Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

Requests for verification/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.

Requests for verification/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

Requests for deletion/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.

Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction
add new reconstruction request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.

{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

This page is for entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script. For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English. For entries in other non-English languages, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English.

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”
  • Out-of-scope: terms whose existence is in doubt



See also:

Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. The most common reason for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "green leaf". It is occasionally used for undeletion requests (requests to restore entries that may have been wrongly deleted).

Out of scope: This page is not for requests for deletion in other namespaces such as "Category:" or "Template:", for which see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others. It is also not for words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.

Adding a request: To add a request for deletion, place the template {{rfd}} or {{rfd-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. The section title should be exactly the wikified entry title such as [[green leaf]]. The deletion of just part of a page may also be proposed here. If an entire section is being proposed for deletion, the tag {{rfd}} should be placed at the top; if only a sense is, the tag {{rfd-sense}} should be used, or the more precise {{rfd-redundant}} if it applies. In any of these cases, any editor, including non-admins, may act on the discussion.

Closing a request: A request can be closed once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because there is no consensus, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. The threshold for consensus is hinted at the ratio of 2/3 of supports to supports and opposes, but is not set in stone and other considerations than pure tallying can play a role; see the vote.

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it was deleted), or de-tagging it (if it was kept). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFD-deleted or RFD-kept, indicating what action was taken.
  • Striking out the discussion header.

(Note: In some cases, like moves or redirections, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFD-deleted” or “RFD-kept”.)

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

Tagged RFDs

July 2019 Edit

Term added by Mare-Silverus (talkcontribs), who either is, or is somehow related to, our long-term UK anon who adds lots of problematic Japanese terms.

I think this is SOP, as simply (kusari, chain) + 具足 (gusoku, armor), but I'd like to get input from others. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps we should create 具足 before deleting this. Also, is the usual English term not chain mail?  --Lambiam 07:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Japanese 具足 created. This is an old term cited first all the way back to 722, but despite its age and Chinese-derived reading, I can't find evidence of a borrowing from Middle Chinese. My resources for Chinese are limited, so I'd appreciate it if any more-Chinese-savvy editors could have a look at the etymology.
Re: English chain mail, @Lambiam, were you commenting on the use of alt spelling chainmail at the 鎖具足#Japanese entry? If instead you were suggesting non-SOP-ness on the basis of the English term mail not corresponding exactly to 具足 (gusoku, armor), I would counter by suggesting that someone fluent in English would understand that mail in the context of the armaments of centuries past is broadly equivalent to armor on the one hand, and on the other, that someone fluent in Japanese and familiar with the same contexts would choose the term 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira) instead, as indeed we see at the JA WP article ja:w:鎖帷子. In terms of raw Google hits (granted, only a very rough measure, but still), google:"鎖帷子" "は" (adding the "は" to filter for Japanese) gets us 4.8M hits, while google:"鎖具足" "は" gets only 4.3K. At best, this would be an uncommon synonym, but I argue that it's not an integral enough term to even warrant an entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eiríkr— I was commenting on the senses listed for (kusari), which do not include any of the synonyms “mail”, “chain mail” or ”chainmail”. In English, just “chain” does not have the sense of “chain mail”; for someone not familiar with the meaning (and possibly also not with medieval armour), trying to figure it out from the literal translation 鎖+具足 = “chain”+“armour” might not work too well. I do not know if 鎖 by itself can have the sense of “mail”, or that this requires the combination 鎖具足. If the former, that sense should be added. If the latter, I am not convinced we have an SOP here.  --Lambiam 01:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lambiam, I'm curious about your reasoning. You state, "the senses listed for (kusari), which do not include any of the synonyms “mail”, “chain mail” or ”chainmail”" -- no, they do not. For that matter, neither does English chain?
Japanese (kusari) generally just means chain. Indeed, so far as I know, any "armor" sense for English chain on its own only comes about from use of this term as a shortening of chain mail, so I'm a bit confused why you think Japanese (kusari) needs to have some kind of "armor" sense for Japanese 鎖具足 (kusari gusoku) to not be an SOP? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eiríkr— My reasoning is very simplistic. If I see that the meaning of compound noun X+Y, where X modifies Y, is rendered in English as A+B, then I expect that one of the meanings of X is A and one of the meanings of Y is B. So when there is a claim that this is a sum of parts (which I can see is the case for A+B), then I expect that an astute language learner can understand from the context which combination of meanings applies. Application of this simplistic formula in the hope of getting from 鎖+具足 to “chainmail”+“armour” requires 鎖 → “chainmail” and 具足 → “armour”. Chainmail armour, to me, is armour fashioned of chainmail. The notion of “mail” as a quasi-fabric used to fashion armour is absent from either of the components 鎖 and 具足, but paramount in their compound 鎖具足. So, apparently, 鎖具足 ≠ 鎖+具足.  --Lambiam 10:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lambiam: Ah, I see now where we have our disjuncture. I perceive English mail in this context as synonymous with armor (technically, a hyponym). Thus, English chain mail = chain + mail = chain + armor, which I view as analogous to (kusari, chain) + 具足 (gusoku, armor). The usage of English mail in armor contexts is very limited, with (I think) only three such collocations allowed: chain mail, plate mail, scale mail. The more common senses of English mail could also arguably make the armor-related collocations more distinct lexically: we're not talking about sending these things via post, for instance. The usage of Japanese 具足 (gusoku) is not limited in this way, and I think this makes the collocation of kusari ("chain") + gusoku ("armor") less of an integral lexical item, and more of an SOP.
I'd also like to draw your attention back to the fact that English chain mail is not glossed as Japanese 鎖具足 (kusari gusoku) in any reference I've encountered -- the term 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira) is used instead. In fact, there is no page at ja:w:鎖具足 (Kusari gusoku), and the article at ja:w:鎖帷子 (Kusari katabira) contains zero instances of the term 具足 (gusoku). In addition, the JA WP article links through to the EN WP article at w:Chain_mail and vice versa. See also bilingual entries for "chain mail" at Eijiro and Weblio, glossing this in Japanese as 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira). See also the lack of any entries for 鎖具足 (kusari gusoku) at Eijiro, Weblio, and monolingual dictionary and encyclopedia aggregator Kotobank. For that matter, Weblio's page amusingly suggests that kusari gusoku might equate instead to "chain furniture".  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How chain mail is glossed in Japanese texts is (IMO) not relevant to the present issue. (This might have some limited relevance if the issue is whether the term can be verified.) I am not a native English speaker; I have always understood mail to refer primarily to the material, like one can say that early armour was “made from mail ”.[1] Note that, whereas armour has a countable sense, chain mail is uncountable. A medieval knight may have been “wearing an armour”,[2] but not *“a chain mail”. In French, the term maille from which the English term is derived, is just a single link; you can combine a lot to make a cotte de mailles. Two centuries ago the term chain armour would have been readily understood,[3], but today this is less obviously so.[4] On Wikipedia, the article Kusari (Japanese mail armour) states: “Kusari gusoku (chain armour)(鎖具足) is the Japanese term for mail armour. Kusari is a type of armour used by the samurai class and their retainers in feudal Japan. When the word kusari is used in conjunction with an armoured item it usually means that the kusari makes up the majority of the armour defence.” This is supported by a citation to a book entitled A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor: In All Countries and in All Times that mentions kusari gama, kusari gote, kusari kabuto, kusari katabira, kusari-kiahan, kusari sode, kusari tachi, kusari toji, kusari wakabiki, kusari-zukin. It seems reasonable (to me) to include a definition of the kind “(of armour) chain mail”.  --Lambiam 21:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lambiam: The English Wikipedia's articles related to Japan are, far too often, a cesspit of pop-culture misunderstandings and imaginings about Japan. I generally avoid wading in on Wikipedia, as I simply don't have the time to simultaneously manage the morons while also assiduously citing every minor detail.
That particular article is one such example: the very first sentence in that article is plainly, patently wrong. What's more, the referenced work never uses the combined term kusari gusoku. Monolingual sources never mention armor or arms in definitions of the term (kusari, chain), and given my own subjective understanding of the term and its uses, I'm not sure it makes sense to add any such sense to our entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But what about the terms kusari gama, ..., kusari-zukin listed in the cited glossary. Are these not romanizations of attestable Japanese terms of art, such as 鎖帷子?  --Lambiam 21:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lambiam: Sure. Here's a brief breakdown to provide a bit more detail and context.
  • 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira) is literally (kusari, chain) + 帷子 (katabira, single-layer kimono, literally kata "single, one part of a pair", in reference to the usual double layering of a kimono + hira "flat thing" = "layer"). Strictly speaking, 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira) refers to a single layer of chain mail used as a shirt-like or robe-like garment covering the upper body. This is arguably the single most common application of the material called chain mail in English, which I suspect is why bilingual sources tend to relate these two terms. The material itself, as a sheet of linked metal loops, is often referred to using the English-derived term チェーンメール (chēn mēru). Some dictionary entries will clarify that the item of armor is kusari katabira, and the material is chēn mēru, as indeed we see in the two sense lines at the Eijiro entry for "chain mail".
  • 鎖鎌 (kusari-gama) is literally (kusari, chain) + (kama, sickle, scythe). This is a weapon consisting of a short-bladed sickle with a long chain extending from the base of the handle. See the image at ja:w:鎖鎌, and more content in English at w:Kusarigama.
  • 頭巾 (kusari zukin) is literally (kusari, chain) + 頭巾 (zukin, hood, literally head + cloth). See also the images at google:"鎖頭巾". Lemmings-wise, monolingual JA sources do not treat this as a single term.
Looking further at the other kusari items in that index view:
  • Kusari Gote: 鎖篭手 (kusari-gote, literally chain + gauntlet)
  • Kusari Kiahan: not a Japanese term, presumably a mistake for kusari kyahan鎖脚絆 (kusari kyahan, literally chain + leggings, gaiters), referring to something like chain-mail greaves, only presumably also covering the back of the lower leg, not just the shin.
  • Kusari Sode (kusari sode, literally chain + sleeve). Lemmings-wise, monolingual Japanese sources do not treat this as a single lexical term.
  • Kusari Toji: I'm really not sure what this is supposed to refer to. The toji element is presumably 綴じ (toji, binding, fastening)? If so, this doesn't seem to be any specific item of armor.
  • Kusari Wakibiki: 脇引き (kusari wakibiki, literally chain + armpit-pulling), from the way the material is pulled or drawn across the gap between the other parts of the armor: a piece of gousset. Lemmings-wise, monolingual Japanese sources do not treat this as a single lexical term.
I note a few other items listed in that index view, things like Krug, Kurdaitcha, and Kurtani, that cannot be Japanese terms. Given the instance of Kusari Kiahan, I am left uncertain if these are misspellings, or simply non-Japanese terms.
Anyway, HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The book is supposed to be a glossary for all countries, so it should not be a surprise to find Romanizations of Japanese terms in an alphabetical list in the company of non-Japanese terms.


