Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Requests for Deletion (RfD) is where Wiktionarians discuss and propose deletion of articles, definitions, templates, categories, and other pages. Requests will stay here until a sysop decides consensus has been reached, or comes to the conclusion that the page is a candidate for immediate deletion. Some outcomes include: 1) The item is kept, 2) The item is deleted, or 3) the item is transwikied to another Wikimedia project.

The current policy governing the use of this page is available at Wiktionary:Page deletion guidelines. The requests themselves belong on this page.

Make a new nomination

Notes

• Some key discussions of deleted items are saved at Wiktionary:Deletion archive
• For help on how to do a good nomination, see Help:Nominating an article for cleanup or deletion.
• For an overview, see Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion process, which includes how to remove a nomination after cleanup is done.
• Sysops who delete pages that have been listed here should show and date this on the list when they do it. A simple **Deleted. ~~~~ is enough. The items affected are almost always properly deleted, but acknowledging that you have done this is good for building community confidence.
• Check the alphabetical category for a list of all pages tagged with the template {{rfd}}; when the {{rfd}} template is removed from the page, the entry will automatically be withdrawn from that page. It should only be removed if the result of the deletion discussion was to keep the entry.
• Sysops should check the Talk: page of the entry as discussion of why the entry should be kept or deleted may also be there. Both this page and the talk page should be checked before deletion.
• There is a manually created and maintained list within this page, below. You can use the Make a new nomination link below to add your nomination to the list. When doing so, please include a brief explanation of your reason for nominating the page for deletion. Old entries are relisted by month. Please put any extensive discussion in the Talk: (discussion) page of the article.
• If the title of a page is a valid term but the content is an incorrect entry, nonsense, or vandalism, then the page should be nominated for cleanup using the {{rfc}} template rather than being nominated for deletion.

See also: Wiktionary:Lists of words needing attention

Make a new nomination

Special Nominations for Deletion

Permanent deletion list

The following links should always be red. Please delete the corresponding articles should they appear:

• Unwritten article
• Link title

Chronic problems

• Sprankton/sprankton - both deleted again; manybe we'll be lucky. Eclecticology 08:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC) It came back. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Failed verifications

Terms that have previously failed the Requests for verification are presumed invalid. They should not be resubmitted again without adequate verification. Sysops are reminded to delete these entries on sight. See Wiktionary:Requests for verification/archive for a detailed list.

---

General Nominations for Deletion

---

December

Some oldest Japanese entries

I did general cleaning of Japanese entries in the Special:Ancientpages and found several rubbish headwords. Here's the nominations and the diagnoses:

• 悪魔城, あくまじょう: Equivalents of devil castle in English. Not a word.
• バーニング: A katakana transliteration of "burning", which is never used independently.
• フリーザ: A side character in w:Dragon Ball.
• 烈戦, れっせん: Pieces of the now-defunct 烈戦人造人間. Not a word.

--Tohru 07:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 08:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• What's wrong with バーニング? CDバーニング seems to be a popular activity [1] and I get 503 google hits for バーニングしている, saying things like "my brain is burning" (脳みそがバーニングしている) [2]. Kappa 20:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point :-) We shouldn't give serious thought to "バーニングしている", while a noun phrase "CDバーニング" would be OK and can be added as a headword.

バーニング is certainly a transliteration of "burning" that is understandable to most Japanese people. However, it usually appears in combination with other specific words, like CDバーニング, and I feel we Japanese still don't have a way to use it as an independent full-fledged word that can be freely combined with other words. Consequently I nominated it here, judging subjectively.

And yes, there are some examples of "バーニングしている/バーニングする". I assure that the writers intend to add a playful, silly or wacky feeling to their sentences with the intentional deviation from normal Japanese. There would be no need for us to take it seriously. --Tohru 08:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If it can't be freely combined with other words, that makes it a w:bound morpheme but it's still a morpheme and I believe wiktionary takes all attested morphemes, bound or not. I also find phrases like "MP3データをCDにバーニングすることはできますか" Can the MP3 Data be burned onto the CD?" [3]

Why would wiktionary not take a word seriously just because it is used in a humorous way? Users still need to be able to understand it. For example, it has "confuzzle", which is a humorous word but still needs an explanation. Kappa 20:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, バーニング is a morpheme. I agree to it. But we don't need to collect all the tricks and mistakes on the Web. How do you think of buurning, buuurning, buuuurning and buuuuurning? Adding them as full-fledged entries would be controversial, at the least.

When it comes to your reference of to burn data onto CD, we usually say like CDを焼く or CDに焼く for it. CDに焼き付ける is the less popular but certain variant. As far as I know never say CDをバーニングする nor CDにバーニングする. If a word/an expression is imported into Japanese solidly, a suitable number of references will follow: see CDバーニング and CDをクリーニングする. I'd like you to compare those numbers and consider what do they mean.

If you or someone is determined to include バーニング here and place the example with it, I prefer this context than the current one. --Tohru 08:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I re-added バーニング, feel free to put a {{rfv}} or {{rfd}} on it if anyone objects. Gerard Foley 21:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A.

Who cares what the Webster 1913 abbreviation for adjective is. Ncik 20:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Enh, just 'cause the facts are falsely given as too restrictive... This 'a.' is used in other places than Webster 1913 to mean 'adjective'. The OED is another that so uses it. But per Παρατηρητής move it to a.. —Muke Tever 16:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - it should be a.? - Παρατηρητής 13:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep as a formatting helper for automated importing of Webster's entries. Or rather, as a handy catch for missed formatting corrections of the same. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep as per Connel. +sj [[User talk:Sj|+]] 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

For those who would think this is done with, I must note that I found and corrected five more entries today, using this method. These entries can creep back in with each Webster definition import. --Connel MacKenzie T C 10:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:dontlinkhere

Unnecessary. Ncik 20:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - I don't understand it (there are two other spellings that redirect to it) - Παρατηρητής 13:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep as another helper entry for finding formatting mistakes (especially newbies wikifying strange parts of a Webster's 1913 entry.) Ban Ncik for vandalizing the entries that referred to this template, making it infinitely less useful. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - (also review the pages that use it) - The periods in the 1913 Webster are part of its own punctuation conventions rather than a part of the abbreviations. We don't need dummy entries whose sole purpose is to find presumed formatting errors. Eclecticology 17:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Golly, that wasn't what the community consensus was at the time these were implemented. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And where is this "community consensus"? Eclecticology 18:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Very old discussions are hard to dig up. One I found is at User talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive#Webster's abbreviations. But your assumption of bad faith is very chilling. Ncik has demonstrated he is acting in bad faith and is stalking. I'll continue looking for more concrete references to appease your paranoia. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Another at User talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive#a. (prior to case-conversion) referring to a very hard to find BP discussion.
• Another at User talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive#punctuation in titles
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/January-March 05#Language Codes / Templates /Categories has a very long discussion about the counterpart Templates, especially User:Eclecticology's objection to the concept. Later, the majority of these templates were enhanced or reinstated and used extensively (first by others, then much later by myself.)
• Wiktionary talk:Abbreviations in Webster background

--Connel MacKenzie T C 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussions in user talk pages can hardly be considered a part of consensus since they are only exchanges that you have had with individual users. In the BP reference the best I can do is quote you: "I agree that my experiment with the abbreviation of words in Webster 1913 was a little much. I do plan on undoing those changes. But I hesitate on removing the language abbreviations from etymologies; the automatic category addition is quite valuable." I have had concerns about the language templates used in the etymologies, but have not pursued that point because I have not yet thought of anything better to replace them. Your final reference is, as you say, "background", and as such does not represent any sort of consensus. Eclecticology 20:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That is false. They were "private" discussion only because back then no one else cared. The out of context quoting refers to abbreviations such as fr. for from and cf. for confer which I did delete at your request primarily. What you quoted me as discussing is not directly about these types of Webster's abbreviations at all! That was the compromise I made on your behalf - to remove the mundane abbreviations. It has since become evident that I was wrong to do so; confusion still exists for many who refer to ARTFL about F. vs. fr..

