Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2006/06

< Wiktionary:Requests for deletion‎ | Archives
Warning This is a discussion archive created in June 2006, though the comments contained may not have been posted on this date. Please do not post any new comments on this page. See current discussion, or the archives index.

Kept edit

dyipping edit

Language not listed on w:List of ISO 639 codes? --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darkinjung seems to be an extinct Australian aboriginal language. Do we accept those? SemperBlotto 21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't we? Kappa 23:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, it wasn't even a written language then? Hmmm, let me check my authoritative Oxford Darkinjung Dictionary... --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it was written. How would even know what its words were otherwise? --Ptcamn 23:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation (on IRC.) I'll remove the rfd tag...but I'm sure the language issue will resurface again. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

whorebagger edit

Speaks for itself. bd2412 T 04:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think if I was here more often I'd start compiling statisitics on who is the most autocratic person around here. Connel is doing well. This word has 283 Google Hits. At the very least it should be listed as a protologism, not instantly deleted by one autocrat, using a sledgehammer of a procedure to lock the word out!--Richardb 08:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong; he's just among the most active. What a brilliant spate of personal attacks! — Vildricianus 10:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is better, open and honest abuse, or Connel stalking nmy contributions/undeletes, and taking the sledgehammer to so many? I am open and honest and above board, if somewhat abusive through shear frustration. Connel isn't abusive in speech, just in action!--Richardb 07:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Richardb, I know you have the ability to see the entry that was deleted. If it were used as a nonce word, that would not be the meaning. This was obvious vandalism that someone else nominated. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out also that the definition before deletion was something along the lines of the person who bags the body parts after you dismember a whore... ergo, deletion+protection=good call. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I no-longer have the ability to see the entry that was deleted, because of the "sledgehammer" process I referred to before. You moved it somewhere else, and then deleted it, thus making it untraceable. Not an approved process at all.--Richardb 07:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(See below for a note about the availability of the text that was deleted. —scs 20:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Again, Connel conveniently missed out the second meaning/definition that was in the entry, which was quite a reasonably thoughtful entry. (I can't quote it now becuase Connel has hidden and deleted the entry. --Richardb 07:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is also some sort of unwritten code of etiquette that if Administrators start having a war over a word, then the default position is to leave it in!--Richardb 07:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a bad enough code to get rid of it. — Vildricianus 09:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for being autocratic, I am completely in agreement with the action which was taken, as are Vild and BD apparently, and seeing as that represents 4 out of the 5 people who have made any sort of indication of their opinion on the matter, seems very democratic to me. I would appreciate if you would stop crying havok every time someone made a decision that you do not agree with, if we waited for the entire community to vote on every word that comes up for deletion then exi***nt would still be here, as would about 2,000 *on wheels pages. Yelling at people for being "autocratic" when they have the exact same abilities and influence as you do is a bit silly, and it is getting old from my perspective. Instead of threatening to compile some ominous statistics about Connel (and probably my, and I have a feeling SemperBlotto would do well on your stats) various abuses of power, come and tell us how you would have handled something, or would like it to be handled in the future. Most of the opinions you have been issuing recently have been confrontational at best, and rarely have offered up an alternative solution. - TheDaveRoss 21:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better than nominating a word on RFD, then deleting it in less than 2 days, then completely deleting and hiding it when another administraor disagrees, all within 3 days. As to not offering solutions, I did. I suggested the Protologism process was more appropraite than instant and then unreversible deletion, overriding another administrator.--Richardb 07:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Richardb 07:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same abilities in theory, but I do NOT have the ability to be so brazenly arrogant as to hide and delete entries by completely unethical processes. I bring my complaints here for debate, or try formaulting policies for all to discuss, not take unilateral action to destroy other people's work, and then lie about the circumstsances. I did try off-line email discussions to try to convince Connel to stick to the great deal of good work he does sometimes, instead of becoming some sort of witch-finder general vowing to delete all entries that offend his personal taste. It has to be better to err on the side of leaving questionable entries in for a bit longer, not deliberately seeking out new words for personal approval/disapproval, and then deleting them, no matter if they have some support from others.
Another favourite ploy of Connel's. Mis-quote. I quoted the number of google hits, not the number of google book hits. It deserves at least treatment as a protologism.
  • My personal favorit citation: FUCK COCKMONKEY TREEHUGGER SLURAWCUNT WHOREBAGGER TRICKDADDYWANNABE AINTYOMOMMABLOW ME ASSHOLE . YOU JUST COULDNT LET IT FUCKING END. (also, the 283 is deceiving, all but 16 are "similar" [aka, mirrors of Urbandict etc.] and definately don't count. Most of the rest are amidst gibberish and usernames)- TheDaveRoss 03:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bit more thoughtful response. But, why not put it into Protologism list, as I suggested ? At a glance I thought it had a few sensible uses, and a sensible second definition, so I thought it was worth a longer look, not instant dismissal. I might even be wrong, but Connel has denied us the ability to even check what the entry did say. --Richardb 07:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? I can't take away your sysop flag. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, how about being reasonable?

  1. Why don't you follow the links in the undeletion view? Don't tell me you've not already found the entry.
  2. Whe don't rely on plain Google hits here; Google books is the stuff we're looking at.
  3. You just don't seem to understand that made-up neologisms don't fit here. How often are we going to have to repeat that? It's one of the most basic principles around here and if you'd like to discuss that, go ahead and do so (not here, in the BP). But this here word is made-up, nonsense, and nowhere near widespread. 283 poor Google hits is an argument not to include it.
  4. Go ahead and put it in WT:LOP. What are you waiting for, you do have an edit button, don't you? — Vildricianus 09:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Richard, perhaps I don't understand. Are you having difficulty seeing http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Wiktionary:Deleted_nonsense or http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Wiktionary%3ADeleted_nonsense&timestamp=20060613051724 ? --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations edit

These two are apparently not independent:

    • 1998 September 28, Daniel Rush, "DoD Bans Sexually Explicit Pubs, Video", alt.military, Usenet
      Here we are, defending a whore bagger and adultering jerk, as well as the freedoms of the couch potato fools back home and these DC jerks can tell me that I can't have this magazine or that magazine.
    • 1999 March 30, dan rush, "Ground troops = WORLD WAR III", alt.president.clinton, Usenet
      Grab your socks people, the big fuck is coming thanks to that Arkasas whore-bagger!