Case in point. Imagine someone with a beginner’s level of Japanese who comes across the term 「鎖頭巾」 in a context where the meaning is not at all clear (such as an ad offering an antique 鎖頭巾 for sale). Since she cannot find the term in Wiktionary, she assumes it is a sum of parts, and looks up its components: 鎖 = “chain”; 頭巾 = “wimple, hood, gorget”. In her understanding of the term “chain”, it is a linear sequence of links. Neither ”chain wimple” nor “chain hood” make any sense to her, but after looking up the unfamiliar term “gorget” and seeing the image, she guesses that “chain gorget” could be a gorget worn on a chain, just like a “chain watch” is a watch on a chain. Is there a plausible way she could have discovered that in this combination 「鎖」implied an item made from mail?  --Lambiam 22:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lambiam: (after edit conflict)
... Where do you get the wimple or gorget senses for 頭巾 (zukin)? Those aren't in our entries. I can kinda see where wimple might come from, as the core meaning of the JA term is literally "head + cloth", and that's at least the right ballpark. But gorget is just wrong as a translation for 頭巾. The expected Japanese term is 喉当て (nodo-ate, literally throat + putting, applying, placing-against).
If you got kusari zukin and its mistranslation of "gorget" from the linked glossary by George Cameron Stone, I'm mystified -- I can't find any instances of zukin at all in that book, kusari or otherwise.
For the expected senses of (kusari, chain) + 頭巾 (zukin, hood, head covering), I wouldn't expect as much potential for confusion as you suggest. For example, google:"chain hood" comes right up with pictures of the expected hood made of chain. Similarly, google:"chain shirt" and google:"chain gloves" come right up with relevant armor-related images, and even the more unusual google:"chain sleeves" and google:"chain leggings" find armor-related hits within the first page.  :)
Some collocation-specific senses must be understood from context, even though the collocations themselves might not be lexical. Consider white crane. This could be a large white bird that inhabits wetlands, or it might be a white piece of construction equipment used to lift things. The term crane here is polysemic, but that doesn't necessitate that collocations using different senses of crane are necessarily lexical items unto themselves. So it is with (kusari) -- though arguably even to a lesser extent than crane, since the armor and non-armor senses for (kusari) are still about "loops of metal chained together". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, re: the erroneous gorget sense at ずきん, that is a mistake apparently entered when that page was created, which has not been replicated at the lemma entry at 頭巾#Japanese. I'm about to correct the ずきん entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If chain hood can legitimately mean “hood fashioned of mail” (as an instance of, more generally, chain NP meaning “NP fashioned of mail”, then a sense is missing at English chain.  --Lambiam 09:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 2020 Edit

Chinese. I believe this is best analyzed as [[VERB-死]-人], and 人 "someone" can be replaced freely with "I", "you", etc. The usage examples should be moved to . —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: if we do keep this, I think it should be merge with the Gan sense under pronunciation 2. While it's analyzable as above, it seems to be fossilized as a kind of intensifier (at least in certain varieties). It's in some dictionaries, such as 南昌方言詞典 and 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典. I'm leaning on the keep side, but I'm not sure. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, after some thought, the two meanings seem to be different depending on the verb/adjective. 南昌方言詞典 defines it as "用在動詞或形容詞後,表示令人非常(高興、生氣、難受等)" and lists 熱~, 笑~, 氣~, 煩~, 急~ and 冷~ as examples. To me, these belong to the definition that is being rfd-ed. @Mar vin kaiser who added the Gan sense recently. 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典 defines it as "置於動詞之後,用來表示「非常……」、「很……」的意思" and lists 驚死人 and 貴死人 as examples. 驚死人 could be interpreted as the rfd-ed definition, but 貴死人 is harder to interpret as such. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 2020 Edit

手裏剣術 Edit

Japanese. Sum of parts, 苦無 "kunai" / 手裏剣 "shuriken" + "technique". —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Agreed for 苦無術. google books:"苦無術" "は" finds precious few hits, and most appear to be in Chinese-language texts at that. Delete.
  • Less certain for 手裏剣術. I note the existence of entries at Kotobank, though notably those are only encyclopedia entries. No dictionary to hand includes this as a term. I'm also uncertain how much to view (jutsu) as a standalone noun, or as a suffixing element. If the latter, presumably this suffix would form a new word, as opposed to two discrete nouns that happen to be next to each other.
In addition, google books:"手裏剣術" "は" finds ample hits of this in running Japanese text. I think I'm still undecided on this one, possibly leaning towards weak keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 2020 Edit

This just means "the malign virus" in Korean. In this article we can see that North Korea has also called Ebola and MERS the "malign virus". Delete as sum of parts.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And since Korean has no definite article, it may just as well mean “a malign virus”, which these viruses certainly are in the medical sense of “harmful, potentially lethal”.  --Lambiam 21:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the gloss is correct, though, 악성비루스 refers not to the virus SARS-CoV-2 but to the disease COVID-19, which would technically make it not SOP anymore. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mahagaja: There's no actual evidence that the gloss is correct. The creator is not a native speaker, and the actual NK statement in late July (quoted here) that presumably prompted this creation was about "a defector to South Korea suspected to have been infected by the 'malign virus'" ("악성 비루스에 감염된 것으로 의심되는 월남도주자"). The word used here, 감염 (gamyeom), is usually for viruses and not diseases.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Mahagaja. If the provided definition is correct, it is obviously not a SOP. This seems more like a verification issue to me. Fytcha (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 2021 Edit

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.

