Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2006/07

< Wiktionary:Requests for deletion‎ | Archives
Warning This is a discussion archive created in July 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

Zuñi edit

Zuni already exists and has the Spanish there. --Allamakee Democrat 01:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, directed Zuñi to the modern Zuni. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary edit

Sorry to do this, but I don't think this should belong in Wiktionary. I was tempted to RFD Wiktionarian too, but didn't. --Expurgator t(c) 17:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then Oxford English Dictionary will also have to go. And what about all these bands? The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, ... — Vildricianus 17:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about these. Are you nominating them? Could we define clearer criteria? Davilla 17:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, yes, no. Feel free to discuss a bit :-). Dunno, later perhaps. — Vildricianus 17:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic. Delete after transferring contents to SOED, which can stay. Davilla 17:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? There is more than a little lexical difference between SOED and Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. SOED should indicate what it stands for, the majority of the content should be at the long form. Keep. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, like this? ASCII, AAFPRS Davilla 17:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes, I think so. It might be considered a little unreasonable to go through them all, but this does match the tradition of having separate entries for each spelling, inflection, etc. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If a short form meets the CFI all longer forms should automatically meet the CFI if they can be attested as used. --Patrik Stridvall 21:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course keep. In fact, we should have short entries for most good dictionaries and encyclopedias - and not just the English language ones. SemperBlotto 07:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it has nothing to do in a dictionary. Neither has the neologism Wiktionarian. Jon Harald Søby 18:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Belongs in Wikipedia. I don't see why we should have "short entries for most good dictionaries and encyclopedias". As for Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd, they should be deleted too. And in theory, the page for Wiktionary should be deleted, but I'm sure we can make an exceptio for that, seeing as its OUR GODDAMN DICTIONARY! And The Beatles should also be deleted, but again, we cn make an exception as they're, well, The Beatles! --Dangherous 18:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turns out to be a borderline one. I say delete, per HT again. —Vildricianus 15:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, as per the three previous discussion on the topic. (We need these archived better!) --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny -- in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary down below, Davilla claims that the result of previous discussions has been "delete". Who's right? (And where are those other discussions?) –Scs 22:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I only meant as per comments in previous discussion. I'll revise. Davilla 15:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've registered a first "keep" above as well. I take your second to be meant only as additional supporting comments. Davilla 18:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not listing names of books. That is for Wikipedia if they have the energy. Andrew massyn 18:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete, link SOED to w:Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. --Dangherous 09:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC). Already had my say. --Dangherous 09:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm relisting Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. I'd like to have another word about it, here on this page. Not just a word, no, I'd like to hear some good arguments for having these "short entries for most good dictionaries and encyclopedias". Why should we do so, and not, for instance, have "short entries for popular US Senators" ? Because we are a dictionary? Then we should as well include "short entries for popular wikis", because we are a wiki. PS: I don't want to hear 'delete' or 'keep', I want arguments. — Vildricianus 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Keep no consensus to delete.
  2. Keep we should list all Senators, not popular ones.
  3. Keep relevance to this subject (writing a dictionary) is unquestionable.
  4. Keep this nomination is a specious relisting.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 18:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? Specious relisting? I've been soliciting decent arguments for weeks, without having heard a single one. Check the various Beer parlour, CFI and RFD topics before calling this "specious". Of course there's no consensus to delete, like as there is no consensus to keep. Can you (in a neutral way) determine from the above whether to keep or delete? And what? Senators? Oh my. — Vildricianus 12:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a specious relisting. As even Richardb pointed out not too long ago, if there is a single objector, the entry can be kept, unless the community as a whole is getting upset by it. As this one is pretty evenly split, it is clear that there is no consensus to delete. There is no such thing as needing consensus to keep here on Wiktionary. The decrepit annihilation of something useful is not simply the opposite of permitting something harmless to exist. Do European Senators have a minor role, compared to those with the same title in the US? --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to quip that senators in English-speaking European countries ruled universities and nothing more; then I remembered that English is one of the official languages of Eire. On checking Answers.com, I found "the Senate or Seanad Eireann (60 seats - 49 elected by the universities and from candidates put forward by five vocational panels, 11 are nominated by the prime minister; members serve five-year terms)", so I suppose there are a few, but in the UK we hear of US senators much more often! --Enginear 09:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Any objections to removing the RFD tag from this (and related) entries? --Connel MacKenzie 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No objections. —Stephen 23:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. --Enginear 16:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove the tag and let it fly free. SemperBlotto 16:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all. Removing tags. --Connel MacKenzie 17:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bacon-faced edit

