply (kusari, chain) + 具足 (gusoku, armor), but I'd like to get input from others. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should create 具足 before deleting this. Also, is the usual English term not chain mail?  --Lambiam 07:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


This seems to be a phonetic transcription rather than a practical spelling. The correct entry is at haꞌ. --Lvovmauro (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know anything about Jakaltek, but in the orthography presented in the Wikipedia article Jakaltek language I only see the grapheme h as the second letter in digraph combinations (ch, xh, nh), which precludes occurrence in word-initial position.  --Lambiam 18:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Many languages that got their orthography from Spanish (as did just about everything in the Americas south of the US) treat syllable-initial "h" before vowels as a silent placeholder. Since it has no sound of its own, this tends to be overlooked in phonological descriptions. 22:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The cited source uses a different orthography from Wikipedia. --Lvovmauro (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


SoP. Wyang (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Guoyu Cidian does have an entry for this, but is it different from the definition we have? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019[edit]


Catalan reflexive verb, "to look at oneself". Non-idiomatic, so we don't include it because of the hyphen (unlike Spanish mirarse). Ultimateria (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete or Rename. Judging by Category:Catalan reflexive verbs, reflexive verbs in this language aren't given lemmas at the reflexive form, but rather have senses labelled {{l|ca|reflexive}}. The same treatment should be given to the other anomalies in the category. —Rua (mew) 11:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't propose moving all reflexive verbs ending in -se. As I edit Spanish and Catalan entries, I've found that verbs with only reflexive senses are commonly lemmatized at the -se entry, with the bare infinitive soft redirecting as "infinitive of X". I haven't been moving these, mainly because that's how dictionaries in these languages handle them, so I believe users are more likely to look them up in that form. Either way, mirar-se is not one of those verbs. Ultimateria (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

situation de famille[edit]

Sounds SOP, and even slightly unidiomatic to me (situation familiale sounds better). Canonicalization (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

If the term meant marital status, as our entry would have it, then this is not SOP. However, the term basically means the composition of the household (like two wives, three kids and an iguana). I’m not sure if that is how an English-speaking person would understand the question “what is your family situation?”. Could the interviewee not say then, “Oh, we have to scrimp to make ends meet, but somehow we manage to survive, day by day.”? That is to say, I’m not sure how obvious it is that the question is meant to be confined to the composition.  --Lambiam 22:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
If that is the case, then the French translation at marital status needs to be revised, as it currently points to situation de famille. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


Recent addition by a new editor who's still learning the ropes. Looks awfully SOP to me, as 担当 (tantō, in charge) + (i, doctor, short form of modern 医者 (isha)). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep, this is a specific concept/title. The definition at the moment is not quite correct, and the entry needs to explain how it is (subtly) different from 主治医. This word sometimes corresponds to Chinese 主治醫, sometimes to 住院醫. Wyang (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, thanks for the feedback. I note that 主治 (shuji) as a modifier has a general sense of "primary care", whereas 担当 (tantō) is more like "in charge at the moment, currently assigned". In the context of Japanese workplaces, tantō is used all the time to mean "someone who is currently on-point or responsible for something", wholly separate from job titles.
I also note that various Japanese dictionaries include an entry for 主治医 (shuji-i, Kotobank page, showing entries from four references), but not for 担当医 (tantō-i, Kotobank, showing no such page). I also see the presence of other tantō + abbreviated job titles that seem similarly SOP-ish, further suggesting the productivity of this construction: google:"担当技" "は", where (gi) appears to be short for 技術者 (gijutsusha, engineer), or google:"担当監" "は", where (kan) appears to be short for 監督 (kantoku, supervision; supervisor).
I agree that 担当医 (tantō-i) is a separate concept from 主治医 (shuji-i). From what I've seen so far, though, it looks like the former is not a single lexicalized unit, so much as two terms put together in a flexible compound. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
担当 means "being in charge of some area of responsibility". So it would be reasonable to assume that a 担当医 is a doctor who is in charge of some area of responsibility. That's a bit vague: it could be any sort of area of responsibility. But 担当医 has a more specific meaning according to Kenkyusha Online Dictionary: the 「doctor [physician] in charge of [looking after, dealing with, seeing] one [sb]. I think it's helpful to include an entry for it, since this sense isn't obvious from the components of the word. Richwarm88 (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the vagueness is actually part of the term -- what the doctor is 担当 (tantō, in charge) of is dependent on context.
For example, I find a few instances of google:"部門の担当医", "doctor in charge of the department", or google:"内科の担当医" "doctor in charge of internal medicine", or google:"外科の担当医" "doctor in charge of surgery". Usage also makes it clear that this 担当 (tantō, in charge) status is a matter of currently assigned responsibility, and not job title, as we'd expect from use of the 担当 (tantō, in charge) term.
In the context of a visit to a hospital and multiple different areas of medicine, you'd have your 主治医 (shuji-i, primary care physician) coordinating and referring, and you'd potentially then have a 担当医 (tantō-i, doctor in charge) as the doctor that happened to see you in each specialty. And then in the separate context of each specialty as a subset of the organizational structure of the hospital, each specialty might have someone assigned as 担当医 (tantō-i, doctor in charge) for that shift -- not in charge of your individual care, but rather as the on-duty head.
Given the apparent fluidity of meaning, which would be consistent with this as a non-lexicalized phrase, I'm not convinced it merits an entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The sort of usage you describe (担当医 as the doctor in charge of some specialty) probably doesn't merit an entry. But there's also the meaning defined in the Kenkyusha Online Dictionary entry that I quoted: the doctor in charge of looking after somebody. It's also the meaning given in JMDict as "one's doctor". And, given that Wyang wrote that 担当医 (sometimes) corresponds to Chinese 主治醫 (physician in charge of the case or patient), I'd say it's a meaning that he too had in mind. Here are some examples where 担当医 has the meaning described in the Kenkyusha definition:
  1. 胸の辺りに「違和感」があり、階段の昇り降りに息が切れる。さすがに、危機感を強めた私は、GPの予約を取ることにした。... GP(ジェネラル・プラクティショナー)とは、私の担当医のこと。英国の制度では、自分をまず特定の担当医に登録し、どんな病気においても、まずはその担当医に相談することになる。 [18]
  2. 緒方 安雄(おがた やすお、1898年(明治31年) - 1989年(平成元年)5月22日)は、日本の小児科医。... 1937年東宮侍医となり、現天皇の幼時まで担当医となる。[19]
  3. それは悪い医者にあたりましたね。。 私の担当医は休日なのに飛んできて、物凄い貴重だ![20]
  4. 担当医が、ご結婚され4月で退職し ... 今後はまだ顔も名前も知らない方が担当医になるって… [21] Richwarm88 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Richwarm88, thank you for the quotes. #1 is definitely a lexical usage, where the author is clearly using 担当医 to refer to "one's general practitioner", essentially as a synonym for 主治医. The usage in #2 is more ambiguous, and I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable in the functioning of the court as an organization to be able to suss out how 担当医 is being used here without more context. #3 is probably a case of 担当医 = "general practitioner", but again we lack much context. And #4 includes substantially more context and does appear to be using 担当医 with a "GP" sense.
In light of these findings, I think the evidence is growing that 担当医 has at least this one additional idiomatic sense, as a synonym for 主治医. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr, I agree with what you wrote. Regarding #2, I showed the Wikipedia paragraph to someone* and asked "In [that] paragraph, what does 担当医 mean exactly?" She emailed back that it means that "he was the doctor in charge of the current emperor's health and periodical health checks, etc." ("current emperor" in this case meaning Naruhito – when he was a baby). This is pretty much the sort of answer I expected. By the way, as the Wikipedia article mentions, Dr Ogata was a pediatrician, not a GP. *(My informant is a lecturer in Japanese language, a native speaker who has a PhD in applied linguistics.) Richwarm88 (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
By the way, the Wiktionary definition for 担当 says it means "charge of, end, responsibility for an area of work". Do you know which sense of "end" is intended here? I can't figure it out. Richwarm88 (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Richwarm88, it looks like @Haplology added that definition back in 2011. Given the verb sense of to handle, I wonder if the strange end sense might have been copypasta or a brain fart? I sure can't tell what that's supposed to mean.
Re: pediatrician vs. GP, no worries. The basic underlying sense of "doctor dedicated to a specific patient for a longer duration than a single medical visit or episode" is still valid. In the context of the #2 quote, given the ambiguity in 東宮 (tōgū, literally “eastern palace” in reference to the abode of the crown prince, also used periphrastically to refer to the crown prince himself), I wasn't sure if the 担当医 term referred to the doctor's relationship to the person of the crown prince (Naruhito here; i.e. doctor in charge of the patient), or to the doctor's relationship to the organization of the crown prince's household (i.e. doctor in charge of the household medical staff). Thank you for looking further into that. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep. 医 is not a free morpheme and 担当医 is a single word. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