Continuing discussion from RFV to RFD per “WT:BRAND is for RFD, not RFV, take it there.” — Mnemosientje. J3133 (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WT:BRAND states: "A brand name for a product or service should be included if it has entered the lexicon." So the question is, can it be verified that 「ポケットモンスター」 has entered the Japanese lexicon. (For English Pokémon it appears that is has.[5][6][7][8][9][10])  Should verification that there are uses attesting that a term has entered the lexicon not be handled at RfV?  --Lambiam 00:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WT:BRAND is for WT:RFV and not for WT:RFD. (As per WT:BRAND 3 special cites are needed and not just any cites; WT:RFV is about finding and adding cites.) The closure of the RFV obviously was done in error. --2003:DE:372F:4522:88A8:41EC:CDF6:D857 20:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Mnemosientje who closed the RFV. J3133 (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WT:RFV states that the RFV pages are for "disputing the existence of terms or senses", and to test whether something meets the attestation criterion at the WT:ATTEST header of WT:CFI. So I tend to heap everything that's not disputing the existence of a word into RFD. I can see how the wording of WT:BRAND can make it seem like a "verification" matter and thus be put under RFV, it's honestly open to interpretation and I don't have very strong feelings on the matter. The closure, though, was not in error: people had not been responding for two years (which seemed a bit ridiculous) and I could've just closed it as unresolved (as nobody seemed to care enough to solve it), which would've circumvented this whole discussion. If someone wants to solve the issue of this word meeting WT:BRAND (be it here or at RFD), go ahead, as long as it actually gets taken care of and doesn't sit unanswered for another 2 years. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mnemosientje I would very much argue that WT:BRAND is an RFV matter, since it is about finding attestation of uses that meet WT:BRAND. As far as I can tell, that is also the current practice. — surjection??⟩ 19:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, move to WT:RFVN. --幽霊四 (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a Korean word.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, move to WT:RFVN. --幽霊四 (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Binarystep (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CIA Edit

Not a Japanese word. Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think in general, English abbreviations (or other in the Latin script) are often/generally used in all languages, including languages, which don't use the Latin alphabet. If there is no change in the sense and is not a local invention, we don't need to include them as words in those languages. The pronunciation (if someone seems a value in just providing the pronunciation, such "shī-ai-ē") can be derived from individual letter pronunciations - CIA. I suggest CFI (or language-specific CFI) to include this. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, move to WT:RFVN.
German USA, NASA have different gender/inflection than English USA, NASA. --幽霊四 (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, how does the German genders of these unrelated terms affect the Japanese term, which has no grammatical genders? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 幽霊四 (talkcontribs) must be confused -- this RFD is for the Japanese term CIA#Japanese, so anything about the German language, or about the terms USA or NASA in any language, are wholly irrelevant here.
Weak delete, in line with Anatoli's reasoning above. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 11:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eirikr: I'm not confused -- there was a comment above (quote) "all languages" and I gave examples regarding it. The German examples show that (quote) "English abbreviations .. are often used in .. languages .. If there is no change in the sense .., we don't need to include them .. pronunciation .." lacks a consideration of number, gender, inflection. Gender isn't a matter regarding English/Japanese, but other things can be. And even if it's pretty much similar in this case (English not having genders and treating CIA as a thing, CIA being singular - Japanese not having genders, CIA being singular or unmarked): If there's German CIA f because it is different from the English, why exclude CIA if it exists? Having English CIA, French CIA f, German CIA f etc., but not having Japanese CIA (no gender) gives the false impression it's only used in English, French, German etc. but not in Japanese. --幽霊四 (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@幽霊四: Thank you for laying out your reasoning in greater detail. Your position now makes more sense. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep, as CIA in Japanese does not refer to every possible "CIA". —Suzukaze-c (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think having entries like this are useful in telling readers what can be used in Japanese, if there is a way to verify they have "entered the lexicon". General Vicinity (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would DNA#Japanese be deleted with the same reasoning? General Vicinity (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep for the same reason we have DNA, RAM, RNA, ROM, TNT, UFO, and USA. Not every English acronym is used in Japanese, so it makes sense to document the ones that are. Binarystep (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a Korean word. The actual Korean abbreviation is 중정 (Jungjeong).--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, move to WT:RFVN. --幽霊四 (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably part of the Talk:真実和 series of nonsense. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same page author, 4RM0 (talkcontribs), same time-frame, in mid-2008. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After puzzling over another highly suspicious set of Japanese "female names" with other people, I've come to the conclusion that these websites make up kanji spellings by combining known names and kanji readings for the less imaginative. Reading 李 as い is only explainable as the Korean surname, and surely would not appear in someone's given name. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source of all evil? —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

吾実理 Edit

Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:Contributions/4RM0 Edit

this is stupid. can we just delete all of these female given names? —Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No particular opposition from me. I might go so far as to suggest a quick Google search, and immediately deleting anything that doesn't return hits. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, I just searched as follows for one such spelling:
That still returns hits, but only 4 of them, and all of these four are mentions and not actual cases of people with this name. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/ Edit

Blindly believing in red links. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently deleted. —Fish bowl (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:Contributions/Shāntián Tàiláng Edit

[11]: 麗娜 莉娜 美津代 美鶴代 満代 みつよ 千郷 千紗都 千智 ちさと 理帆 りほ 莉穂 ののか 希々加 希々夏 希々香 愛加 亜唯華 亜唯香 亜衣可 合加 愛風 愛香 合郁 会賀 愛楓 愛叶 愛圭 愛心香 愛日 唯央 意須寿 意寿々 威涼 伊緒 伊鈴 幾鈴 以緒 依桜 依雄 伊音 依央 伊央 依涼 乙涼 衣鈴 伊砂 遥子 瑶子 都美子 和恵 一枝 一恵 徳巳 温子 徳真 優花 梨沙子 右子 吉絵 善絵 佳絵 克江 克恵 克絵 克枝 Edit

[12]: 百樹 権兵衛 裕三 次郞 禮次郞 礼次郎 礼次 禮次郎 是清 敬馬 杏果 彰展 菜摘 奈津美 奈津実 夏生 夏実 凖一 利三郎 草太 明恒 あきつね 三保子 視穂子 きへい 義稙 祥胤 義胤 よしたね 義美 とらぞう 虎三 はるいち 晴一 桃亜 沙月 響子 郷子 匡子 龍之助 竜之介 隆之介 伸枝 信恵 伸恵 のぶえ ただあきら なおあきら 忠存 直朗 忠彰 むつひと 美娜 Edit

Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "edit summary search" is apparently broken, not returning more than one page of results. —Fish bowl (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:Contributions/ Edit

Page creations: みずやま 端山 坦山 丹山 探山 たんざん 湛山 のの 暖々 安於生 暖穂生 愛生 愛生子 あおいこ 珠水 花珠葉 花珠水 花観 花珠 花海 埴原 Edit

Suzukaze-c (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:Contributions/Tim Euler Edit

Fish bowl (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Surjection, Fish bowl, Eirikr: Any objections if I go ahead and mass delete + mass revert Tim Euler? His German edits were as clueless as always (I actually already suspected it was him on the 13th: [13]) so I have little faith in his edits in other languages. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 22:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fytcha: I have no objection. —Fish bowl (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, by all means go ahead. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 05:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done. I spared 悼齔, 卵巢炎, תיקון because other editors have edited them in the meantime. FYI @Justinrleung. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 12:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wise Bridges Fool Walls, I think it's a sum of parts: (gi, verbal nominalizer) + 때문 (ttaemun, because, bound noun following a noun to mark it as a cause) + 이다 (ida, it is) > "it is because..."--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

기 때문에 Edit

As above.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will add that I think both should be redirected to 때문 (ttaemun).--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Karaeng Matoaya: Honestly, I thought redirects might be more appropriate, but I was not sure. Thank you for letting me know.-—Wise Bridges Fools Walls (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 2021 Edit

We have a very prolific anon from Vietnam, likely Baka Fumiko. This is one entry created by that anon.

I don't dispute that this is attestable. I question whether this is dictionary material. @TAKASUGI Shinji, Suzukaze-c, Huhu9001, Alves9, Dine2016, any other JA editors, what is your sense? Is this more widely used than I'm aware, with any overtones or nuances that might point to this meriting a dictionary entry? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. It’s not a fixed phrase but rather a reference. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • NeutralSuzukaze-c (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. It or the variant ブルータスよ is in Daijisen, Daijirin, Kōjien, and various kotowaza references. The first two even say 用いられる. BRPXQZME (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 2021 Edit

Not Chinese.--Tibidibi (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it different from other members of Category:Chinese_terms_written_in_foreign_scripts ?
Leaning towards delete. Though it is commonly used in Chinese texts, it's not exactly Chinese. I guess the argument for phonetic adaptation is probably the only one that would support keeping. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are unadapted borrowings considered to not belong to the language into which they're borrowed? Think of how many one-for-one French terms are used in English to the same effect, albeit with Anglicised pronunciation, like how I guess is being done in this Chinese word. I don't know if it's Chinese, but if it's being used in Chinese writing, as opposed to a Chinese equivalent, isn't that enough to qualify it as being a Chinese word? I would personally keep this. Kiril kovachev (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

October 2021 Edit

にちべい 日ロ 日鮮 日華 日仏 日米 日ソ 日蘭 日朝 日韓 日伊 日独 日印 日豪 日台 日清 日満 日英 日中 独伊 日独伊 日支 Edit

Special:Search/incategory:"Japanese collective nouns" incategory:"Japanese proper nouns" "chiefly attributive"