Only cites for it are stuff like "Francis Bacon faced Middle England ...", oh, and an 1811 slang dictionary if we accept that as a reference. --Dangherous 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Speaking of the 1811 dictionary, the definition for this term seems to be copied and pasted right out of it. The page should be deleted until it is, at least, phrased in original wording. And "Full-faced"? What does that mean anyway? o_0 –Gunslinger47 03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is in the OED, and so is "full-faced". Expanded the article. Ncik 13:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, considering Ncik's improvements. Good job. –Gunslinger47 03:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

kaiserdom edit

It's been on rfv for a couple days. It's a German word, yes, but not an English word. Unless someone wants to redo it correctly, it should be deleted.--Allamakee Democrat 01:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The OED says: "Kaiserdom=Kaisership"; and then: "Kaisership, the office of emperor, the rule of the Kaiser". Note that the German word Kaiserdom has a different meaning: In German, the three letters dom are not the English suffix -dom, but are a separate word, Dom (meaning cathedral; so Kaiserdom=the Kaiser's cathedral). Ncik 13:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, I added an English definition from the Dictionary.com Unabridged, v1.0.1. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

biblicist edit

Bad form. — This unsigned comment was added by Allamakee Democrat (talk • contribs).

Struck. bd2412 T 06:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wookiee edit

Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. The term wookiee has no meaning in common language other than referring specifically to the fictional Wikipedia:Wookiee race. It does not belong in a dictionary. –Gunslinger47 01:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just gave its definition. It's pretty common and is also used attributively (suggesting excessive body hair or a tendency to react violently). As somebody said in WT:RFV recently, real words can have imaginary referents, e.g. "aether", "tooth fairy", and "unicorn". Rod (A. Smith) 01:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the line drawn? Which terms do not belong in a dictionary? Is Wiktionary just "Wikipedia in a nutshell", taking all terms on Wikipedia and summarizing them in three sentences or less? Now, I'm just taking the position of a reasonable man, but it seems that what we're talking about is common language. If a word has not entered into common language, and has meaning only within its own context (ie, Star Wars in this case), then it should not be included in Wiktionary. –Gunslinger47 05:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that we need to draw a line somewhere. WT:CFI defines that line. In the case of "wookiee", a quick browse through http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=wookiee+-star shows that the term easily qualifies. It's quite common outside of the Star Wars movies. Rod (A. Smith) 06:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such as "I bent my wookiee"? -Ralph Wiggum
If you look through the supplied search results, you'll see that even though there's no explicit mention of "Star Wars" in the text, the vast majority of the authors are still, never-the-less, explicitly referencing the fictional race. Most of the matches appear to be from names. Either blog names or user handles. It is very difficult to find people using the word to relay meaning, such as furriness or aggressiveness. And even in these rare cases, the meaning is relayed via a comparison - similies or metaphor - not by the word's own merit.
Saying "Cut your hair, your turning into a wookiee." doesn't make the term qualify for addition any more than saying someone is "Just like George Bush" qualifies George Bush for an entry. To qualify, it needs to enter common language, such as the word bushism. –Gunslinger47 08:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand your argument, but I disagree with it. The sentence "Cut your hair, your turning into a wookiee" is an excellent example of the word "wookiee" entering the language. We don't exclude words because their referents are in fictional works. We only include or exclude them based on WT:CFI. Rod (A. Smith) 16:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm… it seems the grounds for inclusion on Wiktionary is a lot lower than I would expect it to be. So, basically any string of letters at all that bears meaning, and any string of words that mean more than the sum of its parts, should be included in Wiktionary? Making even Saiyan a viable addition? Should we make an entry for every one of the Pokémon while we're at it? :( –Gunslinger47 20:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I happen to agree with [Gunslinger47]. I don't think we can offer any non-encyclopaedic definition of the word. Widsith 08:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Existing dead-tree dictionaries do, in fact, include entries for specific individuals and fictional species. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language includes an entry for Bush, George Herbert Walker (the latest edition is from 2000; I'm sure Bush, George Walker will be in the next edition), and the Oxford English Dictionary has an entry for Dalek:
A type of robot appearing in ‘Dr. Who’, a B.B.C. Television science-fiction programme; hence used allusively. Also attrib. and Comb.
--Ptcamn 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. bd2412 T 06:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the Symbols edit

I have several items that i found on the symbols page:

%s - this link just goes back to the wiktionary main page

$1 - What makes this on any different then $2 $# or $4

'80s - It is the only one, no '70s or '60s

Also, all the numbers 1-99, can't they just be confined to one page intead of defining them by the number previous and the one after.

Thank you. — This unsigned comment was added by Xavier1234567 (talk • contribs).

%s - Names that begin with % are not accessible as far as I know. $1 - I don’t see anything wrong with having this, especially since it would be written differently in different languages ... the French would write it 1 $. '80s - I don’t see anything wrong with having this. As for the numbers from 1-99, yes, we need them on separate pages because of the translations and, in some cases, idioms. —Stephen 15:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for %s. Look here for details: Wikipedia:Talk:%s. I use Firefox quicksearches frequently. No comment on the others that you've nominated, however. –Gunslinger47 21:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, sixty-eight might qualify for removal because it is just the sum of its parts, sixty and eight. That said, numbers like sixty-nine should be kept, as they have meaning beyond that of a single number. –Gunslinger47 21:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for $1, because it is not merely a sum of money, but describes an object - a one dollar bill; for this reason, we should also have $2, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100, $500, and $1000 (even though the last two are defunct). Consider this use of $100. bd2412 T 03:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does $1 say that $ and 1 do not say separately? Unlike the idiom two cents, one dollar bill doesn't say anything more than the sum of its parts (as far as I know). This is not an encyclopedia. We're here to describe words, no that which words might refer to. –Gunslinger47 03:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't write either "do you have $" or "do you have 1" and convey the same meaning as "do you have $1" - this is even more clearly true with larger denominations - if I say, "I have a $50 - can you make change?", it does not mean that I have an unspecified collection of bills that happens to add up to $50; it means I have one fifty-dollar bill. Thus, $1 and $20 and $50 and the like have two senses each - one being that amount of money (which, granted is sum of the parts) and the other referring to the specific piece of currency. bd2412 T 13:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. You don't quite seem to get what I mean by "one dollar bill" having no more meaning than the sum of its parts. I guess "separately" should have been "together" or something to make my meaning less confusing. But, anyway, moving on: You're saying that "$1" is typing a short hand for "$1 bill" or "one dollar bill"? I've never seen this. Can it be attested? I'm doing a few searching on Google right now, and I can't find a single instance where someone refers to a $1 bill without typing "bill" afterward. –Gunslinger47 21:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On further research, I found a case where people are using it. Consider the phrase "Do you have change for a 'hundred?" As you can see, Wikipedia already notes this use of the word "hundred", as well as twenty, ten, one and whatnot. Searching the Internet for "change for a $X" does show several people using the $X to refer to the X dollar bill without being followed by "bill", though they are in the minority. At best, this is a form of lazy stenography, at worst, a common grammatical error.
Incidentally, typing "Do you have a 1/one?" and "Do you have a $/dollar?" do actually mean the same as typing "Do you have a $1?" Interesting how that worked out.–Gunslinger47 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True - I've found one writer who says "I have a $20, dated 1929" (writer also has "a $50 from 1928"), but that's about it for uses that don't have "bill" afterwards. However, I will argue (to no particular end) that one dollar bill can not be the sum of its parts as it is susceptible to multiple meanings - could refer to a charge received for something (e.g., I don't use the phone much, so I got a one dollar bill from the phone company). Or, it could refer to a bill (as in a duck's bill) that cost a dollar. But it is universally understood to refer to the littlest dead president... bd2412 T 02:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "This month, I only got a one dollar bill from my phone company." is literally accurate, if confusing. –Gunslinger47 03:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and why is it confusing? bd2412 T 04:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because one normally recieves a bill for payment from a phone company, yet a one dollar bill is usually a set phrase. (Subject/object mismatch.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right - ergo, keep. bd2412 T 16:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any of these as serious deletion nominations. The numbers issue has been discussed several times now. No we don't allow entries one through infinity but we do have entries for key numbers, as well as all that are specifically idiomatic. We do need entries for the other decades (with the preceding apostrophe) most of which are absent, now. --Connel MacKenzie 16:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kept. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

