Open main menu

Wiktionary β

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English

< Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

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

Cleanup requests, 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/Others
add new | history

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

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 moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{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 language other than English. For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English.

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “brown leaf”
  • Out-of-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use



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. One of the reasons for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "brown 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 requests for attestation. 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 "[[brown 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 when a decision to delete, keep, or transwiki has been reached, or after the request has expired. Closing a request normally consists of the following actions:

  • 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: The above is typical. However, in many cases, 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 consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk page using {{archive-top|rfd}} + {{archive-bottom}}. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:piffle, Talk:good job. Note that talk pages containing such discussions are preserved even if the associated article is deleted.

Time and expiration: Entries and senses should not normally be deleted in less than seven days after nomination. When there is no consensus after some time, the template {{look}} should be added to the bottom of the discussion. If there is no consensus for more than a month, the entry should be kept as a 'no consensus'.

Tagged RFDs

December 2016Edit


Alt-spelling sense. The word (חג׳) that it's listed as an alt-spelling of is defined only identically to חאג׳'s other sense. Not speedying this in case there's really another sense of חג׳ that we should have and that חאג׳ is an alt-spelling of.​—msh210 (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  • As far as I can tell, it's nothing more than a simple error. This should have been at RFV in the first place but instead got to sit here for more than a year, which is a bit odd, so I'll compound the oddness by declaring it RFV failed at RFD. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, msh210: Hold your horses. The definitions are not identical. A hajj / pilgrimage (i.e. the journey) is not the same as a hajji / pilgrim (i.e. a person who goes on this journey). Whether חאג׳ is an attestable variant of חג׳ (pilgrimage) is a separate question. I'll search Google Books. --WikiTiki89 21:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikitiki, hold your horses. If you take a look at the entry and the history, you'd see that we both know that, and your "separate question" was the very subject of this RFD. (And I couldn't find evidence, but I welcome the efforts of somebody who actually speaks Hebrew.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I did look at the two entries' histories. Maybe you knew that, but as far as I can tell it seems that msh210 misread the similar-looking definitions as being identical. Anyway, I'm close to being able to cite it already. --WikiTiki89 21:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Cited. --WikiTiki89 23:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. That makes it now RFV passed at RFD. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


"Mozilla". Mozilla#English has been deleted by RFD in the past. —suzukaze (tc) 11:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)











Special:Contributions/Jagnesuzukaze (tc) 11:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep these Japanese names to provide value to the dictionary user. E.g. ボルボ is Volvo. To see whether this meets WT:BRAND, I would have to be able to meaningfully search for quotations meeting WT:BRAND; I do not see that anyone has spent effort in searching for such quotations. Reduction of utility is bad. Mozilla failed RFV, and maybe someone would be able to find quotations meeting the draconian WT:BRAND and place them to Citations:Mozilla. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

April 2017Edit


Same as above. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: this has been RFD'ed before; see Talk:pouasse. MG found that it was sufficiently common to keep; what makes you disagree with his assessment? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: 8030 hits for "la pouasse" (397000 for "la poisse"); 3150 hits for "quelle pouasse" (30900 for "quelle poisse"); 307 hits for "une pouasse" (11800 for "une poisse"). It's not that common (+ at least some hits concern the word for a kind of chemical, so they aren't misspellings); so no, I don't think it warrants an entry. --Barytonesis (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Abstain. It could be deleted a rare misspelling (WT:CFI#Spellings). pouasse,poisse at Google Ngram Viewer does not find pouasse, so no frequency ratio can be calculated and it must be rather rare. However, going by the web counts posted by Barytonesis above, I would say it could be a common misspelling, but I prefer to use Google Ngram Viewer for frequency ratios since it is a tool designed for frequency statistics. A frequency ratio calibration is at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

kop of munt, kruis of muntEdit

Both SOP. —CodeCat 18:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it still used when tossing Euros, which have neither kop nor munt on them? If so, it's idiomatic. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It would still be SOP, because there is still one side called kop and one side called munt. For Euro coins, munt is the side that's the same for all countries, kop is the side specific to each country. The kop side does have a head on it sometimes, depending on the country. For Dutch and Belgian ones it does. —CodeCat 17:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
And these usages are found outside of these specific phrases? When you ask someone to do a hatching (nl. arcering) of a coin, you ask him to use the 'mint side' and not the 'number side'? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
If the coin-hatcher(?) would ask "What side should I do, kop of munt?" the customer would probably laugh and say "Hey, you're not going to toss my coin right!". Kop of munt is an extremely common expression, any references outside of that to sides of a coin are rare if you're not a coin collector or something. W3ird N3rd (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep. This is referring to a coin toss. Looking up kop and munt provides exactly 0.0 clue that this is just heads or tails. Heads or tails doesn't have an RfD so why would this? W3ird N3rd (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I can think of both non-SoP and SoP uses:

  1. (IMO non-SoP:) the practice of flipping a coin in the air, to choose between two alternatives; examples:
    • We doen kop of munt met mijn meegebrachte stuiver. Kop, gokt de aanvoerder, en dat wordt het. [1]
    • We hebben niet echt een keus, behalve wie het gaat doen. We kunnen kop of munt doen. [2]
    • Tot nu toe kon het me geen barst schelen wie er begonnen is, zegt hij, maar nu wil ik het weten. Als jullie het me niet binnen een minuut vertellen, straf ik degene die dit stomme kop of munt verliest. [3]
    • De een moest tot een man van de cultuur worden opgeleid, de ander tot man van de wetenschap. Maar wie tot wat? Kunth dacht na. Hij haalde zijn schouders op en stelde kop of munt voor. [4]
    • 'Weet je nog hoe we als kind kruis of munt deden? Als je iets verschrikkelijks moest doen, tosten we. Of als we met een groepje waren, deden we strootje trekken.' [5]
    • 'Maddie, waarom doe je niet gewoon kruis of munt?' vroeg hij dan, wanneer ze haar keuze uiteindelijk had weten terug te brengen tot stoofpot van kalfsvlees en lamskoteletten, maar op dat punt bleef steken. [6]
    • We dronken ons glas leeg en probeerden allebei de rekening te betalen, zodat we er kruis of munt om gooiden en ik won. [7]
    • Ze stegen af en toen Fred Leyburn zich over hun paarden had ontfermd, zei John: 'Ik m...m...moet nou een b...bad hebben, een stomend, d... dampend bad. We zullen k... k...kruis of munt doen, wie het eerste m...mag.' [8]
  2. (IMO SoP (though a common wordcombination):) just before flipping a coin, asking someone to make his/her choice; examples:
    • 'Oké, we gaan tossen!' Hij loopt met Audrey naar de scheidsrechter, die al met een grote munt klaarstaat. 'Kop of munt?' vraagt de scheidsrechter. 'Kop!' zegt Audrey. De munt vliegt omhoog en de scheidsrechter lacht naar haar. [9]
    • 'Laten we erom tossen,' opperde Van der Decken, en hij haalde een muntstuk tevoorschijn. 'Kop of munt.' 'Kop!' zei de koning. 'Munt,' zei Van der Decken en hij liet de munt zien. [10]
    • 'Wat wil jij, Bas, kruis of munt?' 'Kruis,' zei de door haar aangesproken jongen. 'Dan jij munt, Gerard,' zei ze. [11]