Sum of parts. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As abbreviations, I'm not sure that these are so transparent as to make them non-lexical. Some in particular have multiple senses, or even multiple readings, such as 日中 (nitchū, during the day, daytime; noon (in Buddhism); lunch; all day, a full day; Japan and China) and 日中 (hinaka, daytime; a half-day (rare); free daytime (rare)).
I note that other dictionaries include most of these: 日米, 日華, 日仏, 日ソ, 日蘭, 日朝, 日韓, 日伊, 日独, 日印, 日豪, 日台, 日清, 日満 (in my hard-copy Daijirin), 日英, 日中, 日支.
I'm leaning towards keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to note that 日 comes first because Japanese is spoken in an monolingual ethnostate; 日中 Japano-Chinese becomes 中日 Sino-Japanese in the name of the PRC-founded 中日友好. 日韓両国 is used by Japanese, and 韓日両国 is used by Koreans and in quotes of Koreans. It is obviously arbitrary. —Fish bowl (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd keep these because the pronunciation is not entirely predictable re sandhi (renjō, rendaku) and accent placement. Also most of these morphemes are bound. Then there can be more lexicalization than the combination alone would suggest, e.g. 日独伊 specifically refers to the Axis powers during the Second World War. Nardog (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

独仏 Edit

Fish bowl (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

内鮮, 内台 Edit

self-nomination, and if deleted, please move the content to 内#Etymology_2Fish bowl (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 2021 Edit

rfd-sense "the pronunciation of Chinese characters used in the Tang and Song dynasties of China, mainly limited to Zen vocabulary, and has less influence on general expressions". Tagged but not listed (diff) by @Poketalker. --Fytcha (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Nihon Kokugo Daijiten reads: One of kanji readings [used] in Japan[ese language]. Transmitted by Zen monks, merchant class, etc. from the Kamakura/Muromachi to the Edo period, these are based on sounds since the Song dynasty. Digital Daijisen redirects to 唐音 (tōon), with two definitions: (1) One of kanji readings [used] in Japan[ese language]. In a narrow sense, it is based on initial Chinese pronunciations during the Ming and Qing dynasties, transmitted by Zen monks, interpreters, and traders to Nagasaki during the Edo period. In a broader sense, it also includes 宋音 (sōon) which was already widespred before the Edo period as tōsōon. (2) In general, term for a Chinese language or sound.
Borderline, but any thoughts? ~ POKéTalker) 12:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand why we are deleting it. This is definitely a Japanese word and the meaning seems correct. Kiril kovachev (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 2022 Edit

Merely 5 results total at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22正八胞体%22, accompanied in 4/5 results with similar constructions like 正胞体 正胞体 正十六胞体 正六百胞体, which seems to make this an unremarkable sum of parts.

@BinarystepFish bowl (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We document English equivalents like 5-cell, 8-cell, 16-cell, 24-cell, 120-cell, 600-cell, and so on without considering them sum of parts, I don't see why the Japanese terms should be treated differently. Binarystep (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think they're all also SOP by sense 19 of cell. WT:SOP: "Idiomaticity rules apply to hyphenated compounds in the same way as to spaced phrases." — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 02:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd argue that 8-cell isn't SOP due to the fact that most people wouldn't automatically picture a tesseract when they hear the word, even if they knew the relevant definition of cell. Besides, where do we draw the line between SOP and common formulas used to construct new terms? You could easily make a convincing argument that common prefixes like anti- and non- should fall under SOP, along with chemical formulas like trichloromethane (if anything, chemical formulas are quite literally "sum of parts").
Point is, I think we should at least consider the context of how words are used. All of the "X-cell" entries (and any translations thereof) are legitimate mathematical terms, and I think removing them would do more harm than good. There's a difference between a generic term like "wooden door" and technical jargon that has zero meaning outside a specific context. Binarystep (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another way to argue would be to point out that, since pentachoron etc. are obviously inclusion-worthy, it would be ridiculous to exclude their much more commonly used n-cell synonyms, especially since deletion of 5-cell entails the removal thereof in the article pentachoron. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 03:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 2022 Edit

聯邦儲備局 Edit

(Notifying Atitarev, Tooironic, Fish bowl, Justinrleung, Mar vin kaiser, RcAlex36, The dog2, Frigoris, 沈澄心, 恨国党非蠢即坏, Michael Ly): Chinese. Following the RFD-deletion of Federal Reserve System as being encyclopedic. My nomination is not to be counted as a vote cast for deletion. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 09:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This one is tough. We do, after all have entries for the names of high-profile organisations. The dog2 (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


# [[put into effect]], [[put into practice]]

Perhaps sum of parts? —Fish bowl (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly. I note that various other things (both physical and abstract) can come before the (ni): google:"に移す"
Definitely worth a usex and / or usage note at 移す. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


{{ja-l|電話}} (''telephone'') + {{ja-l|を}} + {{ja-l|かける}} ([[hiragana]] spelling of {{ja-l|掛ける}}, ''to speak'', ''to call out'')

{{ja-verb|でんわ を かける}}

# to [[call]] someone over the [[telephone]]

* {{ja-r|電%話する|でん%わ する}}
* (''uncommon'') {{ja-r|架%電|か%でん}}: a [[call]]

* {{ja-r|電%話を切る|でん%わ を きる}}: to [[hang up]] the [[phone]]

====Related terms====
* (''intransitive'') {{ja-r|電%話がかかる|でん%わ が かかる}}:
* {{ja-r|電%話|でん%わ}}: [[telephone]]
* {{ja-r|電%話に出る|でん%わ に でる}}: to [[answer]] the [[phone]]

Perhaps sum of parts? Not in monolingual dictionaries. —Fish bowl (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

電話を切る Edit

From {{m|ja|電話||telephone|tr=denwa}} + {{m|ja|を|pos=a grammatical marker following the direct object|tr=o}} + {{m|ja|切る||to disconnect, to hang up; to cut|tr=kiru}}. Literally meaning "to hang up the phone" or to "disconnect or cut the phone".

{{ja-verb|でんわ を きる|type=1}}

# to [[hang up]], to [[terminate]] a [[phonecall]]

{{ja-go-ru|でんわ を き}}

Perhaps sum of parts? Not in monolingual dictionaries. —Fish bowl (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Both of these might count as SOP, but the idiomatic (or at least non-obvious) use of the verbs makes me unsure.
If these entries are removed, the collocations should definitely be included as usexes on the relevant entries (at least the verbs, possibly the noun as well). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me, both terms seem idiomatic, so I vote keep. Compare analogous Korean 전화를 걸다 (jeonhwareul geolda, to telephone) and (just created by me) Korean 전화를 끊다 (jeonhwareul kkeunta, to hang up).--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


# [[accounting]] [[practice]]

"maybe SoP"Fish bowl (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also definitely SOP. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Delete Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Japanese. Sum of parts, ワープロ "word processor" + the explanatory qualifier ソフト "software". —Fish bowl (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SOP. Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Japanese SoP encyclopaedia material. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not quite SOP though, in that this is definitely a proper noun (c.f. English White House), and also a not-entirely-obvious translation. A literal translation of the EN into JA might be something more like 東南アジア諸国の協会 (tōnan Ajia shokoku no kyōkai). The term 連合 (rengō) is often rendered as something more like "union, alliance, confederation". Keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eirikr: I’m sorry, the justification should have been it’s not dictionary stuff. The very translation Association of Southeast Asian Nations is a redlink; however we keep abbreviations/initialisms. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 09:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. I think that, so long as our entries are well-formed and stick to describing the "word-ness" (etymology, pronunciation, glosses, usage examples, etc.), and we leave the description of "thing-ness" (what it is, how it functions, cultural impact, political analysis, etc.) to Wikipedia, then I have no problem at all with Wiktionary including such entries.
To put this another way, why shouldn't we have an entry at Association of Southeast Asian Nations? This is a distinct term: this is not just any association that happens to include countries from Southeast Asia, nor can we rephrase and say "Southeast Asia Country Society" and be understood with any certainty -- just as White House is not any house that happens to be white, nor can we rephrase and say "house that is white" and be understood with any certainty.
We have entries at White House, Blue House, Eiffel Tower, Great Pyramid of Giza, European Commission, United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization. These are all proper nouns and distinct terms. We aim for “all words in all languages”.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NeutralFish bowl (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May 2022 Edit

Chinese. SoP: 性少數 (sexual minority) + 群體 (group). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leaning towards delete. Similar wordings such as 性小眾群體性小众群体, 少數族裔群體少数族裔群体 etc. are attested. – wpi (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


Borrowed from {{bor|ja|en|mill}}, from {{m|en|Millstone}}, a ''{{w|Magic: The Gathering}}'' card with a similar effect.