This is as close to using the term as exists. Otherwise just unenlightening namecalling, plus forums, user pages, and of course urban dictionary. I couldn't find anything else. ∂ανίΠα 19:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who's curious about the deleted text, it's the two-parter by "KingOzymandias" at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Whorebagger. (I don't know which came first, that entry or the one here that got deleted). Note that there's not super-good agreement of the definitions in question with the others listed there, or with the sporadic other hits which google turns up. —scs 20:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at those two citations, they certainly wouldn't support the definition that had been given. Rather, those two citations seem to indicate a pejorative comment meaning "someone who can only (or whose pasttime is to) get laid by a whore." But even that doesn't seem to pass CFI (as above.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mathematics edit

Definition #2 # The ability to do mathematics. #:My mathematics isn't very good. This can be done with any field of study. One could just as easily say, My physics isn't very good etc. Because this applies equally to any field of study, it should be removed. Fark 20:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, delete. Widsith 22:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what this page is for. This should go at WT:RFV. — Vildricianus 23:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shouldn't, because I'm not disputing the existence of this definition. I'm saying that it applies equally to any field of study, and so shouldn't be mentioned. —This unsigned comment was added by Fark (talk • contribs) 02:00, 15 June 2006.
No dude, your asking mathematics to be deleted. Keep. Also, anonymous comments may at all times be removed, so sign them. — Vildricianus 11:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is, unsigned comments, in case that was ambiguous.
This keep vote (now unbolded) is clearly for the page rather than the sense. 59.112.50.163 15:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say that? Rebolded. — Vildricianus 16:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only asking definition 2 to be deleted, not the whole page. Read what I've written above. Definition 2 goes equally well with any field of study, so needs no mention. Do you agree or disagree with removing it? Fark 11:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed with {{rfd-sense}}. 59.112.50.163 15:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent troll! Bravo. Keep. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons? 59.112.50.163 15:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem? The RFD is for the 2nd definition only. It's ludicrous. We couly equally add the same sort of thing to cycling, reading etc etc. Widsith 12:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen an RFD for definitions. Even better than RFV is the Tea room, for this is an issue that could affect more entries and is purely linguistical. As if it could be sorted out by voting! I'd like to see opinions and arguments, not votes. — Vildricianus 16:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a distinct sense recognised by other dictionaries. Yes, it can be applied to any field of study, but that's irrelevant (the thin-edge-of-the-wedge argument is not a valid reason for not including something). — Paul G 08:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The edge-of-the-wedge is invalid... except for most figurative senses, substantivation of adjectives, most gerunds, and less notable constructed adjectives from participles. Her knitting, your typing, their canoeing lead to everyone's best guessing. Davilla 07:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, which dictionaries recognise this as a separate sense? The OED certainly doesn't, nor does Webster's, nor does Merriam-Webster, nor does Encarta, nor does American Heritage, nor does Dictionary.com. I can't believe any authority could possibly call this a distinct sense. Widsith 21:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted disputed sense. Andrew massyn 09:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here goes: "I did mathematics at university" - here "mathematics" is clearly a field of study. However that is not the sense in "My mathematics is not very good" - it means what the definition said: the ability to do mathematics. No, it's not on the OED, but that's not a reason to exclude it. The meaning is distinct, and so would some translations be. Furthermore, "numeracy" is a possible synonym, but not for the main sense of the word. This is further evidence, to my mind, that this sense is distinct from the main one.
Ha ha, I notice that the sense was deleted, but not the translations :) Having this as a separate sense is harmless. Omitting it is an oversight. Restoring. — Paul G 07:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xerox, Walkman edit

I had preserved both when running through generic trademarks, and although there is support for the generics, both in the community and as reflected in the rules, I'm not so sure that the company names meet CFI. On the other hand we have Microsoft from which Micro$oft is derived. What is or should be our policy concerning company names? Davilla 19:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. They are in general use. In the generic sense they are not copyrighted Andrew massyn.
The nomination is specifically for the company names, not the generic senses in lower-case. 59.112.38.215 13:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should we be checking the more obscure occasional trademark question at http://uspto.gov/ or http://www.wipo.int/ or both? --Connel MacKenzie 20:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that aspirin and escalator began as trademarked terms... bd2412 T 16:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said elsewhere, the trademarked referents are normally kept, anyway. Keep. --Connel MacKenzie 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lolicon edit