-- Curious (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


This is a misspelling of farvel, which already has an article for both Nynorsk and Bokmål. All relevant information is already in those articles.--Barend (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • If it's a common misspelling or an archaic spelling, we should keep it. Is it either of those? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's particularly common, and I don't think it's archaic.--Barend (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
It is a misspelling, and I even found "Kapp Farvell" (Kapp Farvel of course). Anyway, delete. DonnanZ (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, is a redirect a good way of dealing with misspellings? DonnanZ (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep this Norwegian entry at least as a misspelling, absent frequency data; an example markup is in concieve. The relevant policy is WT:CFI#Spellings: "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included." An expressly marked misspelling is better than a redirect since then, reusers who want to remove misspellings can easily do so. Here's a Google search in Norwegian sources[12], in which I can confirm the double l in scans of R. K. Sundnes 1948, Maurits Fugelsøy 1958 (here it is in quotation marks), title:Samtiden Volume 40 1929, title:Rolf Jacobsen: En Dikter Og Hans Skygge 1998, title:Nord-Norge 1970, Magnus Breilid 1966, etc. If someone has time, they can collect the quotations in Citations:farvell on the model of Citations:individual, where the quotations will survive even if this fails RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)















per WT:BRANDsuzukaze (tc) 04:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Some entries are poorly formatted and use wrong PoS headers (e.g Noun, not Proper noun) but they all seem to have English equivalents, for which we have entries. To me, they are just normal proper nouns. Tentatively keep. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017Edit

Malay, Indonesian language names with bahasa in Category:ms:Languages,Edit

Delete or redirect all Malay and Indonesian language names with bahasa (language) in Category:ms:Languages and to lemmas without "bahasa". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

disentir verb formsEdit

Lots of the verb forms of disentir are incorrect as should be deleted. --WF

June 2017Edit

многоквартирный домEdit

SoP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Russian entered to mean apartment building, and then there are other senses. Literally multi-apartment building, I guess. Is this the most usual way to render apartment building into Russian? How would I know that I have to use "много-" instead of just квартирный дом? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is the most usual way to render apartment building into Russian and those are, indeed "multi-apartment building", not two or three. It's still an SoP. The attributive adjective кварти́рный (kvartírnyj) is used for words related to apartments, not having multiple apartments, e.g. "квартирная плата" - "rent" (for the apartment), "квартирная хозяйка" - landlady. многокварти́рный (mnogokvartírnyj) means "multiapartment". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I have provided a usage example at многокварти́рный (mnogokvartírnyj), so that there is no loss of information:
многокварти́рный до́мmnogokvartírnyj dómapartment complex; mansion
--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
If that is so, I think this is better kept since I would not know this is the right term. It seems also no more SOP than apartment building; the English term is in rather many dictionaries, per “apartment building” at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)



I gather that им- (im-) and ир- (ir-) are prefixes that only occur in words borrowed from Romance languages or English, so they do not merit entries. For an earlier discussion, related to the category "adjective-forming prefixes", see Wiktionary:Tea room/2017/May § им-. — Eru·tuon 07:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


Not exist in dictionaries. However, this is the name of a district in Chiang Rai. (Perhaps it is a minor language?) --Octahedron80 (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Octahedron80, Stephen G. Brown: Why do you think this should be deleted? If you doubt its existence, then it should be sent to WT:RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
See —Stephen (Talk) 23:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
^The word is บันเทิง; it is not from บัน+เทิง and no such lone เทิง. For เทิ่ง (with mai ek), it is an adverb meaning "obviously; clearly". They both do not relate with any large or big things. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

accidente de tráfico / accidente laboralEdit

SoP. Ultimateria (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. But why do we have road accident? The definition is dubious too. If a bicycle hits a pedestrian on a road, it's a road accident - or am I wrong? --Hekaheka (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I think we should also delete "road accident" (who says that anyway?). Any combination of [setting] + "accident", really. Ultimateria (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, Collins defines it as "a traffic accident involving vehicles, pedestrians or cyclists" [13].--Droigheann (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

zahraniční obchodEdit

Tagged last year [14] but apparently not brought here. Links properly to foreign trade, which is a red link. I think that if we consider the English term an SoP, the same should probably be true about the Czech term. --Droigheann (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

  • As for sum of parts or not, "foreign trade" is at least ambiguous: for a U.K. citizen, foreign trade does not include trading that Germans do among themselves. For whatever reason, foreign trade is currently linked to from User:Robert Ullmann/Missing/e-f and User:Msh210/Duesentrieb/xdv. Furthermore, how would you know that Czechs say "zahraniční obchod" rather than "vnější obchod", analogous to German de:Außenhandel, or "externí obchod"? The German entry has French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish translations that are based on "external" rather than "foreign", information of use for a translator. If the translations entered turn out to be not the most common ones, that can be corrected, provided there is an entry to correct. Admittedly, “foreign trade” at OneLook Dictionary Search does not help much to support keeping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
That's an argument for the creation of foreign trade. What I'm saying is that as the English->Czech translation is quite straightforward (unlike the English->German &c ones), there's little point in having the Czech entry in the English Wiktionary linking to an non-existent English one. (Incidentally I didn't tag it for deletion, just noticed it in Category:Requests for deletion in Czech entries.) --Droigheann (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
If we focus the argument on the Czech term: zahraniční obchod entry tells you this is the usual phrase rather than *cizí obchod, *vnější obchod or *externí obchod. I don't see how deleting this entry could possibly improve the dictionary and make it more useful. The better course of action is keep Czech zahraniční obchod, create English foreign trade, and add various translations to English foreign trade. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: after no one chimed in with arguments to the contrary for some time, a boldface keep from me seems to be in order. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • RFD kept: no consensus for deletion after many months. I created foreign trade. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

July 2017Edit

足濟, chiok chōeEdit

Looks SOP. If this is deleted, should 很多 be deleted as well? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

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


Does this meet WT:BRAND? —CodeCat 12:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Added some citations. -- Curious (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

istuic, istuius, istujusEdit

Long enough unattested and properly would have failed WT:RFVN#illic and istic already. The forms very likely were might up by wiktionary. - 17:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Entered as Latin inflected forms of istic. Some people said inflected forms should not be subject to attestation requirements, and I disagreed, but I do not know what the consensus is, if any. The Latin istic entry now contains some references that seem to have been inserted in support of the claim that these forms do not exist. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: "Some people said inflected forms should not be subject to attestation requirements, and I disagreed". I tend to agree with you: I'd prefer to have attestation requirements for all inflected forms, especially in ancient languages. At the same time, I'm not bothered with having entries for all inflected forms of the perfectly regular French verb illustrer, for example: if certain forms aren't attestable, it's only by accident (corpus limitations). --Barytonesis (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


Originally tagged for speedy deletion, but I don't think it qualifies, so I'm bringing it here. We do have entries for roots in other attested languages, notably CAT:Sanskrit roots, but for most languages we don't list roots, and for Ancient Greek this is the only one (so far, at least). At the moment I'm somewhat undecided as I see arguments both for (it would be convenient to have a place to gather all the terms derived from this root, like γίγνομαι (gígnomai), γείνομαι (geínomai), γένεσις (génesis), γένος (génos), γονή (gonḗ), γόνος (gónos), γενέτωρ (genétōr)) and against (this form is more of an abstract concept than a genuinely occurring form of the language), so I'm hoping for an active discussion that will help me make up my own mind. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I created this entry, but I think this and other roots (Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit) should probably be moved to appendices. They are theoretical concepts, particularly so for Arabic and Hebrew roots, and can't meet the criterion of attestation. (@Wikitiki89's comments in a discussion about Arabic patterns is what convinced me of this. If patterns should go in appendices, roots should too, because the two are interconnected.)
Having a list of roots and their allomorphs (here, γεν-, γον-, γιγν-, γειν-) might help users to identify the origins of words. I don't know what form this should take: a single page with many or all roots, individual pages (subpages of something like Appendix:Ancient Greek roots). And I'm not sure how or if it would be linked to entries in the main namespace. But I think it would be useful in some form. — Eru·tuon 04:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Putting roots in Appendix space does seem like a good idea. How would we name Appendix pages for roots? Now that reconstructions have their own namespace, we could names like Appendix:Ancient Greek/γεν-, Appendix:Sanskrit/जन् for roots, and link to them using √ (the square root symbol) as a prefix, the same way we already use * for reconstructions. Thus {{l|grc|√γεν-}} would link to Appendix:Ancient Greek/γεν-, and {{l|sa|√जन्}} would link to Appendix:Sanskrit/जन्, etc.  Alternatively, the pages could be named Appendix:Ancient Greek/Roots/γεν-, Appendix:Sanskrit/Roots/जन्, etc. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea of using a character to link to the root appendix, but the root symbol is difficult to type, and would discourage people from linking to roots. (Asterisks, by contrast, are on my keyboard, at least.) It would be good to use either the root symbol or an easier-to-type alternative that Module:links can display as a root symbol, preferably something that doesn't otherwise occur in page titles.
I guess I would prefer Appendix:Ancient Greek roots as the prefix. It's a little more clear about what its subpages should contain than Appendix:Ancient Greek (whose subpages could be anything, including all the existing appendices with the prefix Ancient Greek). If we used Appendix:Ancient Greek/Roots, I'm not sure what we could put on the page Appendix:Ancient Greek, so it would be an empty page and a redlink on each root page. Appendix:Ancient Greek roots, on the other hand, could contain general information on roots: for instance, how ablaut and other sound changes affect the form of roots. — Eru·tuon 18:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Why should roots go in appendices but not affixes? They're tied together. Also, we'd have to fix almost every PIE link across Wiktionary. Oppose. —CodeCat 18:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
No, PIE roots could stay in the Reconstruction namespace. If you oppose moving roots to the Appendix namespace, why did you propose deleting γεν- (gen-)? Why should Ancient Greek not have root entries at all? — Eru·tuon 20:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Are roots well defined for Ancient Greek? There's a tradition of treating Sanskrit and PIE roots, but not for Greek. —CodeCat 20:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Not that I know of, but it's pretty easy to extract this root at least. — Eru·tuon 20:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
It is unobvious that we want to have Ancient Greek roots in mainspace. They are quite unlike prefixes, IMHO. Roots seem to require much more analysis/speculation than prefixes, that is to say, they are much less raw-observational than the kinds of entries that we keep in the mainspace. Category:Ancient Greek roots currently has γεν- as the sole entry. On the other hand, we could keep even hypothetical entities in the mainspace as long as they carry the proper badge of warning; we could have done that with reconstructions as well, where the reconstruction entries could have started with an asterisk. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


Sum of parts. —suzukaze (tc) 03:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep as useful compound. Um ... translation target, anyone? Mihia (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. @Mihia: The "translation target" reasoning is explicitly only for English entries, because we don't place translation tables in entries in other languages (therefore they are incapable of being translation targets). This translation can remain in the table at chimney sweep, but with each of the two component words linked individually. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The "translation target" thing was just my little joke. Sorry if that was unclear. By the way, is the sugested SOP 煙突 + 掃除 + or 煙突 + 掃除夫? I find it a bit surprising that we have 煙突掃除夫 but not 掃除夫. Mihia (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
掃除夫 is also SoP and [doesn't appear in any of the wordlists Weblio Dictionaries] relies on. —suzukaze (tc) 10:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
If 掃除夫 doesn't exist then that is a slight point in favour of keeping 煙突掃除夫. As a general principle, I do not believe that Ja entries should necessarily be deleted just because the meaning can be interpreted as the sum of the meanings of individual characters. I believe that well-established compounds that are perceived as one word should be kept, just as we keep "caveman" for instance, even though it is "cave" + "man". Even 煙突 and 掃除 themselves are ultimately SoP, but I don't imagine anyone proposes deleting those. OTOH the issue of "perceived as one word" is harder when there are no spaces, and, I would say, ideally needs a native speaker's input for individual cases, unless we are just to copy what other dictionaries do (I see, by the way, that WWWJDIC has 煙突掃除夫). Mihia (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Japanese entered as chimney sweep; the sum is 煙突 (entotsu, “chimney, smokestack”) +‎ 掃除夫 (sōjifu, “cleaner”). If this is the most usual way to refer to chimney sweeps, I think this should be kept. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

ge- -tEdit

I don't think this should be considered a circumfix. German past participles have an ending, which may be -t, -et, or -en, and they may or may not have a prefix ge-. These choices are not related in any way; all combinations exist: gelegt, gerettet, getrieben, zitiert, errötet, beschrieben. So, it's a prefix and a suffix, not a circumfix. Kolmiel (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

ge- only appears if -t, -et or -en is added, there is nothing like geleg (without any ending). In certain cases only an ending and not ge- is added. Thus it should be ge- -t (ge- -et, ge- -en) and for certain cases (some derived terms or compounds like beschreiben (be- + schreiben) and foreign words like zitieren (from Latin)) just -t, -et, -en. In literature one can also read that ge- -t is a circumfix, e.g.:
  • 2014, Michael Schäfer and Werner Schäfke, Sprachwissenschaft für Skandinavisten: Eine Einführung, p. 110: "vom Zirkumfix {ge- -t}"
  • 2016, Roland Schäfer, Einführung in die grammatische Beschreibung des Deutschen, 2nd edition, p. 324: "das Zirkumfix ge- -t (schwach) bzw. ge- -en (stark)" 03:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Suffix plus separate prefix per Kolmiel. There's also a few cases where the prefix or its variants appear without a suffix (e.g. Getreide, glauben, gönnen). Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep. —CodeCat 12:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Getreide, glauben, gönnen do not contain a NHG prefix ge-. The OHG or MHG terms might have gi- or ge- in it, but that's not visible in the NHG terms anymore.
Better examples might exist in (older?) dialectal/regional German like geseyn instead of sein (or seyn). Some terms similar to this might also exist in 'standard' High German.
Anyway ge- alone doesn't form the past participle (unless it's somewhat strangely analysed like in ge- -t ("with ge- (for strong verbs)") and and ge-#German (the second prefix)). And if ge- -t gets removed, the sense would belong to -t (and -en, but not ge-). In -t it then should be something like "forms the past participle; usually together with ge-, but sometimes just -t". - 15:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: The fact that there are other ways to mark the past participle is not relevant. The question is whether the elements ge- and -t in, for example, gelegt have distinct meaning on their own, the way un- and -ed do in unnamed. They don't; they only have meaning when taken together as the marker of the past participle. Therefore, they should not be analyzed separately; they have to be considered a circumfix. So also with ge- -et and ge- -en. — Eru·tuon 00:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
What are you talking about? All endings have several distinct meanings of their own, one being that they are the ending of the past participle, with or without the prefix. E.g. entlarvt, verschnitten, erduldet etc. which are past participles, marked by the respective ending, without the respective prefix. ps.: New High German begins around 1400, so having an entry for a prefix 'ge-' for words like gesitzen is absolutely in the scope of Wiktionary's de code. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm talking about the meaning in the word in question, gelegt. Does the -t mean one thing and the ge- mean another in that word? — Eru·tuon 16:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
No, Peter Gröbner (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
NHG begins around 1350 or around 1500 depending on definition or view. The ISO code gmh ends around 1500 (which would imply de starts around 1500). Regardless of the beginning of de, NHG has a prefix ge-. And not just one forming collectives, but also one in verbs, as in "gesein" or "geseyn" for "sein" (once also "seyn") (infinitive) and "gewesen" (past participle). Those prolonged verbs usually are obsolete now, but there might be exceptions as "gebrauchen" versus "brauchen".
But is e.g. "gefragt" somehow analysed as "ge- + frag (stem) + -t", with -t marking the past participle and ge- being something else?
It's analysed as "ge- + frag (stem) + -t" with ge- ... -t being a circumfix at least by some (two sources were given above), and this might be the more usual analysis. - 21:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll say it frankly: I'm pissed off by your underhand tactics of pulling the musing that 'something might be X' out of your arse. It might also be a nutty fringe interpretation only upheld by your two sources. But who's helped by me mentioning that? If I wanted random guesses, I'd buy a magic 8-ball, if I wanted people subtly influenced with the mentioning of possibilities, I'd buy Frank Luntz. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep. It is not a combination of the prefix ge- and the suffix -t, because there is no intermediate stage: gesagt, *gesag, *sagt. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, or rework. Analyzable as prefix + suffix, a view reinforced by the separate presence of the ge- prefix and -t suffix in other words. In addition, the entry currently at ge- -t doesn't provide much utility, and it's unclear how a user would ever arrive at this page via search -- the only apparent avenue would be by clicking through from another entry, which could just as well link to something else instead.
Incidentally, the entry at -t looks woefully inadequate, and apparently wrong to boot -- the def is given as "-ed (used to form adjectives from nouns)", but then the terms in Category:German_words_suffixed_with_-t all seem to be derived from verbs...
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

haîsseux d'femmesEdit

Probably a useful translation but hardly deserving of its own entry. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 09:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If it just means "hater of women" (as I suspect) then delete as SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Misogynist is a single word and it's entered as a translation there. DonnanZ (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC).
@Donnanz: That's not a good enough to reason to keep. The translation line can just as easily say {{t|nrf|[[haîsseux]] [[d']][[femmes]]|m}} if the Norman is SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but if French misogyne or an equivalent is not used in Norman (that needs verification) I would still say "keep". DonnanZ (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep since Frenhc is known to use multi-word phrases where other languages use single words. This is not standrd French, I get that, but the grammar seems to be similare. Lollipop (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Those voting keep seem to be ignoring the grounds upon which a term can be kept. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Woman-hater is a verifiable synonym of misogynist, so I don't see any reason for objection to this. It looks as though the equivalent in quite a few languages is woman-hater instead of or as well as misogynist. All translations are under misogynist though. DonnanZ (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete, SOP until proven otherwise. --Barytonesis (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete, and if it passes, RFV it. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There's a clear consensus to delete here. Can someone close this as such? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: If the entry gets deleted but the translation changed to {{t|nrf|[[haîsseux]] [[d']][[femmes]]|m}}, should the translation be RFVed (WT:RFVN)? - 22:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean RFVing the English entry, mysogynist, or do you mean RFVing the listing of {{t|nrf|haîsseux d'femmes|m}} on its translation table? — Ungoliant (falai) 22:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Of course I mean RFVing the translation in the translation table, and not RFVing the english entry. Whether or not {{RFV|nrf}} or {{RFV-sense|nrf}} is put into the translation section, doesn't really matter to me. - 22:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
There’s no protocol, as far as I know. Occasionally people start an RFV or Tea Room discussion requesting evidence of the existence of a translation, but the usual practice is to simply remove it if you’re sure it’s wrong or doesn’t exist. You can change the template to {{t-check}}, but there’s no guarantee that no one will simply “check” it without evidence of existence. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

August 2017Edit


Sum of parts. —suzukaze (tc) 23:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep. In most contexts it specifically means a regime change between the LDP and a non-LDP party. For those who are used to two-party system it may not sound special, but in the conservative Japan it is a historical event. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
If this is a change in which party rules, then the current definition "a change in who holds political power; regime change" seems misleading, or at least the "regime change" part. Maybe instead of deleting the entry, we should make sure it is accurate, clear and unambiguous. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
+1 —suzukaze (tc) 22:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Nakke NakuttajaEdit

Woody Woodpecker doesn't have an English entry. Should this? PseudoSkull (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 16:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
No objection to deletion, but I'd like to point out that we have an English entry for each of Santa's reindeer (Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzen, if one would want to check). Besides, I believe that there are situations when at least I might want to search this term in a dictionary. Unless we can delete Santa's reindeer, I would rather suggest that we add "Woody Woodpecker". Also, one might argue that Woody W is about as well-known fictional personality as e.g. Winnie the Pooh. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
We have the Santa reindeer entries because Daniel Carrero likes reindeer. That is not a lexical argument. Equinox 03:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
If there's one thing I fucking hate is when people put words in my mouth. I created the reindeer entries, yes, but I don't like everything I create entries for. I could have created an entry for cancer or something.
We seem to accept all mythical and folkloric entities like Santa Claus himself, but I don't mind to be proved wrong if we come up with some present or future rule against that. See also Category:en:Folklore and Category:en:Mythology.
This is different from fictional characters belonging from comics, films, etc. like Woody Woodpecker. Delete Nakke Nakuttaja in the absence of any good reason to keep it. Actually, maybe keep-ish since we have kept a few notable entries for characters for one reason or another, including Winnie the Pooh as mentioned above. Again, this is different from mythological and folklorical creatures that are not tied to cartoons, comics, etc. belonging to some specific company or author. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Santa's reindeer seem to be named by one person, too [15]. When do they become "folkloric"? When sufficient number of people use them without knowing the origin? Whatever the truth, this demonstrates how difficult it is to draw the line. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


Various programming symbols, not part of human language. Compare Talk:Unsupported_titles/Double_period#2016_deletion_discussion. Equinox 16:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the "variable" sense is fairly important ($DEITY) but don't care for the others. —suzukaze (tc) 01:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Suzukaze-c; we can cite in running language "$" being used for variables.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

September 2017Edit

All pages in Category:te:DecadesEdit

All the pages in Category:te:Decades can be deleted as there is no point having lots of pages of different decades in Telugu years. Apart from English, there is no other language which pages relating to decades so therefore, all the pages in this category can safely be deleted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, they are generated in a predictable manner by adding the plural morpheme to the end of a decade. Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

sapiens, ruber, germanicusEdit

Language: Latin
Sense: "(New Latin) Used as a taxonomic epithet" or "(New Latin) Used as a species epithet"
in germanicus: "(New Latin) Used as a species epithet to indicate that a species was discovered or is common in Germany"
  • There is the possibility that this was never used in Latin which would mean it should be deleted (compare with Talk:albifrons, Talk:iroquoianus). But this would be a matter of WT:RFVN. So assuming it was/is actually used in Latin:
  • "Used as a taxonomic epithet" or "Used as a species epithet" is not a meaning, but just a context. And such contexts (usually) aren't included. English red is also used in animal names (see e.g. w:Red scorpionfish, w:Red snapper), yet red only has the general meaning "Having red as its color." and not also "Used in animal names" (as in "red scorpionfish"), or also "Used in reference to clothes" (as in "red dress", "red T-shirt").
  • In "germanicus" it seems to be a bit more than a context. But again it's nothing which is (usually) included. In Latin terms "germanicus" just has the sense "German" too. This is similar to e.g. English German Shepherd, German chamomile, and also German Sea, German Autumn. Yet the English entry German has no meanings like "Used in animal and plant names" (e.g. "German Shepherd", "German chamomile") or "Used in political or geographical contexts" (e.g. "German Autumn", "German border", "German Democratic Republic", "German Sea").

- 20:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Indeed, these are contexts rather than definitions, and are superfluous to existing content. All RFD failed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


Sum of parts "want to" + "to sleep". —suzukaze (tc) 05:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete. @Tooironic, do you have any reason for keeping this? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not sure. It's in a lot of dictionaries, so we could argue it passes the lemmings test. 想 does seem to have the ability to combine with other verbs to create adjectives, e.g. 想要, 想開, 想歪, etc. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    I think these are verbs too: "to want (sex)", "to think in a philosophical manner" and "to think awry; to think and interpret things in a dirty, twisted way". Wyang (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    想睡 is entered as an adjective meaning "sleepy"; is that wrong? If not, why does "want to" + "to sleep" yield an adjective? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    I don't think 想睡 is really an adjective. It's more like a verb phrase meaning "to want to sleep; to be sleepy". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
    No, I don't see how is 想睡 an adjective either. Dokurrat (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Is Vietnamese buồn ngủ of analogous construction? —suzukaze (tc) 10:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Similar, but I feel they are not quite the same. (“to want to (do something)”) is productive, making 想睡 the expected form for “to want to sleep”. Meanwhile, buồn is nonproductive and its meaning is not really “to want to (do something)”. It means having to do something due to the need of the body, and describes a state, not a desire. There is a distinction between buồn ngủ (feeling sleepy; drowsy, a state) and muốn ngủ (to want to sleep, a desire); the former is more like Mandarin and Cantonese 眼瞓. Wyang (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tooironic If no attestation of 想睡 as "sleepy" can be found, I think this entry should be deleted. Dokurrat (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
    Not a big deal. I can't think up a good argument for keeping it anyway. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


This is a weird misspelling of 有利 and it looks more like a name. Nibiko (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Viewing the few previews available for purported hits at google books:"優利な" (yūri na, “superior? advantageous?”), all I see are scannos for 便利な (benri na, convenient). The other hits that do not offer preview, but only "snippet view" (only showing the results of Google's often-wrong OCR), also seem to be scannos.
This spelling is also missing from any of the references aggregated at Weblio or Kotobank.
That said, Breem's WWWJIDIC does have an entry for this spelling, and the Microsoft IME for Japanese (on Windows 10, anyway) offers up 優利 as a kanji conversion candidate for the ゆうり kana spelling.
If we can find enough cites to meet CFI, this could presumably be kept as an alternative spelling stub entry, pointing to the lemma at 有利. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

queer marriageEdit

Entered as a synonym of "gay marriage". It can mean that, but I think only insofar as "gay" is a hyponym of "queer", i.e. all gay marriages are queer but some queer marriages are not gay. Consider: "Heterosexual marriage is sanctified through its likeness to the queer marriage of Christ and church" (Gerard Loughlin, Queer Theology); "Jupiter's theft of his wife's wedding jewels is nothing if not queer or counternormative" (Moncrief and McPherson, Performing Pedagogy in Early Modern England); "Why ... are there so many possible queer marriages in Shakespeare's plays? (Examples include Orlando entering a 'mock-marriage' with Rosalind-as-Ganymede, and Orsino marrying the still-dressed-as-a-boy Viola.)" (Traub, The Oxford Handbook of Shakespeare and Embodiment). Romanophile has a habit of taking common phrases, replacing a word with something vaguely similar, and entering the result as a synonym (e.g. "to be truthful", "woman enough", "sex tool"). Sometimes this works, sometimes not so much. Equinox 02:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

How about WT:RFVE (trying to attest the definition) or WT:RFC (changing the definition to include other queers not just homosexuals)? - 09:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I would add that e.g. a bisexual woman marrying a man would also be a queer relationship, and so arguably a queer marriage, but not a gay marriage. In other words, the definition is wrong and the term seems to be quite SOP. (Of course, Talk:gay marriage is arguably also a bit SOPpy.) - -sche (discuss) 18:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

kde se nacházíEdit

Czech fragment, corresponding to where is. Thus, "kde se nachází nemocnice?" may be rendered as "where is the hospital?". If taken as a pattern or a template for the phrasebook, it would be at kde se nachází .... But I do not like such patterns or templates in the phrasebook. Furthermore, I don't think the word "nachází" is preferable over "je"; thus, "kde je nemocnice" sounds better to me, less literary.

google books:"where is the hospital" phrasebook suggests we may create where is the hospital. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


Sum of parts "to take off" + "used along with a verb to indicate completion". —suzukaze (tc) 00:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

There is such thing as '死掉', '毀掉' and '改掉'. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

être dans des transesEdit

Translation unclear; unidiomatic, and it always has to be determined with an adjective: être dans des transes affreuses, effroyables, horribles, continuelles; you can't use it as a standalone. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The nominator's comment was "probably doesn't meet Wiktionary:Criteria for Inclusion#Numbers, numerals and ordinals". —suzukaze (tc) 01:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This entry shouldn't be deleted because the relationship with 皕 is important--Yoshiciv (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

kan du snakke engelsk?Edit

Norwegian Bokmål, phrasebook entry. Not particularly common on Google Books and certainly not in phrasebooks. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe snakker du engelsk? (another entry) is more common [16] than [17]. DonnanZ (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it's rarely used, there's no reason to have it as a phrasebook entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Some searches: google books:"kan du snakke engelsk", google books:"snakker du engelsk". When I click to the right, as I have to with Google searches to see the actual number of hits, the latter search does not yield all that many more items. The entry was created by User:EivindJ, who used to declare themselves as Norwegian native speaker. The phrase is e.g. in Ny i Norge: Arbeidsbok by Gerd Manne, 1977. I think the searches for phrasebooks to apply something like the lemming heuristic are most useful for English phrases, and much less for non-English phrases. I'd say week keep, but input from Norwegian speakers would be welcome, and absent that input, I would err on the side of keeping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    That is a good point, "can you speak English" is more common in phrasebooks. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017Edit

dessous de brasEdit


  1. armpit

The usual word for armpit is aisselle, but, more to the point, this looks like simply "the underside of the arm", which would be SOP. Granted, I'm not exactly fluent in French, so I'm prepared to withdraw this if a native speaker thinks I've got this wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. However, I wonder if they meant dessous-de-bras. This is a piece of material in the armpit of a dress that soaks up any perspiration. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    You're wrong, it's a common, yet informal, way to say armpit. It's a real collocation. As a native French speaker, I know what I am talking about. See doigt de pied for example. Bu193 (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Good analogy. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Proper French, but SOP. Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    I'm unsure, actually. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    I'll say keep after all. The case is very similar to doigt de pied: SOP, but idiomatic and very common. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

conserver un suiviEdit

Not a set phrase, and SOP. See also the RFV debate. @Widsith --Barytonesis (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I disagree that it's sum of parts. I read it somewhere and didn't understand it, which is why I put it in. Beyond that, I don't have strong feelings on it. Ƿidsiþ 11:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the pestering, but I don't think "I didn't understand it" is a sufficient reason for saying it's not SOP. It's simply conserver (to keep) + un (a) + suivi (tracking, monitoring). And it's nowhere near as idiomatic as keep track. --Barytonesis (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I disagree. For it to be sum of parts, it would have to be normal (or at least comprehensible) to say in English that we conserve a monitoring of something, but not only do we not say this in English, it's not even clear what it is supposed to mean. Furthermore it's not obvious why a "monitoring" should be "conserved" rather than "held" or "maintained" or whatever. As far as I'm concerned, that makes it idiomatic. Ƿidsiþ 13:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
        • I think you're reading too much into this. The three quotations are just poorly written French, and it looks like they picked the first verb that came to mind. It's not unclear because it's idiomatic, it's unclear because it's bad prose. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


I think the German should be at B-Dur. Please confirm. --P5Nd2 (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

[letter]-Dur is the more common spelling. I'm not sure if [letter]-dur is attestable as an alt form which would be a matter of WT:RFVN anyway. - 09:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep, but maybe B-Dur should be the lemma. This form is not too rare in writings from the 19th century. [18] [19] [20] Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
There is also an entry for A-dur, by the way. DonnanZ (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep as an attested form, but the lemma should be the more common modern form, B-Dur. Likewise for A-dur, etc. - -sche (discuss) 18:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

liaison sans lendemainEdit

SOP, unidiomatic. 33000 hits for "liaison sans lendemain", 65000 hits for "histoire sans lendemain", 364000 hits for "aventure sans lendemain". I think a case could be made for an adjective "sans lendemain" though. @Widsith --Barytonesis (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure, a literal reading would suggest a slightly broader meaning to me. Would you use this of any short romance, intentionally or not, or only for a one-off instance of casual sex? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Well, I wouldn't use it at all. In my book, a liaison is an affair, an adulterous relationship, so adding "sans lendemain" sounds a bit weird to me. For a short romance I'd say one of the above ("histoire sans lendemain", "aventure sans lendemain"), and for a one-shot -ahem- thing, "coup d'un soir" ("histoire/aventure sans lendemain" could work too, I guess). I dunno. --Barytonesis (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)



If it doesn't pass the lemming test, I think this is an SoP in Chinese: 奴隸奴隶 (núlì, “slave”) + 制度 (zhìdù, “system”). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, MDBG has it for ZH, and Daijirin has the corresponding 奴隷制度 spelling for JA. (Shogakukan also has it, but that's dead-tree and not linkable.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
PS: 奴隸制度 would be the 旧字体 (kyūjitai) or pre-reform spelling for JA as well. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Thanks for the response and the links. So, lemming test is passed but is there another argument for keeping the entry/entries? An English word for "slavery" exists, what's the Chinese for for it? The word is likely to be looked up? We need to have separate CFI for languages such as Chinese and Japanese where word boundaries are not clear. Please note that the Korean and the Vietnamese cognates 노예 제도 (noye jedo) and chế độ nô lệ are not necessarily considered single words (the word order in Vietnamese is reversed). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm ambivalent about this, but if we do delete, could someone please add the term as an example collocation. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

tiếng AfrikaansEdit

A Vietnamese SoP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Will possibly apply to many or all "tiếng" words, see CAT:vi:Languages. A similar cleanup happened with a few languages to get rid of entries containing the word "language" in that language. @Fumiko Take, Wyang. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I know absolutely nothing about Vietmamese, but do the two words have to go together? There is no separate entry for Vietnamese Afrikaans. DonnanZ (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I would say so, though I'm still tempted to parallel them with Japanese (go) words (I've hardly ever bothered with them though), and I'm a little ambivalent about a few cases like tiếng Anh or tiếng Việt. Unlike Japanese, Korean and Chinese, Vietnamese doesn't distinguish "the UK", "Great Britain" and "England", so it's probably fine to consider tiếng Anh an SoP. Việt could be consider a free morpheme, but then it's usually used in a few compounds in non-literary contexts, so it's harder to tell if tiếng Việt is an SoP. Geez, Vietnamese, give me a break already. Personally, I'm not comfortable with tiếng Afrikaans even being a Vietnamese entry, but this is also a good opportunity to re-evaluate Japanese (go) words, Korean (eo) words and Chinese words too: are they also SoPs? They do seem to parallel with instances such as 奈良県 (Nara-ken), ネコ科 or ドラゴン (Doragon-zoku), which feature apparent bound morphemes, but also are coined very easily without consideration on how the morphemes would be affected by compounding like, say, Latin Felidae. ばかFumikotalk 11:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Fumiko Take: Thanks. I am suggesting to have separate CFI for languages with no clear word boundaries or w:scriptio continua, so that inclusion rules could be decided once and for all, hopefully. tiếng Việt might be one of the few exception, I understand why you hesitate. Is Việt really a productive adjective? tiếng, (),  () (go), (eo) or "人" words could be part of the CFI discussion - do we or do we not include words with these suffixes (prefixes) as words? In fact, there is little idiomatic about 中國人中国人 (Zhōngguórén) - China person or 中國話中国话 (zhōngguóhuà) - China speech but dictionaries do include them, so do we. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's worth saying that when a page exists in the Vietnamese Wiktionary tiếng Việt appears in the left-hand column. DonnanZ (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
It's true that there is no Vietnamese entry Afrikaans and many other foreign proper nouns, for which there is no equivalent created in Vietnamese or it's rarely used. For a Vietnamese entry Afrikaans, it would be necessary to provide the phonetic respelling but native speakers usually frown upon these words as they are not really considered Vietnamese. For example, "Pakistan" has a native Vietnamese words Pa-ki-xtan, even if English "Pakistan" is also commonly used. It's still an SoP, unless we decide that words containing tiếng merit their entry. For comparison, Thai, Lao, Khmer, Burmese entries with the word "language" have been deleted, as was agreed by knowledgeable editors or native speakers in RFD discussions.
For example, Thai language can be expressed in various ways in Burmese:
ထိုင်းနိုင်ငံhtuing:nuingngamThailand (country)
ထိုင်းစာhtuing:caThai language (written)
ထိုင်းဘာသာhtuing:bhasaThai language
Thai: ภาษาไทย
paa-sǎa tai
Thai (language)
tiếng Thái LanThai (language)
tiếng TháiThai (language)
Even if it's common to use the word "language", the pattern is predictable, so there is no need to "boost" the number of entries by these combinations. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
tiếng means language, in one of the senses. In general, I am ok with keeping "X language" entries in various languages, especially if the "X language" pattern is the usual way of expression in that language, which I do not know for Vietnamese. Thus, if "tiếng Afrikaans" is more often used than "Afrikaans" to refer to the language, I'd prefer to keep "tiếng Afrikaans". --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

baignade à poilEdit

SOP (baignade + à poil) and unidiomatic, unlike skinny dip. --Barytonesis (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017Edit


correct form is surbaissé --Diligent (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete unless there's a verb surbaiser ("to over-fuck"???) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • nope, fun but no... you'll see it attested in Google search but there are spelling mistakes. --Diligent (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    • There are a few legit occurrences: [21], [22], [23], [24] and probably others. But this is a rare and humorous formation, not idiomatic. Please let's not start creating entries like fr:rererererecommencer... --Barytonesis (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
      • If there are at least three durably archived usages, the form can be created. We have rare and humorous formations here, and everything written as a single word is automatically considered idiomatic. The same applies to rererererecommencer: if it meets CFI, we can have an entry for it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

em mệtEdit

Tagged with the reason "Insignificant phrase" but not listed. @PhanAnh123 Please don't forget to add a nomination here as well. Wyang (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete per the reason above. Wyang (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

anh mệtEdit

Same rationale. Wyang (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Move one entry to tôi mệt (possibly leaving two redirects behind) with one sense - "I'm tired". tôi is a more generic or neutral word for "I". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

aktuelle begivenhederEdit

I don't see how this is more than the sum of its parts.__Gamren (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't the same apply to current events, current affairs? Maybe it's good enough for a phrasebook entry? - 15:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it is. I am not sure of the rationale for including current events, but aktuel is a little more specific than current.__Gamren (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep if actually equal to English 'current events', which is more than sum of parts because it's not literally all events currently happening (i.e. current events), it's those events currently happening and currently part of public debate or attention. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

陳留王, 陈留王Edit

Personal names. Dokurrat (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Not surname + given name. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung Well, should this goes to RFV? Dokurrat (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: I'm not sure that WT:NSE disallows the inclusion of this word. If you're doubting the existence of this word, you can definitely send it to RFV, but I think it's easily attestable. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Okay, I'll try to do some more researching before anymore process operations. Dokurrat (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is not a personal name, but an imperial title. Dokurrat (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017Edit


A weird and rather rare Spanish misspelling. --Lirafafrod (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


Metanalysis of words such as magnificus (magnus + -i- + -ficus). I don't see any case where this analysis with interfix couldn't apply. Possibly worth a redirect to -ficus, as is currently done with -ifer and -iger --Barytonesis (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


Metanalysis of words such as significatio (significo + -tio). --Barytonesis (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


Same as above, this is just -i- + -ter. --Barytonesis (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


all sum of parts. —suzukaze (tc) 03:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a short for 二輪車 ("motorcycle, bicycle") as well: [25], so I'm inclined to say keep, but it may have to be rewritten. Nardog (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

année tchi veintEdit

"next year", lit. "the year that is coming" in Norman (= "l'année qui vient" in French). --Barytonesis (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


用途 (way of using something) + 変更 (change). —suzukaze (tc) 05:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nardog (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

café para todosEdit

tagged but not listed --Lirafafrod (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