# {{lb|ja|Hearthstone}} A strategy centered on depleting the opponent's deck.

====Derived terms====
* {{l|ja|ミルウォーロック}}
* {{l|ja|ミルウォリアー}}
* {{l|ja|ミルデッキ}}
* {{l|ja|ミルドルイド}}, {{l|ja|ミルドル}}
* {{l|ja|ミルローグ}}

Game-specific official jargon, WT:FICTION? —Fish bowl (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it official jargon? From the info provided on the page, I assumed it was a fandom term. Binarystep (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Crikey, what a dog's breakfast. The entry misses the perfectly cromulent senses of English surname Mill, or the mil that is one thousandth of an inch, or the ミル (miru) that is the common name for Codium, a kind of edible seaweed, or the borrowing of English mill that appears in various borrowed compounds, such as コーヒーミル (kōhī miru, coffee mill).
No time at the moment to dive in and fix the entry. Suffice it to say that Etym 1 as it currently stands must likely be deleted due to WT:FICTION. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 2022 Edit

Japanese. The correct transcription is Nihon. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 12:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, it looks like our entry at にほん is deficient. Certainly the country name should be capitalized, but there are also common nouns with this romanization, specifically 二本 (nihon, two long slender objects) and 二品 (nihon, under the Ritsuryō system of ancient Japan, the second rank of imperial princes). Actually, I'm unclear if the 二品 one might be a title, in which case capitalization might be more appropriate there too, but 二本 at least doesn't have any such connotations. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

一千一夜物語 Edit

千一夜物語 Edit

アラビアンナイト Edit

Japanese. One Thousand and One Nights (a novel). Encyclopaedic. Theknightwho (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's odd / an idiomatic translation of the title, as we'd expect something more like 千一夜物語 (Sen'ichiya Monogatari). Rendering "thousand and one nights" as 千夜一夜 (sen'ya ichiya, literally thousand nights one night) is weird.
That said, it is only the title of a book, and thus is not something to include here, so far as I understand WT:CFI.
The creator of all three entries has struggled with various Wiktionary norms and standards. I suspect this might be a similar case. They have ceased editing from their named account, but still occasionally edit from IP addresses geolocating to Vietnam.
Delete as "not dictionary material", for all of these:
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps something akin to Chinese 一千零一夜? It's a very emphatic "one thousand and one", so maybe they're just both going for the English emphasis on the starting one. The repetition of 夜 doesn't make sense to me either, but I don't know any Japanese and I have no idea what the translator was trying to get at. I suppose there's a bit of interesting lexical background to it, but the same goes for the titles of loads of other books too. At best, it should go in an appendix. Theknightwho (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eirikr, Theknightwho: Should アラビアンナイト also be deleted? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Justinrleung: Ah, yes, that is also just another iteration of the book title, and thus that also fails CFI. Same entry creator, FWIW. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eirikr: Okay, thanks. I've gone ahead and tagged アラビアンナイト and 千一夜物語 for deletion as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese. SoP: 禮拜 "religious service" + 儀式 "ritual". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this limited to Christianity in Chinese? Theknightwho (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theknightwho: No, it could also be used for Islam, for example. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it probably does pass WT:PRIOR, though. The Christian liturgy is a well-defined concept. Theknightwho (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theknightwho: I don't see how it would have any more specific meaning than the sum of its parts. Liturgy can look very different across different branches of Christianity. Also, 禮拜儀式 is also commonly attested, which suggests that the "compound" isn't that tight. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Mar vin kaiser as the entry creator. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Justinrleung: I think the reason why I added this is because it can be said as the equivalent of the English word "liturgy" which itself can be used for Islam and Buddhism (Islamic liturgy and Buddhist liturgy). I think the meaning of 禮儀 is broad enough (it could mean etiquette? ceremony?) that it would be useful and reasonable to have this entry remain to provide people the technical term in Chinese for "liturgy". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 2022 Edit

Chinese. Repetition of the verb, similar to 鼓鼓掌, 加加油, 打打氣, 努努力, etc. — This unsigned comment was added by 沈澄心 (talkcontribs) at 12:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I think keep for the interjection sense if it can't be incorporated into 幫忙. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DeleteFish bowl (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep since AAB reduplication only implies the diminutive sense. Most AAB reduplications are not commonly used sarcastically. -- 21:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Japanese entries by User:Japanfreak0 Edit

I've gone through some of their contributions. Most (all?) of this appears to be copy-paste from some other bilingual JA→EN dictionary, which includes lots of things that we would treat as SOP. There's the occasional nugget of validity in there, but most of the entries they've created are problematic. I've flat-out deleted a small handful of them as patently obvious phrasal SOP, and I've listed a few others below. I don't have time to fully vet the rest of their contributions, however, so I'd like to ask the rest of us to pitch in. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

一時会計監査人#Japanese Edit


  • 一時 (ichiji, temporary, provisional)
  • 会計 (kaikei, [financial] accounting)
  • 監査人 (kansanin, auditor)

Pinging entry creator @Japanfreak0. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

一時休業#Japanese Edit


  • 一時 (ichiji, temporary, provisional)
  • 休業 (kyūgyō, work suspension; shutdown; holiday)

Pinging entry creator @Japanfreak0. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

一時帰休#Japanese Edit


  • 一時 (ichiji, temporary, provisional)
  • 帰休 (kikyū, layoff, furlough)

Pinging entry creator @Japanfreak0. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

一時帰休制#Japanese Edit


  • 一時 (ichiji, temporary, provisional)
  • 帰休 (kikyū, layoff, furlough)
  • (sei, system)

Pinging entry creator @Japanfreak0. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

一時預かり#Japanese Edit


  • 一時 (ichiji, temporary, provisional)
  • 預かり (azukari, custody; checking, as in a coat check or luggage check; taking something or someone into one's care from someone else)

Pinging entry creator @Japanfreak0. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

一時預け#Japanese Edit

Also SOP, just using the related verb stem 預け (azuke, putting something or someone in someone else's care) to express the other side of the action (putting into care, as opposed to taking into care). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

一時預かり証#Japanese Edit

Meh, might be valid, looks borderline SOP to me.

  • 一時 (ichiji, temporary, provisional)
  • 預かり (azukari, custody; checking, as in a coat check or luggage check; taking something or someone into one's care from someone else)
  • (shō, certificate)

→ "claim check"

If this is deemed not SOP, the entry needs cleanup -- Japanfreak0 goofed on the reading, etc.

一時預所#Japanese Edit


  • 一時 (ichiji, temporary, provisional)
  • 預所 (azukari-sho, check, depository, storage place)

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •   Keep The English translation is "cloakroom" not "temporary depository" Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

一時解雇#Japanese Edit


  • 一時 (ichiji, temporary, provisional)
  • 解雇 (kaiko, dismissal, firing)

Pinging entry creator @Japanfreak0. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

一言も無い#Japanese Edit


  • 一言 (ichigon, one word)
  • (mo, even)
  • 無い (nai, not have)

Pinging entry creator @Japanfreak0.

There might be some value to this, as the first term 一言 could also have the pronunciation hitokoto or ichigen, and in this particular turn of phrase, it seems like ichigon is more common / traditional. I would argue that this would be better as a usex at 一言 (ichigon) though, as I don't think this is enough to merit a full independent entry. There's also the problem that this might be shifted to more polite forms such as 一言もありません (ichigon mo arimasen) or 一言もございません (ichigon mo gozaimasen). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undelete 丿部, 支部, and 辵部 Edit

These names for Kangxi radicals were all deleted for supposedly being SOP, despite the fact that they reference the characters' shapes rather than their meanings. They're no more "sum-of-parts" than 十字 or H-shaped. Binarystep (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd also like to note that 丿部 was deleted after four months by an RFD with zero votes (not counting the nomination), and no discussion other than my initial objection. There are entries at the top of this page (such as 死人 (sǐrén)) that have managed to survive for over a year under similar circumstances. Binarystep (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support undeletion it doesn't make sense to do so, since there are useful non-encyclopedic information about these radicals, such as their names and pronunciation in each languages, which sometimes can be different from the normal pronunciation. Also it is absurd that we have entries like 單人旁 and 走之底 which are the descriptive names of the radicals, but not the standard 人部 or 辵部. I do see the reason of the deletion about SoP to be sort of valid, but if they are treated as such the radicals would require a separate etymology in the character pages, since they "reference the characters' shapes rather than their meanings" as BinaryStep suggested. However this would mean that the information about radicals to be extremely scattered across an already lengthy page, if not forgetting about them entirely, which is the case for most pages. –Wpi31 (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: is added to each Kangxi radical name, so in a way these are kind of SoP. These should probably be instead be a definition under 丿, , , etc. Also, it's not fair to compare these to 單人旁; things like 人部 and 辵部 (as far as I can tell) refer to the classification of a character under a particular radical, which may or may not reflect a particular component of a character (i.e., it's an abstraction from character components). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about separating (U+4EBA) and (U+2F08) etc? That way it won't be SoP, but also allows separate radical entries to be created at the codepoints in the Kangxi Radical block. –Wpi31 (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A separate "radical" part of speech would be better, especially given the Kangxi arrangement was not the only one. Theknightwho (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wpi31: They were separated, but were merged: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=⼈&action=historyFish bowl (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep deleted as Justin notes. See also my comment at Talk:丿部. —Fish bowl (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fish bowl: I count 1 support vote and 0 oppose votes. Given that 丿部 was deleted without any votes at all, it doesn't seem fair to hold this RFD to a higher standard. Binarystep (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese. 斷背 gay + love. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Meaningless gibberish, produced by just mashing on a keyboard.