SoP: 倒 (pour) + 酒 (alcoholic beverage). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

September 2019[edit]


Seems to have been drive-by-tagged as well. —Rua (mew) 20:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps RfV would have been better, but w:Minoan language makes it clear this is largely an undescribed language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Any assignment of phonetic value to Minoan inscriptions is speculative; perhaps the entry should be at Linear A Sign A067Linear A Sign A002. (Another interpretation is “a soda with a slice of lemon but no straw”.)  --Lambiam 11:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. It is not explained sufficiently as of now. HeliosX (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


Korean personal name; should we keep these? The situation should be like Chinese (usually), where characters are almost-arbitrarily combined.

The quality of the entry is questionable as well. It seems to be based on Kim Greem (김그림, 金可琳). Can we find other usages of this name? A Sino-Korean origin seems doubtful, as 可#Korean is not usually read as 그. —Suzukaze-c 04:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


Sum of parts. 車禍 ("car accident") + 現場 ("scene"). ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I think there's some special sense, as illustrated in the quotes given under definition 2, which doesn't have a gloss yet. Pinging @Dokurrat as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Could this just be an instance of people using a noun figuratively though? ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I'm not sure. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I think we should keep given the gloss that has been added to definition 2. It seems to be an attested figurative meaning. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

dar hora[edit]

Spanish: SOP --Vealhurl (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems idiomatic to me, but perhaps the definition is off. Not knowing Spanish, I might interpret a request like ¿Podrías darme hora? as “Could you tell me the time?”, in other words, “Can you tell me what time it is?” Is the sense of hora in dar hora “an hour” (60 minutes of your precious time) or “the time” (the time of the appointment)? In the latter case, the meaning is (presumably) “to communicate the time of an upcoming appointment”, which is not the sense conveyed by the current definition. In that case the term is indeed SOPpy; however, ¿Podrías darme hora, por favor? may be phrasebook stuff, or else there should be a usex at the entry dar (or both).  --Lambiam 04:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
The phrase for asking the time would be ¿Podrías darme la hora, por favor? --Vealhurl (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Good to know, but we should not presuppose that the user of Wiktionary knows that. So what does ¿Podrías darme hora? mean? “Could you give me an appointment?”? Since “appointment” is not (listed as) a sense of hora, that would be idiomatic (unless that sense is unduly missing).  --Lambiam 11:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. DTLHS (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

What can we do about the pronunciation information? Japanese has pronunciations from English and German, and Russian has pronunciation from Latin/French. I imagine that we ought to record this somewhere. —Suzukaze-c 04:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's of great value but if it is, appendices could describe how foreign letters are pronounced in a language and in what situations, also for letter "P": pee#Translations_3, for letter "H": aitch#Translations. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Are we going to delete e.g. and i.e. and etc. next? After all, they're Latin and not English. --Lvovmauro (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you find a Latin text using any of these? Like, Gallia, i.e. Gallorum terra, est omnis divisa in partes tres.  --Lambiam 10:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
1692, Daniel Georg Morhof, Polyhistor sive de notitia auctorum et rerum commentarii, pars II, page 36:
Per verba teſtimonii,e.g.ajunt,dicunt,perhibent,auditum eſt;
Through words of testimony, e.g. they say, they tell, they assert, it is heard;
1685, Johann Schröder, Pharmacopoeia medico-chymica, sive thesaurus pharmacologicus, page 38:
Amalgamare, i. e. metalla per ☿ii vivi admixtionem calcinare.
To amalgamate, i.e. to calcinate metals through a mixture of quicksilver.
1528, Johann Faber, Adversus Doctorem Balthasarum Pacimontanum, page 75:
Deutro.v. Deos alienos nõ habebis etc. Rñdeo, Anteꝗ̈ hęc verba ſint dicta a dño,ſic exclamat,Ego dñs deus tuus etc.
Deuteronomy 5. Thou shalt not have foreign gods, etc. I respond, before these words would have been said by the Lord, He exclaims thus: I am the Lord thy God, etc.
--Lvovmauro (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Lvovmauro: Re: "Are we going to delete...". No, we are not. These are (also) English terms now. "pH" is not a Russian or a Japanese term, a Translingual entry will suffice. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
On what basis do you decide that e.g. is English but pH is not Russian (or Japanese, or even apparently English)? As a native English speaker e.g. and pH seem to be equally naturalized. --Lvovmauro (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
What's all this fuss about рН in Russian? Why would anyone create an entry with a lowercase "r" and an uppercase "N"? ... Ohhhh... never mind ;p Chuck Entz (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Was this a joke? Sorry, I don't quite follow. Yes, Latin pH looks like Cyrillic рН but in chemical, mathematical (chessboard) formulas Latin letters are used in Russian texts and they are normally understood by Russians from the context. The individual letters are pronounced using a version of the Latin names for letters with some adjustments with a mixture of French. English abbreviations may be called using English letter names but it's not consistent, e.g. SQL, HTML, etc. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

(Keep) This Japanese entry provides information that pH is pronounced ピーエイチ (pīeichi), ピーエッチ (pīetchi) or ペーハー (pēhā). This is useful.片割れ靴下 (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Not useful at all. These are various possible pronunciations of the Latin letters, that's all. All possible English/Latin, etc. abbreviations follow the same pattern. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


SoP: 講 (to say; to talk about) + 返 (placed after the verb to express the resumption of an action). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019[edit]

sin atisbo de duda[edit]

Probably SOP --Vealhurl (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

sin duda alguna[edit]

Spanish: Probably SOP --Vealhurl (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems similar to French sans aucun doute (// sans doute), which I would keep. PUC – 16:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

ahora que hay modo[edit]

Probably made up and probably belongs in RFV, but oh well. It was in a crappy song Pierdeme El Respeto but not much out there. --Vealhurl (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


Replaced {{d}} with {{rfd}}. - TheDaveRoss 12:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. --{{victar|talk}} 05:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019[edit]