As for the "background" comment, what sane person would consider deleting a useful item? Of course the conversation (instigated by Ncik's stalking) was over. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with those discussions is that they are based on the wrong assumption that abbreviating a phrase by taking its initial letters and placing a period at its end is Webster specific. It is not, not in the context of abbreviating language names, and not in general. See my comments and references on Talk:OHG, in particular the citation from Fowler's book. The template is extremely confusing for users of Wiktionary that are not editors and principally doesn't belong there. It is the kind of stuff that we need to mention on WS:ELE or Wiktionary:Style guide, not in the main namespace. Ncik 17:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It is to assist new users who wikify A.. What sort of convoluted reasoning are you trying to pull suggesting that removing a useful identifier helps new users? --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ncik has now done something to OHG. but still refuses to undo the damage he has done by removing this useful template. Making a request for an explanation, he circuitously referred back here, where he still cannot explain what relevance his other citations might have...we do not use those copyrighted sources for importing entries into Wiktionary. Nor has he deigned to comment on the lack of punctuation as a convention here for abbreviations, nor why this example should be an exception to that rule (other than for import tracking/corrections.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

For those who would still assert that this is "unecessary," I must note that I found and corrected five more entries today, using this method. These entries can creep back in with each Webster definition import. --Connel MacKenzie T C 10:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

January

Template:altspellpar

Yet another template we don't really need. Ncik 02:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (also Template:altspell) - useful (and in use) - text is not optimum though. SemperBlotto 08:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - is good - Παρατηρητής 13:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• I don't find either of them very useful, particularly the one that adds a pointless tag to articles. What an alternative spelling is is a matter of general Wiktionary knowledge, and should not need to be repeated in an ugly tag every time it applies. Eclecticology 10:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Ec 100%. I find this tag very ugly and I think it dumbs down the content that would be much better served by spelling out the similarities and differences in each article. — Hippietrail 17:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Both templates are heavily linked. Suggesting formatting improvements is worlds better than recommending elimination. Obviously someone found these useful; I would have used them if there wasn't this vitriolic assault on them. Why is a conversation that belongs in the beer parlour to begin with, being catered to? Both of these templates seem like an elegant approach to easing the persistent UK/US issues. Why is a request for their deletion deemed appropriate, when a reasonable apprach would be to offer an improved solution first then migrate such entries over, then when all is clear, request deletion. Elimination of useful templates is no improvement. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Translations of the Week/Next Week

Moved into Wiktionary:Translations of the Week Gerard Foley 02:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was gonna do something moderately useful with this page. You couldn't leave it alive for a bit could you? Ta --Wonderfool 17:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this the right place for such a notice / request? Better to leave a note on the creator's talk page... +sj [[User talk:Sj|+]] 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

smelly freckle

Failed RFV (only one cite's existence suggested, and a random google doesn't suggest widespread slang (maybe six google hits in forums, multiply indexed). Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/December 2005#smelly freckle —Muke Tever 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:leet

An empty category with some rubbish. Jonathan Webley 13:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sad. It has such promise! +sj [[User talk:Sj|+]] 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

semper blotto, semperblotto

These entries merely contain personal abuse. Jonathan Webley 13:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted "semper blotto"; could not delete "semperblotto" (target missing) — Paul G 10:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Tish

A made up word from some TV programme. SemperBlotto 14:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• But also a hypocoristic for Letitia. Uncle G 15:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• OK, converted into a proper entry. So Keep. SemperBlotto 16:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep +sj [[User talk:Sj|+]] 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

PowerPoint

Should the name of a product to make presentations be included like this? If someone talks about showing a power point, does one necessarily talk about a presentation produced with MS PowerPoint?

• Keep and add general sense to the existing one. --Primetime 16:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if it's just the name of a product. Keep if it has gained a generic sense -- but this will have to be backed up with citations. — Hippietrail 18:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the name of the product, or add all names of all products, past and present in all languages. Keep the generic, lowercase term once sufficient evidence has been found. (Last time I was in a workplace that used them they were known as "PowerPoint presentations" so nothing new there. — Hippietrail 15:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I just added two quotations from public universities. --Primetime 07:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete , a product name which has not entered general vocabulary. Alexander 007 06:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We have to give presentations incessantly at my business school. Everyone there refers to an electronic slide presentation as a powerpoint. If I said "electronic slide presentation," people would look at me funny. --Primetime 07:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, then it appears to be on the road to entering general vocabulary. Citations would help. Alexander 007 07:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to meet the requirement. Alexander 007 07:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• It seems to be rather like Hoover / hoover - so we need powerpoint as well as PowerPoint SemperBlotto 08:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The examples I cited give it in the form PowerPoint. We should probably just create a redirect from the lowercase word. I agree that eventually it will no doubt be written in lower-case type, though. --Primetime 14:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as lowercase. Definitely genericized within a significant sector. +sj [[User talk:Sj|+]] 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sharpe

Content: sharpe Ncik 22:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted — Paul G 11:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

exicornt..

Ncik 22:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted — Paul G 11:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

defining dictionary

Content: supercondectivre Ncik 22:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

roger ramrod

Content: uh Ncik 22:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

fluffer-doodle

Content: G force Ncik 22:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

quinn

Content: liquor arlen Ncik 22:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Web Empowerment

An attempt at self-promotion? Ncik 01:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Finnish compound noun

Quite interesting but rather encyclopedic. Can it be made into a dictionary definition? SemperBlotto 08:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, all the contributions by its author (User:84.248.77.12) need formatting - but I haven't got the time or inclination at the moment. SemperBlotto 08:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Move to Witkionary or Wiktionary_Appendix namespace. It would be great if we could start writing pages like this on the grammar of various languages. Perhaps we need a "Wiktionary:Grammar" namespace for these, which could be subdivided by language ("Wiktionary:Grammar:Finnish", etc). — Paul G 11:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete after moving to Wikipedia. The term itself also does not belong here. Finnish and compound noun do belong. — Hippietrail 16:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Prefer moving to Wikibooks rather than Wikipedia, if there is a suitable place for it there. — Paul G 18:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Paul; some kind of general linguistics text, perhaps. +sj [[User talk:Sj|+]] 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A (tg)

1) Bad title. 2) No ==language== header 3) Encyclopedic SemperBlotto 16:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This was the text (minus formatting) -

The first letter in all the world-alphabets save a few, such for instance as the Mongolian, the Japanese, the Tibetan, the Ethiopian, etc. It is a letter of great mystic power and “magic virtue” with those who have adopted it, and with whom its numerical value is one.

It is the Alephof the Hebrews, symbolized by the Ox or Bull; the Alpha of the Greeks, the one and the first the Az of the Slavonians, signifying the pronoun I (referring to the I am that I am). Even in Astrology, Taurus (the Ox or Bull or the Aleph) is the first of the Zodiacal signs, its colour being white and yellow.

The sacred Aleph acquires a still more marked sanctity with the Christian Kabalists when they learn that this letter typifies the Trinity in Unity, as it is composed of two Yods, one upright, the other reversed with a slanting bar or nexus, thus SemperBlotto 22:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Theosophical Glossary

1) Encyclopedic 2) strangely formatted SemperBlotto 16:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone is attempting/planning to import entries from a (hopefully public-domain) source, by Template:tgloss and Category:Theosophical Glossary. Move this apparent description page to Appendix: or some such. —Muke Tever 18:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

(And I suppose A (tg) was supposed to be part of this?) —Muke Tever

Hi. Aren't Public Domain the material from Authors who died more then 100 years ago? I'm doing a wikization for that material. It also could be integrally uploaded at wikisource, but since it is already in a dicitionary mode, it's apropriate to wiki version. Another thing, the entries are immediatly deleted with no warning (like in A (tg))?? --Jic 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
sorry about my bad english

The complaint seems to be that it is written in an encyclopedic manner, not a dictionary one. (I did not get a chance to see the article in question so I don't know how encyclopedic it was, but I know that the charge of 'encyclopedic' is often ferried at any definition longer than a couple of sentences.) So, to explain a little better why the page was deleted:

# A (tg) is not a good page title. If it is about "A", it should go at A. If it is about "a" it should go at a. (On this wiki, unlike Wikisource, say, a distinction is made between capitalized and non-capitalized page titles, so A and a are different pages.)

I made such title different for A, a, ª... meaning its a A from Theosophical Glossary.

Yes; but for ordinary entries on this wiktionary, the title is the word being described: nothing more. The only precedent for using something like "(tg)" in a title is on a different Wiktionary that uses disambiguation, in which case "(tg)" would be read as an entry for a Tajik word (the code for Tajik is tg).

# Apparently the language it was in was not stated. Presumably it is of English words used in theosophy, so it would need to be marked as English--if it isn't, it needs to be marked as the appropriate language. If there is already an entry for English (or whatever language it is) you may need to find a way to integrate it into the existing entry.

They will be, when were in sanscrit, egipcian, eslavian ammong others

(Do you mean English words of recent Sanskrit, Egyptian, and Slavic origin, or actual Sanskrit words like "अस्ति" ? I ask because if the borrowing is recent people often get confused; a recent example was ekstasis which was recently mistaken for Greek.)

# Please check over our entry layout guidelines for what our acceptable article format is. Unstructured text and ordinary paragraph style (such as one might find in a Wikipedia article) is discouraged here—there is a greater emphasis on standard format.

About the format, the intention is mark them as {{Template:literal}}

If I understand correctly—the wording in Template:literal is very strange, but I think you mean it's an entry copied verbatim and is not to be changed? If this is your intention, then it pretty much makes it certain that the content does not belong in the main namespace.

If the format cannot be gracefully integrated into our regular articles, you might consider putting it in the Appendix pseudonamespace (or some such). It is not often, outside of the CJK character entries and scattered entries out of Webster 1913, that people have attempted to import content wholesale from outside, so it might be best to get community opinion on what the best way to proceed is. —Muke Tever 20:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

pseudonamespace how to to that? I'll see the Webster. And, at last, where do discuss? At Community Portal? How about a Glossary Project? --Jic 20:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You already saw the webster1913 bits—the pseudo-namespace is the prepending of "Webster1913:" to the page title. (It is like how this page has "Wiktionary:" in front; but this is a real namespace, as the software treats it differently in certain ways.) Community discussion is done at Wiktionary:Beer Parlour. —Muke Tever 00:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

To Muke: Yes, its just the first entry. Will be more then 2.000 --Jic 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Mme Blavatsky died in 1891, so there should be no copyright problems associated with this book. If the intent is for a wholesale importation of the book perhaps Wikisource might be the best place for this. The theosphists often had their own meanings for words, and those meanings could differ significantly from the mainstream. We would certainly find a separate page for the theosophical definition of a word unacceptable here, and that would also be the case with material from any other glossary about any other topic. On the other hand a single definition line with a "(Theosophy)" tag, along with a link to the appropriate Wikisource page would seem a reasonable approach to the situation. Eclecticology 02:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

goo goo ga ga!!

Ummm, goo goo ga ga? Is this completely stupid or does this have a place here? --Dangherous 17:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing from RFD to RFV. 28 Google print hits atm (rough count), and this seems to be a fixed onomatopoeic expression in English, just like bang, boom, or meow. —Muke Tever 18:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To me it seems like a popular combination of two common imitations of canonical babble. That's like having a separate entry for smack pow, pow wham, woof meow or any combination of closely related expressions. They should be separated and linked to each other with comments that they are often combined.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

leave me in your mother

Failed RFV, no evidence. Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification_archive/December_2005#leave_me_in_your_mother —Muke Tever 20:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 22:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

exicornt..

There's a user who creates a lot of sock puppets, makes a lot of redirects, and appears to be trying to add the nonexistant word exicornt to wiktionary. Citizen Premier 23:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• A [http://clusty.com/search?query=exicornt search for "exicornt" returns mostly pages about deleting "exicornt" from Wikipedia and Wiktionary. --Kernigh 00:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all of them are. But a few are from Wiktionary & Wikipedia mirrors, thus giving another page title. Jon Harald Søby 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's back, this time redirecting to double crossover. Is that an acceptable term? Citizen Premier 03:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So, I just wanted to know, have we decided to keep blocking/deleting the following entries: scissors crossover, exicornt, diamond crossover, double crossover, X-junction? Can one of the admins, please, delete the contents of the pages and then protect them from future editing? --Dijan 03:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks as though they should be deleted, but... does anyone know what they all mean / have in common?? +sj [[User talk:Sj|+]]

Wiktionary Appendix:Serbian grammar

Good content, but move to Wikibooks (see the recent discussion in the Beer parlour under the heading "Grammar"). I've asked the poster if he could do this. — Paul G 10:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Football+Manager

Bad title. No useful content. Millie 01:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted - unidiomatic. — Paul G 18:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wario vs. moo chicken

Just a link to a pic of some guy. Millie 02:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

umbridge

Content is (correctly formatted) "Proper noun: last name". — Paul G 18:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

why then delete?

• This is a fictional surname from Harry Potter. Deleted SemperBlotto 09:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Remove unnecessary links

This is a 2-year old discussion that was apparently moved from BP. Most of the content has been much discussed elsewhere. Eclecticology 18:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

whack off

I am not familiar with this idiom but I am sure this is not the correct definition. Jonathan Webley 21:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have the misfortune to be familiar with this idiom (others of my peers use this term) Should I correct it, or should I let an admin? SnoopY 00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Made into a proper entry. — Paul G 10:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:-ore

This appears to be an irregular page for rhymes beginning with this sound. It was probably lost when another approach was used for rhymes. Eclecticology 00:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. All content (except for "s'more" is already on the corresponding rhymes page. — Paul G 09:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wenric

Wenric. Entry consists of the single word ROUX. Created by anon. JillianE 04:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Burberry

Burberry gibberish by an IP. JillianE 04:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

adidab

adidab. Gibberish by IP. JillianE 04:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

gophish

gophish. Hoax by IP. JillianE 04:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Fox News liberal

Stale entry. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Over-specific irony. Peter ^Isotalo 00:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Yavin, Clone Wars

Encyclopedic content. — Paul G 09:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Jon Harald Søby 15:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

OMGWTFBBQ

Although Uncle G put an rfc on it, I'm not convinced it's a keep. Ncik 18:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Move it to RFV then. It shouldn't be difficult, it's pretty common netslang. —Muke Tever 19:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Common but evil netslang. Don't we have a "don't be evil" policy? Oh wait... +sj [[User talk:Sj|+]] 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A handful of things, for Wikipedia maybe?

sorry 4 format --Dangherous 21:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

21:13, 19 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Fuzuli (top) 21:13, 19 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Mevlana (top) 21:13, 19 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Mimar Sinan (top) 21:12, 19 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Namik Kemal (top) 21:12, 19 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Şinasi (Probly copyvios) (top) 21:12, 19 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Tevfik Fikret (top) 21:11, 19 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Piri Reis (top) 21:11, 19 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Nasreddin Hoca (deelte) (top) 21:08, 19 January 2006 (hist) (diff) lampoon (wikify) (top) 21:07, 19 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Wanka tanka (delete) (top) 21:07, 19 January 2006 (hist) (diff) making piggies (rfv) (top) 21:07, 19 January 2006 (hist) (diff) dsgh (Delete) (top)

Danilio guiliani

Rubbish. Vildricianus 17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Rubbed away. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Could I be any more...

This may be very banal, but its the dots that "worry" me --Dangherous 23:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep. Doesn't bother me much. There probably should be a place in an appendix to note common phrase constructs that fit a particular pattern. Until such an appendix is devised, I don't object to retaining it. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

even weaker keep It isn't a prefix, shouldn't be capitalised and should lose the dots. SemperBlotto 08:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

moved to Could one be any more Davilla 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:derdiedas

Replaced by Template:German definite article. Ncik 02:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Jon Harald Søby 11:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

AC/DC

Do we accept names of rock bands? Ncik 03:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably should be cleaned up the particular type of electrical adapter. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have made it into a simple definition (I forgot the rock band). SemperBlotto 08:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The band has a lightning bolt, not a "/" in its name. --Dangherous 00:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: What's the Unicode character for that? ;-) - dcljr 19:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

LAMO

content is: crucial

If it's a word, caps are wrong, and google doesn't show LAMO as an acronym. Millie 11:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Jon Harald Søby 11:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

維基/维基

bad title. no useful content. Millie 17:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 08:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

rollatorium

Failed RFV; only evidence gathered was as a proper noun. Was marked as protologism; I added it to WS:LOP. Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification_archive/December_2005#rollatorium —Muke Tever 20:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 08:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

naken

no language or useful content Millie 21:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

A Dutch word. Added proper entry. Vildricianus 21:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Exicornt ,.1 and Exicornt (RalL).

Added by User:Jimmy44ss1!. Ncik 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

All the edits of User:206.48.22.201

Exicornt. --Tohru 13:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted and user blocked. \Mike 14:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

For those who are unfamiliar with it: see Wiktionary:Vandalism_in_progress#Long-term_alerts. --Tohru 15:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

User:wietsezuyderwijk/oddgrammarfeatures

Something very strange is going on with User:wietsezuyderwijk and all its sub-pages. The user does not exist. All edits were made by anon IPs. Unclear if any of the subpage information is useful. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• the name of the User page starts with a lowercase letter - even in en.wiktionary a User account cannot start that way. I would be inclined to delete it - we can always recover it if really needed (the talk page gets redirected to Capitalised version to add to the confusion). SemperBlotto 10:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• AFAIK, he does exist, and his capitalized user page redirects to the lowercase version. The redirections between his talk pages are made by another Dutchman. This must be some Dutch conspiracy. Vildricianus 19:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is indeed a conspiracy. I am employed by Prisma Woordenboeken. Seriously: it is a User Page by me, a regular contributor, and I am currently in the process of migrating all this data to here. When I am done, I will add all my userpages to the rfd-category... I hope a kind sysop will then delete all the pages under User:wietsezuyderwijk except for the actual page itself. Sorry for the inconvenience. DON'T DELETE MY PAGES JUST NOW!!

• wiktionary isn't a playground, it isn't supposed to be used for saving data from pet projects. The wiki software is free, webspace is cheap, that is a much better solution if you wish to make a project of some kind. delete. - TheDaveRoss 01:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Japanese:Units of Measure

Incorrect capitalization/punctuation. Should be moved to Category:Japanese units of measure or similar. - dcljr 21:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. Contents moved to Category:ja:Units of measure Eclecticology 00:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Cockney rhyming slang

I forget; does Cockney rhyming slang meet our CFI? If yes, then this needs to move to the Appendix: pseudo namespace. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you do, do not lose this important listing of Cockney rhyming slang. 80.177.0.93 15:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up. Added appendix. —Stephen 12:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Video game controversy philippines

nonsense Widsith 10:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's gone. \Mike 10:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

virtue ethics

Looks rubbish to me. Jonathan Webley 12:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

stickey bun

one exsists. period.

Neither does any such article. \Mike 21:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Misspelling for sticky bun Eclecticology 01:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

shmatte

The article for this word has no definition - however it does appear to be a Yiddish word.

overdragen

The content appears to be in Arabic...

It’s Persian. 'Overdragen' is a Dutch term that means something along the line of transfer, assign ... like German übertragen. —Stephen 13:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Dekoration

Another article with non-English content by the same author.

Cleanedup. \Mike 18:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Rosario Poidimani

I don't see the point of a redirect to a page that does not exist.

Gaelige Alphabet

A nonsensical definition.

Diskursanalyse

A German word with no definition. Jonathan Webley 12:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

List of anti-Semites

Violates NPOV

playah

Not convinced that it is a real definition. Jonathan Webley 20:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that didn't seem right… Deleted. Jon Harald Søby 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

translatory

Thanks, but this is English wiktionary. Jonathan Webley 21:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. [4] --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep It's in the OED with cites from between 1727 and 1849. — Hippietrail 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

dhinki

Failed RFV, no evidence for the term procured. Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification_archive/December_2005#dhinki —Muke Tever 00:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

2009

We are not Wikipedia...we don't keep year entries, at all, right? --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, MMVI. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

vuckle

Sorry, but I just don't believe this one is correct. Jonathan Webley 21:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 16:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Ro:plants

Delete Category:Ro:plants. cf. Category:ro:Plants (the correct format). Alexander 007 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Pitusa

Not sure what this entry is meant to be, possibly advertising. Jonathan Webley 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

หญิงชาติชั่ว

Special:What links here says this is Thai for slut, but tagged as not in Thai alphabet? --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It’s Thai, all right, but I don’t know whether it’s a standard expression or just a description. —Stephen 12:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning it up. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fabish

--Connel MacKenzie T C 08:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete' --Pill δ 08:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

czech declension pattern žena

Not sure what this entry is trying to say. Does this belong in an Appendix: entry? --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I know what it is. I see that it has not been used, but its purpose is to show how to decline nouns that follow that paradigm (the most common one for feminine nouns). I’ve seen this method used with other languages as well ... they make a template that links to the pattern page and insert into a page so that a reader can find out how to decline it. It works pretty well for some languages like Czech which have predictable stress, but not so well for unpredictable Russian.

The page was moved to the lowercase czech declension pattern žena during the case changeover, and if kept, it needs to be moved back to Czech declension pattern žena. It’s quite useful if someone would just apply it. At the moment, the only page that usefully links to it is Wiktionary Appendix:Declensions ... and since most of the other similar links on that page are to other Appendix articles, I will move czech declension pattern žena to Wiktionary Appendix:Czech declension pattern žena. —Stephen 12:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"we'll see"

Bad title, with nonsensial but satirical content. --Tohru 14:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Main Page/Word of the day

I made, and amn't using Template:Main Page/Word of the day any more. It would overcomplicate things, so can be chucked away if you like, --Dangherous 17:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

çimen diğer tarafta her zaman daha yeşildir

Not English. Jonathan Webley 21:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Linked from the grass is always greener on the other side --Dangherous 23:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

reserve army of labor

Redirects to an article that does not exist. Jonathan Webley 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

three

1. IDEO locator -- seems to be the name of an Internet guy
2. Fair and balanced - do we accept slogans? Or would Wikisource like this?
3. action star (Action Star). Dodgy.
4. clippety-cloppety - Seemingly written by a 5 year old. Call me racist, but I don't think 5 year olds should write dictionaries.
5. diddly dum, from the same page. It has a fair amount of hits on the web, but so does "brrrrrrr" and "rub a dub dub".

--Dangherous 23:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The ideo locator page is okay, it just needed to be lowercased. It’s not the same as the IDEO Internet company. —Stephen 12:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

stitious

Moving to WS:BJAODN unless there objections. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

February

Viêt Nam

Possibly valid for inclusion but the current content is tosh. Jonathan Webley 20:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 13:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That which is difficult to obtain is highly valued

Belongs in Wikiquote. Eclecticology 20:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

'against deletion - it is part of speech - and where do you put all the translations on wikiquote??? --SabineCretella 00:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Against - GerardM 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep short phrases and aphorisms. They have and deserve longer definitions and origins, unlike quotes derived primarily from the unique wit of their utterers. That said, this isn't a very canonical or idiomatic phrase in English; perhaps it isn't the right English phrase/term for the concept. +sj [[User talk:Sj|+]] 00:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, where did all of those translations come from? Don't delete outright, but transwiki if necessary. It doesn't ring in English; maybe it's worth keeping if it does in other languages? I'm just wondering how anyone would find this in a dictionary. Davilla 14:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Decided to vote keep despite the questionable merit of a common saying because of the following twisted rationale: If a hypothetical page of one of the translations existed, e.g. Más se estima lo que con más trabajo se gana, with both the common translation "That which is difficult to obtain is highly valued" and the literal translation, in this case "One values more that which with more work one gains", then I would support keeping that page to preserve the literal translation. Supporting a translated entry page, I would therefore have to support the entry in question. Another way of looking at it is this: Although the quote may not be a common saying in English, it is established enough worldwide such that variations differ in its translation, and that should qualify it for inclusion. Davilla 16:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Category:Quotations seems to be targeted with these two nominations. But that is how someone would find these entries, if the category were linked from the Main Page perhaps. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A business that makes nothing but money is a poor kind of business

Wikiquote material. Eclecticology 20:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

'against deletion - it is part of speech - and where do you put all the translations on wikiquote??? --SabineCretella 00:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Then the problem should be taken up with wikiquote. Davilla

Against - GerardM 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep. This is an aphorism, but straight from Henry Ford's mouth. We're expanding the scope of traditional dictionaries here beyond super-short idioms, but then Wiktionary is not paper... +sj [[User talk:Sj|+]] 00:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete I can understand having nuggets of information that can be compared across languages, but the translations would appear to be pretty literal in this case. This is also much closer to a direct quotation than a common saying. Davilla 14:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete or move to wikiquote. —Stephen 11:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You cannot move it to Wikiquote because they do not have translations. GerardM 14:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Is deleting a bunch of rather basic translations that much of a problem?

Peter ^Isotalo 12:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Too literal to belong in a dictionary. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Bereftness

There is no content, and I am not sure there is such a word.

yortle/Yortle

Failed RFV, apparent protologism with no apparent meaning, evidence was Urban Dictionary and, it seems, the promoter's website. Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification_archive/December_2005#Yortle —Muke Tever 22:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

silane-modified polymer

Outside chance it is worth an entry, in present form, though, it is worth deleting. ^theDaveRoss

• Converted into a reasonable definition - so keep - SemperBlotto 17:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Pestan:پستان

Content is not in English. Jonathan Webley 10:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Moved to Template:FAchar. —Stephen 13:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Some Quenya words

Ainulindalë, tinco, Aldalómë. According to WS:CFI Quenya doens't merit Wiktionary status. --Dangherous 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See also: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Connel_MacKenzie/todo#quenya. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

See also Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/January-March 06#Quenya. --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

paradoxis

Is there such a word? Jonathan Webley 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but it has nothing to do with what the vandal put there. 186 Google Book Search hits. Eclecticology 05:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Держатель Everest

As far as I know this is wrong. — Vildricianus 15:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ajay Prabhakar

This should be a user page, perhaps. Jonathan Webley 16:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

聲音門做它關閉

Neither Google nor Baidu knows the phrase. 0 hits. --Tohru 17:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Shit fucker

Contents: Michael Moore, a male exampale of a shit fucker. Most commonly a homosexual man.

All terrain vehicle history

No content, not suitable anyway... Jonathan Webley 21:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Immigration to the United states of America

Totally absurd, totally. Jonathan Webley 21:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sion Vaughan-Thomas

Not suitable for inclusion. Jonathan Webley 21:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael Moore

A no brainer for deletion... Jonathan Webley 21:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Marta

No sensible content. Jonathan Webley 21:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've given it a proper definition. — Vildricianus 21:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

shake hands with the cyclops

Not an idiom with which I am familiar. Jonathan Webley 22:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

stubble rubber

Has no content. Jonathan Webley 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Pashtoolio Enterprises

Vanity. - TheDaveRoss 05:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

بلوچی زبان (Wikipedia article)

Content is not in English. Jonathan Webley 11:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:FAchar is Baluchi for Baluchi language. —Stephen 10:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Silly-not-to

Not sure whether this is a valid topic or not, in any case current content is encyclopedic in nature. Jonathan Webley 21:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted, and has now been resurrected with the same pointless content. Jonathan Webley 12:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Whower

Is there such a word? Jonathan Webley 21:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

confusicate

Misspelled title. Already moved to the right one. --Tohru 05:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And, an old trace of the conversion: Confusicate. --Tohru 07:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

samenvatting van titel, Het heilige Kruis

Another literal translation by User:130.111.98.241. — Vildricianus 10:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

old redirect

Fucksafe points to deleted page

Zeg het in één woord

Nonsense. — Vildricianus 17:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of theory of value to practical life

Content = title. TheDaveRoss 18:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

choking the chicken

I don't think this is suitable for inclusion. Jonathan Webley 22:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted it. I reentered it with a non-psychotic definition instead. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I would think the article belongs at choke the chicken except I'm not familiar with the expression. Davilla 20:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Drain the Main Vein

Utter tosh. Jonathan Webley 22:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Stinkdier onkruid

Literal translation/rubbish. — Vildricianus 13:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 13:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

tixbamle

Looks like a test. — Vildricianus 14:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Martial

Encyclopedic. Or is that a rule we overlook when your name shares its spelling with a normal word? — Hippietrail 21:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't have any problem with a one line encyclopedic entry - especially when it is a person associated with words (poetry in this case). SemperBlotto 22:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep I personally like short bios on well known individuals, especially when the name has great potential to be used in eponymously or metaphorically in literature. - TheDaveRoss 22:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep. I admit to knowing nothing of Roman history Davilla

Seeing these reactions, is it time to take a vote on whether we want to become an encyclopedic dictionary instead of a non-encyclopedic dictionary with some exceptions? — Hippietrail 23:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt there would be as much support for an entry on Marcus Valerius Martialis or any variation thereof. Most of us would likely vote against an encyclopedic dictionary because it would duplicate the efforts of Wikipedia. However, this is a case where a single word, a nickname, commonly substitutes the full name of a specific person. Einstein and Eisenhauer are fine too since they can be introduced in conversation without specifying which Einstein or Eisenhauer is being talking about. I would be less enthusiastic to support King Tut or Bob Hope, as they are known, and certainly not under Hope or Tut. Davilla 15:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Sam 7 February 2006

• keep. I note an entry for Martial, (Marcus Valerius) in my 1967 Random House Dictionary of the English Language. It’s also in my Latin dictionary. The Random House also has entries for Einstein (Albert) and Eisenhauer (Dwight David). Under Einstein, it reads: "1879-1955, German physicist, U.S. citizen from 1940: formulator of the theory of relativity; Nobel prize 1921." Here’s another Random House entry for "Hope, Bob (Leslie Townes Hope), born 1903, U.S. comedian, born in England." I think any good dictionary needs to give the most basic info on sufficiently famous and important persons. The only problem is "sufficiently famous and important." I suppose that the Google Print criterium would suffice. —Stephen 13:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Persons of the Roman era tend to have their names translated (Latin Martialis is Martial in English and French, Marcial in Spanish and Portuguese, Marziale in Italian...) and we ought to list this. —Muke Tever 19:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  What you're arguing is a different case than the entry that exists. If Martial in English is the equivalent of Martialis in Latin, then you should add a sense saying such, and I don't think anyone would argue it. The sense that's in question is that of Marcus Valerius Martialis. Davilla 07:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• I was talking about Marcus Valerius Martialis. If one is translating an English text into Spanish, one translates "Martial" into "Marcial" only if it refers to M. Valerius Martialis or perhaps one of a short list of other people, who should also be listed in the entry. The point is that the list of people for whom the name is translated is limited. It does not normally include, say, Martial Célestin, former prime minister of Haiti, and the Roman horticulturist Quintus Gargilius Martialis does not normally appear as "Martial" in English. The list of people called 'Martial' with translatable names does include M. Valerius Martialis, and a few saints. The point of having an entry like this to hang translations on is not that some names are to be blithely translated on all occasions, but to tell us whose names get translated and whose don't, which is on a person-by-person basis. —Muke Tever 17:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. Then you have a strong case. Now what about the saints? I doubt they go by "Martial" alone, as M. Valerius Martialis does. On the other hand, they probably don't deserve a dictionary entry at their full names, at least not in my opinion. Would it be appropriate to add another sense at Martial that merely lists or otherwise denotes the people whose name is translated thus? See my draft on the page. Davilla 23:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. That we're a wiki doesn't mean we have to reinvent the very concept of a dictionary. There's a good reason for keeping encyclopedias and dictionaries separate, and it's not just conservatism. Besides, translation info can for the most part be found at Wikipedia by checking the interwiki links. / Peter ^Isotalo 20:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep A dictionary defines things and an encyclopedia explains things. A definition is usually short and but an explaination is usually not. Nobody is suggesting that we should be encyclopedia. As for translations the "for the most part" is really the problem with relying on interwiki links isn't it? --Patrik Stridvall 22:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Chad silverback

Total tosh. Jonathan Webley 20:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

aelosaccophobia

Move to WS:LOP or WS:BJAODN or both. Entry says it was coined Aug 2, 2006! --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

breakdown of soviet union

Probably not a suitable topic for inclusion. Jonathan Webley 12:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Beurla

Tosh. Jonathan Webley 12:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone followed Special:Whatlinkshere/Beurla (toolbox What links here on bottom of left column) and cleaned the entry up. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

woman of loose morals

Nice grammar, but I don't think the definition is quite right. Jonathan Webley 13:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Carter, ruben

Poppycock. Jonathan Webley 15:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

tosh stuff

Dj kazanova las armas de la destrucción — Vildricianus 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Alice Deejay

a well known singer. --130.111.98.71 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

larka

I'm inclined to believe Polyglot when he says this is a real word in two languages. The entry blanking doesn't make much sense. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The word larka is Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, etc., for boy, while larki is girl. However, Hindi writes it in Devanagari (लडका and लडकी), and Urdu in a modified Perso-Arabic script. Punjabi uses a modified Devanagari. Perhaps these articles were blanked because they’re in the wrong alphabet. I certainly can’t see why there should Hindi/Urdu entries in Roman letters. And besides the spellings larka/larki, there are several other ways to transliterate these languages into Roman ... i.e., Template:Unicode, which is more accurate. —Stephen 13:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

larki

Again, blanking doesn't seem right. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

lashkar

I'm beginning to see a blanking pattern here. Has this user account been compromised? --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Also:

• prei-
• vinayak

faire un remarque

This was a misspelling I made when I tried to create the entry...it should be faire une remarque. SnoopY 01:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, even I can fill that request! Pages have a move tab on top. Davilla 04:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But then the other redirects. Damn! Davilla 05:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the redirect. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary:List of English words all Wiktionaries should have

I had spent some time a while ago working on this useless project and I want to save others from the same. Davilla 04:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, delete it to death. There's pre-made wordlists made just for this purpose (like Rick Harrison's Universal Language Dictionary) that can be used without having to reinvent the wheel. Furthermore, this article has always been a pretty ugly wheel. —Muke Tever 06:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, delete. I think that we have too many lists of words. Better check / update whatever links to it first though (not counting talk pages) SemperBlotto 15:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated contents found in Wiktionary:Maori index should also be removed, although I have no debates about the portion at the top. I've taken down the Community Portal link, so I'm a little cheerier. Davilla 04:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:trans

What links here is empty now, but rumour has it that this function is unreliable. (?) — Vildricianus 09:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep as this is constantly reused by visitors from other language Wiktionaries, and periodically cleared out. --Connel MacKenzie T C 11:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. I've reinstated it. — Vildricianus 12:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

messhitsu

We don't keep Romanizations, do we? If we do, this needs cleanup (template:romanji has changed significantly...my "subst:" of it show the bad result. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

2011 Atlantic hurricane season

--Connel MacKenzie T C 02:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. I don't see the point of having an article that for something that is not idiomatic and hasn't happened yet, anyway. --Dvortygirl 04:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

redirect—my mistake

Delete redirected page get out of here!. (Actual entry is at get out of here, but the sentence "get out of here!" should be capitalized anyways.) Davilla 22:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

rovalert

Invented word, failed RFV with no evidence. Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/January 2006#rovalert Added to WS:LOP. —Muke Tever 23:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

brownload

Failed RFV, no evidence found for the part of speech asserted. Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/January 2006#brownload —Muke Tever 23:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

prelated

Failed RFV, no evidence gathered. May be in some use, so added to WS:LOP. —Muke Tever 23:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

ball horn

Failed RFV. The German word it's based on appears to be legitimate, but no evidence given that an English form exists or that this would be it. Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/January 2006#ball horn, Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#ball_horn_nope_-it.27s_from_Das_Capital —Muke Tever 23:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

autagonistophilia/Autagonistophilia

-philia word failed RFV, only one cite found (archived to talk page). Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/January 2006#Autagonistophilia —Muke Tever 23:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

butters

Local/in-group slang, failed RFV, no evidence. Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/January 2006#butters —Muke Tever 23:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Tournament of Roses

Encyclopedic. Davilla 07:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Deadheaded SemperBlotto 08:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote Undelete, cleanup. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this not encyclopedic material? I don't think I'd reconsider, but where could someone find the original? Davilla 03:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The original entry was incorrectly formatted in numerous ways. Any sysop can view or restore recently deleted pages. The pertinent content looked something like this:

1. A parade held every New Year's Day (except if New Year's Day is on a Sunday) and first started in 1889 in Pasadena, California.

Related Terms * Pasadena *California * 1 January * 2 January * New Year's Day

--Connel MacKenzie T C 16:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup? It could be phrased better, I suppose, but I don't think that was the main objection. Does it pass my ad-hoc test, having a common and non-obvious translation, or better yet a standard one, on the other side of the world? Davilla 06:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

buff the muffin

Connel RFD'ed it because the RFV was for "buffin' the muffin"... but policy is to put verb phrases at the infinitive form, no? keep. —Muke Tever 17:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It seemed like that entry should have been moved to reduce confusion. Something was wrong, I just wasn't sure what. The form buffin' is pretty unique; wasn't that why it was rfv'd in the first place? Keep, I guess. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:oed1923

UK law applies. All the original OED went into the public domain at the end of 1998. The first supplement went into the public domain at the end of 2003. Eclecticology 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

So why is the template nominated for deletion? We attribute Webster's 1913 in the same manner, don't we? --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Without attribution, you are violating the GFDL! --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there should be no attribution. A simple reference in the reference section of the article should be enough. The same could be said about the Webster template. Generally, I don't go looking to change those, but if I'm editing for some other reason, I do replace that ugly box with a normal reference. Eclecticology 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The edit summary here says only "pointless template" (edit at 07:40 UTC - note that MediaWiki will display your timezone when following this link.) Five minutes later, I warned about the GFDL above. Seven minutes later, you added a link to a non-existant template: R:OED then created that shortly after. This is bizarre. Why didn't you just correct this template and rename it to R:OED? Why create in effect, a gap in edit hostory by deleting this template instead of just correcting it?

Furthermore, why the unannounced policy change for attribution? We've always tagged Webster entries that way, with no objection. Is there a conversation on the topic hidden somewhere not obvious to me? I concur that the references may be more intuitive and look better. But shouldn't something like that be discussed? Moreso, since you've reverted this twice now, it is obvious there is some contention or confusion on the matter: why isn't this a community vote? How are people to know that you've decided it should now look otherwise?

I suppose you'll make an excuse, or say you didn't see the warning. If recent events hadn't transpired, I'd be inclined to make that assumption for your benefit.

It would be acceptable to me in this situation, if you temporarily delete template: R:OED and move template:oed1923 there, then restore it to the state you feel is appropriate. (Presumably that would be moving back over-redirect and restoring earlier version, retaining redirect so that viewing history is more consistent.) And announce the policy change somewhere.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 23:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Baldrick

This refers to a character in a TV programme. My understanding is that such articles do not meet the criteria for inclusion. 212.32.91.126 07:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep and restore to redirect. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Bakkushan

Not English. This is one of a series of words added by 129.34.20.23 from the notoriously unreliable Christmas 2005 bestseller The Meaning of Tingo, about foreign words that allegedly express a concept for which there is no word in English. Regardless of its status in Japanese, it is certainly not a word of English, as its appearance in that book demonstrates. Flapdragon 01:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Backpfeifengesicht

This is one of a series of words added by 129.34.20.23 from the notoriously unreliable Christmas 2005 bestseller The Meaning of Tingo, about foreign words expressing a concept for which there is no word in English. Regardless of its status in German, it is certainly not a word of English, as its appearance in that book demonstrates. Flapdragon 01:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Kummerspeck

This is one of a series of words added by 129.34.20.23 from the notoriously unreliable Christmas 2005 bestseller The Meaning of Tingo, about foreign words expressing a concept for which there is no word in English. Regardless of its status in German, it is certainly not a word of English, as its appearance in that book demonstrates. Flapdragon 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

James Blunt

I understand that biographical entries are still verboten. Jonathan Webley 13:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted SemperBlotto 13:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

どいつ

I created this entry before I really quite figured out how Japanese entries work -- the correct one is ドイツ, but of course, that exists too :) The どいつ is simply superfluous. (oops -- forgot to sign) Cruinne 15:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

ふらんす、it's the same case. ―Gliorszio 03:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

John Wright

The quickly growing entry for John Wright is clearly vandalism (along with various revisions to asshole that I tried to revert). Keffy 02:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Blammed. Asshole was cleaned up successfully, thanks. --Wytukaze 03:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Translaminar

Possibly a copyvio, not a dictionary entry. Tawker 07:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted encyclopedic nonsense. Goggle suggests a specific type of spinal fracture, certainly not the insecticide stuff the anon had there. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

പ്രവര്‍ത്തകം

Non english Tawker 07:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That’s 'pravarttakam' in Malayalam. I think it’s a term used in philosophy and religion. —Stephen 11:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

pluag

Vandal Tawker 07:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Jonathan Webley 07:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

does one? and similar entries

SemperBlotto had originally RfV but I have transferred this discussion here because it is more appropriate. I agree that a native speaker would find these useless, but only because you already know not to say "does not he?", "hasn't been he?", or "may he?" The usage notes can be very helpful to a foreigner. So the first vote is keep at whatever title the tea room this discussion deems appropriate. Davilla 11:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This is verging on providing grammatical information, which ought to be in Wikibooks if it isn't already. The user who doesn't know English grammar is very unlikely to look up this phrase - they will look up individual words. "Does" redirects the user to "do", where they should then see how this word is used to form questions. Furthermore, "does one" is not idiomatic. If we were to keep it, we would have to provide "do I", "do you", "don't we", and dozens of other sentence fragments used at the beginning of questions ("will you", "should I", "have they", "isn't he", "might she", etc). Does one want to go there? No, one does not. :) — Paul G 11:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's ten times simpler to redirect the pronouns. The word "one" was used as placeholder, as has already been applied without objection. How else would you include the expression "get it into one's head"? You're arguing that the entries shouldn't be listed under either (1) the "one" heading because it isn't idiomatic, nor (2) some 700 different combinations because it's overwhelming, and from this you conclude that it shouldn't be listed at all. Your first argument at least follows a legitimate logical framework. I have major issues with the second. Davilla 12:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My only argument is that this is unidiomatic. My second argument can safely be disregarded without changing my opinion that this should go. It would not feature in print dictionaries. — Paul G 11:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this would change that opinion, but you can't substitute another word in the tags. With anything but the pronoun, the reader or listener would assume a change in subject. For example, it's awkward and strange to say, "Timmy loves ice cream, doesn't Timmy?" and not the same thing to say "doesn't the little boy?"

By the way, we do agree on something. These shouldn't be included in print dictionaries. ;-) Davilla 13:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice that a list of other links has been included ("Related terms", although this should really be under "See also" as most are unrelated to "does one"). My list of examples suggests that this isn't anywhere near being complete. I think we would be making a rod for our own backs with entries of this type. — Paul G 11:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. I was able to give a fairly comprehensive list because the class of auxiliary verbs is closed. I'm sure I've missed a number, but it's not the slippery slope you suggest. Davilla 12:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If it is intended as a place-holder for all the other tag questions, then why are these listed and linked to? — Paul G 11:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

They were listed for completeness, but that could be reconsidered. In particular, they probably shouldn't be linked to, as I intended to redirect them all anyways. (My fault for clarity. I didn't want to redirect too many as examples before being sure it would be done that way.) Davilla 13:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep but move does one? to does one and add the question mark to the "inflection line" immediately after ===Interjection===. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (strikeout 18:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC))

Connel, I agree that the question mark should not be part of the entry, but what are your criteria for keeping this entry? — Paul G 11:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a simple solution here that should keep everyone happy. This material belongs in the auxiliary verbs themselves (do, will, have, etc) in the form of a definition of the auxiliary verb and a usage note. There will then be no need for "does one", etc. — Paul G 14:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Added example definition to have as per this suggestion. Davilla 08:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Modified:

• "have" can be in the present tense in UK usage.
• the part of speech is not "interjection". I have changed it to "interrogative auxiliary verb" - could someone to confirm that? — Paul G 18:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Paul. It belongs under the usage notes of the pronouns.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul's solution seems appropriately elegant. Changed weak keep to delete as per Paul. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The more extra stuff that ends up in here the more I wish there was a Wiki devoted just to what dictionaries have traditionally been doing. — Hippietrail 17:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  I appreciate those sentiments. :-) -Ec.

• I did revise doesn't one? as a contraction, though I would still get rid of the question mark, but most of these are more suitable only to a grammatical page in the proper place to show how English questions are formed. Eclecticology 05:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

bulk buying

--Tawker

Please sign each entry. Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

goliza

Moved to RfV. — Paul G 17:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

fléau

nonesense Tawker 00:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Made into a proper entry (this is a French word). — Paul G 11:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was uncomfortable making that entry, but didn't see much point in retaining "021202" as the whole content in the interim. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Rock bands

not dictionary content Tawker 00:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"let in flats"

not dictionary content Tawker 00:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary questionitis deleted. Perhaps we should have something similar to Wikipedia's reference desk? --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore

Fictional biography...and a poor definition at that. - TheDaveRoss 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the "Fictional characters" debate from not too long ago. IIRC, Harry Potter was one of the borderline situations discussed. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What does freedom mean

Non dictionary

Fettnäpfchen

Nonesense Tawker 23:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

teazak

Google doesn't turn up anything Tawker 00:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wadge

A made-up word by Greg Scott on the ITV1 programme 'Quizmania'

Deleted. --Dvortygirl 05:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

hedman

Not dictionary content. Tawker 06:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Made into normal surname entry at Hedman SemperBlotto 08:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

heliotrope

Grown from the Wikipedia article currently at w:Heliotrope (color), which was a straight cut-and-paste copyvio from the American Heritage Dictionary (see e.g. [5]). Not sure of the level of copyright paranoia over here, but it's still pretty clearly derived. —Cryptic (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: No, I don't think so. Still, I think we should avoid cutting and pasting that large parts of sentences and instead rewrite them using our own words.

Long answer: The problem is that there is only so many way so define a word. Especially scientific words that might even have a widely accepted definition. In this case however the first sense looks a little to much cut and paste for my taste. It would be hard to claim that it is one of few reasonable definitions. Still, I don't think it is a copyright violation. That said is really the fact that the is native to Peru Wiktionary material. Such thing should be at Wikipedia or possibly at the pages for Heliotropium or Heliotropium arborescens. --Patrik Stridvall 17:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I just completely overhauled the entry -- rewrote the definitions, added new senses and a bunch of other stuff. Definitely not copyvio anymore, so I removed the RFD tag. Keffy 17:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the plant ALWAYS faces the sun, especially at night. SemperBlotto 17:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Okey-doke. (Though maybe when they droop, they're still trying, if only that dang earth hadn't gone at put itself in their way.) Keffy 17:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:gstrong

This template was a redirect to template:gstr and had only one entry pointing to it (since subst:'d.) Aside: The pointed to template has major problems; gralonking headings, incorrect ordering and whatnot, that I'm trying to clear now. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

норвежский

Non English Tawker 20:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Russian. Fixed. —Stephen 10:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

business analyst

Is an IP, I don't think it deserves a unique entry. Tawker 21:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Main Page Wiktionary

Nonesense Tawker 22:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Liza

Obvious reasons Tawker 00:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

community owned

Not idiomatic; encylopedic. Kappa 02:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

dipshit

Vandalism Tawker 05:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael Alldis

Bio, not dictionary content. Tawker 05:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Crapcore

Off topic. Tawker 06:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

ქართველი

Not english Tawker 06:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It’s Georgian. Fixed. —Stephen 09:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael Alldis

Self promotion, spam -- Tawker 07:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

खरगोश

Non english, short Tawker 08:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up (from Special:Whatlinkshere.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

gafel

Failed rfv. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Appears under "gaffle" in The Cassell Dictionary of Slang, page 462 (1998) by Jonathan Green. Also appears in Slang and Euphamism, page 146 (2001) by Richard A. Spears. Finally, the OED lists gafel as another spelling of gaffle. --Primetime 05:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

See discussion at #metrosexual as to why these are not quotations and do not depict usage. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The metrosexual issues were not the same as this after all. But the main premise I had for questioning them both remains for this one. We still do not allow secondary sources, right? There is a beer parlour discussion about this starting now; this probably shouldn't be deleted without reading that (if concluded) first. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Terpene oxidases

Nonesense Tawker 04:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

death of Superman

Failed rfv. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

dorm pal

Failed rfv. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Protovision

Failed rfv. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

voxamoxa

Failed rfv. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Electibilities

Failed rfv. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

playing sonic

Failed rfv. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

conceptionary

Failed rfv. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

storm in a teakettle

Failed rfv. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Has numerous citations. --Primetime 19:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Note the two references added after the entry failed rfv are invalid citations. Verification is about usage not secondary sources. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think inclusion in a dictionary with a rigorous fact-checking process is proof of usage. I think it's a shame that you get a kick out of deleting other people's work--especially when that work is obviously legitimate. I'm the complete opposite of you in terms of how I view the writing of others. I didn't create any of these entries, yet I feel a profound sympathy for the authors who did. --Primetime 07:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It is nice that you think that. But the Wiktionary community does not. Originally I too had similar reservations about this particular "rule." But in practice, it allows Wiktionary to weed out bogus entries like "storm in a teakettle" (unused in GP) while keeping valid phrases like "tempest in a teapot." The results I've seen from the RFV process have been pretty good to date. More importantly, there has been none of the ambiguity that was rampant the entire preceding year. You like a term that's been rfv'd? Find some citations for it. You've got an entire month to do so. Much of the subjectivity of RFD has been mitigated by RFV being as specific as it is.

As to my personal pleasures, I assure you, you are way off base. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that this is in another dictionary may not count for attestation, and it may not help meet the criteria for inclusion in its current form, but it does sway opinion. The attention an RFD draws is good, but I don't think we can consider the RFV process to have failed when such sources are found. At the very least we should provide another month after the last valid attestation or a strong reference such as this. Essentially the entry should have to be re-listed. Vote to keep either indefinitely with the single quotation, because of the inclusion in Webster's, or for as long as is deemed necessary to find additional support. Davilla 13:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Appearance in another dictionary may sway opinion; that obviously his/her hope. But as I recall, the decision for letting RFVs last one month was to give comments like that every imaginable benefit of the doubt, instead of letting entries fail after only one, (or five or seven) days. The entry should not be "re-listed." The original entry was very reasonably questioned. After a generous month, it failed. To have a random secondary reference, implying that there is perhaps an archaic or obsolete quotation somewhere, is not a "strong source." Yes, the OED has a reputation for being rigorous...but rigorous about a different set of rules for inclusion than ours!

Actually, one of their criteria is having at least three quotations included with the entry. --Primetime 19:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Three quotations. Dictionary definitions are not quotations. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to now assert that it really is a valid phrase in widespread use, three print citations spanning a year need to be included with the entry's resubmission. Otherwise sysops are instructed to delete it "on sight" rather than waste more of everyone's time on an entry that has been identified as not meeting our criteria. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't really care that much about this entry. Let it burn. I guess I shouldn't care about Webster's either. They have different criteria and therefore, what they call attestation?--complete trash. So let it burn as well. But there's something wrong with this process. Maybe a month isn't enough time, or maybe it's too generous. Make it a year, make it a week, I don't care, the community has and will decide that. But there's a big difference between an entry that simply can't be attested because it really doesn't deserve to be here, and an entry that's difficult to attest but clearly deserves time for this to happen. Since being RFV'd, storm in a teakettle gained one attestation on 1 Feb. That's progress. Most entries that don't deserve to be here wouldn't have gotten that far. Give it more time, at least a month (however long that is) from 1 Feb. Re-listing it to draw attention... no longer necessary in this case. It may be close to death, fine. But it hasn't actually failed yet, not in my opinion. Davilla 17:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• There is nothing to prevent anyone from resubmitting this entry with adequate citations. They can take as long as they like to find them - ten years if need be. The links User:Primetime removed did not refer to this nonce but rather to the correct entries (which is why this was RFV'd over a month ago.) So far, the collective Wiktionarians that care about Wiktionary being a descriptivistic, inclusive dictionary were able to find only one quotation. In the short history of RFV, the bulk of quotations for terms appear either A) soon after an entry is listed, or B) right before the deadline. In this case, it seems the collective resources available have been exhausted, indicating that this wording really is a nonce. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the citation for this entry because I realized that it was incorrect. I was using this space to refer to other entries that I certainly hope are not deleted, as they appear in some very reliable dicitonaries (i.e., "metrosexual", sense 2 and "gafel" above.) These are obviously correct, or the dictionaries in question wouldn't have said they are. Having a citation added, especially from a published source, should be more than enough proof. Connel just made that up about it having to have three citations. I just checked the Criteria for Inclusion page and found the following:

"Attested" means verified through

• Clearly widespread use,
• Usage in a well-known work,
• Appearance in a refereed academic journal

. . .

• Sense one of metrosexual is not contested. Where did you get that from?
• Again, your transparent omission of "or" and the fourth criteria is erroneous. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's remarkable to even have a reliable citation added on a project such as this. Every other editor I have seen on these pages remove the tags if one citation from a published source is added (e.g., SemperBlotto, Eclecticology). Connel is operating outside of consensus and of policy when he says that the citations added to the entries above aren't enough. No reasonable person would think that this isn't enough. --Primetime 19:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• See response on rfv to Primetime's identical rant. I am not acting "outside of consensus" and furthermore did check with others. You need to read and comprehend our criteria before spouting off that someone else is wrong. It is great that you have a subscription to OED online, I'm sure it is useful in many ways. But citing it directly does not demonstrate usage. If others have removed tags inappropriately (I've no evidence that they have, by the way) then what they did was a mistake. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, is there really that big a difference between storm in a teakettle and storm in a tea-kettle? Davilla 15:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

दूर के ढोल सुहावने

non english Tawker 07:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hindi. Fixed. —Stephen 13:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

English index

• Belongs in a namespace.
• Don't we already have something like this?
• Weren't we abandoning the idea of an index of all English words as something that would be incredibly long and take forever for the server to generate? — Paul G 18:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

accomplissement

Nonesense Tawker 01:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User test deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

the importance of being ernest

--Connel MacKenzie T C 01:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Seems more suitable for Wikipedia, they probably already have an article about it. Kappa 02:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well yes, but they spell it correctly.  :-) --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

נצרות

Non english Tawker 02:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Entry contents are "Jesus" but Special:Whatlinkshere says it is Hebrew for Christianity. Anyone know which it is? Jesus has a different Hebrew translation listed here. Probably cleanup, not delete. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It means Christianity. Fixed. —Stephen 11:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

margaret povlock

Nonesense -- Tawker 02:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

angles of death

non dictionary Tawker 02:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Clan stats deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

yemshanichouby

blank - google didn't turn up anything. Tawker 02:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Gibberish deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

biochipped

spam Tawker 03:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove the ads and cleanup; not spam in the normal sense. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Devarin

Someone's conlang, judging from google it doesn't look to be in widespread use. Kappa 03:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Kane

nonesense Tawker 05:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Paylan

Non existant user. Tawker 08:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'm sure you'll be able to do this for yourself soon. Jonathan Webley 09:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

dirty sanchez

The wikipedia entry has also been recommended for deletion. Jonathan Webley 21:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)