If this is intended to signify something, the entries could benefit greatly from the addition of a descriptive definition. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

asdfghjkl#English{{lb|en|Internet slang}} {{non-gloss definition|Expresses a moment of [[incoherence]] due to emotion on the part of the speaker.}}.
The Japanese entry also links to w:ja:くぁwせdrftgyふじこlp, which lists at least 4 usages in popular culture. —Fish bowl (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why on earth should a user have to click through to an entry in a completely different language, or a completely different project, in order to finally find what might be a definition? If we start at くぁw背drftgy富士子lp, that's at least two clicks away. This is unacceptable. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fish bowl Is this keysmashing? Theknightwho (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theknightwho Umm probably yes (and I know I am not Fish bowl. Kanjishowa21-4 (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese. SoP: 騷靈 + 現象. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Chinese. Rfd-sense: "flimsy; weak". Common for adjectives to be reduplicated. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undecided. One may argue that there is a semantic shift from "thin; not thick" to "filmsy; weak" and therefore this should be kept, but I wonder if this particular sense is actually attested or not. The vast majority of ghits seems to only mean "thin; not thick". Might be an RFV issue? – wpi (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

October 2022 Edit


# [[speech]] [[synthesizer]]

音声合成 "speech synthesis" (音声 + 合成) + 装置 "device", sum of parts —Fish bowl (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. SOP. The only conceivable idiomaticity I can think of here (which I also think is insufficient to clear the SOP bar) is the wrinkle that 装置 (sōchi) refers specifically to a physical device or other hardware, and thus this particular collocation cannot be used to refer to a software speech synthesizer. For the latter, we have the collocation 音声合成ソフト (onsei gōsei sofuto, literally speech synthesis software), which is also SOP. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Japanese SOP: The term can be translated as "(National) Police Agency" or "Police Office", is an unidiomatic sum of part of 警察 (Police)+ (Agency; Office; Department). As per what discussed in Talk:Federal Reserve System, encyclopedic yet unidiomatic entries are deletable SOPs. Per opinion stated above at #聯邦儲備系統, I also don't think that national/jurisdictional government department responsible for policing is high-profile enough to survive under WT:IDIOM.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. It's included in Kotobank, which is often used for references. Also, the collocation seems quite specific and (ちょう) (chō) is used more like a suffix, rather than an independent word, unlike e.g. 機関(きかん) (kikan). Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This is idiomatic inasmuch as it is not just "police office", but rather specifically the National Police Agency (Japan). This sense is not derivable from the constituent parts 警察 (keisatsu, police) + (-chō, agency, board, office [governmental]), and thus this is not an SOP term. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Response Thanks for your opinion. Given by the term's inclusion in Daijisen, it seems that it may have a chance of survival under WT:LEMMING.
Respectfully I disagree with the opinion that This is idiomatic inasmuch ... rather specifically the National Police Agency (Japan): take a look at w:ja:警察庁 (曖昧さ回避) and you'll find that it's not unique to Japan (unlike terms like 廉政公署 in Chinese — the ICAC in Hong Kong or the CCAC in Macau — that is unique to both places). As long as there are similar agencies in other countries, they're to be translated in this same way. Similarly, unless it's so uniquely composed like Home Office in the UK, if we had entries like department of the interior (likely won't survive per WT:RFD#ministry of education), we also wouldn't link them to specific national agencies like United States Department of the Interior or so.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@廣九直通車, interesting re: use to refer to other nation's police agencies. Even so, the "national" element seems to be a common thread in all these uses of 警察庁, something that is missing from the constituent parts of the term. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 2022 Edit

Japanese. Some kind of apparently SOP motto. This, that and the other (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full phrases like this are generally not includable unless they are proverbs. Is this one?
Re: the apparently derivation as a calque of Latin credo ut intelligam (WP article: Credo_ut_intelligam), I think the JA literally parses out as "I don't know, so I don't believe", which would seem to be quite different from the Latin... ??? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it’s a correct literal translation:
  • 知らん, the classical volitional form of () (shiru), directly translates intelligam, a form of the verb intelligere (to understand) in the present subjunctive;
  • ために and ut both indicate purpose;
  • 信ず would be the classical conclusive form of modern (しん)ずる (shinzuru), so 我は信ず directly translates credō, which is a first person singular form of crēdere (to believe).
About whether it’s a proverb, I googled it and it seems to be used mostly in reference to Anselm’s position of credo ut intelligam. Examples:
  • here, p. 6:
  • here, 61−70位:
    アンセルムス(1033-1109)  イタリア生まれのスコラ学者。「知らんがために我は信ず」の立場をとり,神の存在証明を試みた。初期スコラ学の代表者の一。
Since it seems to be a consistently used translation, could it be included like 我思(われおも)う、(ゆえ)(われ)() (ware omou, yue ni ware ari, I think, therefore I am) was? Mcph2 (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mcph2, thank you for the breakdown, at first blush I clearly got the wrong end of the stick.
That said, I see that google books:"知らんがために我は信ず" -wiki -dict nets a paltry 29 ostensible hits, collapsing to just 16 when paging through. While clearing CFI's bar of three, this is still clearly not widely used in the Japanese-writing world. Searching instead for google books:"credo ut intelligam" "は" -dict -wikt -wiki (adding the Japanese topic particle (wa) to filter for Japanese texts), we get 367 ostensible hits, collapsing to 167 when paging through, most of which seem to offer different translations of the Latin.
By way of contrast, google books:"我思う、故に我在り" gives us 1,780 ostensible hits. Still not tons, but substantially more. Alternative spelling google books:"我思う、故に我あり" yields another 2,950 ostensible hits. I see also that both the Kojien and Gakken dictionaries include this latter phrase, while omitting the former.
I don't think this particular phrase, 知らんがために我は信ず (shiran ga tame ni ware wa shinzu), passes muster. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eirikr: I hadn’t thought of searching Google Books like that. Since it’s rarely used and it’s one of many translations of the same Latin phrase, I agree that we should delete it. Mcph2 (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese. SoP. RcAlex36 (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have any comments as to whether or not this should be deleted, but if that is the official name of the park, I'd avoid making the rationale SOP and focus around whether or not it's encyclopedic (especially because there's no subentry for it at 九龍九龙 (jiǔlóng) nor a redirect already and since it's a public park). See: Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion § Place names. An example of a clear keep would be if 科科斯板块 were an entry: it would be kept by default or redirected to 科科斯 with a subsense with 板块 (bǎnkuài) at the definition line. AG202 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. We currently have Hyde Park and Central Park, among others. The question is where do we go from here? ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After some thought, I do think this is not quite SoP. I agree with AG202's and Tooironic's comments. I'd probably say at least a weak keep as a rather notable park in Hong Kong. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed to RFD-sense for "a unit of area equivalent to the size of Kowloon Park, approximately 13.3 hectares" — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 2022 Edit

It is claimed that 뽈스카 is the north Korean term for Poland. However, no such term is documented in any north Korean sources (unless they have been purged and retroactively changed, which in this case is unlikely), or even the south Korean archives. It seems that such term has never been in use. The correct term is 뽈스까, which also has a Wiktionary page. As 뽈스카 doesn't seem to have ever existed, I think it should be deleted. Παραλλάξιος (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think RFV would still be more suitable. --ItMarki (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Japonic/na- Edit

see page here

I don't think this root should have it's own page. Each verb can simply go as "cognate with transitive/intranstive verb *xxx". Chuterix (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've encountered a separate theory, that Japanese verbs なる (naru, to become, intransitive, mediopassive) and なす (nasu, to make, to do, transitive) can be viewed as extensions of a theorized ancient Japonic copula (nu), which manifests still in modern Japanese as an archaic verb conjugation suffix indicating that an action is complete, usually without intent (contrasting with the more common action-completion and past-tense suffix (ta), evolving from older (tsu), which did indicate intent).
  • nu ("is")
  • naru ("become")
  • nasu ("cause to become")
I don't think the root is na-.
I believe it might have been Frellesvig who wrote about this ancient "n"-based copula. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I don't think the root is na-."
This is why I want the entry *na- I created to be deleted.
Interesting that naru and nasu was made from nu. Chuterix (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listed by @Tooironic.