Need actual usages for all three meanings. Eclecticology 08:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Erotic art depicting female children, generally between the ages of 8 and 13.
  1. Producers of the lolicon and bishoujo material often argue that the Japanese constitution guarantees their freedom of expression in this matter and that laws restricting these materials would be unconstitutional. - Megatokyo
  2. Lolicon is a part of hentai anime with pictures of young girls ranging from ages 3-16. - fan listing
  3. "loli-con for 'Lolita complex' comics, a genre of porn comics for men featuring young girls." - "Office Sluts and Rebel Flowers: The Pleasures of Japanese Pornographic Comics for Women" by Deborah Shamoon in porn studies (2004) →ISBN p. 101 n.8 - Linda Williams, editor
2. A pedophile fixated on young girls.
  1. "There has been significant public outcry in Japan following the kidnapping and murder of an elementary school girl in Nara, Japan and the arrest of a suspected lolicon for the crimes. - Megatokyo
3. The sexual attraction to young girls.
  1. Lolicon, or Rorikon (ロリコン) is the Japanese gairaigo term (usually short form) for Lolita complex (derived from the novel Lolita), the sexual attraction to fictional and real underage girls, or ephebophilia. (Strictly speaking, Roriita-konpurekkusu in Japanese means only psychological tendency of an adult man or older boy; rorikon, however, additionally implies persons who have such psychological tendency. This difference is important.) - Hentai:Lolicon:Definition
Fan listing site does not work; Megatokyo is a members only site; Hentai site is a general Lycos-Tripod main page. None of this verifies anything. While I'm confident that there may evidence for the first meaning, I am far from convinced about the other two. Eclecticology 07:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fan listing sites are now excluded? Let's not count usenet either then. Hell, let's only take printed sources, the internet is dubious. Print sources should only be taken if there is evidence that the document has been edited by three experts holding masters or doctorates. That way we can be _really_ sure we define words how they are actually being used. Who sets these standards? Why are the arbitrarily applied? Why haven't you responded about A.? - TheDaveRoss 01:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EC, go stick your head up a dead bear's bum with this stupid rejection of perfectly valid (though bad taste) entries. I'm removing the rfv. --Richardb 09:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what happened to "no personal attacks?" Add valid print citations instead, if you feel passionate about it. Perhaps if you'd been around when it was nominated, you'd have seen there were more problems with this entry than meets the eye, now. Please also note that the ridiculous assertion made by adding this entry, is that it is a English term in widespread use (which this rfv process demonstrated, is false.) Sites that do not represent a published source at all, are not "durably archived" as per CFI. --Connel MacKenzie T C 14:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
consensus is to keep. Andrew massyn
No. Two people thinking it might be a valid entry is not consensus. The entry never found print citations, and the "RFV" tag was vandalously removed with an excuse that Wikipedia had an entry. As it turns out, the Wikipedia article seems to be a product of User:Primetime/w:User:Primetime (w:User talk:Primetime#I'm not very happy with your edit to Lolicon, the (now) well-known vandal/suckpuppeteer/copyvio promulgator. --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is as ubiquitous on the internet as it is absent off of it. If LOL is to remain, lolicon should also. - TheDaveRoss 06:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like you are aruging that it has not entered general usage. Obviously, it is not as ubiquitous as LOL, or it wouldn't have been nominated. There are still no durably archived citations for this - I still think it does not meet CFI. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Huge no. of hits online. Andrew massyn 20:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As no agreement yet reached moving to rfd. Please post further comments there. Andrew massyn 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to reach consensus here. Please consider your responses. Thanks Andrew massyn 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Huge no. of hits online. Andrew massyn 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The clear lack of anyone willing to dig up a citation of any durably archived sort is a pretty good indication that this isn't a word. It probably won't exist in a couple years - no reason for us to be the sole promoter of the term. PLEASE NOTE: at least half the "citations" on the sub-page are already gone. The other two won't load on my browser at the moment... --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have a look for citations myself, but I'd be worried about what sites I'd end up finding, and I doubt that my argument would go down well in court (Yeah, Mr. Judge, I was looking for references for the word "lolicon" when I stumbled across this child porn site. And I needed 3 seperate references, which is why I went into 3 seperate child porn sites)! Sorry, this is not a helpful comment. --Dangherous 15:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Few books.google hits. 2 to be precise. Perhaps a term too new for inclusion here, but then, we've had similar cases that are still around, IIRC. — Vildricianus 15:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the term isn't new, it has been around for 8 years at least, seeing as it has been on 4chan at least that long as a major category of posts (meaning sense 1) Also it has been included in at least 1 scholarly work. This term suffers from the fact that it's predominant usage is "verbal" (which can now be said to include instant messages, message boards, other forms of direct personal communication) so there isn't as much documentation of it's usage as we normally like. The fact remains that it is used VERY widely in sense 1, and less widely but still used in senses 2 and 3. If senses 2 and 3 are to go, so be it, but losing sense 1 would be unfortunate. - TheDaveRoss 16:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting perspective. To what extent do we include predominantly verbal terms? Anyway, that's where some of the idea behind any descriptivistic dictionary clashes a bit with its possibilities... spoken language versus written language. Has this ever been discussed before? — Vildricianus 18:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Also cleared the citations page (a couple of good references kept, but mostly forums or broken links) and added a fourth meaning I'd seen. ∂ανίΠα 22:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. Also, wow. According to the history, Dav has been working on this entry for the last five and a half hours! Nice job. Widsith 22:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is keep. Has been cited. Have moved this discussion to the talk page and removed rfd. Andrew massyn 11:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something is very wrong. These are all internet references, but many do not have links anymore. Most of them are blogs, specifically prohibited in WT:CFI as not being durably archived (and indeed; most are "404"s now.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nuff edit

Should this be 'nuff and 'nuff said? SemperBlotto 10:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes --Enginear 13:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved from rfv. Please post further comments here. if no furhter comments it will be deleted in a fortnight. Andrew massyn 11:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At most, should be moved, as per conversation above. Davilla 07:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is harmless, adds some minimal value. Deleting it adds no value, actually removes value. (

If you feel the urge to delete other peoples entries all the time, why don't you get a job as a graffiti removalist somewhere, instead of rampaging through other people's embryonic contributions in Wiktionary!)--Richardb 09:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to 'nuff. Andrew massyn 09:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

βασιλευς edit

Page is just an infinitely recursive redirect. Sceptre 21:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. It redirects to a spelling with an accent over one of the letters. SemperBlotto 21:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't redirect when I first visited the page. My bad. Sceptre 21:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mebyon Kernow edit

Mebyon Kernow is a political party. Do we allow political parties in English Wiktionary? --Brandnewuser 18:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We allow definition, but not encyclopedic entries. SemperBlotto 18:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entry has been cleaned up, therefore struck here. --Connel MacKenzie 18:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cataphile edit

Wonderfoolism for urban spelunking? --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Books, the book Subterranean Cities: The World Beneath Paris and London (2005) by David L Pike uses the term. I can't access the book itself due to copyright, but I think it's sufficient to show that it's a real word. --Ptcamn 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have added cites, etc --Enginear 00:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verified. Struck. bd2412 T 06:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

satguru edit

This and other pages by the same contributor purport to be Hindi, but they are in the wrong alphabet.—Stephen 19:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From rfv. Please post further comments here. If not verified, the article will be deleted in two weeks. Andrew massyn 04:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just a Hindi word. It is used quite readily in English to describe God (in Sikhism). 82.37.160.147 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is used in English. Appropriate Hindi word should be created in Devanagari script. --Dijan 13:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfvfailed. Deleted. Andrew massyn 15:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would you come to that conclusion? There is w:satguru with plenty of references. At the minimum if you restore what was there I'll create the appropriate devanagari entry. - Taxman 21:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've restored the word. I must have been having a bad day when it was deleted. Appologies and Best wishes Andrew massyn 18:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X circles around and X one's Y off edit

Moved to WT:TR#X one's Y off and the like — Vildricianus 11:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

coldspot edit

I do not believe that this is a real word - Παρατηρητής

From rfv please post further comments here. If no verification the artcle will be deleted in two weeks.Andrew massyn 11:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, even in the ref given, it's two words. As cold spot it's either a protologism or a "real" word, as a less-common antonym to most meanings of hot spot, including some we don't yet have, and also refers to an area associated with paranormal phenomena, and to an area of a building, etc, where insulation or air-tightness is compromised. But as one word, the only hits it seems to get are websites, bands, etc of that name. Maybe easier to delete this and start a cold spot entry from scratch when someone has time. Enginear 14:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had investigated this a while back and not found any independent support for the definition given, although a future submission could fall under Enginear's generalization. Davilla 16:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it certainly must have cellphone-context usage. Doesn't it? Still needs a lot of cleanup, too. --Connel MacKenzie 17:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, how did this fail RFV? Books 1 - 10 with 213 pages on coldspot. (0.00 seconds) --Connel MacKenzie 17:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lots of print refs, but NONE I could find for the electronic usage. Four uses to do with low temperature, and ALL the rest are capitalised tradenames, etc. Hotspot has >12k books entries, many of them with the electronic meaning, so coldspot will probably be citable in a year or two, but as of now, it is not. Perhaps put in LOP to await resurection? --Enginear 15:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The RFVfail I was talking about, had found no valid use of the term at all. So I think this should be moved to "cleanup" instead of delete or verify. The cell-phone use can be readded when print citations support it. --Connel MacKenzie 18:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced the content with the only verifiable meaning I can find (variant of cold spot). Any new verifiable meaning can be added thereafter. —[admin] Pathoschild 07:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

wikiproject edit

Isn't this just Wiktionary and Wikipedia jargon? It seems harmless enough, and, as Connel created it, the inclusionwill probably be vehemently defended. But maybe not. --Brandnewuser 00:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose you're right, it is basically a protologism. Widsith 08:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps a neologism, but not a protologism; it isn't a term created for the term's sake (proto) it is a term created to represent a concept. Whatever it was that linked there, no longer does, so I honestly don't know why I had created it (other than the obvious reasons.) Since it is properly labeled as {{wjargon}} and the nomination here came from a sockpuppet, I doubt this entry needs vehement defending. My casual keep should do just fine. --Connel MacKenzie 16:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —[admin] Pathoschild 06:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

advaita edit

Claims to be Hindi, but it’s the wrong alphabet. —Stephen 19:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From rfv. Please post further comments here. If not verified, it will be deleted in two weeks. Andrew massyn 19:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned this up, added a reference and the devanagari, moving it to the proper title अद्बैत. So keep now. - Taxman 00:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. bd2412 T 05:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —[admin] Pathoschild 06:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

abetare edit

Supposed to be Albanian for book (I think - format is horrendous), but looks like a verb to me. SemperBlotto 07:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it just means ABC's, and by extension, alphabet. There is a book called Abetare, which is the Albanian equivalent of our Dick and Jane. I suppose it would be cognate with Italian abbecedario. —Stephen 10:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From rfv. Please post further comments here. Andrew massyn 06:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It’s Albanian for primer. —Stephen 13:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per —Stephen. bd2412 T 06:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —[admin] Pathoschild 06:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian derivations edit

There is no such a language as "Serbo-Croatian", and therefore wherever it appears in Wiktionary it should be deleted. These are two different languages, each with its own history and development. Thanks Tamara

Sorry, but Serbo-Croatian is a language, although no longer called that. Since certain words derived from that language during the period when it was called Serbo-Croatian, then Serbo-Croatian should be used rather than listing each language separately (not knowing exactly from which 'partition' the word came). --Dijan 13:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —[admin] Pathoschild 06:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

first grade edit

Sum of its parts. Gorrut 16:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sum-of-parts alone is not a valid reason for nomination. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know if it means the same thing to the Brits. They have a lot of unusual terms using the word form. In any case, it’s difficult to guess the equivalent of first grade in any given language. The American first grade is still in kindergarten in Russia (детский сад), and Russians begin grade school only at age 7. The Russian first grade is our second grade. In lower grades, Russian use класс, or class. At university, the word is курс, or course. It’s actually a complex cultural term. —Stephen 16:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I notice form lacks the British educational sense, as well as a slew of others (e.g., as in 'top form').
Keep per Stephen. bd2412 T 06:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —[admin] Pathoschild 06:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