reekin o' pish edit

Kept. Discussion moved to talk:reekin o' pish. DAVilla 22:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back per recent archival standardisation. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This page had been listed on Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Below is the conversation that ensued. The consensus was to Keep. This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive.
reekin o' pish [1] is nothing special. The old "sum of its parts" criteria here. Didn't we have something like smell like shit earlier on, which got deleted? There's probably a few more in Category:Scots language that might be wanted to be eradicated too. --WildrickExpurgator t(c) 16:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe also pwarmpf [2]. --WildrickExpurgator t(c) 16:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked and its probably actually plamph, see RFD entry below!--Williamsayers79 08:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have heard both of these terms used by many of my Scottish aquaintences. They are definitely colloquial. Please could any Scottish folk out there back these up?--Williamsayers79 07:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we moved it to rfv rather than deletion for now?--Williamsayers79 12:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the issue is not whether it's used, but whether it's idiomatic enough to require its own entry. I think it's not. Widsith 13:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may kippered this one myself! It's idiomatic in the sense of when its used to say "Am reekin o' pish frae last neet" i.e. I smelly very badly (after a night on the drink!) however its not idiomatic for smelling of urine.--Williamsayers79 13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that similes and metaphors will never be idiomatic no matter how often they are used if they never deviate from their original meaning. Consider hard as a rock. Common, yes. Idiomatic? Ehh... not so much. –Gunslinger47 22:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could remove the non-idiomatic senses?--Williamsayers79 13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don't think it's idiomatic when used of a drunk either -- it's just using pish in the same sense as is recorded for piss -- (vulgar slang) Alcoholic beverage, especially of inferior quality. Surely, it is the Scotish equivalent of the English He was out on the piss last night, and he's still absolutely stinking [or stinko]. I have to admit though, I didn't realise pish was a Scots word. I had just assumed that those who used it in my presence were merely too pissed to pronounce their esses. Whoops! --Enginear 11:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for pwarmpf, I think that this a legitimate colloquial word used by Scots I speak to. Please put it into rfv first before deleting - I may have spelled it slightly wrong!--Williamsayers79 13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked and its probably actually plamph, see RFD entry below!--Williamsayers79 08:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RFV doesn't really serve any purpose. RFD is the better place. --WildrickExpurgator t(c) 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • INCREDIBLY STRONG KEEP. Our CFI does not say that something has to be idiomatic! As it is a sockpuppet nomination, it is obviously not nominated in good faith. (As an American, I didn't have the slightest clue what this phrase might mean, nor what the "fish" reference was all about, before reading the entry, BTW.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The requester of the deletion should not be a concern, Connel. As for the "I didn't have the slightest clue what this phrase might mean" comment (just in case it was a serious one and I'm missing the irony): Well no, fair enough you would not - perhaps because you would never encounter the phrase "reekin o' pish". reeking? sure u have a clue what it means. pish? U know what it means too. Plus, a handful of Will79's other entries wouldn't survived here. But let's pick on this one for now. --Anonymous editors 23:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was a serious comment; "reek" is a rare word on this American side of the pond, but "pish" is something I have never heard nor read ever before (erm, before Wiktionary, that is.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - pish is the equivalent of the standard English piss (urine), and reekin is the variant of reeking (smelly/smelling). I could change the entry to reeking o' pish if need be but I think the term is valid regardless of whether or not people have never heard of these words before - they are commonly used North of the English border and sometimes in the Northeast.--Williamsayers79 16:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove the rfd now and put a comment on the articles talk page to say it passed rfd?--Williamsayers79 10:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This term has survived RfD. DAVilla 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edit

Latin section only. Remove section after identifying copyvio source. Entire section (Latin) is bizarre and encyclopedic. --Connel MacKenzie 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent it is non-encyclopedic (ie a sentence stating that it can be used as a consonant as well as a vowel in some languages) surely it is translingual rather than just Latin. (Or is the Greek I a different character, and perhaps there are no other examples in the Roman alphabet?).
While we're at it, shouldn't I in the sense of interstate be English rather than translingual? --Enginear 11:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Latin section transferred to Wiktionary:About Latin. --EncycloPetey 05:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about moving or changing, but it's not a copyvio, I wrote that 7 Jan 06 [3] (having consulted the perseus L&S and an old 1868 dictionary I've got - not made clear I guess). The idea was to explain the different typography i vs j (both seen, both valid). -- Kevin Ryde 01:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, Latin section moved by EncycloPetey. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

plamph edit

plamph - To go the same way as pwarmpf. And for the same reasons (scrolling up 5 sections should do the trick). Me no like--Anonymous editors 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for all the same reasons. --Connel MacKenzie 23:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep it if we find three attestations, or whatever the rule was. Here : A cite of a dictionary :

[4] Usage : [5] Beobach972 05:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try again with [6]. No link exists. --Anonymous editors 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmprf, silly broken link. And I can't tell if Connel is being sarcastic or not. Nevertheless : [7] [8] [9] Beobach972 05:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider this common usage personally and judging from the refs from Beobach972 it would seem I'm not wrong! Anywho are we OK to leave this in now? And do we need to put in the references or a note in the talk page of the article to stop further rfv,s?--Williamsayers79 09:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove the rfd now and put a comment on the articles talk page to say it passed rfd?--Williamsayers79 10:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

pratique edit

Copyvio? --Connel MacKenzie 08:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, replaced with proper content. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

asdf edit

--Connel MacKenzie 19:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What he means is referred to as Greeking, and any number and combination of letters will work just as well as asdf. In fact, in the graphics and publishing industries, snippets of Latin text are normally used for Greeking. —Stephen 16:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Actually, asdf has more significance than your average bit of keyboard hammering. Like 47 is the quintessential random number, asdf can be seen as the quintessential bit of Greeking, trailed shortly by fhqwhgads in terms of notoriety. Oh, and speaking of which. Using the Wikipedia:Pokémon test, if fhqwhgads stays, asdf stays.
However, asdf itself has no intrinsic or even acquired meaning in language. It is, by definition, meaningless. Regardless of that, if the page is improved, then it should be kept. It is conceivable that someone might come here to look up its meaning, or lack thereof. –Gunslinger47 01:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've improved the article. It should be more acceptable. –Gunslinger47 02:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has NOT been reached, it’s poor form for you to claim that it has. Delete. Any number of any combination of letters and symbols may be used for the same purpose, in any language. These four letters certainly are NOT the quintessential form of qwerty or anything else. The quintessential qwerty is qwerty. All the rest is random nonsense. —Stephen 03:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would indeed be poor form of me had I claimed that there was a consensus, but I did not. You must have read my edit summary for #biblicist and become confused. Please try to keep a civil tone.
As for the second part of your reply, again you have me mistaken. I claimed that asdf was the quintessential (ie, the best, most well known example) of Greeking, or of complete, nonsensical typing. It stands above other nonsensical typing due to usage alone. Google can find about 6,800,000 instances of its deliberate usage. In light of such apparently widespread usage, it is easily conceivable that an Internet user might come to Wiktionary looking for asdf's definition. –Gunslinger47 03:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here you stated in your Edit Summary remark that "consensus has been reached." An internet user is just as likely to come looking for 09yu, ar8y, q4y-q, 4pagae7, 69y, iae8, 8sigh, ioiyzxcjkkljhpoituq, euiu, or jlkkl. —Stephen 04:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That link you pointed to shows that I was speaking under the #biblicist subcategory. By stating that there was a consensus to keep biblicist, I am not claiming that there is a consensus to keep asdf. –Gunslinger47 05:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, hold on a second. We are NOT Wikipedia. We have our very own criteria which does not match Wikipedia's at all. Notably, notability has no play whatsoever, here. --Connel MacKenzie 05:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We're NOT?!? *ahem* Yes, I realize that. My above discussion with Stephen regarding asdf's widespread usage was in direct response to his statements, and were not specifically meant as an argument to keep. My argument to keep is essentially this: The four letters arranged in a word-like manner are widespread enough that people might wish to look it up on Wiktionary, and... umm... That's pretty much it. Asdf is meaningless. Asdf refers only to asdf. The only substantial thing we can give readers is pronunciation and a soft redirect to the Wikipedia entry for further reading. Oh, and despite changing from Weak Keep to Keep, my position on the matter is still tentative. –Gunslinger47 22:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Keep. bd2412 T 04:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, no consensus. I'll start a new discussion for this class of word (meaningless but of encyclopedic relevance) in general, since the discussion centered around that issue. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

sparrow hawk edit

See sparrowhawk

Kept, merged. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

googleblock edit

First appeared January 2006. Keep/delete? — Vildricianus 19:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's quite the same as delist. It's delist with a particular intention, which would explain the lower number of results. I'd heard techy people use this word, the link is the only place I've seen it used in print.

  • Kept as no consensus with no discussion in four months. Please submit a fresh nomination if you still feel this should be deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Persil edit

Do we include brands of British laundry detergents in this free online wiki-based dictionary? I'd've thought not. --Anonymous editors 23:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major name brands such as Persil and Coca-Cola that have a significant history, certainly. Minor brands that are here today and gone tomorrow, such as "Body Shots" spray fragrance for men, not. As for Persil, it is unknown in the U.S., but we sometimes hear it mentioned in the British comedies that we see on PBS, and even read about in German literature (e.g., Pimmel). We need it explained to us. —Stephen 09:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The line needs to be drawn somewhere, unless Wiktionary is to become a database of company names as well. In my opinion the best place to draw it is where the term has become generic, meaning for instance not only the Coca-Cola brand softdrink but any softdrink in general. Normally these would appear in lower-case, like "xerox" vs. "Xerox". The reason for drawing the line here is that no company would want to admit that its product name is generic, and so this avoids the flood issue. 59.112.42.174 08:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So to continue this thread of reasoning, has Persil become generic, meaning any brand of detergent? DAVilla 21:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The slippery slope argument is not grounds for deleting a term. We are discussing "Persil", not every trade mark in existence. Where the line is drawn (and it already has been) becomes apparent the more of these terms are RFD'd. — Paul G 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as no consensus with no discussion in three months. Please submit a fresh nomination if you still feel this should be deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted edit

kestral edit

It's a kestrel. My bad. --Allamakee Democrat 08:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - deleted SemperBlotto 21:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

technotheistic edit

Originally put on RFD with following comment:

Google shows only one running source that seems valid. - TheDaveRoss 01:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—Vildricianus 21:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved back to RFD. Andrew massyn 14:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a protologism? Andrew massyn 14:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish - Delete. Παρατηρητής
deleted - TheDaveRoss 22:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fire alarm, fire alarm pull station, fire alarm control panel, fire alarm system, fire alarm horn, fire alarm strobe and pull the fire alarm edit

Sum of their parts. Gorrut 13:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as "fire alarm" seems to be accumulating one-word translations, I would say it is worth keeping as a translation article, at the least. The rest might also be worthwhile as well, if they have specific legal or technical meanings, with the possible exception of "pull the fire alarm". --Dvortygirl 15:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I agree, but actually the modern legal definitions of fire alarm control panel and fire alarm system (in UK and, I'm fairly sure, US) are somewhat different from the definitions given, since they are shorthand for fire detection and alarm .... Archaic alarm systems did of course rely on manual (or rather visual and nasal) detection followed by manual activation, so the system and control panel dealt with alarms only. However, such systems are now obsolete (or at least obsolescent) and in current usage the unchanged phrases refer to systems which include automatic detection in addition to manual activation. Pull station and pull the fire alarm are not in UK use. Are they actually used in US only as (literally) defined, or have they morphed, like fire alarm system, to now idiomatically describe more modern methods of manual activation, eg break-glass pushes? Enginear 01:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, keep fire alarm, to distinguish it from an alarm made of fire, see e.g. w:Warning beacons of Gondor. bd2412 T 18:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and block User:Gorrut for a day for POINT/silly disruption. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to tell what is going on here. Gorrut's last dozen+ nominations here have met higher than normal resistance. But, on the other hand, they were almost all nominations of entries created by sockpuppets (and most of the more questionable submissions of which have already been deleted...such as the ridiculously large numbers.) Perhaps these nominations are much more legitimate than they seemed at first. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fire alarm, delete the others. Widsith 08:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fire alarm but I make no comment for others.--Jusjih 02:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fire alarm of course, and pull the fire alarm as metaphoric and apparently regional in use. "fire alarm system", "fire alarm pull station", and "fire alarm control panel" are sum of parts unless they are or have ever been considered legal jargon. Delete the others. DAVilla 21:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No legal jargon so far as I know, or have been able to determine. bd2412 T 17:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jezzer edit

No traffic since 2005, and it's a def, not user space. It's also badly catted. I won't remove the cat but an admin can.--Allamakee Democrat 00:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if you must. The urban dictionary has an entry for birkin, which it claims that it is specifically British police slang for running off from the pumps. I heard this practice referred to as "splash and dash" before. I can find suitable reference for neither term on Google, so it would not meet the criteria for inclusion assuming it was a regular article. Which it is not, thus I say "don't bother". Strip the category and be done with it. –Gunslinger47 00:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If either "to jezzer" or "to birkin" exists in British slang, it can be moved there and cleaned up. Otherwise, Delete. —Stephen 01:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a User page, and therefore can have whatever crap it likes (more or less). Weak keep (I shall try to research the meaning sometiome) SemperBlotto 14:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The category is now stripped. There is no longer any point to deleting it, as it's a user page. –Gunslinger47 20:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bad contributor, created user page to bypass WT:LOP, where this may belong (if not the deletion log only.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Landenhof edit

Encyclopedic entry needs transwiki'd to w:Landenhof. (Isn't there a template to indicate that?) Rod (A. Smith) 04:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's spelled "Lindenhof", actually. Lindenhof is a hill between the Limmat and Sihl rivers in Switzerland. It has a little bit of history, but the term is not idiomatic in the English speaking world, so there's little point to having it in a dictionary. Further, the article in question is not about the historic site, but rather it's regarding a school for 150 kids. It is highly unlikely that this would pass Wikipedia's notoriety tests, so moving it there would be pointless. –Gunslinger47 04:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted SemperBlotto 14:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pricked edit

The word is fine but it has a page that has no definition, just search it.

Already deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yawiktionary edit

Spam, right? --Connel MacKenzie 18:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Referenced -pedia entry does not exist. Deleted SemperBlotto 14:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes spam? There are no ads on the page. I happen to be the creator. I would like to know what constitutes "Spam" ?

Yawiktionary exists, and will continue, and was inspired by my love and enjoyment of Wiktionary, and my wish to extend and change it. Information is wants to be free. Yogiudo

Several parts of your story don't add up. Specifically your claimed love for Wiktionary. Is English your native language? Why don't you create an account here? You made one over at Wikipedia:User:Yogiudo less than two months ago, I see. You also created this account after you began the Yawiktionary project. [10] Why don't you apparently know the first thing about discussion on talk pages? [11] Well, anyway. That aside...
What Blotto was referring to is Wikipedia:linkspam. While you may not have any advertisements at the moment, MacKenzie suspected that the article was created for the soul purpose of promoting the website. That may or may not be true, but at this point, it doesn't much matter. The word Yawiktionary has no literary importance. It fails the criteria for inclusion in every sense. –Gunslinger47 04:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While my RFD nomination may have been unduly harsh, the term nominated does not seem to meet en.wikt:'s CFI at this time. Pages we have here for outside projects are few and far between, and exist only because they weren't caught earlier on. If we allow the ones we "like" then we'd end up overwhelmed with a page for every website that exists. Yet none of them are likely to be considered "dictionary material" even under the best circumstances. I consider an entry "spam" if it seems to be using Wiktionary to promote a particular website. --Connel MacKenzie 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no problem. I registered the project with gnu, see if they take a bite or not. Maybe one day if the project gets legs then it might be included. I'm working away on it w/ a few others in my spare time so we'll see if it gets anywhere. By the way, I just did a ton of small anonymous edits and didnt create an account until later on. I had an account way back, but I moved to Asia for about a year and didnt do much with it so I think it was deleted, or I forgot my username etc. I dont like to use wiki formating because it is ugly in my opinion. English is my native language. I didnt know this was going to be so personal. And / or that I would have to defend myself in this kind of way. I've been programming for 6 years, so what. I'm not the best programmer in the world, no way. I never even HINTED at anything remotely like that. Now I'm on the defensive. Ok fine. I'll go away now. I wont come back. And I wont edit anything anymore to save you the trouble. Obviously I'm not welcome. I wish you all well. On a final note, the word "Wiktionary" should be removed because it "it seems to be using Wiktionary to promote a particular website."

Redirect pages from Old Prussian word migration edit

Hey guys and gals, I do hate to pester you admins so much, but could you delete these words (be careful to delete the majuscule letter Redirect pages, not the minuscule pages that have real enties) :

Tāws , Tāwas , Mātē , Gērwē , Dīmens , Līdi , Zemman , Wūla , Sunis , Rīki , Rīdā , Rettawi , Rikīs , Rettawis , Retenīks , Renti , Raps , Prālī , Plīns , Mārtjan , Madla , Damrawa , Dimstis , Dragges , Drastus , Dubnas , Dājā , Dāki , Dāngs , Dīliniks , Bilā , Dīwans , Dags , Dīlin .

They're redirects created when I migrated the Old Prussian common nouns from majuscule to minuscule. EncycloPetey and I were disacussing deleting them, but he seems to be a little busy and hasn't been on in a while, so I'll ask here. Beobach972 00:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally we do not delete redirects from caps to valid lowercase entries. Why do you want to delete them? —Stephen 15:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, in that case, keep them. I don't mind whether they're kept or deleted; I just asked because EncycloPetey said Wiktionary frowned on redirects. Beobach972 22:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We do delete a lot of redirects, but only when the spelling is different. When entries are capitalized differently the redirects are generally encouraged (since most words in English can be capitalized for numerous reasons...therefore a cut-n-paste lookup needs to find the correct entry.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per recent practice, now that a script automatically redirects users to the correct case. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

bigsmall edit

This word was invented by Toyota for a recent ad campaign, but as far as I know has not used by anyone else... Widsith 15:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted already.SemperBlotto 15:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

diseasel edit

A disease created by owning a diesel truck or 4WD (comment I drive a diseasel they rattle ,stink and blow alot of smoke Unquote — This unsigned comment was added by Gary Sturdy (talk • contribs).

pwarmpf, pwarmpfs edit

I've found out where I went wrong here! The term used by my Scottish friends was plamph.

pwarmpf ccould probably be deleted now.--Williamsayers79 08:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's put plamph up for deletion too then. --Anonymous editors 23:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

carson edit

An exaggerated, or overly safe, time estimate for completing a task. Usually used with respect to estimates from a contractor.

I Googled the word 'carson' in combination with a variety of the terms from the definition, and all I found were references to the proper noun 'Carson' - referring to an individual or location. -Versageek 04:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bo5-kang5 edit

This, and quite a few others are all double redirects, and were added by an unapproved bot. Can we just delete them?SemperBlotto 14:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. The stroke order stuff was deemed not to be helpful, when someone last started adding them. (Since there is no consistent scheme for them, IIRC.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All deleted. SemperBlotto 07:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SemperBlotto, I have discussed this with Connel MacKenzie. He'll might approve this bot in one week time. I have many problems 2 weeks ago due to this bot at the Minnan Wiktionary. Even though these are double redirects, this will help for searching purposes because SEARCHING WITH DIACRITICS IS VERY COMPLICATED! Please revert them now because I experienced difficulties with the running of this bot. A yao 07:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not up to me, to approve a 'bot. SemperBlotto (I'd think) would certainly have more say in the matter. But neither one of us amounts to "the English Wiktionary community." The discussion is lively and ongoing regarding the 'bot approval, but I don't think it will pass in the current state. We avoid redirects as entries as a general rule. But the redirects that were being entered actually conflict with other numbering methods, and include hyphens at syllable breaks. Those are both enormous barriers. I agree with the deletions of the first test. I'm sorry if that seems harsh. --Connel MacKenzie 07:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

roflcopter edit

I'm 99% certain this was deleted a few times before. There were a few separate RFD discussions about leet; the conclusion has always been that we can have terms on Wiktionary, if they have expanded from 'leet' into the English language, proper. The (insufficient) citations given for this entry imply the opposite. --Connel MacKenzie 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

o rly? Delete. Sidenote: This is not leetspeak, it's just normal foolery. :) –Gunslinger47 04:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say thee nay. 71.11.245.22 17:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, I say. 213.185.9.133 22:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish - Delete. Παρατηρητής
Note that when it is deleted, it will probably need to be redirected and protected. --Connel MacKenzie 08:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted yet again, redirected and protected. --Connel MacKenzie 02:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Language codes edit

Deleted. See discussion. 11:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Constitucionalista3 edit

Deleted. See discussion. 11:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:CJKV radical index edit

Deleted. See discussion. 11:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2006/07&oldid=49611445"