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 any other non-English 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 any other non-English 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 any Italic language, i.e. Latin, its sister languages (e.g., Oscan, Faliscan), and its descendants, including Romance languages (e.g., French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Catalan).

For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English.
For Chinese/Japanese/Korean entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK.
For reconstructed entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Reconstruction.
For all other entries, 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

Templates:

{{rfd}}
{{rfd-sense}}
{{rfd-redundant}}
{{archive-top|rfd}} + {{archive-bottom}}

April 2020 edit

reine des abeilles edit

Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments6 people in discussion

French. As a native speaker, I see this lemma has a sum of parts. A proof is the TLFi does know this word. Yet if we look at reine, we can read: "2.a Animal, végétal, chose qui domine, l'emporte sur les autres au sein d'un groupe, dans un lieu donné, par ses qualités propres. [Chez les insectes sociaux (fourmis, termites, guêpes et surtout abeilles)] Femelle féconde unique d'une colonie, d'une ruche. Reine d'abeilles, des abeilles; reine termite. Les fourmis sont en grand émoi: L'âme du nid, la reine est morte (Rollinat, Névroses, 1883, p. 234). J'ai plus d'une fois, comme tout amateur d'abeilles, fait venir d'Italie des reines fécondées (Maeterl., Vie abeilles, 1901, p. 61)." This mean that we can "reine des fourmis", "reine des termites", etc. In the example given by TLFi, the text only use "reine" (bold is mine). Pamputt (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if this should be deleted, but I did add the relevant sense to reine. Ultimateria (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The definition is queen bee; “queen bee”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. French abeille means "bee". How would I know this is the way of putting it in French? In Czech, we say včelí královna rather than *královna včel. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

~~Keep~~ - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 06:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Struck per our previous discussion. Imetsia (talk (more)) 20:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

It just seems like this expression is not idiomatic in French like it is in English (compare queen ant, queen termite). As such, we have to delete.

As for Dan's comment, there is a translation table at queen bee. This, that and the other (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

July 2020 edit

latet anguis in herba edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is it lexicalised in Latin (if yes, should it possibly be moved to anguis in herba?), or was it only created because it's the origin of the English idiom? @Metaknowledge, Fay Freak. P U C – 15:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The phrase can be found in Latin texts, mostly literally as in Virgil, but sometimes with the verb in conjugated form.^[1][2][3] These, the oldest ones I found (apart from Virgil), are all from the 16th century. I also found an elliptic use, without the verb.^[4] --Lambiam 20:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@PUC, Lambiam:It seems like the idiomatic part is the noun phrase, while the verb can be omitted without loss of meaning, which seems to be the ultimate criterion for determining an idiom. It's obviously an allegory originally, and a good allegory is always ripe for becoming proverbial; nevertheless, I think this only happened after Erasmus, as it isn't found among his proverbial mountains of proverbs. Brutal Russian (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

August 2020 edit

-srice edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

French suffix, apparent alt form of -trice but unused. Ultimateria (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is the syllable onset sr- even possible in French? --Lambiam 19:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't have to be possible as an onset cluster if it's preceded by a vowel. We have listing for six French nouns ending in -srice, all actually in -ssrice: successrice, prédécessrice, intercessrice, assessrice, professrice, possessrice. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I find all of these jarring. I'd consider them nonstandard. P U C – 20:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Notwithstanding their jarringness, can they be attested? --Lambiam 14:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Only one (prédécessrice) is actually suffixed. I agree with your point below and suggest sticking with -rice. Whose category, incidentally, has only 3 pages compared to 23 at -trice. Ultimateria (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

If professrice is analyzed as profes + -srice, shouldn't we then not also have -drice (used in ambassadrice) and -trice (used in actrice and inspectrice)? --Lambiam 14:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

There might be a mistake. Modern French doesn't allow such a cluster, in onset or between two syllables (with /s/ as coda and /r/ as onset), so if you're dealing with Middle French you should use "mfr". If they were used in Middle French, the fricative of the aforementioned cluster would have undergone a fortition leading to /tr/ in Modern French. Also the productive feminine agent noun-forming suffixes are -eur (without any distinction with masculine, given that the latter acts as the neuter), -eure (almost never used but recently coined by the Academy, although no institution can ever rule a language) or -euse (the regular feminine form of "-eur"), and the ones which forms standard feminines of the words above are definitely -eur (by far the most used, though indistinguishable from the masculine without context) and -eure (somewhat better according to the said Academy). Malku H₂n̥rés (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

This all seems a little silly. ~~The only attestations i can find for the words that end in ssrice are indications that they are incorrect forms for which correct forms already exist.~~ The etymology proposed for them (based on the existence of a Latin form) looks sketchy, too, because they are almost certainly neologisms based on the existing masculine form. Finally, splitting ss in the middle doesn't make any sense when they always act as a single letter in French, so the suffix, if these terms are attested, would be -rice. (cf. masculine -eur).SteveGat (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I managed to find some attestations for some of the words, but the proposed suffix remains frivolous. French wiktionary doesn't have it, and the words there that end in ssrice are proposed to have the suffix -rice, based the -eur/-rice pair. In any case, this suffix should be deleted. SteveGat (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Btw, Wiktionary distinguishes between [[Category:French words suffixed with -rice]] and [[Category:French words suffixed with -trice]], but Wiktionnaire doesn't: https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Mots_en_fran%C3%A7ais_suffix%C3%A9s_avec_-rice (only a sub-category for -cultrice). Thomas Linard (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

September 2020 edit

gangaba edit

Latest comment: 6 months ago15 comments7 people in discussion

There is no indication this is Latin, it is only known from one mention in Quintus Curtius Rufus 3, 13, 7 which is “Gangabas Persae vocant humeris onera portantes.” – “The Persians call those who carry burdens on their shoulders gangaba”. Fay Freak (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Unless the ancient Persians spoke a Latin dialect – but the historical linguistic evidence argues against this – the cited passage is actually a clear indication that this is not Latin. --Lambiam 08:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think current practice is to keep hapaxes mentioned as being from foreign languages in ancient languages, as there is no good alternative way of including them without tons of speculation on the base form and base language. The entry should, however, reflect that it is simply mentioned as a foreign word as opposed to being a word that was actually in use in Latin. If we delete entries like these, we miss out on some of the most interesting mentioned words from antiquity (my personal favorites are μέδος and haliurunna). So yeah, keep, please. I have edited the entry to reflect its foreignness to Latin. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Mnemosientje: Not sure about such practice, the majority of comprehensive reference works omit them, being thus strict as including what really belongs to a language, like the σαπάνα (sapána) I yesterday found and most of these names in Dioscourides – should we add those thousands of – often insecurely read – names from there? And I account for the space being unlimited here. I’d rather avoid this kind of entries, if feasible, without tons of speculation. @ZxxZxxZ: does it remind you of any word? Maybe we could mention it on some Neo-Persian word as its oldest attestation; also we need translations for porter (I only know (hammâl). These entries stay misleading and have properties of ghost words, if they are titled “Latin” and are in descendant lists as Latin, and even have pronunciation sections like normal Latin word as haliurunna has; maybe haliurunna should actually be presented as Gothic, gangaba as Old Persian, while σαπάνα (sapána) as undetermined? That would be much truer. But in any case we also need to categorize such lacking entries somehow.

I mention that it seems like taxonomists have built moth names on this porter word: Mamerthes gangaba, Elachista gangabella. Fay Freak (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I added all I found, and couldn't found anything related in Middle Persian, though this is probably from some other Middle Iranian language. --Z 12:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

The main point is that these words need some place to stay, and especially in antiquity it often is hard to determine what exactly was the donor language. We can't be sure how well the antique authors knew from which language a word really derives. For example, the haliurunna word may not be Gothic proper at all (what if it's Vandalic instead, or some other EGmc language? Antique authors regularly conflated them with Goths), the word medos I mentioned is of uncertain origin, etc.; their forms are determined by how respectively a Latin and Greek writer made sense of these words they heard, they are therefore in terms of form probably not (exactly) as they would have been in their source language. Thus, it is not a bad solution per se imo to just keep such words at the language of the text in which they are attested, while clarifying that they are supposed to represent words from some other language. Perhaps "Undetermined" could be a solution, I have not thought about that much. I mainly just want them to have entries, as they are often (etymologically and otherwise) very interesting words. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I removed the pronunciation from haliurunna btw, you are right that it made little sense — Mnemosientje (t · c)

I've seen a dictionary (w:Dehkhoda Dictionary) that actually includes hapaxes. But also it's a good idea to include such pages in the categoriese of the language of origin: σπάκα is the only directly known Old Median word, mentioned in a Greek text. --Z 12:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Many dictionaries do; L&S for example, which is a Latin dictionary linked on the gangaba entry, includes it, as it does many other hapaxes of non-Latin origin. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to add that we should use this occasion to remove that antiquated rule that says a hapax is only good if it comes from Festus, Nonius Marcellinus or Saint Isidore. It's obvious, as evidenced by this discussion, that nobody abides by it. Also a general cleanup of the dusty WT:ALA would be good. --Biolongvistul (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Delete and move all such hapaxes to an appendix. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 21:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Appendixes is where words go to die, it is much preferable to just have them in mainspace where they'll actually be found by people looking for them. Again, it's hardly unheard of for Latin dictionaries to list such Latinised foreign hapaxes among more standard words (with an appropriate disclaimer, ofc), and there is no reason why we shouldn't. They're far too interesting to relegate to an appendix, imo. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, appendix + {{no entry}} then. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 05:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is even more useless than merely relegating it to an appendix, as the notice doesn't really fit the situation and would merely be confusing to the end user. Any solution that doesn't at the very least maintain good findability and contextual information in mainspace would be worse than just keeping it the way it currently is.

Also: I have no idea why what's good enough for Lewis & Short or Gaffiot shouldn't be good enough for us, especially given that these words tend to be among the most interesting ones attested in the corpus of classical texts. This kind of memory-holing is particularly egregious as Latin/Greek mentions of foreign words are often among the sole attestations of various Trümmersprachen; compare for example the Vandalic corpus, which consists more or less solely of a single Latinized sentence in a satirical poem. Even if we don't just keep it the way it is, we should at the very least maintain useful entries in mainspace to list possible etymologies and give other contextual information for these very interesting linguistic relics. (Might as well yeet sūfes off to the void.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm sympathetic to Mnemosientje's view, but I don't like at all having this under a Latin header. P U C – 11:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

We could have some template scheme for L2 headers == word mentioned in language x claimed language y ==. Which would cause technical vagaries, and be a bit like “Wiktionary does not have an entry on …” while at the same time acknowledging people’s searching for it. It is clearly low priority to include these ancient word-lists in the mainspace. Fay Freak (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

October 2020 edit

M’, M’., M.’ edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago18 comments8 people in discussion

Latin. Minor typographical variations. DTLHS (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Redirect to M'.. --Lambiam 14:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comments:

I would certainly have thought a redirect was more appropriate than a delete for each.
- M'.#Variant spellings lists five variants. @Lambiam do you intend
  1. M’ , M.’ , M’. all redirect to M'. ? In which case shouldn't M' and M.' also redirect to M'. ?
  2. I would say rather that M’ redirect to M' , and M.’ to M.', with only M’. redirecting to M'. .
As to what the typographical symbol is see this cited source:
One archaeologist asserts that the stroke after the M is a well-known abbreviation for the prænomen Manius; but this is generally M❜ ; a small comma-like figure being introduced after the M.

The "small comma-like figure" in the source is different from a comma and from an apostrophe, but I'm not sure what it is, how widespread the use of such a distinct symbol was, or whether it would matter to Wiktionary.

Jnestorius (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don’t know enough about the likelihood of various variants being used as search terms; my main point is that we should not just delete an entry if the term is a plausible search term that is an attested variant of an included term. If it is a “minor typographical variation”, I think a hard redirect is preferable to deletion. It depends on the specifics of each case whether a hard redirect is better than a soft redirect, but it is general practice (called “de facto acceptable” in WT:REDIR) to redirect terms with a curly apostrophe ’ to the same with a straight apostrophe ', so it is fine to have M’ redirect to M' and M.’ to M.', as long as we do not create double soft redirects, which may be a source of irritation. The question what present-day character corresponds to the “small comma-like figure” found in Roman inscriptions appears anachronistic to me. Someone more familiar with this material should look at this, but I think these abbreviations in Roman texts did not use a period, but followed them by an interpunct as a general separator between words. Looking at some of the sources, I am not certain that the usage note at M'. is correct either. --Lambiam 07:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

The "small comma-like figure" was not in the Roman inscriptions; ꟿ was, as supported by the reference "M.' (for Manius) is purely modern". We are talking about 19/20C printed transcriptions. Jnestorius (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

The author of “The recent discoveries of Roman remains found in repairing the north wall of the city of Chester” (linked to above) appears to believe that the “small comma-like figure” is found in Roman inscriptions as part of an abbreviation of “Manius”, since he discards the proposed interpretation of “ꟿ” seen in an inscription as abbreviating “Manius” by stating that this is generally “M_’”. --Lambiam 11:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes, I get your point. I would be tempted to delete the source as unreliable on that basis, but that would be cherry-picking and/or circular reasoning on my part. I will defer to anyone with actual expertise instead. Jnestorius (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Manius (praenomen), citing various sources, says the name was originally abbreviated with the five-stroke M, and later abbreviated as M + the apostrophe-like thing. Given the source above and other sources I see when I search for things like "Manius, abbreviated" or "abbreviation of Manius" which say M' was the standard abbreviation of Manius (including ones talking about how that was easy to confuse with the abbreviation M. for Marcus), I take this to mean both abbreviations were found in period, whether in inscriptions or elsewhere. - -sche (discuss) 21:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam: Re “it is general practice […] to redirect terms with a curly apostrophe”: compare I’m (etc.), deleted in 2019: “don't need redirects that only differ by curly quote -- the system does this automatically”. J3133 (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well, it doesn’t for me. I see I’m as a red link; when I click on it the system tells me (among other things): “Wiktionary does not yet have an entry for I’m.” — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 11:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC).Reply

That's just what I was going to say. When I click on the red link I’m I am not taken automatically to I'm. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

You missed the point. It does not have an entry because it was deleted. J3133 (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

But the point is (I think) that it was deleted under a false pre~~text~~mise. --Lambiam 21:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox care to explain your edit summary quoted above ("the system does this automatically")? Jnestorius (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think the only automatic redirect is when using the search box. DTLHS (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I can't explain stuff I did in 2019. I can't remember what I did last Tuesday, mate. Equinox ◑ 09:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lols --{{victar|talk}} 17:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Soft- or hard-redirect to whatever form(s) we decide to make the lemma (of this version of the abbreviation, as distinct from the five-stroke M version). - -sche (discuss) 21:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

November 2020 edit

Latin SOPs? edit

Latest comment: 5 days ago13 comments9 people in discussion

-12:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 93.221.43.61 (talk).

tace tu edit

I dunno, the only other obvious variation on this is tacēte vōs, which can be treated as its plural version. It's not as idiomatic as "fuck you", but maybe like "shut it". Brutal Russian (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

vota vita mea edit

Are we treating mottoes as SOPs? There's a suckton of them in Latin, obviously, and I'm unsure of how to decide which ones to keep. Ditto for the next two below. Brutal Russian (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

vitam impendere vero edit

Delete all, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Additions: — This unsigned comment was added by 93.221.43.61 (talk) at 18:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC).Reply

I would suggest this be retained, if only because I had cause to look it up and found it useful. A book on the Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer uses the phrase, citing Juvenal, as an epigraph for the volume. It was translated by T. Bailey Saunders (New York; A.L. Burt Publishers), probably very early 1900s, for those interested in finding it. Seems like it has enough historical value to be worthwhile to keep. Sychonic (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

iuniores ad labores edit

laus Deo edit

This one = thank God, I wouldn't want to cross the dude. Brutal Russian (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Delete all SOP Latin mottos. These belong in an appendix or in Wikipedia. This, that and the other (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep laus Deo, it is used as a formulaic phrase and an interjection (same as praise the Lord) in Medieval and Ecclesiastical Latin e.g., interjection.
Delete others, though judging from sources ([5], [6], [7] etc.) there might be an argument for an English entry at juniores ad labores since it's used as a maxim in ordinary writing and not just cited as a Latin motto (seemingly it's also specific to English as such). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Noting for the record that I've redone laus Deo as an interjection entry. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why not reidentify them as Translingual rather than Latin? That seems to be the point of having these, after all. — 69.121.86.13 13:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete all except laus Deo, per Al-Muqanna. Mottos are not lexical items per se. P U C – 11:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep Commonly used phrases also have their place on Wiktionary. --Shoshin000 (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Deleted (except for laus Deo). P U C – 08:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

May 2021 edit

in brodo edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Italian SOP, "in broth." Imetsia (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

"In broth" does not fully convey the notion of having been cooked in broth, rather than merely being served in broth. I think of tortellini in brodo more as a light soup that contains pasta as a filler, than as being “pasta in a broth”. --Lambiam 11:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how semantically significant the distinction you're making is. As a second point, there do exist dishes "in brodo" that are just served in broth, rather than cooked in it (see this for example). Imetsia (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam? Imetsia (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think this shows (perhaps) that the term can also be used in an &lit sense. But note that the recipe requires the broth to be boiling hot (brodo bollente), which is (I think) essential for the success of this recipe. --Lambiam 14:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

If this were an &lit sense, then the other definition (the one including "cooked in broth") would have to be "figurative or idiomatic." Is it really the case that the addition of this one "cooked-in-broth" detail renders the phrase figurative/idiomatic? As for the second point, that just presents a moving target and a distinction without a difference. That sort of hair-splitting can be (and has been) used to justify keeping just about every entry (here's just one example among many [Dentonius arguing about "friction" that isn't implied in the term]).

As a sidenote, I was able to find other recipes of food "in brodo" that are just served, as opposed to cooked in, broth: [8], [9]. Imetsia (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

But note that the term has a qualifying label (of pasta or rice). Scrippelle are neither. Are there examples of pasta or rice in brodo in which the starchy ingredient is not cooked in the broth in which it is served? --Lambiam 12:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam: Why are "scrippelle" (or really just "crespelle") not pasta? We define pasta as "Dough made from wheat and water and sometimes mixed with egg and formed into various shapes..." If you follow the first recipe, those are precisely the ingredients used, and the product is then folded into a particular shape, to make the scrippelle. Imetsia (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The crespelle of the recipe are essentially crêpes (thin pancakes); the Wikipedia article Crêpe lists crespella as an Italian name for a thin crêpe. Pasta is not just any of wheat-and-water based dough; it is a type of food that, unlike pancakes including crespelle, is not cooked on a hot surface. On the Italian Wikipedia, the article Crespella is not in (a category descended from) Categoria:Pasta. --Lambiam 20:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

keep - seems reasonable. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

voulez-vous coucher avec moi edit

Latest comment: 8 months ago6 comments6 people in discussion

RFD'ing the French. Not a useful French phrasebook entry. In fact, I might even say this is a valid English phrase, a kind of humorous or pseudo-faux-French or something like that. Passed RFD in 2007, but things were different back then. Indian subcontinent (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

maybe one for the Hungarian phrasebook. – Jberkel 09:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is the chorus of the 1974 hit “Lady Marmalade” (Voulez-vous coucher avec moi, ce soir? Voulez-vous coucher avec moi?), the only French in the otherwise English lyrics. (Pardon my French.) It is valid French, but as a phrase mainly known in the Anglophone world. In French it is just as euphemistic as English “I want to sleep with you”, but not an idiomatic phrase. Finding out whether it is a “useful” French phrasebook entry needs some further investigation in the field, but the use as such is obvious (in the spelling “voulay vous couchay aveck moy”) in John dos Passos 1921 novel Three Soldiers.^[10] --Lambiam 12:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Keep. It's a very iconic phrase; I'm sure some people want to look it up as a whole. Fytcha (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Requested user is blocked infinite.--220.100.56.65 05:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Imetsia (talk (more)) 21:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

fare la fronda edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Italian SOP. The meaning is just limited to the sum of its parts, and does not mean "to plot" in any broader way. Imetsia (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Italian Wiktionary gives fare la fronda as idiom with the sense “to oppose in a covert way”. Is the secretiveness implied in the meaning of fronda, or were the editors of the Wikizinario mistaken in writing “in maniera occulta”? --Lambiam 11:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think the secretiveness is implied in the meaning of fronda. For example, the Devoto-Oli defines fronda as a "covert movement of tenacious opposition" (emphasis mine, and this is obviously a translation of the Italian definition). Imetsia (talk)

In that case I think the definition in our entry fronda needs to be adjusted. --Lambiam 15:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Done. Is the definition good enough now? Imetsia (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've expanded it somewhat. I would keepit SemperBlotto (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

dare spettacolo di sé edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Italian SOP as dare spettacolo + di + sé. Imetsia (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don’t know. We have English make a spectacle of oneself as English idiom; can one generalize this non-reflexively in Italian and say something like ha dato spettacolo di sua suocera in an idiomatic sense of someone having made a fool of their mother-in-law? --Lambiam 10:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I did find a few "dare spettacolo" + "di/del/della" + [Noun] on Google. But these are few and are typically in the form "dare spettacolo di" something's grandor, power, etc. (using the first definition of "dare spettacolo"). But I would point out that dare spettacolo in itself means "to make a spectacle of oneself." The added "di sé" just emphasizes that. Saying "ha dato spettacolo di sua suocera" is as ungrammatical in Italian as saying "he gave a spectacle of himself of his mother-in-law" would be in English. Imetsia (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Can you give a few unambiguous examples? Those I see where the spectacle is that of the maker themselves, it just means "to show off", "to put on a show" with generally a positive connotation ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15]). I also wonder if, in existing cases, the second sense of dare spettacolo is not simply a straightforward sarcastic use of irony (like when someone remarks “that was hilarious” after hearing someone tell an insipid joke that falls flat with the audience), which would mean it does not qualify for inclusion. --Lambiam 15:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I fully follow your argument, but I have updated the entry to reflect transitivity, the di preposition, etc. As the page now reflects, dare spettacolo can be used with "di" to mean "show off" or "put on a show" with generally positive connotations (but not always positive, e.g. [16]). I still think the "di sé" is just to add emphasis - "rafforzativo" as it would be said in Italian - to the second sense of "to make a fool of oneself." So the entry is still SOP as far as I can tell. Finally, I really doubt that the second sense is a sarcastic use of irony. Imetsia (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

July 2021 edit

mettere via edit

Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Borderline SOP in Italian with senses 2, 3, 5, or 6 of away (I think these senses also hold for the Italian via). We have the English put away, but that has a number of other senses that render it non-SOP. Imetsia (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

(Notifying Benwing2, GianWiki, SemperBlotto, Ultimateria, Jberkel, Imetsia, Sartma): Is this really SOP? Any thoughts? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would also encourage people to look at some of my other RFD nominations, some of which have gone on for months without sufficient comments by others to either keep or delete. Imetsia (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Imetsia, Fytcha "set aside" and "put aside" have several meanings, which meaning does "mettere via" correspond to? Benwing2 (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'd say the meaning is the one expressed by the first sense of put away, that is “to put (something) in its usual storage place; to place out of the way, clean up”. — GianWiki (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Definitely not SOP. See, eg, [17] [18]. Surely idiomatic in the sense "to save up" (a more colloquial form for "mettere da parte"). The sense mentioned by Gianwiki is not completely literal, as well, since "mettere via" could also be interpreted as "to throw away" (but the expression is never used in this sense). Popop (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

August 2021 edit

dans edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

RFD "in, into (from outside, to inside)". The example given is mettre l'argent dans la poche, but this reflects the semantics of the verb mettre, not the preposition dans. Not in fr.wikt or larousse.fr.--Tibidibi (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Delete. — Fenakhay ^{(تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت)} 02:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Take out the "(from outside, to inside)" as overly specific, but our entry definitely needs to indicate that dans means not only "in" (statically) but also "into" (with motion). So either merge with sense 1 or keep. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja, does je l'ai mis sous la table mean that sous should have a motion-related definition? It feels that the motion is just part of what the verb mettre means. The same goes for other verbs that intrinsically imply motion.--Tibidibi (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't necessarily have to be separate gloss line starting with #, but there should be at least either usexes or quotes showing both motion-related and static definitions. It's not a given that these will be the same in French, as they can be different in other languages. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yo, but why should English have the same sense at in? How do we distinguish such separate senses from praegnans constructio? Fay Freak (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

October 2021 edit

immagine di sé edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Italian SOP. Imetsia (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Weak keep; French image de soi sounds like a set phrase to me. P U C – 12:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Delete It definitely is a SOP. Sartma (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is as legitimate as its definition self-image, I think. Both are borderline. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Combinations of dar and fazer edit

Latest comment: 3 months ago15 comments5 people in discussion

In the case of dar, these examples (some perhaps prematurely, created by me) might be SOP if we consider them instances of the sense of "to carry out a physical interaction with something", though the description "(with the indirect object taking em or an indirect objective pronoun)" probably needs to be amended. They often can be substituted by single verb that means the same thing "dar um beijo"=="beijar". In the case of fazer, I think they simply have the sense of "to do; to execute; to perform" or a similar one of "to be the cause of". I don't think they are much different from "fazer pão", "fazer cimento" or any other combination of "fazer" and a noun, but they have some caveats, so I thought about bringing them to discussion.

Keep, some are idiomatic, like tener sentido and tener sexo in Spanish. Ffffrr (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ffffrr Just to clarify, but I haven't proposed to delete all combinations of dar and fazer. fazer sentido is indeed idiomatic and does not figure in the list below. - Sarilho1 (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

dar um malho edit

SOP, per above. Same as malhar. - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

dar um susto edit

SOP, per above. Same as assustar. - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

dar uma queca edit

Not completely sure about this one. Literally translates to have sex. - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

fazer a barba edit

Literally, to shave, synonym of barbear. SOP, if we consider the sense "to arrange; to clean up; to tidy". - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

fazer a cama edit

SOP, if we consider the sense "to arrange; to clean up; to tidy". - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Most of these are idiomatic enough to keep. If dar or fazer can mean "have any interaction with", then that sense is broad enough to deserve a definition. Ultimateria (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Delete all except dar uma queca (because of its surprising verb - one might assume it means give a fuck), now that including collocations in noun entries is explicitly supported by policy. This, that and the other (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep the ones with "fazer"; they're not SOP, as the expected meaning for things like "fazer cocô" would be a synonym to "produzir cocô" or something (also take a shit is a thing). "Fazer a barba" and "fazer a cama" (make the bed, make one's bed) can in no way be considered SOPs, their meaning can't really be inferred from the words involved -- It'd be SOP if the entry were talking about how Portuguese speakers use "fazer a cama" when talking about beds actually being built by carpenters and stuff. A similar thing goes for fazer sexo; considering have sex and tener sexo exist, there's no real reason for it to not exist as well. I don't think giving fucks is something you can do in Portuguese; you can't say "dar uma fodida" or "dar uma trepada" or anything like that without it just meaning "to fuck (someone)". The same applies to dar uma queca too, so I think that that one should be deleted as well as all the other entries here with "dar" in them. MedK1 (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

RFD-kept This, that and the other (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

March 2022 edit

em se tratando de edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Recently created by @Munmula, but isn't this just a SOP? Furthermore, the definition is already included in tratar. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I may have missed something, but I've never seen such a construction being used outside this phrase, at least not in Brazilian Portuguese. "Tratando-se de" would be a SOP, but the preposition at the beginning makes it all weird in my opinion. - Munmula (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, you might indeed be right and some sources do refer it might be a Gallicism. But what about the similar construction "em que se trata de"? Would you say that too would be a preposition? - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

It functions as one, just like when it comes to. Is it idiomatic? It is far more common^[19] than em que trata-se de.^[20]— This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 09:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC).Reply

@Lambiam You forgot to sign. As for your comment, the first of your examples is more common because the second is not considered correct. Dependent clauses imply proclisis should be used instead of enclisis. I don't think commonness would be a good argument there, though that doesn't imply you aren't correct about it being idiomatic. Sarilho1 (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes. In Portuguese, enclisis ("trata-se") is not used after relative pronouns like que or negative words like não or nunca, with the proclisis ("se trata") being used instead. I'm also unsure about what to do, but I think we can all agree we're not dealing with a mere SOP and this deserves some entry of its own. Munmula (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

That might be the best option. - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

April 2022 edit

plus ultra edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Latin. Sum of parts, even if given a proper definition. This, that and the other (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep, it’s a phrase and motto, not an {{&lit}} def. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Being a motto doesn't make a phrase entry-worthy. We don't have an entry because you're worth it defined as "Advertising slogan of L'Oréal". Plus, what would the definition even be? "Personal motto of Charles V (1500–1558)" is an encyclopedic detail rather than a definition. This, that and the other (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep. It's a rally to go “beyond”, to go explore beyond the known borders (“where no man has gone before” :) If this gets deleted, why would non plus ultra be kept?. – Jberkel 08:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete It is sum of parts. It should be treated as English, maybe? Like other mottos (see: e pluribus unum). non plus ultra is not a motto. Sartma (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

May 2022 edit

curvar-se edit

Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Portuguese. Reflexive form of curvar. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Question. We have quite a few such lemmas, such as dobrar-se, endireitar-se, prostrar-se. Should these all be deleted, or is there some deletion rationale that applies specifically to curvar-se? --Lambiam

@Lambiam. Sorry, I didn't noticed the question sooner. I do think that if one is deleted, all of them should. But maybe we should open a different discussion to fully set what policy should be set? - Sarilho1 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Sarilho1. See a similar issue below for Italian: § essersi. I suppose a general discussion can be held on when to include and when not to include such cliticized forms. For a mesoclitic, see § gözlenebilmek. I see that Spanish reflexive verbs such as inclinarse are listed, but not as lemmas but as verb forms. --Lambiam 14:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete this and the other Portuguese entries like it. Ultimateria (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comment: Whatever we choose should match how we treat -rse verbs in Spanish. It's wildly inconsistent to delete curvar-se and others like it while leaving curvarse untouched. MedK1 (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep: While I agree it's not relevant to document all reflexive forms of Portuguese verbs, some of them (curvar-se and prostrar-se listed above, as well as others like tornar-se, desculpar-se, vir-se, importar-se, etc.) have specific meanings that are quite distinct from those of the corresponding base form, and therefore would benefit from stand-alone entries. In some cases the reflexive form is even the main one (e.g. suicidar-se or aperceber-se). Besides, I agree with the others above in that a any deletion should be accompanied by a consistent approach across all Portuguese reflexive forms, as well as their close equivalents in e.g. Spanish. --Waldyrious (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

ferme ta gueule edit

Latest comment: 4 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Unlike ta gueule/vos gueules or la ferme which are idiomatic, this is merely a conjugation of fermer sa gueule. Maybe rather than delete, just turn it into a verb form like ferme-la ? --Olybrius (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why would we do that? Are there other examples of entries of French multi-word verb forms? We don't even have such very colloquial forms as va-t’en or [tu] t’en fiches. IMO even the inclusion of the lemma fermer sa gueule is dubious; why is it not just the sum of fermer +‎ sa +‎ gueule – more vulgar than fermer sa bouche, but just as understandable? --Lambiam 11:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Possibly not a question for this thread, but why don't we include conjugations of French multi-word verbs? Theknightwho (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

We don’t do so in general for English either (carried over, rose and shone, wash themselves). --Lambiam 14:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's more down to no-one bothering, isn't it? I've seen plenty of them knocking around, and I don't think there's any advantage in excluding them, to be honest, particularly where they may be a more common form. Either we do all forms properly or we don't. Theknightwho (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I turned it into a verb form. --Olybrius (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

July 2022 edit

Salvavita edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Italian. Trademarks are not dictionary definitions. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am the author of said page :)

At least according to the traditional dictionary I've long used (the Zingarelli), a few trademarks are worthwile of inclusion (a concept which Wiktionary seems to follow, indeed the basis for my choice of adding it), with the criterion seemingly being "homograph of an 'ordinary' word"; the genericized version is a recognized if improper word in Italian and IMO benefits (especially for non-native speakers) from having its origin documented... --37.179.85.189 20:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Category:English trademarks does not include entries that are only used as trademarks. If the generic sense is uncapitalized, the capitalized one shouldn't have an entry. We can document what the trademark is under the etymology section of the genericized term. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete per Surjection. Ultimateria (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep: the above explanations are not in keeping with WT:BRAND, which says "A brand name for a product or service should be included if it has entered the lexicon. Apart from genericized trademarks, this is measured objectively by the brand name’s use in at least three independent durably archived citations spanning a period of at least three years. ...". BRANDS says "apart from genericized trademarks", making it clear not only genericized trademarks are included. The question remains whether there are attesting quotations meeting WT:BRAND, but that's for RFV to decide, not RFD. The definition would be changed from "Trademark of BTicino for residual-current devices" to "A residual-current device of a trademark of BTicino". Compare Fiat, "An automobile manufactured by the Italian firm Fiat S.p.A." or Lincoln, "A brand of American automobile." More are at Category:en:Automobiles. Gillette has "A brand of razor blade". The interpretation is further confirmed by existence of Category:English trademarks as opposed to Category:English genericized trademarks. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

October 2022 edit

pulmo edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Latin noun sense 2: "(with marinus) A lunglike marine animal; a sea-lung, jellyfish." If it's only "with marinus" then it should be a separate entry (pulmo marinus or whatever; I don't know Latin). Or can it truly stand alone in this sense? Equinox ◑ 13:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep, the dictionary references provide two citations with pulmo in this sense by itself (Plautus Ep. 5.1.21 "pulmunes qui perhibetur" and Pliny 9.154 "ut holothuriis, pulmonibus, stellis"). Gaffiot's head for the sense is "pulmo marinus […] ou pulmo seul". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

March 2023 edit

cagar para edit

Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Portuguese, SOP. Sense already at cagar.

Does cagar ever have this sense other than in combination with para? If not, the combination is not transparent. --Lambiam 21:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

It can be intransitive. When transitive, the sense almost always uses para, though it can be confused with the sense to ignore, and use em instead. I've updated the main entry to make it clearer and added the sense of to ignore for «cagar em» - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Imetsia (talk (more)) 22:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

April 2023 edit

Jeanne d'Arc edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

French. This is a vote AGAINST deletion. I have added a descendant in the Japanese language which I believe holds relevance and significance. — This unsigned comment was added by PitterPatter533 (talk • contribs).

Delete. The French (and likely also the Japanese) entry fails WT:NSE. It's a similar discussion to the one that decided the deletion of the literal sense of Joan of Arc. - Sarilho1 (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

îi străbate gândul cuiva edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Italic#îi_străbate_gândul_cuiva. —Soap— 21:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC) Reply

-ação, -acção, -ização edit

Latest comment: 5 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Portuguese. Supposedly appended to nouns to form nouns indicating an action, the suffixes can simply be decomposed as -ar + -ção or -izar + -ção (equivalently for the superseded -acção). They don't have any indicated derived terms. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Seems like a matter of analysis that we could go both ways on. In at least some cases, the verbal root in -ar must be much rarer than the derived noun in -ação, right? Especially with loans and learned borrowings from Latin. —Soap— 11:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

If -ação were an actual Portuguese suffix, then we should see examples of nouns denoting actions that are derived from nouns, but not from the corresponding verb. The only case I can think of is sensação and that's not even a suffixation occurring in Portuguese but a mere reanalysis of a learned borrowing. In fact, cases where terms cannot be reanalyzed as a noun+-ação are much more common. # Consider the following verbs that entered Portuguese as borrowings:

1. English to standardize > standardizar > standardização
2. Latin mūtāre > mutar > mutação
3. French graver > gravar > gravação
Consider the following verbs that were formed in (Galician-)Portuguese with a prefix and suffix:
1. bafo > abafar > abafação (not *bafação)
2. plano > aplanar > aplanação (not *planação)
3. cara > encarar > encaração (not *caração)

We have a large number of examples that prove -ção is an active suffix in Portuguese, independent of what would be described as -ação suffixation. However, we have very few cases where we can argue we are in the presence of -ação suffixation that cannot analyzed as -ar+-ção suffixation (furthermore, I can only think of learned borrowings). Finally, I would like to note that -ção is often registered in dictionaries and scientific works as a suffix, but -ação is not (Aulete, Priberam, Infopédia). - Sarilho1 (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support deletion. AG202 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

If the corresponding Spanish terms are deleted as well, then support deletion. MedK1 (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

-ización, yes, but -ación, no since it's also lemmatized by the RAE with this explanation at its entry for -ción: "Los creados en español toman la forma -ación, si el verbo del que derivan es de la primera conjugación. Grabación; -ición, si es de la tercera. Embutición. Si el sustantivo deriva de un verbo de la segunda, toma otro sufijo." Unsure if it's the most convincing, but it makes sense to me at least a bitl. AG202 (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

It makes sense sure but it's really not the most convincing imo. It's listing -ación (and -ición!) as alternatives of "-ción" when dealing with first (and third) conjugation forms. They can still be analized as "-ar"+"-ción" or "-ir"+"-ción". Either way, regardless of how other dictionaries do it, "-ação" and "-ación" are perfect cognates and I can't see a reason to treat them any differently. MedK1 (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

May 2023 edit

cartão do cidadão edit

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Portuguese. Was requested for speedy deletion as a misspelling of cartão de cidadão, but I find it at a Brazilian government website [21] so I'm bringing it here. This, that and the other (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep as an alternative form. Portuguese grammar absolutely allows for constructions like this and carteira do motorista, though they're not exactly as common as the ones with "de" for these cases. MedK1 (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

prando edit

Discussion moved to WT:RFVI.

July 2023 edit

-lotodo edit

Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Spanish; not a suffix. P U C – 13:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete, incorrect analysis of these words' etymologies. Ultimateria (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete - Sarilho1 (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep. Thank you for putting this in RFD, unlike the RFV for -it-all through which i complained repeatedly that it was at the wrong forum. But my argument is similar ... if we delete this, how else would we analyze words like sabelotodo? Just saber + lo + todo? Where else in the Spanish language is there a construction like that? The Spanish wiktionary entry may explain it better for anyone who wants more context. —Soap— 14:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

avere fame edit

Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

avere sete edit

avere paura edit

avere freddo edit

Italian SOP. Just collocations of verbs with particular nouns, of the type similar to what you find in the English Appendix:Collocations of do, have, make, and take. Additionally, there is precedent for deleting entries of this type (see Vox's comment that "English entries with translation tables are the place to advise readers you give a look in Italian, have hunger in French, and so on"). Imetsia (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure about the Italian, but the French equivalents avoir faim, avoir soif, avoir peur (+ avoir chaud, avoir froid, avoir mal, avoir hâte, avoir sommeil, avoir envie, avoir honte) are no longer the mere sum of avoir + noun but are clearly lexicalised and perceived as a single unit, as evidenced by the fact that people now say avoir très faim (“to be very hungry”), avoir très soif (“to be very thirsty”), avoir très peur (“to be very afraid”), which used to be considered ungrammatical 150 years ago - très cannot be used alongside a substantive outside of these phrases. P U C – 19:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Italian and French expressions are probably similar. avere molta fame (“to be very hungry/have a lot of hunger”) and avere molta paura (“to be very scared/have a lot of fear”) are clearly grammatical, but molto is used with substantives all the time outside of those phrases. Indeed, here it's inflected for gender, which would not happen if we were to use molto as an adverb.

I'll add also that both the Devoto-Oli and the Zingarelli do not have these as standalone phrases in dictionary entries, but rather as usage examples under avere. Zingarelli has sense 4 of avere as "to feel," with the examples "avere sonno/freddo/dolore/compassione" (respectively, "to be tired/cold/pained/compassionate"). While the Devoto-Oli has sensed 3 as "to feel feelings, emotions, etc." with examples "avere speranza/fiducia/paura/timore/voglia/piacere" (respectively "to be hopeful/trustful/scared/fearful/wanting/glad"). With a subsense "to perceive a physical sensation;" examples being "avere fame/sete/caldo/freddo/dolore" (respectively "to be hungry/thirsty/hot/cold/pained"). Imetsia (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the approach of moving them to collocations. Similar for ter fame. - Sarilho1 (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

fare girare le palle edit

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion

far girare i coglioni edit

far girare la testa edit

Italian SOP with girare le palle, girare i coglioni, and girare la testa respectively. And per precedent (see Talk: far funzionare and Talk: farsi abbindolare). ~~Additionally, the last two should at least be moved to their non-apocopic forms without redirect, per convention and precedent (see Talk: tener presente, as well as far fuoco [and maybe others]).~~ Imetsia (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

In light of our recent discussion, moving to non-apocopic forms is not required. Although the first entry should be moved to the apocopated version at least, per the consensus reached in that discussion. Imetsia (talk (more)) 00:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

dimânda edit

Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.

This entry should be deleted because there is a mix up. According to the Romanian etymology dictionary (link), the correct spelling of the verb should be a demânda, while *a dimânda is the spelling suggested by the authors of the dictionary if the word were inherited from Latin demandō 203.218.122.110 16:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Moved to RFD. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what that etymological dictionary is on about, but DLR shows a fair number of attestations from various authors. As for the form dimânda, DLR does not mention it, for one, and I cannot find the relevant reference Candrea-Densușianu 496 either. —Biolongvistul (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Forgot my point: Delete. —Biolongvistul (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

barba di due giorni edit

Latest comment: 6 months ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Italian. Not lexicalized. Imetsia (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Mh... What about barba di tre giorni? There's a Wikipedia article about it. Compare French barbe de trois jours (arguably SOP, though I'm hesitant), and the various translations at designer stubble (in particular German Dreitagebart.) Not saying any of this has direct bearing on the idiomaticity of the Italian term, but there might be something here. P U C – 19:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

In German Dreitagebart is highly idiomatic, but you can also find Zweitagebart. – Jberkel 17:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Isn't that further evidence that it's SOP? When researching, I was considering that there's also barba di quattro giorni, which only further motivated me to nominate the page. (Which is common in Italian constructions; c.f. "fare due/quattro chiacchiere", "fare due/quattro passi", "due/quattro soldi"). Imetsia (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Maybe technically SOP but useful for translation purposes, it could be added as a translation for five o’clock shadow in fact, so ~~keep~~. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Overlordnat1: We don't allow SOP translations in general. Even WT:THUB allows English SOP terms if they are translation hubs, but not individual entries for SOP translations. But even if we made an exception in this case, it would be better to have the page at barba di tre giorni instead (a term with a Wikipedia article and a French cognate entry, as PUC pointed out). Imetsia (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Imetsia: I suppose so. I suppose we could alternatively have the translation as ‘barba di tre giorni’ instead of listing it as a single phrase. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Isn't the key question whether it can only refer to a literal two-day beard, or whether it could reasonably describe stubble someone has had for say three or four days? Weylaway (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

în ciuda faptului că edit

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Collocation equivalent to ‘despite’+‘the fact’+‘that’. I’ve added it as a {{coi}} to în ciuda so the info isn’t lost. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

August 2023 edit

eu não mordo edit

Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

não mordo edit

Portuguese SOP. Exactly the same meaning as English "I don't bite." Sense can simply be added to "morder". - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete both of them; you can say "a Fulana não morde!" too. MedK1 (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete, but: several English dictionaries have an entry for won't bite, and imo we could/should too. It's a lexicalised way of saying "don't be shy, go talk to X", which by the way also exists in French.
- “won't bite”, in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, 1996–present.
- “won't bite”, in Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press, 1999–present.
- “he/she won't bite” in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Longman.

P U C – 08:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

ficar em edit

Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Portuguese SOP. Senses already in ficar. - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete – Jberkel 14:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. MedK1 (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

din cauză că edit

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Literally, “from the cause that…”. Better given as a collocation of cauză. If there are any mitigating circumstances, it’s that one would’ve expected cauză to have the definite article (cauza) when building this expression without prior knowledge, but this is hardly reason enough to keep it as an entry. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

decantarse por edit

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Spanish, SOP. Jberkel 14:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete, sufficiently covered a decantar. Ultimateria (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. MedK1 (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

quicũque edit

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Latin. Any instance of um or un at all can be written or printed ũ, there's no point cataloguing all of the possibilities. Note the only other entry in Category:Latin terms spelled with Ũ is cũ—maybe that one can merit an entry as a very basic instance similar to English ouer for early modern u/v typography, but I'm not sure what quicũque would add. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agreed.

I should like to say the same about i/j and v/u, but there are already some thousands of entries devoted to these variations. Nicodene (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

convidar para sair edit

Latest comment: 5 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Portuguese SOP. - Sarilho1 (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Imetsia (talk (more)) 15:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. MedK1 (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Deleted. P U C – 08:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

aspirador de pó edit

Latest comment: 5 months ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Portuguese SOP. - Sarilho1 (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Imetsia (talk (more)) 15:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 15:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep. It's not SOP if you analyze "aspirador" as a clipping of "aspirador de pó". It makes sense when you consider that the term works like any regular term formed with -dor and possesses a few other meanings according to any other dictionary, like Priberam or Infopédia. MedK1 (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep Passes the empty space test since "de pó" is redundant, and I suspect per MedK1's comment that it may pass the WT:JIFFY test as well, if aspirador was originally coined for exclusive use in the expression aspirador de pó. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

ammazzarsi di lavoro edit

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Italian SOP. Imetsia (talk (more)) 21:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Reexamining ragù bolognese, ragù napoletano, ragù alla bolognese, and ragù alla napoletana edit

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Italian SOP. I would delete all of them. But our decisions on this forum have been inconsistent. We decided to delete ragù alla bolognese and ragù alla napoletana by a vote of 4-0; but decided to keep ragù bolognese and ragù napoletano by no consensus (1-1). We should at least be internally consistent with these entries, which is why I'm reopening this RFD discussion so soon after it was closed.

I would argue that the latter two entries are clearly SOP with alla bolognese, and the former two entries are clearly SOP with bolognese (sense 2). Furthermore, you can have "pasta bolognese," "spaghetti bolognese," etc. It's not limited to "ragù bolognese." Imetsia (talk (more)) 14:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

a fior d'acqua edit

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Italian SOP as a fior di + acqua. Imetsia (talk (more)) 22:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

portare a compimento edit

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Italian SOP: "to bring to completion." Imetsia (talk (more)) 22:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

come capita edit

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Italian SOP: "however it ends up." Imetsia (talk (more)) 22:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is this lexical at all? I wouldn't have guessed the meaning from the translation. Ultimateria (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Me neither. MedK1 (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

a quanto pare edit

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

a quanto sembra edit

Italian SOP with the adverbial sense of quanto, and no lemmings (surprisingly to me). The first nominated entry is a very common phrase and might save itself from deletion for that reason alone. But the second is not as popular. At least that one should be deleted. Imetsia (talk (more)) 23:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

per quanto riguarda edit

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

per quanto concerne edit

Italian SOP with per quanto. Equivalent to English "as far as ... is concerned." Imetsia (talk (more)) 23:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

do not delete this phrase. It is used often in spoken Italian. 108.18.231.67 14:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

September 2023 edit

încheietura mâinii edit

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I’m torn on this. Here are the facts: încheietura mâinii, literally, ‘joint of the hand’, means ‘wrist’. In a vacuum this would rule out any SOPness (it’s the wrist and not any other joint found in the hand), but the catch is that încheietură itself can and most frequently does by itself mean ‘wrist’ by semantic narrowing. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

An option is to delete and add "încheietura mâinii" as a collocation, like it's done in Portuguese palma da mão in palma. - Sarilho1 (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep per WT:JIFFY. MedK1 (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Bósnia-Herzegóvina edit

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Portuguese misspelling. Doesn't seem to be common. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep. On what basis do you call it a misspelling? Ciberdúvidas clearly likes it. It's common enough to show up on BBC, in the UN, on random websites... I do concede that this was my first time seeing it, but I don't see any reason to delete it at all. There are plenty of hits on Google. MedK1 (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

deget de la picior edit

Latest comment: 6 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Romanian SOP. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

keep unless there is some shorter word that we dont list. no more SOP than english big toe or little finger. —Soap— 19:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree that big toe or little finger are not SOP—a baby does not have ten little fingers, for example—but the term in question has no such idiomatic qualities other than being the only way to express ‘toe’. Fingers of the foot are toes, toes are fingers of the foot (and that includes big toes). ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Finger" doesn't naturally refer to toes in English and "finger of the foot" is at best an odd metaphor, so it's not obviously SOP to English-speakers. In general it doesn't seem to be treated terribly consistently at the moment—we also have French doigt de pied, but most comparable phrases at toe#Translations aren't linked as single terms. Hungarian lábujj is an equivalent compound. My thought is that if deget always means "finger" by itself (compare Arabic إصبع which explicitly lists finger and toe) and only "toe" in the context of deget de la picior then I would say it's not SOP. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

You make a compelling point. I have two more arguments to bring: 1. DLR, the Romanian equivalent to the OED, defines deget as a digit, whether of hand or foot. Two quotes provided have deget mean ‘toe’ outside the collocation discussed, and I have no doubt that a book on zoology, for example, would alone yield many such more. 2. The Romanian collocation for ‘walk on tiptoes’ translates to ‘walk on the tips of the fingers’. I think this is sufficient proof that deget may well mean ‘toe’ if the context is established. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Comparing this with French doigt de pied, which is imo lexicalized and thus entryworthy, I'm inclined to say keep (but if our Romanian editors here see this as SOP you can discard my vote). See also Talk:dessous de bras. P U C – 09:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

louco e sonhador edit

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Stríðsdrengur. Portuguese, recently created. To me it just seems a SOP of louco (“mad”) and sonhador (“dreamer”). - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sarilho1 What if I put some attestations as an example of text in which this term was used? — This unsigned comment was added by Stríðsdrengur (talk • contribs).

Delete, doesn't seem idiomatic at all. Ultimateria (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

na velocidade da luz edit

Latest comment: 4 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Portuguese SOP. - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete, SOP. P U C – 16:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Less convinced now. Compare French à la vitesse de l’éclair. P U C – 18:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep. I use it to mean 'quickly' or 'fast' all the time. It's just as much of an SOP as "o mais rápido possível" (which gets linked from as soon as possible). MedK1 (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

quelle surprise edit

Latest comment: 4 months ago8 comments6 people in discussion

French. SOP. The existence of an English entry with an idiomatic definition does not require a French entry to make the same point. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete - Sarilho1 (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep - The pronunciation doesn't seem to be the same. The RedBurn (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

What nonsense argument is that? P U C – 12:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

English: IPA^(key): /ˌkɛl sə(ɹ)ˈpɹiːz/

French: /kɛl syʁ.pʁiz/ The RedBurn (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is only for the French entry which follows the standard French pronunciation... AG202 (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, my bad. The RedBurn (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

quelle horreur edit

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

French SOP. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm on the fence about this and quelle surprise... These almost feel lexicalised to me. But perhaps various collocations at quel would be enough.

This seems comparable to what a shame and what a pity, imo; I think these are strictly speaking SOP (compare what a joy, what a surprise, what an awful day, what a wonderful world) and we could content ourselves with a single entry (perhaps what a?), but on account of their commonness I don't mind having entries for them. P U C – 09:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

tarde demais edit

Latest comment: 5 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Portuguese SOP. Literally too late. One can easily have similar constructions such as "cedo demais", "fácil demais", "longe demais". - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete, SOP. P U C – 11:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. MedK1 (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Deleted. P U C – 08:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

October 2023 edit

procédé mnémotechnique edit

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

French. SOP. P U C – 19:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

câine vagabond edit

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Romanian. SOP. P U C – 09:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Not such a flagrant SOP but more useful as a collocation. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

perro callejero edit

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Spanish. SOP. P U C – 09:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

To elaborate further: we (rightly) don't have entries for French chien errant or Italian cane randagio; these are collocations, we don't need entries for them even though we have one for stray dog (for the translations mostly). P U C – 22:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

November 2023 edit

ajunge la majorat edit

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Romanian. Literally, ‘reach age of majority’, meaning, well, ‘reach age of majority’. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete, SOP. P U C – 15:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

acabar de edit

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Catalan and Spanish. Tagged but not listed by User:MedK1 who originally posted in the BP asking why these pages exist when Galician and Portuguese list this sense at acabar. Note that we also have acabar por and acabar con (which is probably more idiomatic... compare the more developed Portuguese acabar com). I'm not sure where the line of idiomaticity lies here. Ultimateria (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

persón edit

Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Catalan. Such a word does not exist in Catalan, an even it did it would not be written with "ó".Esberginia (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

This can probably be speedied, obvious mistake. Jberkel 11:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

So this page has been there since 2020 created by an anonymous, how long will it take to make it deleted? Or how can I get the privilege to delete such a page?Esberginia (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Marked for speedy deletion. Let’s see what happens. --Lambiam 18:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

arroz crudo edit

Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Spanish. Unidiomatic translation of a translation hub. The same logic may apply to Ladino too, if anyone caresJewle V (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete both, SOP. Split the link in the translation box of uncooked rice. P U C – 18:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can crudo by itself be used to refer to other uncooked foods? We dont have it listed as such. (It says "raw" (uncooked)" but for some foods there is a difference; we also don't have crudo listed in the t-box at uncooked). If so then I dont object to deletion, but if there is some other word that is normally used to refer to certain foods in their uncooked state then I think this should stay as is. —Soap— 04:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Removed Spanish. Ladino ain't my problem! Denazz (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

grande dame edit

Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

French SOP, grand has that sense ("great") in plenty other collocations: compare grand homme, grand écrivain, grand général, grand compositeur, grand scientifique, grand peintre, etc. I have no idea why the French Wiktionary has entries for fr:grand homme, fr:grande dame and fr:grand monsieur. P U C – 19:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep. As I see it, the primary meaning of grand(e) in French is large size, not renown. When a two-word phrase relies on a secondary meaning of one of its content words, it is the very definition of idiomatic. Put another way, as I so often do .... how would a reader know that grande dame means "great woman" and not "large woman" as one would ordinarily expect? —Soap— 06:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just to expand on this, since I bring up nearly the same argument over and over, I'm quoting WT:SOP here:

An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components. Non-idiomatic expressions are called sum-of-parts (SOP).

Emphasis mine. If a word cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components, it's not sum of parts. If the meaning is plain only to a native speaker or someone with full knowledge of the context in which it comes up, that means nothing, because such people would not be looking up the phrase in question in the first place. You list six phrases which use a similar construction, but someone who doesnt know grande dame likely wont be familiar with the other six phrases either. As for why the French wiktionary lists them, I dont know. Perhaps their policy is more permissive than ours, or perhaps it's similar but they do a better job of writing for young people and second-language learners than we do. —Soap— 06:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your ideas about SOPness and idiomaticity would have us create all the combinations I've mentioned and many more, which is just plain stupid. Don't bother replying, I'm not interested in reading any more of your nonsense. P U C – 10:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The purpose of RFD is to leave it up to the wider community to decide. If you don't want to talk to me about this, or for that matter anywhere at all on this website, that's fine with me, but you have no standing to tell me to stop talking in a group discussion. You clearly can't read minds, and you have no place telling me what my opinions are either. So, to the others present, I repeat my question from up above. If we delete this:

How would a reader know that grande dame means "great woman" and not "large woman" as one would ordinarily expect?

—Soap— 16:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

December 2023 edit

oricum ar fi edit

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Romanian. Not the most common, economical or native-like way to say ‘either way’—one would simply say ‘oricum’—but regardless of this, SOP. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

carros por puestos edit

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English.

Someone marked it "for imminent deletion" so I am making this post here to discuss. I think it can be a useful phrase to add but it is also my first entry so I don't know if/how it should be decided. RayScript (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@RayScript: Keep. I don't see any reason to delete it, at all. Previously, there was a header for the English language too. I thought they just wanted to delete the English sense and then when it did get deleted, people just forgot to remove the template, but I was wrong: the template was at the Spanish section from the very beginning, which actually makes no sense. With my knowledge of Spanish, I couldn't tell you for the life of me what it could mean. It's clearly not SOP: there's no sense at either carro or puesto meaning "seat".

While writing the above, I actually came to realize why they might've added the tag. The quotation says "carros por puesto", while the article is called "carros por puestos". Perhaps that's what's wrong with the page? In that case, I'd say move to carros por puesto. MedK1 (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

El Camino Real edit

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Spanish. WT:NSE includes individual roads only if they have figurative senses, which we do not have for this road. I'm making a separate request for the English term with the same meaning. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 23:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Spanish ciento uno and other multi-word higher-than-100 numbers edit

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

They break WT:CFI (see this formal vote). I gotta bring this up at Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/English too for pages like one hundred one... MedK1 (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

ideia de jerico edit

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Portuguese SOP. P U C – 16:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

January 2024 edit

jì annànze edit

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Neapolitan. Tagged by Nicodene (“SOP?”) but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more; si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi edit

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Latin. Tagged by Nicodene (“The effort is lovely and all, but does this meet the CFI?”) but not listed. Vuccᴀʟᴀ (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

ca de obicei edit

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Romanian. SOP addition motivated by existence of English entry as usual. However, while the English phrase is entryworthy, as its form could not be obtained backwards from its meaning, the Romanian one is nothing but the sum of ca (“like, as”) and the actually idiomatic de obicei (“usually”).

The same scrutiny is needed for the Romance parallels (Catalan com de costum, Italian come al solito, Portuguese como de costume, Spanish como de costumbre). ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agree: French comme de coutume is already a mere redirect to de coutume; it's been suggested by @Imetsia to move Italian come al solito to al solito; Spanish como de costumbre exists alongside de costumbre; Catalan com de costum can be redirected to de costum per [22]. That leaves us with Portuguese como de costume (de costume?). So: redirect all. P U C – 11:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Redirecting is an interesting solution. It would help discoverability and, contrary to my expectations, is dogmatically correct. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

February 2024 edit

Sardinian entries created by @AndreiLmb edit

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This user has created an entire ecosystem of fictional words, generally by 'Sardinifying' Latin or Italian ones, as in *gheladu 'ice-cream' < gelato, going so far as to add made-up regional variants of made-up lemmas.

I have checked all the fictional words below against a combination of sources, such as the two official Sardinian dictionaries (1, 2), Wagner's Dizionario etimologico sardo, and—when available—the relevant AIS map.

acherbu, achetumine/aghedumine, addichere/addighere, ananas, aranza, Arghentina, arredughere/reduchere/redughere, atonnu, beddu (Gallurese and Sassarese - not Sardinian), benedichere/benedighere, carne, chentru, cherasa/cherasia, chernere, chertu (“certain”), chichere, chimiche, cortiche/cortighe, culteddu (Gallurese - not Sardinian), cunigru, dechente/deghente, deduchere/dedughere, dighidu/dighitu, furnache/furnaghe/furrache, furnu (Gallurese - not Sardinian), gheladu (“ice-cream”), ghemeddu, ghigante, ghissu, granada (“pomegranate”), ibernu/iernu, inchitare, induchere/indughere, indulghente, indulghentzia, intellighente, maledichere/maledighere, mora (“mull- or blackberry”), mure, patata dulche, pateca (Ligurian - not Sardinian)/patega (non-existent), pepone, pessiga, pomu de terra, predichere/predighere, produchere/produghere, radighina, rostru (“face”), sine, tradughere, uva

See also the previous RFD for faghe (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faghe), which as it turns out was only the tip of this iceberg.

-Nicodene (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Properly, it's a matter of attestion/verification, for which see WT:RFVI. --10:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

ségrégation raciale edit

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

French SOP. P U C – 13:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

alluminio nativo edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Italian. NiSoP entry from SemperBlotto 2006. We have the definition of native explaining it. Fay Freak (talk) 10:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

March 2024 edit

pluja radiactiva edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Catalan. Notice added but never listed by @Linguoboy. I assume it's a misspelling of pluja radioactiva. Theknightwho (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

tinnitus edit

Latest comment: 25 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Latin. The participle “1. rung, jingled, having been jingled. 2. cried, screamed, having been screamed in a shrill voice.” was removed by @Imbricitor on 9 February. I was told on the talk page that the participle forms tinnītī, tinnītae, etc. should also be removed, but made this section here as we usually discuss deletions. J3133 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe an RFV would be a good idea. Lewis and Short says the verb is used both intransitive and transitively, so a passive participle seems like it should theoretically be possible. I could find no examples in the PHI classical corpus or the Corpus Corporum, but Google Books might have something (e.g. I see "tinnivit & tinnitam percepit rem" here).--Urszag (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

reducere de preț edit

Latest comment: 24 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Romanian. Literally, ‘discount of price’. No reason at all to exist—uncommon as a collocation, unnecessary as clarification (reducere is well enough understood to mean ‘discount’ without specifying anything). ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

April 2024 edit

l'espace d'un instant edit

Latest comment: 12 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

French SoP: l'espace de + un + instant. — This unsigned comment was added by Olybrius (talk • contribs).

Keep is a fixed expression, with its own page on the French wiktionary. --Shoshin000 (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

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 any other non-English 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 any other non-English 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}}

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Italic

April 2020 edit

July 2020 edit

August 2020 edit

September 2020 edit

October 2020 edit

M’, M’., M.’ edit

November 2020 edit

Latin SOPs? edit

May 2021 edit

July 2021 edit

August 2021 edit

October 2021 edit

Combinations of dar and fazer edit

March 2022 edit

April 2022 edit

May 2022 edit

July 2022 edit

October 2022 edit

March 2023 edit

April 2023 edit

-ação, -acção, -ização edit

May 2023 edit

July 2023 edit

August 2023 edit

Reexamining ragù bolognese, ragù napoletano, ragù alla bolognese, and ragù alla napoletana edit

September 2023 edit

October 2023 edit

November 2023 edit

December 2023 edit

Spanish ciento uno and other multi-word higher-than-100 numbers edit

January 2024 edit

February 2024 edit

Sardinian entries created by @AndreiLmb edit

March 2024 edit

April 2024 edit