tennis player edit

It just seems a bit wrong to include tennis player in Wiktionary, and I know we don't use the "sum of the parts" rule, but this term mightn't be valid. --Dangherous 13:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's useful for a non-native speaker to know that the term is "tennis player" and not "tennisser" or something; likewise for other languages. For instance, Spanish seems to have "tenista" but "jugador de bádminton". Kappa 00:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a non-native speaker doesn't know what the term is, then how will they look it up? Rather they'll look under their own term (e.g. tenista) and see that the English translation is two words. It doesn't need its own entry. Widsith 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That implies we would this entry in all languages but English. And how is an English native speaker supposed to find tenista? Kappa 02:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's no problem linking to a two-word term whose words are wikified separately. But, I take your point about having somewhere for an English-speaker to look it up. Widsith 09:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have tennis court and tennis racket, and should also have tennis ball, and tennis match. bd2412 T 06:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - similar to piano player vs. pianist. --Ed Poor 21:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —[admin] Pathoschild 06:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

doggie door, cat flap and pet door edit

Sums of their parts. Gorrut 16:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sum-of-parts alone is not a valid reason for nomination. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —[admin] Pathoschild 06:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

40 edit

Do we really want entries for numerals? Gorrut 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sum-of-parts alone is not a valid reason for nomination. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is supposed to be a redirect. Fixed. —Stephen 16:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the redirect. Doesn't Wiktionary general delete redirects? If so, this should be deleted, not redirected. Gorrut 16:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, we do not delete redirects. —Stephen 17:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It redirects to forty where all the translations of 40 are to be found. Spanish users can immediately find the English number by typing 40. In the Spanish Wiktionary, I would expect 40 to resolve to cuarenta. Other numbers, such as Template:ARchar, may benefit from having their own pages. —Stephen 18:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the previous consensus was to keep numbers up to a hundred at least. I have major objections to redirecting though. In some contexts the symbol "40" is read as cuarenta or quarante etc. rather than forty.
As this is the English wiktionary, it should redirect to the English word for 40. Fark 16:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. If we formulate a relevant guideline in the future, this and other such pages can be adjusted to conform. —[admin] Pathoschild 06:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

æ-tensing edit

Encyclopedic. Gorrut 16:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic, of dictionary importance. STRONG KEEP. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Encyclopedic" means that the definition is of encyclopedic expansiveness, complication, or selectness. It doesn't describe whether the topic itself could or should end up in an encyclopedia or not. We try to give brief definitions for whatever is suitable for us, including obscure technical terms, scientific topics and Texan place names. Keep. — Vildricianus 17:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —[admin] Pathoschild 06:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

go to work edit

Sum of its parts. Gorrut 16:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sum-of-parts alone is not a valid reason for nomination. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has two distinct meanings, set to work and leave for work, and both senses are difficult to predict in any given language. —Stephen 18:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, doesn't it have a wholly idiomatic sense of to beat someone (e.g went to work). bd2412 T 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that’s slightly different ... that usage is a phrasal verb "to go to work on." The preposition is key. It doesn’t mean anything so narrow as "to beat," but it means to get serious with, to get busy with. You can also go to work on a bowl of ice cream or go to work on a prospective client. —Stephen 19:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but that's an idiomatic sense to the extent that it may not necessarily involve "work" in the sense of a job or even labor. bd2412 T 03:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —[admin] Pathoschild 21:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

fi edit

Jamaican Patois section - dialect, not a language. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between dialect and language is artificial, and linguistically not a scientific one. We allow dialects of Chinese for instance. Keep and ensure that the heading is correct. See w:Jamaican Creole. Davilla 07:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what happened here. The entry seems quite a bit longer, but the non-standard heading I was complaining about originally is still there. Move to RFC to remove that section, or at least rename the language heading to list it properly? --Connel MacKenzie 17:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WT:CFI#Languages to include was what I was referring to, by the way. There is no ISO 639 code for this, therefore we should not have it, right? --Connel MacKenzie 18:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, no consensus to delete. Feel free to tag it for cleanup, or start a discussion on whether to include such dialects in the Beer parlour. —[admin] Pathoschild 21:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted edit

duovigintillionth edit

This whole series of made up numbers names... --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete them all. While the number does have a potential application (it is a little leass than the estimated number of electrons in the universe) I can't imagine anyone but a mathemetician or physicist wanting to discuss such large numbers, and I can't imagine a them using such long words when they can define them in figures, with no possible ambiguity or misunderstanding, in many fewer keypresses. Even the googleplex, a short name for a very big no (10<snip>lots of zeros</snip>) invented in 1926, only appears in real use in that sense in Only 2 authors of online-accessible English language books on books.google are as red-faced as me over misspelling (see below).--Enginear 23:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Why would any mathematician talk of a duovigintillion, when they could merely write 1069 and thereby save any ambiguity re whether a billion is 1000 million or a million million, etc? --Enginear 23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Googleplex is located in Santa Clara County, CA. The number is a googolplex. Davilla 05:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we also keep seven hundred and fifty which I've nominated below. Roofing54 00:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been pondering all of these large numbers and the various discussions relating thereto. If we keep them, they should be put at an appendix somewhere with the shortend form as the definition. ie 1025. The divisions e.g.duovigintillionth are a waste of time and space. Further, I am not volunteering to move them all. if it agreed that an appendix is the way to go, then the creator should be given a limited period to set it up and to move these abomonations words to the appendix. Please comment soon as I will be getting to all of those numbers on the rfv page shortly. My feeling is neutral leaning to delete. Thanks. Andrew massyn 12:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry Roofing54, but could you please qualify why you think these should be kept? These are not attested in any way, whilst 750 certainly is. Someone decided to make up names that no one could ever conceivably use and entered them here. That is quite different from actual numbers in common use with possibly tricky translations. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of the large number names up to vigintillion, and the names centillion, googol, and googolplex, come from numerous encyclopedias and dictionaries.

All of the large number names from unvigintillion up to novemnonagintillion were coined (created) by John Knoderer (webmaster (at) mazes.com).

Moved to WT:LOP & deleted. Andrew massyn 08:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)}}[reply]

item of furniture edit

With an awful sense of foreboding, I wish to nominate this pointless entry. The definition tells us nothing more than the page title. Widsith 19:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forbode not - please do delete. bd2412 T 22:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although oddly enough I would think piece of furniture to be idiomatic. ∂ανίΠα 23:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, move the definition proffered for the "item" to the "piece". But still delete the item. bd2412 T 23:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. - TheDaveRoss 00:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete, but same decision should be taken with item of clothing. item of data may be OK, I'm not sure. SemperBlotto 07:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The synonyms furniture piece and clothing piece would also be okay, right? 59.112.50.163 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In AmE, it would be piece of furniture and article of clothing. —Stephen 16:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... except have a look at the google hits. Even clothing article gets a few like "If I send you a shirt or other clothing article, can you dye it?" Davilla 07:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the redirect from item of... to piece of... — Vildricianus 11:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vesparazzi edit

Moved from RfD. Davilla 15:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I meant RFV, but this'll do. Zero google books hits. Can we cite it? Widsith 13:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved back to rfd. The cites on the page are not linked to the word. Andrew massyn 18:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page you have requested does not exist. Not exactly a durably-archived citation. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Someone can add an Italian entry in due course. Andrew massyn 21:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

collopt edit

Stepped on by a hoof. Any takers? Needs some cleanup. SemperBlotto 10:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find this anywhere...delete. Widsith 11:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another silly joke? - Παρατηρητής

From rfv. Please post further comments here. If no verification in two weeks the article will be deleted. Andrew massyn 18:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rfvfailed.Andrew massyn 21:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numquameripides edit

No content. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Eripides sounds like Euripides (but he was Greek). num can mean just "if" or even "surely not". quam can mean "how" or "how much". But I can't really get it to make any sense (though it is for real) - we need a proper Latin scholar. SemperBlotto 21:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was a character in a Latin comedy by Plautus. The word numquam (or nunquam) means never. I think Numquameripides is supposed to mean something like "Never-give-backer". I’m sure there must be a better term for someone who doesn’t like to return things, but I can’t think of it at the moment. —Stephen 21:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word appears to be of doubtful reading. Lewis & Short also give the forms Numquampostreddonides and Numquamposteaeripides [1]. The Perseus text of Persa uses "Numquameripides" tho [2]. —Muke Tever 22:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, is this a delete then? It never got cleaned up. --Connel MacKenzie 18:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Months passed without correction - item deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 16:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

chillaxin edit

Previously deleted. Previously re-deleted. Still nonsense resubmitted without citations. Print citations appearing on books.google.com: Urbandictionary (the new book from the infamous website.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC) - deleted. - TheDaveRoss 03:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted - This is a spelling variant entry. It is pretty pointless to make spelling variants have to have all the complexity of a full entry, including citations. This spelling variant has over 200,000 Google hits (it's not likely to have many "print" entries). I made a note of that on the page itself to try to deter the deletionists.

But no!, personal taste rules instead ! You guys are unbelievable in your relentless trying to maintain some kind of standard language, unpolluted by current popular words. Accept it, chillaxin is far more used, in that spelling, than 90% of the words in this Wiktionary. You are completely abusing your deletion powers. It's not this word that needs protecting, it's the whole of Wiktionary that needs protection from over-enthusiatic deletionists. Actually, I'm not sure any more than I can put it down to over-enthusiasm. And I now believe Connel is stalking me, as he has been accused by others, picking on words I have previously re-instated. --Richardb 07:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redeleted. This came up as a very-poorly formatted entry from my todo lists. The point of having the spelling varients verified is to determine which ones are used. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to get your facts straight sir. I was the one being stalked by Ncik. I even generated comparative statistics that showed it, but Ec didn't want to see it. I've never stalked your entries; I have stalked known vandals. Were you entering any Ancient Greek or Biblical Hebrew? That's what my last couple thousand edits have focused on cleaning up.
Since you are intent on wheel warring, against community consensus, I rolled back your last deletion. Now that it is clear you wish to make it personal, I'll step away...and the other sysops here will redelete your additions probably much faster. You've not justified why you would do such a thing, particularly to entries that have previously failed the RFD process. You know you aren't supposed to resubmit deleted entries without three print citations. So, is this all just a bizarre WP:POINT? I fail to see what you are trying to prove. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's not likely to have many "print" entries. Equals: it's not likely to deserve inclusion here.
  • it's the whole of Wiktionary that needs protection from over-enthusiatic deletionists. I remember seeing you voted support for Connel in his adminship years ago. And for Dave.
  • The entry is at WT:LOP. Where it belongs. — Vildricianus 09:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. 6 pages of results on YouTube, several movies so titled. It's used in this Star Trek parody. Attesting words takes a lot of work. "Not likely to have print entries" = harder to cite and easier to pick on. DAVilla 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Attesting real terms is not nearly so hard, but I agree that attesting invented protologisms/nonces is. This entry should not be restored. --Connel MacKenzie 17:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoomly edit

Purported Australian word for going bush-mad or something of the sort. No relevant googs. None at all on Google books. bd2412 T 01:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not believe that this is a real word - maybe a joke? - Παρατηρητής
  • Any older northern bushies out there heard this one?? - thetoorbulmassive
  • ahha! This old chestnut..it's no joke...the old folks used to wheel this one out occasionally and they're northern folks... —This unsigned comment was added by 59.167.105.165 (talk • contribs) .(diff)
  • I've heard it before, when I was young I had an uncle that used it occasionally. He would walk us across the road to the beach - When it was safe to cross he'd say 'Go Zoomly' or 'Zoomly now!' to usher us across the road without hesitation. I just thought he was weird. —This unsigned comment was added by 220.237.85.97 (talk • contribs) .(diff).

From rfv. Please post further comments here. If not cited, it will be removed in two weeks. Also note capitalisation. Andrew massyn 11:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two unsigned comments. Where does that put us? Feature request: the ability to see who made an edit, for instance by highlighting a piece of text and automatically searching for the last time it was changed. Right now the search is manual. Davilla 11:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This word did exist- i knew of it more as a warning as in the last comment- but whether it is in current use is in doubt. - flatpacker
  • Delete this hoax - the sooner, the better. bd2412 T 19:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came across this word in ilounge. I was surprised because I thought it was an archaic word and when I googled it I was directed here. I was amazed to see it and that's why I signed up and added my comment. I do not care about its future in Wiktionary either way. - flatpacker
    • Even archaic words can be expected to get relevant Google hits, or Google Books hits, or to appear in some kind of dictionary - this gets none of the above. bd2412 T 04:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about an old bush word here, and one that was only really used in isolated regions. I'm not saying it should be kept but i have heard of it.-Mrlaugherlaugher

Note: Above comment in support of this hoax added by anon User:58.105.132.46 [4] (only edit from this IP [5]), then supplemented and signed by newly created User:Mrlaugherlaugher [6] (only edit from that account [7]). bd2412 T 22:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a booksearch websearch and newssearch. Cant find anything. Deleted. Andrew massyn 12:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

retatta edit

Does he mean frittata ? SemperBlotto 21:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From rfv. Please post further comments here. If nothing positive, the article will be deleted in a fortnight. Andrew massyn 12:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - Delete Παρατηρητής
Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 17:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Jedi edit

Seems to cross the line for encyclopedic topics. Davilla 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As do most entries in Category:Star Wars (except perhaps droid). — Vildricianus 18:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the only other one I was considering nominating was Obi-Wan Kenobi. Davilla 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear your reasoning here. Obi-Wan vs. Jabba the Hutt? — Vildricianus 18:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close calls. Both are "legit" in a sense. Jabba the Hutt has been parodied in other works, and Obi-Wan would be acceptable if he can be cited like that. The question is if they're encyclopedic. Usually full names raise a sort of flag for me, whether real or fabricated. Still the first isn't clearly a name, and shortened to "Jabba" doesn't quite cut it, so what are you left with? It's kind of a slippery slope all the way down. I'd like to see how other people make the call to get a better idea of where to draw the line. Davilla 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm! Delete this one, we must, or prevail, the dark side will. bd2412 T 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Junk it! Widsith 18:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to refine our policies regarding fictional characters on WT:BP first. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Up. — Vildricianus 19:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per my arguments below. –66.222.190.52 06:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and all the others) Παρατηρητής
deleted. - TheDaveRoss 02:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wer- edit

Move to Appendix:Proto---whatever? --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved, redirect deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 18:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian/Experiment edit

An entry already exists for Persian. This appears to have been an experiment and has already served its purpose. I see no reason to keep it. Yorktown1776 14:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged two sections and identical comments. — Vildricianus 15:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re-split so that links from pages find the proper conversation. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think with the color/colour debate still fluctuating, and this method being one of the alternates proposed, it is worth keeping for a while yet. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain o me why there is an entry for Persian and Persian/Experiment? If they both contain the same information what use does Persian/Experiment serve? -Yorktown1776 12:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)  [reply]

Deleted, as it appears to have become a forgotton relic. bd2412 T 05:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Beans Are Real edit

Encyclopedic entry about non-notable phrase --Versageek 01:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miamia edit

I think this might be a misspelling of Miami? Jonathan Webley 08:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It looks like a misspeling. --Yorktown1776 20:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)  [reply]
I don't know about it in English, but ‘Miamia’ is the Latin name for ‘Miami.’ —Muke Tever 22:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Latin is a dead language, and was dead long before U.S. colonizers chose to adopt the Native American word "Miami" to identify place names. bd2412 T 16:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one that though "Mamma Mia!" when reading this? --Connel MacKenzie 16:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Silly - Delete. Παρατηρητής
Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 17:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carologic & Atlunacy edit

joke? Kipmaster 10:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sexvigintillionth edit

--Connel MacKenzie T C 03:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole series of made up numbers names... --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete them all. While the number does have a potential application (it is a little leass than the estimated number of electrons in the universe) I can't imagine anyone but a mathemetician or physicist wanting to discuss such large numbers, and I can't imagine a them using such long words when they can define them in figures, with no possible ambiguity or misunderstanding, in many fewer keypresses. Even the googleplex, a short name for a very big no (10<snip>lots of zeros</snip>) invented in 1926, only appears in real use in that sense in Only 2 authors of online-accessible English language books on books.google are as red-faced as me over misspelling (see below).--Enginear 23:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Why would any mathematician talk of a duovigintillion, when they could merely write 1069 and thereby save any ambiguity re whether a billion is 1000 million or a million million, etc? --Enginear 23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Googleplex is located in Santa Clara County, CA. The number is a googolplex. Davilla 05:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, why the embarrassment? I didn't know it till I looked it up, either. DAVilla 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we also keep seven hundred and fifty which I've nominated below. Roofing54 00:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been pondering all of these large numbers and the various discussions relating thereto. If we keep them, they should be put at an appendix somewhere with the shortend form as the definition. ie 1025. The divisions e.g.duovigintillionth are a waste of time and space. Further, I am not volunteering to move them all. if it agreed that an appendix is the way to go, then the creator should be given a limited period to set it up and to move these abomonations words to the appendix. Please comment soon as I will be getting to all of those numbers on the rfv page shortly. My feeling is neutral leaning to delete. Thanks. Andrew massyn 12:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry Roofing54, but could you please qualify why you think these should be kept? These are not attested in any way, whilst 750 certainly is. Someone decided to make up names that no one could ever conceivably use and entered them here. That is quite different from actual numbers in common use with possibly tricky translations. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From rfd. Have added discussion above as well. Please post further comments here. Andrew massyn 19:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and all the others) Παρατηρητής
Delete Same CFI for all terms, running text citations for each and every one. - TheDaveRoss 16:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the large number names up to vigintillion, and the names centillion, googol, and googolplex, come from numerous encyclopedias and dictionaries. All of the large number names from unvigintillion up to novemnonagintillion were coined (created) by John Knoderer (webmaster (at) mazes.com).

Moved to WT:LOP & deleted. Andrew massyn 18:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lip's Stick edit

Orphan redirect. (We should figure out a way of mechanically rooting these out; I suspect there are lots.) —scs 17:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. —Stephen 17:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that from at least one XML dump a while back, but it does seem we've grown some more. I'll see what auto-zapping I can do. Now that external redirects are handled properly, we probably don't need the orphan capitalization redirects either, right? --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hoipaloi edit

It's hoi polloi--Allamakee Democrat 18:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Cum Dumpster (or at least clean it up)--Allamakee Democrat 18:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And since I'm still at the bottom, coördinate. I don't think Wiktionary does New Yorker style with the diaeresis. It's co-ordinate or coordinate.
Coördinate is valid. --Ptcamn 01:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I too would argue that it is a word, it most certainly is not a word in English. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grade shark edit

Definition given:

Grade shark, to purposely drop a standard grade for no other reason but self gratification, usually done in club races which dont actually mean anything, if anything you take a win away from a deserving athlete, otherwise known as a "Monster".

Rod (A. Smith) 03:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

31337 edit

This has entered the general language? --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see five to delete, one to keep and one neutral. (My vote is still delete, as original nominator.) Language heading of entry is still unsatisfactory, and no "citations" alluded to have been added. --Connel MacKenzie 17:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete! True its old, but hardly irrelevant...atleast internet pages are selling [31337 T-Shirts]: [8] People are bound to question, and this way atleast they can ind out what it means!! —This unsigned comment was added by 125.23.50.113 (talk • contribs).
This looks like there is not consensus, even though the majority want deletion. Or am I reading this wrong? Move to RFV, or LOP then? --Connel MacKenzie 18:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —[admin] Pathoschild 04:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Farsi/Experiment edit

An entry already exists for Farsi. This appears to have been an experiment and has already served its purpose. I see no reason to keep it. Yorktown1776 14:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged two sections and identical comments. — Vildricianus 15:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re-split so that links from pages find the proper conversation. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This experiment focuses on the POV vs. NPOV aspects of the color/colour debate. Even though I don't like this approach, it does clearly demonstrates the technique suggested. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any language can appear only once in the category "languages". Therefore Persian language can only occur once in this category and other synonyms must be deleted and included in the main article Persian. --Ingmar Kuhn|Ingmar Kuhn11:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
No. Are you suggesting the word Farsi doesn't exist? --Connel MacKenzie 17:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, currently identical with no meaningful incoming links and no recent edits. —[admin] Pathoschild 05:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Extra Wikisaurus entries edit

Although these two entries exist the have correct Wikisaurus entries that meet all requirments. WikiSaurus:chav/rfv & WikiSaurus:masturbate/more --Yorktown1776 

Um, what? --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted; one was an unused and empty subpage, the other redundant with the content page. —[admin] Pathoschild 06:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Broken Redirects edit

I was just browsing through Special:Broken redirects [This page no longer exists- Xavier 1234567] and started clicking the links. It appears that a majority of these pages serve no function and are quite useless. Is there any point in keeping them and if so why? -- Yorktown1776 

The result of clicking the link is too nearly topical for me to correct. Though I don't understand why it happens either -- how can a page heading be different to the name used for calling it -- is it because it's Special:? Enginear 00:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To find the page in question go to the Special pages in the toolbox and from there click the Broken redirects to reach the right page. -Yorktown1776 12:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)  [reply]
These are all redirects to entries that got "temporarily" deleted. They'll be re-entered botwise soon, so the redirects should remain. — Vildricianus 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Whatever existed in June, the three broken redirects this month were unneeded. —[admin] Pathoschild 06:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

propatula edit

A self-confessed protlogism (sniglet). Jonathan Webley 19:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. It is miss-labeled as a sniglet. Similar cites from books.google go back to 1968! It should be moved to Words In The News wherever that page has gotten to. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This needs formatting and trimming. SemperBlotto 07:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe the vote has been closed, but: searching for "propatula" on books.google.com does not return any English results using the word as defined on the page. It does not seem to have currency outside of its creator, who is the one who added it to Wiktionary and Wikipedia [9]. It is obviously a protologism and, as such, belongs only in Appendix:List of protologisms. --ArthurDenture 03:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the vote has not been closed. And frankly, you are correct. My vote for keeping it is my POV, but it ultimately may not meet our CFI. http://books.google.com/books?q=propatula&as_brr=0&hl=en shows 31 hits, but few are English; the contents there seem mostly restricted. Interestingly enough, http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=propatula&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wi shows something I wasn't expecting. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Propatulus" in Latin means "open" or "uncovered"; hence all the scientific terms in that google search. Similarly, the English book search seems to be returning results having to do with German and Latin. None of them match the definition given in the Wikitionary page. [sorry, forgot to sign this at first.] --ArthurDenture 04:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone wants to rewrite it from scratch for the scientific (taxonomic) sense. In its current state it's badly written, and clearly a protologism. (Here: I'll sweeten the pot for guilt-free deletion by adding it to Appendix:List of protologisms... done.) —scs 16:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —[admin] Pathoschild 06:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

of steel edit

Very normal, common, unidiomatic English construction. Widsith 08:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —[admin] Pathoschild 21:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2006/06&oldid=49720642"