I'd argue that this is not SOP as Japanese: this literally breaks down to "four seas siblings", which isn't immediately associatable with the gloss of "universal brotherhood". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listed as 四字熟語 on 三省堂 新明解四字熟語辞典 and 小学館 デジタル大辞泉. NM 01:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


From {{af|ko|초면(初面)|t1=meeting for the first time|-이다|t2=to be|pos2=[[light verb]] deriving active verbs}}.
# to [[make the acquaintance of]] someone; to [[meet]] (for the [[first time]])

-이다 is the copula. —Fish bowl (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

열심이다 Edit

From {{af|ko|열심(熱心)|-이다|t1=enthusiasm|t2=to be|pos2=[[light verb]] deriving adjectives}}.
# [[enthusiastic]], [[dedicated]], [[diligent]], [[zealous]], [[ardent]]
#: {{ux|ko|[[내]] [[아내]][[-는]] [[정원]] [[가꾸다|가꾸기]][[-에]] [[아주]] '''열심이다'''.|My wife’s a '''keen''' gardener.}}

Fish bowl (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete both per nomination. 이다 (-ida) is the copula, which changes many nouns to predicates.
Note: Some bilingual dictionaries also translate English adjectives with the present determiner (-in), (especially Category:Korean terms suffixed with -적 (的)) which is derived from the copula. E.g. 논리적 (nollijeog-in), the lemma is just 논리적(論理的) (nollijeok) with a noun header. It forms predicates with the copula -ida and attributes with the determiner -in. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems very similar to the grammatical / lexicographical confusion in some bilingual EN ↔ JA resources about whether to include attributive (na) (like Korean (-in)) and/or predicative (da) (like Korean 이다 (-ida)) as part of the headword.
Since this particular class of adjective in Korean appears to behave grammatically very similarly to the Japanese class of so-called "-na adjectives", similar treatment would seem to make sense -- file the KO adjectives under the base unchanging form, and treat the attributive and predicative endings as, well, the separate word that is the copula. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete. More of Spacestationtrustfund's mess. AG202 (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I know this is a later reply, but yeah... + its not in a (normal) dictionary + 초면들이다, 초면이 아니다, 초면에 are used so... Maybe instead we could remark it in usage notes that it's used a lot with -이다 and -에 but a separate page is not necessary. -Solarkoid (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFD-deleted AG202 (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 2023 Edit

Chinese. SoP. hold + (verb suffix). – Wpi31 (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wpi31: Are all these meanings compatible with other suffixes or without a suffix? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@justinrleung: the three HKC senses should be the same with or without the suffix.
The problematic one is the Mandarin neologism sense, which AFAIK is borrowed from HKC and is always followed by the suffix. (and I don't think it could be used in this way in HKC) – Wpi31 (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The pronunciation part can be useful. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese. Rfd-sense: "fly". From what I can tell, the example sentence under this sense is still referring to the zipper, not the fly. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added by @Tooironic in diff. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
你褲子的拉鏈鬆開了/滑開了。 Your jeans' zipper has loosened / slid down.
你的褲襠打開了。 Your fly is undone.
Revert and Supplement. ^Does this sound natural? -- Ywhy (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 2023 Edit

Chinese. Sense 1 does not need to be with 住; it could be other aspectual markers like 咗, e.g. 門外嘅餐牌寫咗今日有咩好食 [14]. I also don't think it's distinct from "write". The same can be said of other verbs, like 掛 (e.g. 門口掛咗一件衫). Sense 2 seems to need a little more context, like 寫住個⋯⋯字, so unless there's usage apart from this construction that's figurative, I would also think that this meaning isn't really attributable to 寫住 by itself. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep For comparison, see google:"招牌寫住" vs google:"招牌寫咗". The text on the sign does not necessarily have to be written (with a pen), they could might as well be printed or created in some other way (e.g. neon light billboards), hence it is distinct from "write". – Wpi31 (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wpi31: It perhaps is a different sense from "to write", but it doesn't need to have 住 to have this meaning. In "餐牌寫嘅嘢一般分套餐同散餐兩種" [15], I don't think the 寫 needs to be written with a pen either. "佢著緊嗰件衫寫咗啲咩?" is used to translate "And what is she wearing on her shirt?" [16] — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see what you mean. Change to weak delete per Justin's comments. – Wpi31 (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete but add a usage example at (xiě) featuring 寫住. RcAlex36 (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese SOP: 軍事军事 (jūnshì) + 監獄监狱 (jiānyù). Also refer to the explanation for the corresponding English term.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leaning towards delete, unless the English equivalent has strong arguments for keeping. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese. Probably code-switching of outlook#Etymology 2. Main question is whether the look; appearance meaning of outlook appeared first in English (then this would be code-switching and deleted) or Chinese (then this should be kept). – Wpi31 (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: I believe there's a slight semantic difference here: in Chinese, "outlook" only refers to the appearance of a person, whereas in English it could also mean the appearance of objetcs in general (as evidenced by some of the quotes). – Wpi31 (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. See Weird regional usages of English: "There is a huge amount of (Cantonese to English) negative language transfers in Hong Kong English (or ‘Honglish’), such as the proverbial oddball misuse of outlook for 外貌 (‘outward appearance‘), body check (for medical checkup), and open/close (for switch on/off)." -- Ywhy (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please avoid using a non-academic source (i.e. a random wordpress post). It is obvious that the word is originally from English, but the question is whether the "appearance" sense is an internal development in English or is it a semantic shift or (mis)interpretation in Cantonese. Note that research is hard since Cantonese is pretty much non-existent on the Internet pre-2000, and most conversations resort to using English since most netizens in that era are well-educated. Until we know the answer to the question, it is difficult to make any decision. I think we could stale this discussion (i.e. keeping it open) or close as no consensus. – Wpi (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I share the blog author's take on this matter and he put it way more eloquently than the tongue-tied me can ever do.
In addition, in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 5th ed.(2009), Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 4th ed.(1989), 6th ed.(2000) & 9th ed.(2015), no definition of outlook includes 'outward appearance'. So it must have been calqued on Cantonese 外表 rather than stemmed from standard English. -- Ywhy (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not saying that it is developed in standard English - even the English entry outlook says it's a Hong Kong English word; I was instead considering the possibility that the word is an internal development within Hong Kong English. Even then we can't rush to such conclusion. – Wpi (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 2023 Edit

Chinese. SoP: 泡菜 "kimchi" + "girl". Mahogany115 (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leaning towards delete since we have the adjective sense "Korean" under 泡菜. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NeutralFish bowl (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cantonese. Non-monosyllabic Jyutping entries are not allowed per WT:Votes/2013-11/Jyutping (cited in WT:AZH). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created this entry just for the convenience of users because not many people know how to write this word. Mahogany115 (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

コロナ Edit

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/CJK.

Japanese. Rfv-sense: person who is infected by (novel) coronavirus

I found one use of this in 2020 (see Citations:コロナ), but haven't been able to find others. It is difficult to search for, as most written sources that would include it would also include terms such as 新型コロナウイルス感染症 etc. I've searched several Japanese newspapers and only found that one. I've searched the web, but gave up after being inundated by mention of the pandemic generally. Cnilep (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...and the one from 2020 is no longer available. Cnilep (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried to find some online. Whether they are good for WT:ATTEST is doubtful, but at least a 自治体 is "better" than some Internet rando.
https://www.nippon.com/ja/japan-topics/c030119/ 今だったら絶対みんなに『あいつコロナだ』と言われただろうね。
https://www.sankeibiz.jp/econome/news/200402/ecb2004021601008-n1.htm 「『おまえコロナやろ』と言われるから、行かない」
https://www.town.kotohira.kagawa.jp/uploaded/life/6736_8499_misc.pdf あいつコロナだ(事実無根のうわさ) おい、「コロナ」(悪意のある愛称)
https://www.city.kitakyushu.lg.jp/page/dayori/200701/pdf/files/200701_page01.pdf 咳をしている、あの人コロナかも?
https://www.city.nishiwaki.lg.jp/material/files/group/5/reiwa2nenn6gatu.pdf 咳をしている あの人、コロナ?
https://www.tmd.ac.jp/med/psyc/topics/covid-19/henken.pdf 咳をしているあの人コロナかも
https://es.higo.ed.jp/nanataki-c/wysiwyg/file/download/20/2333 教室で「あの人、コロナじゃない?」などと言っている人
http://www.furanoryokuho.hokkaido-c.ed.jp/shiryou/mado/%90%B6%93k%8Ew%93%B1%95%94%95%D6%82%E8/_%90%B6%93k%8Ew%93%B1%95%94%95%D6%82%E8R2%94N%93x%91%E61%8D%86.pdf 「あいつコロナなんじゃない?」
Fish bowl (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[BTW, One News is a regional broadcast television news program rather than "some Internet rando", but they apparently don't durably archive the content they upload to the web. Cnilep (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)]Reply[reply]
Just noticed that the definition has "Internet slang" in it. The quotes suggest that this label is too specific, or that this usage has escaped the Internet. This should be amended. —Fish bowl (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
http://hdl.handle.net/10723/00004148 弱者に降りかかるCOVID-19(聴き手:野口 久美子、鄭 栄桓) 近所の人が「あの人はコロナだ」って
http://doi.org/10.14988/00028307 特措法・感染症法の改正 : 罰則の検討を中心にして 路上で、「俺はコロナだ」などと言って、他人に息を吹きかけた事件
Fish bowl (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I parse all these attestations as referring to the novel coronavirus (disease), or at best the state of being infected with it, much like the famous "僕はうなぎだ". Notice they're all preceded by a topic of a person. Defining it as a person with the virus would be akin to defining うなぎ as "a person who eats eel". Nardog (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nardog: Yeah I can see that interpretation. Then what do you think of the definition "infected person" itself? Does it exist? Should it be removed? —Fish bowl (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it should, that's what I was implying. At least I don't see it's supported by any of the citations above or in Citations:コロナ so far. The "小" in "コロナ小" is clearly the suffix standing for "小学校", so it better translates as "Corona Elementary". Nardog (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK. —Fish bowl (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. The citations simply do not support this definition (so I don't understand why it was moved here). You could replace the word in them with , 糖尿病, etc. and they would be still grammatical, but we don't define them as "person with cancer" or "person with diabetes". This is a function of the syntax, not of this lexical item. Nardog (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Japanese. "wealth inequality": sum of parts. (@Shen233) —Fish bowl (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