SOP? 割地 + 賠款? (For the previous discussion, see Talk:割地賠款.) -- theDarkKnightLi 🙏 🔧 10:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Weak keep since it's in Guoyu Cidian. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

zoals gewoonlijk[edit]

Dutch, zoals (as) + gewoonlijk (usually). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The usual English expression is as usual, short for as is usual, so the word usual is an adjective. The similar expressions as always and as before use adverbs. I think the word gewoonlijk is also an adverb, so the word-by-word translation (as usually) is somewhat unidiomatic. So this is not an open-and-shut SOP case.  --Lambiam 15:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


Tagged not listed. - TheDaveRoss 15:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a vote yet because I'm not sure if it actually exists, but the reasoning for the RFD is likely because the "singular" كمال‎ is uncountable and therefore not really pluralizable. كمالات, the word in question, seems comparable to perfections as if pluralizing sense 1 of perfection. M. I. Wright (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


This entry is basically just a bunch of randomly strung together words. There's really no reason it should exist. Please delete. --{{victar|talk}} 05:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019[edit]

Real Academia Española[edit]

Probably not dictionary material. --Vealhurl (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not a great comparison. WT:CFI is the rules here, and United Nations might not be under any of the categories under place names, but it seems to be arguably comparable. Whereas Real Academia Española isn't a place name, and seems like any number of non-generic organization names, like [[ the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD is included, though) and the American Civil Liberties Union (again, ACLU is includable.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Old English pseudo-prefixes[edit]

See WT:Beer parlour#Old-English-pseudo-prefixes. I went through all the Old English prefixes and identified those that I think aren't true prefixes, i.e. they're just the first part of a compound word. I identified two categories: (1) those I'm pretty sure aren't true prefixes, (2) those I think aren't true prefixes but I'm not totally sure. They are:

(1) Those I'm pretty sure aren't true prefixes:

Prefix Corresponding free lemma Prefix category
ang- (narrow, tight, vexed) ange (narrow, tight) Category:Old English words prefixed with ang-
Angel- (English) Angel (Anglen (district in Schleswig))
Bryt- (British) Bryt (Briton) Category:Old English words prefixed with Bryt-
car- (sorrow, sadness) caru (care, sorrow)
carl- (male) carl (man)
eald- (old) eald (old)
ealdor- (origin) ealdor (elder, parent; life, eternity)
feoh- (cattle) feoh (cattle)
feor- (far) feor (far)
feorran- (from afar) feorran (from afar)
folc- (people) folc (people)
ful- (full) ful (full), full Category:Old English words prefixed with ful-, Category:Old English words prefixed with full-
fyrn- (ancient, former) fyrn (former, formerly)
fæderen- (paternal) fæderen (paternal)
fǣr- (sudden; hostile) fǣr (sudden danger, peril)
gador- (united) gador (together, united)
galdor- (magic) galdor (magic song, enchantment)
ġearu- (ready) ġearu (ready)
ġeō- (former) ġeō (formerly)
ġiestran- (yester-) ġiestran (yesterday)
hēafod- (head, main) hēafod (head) Category:Old English words prefixed with heafod-
hēah- (high, main) hēah (high) Category:Old English words prefixed with heah-
healf- (half) healf (half) Category:Old English words prefixed with healf-
hund- (hundred) hund (hundred) Category:Old English words prefixed with hund-
hund- (dog, hound) hund (dog, hound) Category:Old English words prefixed with hund-
īdel- (empty, vain) īdel (empty, vain)
lād- (leading) lād (course, journey; leading, carrying)
lah- (law), lag- lagu (law)
lang- (long) lang (long)
lēas- (false) lēas (false)
lēod- (people, nation) lēod (people, nation)
lēof- (dear) lēof (dear)
līġ- (fire) līġ (fire)
lyft- (air) lyft (air)
lȳt- (small, little) lȳt (little, few) Category:Old English words prefixed with lyt-
lȳtel- (small, little) lȳtel (small, little)
lǣċe- (doctor) lǣċe (doctor)
læt- (slow) læt (slow)
mēdren- (maternal) mēdren (maternal)
mere- (sea) mere (sea) Category:Old English words prefixed with mere-
met- (measurement) met (measurement)
mete- (food) mete (food)
middel- (middle) middel (middle)
mōnaþ- (month) mōnaþ (month)
morþ- (death) morþ (death)
mǣġ- (kin) mǣġ (kinsman)
mæġen- (strong) mæġen- (strong)
mæġþ- (kin) mæġþ (family, clan, tribe)
mǣl- (time) mǣl (time)
nēah- (near) nēah (near)
nīw- (new), nīƿ- nīwe (new)
oft- (often) oft (often)
riht- (right) riht (right)
rīm- (number) rīm (number)
rūm- (wide, spacious) rūm (wide, spacious)
sīd- (wide, spacious) sīd (wide, spacious)
simbel- (always) simbel (always)
singal- (continual, perpetual) singal (continual, perpetual)
stæl- (theft) stalu (theft)
wēa- (evil, woe), ƿēa- wēa (misfortune, evil, woe)
wēas- (chance), ƿēas- wēas (by chance)
wēden- (insanity), ƿēden- wēde (raging, mad)
wer- (man), ƿer- wer (man)
wīd- (widely), ƿīd- wīd (wide)
wīf- (woman), ƿīf- wīf (woman)
wīġ- (holy), ƿīġ- wīġ (idol, image)
will- (desire), ƿill- willa (desire)
yfel- (evil) yfel (evil) Category:Old English words prefixed with yfel-
þeġn- (service) þeġn (servant)
þēod- (public) þēod (people, nation) Category:Old English words prefixed with þeod-
þweorh- (cross, opposite), þƿeorh- þweorh (cross, tranverse; adverse)

(2) Those I think aren't true prefixes but I'm not totally sure:

Prefix Corresponding free lemma Prefix category
aġēn- (again) (wrongly found at aġēn, without hyphen) āġēn (towards, against; again) Category:Old English words prefixed with agen-
āweġ- (away), āƿeġ- āweġ (away)
betwēon- (between), betƿēon- betwēonan (between)
betwux- (between), betƿux- betwux (between)
dūne- (down) dūne (down, downwards)
eal- (all), eall- eal (all), eall Category:Old English words prefixed with eal-
efen- (equal, even) efen (equal, even) Category:Old English words prefixed with efen-
eft- (again, back) eft (again, anew; back) Category:Old English words prefixed with eft-
fēa- (little; poor, lacking) fēa (few) Category:Old English words prefixed with fea-
fela- (many, multi-) fela (many) Category:Old English words prefixed with fela-
foran- (front) foran (opposite, in front)
hinder- (behind) hinder (after, behind)
maniġ- (many) maniġ (many)
miċel- (large, great) miċel (large, great)
middan- (middle) midd (middle) Category:Old English words prefixed with middan-
niþer- (below) niþer (below)
onġēan- (towards, against) onġēan (towards, against; again) Category:Old English words prefixed with ongean-
onweġ- (away), onƿeġ- onweġ (away) Category:Old English words prefixed with onweg-
samod- (together) samod (together)
sel- (rare), seld- seldan (rare)
self- (self) self (self) Category:Old English words prefixed with self-
sundor- (apart) sundor (apart)
ūtan- (on the outside) ūtan (on the outside)
wan- (lacking), ƿan- wana (lack) Category:Old English words prefixed with wan-
wel- (good, well, very), ƿel- wel (well)
ǣr- (before) ǣr (before) Category:Old English words prefixed with ær-
þri- (three) þrī (three)
þrim- (three) þrīm (dative of þrī (three))

