Kept edit

primus stove edit

Kept as Primus stove, discussion archived to Talk:Primus stove. -- Visviva 05:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morpheus edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Morpheus. -- Visviva 05:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betamax edit

Kept for now, discussion at Talk:Betamax. -- Visviva 05:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maccas edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Maccas. -- Visviva 08:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stratfordian edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Stratfordian. -- Visviva 12:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bondi edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Bondi. -- Visviva 08:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aalesund edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Aalesund. -- Visviva 12:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aertel edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Aertel. -- Visviva 12:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doom edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Doom. -- Visviva 11:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spansule edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Spansule. -- Visviva 12:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Vader edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Darth Vader. -- Visviva 09:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

María edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:María. -- Visviva 12:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sexo vaginal edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:sexo vaginal. -- Visviva 12:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

permadeath edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:permadeath. -- Visviva 12:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

instadeath edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:instadeath. -- Visviva 12:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fourty edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:fourty. -- Visviva 12:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spazz out edit

Having failed RFV, this word may be safely deleted. -- Beobach972 00:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cited it instead. Keep. --Enginear 15:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struck accordingly. -- Beobach972 23:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

confuzzled edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:confuzzled. -- Visviva 12:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

confuzzle edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:confuzzle. -- Visviva 12:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cartogram edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:cartogram. -- Visviva 12:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wendigo edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:wendigo. -- Visviva 12:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

roger edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:roger. -- Visviva 07:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted edit

Friends edit

Entry kept, sense removed, discussion archived to Talk:Friends. -- Visviva 05:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

by/citations edit

This strange page is not shown in the citations tab of by, and it is very unstructured. I don’t see the use of it. H. (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What the heck is all that? Can't tell what source the citations are from. bd2412 T 18:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange. Deleted SemperBlotto 11:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Figure it out and keep it. To quote Connel MacKenzie (WT:RFV: 21 November 2006), "We should (in theory) have citations for every word we have here[;] we seriously should (eventually) have citations for everything and not be shooting blindly." DAVilla 19:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you can’t call those citations can you? Type ‘by’ into Google and you have citations à volonté. H. (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow Bay edit

The WT:CFI page says: A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely-understood meaning. For example: New York is included because “New York” is used attributively in phrases like “New York delicatessen” [...] A person or place name that is not used attributively (and that is not a word that otherwise should be included) should not be included. Lower Hampton, Empire State Building, and George Walker Bush thus should not be included. [...] A name should be included if it has become a generic term.

As (I contend) this is not used attributively, nor has it become a generic term, I propose that it be deleted. -- Beobach972 16:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, as I see it, is that we have very many placenames (and even lists of placenames). If we delete one, we should delete most of them. Perhaps we should have some sort of vote. If we do decide to delete them, then we need to change the "not found" message to say something like "If you are looking for a placename - try Wikipedia". For what it is worth, my own vote would be to allow them all. SemperBlotto 16:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason to keep that I can think of.--Dmol 16:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The origin of names is often fascinating eg, Redriff being a corruption (or rather a phonetic spelling of an obsolete pronunciation) of Rotherhithe (both in South-East London and meaning cattle wharf). It intrigues me that (according to Oxford) of the thousands of placenames in London, not one name of Roman origin (rather than being a Romanisation of a pre-existing name) is still in use. Many surnames (which we allow) have their origin in placenames. They are some of the most interesting, and often most ancient, words. We should either keep them all, or at worst agree that they can only be kept if etymological info or literal meanings are added. So yes, I believe we should modify/clarify CFI. --Enginear 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that is another acceptable solution: modify the CFI for place names (as we surely do have a lot of them!) so that we know what (erm, where) to include and what not to. -- Beobach972 21:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm sure the folks in the surrounding towns would refer to a Barrow Bay delicatessan (or at least a Barrow Bay restaurant). Indeed, somewhere, if I can dig it up, I have a "geographical dictionary". bd2412 T 21:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where that argument falls through is that one might find a "New York Deli" in many different places, we have one near my home in VT...whereas Barrow Bay Delis are most likely very difficult to find outside of that place. This is the difference between attributive usage and just using a proper noun adjectivally. - [The]DaveRoss 23:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well then keep because having place names in Wiktionary warms the cockles of my heart. Also, "Barrow Bay" is idiomatic, as it is neither a barrow nor a bay (although adjacent to a bay). ;-) bd2412 T 01:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All placenames? The alley behind West 43rd St? The little space between Connel's 2nd and 3rd left toes? Where is the WT:VOTE for this, so I can vote against it? All towns and villages? I think not. All major cities and capitals? Perhaps, with an unambiguous definition of "major" in this context. But otherwise, no. All "notable" places? Yikes, we don't want to go down that road. Wikipedia still has daily flare-ups about notability. Even "interesting etymology" is a pitfall: "barrow" being an alternate of "borough" means Barrow Bay is S.O.P. --Connel MacKenzie 01:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two examples you have invented are not placenames - they are definitions of unnamed places. If these places have real names, and these names have Google book hits, they could be included - but they are not high on my to-do-list. SemperBlotto 08:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, are we modifying the CFI to allow placenames? If so, we need to specifically define which placenames are acceptable dictionary entries and which are not (The alley behind West 43rd St may not be a named place, but West 43rd St is — in at least four dozen cities and towns throughout the English-speaking world, probably a dozen of which are used three times or more in print). -- Beobach972 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West 43rd St is non-idiomatic. Now, Downing Street or Pennsylvania Avenue or Wall Street or Broadway or Hollywood Boulevard would merit an entry. bd2412 T 01:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Botevgrad is non-idiomatic, too, as is (I argue) Barrow Bay. -- Beobach972 01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can Botevgrad possibly be non-idiomatic? It's a single word. What's a Botevgrad? And is Barrow Bay a bay full of barrows? bd2412 T 02:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moving back to the left of the page...)

Again, are there Botevgrad delis? Botevgrad sausages, hats, or cows? Is Botevgrad the standard name for any 'middle-of-nowhere' town? (If it is, substitute any other one of the multitude of non-attributive, non-generic placenames on here.) No, it's just a name on a map, the same as West 43rd St. As Connel MacKenzie pointed out, barrow -> borough, thus it is not idiomatic. Barrow Bay and Botevgrad have no special meaning like Wall Street... as with Bill Clinton: if somebody came across 'Bill Clinton' in a book, they might look to a dictionary, but upon not finding it there, they'd look to an encyclopaedia, and find it. Our current CFI indicate that this should be deleted; if we change CFI, that's another matter. -- Beobach972 04:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow has multiple definitions, and the one used in this name is not the most obvious. Ergo, it's idiomatic. But I'd keep it even if it wasn't. Plenty of dictionaries have geographic names. Ours just happens to have room enough to fit all of them. bd2412 T 07:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion in the Beer parlour on CFI for names, which suggests, among other things, that all place names should be included in Wiktionary. — Paul G 10:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to those conversations please? That is directly at odds with CFI (see the very beginning of this section) and would need a WT:VOTE then, to change. I'd very much like to vote against such a change. I can see an entry for 42nd Street, (clearly idiomatic) but not 43rd Street. --Connel MacKenzie 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WT:BP#A_proposed_Vote_concerning_Placenames & WT:BP#Placenames_redux. There was also an earlier discussion, part of which you will recall would better have been left to you and your podiatrist. :-) Yes we should have a vote. It is so rare that place names are spam, eg Bournville and a few later factory towns, and many placenames are so interesting, that I shall as usual argue that CFI should be no harder for them than for "normal" words. There are few places where the street names are as unimaginative as in NY (SB will confirm that even in MK, they have names as well as numbers; of course, if you don't know where MK is (home of 2LAs, such as the OU, at the junction of the H9 & the V10), or if you want to know why the roads in their grid start with H & V, perhaps you should look them up somewhere where you usually look up abbreviations and not in the space between your toes, which even I would object to seeing here. :-) --Enginear 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as not meeting CFI; attempts to revise the CFI for toponyms appear to have stalled. -- Visviva 05:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bondi Junction edit

(Same reason for suggesting deletion as above.) -- Beobach972 16:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason to keep.--Dmol 16:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given at Barrow Bay above. --Enginear 20:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given at Barrow Bay above. bd2412 T 22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bertillon edit

Does this belong in a dictionary? -- Beobach972 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is biographic. Deleted. Edited the word that linked to it, to point to the Wikipedia entry. SemperBlotto 11:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Namely, bertillonage. Potential keep if used attributively to describe his methods or if known well enough in French to be understood out of context. I really don't know enough about the word to judge it. The deletion seems a bit hasty, however. DAVilla 19:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian pyramids edit

Unidiomatic. They're pyramids (structures), and they're Bosnian (pertaining to Bosnia). -- Beobach972 04:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have an article over on w:Bosnian pyramids - but not really dictionary material. Deleted SemperBlotto 11:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But...note we voted to keep Egyptian pyramid. DAVilla 21:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We also have Mayan pyramid, ancient pyramid, Aztec pyramid and Mesoamerican pyramid. Please can we just get rid of all these silly entries. Widsith 11:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Bosnian pyramids' is plural. -- Beobach972 00:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted out of process a lot time ago, but the result is inconsistent, per Widsith. I'm open to a discussion on it, but precedent says that it deserves an entry. It could also be considered a national monument, which is not a criterion I agree with, but which seems to have support of the community. DAVilla 11:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The) Listener edit

Encyclopedic; not used attributively; seems to be here only because listener exists. — Paul G 14:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --Williamsayers79 09:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Sessums edit

This post should not be deleted. As a notable person and one of special interest, users would find the summary of this person of great value. This fact-based post deserves to be kept for the public to view. Thanks.

Wiktionary, being a DICTIONARY, does not accept encyclopedic, non-notable entries. sewnmouthsecret 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable has nothing to do with it. It is however non-linguistic. DAVilla 19:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abakan edit

(Same reasoning, a name that is not used attributively.) -- Beobach972 16:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons given at Barrow Bay above. --Enginear 20:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given at Barrow Bay above. bd2412 T 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same reasons. —Stephen 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adygeya Autonomous Oblast edit

(Same reasoning, a name that is not used attributively.) -- Beobach972 16:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons given at Barrow Bay above. --Enginear 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given at Barrow Bay above, and also because Russian Oblast's are fairly sizable administrative divisions with set translations. bd2412 T 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because we have lots of place names, they are valid dictionary entries, and it's very helpful to have them in Wiktionary for translations. — V-ball 23:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to the usual spelling of Adyghe Autonomous Oblast. (The spelling with Adygeya is due to a misunderstanding of the Russian genitive that occurs in some cases.) Keep. —Stephen 11:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adidam Hridaya-Shaktipat Yoga edit

-- Beobach972 16:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Clarification: this is nominated not on the same grounds as I'm nominating various non-generic/non-idiomatically-used placenames, but as a separate proposal for deletion, although using similar reasoning, eg it is not used attributively, nor is it generic. -- Beobach972 17:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This has been deleted, as have the ones below. — Beobach972 15:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adidam Siddha Yoga edit

-- Beobach972 16:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Clarification: this is nominated not on the same grounds as I'm nominating various non-generic/non-idiomatically-used placenames, but as a separate proposal for deletion, although using similar reasoning, eg it is not used attributively, nor is it generic. -- Beobach972 17:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Adidam Shaktipat Yoga edit

-- Beobach972 16:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Clarification: this is nominated not on the same grounds as I'm nominating various non-generic/non-idiomatically-used placenames, but as a separate proposal for deletion, although using similar reasoning, eg it is not used attributively, nor is it generic. -- Beobach972 17:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Adidam Hridaya-Siddha Yoga edit

-- Beobach972 16:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Clarification: this is nominated not on the same grounds as I'm nominating various non-generic/non-idiomatically-used placenames, but as a separate proposal for deletion, although using similar reasoning, eg it is not used attributively, nor is it generic. -- Beobach972 17:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Adidam Ruchira-Siddha Yoga edit

-- Beobach972 16:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Clarification: this is nominated not on the same grounds as I'm nominating various non-generic/non-idiomatically-used placenames, but as a separate proposal for deletion, although using similar reasoning, eg it is not used attributively, nor is it generic. -- Beobach972 17:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Traubi edit

Do we need to list obscure Hungarian brand names in a dictionary? -- Beobach972 17:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no matter how old it is, along with the category Category:Hungarian brand names, which, if existant, should be Category:hu:Brand names anyway. H. (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulon edit

Do we need to list obscure Hungarian brand names in a dictionary? -- Beobach972 17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OK, now they are just getting silly. We can't list every product from every country. BTW, where I come from, Fabulon is an ironing spray.--Dmol 17:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I've been saying we need standards and guidelines to determine when brand names should be allowed and when they should not. Obviously meeting the CFI can't be enough for products. bd2412 T 17:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? The independent uses must pass the use/mention distinction and show attributive use. For this, that means there are zero citations. CFI in this case, seems to do fairly well. DELETE. --Connel MacKenzie 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But how can you tell whether use is attributive when a person says:
    "He smelled of starch - yes, of Juicy Fruit and Fabulon." Tim Winton, The Turning: Stories (2006) p. 293.
    - - I see absolutely nothing attributive about that quote. It is talking about the direct product! A plug for two commercial products in one sentence - must be a popular writer. (Sheesh!) --Connel MacKenzie 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, it's a noun. What if it said he smelled of pine tar, would that not be an attributive use of pine tar? bd2412 T 13:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There is a difference between a noun and a brand-name. But nevertheless, no, that is not what is meant by attributive use here; that would be a direct reference, not an indirect reference to similar attributes. --Connel MacKenzie 04:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You mean like:
        Donna Williams, Exposure Anxiety - The Invisible Cage: An Exploration of Self-Protection Responses in the Autism Spectrum and Beyond (2003) p. 37:
        I learned to do dishes as Madge from the Palmolive commercial (‘It's Palmolive. Mild on your hands as you do dishes'), to iron as the Fabulon commercial (‘Fabulon makes ironing easier') and to dust and clean windows as the Mr Sheen Commercial (‘clean wax and polish as you dust with Mr. Sheen).
        
        ...? bd2412 T 04:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Right - there is nothing attributive about those citations at all. Instead those are direct references to a product! I call that promotional spam. --Connel MacKenzie 19:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (on the other hand, how the heck can anyone tell which use of the word "Fabulon" is intended in that sentence?) bd2412 T 21:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs in Wikipedia, if anywhere at all. Delete. — 193.203.81.129 15:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, does not appear to meet either the classic CFI or the proposed criteria for brand names. -- Visviva 08:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Botevgrad edit

I've heard of a New York delicatessen, but never a Botevgrad delicatessen. Is it used attributively, or can it be deleted? -- Beobach972 18:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons given at Barrow Bay above. — This comment was unsigned.

Keep. One of the great reasons Wiktionary can be better than other dictionaries is the fact that it can hold place names and their translations, even for lesser-known places. I, along with another person commenting on these place names nominated for deletion, don't understand why something must be used attributively for us to like it. Place names are words, they can be defined (i.e., a city in such-and-such county in such-and-such state or country), and can be translated. All great reason to have them in Wiktionary. — V-ball 17:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —Stephen 11:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

white-collar edit

Senses removed, discussion archived to Talk:white-collar. -- Visviva 12:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

evil dictator edit

Just because its antonym is meaningful does not mean that it is. Atelaes 22:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-idiomatic. The antonym of benevolent dictator would be "malevolent dictator" anyway. bd2412 T 22:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Deleted SemperBlotto 08:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I'm surprised this didn't survive RFV as a set phrase, with so very many b.g.c. hits. Is it limited to only being used here in America? --Connel MacKenzie 04:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dysemesia edit