agreed, go ahead Shen233 (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hmm, I note that this is a set phrase. One doesn't say, for instance, 富貧の差 (fuhin no sa, literally rich poor 's difference). An alternative way to say this in Japanese is 持てる者持たざる者 (moteru mono to motazaru mono no sa, literally can-have people and not-have people 's difference), but this is also a set phrase: one cannot swap the noun order to 持たざる者と持てる者の差 (motazaru mono to moteru mono no sa) and still have it sound "right" -- just as one cannot say "the difference between the have-nots and the haves" and have that still work stylistically / idiomatically.
All that said, I'm not sure how much set-phrase-ness counts towards grounds for inclusion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think 貧富 vs 富貧 is a separate matter. 寒暖の差 is much more common than 暖寒の差, but that doesn't inform us anything about the の差 part, which is the main part to look at when discussing whether it is a sum of parts or not. --Whym (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say it's not idiomatic enough considering the parts can be separated, as in 貧富の大きな差[17]. Whym (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 2023 Edit

This was tagged long ago but seems not to have been listed here. The fate of this RFD should probably be tethered to that of its donor language term, at Jeanne d'Arc, unless we can see metaphorical use in one language not present in the other. Soap 11:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It occurred to me after I posted this that I'd rather see it at RFV, since what we're looking for is metaphorical use, but I will leave this here as its French counterpart stands currently at its own RFD. Soap 11:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was included with other-language equivalents at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English. —Fish bowl (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sum of parts: "the password [key] to [getting] website traffic". ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral: are there other figurative uses of 密碼 like this? Is it a collocation with other similar collocations, or is it more unique? —Fish bowl (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fish bowl: likely an artifact of translation. off the top of my head:
The Wealth Codes:
How to Build Massive Wealth
The Secret To Success 成功的秘訣;成功的密碼(ambiguous:成功的秘密)
The Secret To Viral Post 流量密碼
Delete. --Ywhy (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes sense to me; delete. —Fish bowl (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above, but do we need a separate sense for 密碼 meaning a figurative "secret to unlocking something"? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May 2023 Edit

Japanese. The term is the courtesy title of Fujiwara no Tadamichi. According to WT:NSE, [n]o individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic, which should also applies to specific names referring to a person like this. The entry is therefore out of scope.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

後京極摂政前太政大臣 Edit

Japanese. The term is the courtesy title of Kujō Yoshitsune. Delete for the same reasons (out of scope per WT:NSE) as mentioned above.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

入道前太政大臣 Edit

Japanese. The term is the courtesy title of Saionji Kintsune. Delete for the same reasons (out of scope per WT:NSE) as mentioned above.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that you overlooked the last part of the green text: “...page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic”; linking the four for emphasis. Don’t see the alleged proper names there... what seems to be the matter? You were probably thinking about card numbers 6, 11, 16, etc. of that particular anthology which do have said names... by the way, there’s a few more! ~ POKéTalker(==) 05:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, perhaps I misunderstood. I thought WT:NSE may also extend to cover specific non-idiomatic personal names that may not fulfill these requirements. This leads to another point: they are prime examples of sum of parts, just like we won't create an entry named Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith that states that it's the formal title of Elizabeth II, or Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular as the title for the dictator Idi Amin.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the first time am seeing a user appealing to the SOP card when the sense(s) do mean more than just them... assuredly, the above three aren’t the so-called “non-idiomatic sum of parts” you were expecting; and do not drag English to this discussion. An example that would both qualify for SOP and NSE is 6 (Middle Counselor Yakamochi) and 11 (Councillor Takamura) mentioned earlier. Since when is the “courtesy title of...” sense out of scope for this or other non-English language? Never seen such a case... what of Zhongni (second-born from Ni Hill), for Confucius? ~ POKéTalker(==) 05:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but as the terms's meaning are clearly directing to the courtesy names of people, why are you speaking card numbers? Some sort of playing card meanings like king of spades? I don't understand.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To the point: at least read Hyakunin Isshu on Wikipedia to know what these three really are. Where in the NSE says that courtesy names, especially in foreign languages, are “out of scope” from your understanding? Don’t see any proper names of persons somewhere in the three you are requesting for deletion.. ~ POKéTalker(==) 13:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese. SoP: 耳朵 + . – Wpi31 (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. RcAlex36 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Silghtly weak keep.You know what, I’ll say keep as well, instead of delete. As the creator of the 耳朵聾 page, I don’t usually keep a check and research before making any pages here. I’m just a normal editor. I’m not a linguist or anything like that in any way. So I am sorry that I didn’t research beforewards. It is shown as a dialectal variant on the 聾 page. (I know this page (link here) is my creation) Kanjishowa21-4 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep. It seems to be 'idiomatic' (not necessarily non-SoP, but a normal way of expressing this, as opposed to 耳聾) in some varieties (see the dialectal synonyms at 耳聾). (The page needs a clean-up, though, if we keep this.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Upon a quick check in a handful of Wu topolectal dictionaries (Suzhounese, Chongmingnese, Hangzhounese), all of them define the term as equivalent to 耳背 (hard of hearing) instead of "deaf" - i.e. not equivalent to 耳聾. The Chongming dictionary in fact distinguishes between 聾耳朵 (deaf) and 耳朵聾 (hard of hearing) which to me seems like it could warrant a keep. – Musetta6729 (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep. The Wu word exists warrants an entry per above, but the current entry itself is SoP and requires some heavy reworking/clean up. – Wpi31 (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to 耳背. This is already documented in the dialectal synonyms of 耳背. -- Ywhy (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are completely different words, so they should not be redirected. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese. This seems to be a common collocation, but it's SoP. The entry should probably be at V. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move to V. V你50 is similarly common. – Wpi (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. or else we have 微我相片 微我簡報 微聊 -- Ywhy (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an Internet slang. Others are not.
vivo X90 推出“v 我 50”肯德基联名礼盒,将于明日“疯狂星期四”发布 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@内存溢出的猫: It might be an Internet meme, but how is it not the sum of its parts V (verb) + (indirect object) + 50 (direct object)? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about mentioning "esp in reference to eating at KFC" in this entry? 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@内存溢出的猫: This feels very encyclopedic rather than something for a dictionary. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Finally I get it. Marketing gimmick by KFC[18]. Only V我50 or V你50 are popularized, as it's roughly the amount spent for a single visit.
Advertisement/Endorsement of KFC & Vivo -- Ywhy (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although this was incorporated into KFC's official marketing, the original campaign didn't have this phrase, which likely started as an Internet slang later. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Korean. Just an English transliteration. The English word "meatgrinder" is commonly called as "()세절기" in Korean. [19][20][21][22] Dubukimchi (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dubukimchi: It seems attestable for this sense. Cognate with Japanese ミンサー (minsā). Also check 미트 민서 (miteu minseo, meat mincer) in Google searches. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Atitarev: ᅟI found some results in Google, but it is used to only a limited extent as a compound of "미트 민서" or "민서-기(機)". Dubukimchi (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dubukimchi: Hi. Thanks. I've made some changes to the entry based on the limited results. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Send to RFV? —Fish bowl (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fish bowl: Yes, it can be. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese. SoP: A4 + . --Mahogany115 (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, but let’s create a sense at A4. Theknightwho (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theknightwho: I wonder if it's necessary since it's in Translingual. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Justinrleung The pronunciation section is useful, I think. Theknightwho (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theknightwho: Pronunciation in Translingual, like at Homo sapiens, might do? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese. Sum of parts. Definition also incorrect. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does it actually mean? Nardog (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply