Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2007/01

< Wiktionary:Requests for deletion‎ | Archives

Kept edit

TV guide edit

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:TV guide. -- Visviva 08:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

orally disintegrating tablet edit

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:orally disintegrating tablet.

pork sword edit

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:pork sword. -- Visviva 12:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no smoking edit

Kept, archived to Talk:no smoking by BD2412. -- Visviva 12:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fuck-off edit

Kept, archived to Talk:fuck-off.-- Visviva 12:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

helping verb edit

Residue? --Connel MacKenzie 06:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

= an auxiliary verb. Minimally rewritten and removed RFD. DAVilla 13:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yuk edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:yuk. -- Visviva 12:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Army edit

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:United States Army. -- Visviva 07:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ながさき edit

Nagasaki Cynewulf 18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

なごや edit

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:なごや. -- Visviva 08:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stuffed up edit

Is this a proven def? I know stuffed up means stuffy nose. Any thoughts? sewnmouthsecret 21:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sense you objected to "# An euphemism for fucked up/screwed up; ruined etc.) " has been deleted. Anyway it's covered by being the past tense of stuff up. Kappa 05:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On further research, that adjective definition appears to pass the CFI, so I've replaced it and added a citation. Kappa 05:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a few edit

We have an entry for few. We are not about to have entries for colocations with "a", right? --Connel MacKenzie 20:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

few and a few have almost opposite connotations. That, and the fact that "a" does not normally precede plural nouns. This one is idiomatic. --Ptcamn 00:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, say again? Opposite connotations of what? Certainly not each other. Do you mean few#Adjective vs. few#Pronoun? --Connel MacKenzie 00:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I may have been hasty: "a" does not normally precede plural nouns. I'm not sure it is being used as a plural noun in this sense, but that is a good reason to keep it. (Can't say I agree that it is idiomatic, however.) --Connel MacKenzie 00:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're not about to delete a lot, are we? ;-) -- Visviva 04:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it’s important to have entries such as a few, a lot, burn down, etc. It’s a good idea to have a link to them from the base pages, few, lot, burn. —Stephen 15:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I don't know about this one, though. It seems to be covered pretty thoroughly in few. The rationale (admittedly weak) for a lot was as the referent of the misspelling alot. --Connel MacKenzie 00:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence about this one, but consider the difference between "I have few things I need to say" with "I have a few things I need to say." There is a difference here, and it seems to be somewhat idiomatic to use "a few" like this. --EncycloPetey 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to Delete this. The ‘idiomatic’ difference EncycloPetey refers to is just the difference between using few#adjective and few#noun: it's dealt with perfectly well on the page. Widsith 12:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; It's idiomatic, not because this one is a functional noun, but because the vast majority of substantive adjectives can't be used with "a". You can say "a few", but you can't say "a red", "a good", "a big", or "a hungry". This is an instance quite different from any expected pattern. In part, an idiom is an expression that can't be predcited from the usual meanings and functions of words. This is one such case when the unit must be learned as a unit. --EncycloPetey 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The CGEL list it as an individual item and explains why.--BrettR 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. DAVilla 17:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese cuisine / Japanese food edit

Are these appropriate entries? I rfd-tagged them. If such entries are allowed, then I'm sure we can create a cuisine entry for every country/region/people. What does everyone else think? --Dijan 22:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as they have the specific cuisine and the restaurants of their own styles are familliar, yes, we should. And there are already entries of Chinese cuisine and Chinese food.

FYI:

If you think Japanese ones violated the wiktionary policy that you think, I think you should tag {{rfd}} to the Chinese ones either. But you didn't. why?--Carl Daniels 15:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that in America, Chinese food and Chinese cuisine are not the same thing. One would expect to receieve a fortune cookie in a restaurant that served Chinese food, but not in one that served Chinese cuisine. And in fact an authentic Chinese restaurant would not have fortune cookies, and might not have chop suey, because both foods were invented in America. Despite this, in American English the term Chinese food encompasses both foods. The same can be said of "Mexican food", which includes many items not served in Mexico. --EncycloPetey 17:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indian food in Britain is even stranger: a significant proportion is Bangladeshi or Pakistani, other dishes were invented in UK, and those that are "genuine" are often more heavily spiced than would be authentic... but it's now said to be more popular than fish and chips, and certainly more so than roast beef. --Enginear 22:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In America, I've noticed several "Chinese buffet"-styled restaurants that sell sushi. Cynewulf 23:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep it. Why on earth would one do otherwise? It may or may not be beneficial, but it certainly is not harmful, so give it the benefit of the doubt!

I'm guessing this is a keep then. --Dijan 11:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rhinolith edit

An incorrect definition is worse than none. --Connel MacKenzie 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A concretion formed within the cavities of the nose. says Websters 1913, vs A piece of dried nasal mucus. which we have; are you sure it is wrong? - [The]DaveRoss 02:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a difference between a sinus infection, and a booger? --Connel MacKenzie 18:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've reworded it as per wikipedia. Jonathan Webley 12:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muggle edit

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:Muggle. -- Visviva 08:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cake of soap edit

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:cake of soap. -- Visviva 08:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ἰουδάς edit

Spelling error, check the author's reference. Content already covered at Ἰούδας, otherwise I would have simply moved it. Cerealkiller13 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, the print edition of Strong's does have Ἰουδάς as entry G2455, and not Ἰούδας. This appears to be an error in Strong's, since my copy of the Aland text of the Greek New Testament has Ἰούδας. If we delete this entry, some will come along an recreate it again based on Strong's. We should probably call this a "common misspelling" and include an explanatory note that it is an error in Strong's, though it indeed appears there. --EncycloPetey 16:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong's has it as Ἰουδάς? Damn. Perhaps I'll have to get a Strong's so I know when it's a spelling mistake and when it's some goofy variant that the KJV got from its Textus Receptus. Or maybe I'll get a Textus Receptus, that could be interesting. Anyone know where I could find one of those two online? Cerealkiller13 17:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can get a hard copy of Strong's Exhausting Exhaustive Concordance for under $20 from Barnes & Noble. It's reprinted so often, that cheap hardcover editions are pretty easy to find. --EncycloPetey 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been fixed. Request for deletion rescinded. Cerealkiller13 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excel, Enlightenment edit

These artcles both contain definitions about software that I have recently tidied up. However I'm not so sure they should be in Wiktionary.--Williamsayers79 09:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I recommend keeping Excel. Whether we like it or not, Excel is often used generically when someone is referring to any spreadsheet program. Training courses are often advertised as "Excel courses", regardless of the program used.
(I'm not familiar with Enlightenment)--Dmol 17:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Enlightenment" is too much to type - it is usually just called "e". It was the first window manager I ever saw to use window transparency (now common on Macs and most flavors of Linux, and sometimes possible on WinXP.) I think it would be pretty cruel (to those who do do the web searches for verification) to submit "e" for "RFV" from here. Keep as Enlightenment or e or both. --Connel MacKenzie 03:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy if you guys are happy, but we need to keep our wits about us here, I removed spam-like links to the microsoft web-site for the Excel entry because I don't think we should be advertising here, but simple definitions of the software are fine by me.--Williamsayers79 09:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dispute resolution organization edit

I suspect this corporate mumbo jumbo is spam.--Williamsayers79 11:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but I think there's a decent definition underneath, even if it is PC legal nonsense, it does seem to be a part of American lawyers' vocabulary (although, not a huge one). I'll blast the hippy and his site, and try to get a better handle on the definition of this word. Cerealkiller13 18:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like your style! Seems to make more sense now.--Williamsayers79 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it looks kosher now, I'll kill the tag. Cerealkiller13 19:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


wheelchair user edit

Sum of parts. Jonathan Webley 16:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there's (a) translation(s) from (an)other language(s) that's/that are not sum of parts. Shoof 02:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's idiomatic (note that "sum of parts" is a weak argument for deletion - see WT:CFI - we should be considering idiomaticity instead); compare road user. This is a well-established term in widespread current use as the preferred term for a person without use of their legs who relies on a wheelchair in order to move around. The meaning is not self-evident: it could be taken to mean (but does not, of course) a person who uses a wheelchair to transport their shopping home in; as a winch; in a juggling act; or just as an ordinary chair. — Paul G 20:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it passes the fried egg test. Keep. DAVilla 21:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Paul G. I'll modify the article to emphasize the disability.Barbara Shack 11:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Jusjih 12:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

catheta edit

The entry for cathetus indicates it comes from m-w unabridged (presumably via dictionary.com) which lists catheti as the plural, not catheta. --Connel MacKenzie 20:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, our definition of cathetus#English was incomplete (a special case of the wider definition). It should be "a line perpendicular to a surface (or line)". I'll change it now.
Cathetus is also a Latin noun with the same meaning as the English. It came to Latin from Greek with the rest of geometry. Whether or not the English word came from Latin or direct from Greek, its English plural will have been influenced by the tendency to use -i for the plurals of -us words which seem to have Latin origin.
According to [1] the plural of the Latin noun is indeed catheti, (though catheta would exist as the feminine singular of the adjective meaning perpendicular). There it gets interesting (even if off-topic), since although the vast majority of Latin words of that declension are masculine, cathetus is feminine. It would thus be possible to have the tautological construction catheta cathetus (a perpendicular perpendicular), but the noun never has a -a inflection. So in short, there is no etymological excuse for the use of catheta as the plural of the noun cathetus.
Looking at b.g.c., I found 2 English cites which appeared to be using catheta as the plural of cathetus (and rather more as a misspelling of catheter). However, there are many cites showing catheti as the plural, and a few showing cathetuses. These latter two meet CFI, but catheta is doubtful. --Enginear 22:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, but as a Latin adjective form per above discussion. --EncycloPetey 21:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

telephone box edit

A redirect to a synonym. Wiktionary doesn't like those. Shoof 14:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been changed to "Alternative spelling of", which Wikt accepts, but it's the standard UK & Ireland usage (booth and kiosk are sometimes found here, but are much rarer) and I suspect it may grow differently to the others, so I've given it a full definition. Will add cites another day, if no one beats me to it. There's also a picture of the classic UK telephone box at w:Telephone booth but I haven't learned how to add pics yet. --Enginear 22:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an alternative spelling if the pronunciation is different. A partial definition might suffice, but a full definition was a better idea. Removed RFD. DAVilla 13:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the pronunciation is particularly relevant, but yes I agree that two etymologically different words used in alternative synonymous phrases are not literally "alternative spellings". (But then neither are some of the phrases in this dictionary literally "nouns", "verbs", adjectives", etc as we are now classifying them.) We should perhaps think of a more reasonable description to put on redirects of this type. However, my personal preference is, if they meet CFI, to make them into separate "full" entries, as I did here, and, if they don't, to bin them. Where they are true synonyms (to the extent that they are written up), copy/paste makes that very quick indeed, and leaves them able to diverge in the future when further detail is added. --Enginear 22:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eric edit

We seem to have an entry at Eric that covers this better. --Connel MacKenzie 21:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

damsel in distress edit

Someone tagged this for RFD, since it had been entered by a vandalduring a vandalism flurry. But I think it merits inclusion. Delete and wait for someone to re-enter it properly? --Connel MacKenzie 02:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to make it into a proper article. SemperBlotto 08:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could be used figuratively, not even referring to a young woman, although I wouldn't think we need to actually list that as a separate definition. DAVilla 00:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per DAVilla, until it passes RFV, it will be self-referential --Enginear 20:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. --Enginear 19:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sooo keep. bd2412 T 06:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted edit

doctor's appointment edit

Sum-of-parts? -- Beobach972 04:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - otherwise we'd accept dentist's appointment, psychiatrist's appointment, hairdresser's appointment, etc. This is a general meaning of appointment used with a qualifying possessive. --EncycloPetey 05:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appointment cancelled - feeling better already. SemperBlotto 08:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it were sum-of-parts, it would be doctor appointment rather than doctor's appointment. It should be included, because it takes "'s" unlike dentist appointment which takes no "'s" and is sum-of-parts. "doctor's appointment" as a sum-of-parts would be an appointment that was actually for the doctor rather than the patient. Shoof 14:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not certain about this. Google seems to have hits on just about everything, although it prefers ’s for "doctor's appointment" and not for "eye doctor appointment", oddly enough. DAVilla 15:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This could be due to a US/UK quirk. AFAIK, we always use 's for appointments in the UK, but we also talk of opticians (or occasionally opthalmologists) rather than eye doctors, so for the latter you are seeing US use only.
I'm intrigued by the logic which suggests that the construction with 's is not sum-of-parts. To me it clearly is -- it refers after all to an appointment written in the doctor's appointment book and giving the appointed time at which she has told me to attend, on her premises and at her convenience, (and usually not at mine!). To me, a doctor appointment would be a ceremony to appoint a doctor to a position, ie an act done to her, not by her. I could see the logic (if not the utility) of replacing doctor's appointment with my appointment, but to my ears doctor appointment is a very strange construction, certainly not sum-of-parts, and appears to use doctor as an adjective.
Unfortunately, if the 's usage seems odd to US ears it should perhaps be kept, when I would much rather it was deleted, as the majority above have said. --Enginear 23:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Google hits for "doctor appointment" make no sense, since the ’s is normal in the U.S. too as far as I'm aware. Because it isn't used as commonly with other professions, even eye doctor apparently, perhaps it should be kept. But I'm not ready to commit to that vote. DAVilla 09:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


sycretic edit

Is this a common-enough misspelling of the highly uncommon term syncretic? --Connel MacKenzie 04:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humanistic American Religious Party edit

Doubtful if this meets cfi? Jonathan Webley 14:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For comparison, the Democratic Party is only listed here as democratic. Delete. —Stephen 15:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#Modern_era lists (unsourced) a different form. So it is probably cruft. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Os Cavaleiros Negros edit

Not wiktionary material. sewnmouthsecret 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese, not defined in English, now tagged as such. Not sure if it would be dictionary material regardless since I can't read it. DAVilla 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a poem about "black gentlemen". —Stephen 10:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

green day edit

Not wiktionary material. sewnmouthsecret 20:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pecanland Mall edit

Encyclopedic. sewnmouthsecret 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a speedy, no need to list, just add an {{delete|appropriate comment}}.
I gave "extemporaneous content" as a reason for deletion when it should have been "transient content", which I believe to be of little value to Wikipedia. DAVilla 20:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

monoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis edit

Garbage. sewnmouthsecret 21:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 21:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sudam husan edit

Garbage. sewnmouthsecret 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 21:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Jason everly edit

Garbage. sewnmouthsecret 19:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edeals edit

Possible spam, bad formatting, etc. sewnmouthsecret 22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Men edit

Garbage.

Entombed --Enginear 20:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aquarium salt edit

More garbage. sewnmouthsecret 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Binned --Enginear 20:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

peut-étre edit

mispelling of peut-être 16@r 21:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effacé. Widsith 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightstar edit

sewnmouthsecret 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. --Jeffqyzt 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reiss digby edit

sewnmouthsecret 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. --Jeffqyzt 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sexylicious edit

This she be kept because it is real word.67.140.79.86 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sewnmouthsecret 21:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

smartical edit

This should be kept because, it is a real word. It is also used on multiple television shows.67.140.79.86 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sewnmouthsecret 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christelle N'Garsanet edit

sewnmouthsecret 21:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Shortcake edit

Vulgar neologism. No cites. sewnmouthsecret 01:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duckie edit

sewnmouthsecret 04:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Note that for something like this (a Sppedy deletion), you won't need to list it here. This page (and its {rfd} tag) are for the entries that might need discussion. If an entry is someone's keyboard/ego exploding into being as a Wiktionary entry, just {delete} or {speedy} tag it and someone will take care of the problem. --EncycloPetey 04:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always wondered if I needed to list it here. thanks. sewnmouthsecret 06:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

past participle (part of speech) edit

Residue? --Connel MacKenzie 06:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. DAVilla 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

toony edit

Pointed-to bad redirect? --Connel MacKenzie 06:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - [The]DaveRoss 20:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

twoonie edit

Pointed-to bad redirect? --Connel MacKenzie 06:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't these to be changed into soft redirects? DAVilla 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because they failed RFV, IIRC. --Connel MacKenzie 09:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did toonie also fail RFV? DAVilla 17:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall offhand. As these are cleared, please remember to check WhatLinksHere! --Connel MacKenzie 20:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted DAVilla 05:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pitbike Nac Nac edit

Move to nac nac? --Connel MacKenzie 13:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that the content was "not dictionary material", as Versageek stated on deletion. DAVilla 13:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


ceann na cìche edit

Blanked by original contributor. --Connel MacKenzie 08:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Definition was Scots Gaelic: A nipple, literally head of the teat. DAVilla 14:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted --Williamsayers79 01:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

치는 사람 edit

I think this was created because it's a translation of beater but in Korean it's sum-of-parts, as if we had an entry for "person who beats". Kappa 14:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. I've changed the link in beater to point to the individual words instead; hope that's OK. -- Visviva 08:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It gets 150,000 Google hits[2], so it’s likely that some American or Briton may eventually want to know what it means. Keep. —Stephen 17:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and "who hits" gets 345,000... but it doesn't need an entry either. We should certainly have entries for 치는 and 사람, but I'm not sure why we should have an expression which is merely the sum of the two. I think this falls well outside the spirit of WT:CFI#“Terms” to be broadly interpreted. -- Visviva 04:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English Wiktionary, for English speakers. We do not need forms like "bad man". In the Korean Wiktionary, however, "bad man" would probably be a useful entry. The Korean entries here on the English Wiktionary are not for native Koreans, they are for native speakers of English, most of whom know little of Korean. A Korean phrase that is the sum of its parts to a Korean is not the sum of its parts for an American. —Stephen 15:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this not the sum of its parts to an American? Because it has a one-word translation? Kappa 01:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because someone could understand it as "beating a man up", "playing with a man", "playing man", "playing the part of a man", among who knows how many other interpretations. It’s only the sum of its parts if you know Korean sufficiently well. —Stephen 18:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to work harder at defining 치는 because understanding that should be enough. Otherwise we will need entries for every Korean equivalent of "[noun] which [verbs]s". Kappa 08:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no sense in succumbing to the thin-edge syndrome. We don’t have to go out of our way to make such entries. However, when one appears that is correct, there is no reason to delete it. There is no rule that says if we have a certain kind of entry, that we have to create every possible entry of that type. We can comfortably have this one today, and perhaps another in a month or a year or two, and a handful after a decade, yet never feel any pressure to create (or delete) any others like it. —Stephen 02:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I'd always assumed that an article on English Wiktionary should be duplicated everywhere. Might keep things simpler, but assumptions are easy to get wrong, aren't they? DAVilla 02:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the following:
  1. '치는 사람' is not a lexical vocabulary.
  2. This verbal form with the suffix or particle '-는' in Korean may be compared with the -ing participle in English, while '-는' has a adnominal function, i.e. '치는' refers to '사람'. But see below #4.
  3. The infinitive '치다' has many different meanings so that it needs using carefully in proper context.
    • The main meaning of '치다' is 'to beat', 'to strike'; besides it means 'to fall' of lightning flash or thunder, 'to draw' line, 'to spread' something, 'to bell', 'to play' cardgame or some musical instrument, 'to read' cards, 'to do' on ons's bad behaviour etc.
  4. '치다' is either transitive or intransitive (only in the meaning of 'fall'). '치는' in '치는 사람' usually needs the object; '치는' alone doesn't refer to any specific act. For example,
    • 북을 치는 사람: man beating a drum
    • 손뼉을 치는 사람: man clapping hands
    • 종을 치는 사람: man ringing a bell
    • 줄을 치는 사람: man drawing line
    • 피아노를 치는 사람: man playing the piano
    • 카드점을 치는 사람: man reading cards
    • 친구를 사기 치는 사람: man cheating friends
  5. It's true that the phrase '치는 사람' gets big hits in Google. However, it's due to the noun '사람' (man, people). Note that the -ing participle in English has almost stress on the noun.
    Taking other everyday words like this pattern, for example, '읽는' (reading), '쓰는' (writing), '사랑하는' (loving), '파는' (sailing), '사는' (buying) etc., then these participles with the noun '사람' may get so many hits as '치는 사람'; some of them ('읽는 사람', '사랑하는 사람') more than million hits!
  6. The en Wiktionary has its own rules. It might have some Korean entries the ko Wiktionary can hardly accept. But '치는 사람' is not advisable. --아흔(A-heun) 16:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not that any of the above is wrong, it is absolutely sum of parts. But for one little thing: 치는 사람 is the player position "Beater" in Quidditch in the Korean translations of Harry Potter. Robert Ullmann 12:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious, does anyone besides A-heun actually speak Korean? I'm not defending the entry nor am I rejecting it, I think it should be left to people who can say, with authority, that the entry is or is not valid. To me, that means someone fluent in both Korean (or at least conversational) and English. It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) the article needs to be fleshed out (pronunciation, which romanization is being used, etymology etc) if it stays.

A-cai 12:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I speak Korean. I'm not very convinced about the necessity of this article after reading Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion.

  • Very strong delete if it mentions "beater" only. It suggest "person who hits" more than anything else.
  • Strong delete if it tries to flesh out "person who hits, person who plays a keyboard instrument" etc. This should be done for each verb, not at the entry. It's too ambiguous.
  • Weak keep if and only if it deals with only Harry Potter. 83.233.39.202 06:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Err, that was me. --Kjoonlee 06:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

なりたこくさいくうこう edit

w:Narita International Airport Cynewulf 18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Gone. DAVilla 17:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

なりたくうこう edit

Narita Airport Cynewulf 18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Gone. DAVilla 17:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

なりた edit

Narita (city? airport?) Cynewulf 18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

どうぶつあいごきょうかい edit

w:Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Cynewulf 18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are foreign-language entries governed by CFI, or should I create Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? Cynewulf 00:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. DAVilla 17:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ながさきけん edit

w:Nagasaki Prefecture Cynewulf 18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. DAVilla 17:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vanity 800 numbers edit

sewnmouthsecret 23:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colocation, sum of parts, not a set phrase, but conceivably a type of 800 number. My !vote is neutral, leaning towards 'delete.' --Connel MacKenzie 15:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a set phrase to be sure, equally used are "800 vanity number", "vanity 1-800 number", "1-800 vanity number" etc. Delete - [The]DaveRoss 02:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to vanity number. Are these necessarily toll-free? If not, "vanity 800 number" = vanity number + 800 number. DAVilla 20:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move per DAVilla, nothing special about the 800 part. bd2412 T 04:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

obscuring edit

No usable content. --Connel MacKenzie 19:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

troll-friendly edit

Transwiki gone awry. Can't tell if this is meant as a transwiki to Wikipedia, or if it came from there, offhand. --Connel MacKenzie 02:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would guess it came from, noting the link [[Internet troll|trolling]] and claimed removal of bias. Greater than 2500 Google hits (200 unique), 500 Usenet, but possibly not idiomatic. Interesting claim that "trolling" extends beyond the cyber world. Already deleted as "encyclopedic protologism" by SB. DAVilla 20:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée Saint Louis de Gonzague edit

--Connel MacKenzie 00:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not worth transwikiing. Kappa 00:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not notable. Certainly don't want it here. Delete. DAVilla 04:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Portuguese prepositons edit

This category was created with a misspelt title. There was only one entry in that category; I have already moved it into the right category ― Category:Portuguese prepositions. --Edudobay 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --EncycloPetey 01:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

skwirk edit

kilo skwirk edit

Does this meet CFI? I doubt it. --EncycloPetey 04:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looked around--found skwirk, skwiker, etc created by same User:Very hungry book worm. Google search on "skwirk" turned up 30,000+ hits, but they all see to be for the website URL. Only Urban Dictionary has the word "skwirk". --EncycloPetey 05:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

escargots à beurre edit

Doesn't exist in French (wrong syntax too). - Dakdada 15:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a particular phrase worth an article. - Dakdada 15:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted bad French. —Stephen 16:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restored and moved to escargots au beurre. Keep at new title. DAVilla 00:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The title is correct, but this phrase doesn't mean anything special. Escargots au beurre sounds like crèpe au jambon or salade de tomates : it is just the sum of its parts. - Dakdada 15:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a dish like liver and onions with certain expectations of taste. I agree with your opinion on the crêpe, but does a tomato salad have lettuce? That's also a keeper. DAVilla 19:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tomato salad might have lettuce, or it might not. A potato salad would not have lettuce, nor would a Waldorf salad. An apple pie will contain tasty apples, but a shepherd's pie does not contain tasty shepherds, and a pork pie would be worn on the head and probably taste terrible. --EncycloPetey 04:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In UK pork pie usually means the food, unless modified by the word hat. Strangely though, they always contain a hard boiled egg and don't taste like pork. --Enginear 14:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

escargots au beurre edit

Still just a sum of parts... - Dakdada 16:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...would that be "snails to the butter" or "snails at the butter" or "snails of the butter"...I don't think so. I agree it is sum of the parts escargots and au beurre, but we need an entry for the idiomatic au beurre.--Enginear 19:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
au beurre in no more idiomatic than aux fruits rouges, à la crème, aux pommes, aux tomates, aux fruits de mer, etc. It is the word à / au / aux that means « cooked with » (approximatively). - Dakdada 11:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you're right...and à la. Should we add the meaning to à or to au etc? --Enginear 14:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the feeling that if asked for escargots au beurre in a French restaurant, they would give me snails in garlic butter, whereas with other kinds of food au beurre I would get them in regular butter. Kappa 05:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --EncycloPetey 21:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


virtureal edit

Can we agree that its a protologism? Jonathan Webley 10:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least in English, yes. Deleted. DAVilla 00:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vessel's edit

  • Moved from tag on page:

I do not think that we should include possessive forms. They are very regularly formed, but there seems to be some disagreement concerning inflecting terminal ‘-s’ singulars and plurals; therefore, it is within the realms of possibility for us to have multiple entries for differently inflected possessive forms. Sure, we have vessel’s, but what about vessels’ / vessels’s? Anyone can take off the possessive suffix of a word to look it up. Who is honestly going to look for vessel’s? I reckon that everyone would simply search for vessel.

  • From RFV:

I’m short on time. See the entry. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 08:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved, see above. DAVilla 00:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“Obviously” this shouldn’t be here (don’t need possessive forms), but I cannot seem to find anything in our CFI or elsewhere that proscribes them. If we don’t have this spelled out, we should begin a Beer Parlour policy debate. --Jeffqyzt 19:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is my gut feeling too, but I can’t think of any logical reason to back it up. Since we include all other inflections of nouns, including genitive cases in other languages, shouldn’t we include the English possessive case too? --Enginear 20:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve said before that I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other here, but I will make four observations. (1) Possessives in English aren’t as regular as we usually suppose; I have seen arguments begin over the correct possessive form of s-terminal proper nouns like Jones. (2) Possessives will not be obvious to learners of English; consider that Spanish forms its possessives using a prepositional phrase, German by declension, and I can’t begin to guess what Semitic languages like Arabic and Hebrew do. (3) The possessive forms of pronouns (e.g. its, his, hers) do not include an apostrophe, only possessive nouns do. (4) The pronunciation of possessives is at least as unpredicatable as the pronunciation of plurals; the additional s may be pronounced /s/ or /z/, and this is not easy for English learners to predict (It was one of the rationales for including plurals). I don’t know whether these points make a strong case for including possessives, but I’ve said everything I can think to say on the subject. --EncycloPetey 04:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Which is the very reason why we should not have possessives. Everyone knows that vessel becomes vessel’s, but there is some disagreement as to whether vessels becomes vessels’ or vessels’s; and what about crisis? Do we write crisis’s or crisis’; and in the plural, do we write crises’s or crises’? (That one even causes me some confusion.) Even if we, personally, use one form, we can instantly recognise that the use of the other is intended as a possessive. As Wiktionary doesn’t seem to be in the habit of prescribing, it’s best to avoid the whole issue of whether one ought to use “’s” or just “’” to form possessives of certain words. Not having possessives would avoid arguments like those concerning your guys’s.
    You’re underestimating how hard people around here will try to argue about unpopular words. — Keffy 00:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Forming possessives is a very basic and fundamental part of grammar in English, and is one of the first things learners are taught. If forming possessives really needs to be explained somewhere, then it should probably be in a Wikipedia article linking from possessive, genitive, -’s, or some or all of the above. If some Wiktionary users are incapable of forming possessives, then it is highly unlikely that those said users will be able to understand most of the entries’ defintions, due unto the high standard of English used therein.
  3. Clearly, we should retain every word inflected for the possessive otherwise than by adding an ’s or ’; which (I think) means that we should retain only my, mine, our, ours, thy, thine, your, yours, his, her, hers, its, their, and theirs.
  4. Whether one ought to pronounce the “’s” as /s/ or as /z/ is a very minor point, and probably varies a lot from dialect unto dialect.
I’m going to propose a policy in the Beer Parlour to disallow possessive forms. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification: The ’s that forms possessives is not a noun inflection. It is a clitic that attaches to the end of the entire phrase. The last word of the phrase, which ’s might seem to be a suffix on, can be anything at all: noun (the candidate’s promises), verb (the candidate who won’s promises), preposition (the candidate I voted for’s promises) — anything!

So unless we are eventually intending to add “possessive” forms for every single word in the English language (won’s, for’s, with’s, tiny’s…), there’ll have to be a line drawn, and that line might as well be here, as soon as the resulting form is predictable. Ditto for plurals ending in s’. Ditto for the ’s that’s a contraction of is. Ditto for ’re. (Except on pronouns, of course, where the result may actually be regular, but you’d never know that unless you were told.) — Keffy 00:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. If “+’s” isn’t even an inflexion, then there is even less of a reason to have entries of words so suffixed. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 02:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another clarification: there is no disagreement among grammarians on how to form the possessive of plural nouns that are formed by adding an s: you always add just an apostrophe. Hence vessels’. Consult any good grammar book. The plural of common nouns ending in s is always formed by adding ’s; hence crisis’s. As this sounds odd, “of the crisis” is usually preferable. Now, as for crises, this is not formed by adding an s, so, strictly, the rules suggest that the possessive should be crises’s. Again, for euphony and editors’ peace of mind, “of the crises” is probably better.

I wrote some extensive usage notes on forming the possessive at ’s but unfortunately they don’t cover odd cases like “crises”.

In any case, this is somewhat tangential to the discussion — I would say that, as we already do with inflected forms, possessives need not be added, but if they are, there is no reason to add them. What we certainly should not be doing is adding them as a matter of course every time a new noun is added to Wiktionary, or suggesting to users that this is what they should be doing. — Paul G 21:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to add your comment unto the discussion in the Beer Parlour. Everyone — please discuss further there. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just daftness now, Deleted --Williamsayers79 01:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cambriphone edit

This entry does not list any citations or references. It is not in the online OED or in any paper dictionary that I own. I gets zero Google book and web hits.

My theory is that it has been created to test our verification and deletion system — a prototrollism! It should be deleted before it gets copied to mirror sites.

Not so. I needed this word in order to distinguish the two pronunciations for eisteddfod. I am very surprised that this word, according unto WT:CFI, doesn’t exist. As you can likely guess, it’s based upon francophone, anglophone, et cetera. If there is an alternative word that I can use instead, then I’ll use it; however, there doesn’t seem to be any word suited to cambriphone’s purpose. I think that this needs to be included, as an exception unto the WT:CFI rule. We did it for protologism — why not for cambriphone?
If you want, I’ll propose this in the Beer Parlour. In the meantime, please withdraw the RfD. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, this is beyond ridiculous. Can you say “concern troll”? I thought you could.
Besides: Welsh speaker is “gallophone”. *sigh* Robert Ullmann 13:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? The only seemingly pertinent Google book search hit uses the word to mean a speaker of Breton. Where did you get gallophone? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The front page of the Welsh wikipedia, for one. And yes, it means a couple of different things. So do a lot of words. It is perfectly clear in context. And no, we are not going to invent a new word here. Either use Gallophone or Welsh speaker. (Note that we did not invent “protologism”) Robert Ullmann 14:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted known to be non-existent word. Anyone who has any doubts about the validity of this user’s contributions is invited to look at w:User_talk:Doremítzwr#Campuses_vs._campi in which he argues that the plural of campus should be “campi”, using his vandalism of the wikt entry (campus) as some kind of attestation. (The history of “scenario” is also interesting, arguing that scenarii is the “etymologically correct” plural of scenario.) Troll. Don’t waste your time arguing. Robert Ullmann 14:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell is adding a thrice-cited entry (campi) vandalism? Ditto adding campi as a valid plural form of campus unto the entry thereof? Scenarii is also thrice-cited. How exactly am I a vandal or a troll? Give objective reasons or withdraw your groundless accusations. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a start, because the entry doesn’t say the usage is extremely rare, and doesn’t warn schoolchildren that they will be marked wrong if they use the word. If you want to disappear up your own arse, then write a blog. Don’t be disruptive to a community who wish to produce something useful.
Personally, I don’t mind such entries if they make clear that the word is considered incorrect English by almost all academics, i.e. I support the current CFI until such time as a better solution appears. But many in the Wiktionary community see even my viewpoint as extreme. Yours is off the wall. You also fail to give any online cites for the words. While this is acceptable under CFI, it does make them difficult to check. I hope your cites do all stand up, because you are making enough enemies that soon someone will check them… and if they’re found to be systematically false, that will be cause enough to block you permanently. --Enginear 20:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the citations that I give are genuine (the vast majority from Google Book Search, but a few from elsewhere, including, recently, from George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four”). As dmh keeps saying, we need rules and objective criteria before we can say what’s in and what’s out, what’s right and what’s wrong. WT:CFI is a good start, and I have obeyed it consistently (once I found out what it was). The principle of Nulla poena sine lege (“no penalty without a law”), in a sense, applies here: as Wiktionary’s mandate is to become a dictionary of all words in all languages, then surely one should add words unless their entry is forbidden by a policy (such as WT:CFI). I am astounded that people could get so worked up over a few legitimately added entries of mine; being so pædantic, I never expected that I would ever find cause to say “get a life”, but that is exactly what seems to be most fitting at the moment… † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is rich coming from someone who uses some of the most pretentious English I’ve seen in a while. Stop trolling and stop aggrovating other contributors by wasting their time in nonsensical debates. Other admins are less forgiving than those above so beware. — Williamsayers79 09:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Que‽ What’s “rich”? The “get a life” comment? See above, where I wrote: “being so pædantic, I never expected that I would ever find cause to say “get a life”,” — I acknowledged the irony of my comment before I even made it. You never make any worthwhile points. You’re not worth communicating with. The only reason that others tolerate your unjustified assertions is because your opinions, fortunately for you, coïncide with theirs. If you were in the minority here, you would not have a leg to stand upon. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unto (archaic) means “to”, but only in some forms. It comes from Old Norse und (up to) and till (as far as), with reduplication of meaning (source: OED). While you can always use “to” for “unto” (though sometimes “up to” or “until” is better), the converse is not true: unto means “up to / as far as”. (In particular, it does not mean “to” in the sense of into). A good test is to read it that way, to see if it makes sense:

Suffer the children to be brought unto me — “Suffer the children to be brought up to / as far as me.” Fine.

adding campi as a valid plural form of campus unto the entry thereof — “adding campi as a valid plural form of campus up to / as far as the entry thereof” Um, not so much.

But it sounds eddy-cated, right? Robert Ullmann 16:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The COED (11th ed.) disagrees, stating that unto means both “to” and “until”, excepting that it cannot be used to form infinitives: “I took the test unto know my score”. I use it because of that distinction (but I don’t use it to mean “until”), not because it affects greater learning. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just out of interest — this is an answer from the OED to my question “Is there a word for a Welsh speaker”:

— The short answer to your question is ‘no’. The standard term for a person whose first language is Welsh is ‘Welsh speaker’. I am assured of this by a Welsh-speaking colleague, who says that there is of course a Welsh word, but not an English one. Compare ‘Gaelic speaker’. — Margot Charlton, OED

Well, there isn’t a Welsh word either, as far as I’m aware. The closest we get are Cymro (m) and Cymraes (f) — but these just mean “Welsh man” and “Welsh woman” (not “Welshman” and “Welshwoman”), with all the amiguities that the English noun phrases entail. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

utteress edit

and utteresses. Invented forms that do not exist. (and google and g.b.c 0 for 0) More crap-loading. Robert Ullmann 16:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

midi-chlorian edit

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 23:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

midi-chlorian count edit

These are from Star Wars. Jonathan Webley 15:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The count isn't idiomatic. I would RFV the first except it will undoubtedly be deleted shortly anyway. DAVilla 16:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X ass Y edit

I can't imagine this as being informative. Even if cleaned up, this wouldn't be the place for this entry, instead in the grammar section of the appendix: right? --Connel MacKenzie 03:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It’s ridiculous. Delete. That term could be included as -assed or -ass, or just explained in ass. At first, I thought X ass Y was a mathematics term, where ass = associated or assimilated or somesuch. —Stephen 20:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

itihāsa edit

Transwiki done violating terms of the GFDL. Needs to be cleared, the Wikipedia entry rolled back, tagged with {{dicdef}}, transwikied normally, then dealt with on Wikipedia. --Connel MacKenzie 02:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Entry recreated as इतिहास. --Dijan 06:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoe oud was je toen je vegetariër werd? edit

  1. Punctuated in entry title (therefore delete)
  2. "How old were you when you became vegetarian?"

So, if this is an idiom, what does it mean? --Connel MacKenzie 20:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As is written: it's Dutch and stands for "How old were you when you became vegetarian?". It has no special meaning, is not used in a specific context, so imho this page should be deleted. Annabelleke 21:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted --EncycloPetey 21:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your guys's edit

This word is an illiteracy. Your guys’s is a non-standard form of your guys’, which is itself a non-standard form of you guys’, which is itself a non-standard form of your — that’s three degrees of being wrong. Ya’ll (being ya’ll < y’all < you all < all of you) was deleted for this same reason. Add unto that that we normally don’t include possessives, and that as ’s is a clitic, to do so consistently would require having a possessive form for every word in English. There is at præsent a discussion in the Beer Parlour as unto whether to exclude possessive forms from Wiktionary; it is likely to go unto WT:VOTE after a while. Whatever the outcome thereof, your guys’s should not be in Wiktionary. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already passed, IIRC. It has an interesting pronunciation too. For someone as ardent as you in introducing non-standard forms to the wikt, for you to denounce this as non-standard is pretty rich, don’t you think? ;-) Robert Ullmann 09:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As stated here, I introduce pædantic, not non-standard forms. What is IIRC? Oh, and fabulously wealthy, I’m sure. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 09:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look it up — this’s a dictionary! Jonathan Webley 10:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have, if it had been linked; I assumed that it was an internal Wiktionary initialism. This entry may have passed before, but on what grounds? The arguments may have changed since then. Furthermore, where does it state that WT:RFD has the double jeopardy rule? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It’s pretty hideous, but it’s well-cited, so… to be honest there isn’t really an argument. Widsith 10:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it’s absolutely peppered with tags of disapproval (RFD, RFV, neologism, slang, non-standard). I guess the only way it’ll be deleted is if the anti-possessive proposal passes WT:VOTE. OK, since your guys’s is staying, I’ll go reädd ya’ll. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with ya'll is that it's spelled wrong (y'all is correct).  With your guys's, it's illiterate, but spelled correctly. — V-ball 01:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I don’t think my vote here will count for anything: delete. --Connel MacKenzie 06:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. keep, hideous but irregular and well cited. Should be kept even if regular possessive forms are disallowed. Kappa 07:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that we’re drifting towards a policy of not allowing regular and well-constructed possessives, but allowing aberrations and monstrosities because they’re errors? --EncycloPetey 07:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That really would be the depths of madness. Kappa, how can you argue for the inclusion of your guys’s, even if all other possessives were to be excluded‽ Your guys’s isn’t irregular, it’s “hyperregular”, just like childs. It is formed through nescience of the sibilant-terminal plural exception unto the “+’s” rule for forming possessives; which means we get your guys’s, and not your guys’ (which is still doubly, but not triply wrong). Come on, we don’t need or want this entry. For the love of God, delete it! † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have to include irregular word forms regardless of whether or not we exclude regular forms. OK, maybe this one is “hyperregular” not “irregular” — but since its not predictable from the “rules” the entry won’t be redundant. Kappa 16:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Show me one fluent capable English speaker who does not immediately recognise that your guys’s is the illiterately-formed possessive of you guys. It’s entirely predictable. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of fluent and capable English speakers know it's illiterate right away, but that doesn't mean it's not used, properly cited, etc. — V-ball 01:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I first heard this, I assumed it was a one-off nonce or error, not a recurring feature of any English dialect. Kappa 17:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary will be a total joke if this idiotic illiteracy is allowed to be kept in, delete it! Their are several reasons to get rid of this word and none to keep it, if we start including possessives now do you guys realize how long that it will take to include them all? we cant just change the way we do things for a word that I have yet to find in twelve actual dictionaries. I'll be embarrassed to call myself a wiktionarian with this hideous word lurking around. Randy6767 17:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't changing anything by including it, since it passes the CFI. If we start deleting "idiotic illiteracies" because of our POV about them then that will be a radical change. Kappa 18:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may be mistaken here but I believe back in elementary school this word would have been called a "double possessive", along with double possessives their were also triple and quadruple possessives and so on. If we include this double possessive we must also include it's triple and quadruple possessives and so on; your guys's, your guys's's, your guys's's's, your guys's's's's, your guys's's's's's.... and so. Also with each added ('s) the definition would in turn become longer; the possessive of a possessive, the possessive of a possessive of a possessive, the possessive of a possessive of a possessive of a possessive, the possessive of a possessive of a possessive of a possessive of a possessive.... and so on. This creates a never ending cycle of required definitions that we simply have no room for. Delete it or get ready to add a few billion more illiteracies to wiktionary. Randy6767 19:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thin edge of the wedge/slippery slope argument is invalid in RFD. We consider all terms individually on their merits. Double possessives (which might or might not exist) do not automatically lead to possessives of higher orders (which, I maintain, definitely do not exist). — Paul G 09:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should be deleted. The scarcity of actual citations is enlightening: [4]. The hodgepodge of other sources (a band's web interview? a thoroughly ungrammatical forum post from a 14-year-old? a movie?) is nothing more than Google noise that you could pick up for any uncommon misspelling or ungrammatical construction. This doesn't pass the bar for being a common enough variant for inclusion. Seriously. Try a Google Books, even, search on a double possessive for any common noun. I tried "dogs's" first (which I've never heard before) and found dozens more for that than "your guys's" [5] [6] [7] [8]. This is not the same as neice or accidently. We don't keep around incorrect constructions just because they are conceivable. Dmcdevit 08:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. So sue me. Andrew massyn 15:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Τιμή edit

This word is a simple noun, it must have been missed by the conversion script. I integrated all the information that was in it into τιμή. Cerealkiller13 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --EncycloPetey 01:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nazg edit

Inasmuch as Tolkien's languages were pretty sweet, this doesn't meet CFI, does it? Cerealkiller13 08:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TNA edit

This is about a concept, not a word. It's a wrestling federation, (and a very new one at that). Possible just spam: "na is the greatest wrestling show in the history of great wrestling shows." Dmcdevit 09:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Swadesh lists for Afrikaans and Dutch edit

Deleted. See discussion. 10:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Celtic Swadesh lists edit

Deleted. See discussion. 10:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:conj edit

Deleted. See discussion. 10:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Indo-Iranian Swadesh lists edit

Deleted. See discussion. 10:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:hiragana edit

Deleted. See discussion. 10:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:idiom2 edit

Deleted. See discussion. 10:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Requests for symbolic pronunciation edit

Deleted. See discussion. 10:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

category:Dutch superlatives edit

Deleted. See discussion. 10:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Dutch comparatives edit

Deleted. See discussion. 10:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

g. edit

Deleted. See discussion. 11:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:猿 edit

Deleted. See discussion. 12:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:款 edit

Deleted. See discussion. 12:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:共 edit

Deleted. See discussion. 12:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:仝 edit

Deleted. See discussion. 12:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:猿 edit

Deleted. See discussion. 12:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

category:Verbal phrases edit

Deleted. See discussion. 12:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mycenaean language edit

Deleted. See discussion. 21:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do these belong? edit

Should these be in the Index: namespace, or the Appendix: namespace?

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=Chinese&namespace=4

--Connel MacKenzie 08:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appendix. The Cangjie indexes are a Chinese input method, a way of typing Chinese on a Roman keyboard. Cangjie is difficult to learn, but after you learn it, it’s an extremely rapid and logical way to type Chinese. Each index shows the letters that you have to type to get a certain character. So it’s important information, but it belongs in the Appendis. —Stephen 09:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And they should get the "index" dropped from the name. E.g. Wiktionary:Chinese radical index 邑 should be Index:Chinese radical 邑 One of the things I've had on my list to figure out. Fortunately, there aren't 60,000+ links to these pages like there used to be (;-). Sort of a bot task, but they also have (proper) redirects in between some of them, so it isn't so simple! I'll think about it some more. Robert Ullmann 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sort-of a bot task, but not. I'd object strongly to this being done by bot, based on my experiences moving many other pages to Index:/Appendix: when we got the new namespaces. Someone needs to slog through these. --Connel MacKenzie 18:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Index: namespace, all page references corrected (except this page and Beer Parlour archive, left unchanged). Wiktionary:Chinese radical index 邑 is now Index:Chinese radical/邑. Remaining redirects should be cleaned up sometime after DblRedirBot has been run. Robert Ullmann 11:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2007/01&oldid=64508658"