--Connel MacKenzie 19:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OED2+ has rare words emetia and emesis with the suggested meaning. Strangely, two medical dictionaries (the only two b.g.c. hits for dysemesia) seem to define it the same way, with the dys- having little effect. The 9 metacrawler.com hits are all either dictionaries or referring to an eponymous rock band. So doesn't seem to meet CFI. --Enginear 21:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think emetia rather than "emesia" is the correct spelling (root = eme-, emet-), meaning vomiting; hence, dysemetia should mean "abnormal vomiting". The spelling dysemesia is probably due to a misunderstanding of emesis, which is made of eme- + -sis (not "emes-" + "-is"). Delete. —Stephen 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep it (which I don't recommend, either), we'll have to make it clear whether the term is supposed to refer to the act (emesis), or the effluent (vomitus). The current definition ("vomit; barf; puke; regurgitate") is an unclear mixture (and "regurgitate" isn't even a noun). —scs 16:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we place it under Derived Terms under Emesis? Any recommendations you have, I will gladly make the changes to save you the trouble. I'm trying to learn all the ropes, is all. If it makes a difference I have seen this word listed in medical dictionaries, which is why I feel it would be beneficial to include it. sewnmouthsecret 16:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that dysemesia is not correctly formed. It is derived from a hypothetical εμεσεως, but there is no such word. The Greek word is έμετος, and that makes emesis, emetic, emetia. If dysemesia is actually in use, then of course it should be included even though it is badly formed. In this case, we need to see some actual cites to support its existence. —Stephen 17:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I will try to find cites for it. Do the cites have to be online, or simply verifiable (such as in a book)? sewnmouthsecret 18:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations do not have to be online, but should be something that can at least be found in a local library, so that it can be verified and reviewed. --Connel MacKenzie 18:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I personally think its harmless and could remain, However, to RFD. Andrew massyn 12:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, has been pending verification for almost a year without a single actual use in sight. -- Visviva 12:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandropoulos edit

Failed RFV. -- Beobach972 00:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. bd2412 T 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 07:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Chaveline edit

Failed RFV. -- Beobach972 00:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. bd2412 T 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 07:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wii edit

I request that this be unprotected, undeleted and sent through a regular verification/deletion discussion. Kappa 16:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again? Why? Did you find three cites that use it attributively? --Connel MacKenzie 16:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "again"? Kappa 13:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kappa. Kappa, as always, thank you for your great vigilance, this is a great find! :D The Nintendo corp. has managed what every company desires, it has forced its product into the lexicon of the vast majority of the world, and even into the everyday lexicon of many people. It is a great addition to wiktionary just waiting to be written! Personally, I look forward to seeing a big translation section for this word. :) *Signed Language Lover*

By "again" I mean this:

Deletion log

08:44, April 6, 2007 Cynewulf (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wii" (--explanation of deletion--) (Restore)

09:56, March 15, 2007 Connel MacKenzie (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wii" (encyclopedic, not used attributively, set to WT:PT) (Restore)

22:09, March 14, 2007 Connel MacKenzie (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wii" (--explanation of deletion--) (Restore)

01:42, November 26, 2006 Connel MacKenzie (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wii" (--explanation of deletion--) (Restore)

14:48, November 16, 2006 Robert Ullmann (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wii" (maybe in a year or two / content was: 'New Nintendo game console release on 11/19/2006.' (last edit: 24.176.175.170)) (Restore)

08:03, October 24, 2006 SemperBlotto (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wii" (content was: 'Urine' (last edit: 219.95.62.63)) (Restore)

07:51, August 7, 2006 SemperBlotto (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wii" (tosh) (Restore)

15:27, July 1, 2006 Vildricianus (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wii" (encyclopedic) (Restore)

Restored "rfd" tag to entry "wheel-war" re-entered entry. As I recall, earlier versions were deleted by Ec. (MediaWiki didn't have logging of deletions, years ago.) --Connel MacKenzie 22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC) (edit) 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kluge/Usage note edit

This should be at Template:kludge, kluge usage note or something, right? The main namespace article containing the "/Usage notes" in its title must not be left as a redirect. --Connel MacKenzie 16:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be in the article, with some copy editing. IIRC from my own experience it is about right. Would be useful to do some reference checking. (I'd do something now, but I am carefully watching a bot run ;-). Doesn't need to be templated ala color/colour, just put in one entry and referred from the other. Robert Ullmann 16:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful - I vaugely recall a lengthy WT:RFC or WT:TR conversation about these entries. I'm not sure you can just have the usage note in only one, softlinked from the other. (That would be rather un-Wiktionary like to do, anyhow.) --Connel MacKenzie 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, perhaps simply subst:'ing it would be better? --Connel MacKenzie 22:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to the Template: namespace, where it belonged in the first place. {{kluge-Usage note}}. --03:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Chani Padang edit

The only usage of this word I could find was on a racist anti-Persian website [[1]], and I suppose the word has been put in wiktionary by the authors of that same website. Anyway the point is it that is jst an invented racial epithet and not an existing one. Also, the word does not exist in Persian either. 86.131.31.11 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Dijan 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

snarth edit

Looks like a joke entry. — Paul G 10:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Company edit

Walt Disney Company belongs in Wikipedia. The entry for Disney might, however, belong in the dictionary. --Keene 23:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe even Walt Disney. Moved to Disney for now. DAVilla 06:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hobbit edit

Translations are not of the term per se, but of the title of the work. No need for that here. bd2412 T 22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Translation section exists on Wikipedia article. DAVilla 06:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes delete of course. SemperBlotto 07:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of word we were talking about in Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Interpretation_of_CFI. I think we should continue this discussion there. My two cents, Wiktionary has nothing to do with need. It's not about need, it's about easy and convenient access to (sometimes useless and trivial) information. The information can be in both places, the sky won't fall :-) -- A-cai 10:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of thing I don't believe belongs in a dictionary. There are very few book titles or TV shows or movies whose titles have significant chance of needing to be translated. I imagine that Star Wars is one of those, but am having a hard time thinking of any others. (I can think of a couple of other sci-fi examples, but mostly because I love sci-fi.) --EncycloPetey 15:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see this case, we have a definite article and a word defined thereby. No different than if we had a separate entry on "the bicycle" or "the respirator". I may have a somewhat wider view of what titles should be included, but it does not extend to phrases that would otherwise simply be non-idiomatic constructions. bd2412 T 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hippietrail asked me recently, what happened - I used to be one of the most notorious "inclusionists" on Wiktionary. I'm not sure what happened. But to me, this truly is "the thin edge of the wedge" type of a situation. My notions of automated lookups in a situation like this are far outweighed by the pointless open-endedness of promotional entries. Was it given an entry because it is the referent of many citations? If so, then we need a more accurate way of saying that such things must point to Wikipedia topics, rather than having local links for entries that cannot possibly ever been dictionary material. --Connel MacKenzie 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translations were already moved to hobbit#Translations, right? --Connel MacKenzie 17:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the translations (if not most) are not translations of the word "hobbit" but of the title, "The Hobbit" (e.g. Bilbo En Hobbits Aventyr). bd2412 T 18:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted - translations merged into hobbit. --EncycloPetey 08:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no fuzz edit

Having failed RFV, this word may be safely deleted. -- Beobach972 00:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, everybody could just sit around and sip tea and ignore this word; that works, too. It doesn't have to be deleted, we can just leave it in the wikt and ignore it to death. -- Beobach972 03:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our of 144 b.g.c. hits for the phrase, none had this meaning. Deleted. --Enginear 15:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshone tribe edit

We already have Shoshone. The indicated Wikipedia article does not exist. SemperBlotto 21:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --EncycloPetey 08:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High-Frequency Gravitational Waves edit

Capitalization - any usable content? Is it correct? --Connel MacKenzie 19:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caps bad. Plural should be singular. Deleted. I'll try to come up with high-frequency gravitational wave soonish (after a bit of digging). SemperBlotto 21:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

macrocosmus edit

ISO? --Connel MacKenzie 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purely hypothetical; it does not appear in any dictionary of Medieval Latin that I can find. --EncycloPetey 08:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ethimologia edit

--Connel MacKenzie 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted. Could find no evidence of this spelling in Latin dictionaries. --EncycloPetey 17:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

busca edit

Section removed, discussion archived to Talk:busca. -- Visviva 12:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

normal/math edit

Merged, kept as redirect to preserve history per GFDL requirements, discussion archived to Talk:normal. -- Visviva 07:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

antidisestablishmenttarianism edit

A common misspelling? Hardly. — Paul G 17:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's hard enough to find usage of antidisestablishmentarianism -- perhaps not surprising -- I actually had a context once where I could reasonably have used it, but I chickened out since I thought it would get attention for the wrong reason (90% of the b.g.c. hits are mention rather than use). Nonetheless, there are 300 hits, compared with none at all for the "common misspelling". --Enginear 18:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No misspelling of the referenced word is common. Deleted... SemperBlotto 16:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subjunctve edit

This is not a "common misspelling" of subjunctive - it is a typo. This is not what "common misspelling" is intended for. There are a few other entries of this kind in the misspellings category. — Paul G 17:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem is that sometimes people typo when creating a word, and then can't delete it afterwards. That's happened to me, with redestrict. Maybe we could set it up so if you yourself created a word and noone else has edited it (and maybe less than a day has past), you can delete it? Language Lover 21:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to nominate such a self-created errant entry for deletion, a simple {{db}} will do. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subjunctive has about 5000 b.g.c. hits, but subjunctve has only two misscans. If you create a word by mistake, just use the {{delete}} template, with a note that you created it in error, and it will soon be deleted. --Enginear 19:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Creative. A lot of times people just blank the page.~~ Deleted. DAVilla 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, why would User:Werdna put this up?? DAVilla 12:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because TheDaveBot made this error a number of times in the preceding days (~Oct 12-13, 2006). Robert Ullmann 23:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonbe edit

Not notable or verifiable per Google.--Jusjih 15:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other edit

Netscape Navigator et others edit

Netscape Navigator edit

Open NAND Flash Interface edit

Rumble Pak edit

JavaBean edit

I still can't see how anyone can seriously think that JavaBean could be deleted. When I write JavaBeans, I am not writing them for Sun corporation. --Connel MacKenzie 07:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TekNap edit

Netscape Navigator, Open NAND Flash Interface, Rumble Pak, JavaBean, TekNap. All these "definitions" belong in Wikipedia. --Sum42 19:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Netscape Navigator, Open NAND Flash Interface, and TekNap, keep Rumble Pak and JavaBean. I think we need a better black letter policy for dealing with trademarks/brand names. I think that many of the most widespread do belong in Wiktionary if they can be used as a shorthand to describe characteristics of the product, the company, or the end user (e.g. Cadillac is used to mean high class, Enron to describe a corrupt operation, and Evian to portray its consumer as snooty). bd2412 T 20:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with bd2412 on keeping Rumble Pak and possibly JavaBean, deleting those that could not be understood out of context, except move Netscape Navigator to Navigator. DAVilla 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with bd2412 and recommend keeping Open NAND Flash Interface. It is not a brand name, but an interface standard. There are many other trademarked standards in Wiktionary like Firewire, Small Computer Systems Interface, SATA, and Universal Serial Bus. For brand names: iMac, eMac, iPhone, and Xerox to name a few. Noroade 06:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we supposed to keep referents of things that are used attributively? "Open your navigator, and go to ..." (Such a comment seems less common now, now with Firefox' prevalence, but I'm pretty sure I've said that here or there.) JavaBean is also used attributively, I think. Please note that on WT:RFD, WT:RFV, WT:RFC etc., that is is very important to nominate entries separately! They each have non-obvious different concerns. --Connel MacKenzie 17:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has never been resolved. I'd think the referent in the etymology could just as easily point to Wikipedia, just as language names do and in some cases the person who coined a word. DAVilla 20:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted TekNap. DAVilla 07:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Netscape Navigator (redirect to Navigator) and Open NAND Flash Interface. Kept others. -- Visviva 05:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]