(Notifying Leasnam, Lambiam, Urszag, Hundwine): Please let me know what you think, esp. of the 2nd category. Few of these prefixes, esp. in the first group, have corresponding categories like Category:Old English words prefixed with ful-; for those that do and we agree to delete, I will empty the categories before deleting the prefix. Benwing2 (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I think "ful(l)-" exists as an uncommon verbal prefix (that is, it can behave like a prefix by being unstressed when attached to a verb). In present-day English "fulfill", at least, the main stress is on the second syllable, and this may also be the case for "fullfyllan" (I haven't found a reference yet for this specific word). Another "ful(l)-" prefixed verb is fuldōn. Some of the sources I've looked at distinguish between a few different types of elements that can be prefixed to verbs; e.g. Minkova 2008 says that niþer- is a "particle" (p. 24).--Urszag (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
When the meaning of a combination H + T is a specialization of the meaning of T, in which H serves as an attribute defining the specialization according to the meaning of free-standing H, then this is almost certainly an ordinary compound. This is most obvious when H is a noun. Lacking a generally agreed-on definition of when a morpheme is bound, we cannot hope to have a watertight criterion for separating the wheat from the chaff, so we need to proceed with some boldness. Not deleting will mean we harbour very many false prefixes. Deleting will mean we perhaps lose a few – probably not a big deal since the analysis of HT = H + T is not wrong. So I advocate to Delete all except those H- for which an argument can be made – like for ful- above – that some term HT is not an ordinary compound. (Since twi- is very likely a true prefix, it would not be surprising if an argument can be made that þri- is actually also a prefix inherited from Proto-Germanic *þri-.)  --Lambiam 09:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, I struck out ful(l)-, þri- and þrim-. Benwing2 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I have emptied the categories for the first group; there were only a few entries to change. If no one objects, I'll delete the first group of prefixes in a few days. Benwing2 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
We have all- and even- and self- as prefixes in modern English, and some languages either predecessorial or related to Old English, which might suggest that eal-, eall- and efen- and self-, at least, might be real prefixes. - -sche (discuss) 00:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@Benwing2, can you please close this RFD as you see fit? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


SoP: (to wash) + 衣服 (clothes). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020[edit]


Spanish: female graduate. Not true. Just means ex student. Anything can be prefixed with ex. We have exalumna --ReloadtheMatrix (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep if attested as alt form of exalumna. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


Chinese given names should not be included. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

What's there in Chinese given names to justify their non-inclusion? Given names in other languages are definitely included. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Because given names in Chinese can be a combination of virtually any character among thousands. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but in practice are some combinations (including this one) are particularly common [22][23]. 05:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


Sum of parts. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Weak keep. This is in Guoyu Cidian, so we can probably keep it as an idiom. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)




The script w:Linear A, which the w:Minoan language was written in, is undeciphered as of now and the language itself is considered to be unknown. Because of this, it does not truly stand to reason to add entries in Minoan. HeliosX (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I think a case might be made for these as reconstructions, but any transliteration is an educated guess, at best. Look at the Cherokee syllabary for why one shouldn't assume that shared glyphs mean shared sounds. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


Tentatively delete 9000 as it has no other meaning (in the entry) and seems to run afoul of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


Weak delete; this has a "separate idiomatic sense" (in the language of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals) but not in the same L2, and I'm not sure what the utility of lowercase Roman numerals is, anyway. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Surely you jest? They're commonly used for page numbers in prefaces and the like. Of course, there's something not quite right if there is a page mmmm. --RichardW57 (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC).


Ehh, weak keep; this has a "separate idiomatic sense" (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals) in the same L2. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Changed to delete, see below. - -sche (discuss) 03:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


Weak delete; this has a "separate idiomatic sense" (in the language of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals) but not in the same L2, and I'm not sure what the utility of lowercase Roman numerals is, anyway. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


Weak delete; this has a "separate idiomatic sense" (in the language of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals) but not in the same L2, and I'm not sure what the utility of lowercase Roman numerals is, anyway. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


Weak delete; this has a "separate idiomatic sense" (in the language of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals) but not in the same L2, and I'm not sure what the utility of lowercase Roman numerals is, anyway. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


This has a "separate idiomatic sense", but I'm mot sure whether to keep or delete this per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals: it hinges on whether the "separate idiomatic sense" that makes a number keep-able has to be Translingual or not. (Translingual number senses could be added to some entries, such as 8514, if having a sense in another language is enough.) - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


Keep per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals (see also Chuck's comment further down). - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)







Keep. The numeral has a separate idiomatic sense. - -sche (discuss) 03:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)







Ehh, weak keep; this has a "separate idiomatic sense" (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals) in the same L2. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Changed to delete, see below. - -sche (discuss) 03:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


Strong delete with a potential exception - For the sake of consistency, and per this entry, each Roman numeral would need to account for every number ad infinitum, which is an intrinsic impossibility. However, I feel it may be acceptable for the entry to remain if there were some citations added to provide substantial instances of use.





A nonstandard Roman numeral? Weak delete; it has a "separate idiomatic sense" (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals) but not in the same L2. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)



Ehh, weak keep; this has a "separate idiomatic sense" (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals) in the same L2. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Changed to delete, see below. - -sche (discuss) 03:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


weak keep; this has a "separate idiomatic sense" (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals) in the same L2. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Changed to delete, see below. - -sche (discuss) 03:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


Weak delete; this has a "separate idiomatic sense" (in the language of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals) but not in the same L2, and I'm not sure what the utility of lowercase Roman numerals is, anyway. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


Tentatively delete 500 as, although it has many "translations" listed, it has no other meaning (in the entry) and seems to run afoul of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

General discussion[edit]

These numbers are not eligible for being included as entries and shouldn't be kept. HeliosX (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals says sequences of digits should not be included in the dictionary, unless the number, numeral, or ordinal in question has a separate idiomatic sense that meets the CFI"; I suppose the question here is whether the "separate idiomatic sense" has to be Translingual like the numbers are. Even then, the vote would have us keep something like clx — where, as an aside, {{mul-symbol}} displays the headword of the Symbol awkwardly bigger than the headword of the number for some reason, and bigger than mlx's headwords. (Also an issue: in mim, the number is listed as a symbol, inconsistent with clx.) (Anyway, I suppose the rationale is that if you look up clxi and find no entry, you know you either have to look elsewhere or look it up element by element, but if you look up clx (which you found as a numeral, and you find our entry defining it as a symbol, you may not realize that definition doesn't cover the use you're looking at.) - -sche (discuss) 18:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
There is no separate idiomatic sense in all these entries, them solely having their meanings as numbers. HeliosX (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
You must've missed my links to clx and mlx, which have separate idiomatic senses even in Translingual. The other entries like 1992 and 1337 seem to mostly have separate idiomatic senses in e.g. English. - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I was actually only referring to the Translingual entries and, in particular, only to the numbers but not to any other signs that they have got. It does not matter whether there would possibly be other meanings in English because the Translingual entries lack them. HeliosX (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Also directing this at -sche, as I stated, any deletion request box placed into the entries with more than just one Translingual symbol refers solely to the symbol below there. Hence, this does not affect any other symbols in Translingual. HeliosX (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
So you only want to delete the portion of clx that defines it as "A Roman numeral representing one-hundred and sixty (160)", but not the "Symbol for the centilux"? I understood that part, but I was thinking Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals says that even the numeral portion does not need to be deleted if there is some other "idiomatic sense". But upon re-reading the vote, I now see that it is supposed to be the numeral itself that has an idiomatic sense, and although I suspect an idiomatic sense would typically acquire another part of speech and so allowances might have to be made for that, I do see this means a mere homograph like clx isn't covered. I will switch my votes for those. - -sche (discuss) 03:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 666 is about as idiomatic as a number gets. I remember an old Saturday Night Live sketch where they found a body with the head upside down and no one could figure out why the forehead was marked with "999". The joke wouldn't have worked if 666 was just a number. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)




As far as I may be concerned about transliterating the w:Clear script, these orthographies are all false and, due to this, the entries shouldn't be kept. HeliosX (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


Taking into account the transliteration from the Clear script, it has occurred to me that the orthography wouldn't be wrong here. HeliosX (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@HeliosX: What is going on here? I don't understand you at all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


Math sense, it's the same sense as the other one.

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
How transparent is this use to English speakers? Parallel mathematical uses in other languages are German sei and Latin sit, which I suspect to be a semantic loan of Ancient Greek (êi), as used e.g. by Euclid.  --Lambiam 10:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Inclined to keep. English let be also has a separate mathematics sense, furnished with a translation table. Canonicalization (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020[edit]

porque tú lo digas[edit]

Spanish: Looks nonlemmalike to me --AcpoKrane (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I think English if you say so is used with an idiomatic meaning, basically expressing disagreement together with a refusal to enter or continue an argument. If Spanish porque tú lo digas has the same meaning, it is IMO includable.  --Lambiam 22:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Lambiam. The same applies to French si tu le dis. Canonicalization (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete. The Spanish clause does not coincide with the English and French clauses considered since it employs porque and therefore it is causal instead of conditional. The particular meaning of the English and French clauses is based on it being conditional by use of the conjunctions at the beginning. HeliosX (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
But, regardless of the literal form, can’t it likewise signal disagreement, like how it is used here in a modern translation of Tom Sawyer? Obviously, Tom doesn’t agree being called out for a lie by the new-comer boy, but does not appear inclined to argue either. The English original has “Aw—take a walk!”. In modern parlance, “Get lost!”.  --Lambiam 07:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
This is also not right because the underlying English version from 1876 has "'Your saying so doesn't make it so.'" there and the Spanish expression both in the book and in general just means "because you say so", which makes sense as well in this book. HeliosX (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


Sum of parts. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Weak keep. This is in Guoyu Cidian. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

mayonesa vegetariana[edit]

Spanish. Like hamburguesa vegetariana, SOP --AcpoKrane (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

If it actually means vegan mayonnaise it isn't SOP, because what it literally means is "vegetarian mayonnaise" (which is redundant since all mayonnaise is vegetarian). —Mahāgaja · talk 19:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

pene artificial[edit]

Spanish: probably SOP --AcpoKrane (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP for sure. Ultimateria (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


Oppose deletion. I created the *jilъ entry so that it would serve as a landing-point for the Proto-Slavic Wikipedia article which links to it in the noun tables. Additionally, if it were deleted, then the accentual information from the Verweij 1994, listing the noun as an Accent Paradigm-a noun, would be obscured. Finally, Vasmer lists the Russian descendant ил as being derived from an originally u-stem noun; so, it would be doing a disservice to readers to hide what very well may be the more accurate entry. BirdValiant (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete: Creating entries for alternative reconstructions is pointless. --{{victar|talk}} 02:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep like any other alternative form that can be demonstrated to have existed synchronically. —Rua (mew) 20:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion. @Rua and @Victar, Why delete it?[1] :v —— Gnosandes (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Does Proto-Slavic actually distinguish word-initial ji and , or are these simply notational variants of the same thing? If the two are truly phonemically distinct (i.e. if *jilъ and *jьlъ could have had different meanings and form a minimal pair), then I would not be opposed to keeping the entry separate. But if these are notational variants of the same sequence of phonemes, then I'd say this should be a hard redirect to Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/jьlъ. Since our Recsontruction pages are language-specific, we need have none of the qualms about hard redirects that we have in mainspace. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Dybo, V. A. (2000), “*i̋lъ (u-stem)”, in Морфологизованные парадигматические акцентные системы, page 42

punta rota[edit]

Spanish: probably SOP --AcpoKrane (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. There seem to be many ways of saying this in Spanish. Ultimateria (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


SOP due to non-unique referent; same reasoning as WT:RFDE#novel coronavirus (to be archived at Talk:novel coronavirus). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete. The instability of the compound is also indicated by the numerous hits of google:"新型的冠狀病毒". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak keep, cf. modifications like 新冠病毒(?). It appears that 新型XXX has become established among common people as a name for COVID-19. —Suzukaze-c 03:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep, 新冠病毒 and to a lesser extent 新型冠狀病毒 are the most common terms for COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2. —Enervation (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

gracias un montón[edit]

Spanish: Looks SOP to me --AcpoKrane (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
There's also thanks a lot (thanks + a lot); treat both equally. --Bakunla (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


SoP: match with red head (not any match). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


Sum of parts. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Weak keep. It's in Guoyu Cidian, so we could keep as a chengyu. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


This seems to be SoP: 乜嘢 (what) + 嘢 (thing) = "what thing". It's analogous to 什麼東西 in Mandarin, which is clearly SoP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020[edit]


Sum of parts. 不敢 ("to not dare") + 出聲 ("to make a sound"). Not in any idiom dictionaries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tooironic: it's in Guoyu Cidian. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


This verb does not have an imperative form because it is always used in the negative. — 12:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There are two distinct Arabic verbs زَالَ(zāla). Does this apply to both?  --Lambiam 18:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
No, only the second one; the first has instead the form زُولِي(zūlī) owing to the different present vowel. Fay Freak (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Really always? In all times?
Fine in that case, but we cannot manually exclude forms from the conjugation tables, so bots recreate them (or if @Benwing2 runs his again, after all the additions in the last five years). Fay Freak (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Fay Freak I can add support to allow particular forms to be excluded. Benwing2 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


أَ(ʾa) + لَيْسَ(laysa) 17:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Deleted sense as SOP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

tenuta agricola[edit]

Equivalent to English farm estate or agricultural estate, I suppose. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP (plus no definition). Ultimateria (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


Sending this back to RFD. It can't be used on its own, and in fact it can only be used in Panthera onca. We have deleted these before; see Talk:mume. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see the benefit of deletion, neither for the collective of editors nor for the users. Panthera onca is not some obscure species that you only find mentioned in specialized scientific literature, and we can provide an etymology for the epithet to the curious user.  --Lambiam 12:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
All of which can be covered at the Panthera onca page. This is basically a cranberry morpheme that has no meaning outside of this one binomen. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
It is covered at Panthera onca, but that is of no avail to a user who looks up “onca” (unless they are savvy and persistent enough to click What, lynx here?). I still don’t see the benefit of deletion.  --Lambiam 13:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Only used in Panthera onca ({{only in|mul|Panthera onca}})? Then people can find the species (and etymology etc.) if they just search for the epithet. --Bakunla (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Bachelor of Arts[edit]

Spanish. Tagged by Vealhurl on 7 November 2019‎ but not listed. J3133 (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I can’t find any uses (other than obvious code-switching), but shouldn’t this be at RfV?  --Lambiam 07:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


Any alleged connection between the two descendants is too uncertain to warrant an entry, and should be left to their respective etymology sections, if at all. --{{victar|talk}} 04:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

DeleteRua (mew) 09:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete I agree, the source has a record outside the framework of laryngeal theory. Here I was in a hurry, but that does not negate the possibility of their etymology. — Gnosandes (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


Previously a fictional Latin noun; now a somewhat useless Translingual adjective. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


If there are no non-North Germanic cognates, this should be moved to an Old Norse entry. @Knyȝt --{{victar|talk}} 23:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Why? @victarKnyȝt 09:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@Knyȝt: Because it can be formed by dalr +‎ , making it's existence in PG questionable with no other cognates. --{{victar|talk}} 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@victar: That would render a **dald, which cannot be the ancestor of the descendants listed. The PG -i- is needed for the umlaut. — Knyȝt 19:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@Knyȝt: Fair point, so an unattested ON *del, from *daljō + , which actually fits better semantically. --{{victar|talk}} 20:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


With no cognates, the ON is just dirfa +‎ and this should be deleted. @Holodwig21 --{{victar|talk}} 23:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, Delete. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


Could just as easily be a PWG *ga- +‎ *wihti (weight) +‎ *-ī construction, no? @Holodwig21, Rua --{{victar|talk}} 04:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if such formation were productive in PWG but I'm incline to vote delete as I think this formation may be likely PWG. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Kroonen reconstructs it for PG, though. —Rua (mew) 09:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Kroonen reconstructs a lot of stuff that probably didn't exist in PG, like Latin borrowings into PWG, not to even mention PIE. --{{victar|talk}} 17:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

afrikanų kalba[edit]

Lithuanian: Tagged but not listed --Gorgehater (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete per precedent (Talk:bulgarian kieli). — surjection?〉 12:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete. PUC – 14:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete this and the following pages:

afarų kalba, airių kalba, albanų kalba, katalonų kalba, moldavų kalba, oksitanų kalba, retoromanų kalba, rumunų kalba, slovėnų kalba, abchazų kalba, anglų kalba, armėnų kalba, azerbaidžaniečių kalba, baltarusių kalba, baškirų kalba, baskų kalba, čiukčių kalba, ispanų kalba, italų kalba, japonų kalba, kečujų kalba, latvių kalba, lietuvių kalba, lotynų kalba, nauriečių kalba, portugalų kalba, prancūzų kalba, rusų kalba, serbų kalba, suomių kalba, tadžikų kalba, vengrų kalba, vokiečių kalba

Many were added by Tbot. I'm not sure about danakilų kalba. Ultimateria (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
That one is equally SOP: danakilas is a synonym of afaras. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete all. It has been little focus on creating Lithuanian adjective lemmas, though. The SoP combinations using them always draw more interest because they are normally translated as one word into English. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep unless someone can show that Lithuanian has a single-word neutral (not informal) term that is a synonym for afrikanų kalba. If this is the most usual way in Lithuanian to say this, let us keep it. The discussion at Talk:bulgarian kieli suggests that this is like English Bulgarian language, which it quite possibly is not since in English Bulgarian is a neutral (not informal) word refering to the language. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

nakaistar ako sa Melbourne[edit]

Seems unlikely to be needed. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It's an example city at a phrasebook translation hub. I'd probably vote to delete all the translations there in favor of linking to the individual words. Ultimateria (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
That defeats the point of having a phrasebook.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I would keep the translation tables at the English entries. There are zero Google results for "nakaistar ako sa Melbourne", so as SemperBlotto points out, this page is not useful. The translation is though. Ultimateria (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Yes, translations should be ideally broken up into components but it's very time-consuming. I did break up some. Also ideally, transliterations for languages such as Thai and Khmer are either regenerated using languages specific templates or those templates are applied for translation purposes. E.g. ខ្ញុំរស់នៅក្នុងទីក្រុង  ―  khñom rŭəh nɨw knong tii krong  ―  I live in the city of ... generates transliteration automatically. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

uovo bazzotto[edit]

Italian for "soft-boiled egg". SOP. (And since we love using eggs as a test of SOP...) Ultimateria (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete asap. I get hungry each time I see this entry.  --Lambiam 20:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

唔知, 毋知, 毋知影, 無知[edit]

SoP: 唔 (not) + 知 (know) = to not know; 毋 (not) + 知 (know) = to not know; 毋 (not) + 知影 (know) = to not know. The Mandarin equivalent 不知道 has been deleted previously. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Also the verb sense for 無知 (Hainanese): 無 (not) + 知 (know) = to not know. See User talk:Justinrleung#不知道 as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020[edit]


"Nike". WT:BRAND. —Suzukaze-c 06:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Interesting info about how the term Nike is realized in distinct ways in Japanese depending on sense, but the company name does indeed seem to fall afoul of WT:BRAND. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


Xiandai Hanyu Cidian 7, Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian 1 and Cihai 6 all mention this term, but not as a separate entry. The Guoyu Cidian of Taiwan have it as a separate entry. [24] [25] I was just following these dictionaries. My first instinct is to keep it on that basis so that Wiktionary can move towards coming to encompass every word defined in the Guoyu Cidian, but I don't know man. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Weak keep since it's in Guoyu Cidian. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Also in Cross-Straits Dictionary and 成語辭海. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


OE -oc was a productive suffix, so this is really just *beall +‎ -oc. --{{victar|talk}} 04:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, delete, this is one word too much for Proto-Germanic. We have one word *aistô held by extra-Germanic cognates, *neurô held by broad and dense attestation, and then we have *huþô with only West-Germanic descendants for which I see no convincing etymology here, probably a replacement term, and in Old English there has been a replacement term again with bealluc, and in English and other Germanic languages again from Latin, testicle. Probably *balluz (ball) also had this meaning, already Old Norse bǫllr. Do we know the Gothic, anyway? I don’t find it on the run. With the observation of how the word replacements run, you or @Rua probably wants to make Proto-Germanic *huþô Proto-West Germanic. Fay Freak (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
No, no Gothic word for testicle is attested. (Consider that basically the entire corpus consists of parts of a Bible translation (mostly NT) and a theological tractate.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
One needs a bit more knowledge that that! Deuteronomy 23:1 refers to 'crushed testicles! There's also a rule in the Pentateuch about grabbing testicles in a fight. --RichardW57 (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


Sum of parts. "Consumer" + "protection" + "campaign". Not in any dictionaries. Not even in the Chinese encyclopedia Baidu Baike. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I think you missed 教育部國語詞典重編本. That being said, it does seem SoP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Minor devil's advocacy: it's "protection" + "consumer" + "campaign", so not just a one-to-one correspondence. Not sure if the difference in term construction is notable enough though. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Eirikr: A literal translation of the Chinese is "protect" + "consumer" + "campaign", but this construction would give "campaign for protecting consumers" or more idiomatically, "consumer protection campaign". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Meh. :) Noun or verb comes down to syntactic context, and I used the noun to mirror the first line in this thread. Mostly I just wanted to clarify that the term in question doesn't quite parse out as "consumer" + "protection" + "campaign" as initially described. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Eirikr: True. Anyway, I don't think the difference in order makes much difference in determining its SoPness. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


Neither in common understanding nor etymologically analyzed so. See -lei, of which this is a duplicate created by a Briton of moderate German proficiency. -lei is a noun, by spelling a suffix and only for the reasons that follow a derivational suffix. Identically functioning synonyms are -gestalt (diesergestalt, welchergestalt etc., which one does and would not create as one knows well the noun Gestalt, but even less so one would create -ergestalt), -hand (solcherhand, mancherhand … from Hand), -art (mancherart, welcherart … from Art), -schlacht (allerschlacht; retained from Middle High German -slaht, -slahte, obsolete as the noun is not used in New High German, only Geschlecht). The part in between is the inflectional ending -er of adjectives in the feminine genitive singular (no entry for it here; it is to be seen as interfix -er- with a different etymology when recognizing the succeeding part as suffix, the interfix is else mostly from neuter plural noun inflection endings).

The syntactic category of what results is originally attributive noun phrase, which can also come in front of a noun in German as is well known; also adverbial noun phrase. With the living nouns such formations can also come after the noun and thus disprove that they are adjectives since attributive adjectives in German need to precede the noun; such formations would just not be spelled in one word. Männer solcher Art ←→ solcherart Männer, and no reason why not: solcher Art Männer. The same is not bearable for -lei which does not have a corresponding independently of this construction used noun, one will hardly say: Männer solcher Lei (except perhaps in very early New High German), and only therefore and because they most frequently precede nouns while attributive noun phrases more often succeed nouns, in German, formations with all the said morphemes are considered adjectives.

But the recognition of the noun as a morpheme is yet well alive, as some nouns in such suffixes are independently alive and the feminine genitive singular adjective ending is still used. So -erlei is a dispreferrable analysis (an understanding not employed by the language community) and therefore -erlei added to -lei after the former had been created is not an “alternative form” but no real form altogether. And of course and at least Category:German words suffixed with -erlei should be emptied and its content pages put to Category:German words suffixed with -lei. Fay Freak (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Recategorize and (when Category:German words suffixed with -erlei is empty) Delete (and also the empty cat). May I suggest adding an etymology section to -lei that also explains how this is got to be suffixed to genitive forms of adjectives so that -erlei is a recurring ending?  --Lambiam 15:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


SoP: 帶 (have; contain) + 色兒 (lust; pornography; pornographic content). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

meno un quarto[edit]

e un quarto[edit]

e tre quarti[edit]

Italian SOP translations of RFD-failed twenty-five to, et al. Ultimateria (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. PUC – 11:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Viertel vor[edit]

Viertel nach[edit]

German SOP translations of RFD-failed twenty-five to, et al. Ultimateria (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

čtvrt na[edit]

tři čtvrtě na[edit]

Czech SOP translations of RFD-failed twenty-five to, et al. Ultimateria (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep: they are translations of quarter past and quarter to and show the difference in the construction between Czech and English; this shows that quarter past and quarter to should have probably been kept for translations. Furthermore, as for Talk:twenty-five to, if I count correctly, it was 3 for deletion and 2 for keep, so should have been closed as "no consensus" rather than deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

minos kinse para[edit]

minos baynte para[edit]

singko minutos pasado[edit]

diyes minutos pasado[edit]

minos diyes para[edit]

Cebuano SOP translations of RFD-failed twenty-five to, et al. Ultimateria (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. PUC – 17:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

am besten[edit]

Hi, it seems like there's a policy in this Wiktionary of not making articles on the "am + -sten" superlative constructions, either adverbs or adjectives. The policy is implicit (if not explicit) on every German adjective+adverb article, including gut, where the superlative form is given as am [-en], with a link to the latter part. Am besten doesn't even have any idiomatic sense on top of the evident "best" ("in the best manner"). -- Puisque (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, delete. Imetsia (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
We only need besten. Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete. PUC – 17:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Jberkel 06:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


Made a past error missing the medial cuneiform sign "𐎡", created a new page reflecting the correct form. -Profes.I. (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


Features the wrong cuneiform; an error for 𒄿𒋾; see 𒄿𒄿 for further explanation and source. -Profes.I. (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


Doesn't even exist. The singular form is only used in the expression a vanvera, and there is no plural form. Imetsia (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)




The standard form capofitto is used only in the expression a capofitto. These gendered forms don't even exist. Imetsia (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

DeleteJberkel 06:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

All Proto-Chadic lemmas without descendants[edit]

All but one of these pages created by @Allahverdi Verdizade have no descendants (and that one is at RFM to be split into two separate pages). We therefore have no straightforward way of assessing them, and the sole source used is not only mostly reconstructing roots rather than actual words, but is also not very reliable (it even refers to them as a "tentative reconstruction" in the title). Allahverdi said that he doesn't know how to fix the entries and only wanted to make the reconstructions available to the public, which is better accomplished by the table at Appendix:List of Proto-Chadic reconstructions. We can still create Proto-Chadic entries, but they should be based on the latest scholarship (which reconstructs sub-branches first, and works up), and they should have evidence to back them up. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

fare una gaffe[edit]

SOP. fare + una + gaffe ("make/do" + "a" + "gaffe"). Imetsia (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete. PUC – 18:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Jberkel 17:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

compra compulsiva[edit]

Catalan, looks SOP --Vitoscots (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete as SOP, and the definition isn't even right. I've removed it from the translations of oniomania because this is the name of a symptom and not a disease. Ultimateria (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

fare discorsi sconclusionati[edit]

SOP. Imetsia (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. PUC – 17:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages/Retired_language_articles/Sunda–Sulawesi_languages. This one was based on original research and has no verifiable sources. Kwékwlos (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


It’s not a word but a sentence. See Wiktionary:Tea room#草に草生やすな. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

We also include phrases, which can be full sentences (e.g. you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t ). The Tea room argument is that it is not idiomatic. But how would one know that it specifically criticizes mixed use as seen in 草wwwwwwwww?  --Lambiam 06:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete, for both wt:ATTEST and wt:SOP. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment: These examples tend to support a case for ATTEST (except that they are mention, rather than use, of the phrase). But at the same time might weaken a case for SOP, as it seems like other references to "grass" or "growing" can be substituted (but but, I am now doubting that that conclusion can be drawn, at least from the evidence below).
  • [26] (わたし)質問(しつもん)しているのは「(くさ)草生(くさは)やすな」です。 「(くさ)()やすな」というのは()っています。
    Watashi ga shitsumon shite-iru no wa “kusa ni kusa hayasuna” desu. “kusa ni hayasuna” to iu no wa shitte-imasu.
    My question is about ‘kusa ni kusa hayasuna’. I understand ‘kusa ni hayasuna’.
  • [27] 2018年頃(2018 ねんごろ)からは頻度(ひんど)(すく)ないものの「(くさ)草生(くさは)やすな」(くさにくさはやすな)というフレーズも()られるようになりました。
    2018 nen goro kara wa hindo wa sukunai mono no “kusa ni kusa hayasuna” (kusa ni kusa hayasuna) to iu furēzu mo mirareru yō ni narimashita.
    From about 2018 the phrase ‘kusa ni kusa hayasuna’ also began to appear occasionally.
  • [28] たま~に(くさ)草生(くさは)やしてるやつをいいねで注意(ちゅうい)しに()きます
    tama~ni kusa ni kusa hayashiteru yatsu o ii ne de chūi shi ni ikimasu
    So~metimes I warn ‘kusa ni kusa hayashi’ peeps with a ‘like’
I can't decide whether this suggests keeping or deleting the entry. Cnilep (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

parlare a vanvera[edit]

SOP as parlare + a vanvera. Imetsia (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. PUC – 10:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

אופן פעולה[edit]

This just means "way/manner/mode of action/acting" and is sum of parts: אופן פעולה.

- פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

DeleteMnemosientje (t · c) 11:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Also bad Tbot entry. Fay Freak (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

C. Padilla[edit]

Cebuano. One particular street. Ugh --Vitoscots (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

reine des abeilles[edit]

As a native speaker, I see this lemma has a sum of parts. A proof is the TLFi does know this word. Yet if we look at reine, we can read: "2.a Animal, végétal, chose qui domine, l'emporte sur les autres au sein d'un groupe, dans un lieu donné, par ses qualités propres. [Chez les insectes sociaux (fourmis, termites, guêpes et surtout abeilles)] Femelle féconde unique d'une colonie, d'une ruche. Reine d'abeilles, des abeilles; reine termite. Les fourmis sont en grand émoi: L'âme du nid, la reine est morte (Rollinat, Névroses, 1883, p. 234). J'ai plus d'une fois, comme tout amateur d'abeilles, fait venir d'Italie des reines fécondées (Maeterl., Vie abeilles, 1901, p. 61)." This mean that we can "reine des fourmis", "reine des termites", etc. In the example given by TLFi, the text only use "reine" (bold is mine). Pamputt (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this should be deleted, but I did add the relevant sense to reine. Ultimateria (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The definition is queen bee; queen bee at OneLook Dictionary Search. French abeille means "bee". How would I know this is the way of putting it in French? In Czech, we say včelí královna rather than *královna včel. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


Khmer for Tokyo. SOP, "Tokyo" + "city". Ultimateria (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Although, admittedly, city names are accompanied by the word for city, e.g. ទីក្រុងឡុងដ៍  ―  tii krong long  ―  London; the city of London. ឡុងដ៍ (long, London) is not used on it's own. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

calcular mal[edit]

Spanish SOP. Almost any verb can be done mal (badly). --Vitoscots (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Jberkel 17:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete. PUC – 17:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


Obvious and long-known loanword Akkadian → Aramaic → Arabic (دَنّ(dann), not even a common word). Fay Freak (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Created by an anon, based on the StarLing database, which also offers an absurd etymology. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

collo di bottiglia[edit]

SOP: Italian for "neck of bottle" ("bottleneck"). Imetsia (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The Italian term is a calque of English bottleneck in the figurative sense. In that sense it is not SOP in English. I think that this extends to the loan translation: you may well know that collo means “body part connecting the head and trunk” and that bottiglia means “glass container with a narrow opening”, and yet not see immediately that the combination means “major impediment to progress”.  --Lambiam 13:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
If the figurative sense is attested, keep per Lambiam. PUC – 11:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

badare ai fatti propri[edit]

Italian for "to mind" + "one's own" + "matters" ("mind one's business"). SOP.

farsi gli affari propri[edit]

Italian for "to do (for) oneself" + "one's own" + "affairs" ("mind one's business"). SOP. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Imetsia (talkcontribs).

  • I would keep this one. Not really obvious in its meaning. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
One thing I forgot to mention too: the entries can also be reworded as "badare ai propri fatti" and "farsi i propri affari" (respectively) just using some simple word order shuffles. So neither of the two are really set phrases either, if anyone had that thought in mind. Imetsia (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
And that's to say nothing of the various combinations and additional rewordings possible: "badare ai propri affari," "farsi i propri fatti," "gestire le proprie circostanze," and countless other obviously SOP locutions. Imetsia (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

juzgar mal[edit]

Spanish SOP for "misjudge". Tagged but not listed. Ultimateria (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. – Jberkel 17:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. PUC – 10:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


SoP. Many verbs can be followed by 不到 to mean "to be unable to V". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


SoP: "to be able to do (something)". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


SoP: "to be able to hear". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


SoP: Many verbs can be followed by 不著 to mean "to be unable to V". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


SoP: "to be able to hear". It is included in 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典, but it is pretty clearly SoP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

pittura a olio[edit]

Seems SOP to me as Italian for "oil painting." As the related terms for the entry also make clear, this is hardly the only common "pittura a [X]" construction. For instance, there's "pittura a acquerello" (watercolor painting [SOP]) and "pittura a tempera" (tempera painting [SOP]). We rightly do not have those entries, and we shouldn't have this one either. Imetsia (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Is oil painting itself SOP? —Mahāgaja · talk 14:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Only if oil paint is. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
oil painting wouldn't be SOP even without considering oil paint. Sense 3 of oil painting is very figurative and wouldn't be easily gleaned from the sum of parts, so that alone renders "oil painting" non-SOP. For the other senses, that would be a question for English RFD. There is the rather strong argument from the fried egg test that the entry is idiomatic. In other words, it clarifies that the term refers to oil paint, not olive oil, petroleum oil, etc. (Though sense 4 of oil encompasses oil paint). For what it is worth, however, the Italian native-language dictionaries don't treat this as a distinct lemma. Instead, from what I've seen, there's one sense of "pittura" as "the technique adopted for painting, e.g. "a olio," "a tempera," "a acquerello," etc." There's a case to be made that this might be a better way to treat this, rather than having numerous entries for "pittura a [medium]." (Or, alternatively, have a single pittura a entry). What is more, there are probably countless fried-egg-test determinations that this entry could open the door to: pittura vascolare (painting of or on a vase?), pittura murale (painting of or on a wall?), etc. Imetsia (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020[edit]

inseguimento in auto[edit]

Sounds rather SOP. @Imetsia? PUC – 16:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Same goes for inseguimento a piedi by the way. PUC – 16:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete both, SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


SoP: "wooden bin". -- 04:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep. In the Chinese-Chinese dictionary 五南國語活用辭典, and derives 木桶飯. ---> Tooironic (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Weak keep per Tooironic. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


Seems SoP (in Chinese & Japanese) to me : 木 (wood) + 製 (be made of). -- 04:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep the Japanese one since it's in Jisho, Weblio辞書, Kotobank, goo辞書 and 国語辞典オンライン. --theDarkKnightLi 🙏 🔧 14:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Definitely keep for the Japanese. Kanji compounds where the individual pieces are not words unto themselves are only "words" as compounds. Definitely not SOP. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Functions as a common attributive in Chinese. Also in the Cross Straits and MOE Chinese-Chinese dictionaries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep per above. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


SOP. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Not SOP, as the meaning is decidedly non-obvious from the parts. However, it's also not a lexical item, and the reading a' kakko sasshi is more of a typographical description (kakko = "parenthesis") than anything you'd expect to use in conversation.
Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
What is non-obvious? It is just あっ + verbal noun of 察する, meaning "ah... **realised something**" in English. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The kakko bit in the middle there is rather strange. Also, 察し (sasshi) has various possible meanings, including "inference, guess, conjecture; empathizing, consideration". I'd argue that both make this non-obvious. However, I still don't think that changes the non-lexicality of this phrase. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I remember when they deleted Internet personality, they did not recognize it as a non-SOP just because personality has multiple meanings. kakko just means brackets. You can also write "ah... (realised something)". I still can not see why it is not SOP since this = あっ("ah") + かっこ("brackets") + 察し("realised something"). -- Huhu9001 (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep as the creator. Included in