Apparently wrong. Not cleaned up in 6 years --Lirafafrod (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally do this, but yes, given that the entry is dubious and the cleanup request has gone unheeded for six years, I've just deleted the entry. - -sche (discuss) 22:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

nước mắtEdit

@Wyang This is an SOP ("nước" for liquid and "mắt" for eyes, literally "liquid from the eyes"). Compare nước mũi (any non-blood liquid coming out of your nose such as tears or mucus, literally nose liquid), nước đái/tiểu (any non-blood liquid coming out of one's urethra, literally pee liquid), nước chanh (any liquid coming out of a lime, literally lime liquid), nước cống (any liquid in a sewer, literally sewage liquid), etc. There's nothing idiomatic about this phrase; it's a collocation, at best. ばかFumikotalk 17:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

... Continued from User talk:Fumiko Take: it is included in Từ điển tiếng Việt (Vietnamese Dictionary) (by Viện Ngôn ngữ học, i.e. Vietnamese Institute of Linguistics), Đại Từ Điển Tiếng Việt (by Nguyễn Như Ý), etc.
The definition in the Institute of Linguistics' dictionary is: “Nước do tuyến ở mắt tiết ra khi khóc hay khi mắt bị kích thích mạnh”. Though technical, I think Viện Ngôn ngữ học's definition may have a point: not all fluid in the eyes is nước mắt, for example vitreous humour (dịch thuỷ tinh). VNNH's dictionary similarly has nước mũi, nước đái and nước tiểu, but not nước chanh or nước cống.
It's a bit tricky deciding whether something is SoP in East Asian languages. Unless there is evidence for the contrary, I think the Vietnamese Institute of Linguistics' Vietnamese Dictionary would be a good guide to follow regarding whether something in Vietnamese is a sum of parts or not, or what part of speech a word is. I'm sure the expert editors there have already debated amongst themselves, and considered the feedback from the public when making the dictionary, thus potentially saving us the trouble of doing so ourselves. Wyang (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
"not all fluid in the eyes": of course not. I said "from the eyes", as in "coming out of the eyes, visible and crystal clear, that can be seen even by the most scientifically illiterate of people", not "in the eyes". Terms for non-blood liquids that's not normally visible tend to merit entries of their own because most of them are Sino-Vietnamese derive (thuỷ dịch, dịch vị, dịch ngoại bào, etc.). Liquids that do get out of the body and become visible, and subsequently conceptualizable, and ultimately nameable, are a whole different story. nước mũi, for example, is so generic that it can cover any non-blood "liquid" (one of the senses of nước - "unspecified liquid") coming out of the nose, such as tears coming down of from the tear glands, or thick mucus alone.
I'm assuming there's also some other criteria for those to be included in those dictionaries, for example, something like "words or phrases that refer to a single and unique entity", in which case, it'd kind of make sense.
"I'm sure the expert editors there have already debated amongst themselves, and considered the feedback from the public when making the dictionary, thus potentially saving us the trouble of doing so ourselves." I'd agree with the "debate" part, but the "feedback" part is a huge speculation on your part.
Apparently Từ điển tiếng Việt also has SOP-worthy entries for nước sạch (literally clean water), nước gạo (literally water left from rice washing), but at the same time lists nước mắt as examples along with nước chè (literally tea liquid). ばかFumikotalk 19:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Nước mắt is not fluid 'from' the eyes. The water coming out of one's eyes after washing one's face, having a shower, being soaked in the rain, etc. is not nước mắt. The fluid flowing from one's eyes after ocular trauma is not nước mắt (although it contains nước mắt). The fluid dripping from the corners of one's eyes after the application of eyedrops is not nước mắt either. These are fluid coming out of the eyes, but they are not nước mắt. Nước mắt is not a simple combination of nước and mắt as it is neither water 'in' or 'from' the eyes; it refers specifically to the fluid produced by the lacrimal glands, which is often seen to exit the body through the eyes. Despite this, most of the nước mắt is actually drained into the nasal cavity (nasolacrimal duct). When the nasolacrimal duct is obstructed (tắc tuyến lệ), the treatment is to create an additional passage to drain nước mắt ― the lacrimal gland secretion ― into the nasal cavity (Phương pháp điều trị tối ưu là phẫu thuật tiếp khẩu túi lệ mũi, nghĩa là tạo một ra đường thoát mới giúp nước mắt chảy vào mũi trở lại.). Wyang (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
"The water coming out of one's eyes after washing one's face, having a shower, being soaked in the rain, etc.", "The fluid dripping from the corners of one's eyes after the application of eyedrops is not nước mắt either", these arguments are literally irrelevant, forced and very faulty. If one gets some sort of nasal spray or simply has some sort of NSFW liquid in their mouth by any means whatsoever, the liquids coming out would not be nước mũi or nước miếng either (of course they aren't!), and they shouldn't be because they're completely irrelevant. You're basically saying, "not everything found inside a bottle of condiment is a dead roach, so dead roaches are not a condiment ingredient." or "not everything coming out of one's butt is poop, so anal beads are not poop." Sure, but that's a borderline logic you're basing your arguments on. Pardon me for my poor choice of words, but by "from" I meant "originating from", not just "something randomly getting stuck in".
"it refers specifically to the fluid produced by the lacrimal glands, which is often seen to exit the body through the eyes." Going technical on the former part doesn't negate the latter part, upon which words are created. How do you think people coined a phrase as plain and shallow as nước mắt? By examining the anatomical structure of the eyes and the tear glands and then naming it as such?
"The fluid flowing from one's eyes after ocular trauma is not nước mắt (although it contains nước mắt)" Are you sure about that? I know you hold your sources highly credible, but they also include some questionable definitions. For example, nước sạch is defined as "clean water for daily use" which is really, really odd, because underground water could be considered somewhat "clean", but it's not necessarily for "daily use". ばかFumikotalk 08:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Nước mắt is not fluid 'originating from' the eyes either. Numerous types of fluids originate from the eyes: there are the physical ones, such as aqueous humour (dịch thuỷ tinh), tears (nước mắt), cytosol (dịch bào tương), as well as the pathological ocular fluids, which can be serous, serosanguinous, or even purulent. It is not plausible to derive “tears” by combining the concepts of “unspecified fluid” and “eye” in a simple, non-sum-of-parts manner, as tears are not equivalent to fluid 'present in', 'flowing from', or 'originating from' the eyes. Nước mắt is not the only fluid present in, flowing from, or originating from the eyes, and most of the nước mắt in fact flows into the nasal cavity, not out of the eyes.
The biological sense discussed here needs to be distinguished from a literal interpretation of the “N + N” nước + mắt combination as nước của mắt or nước trong mắt, which is definitely sum of parts. When one speaks of áp lực nước trong mắt, one is referring to the intraocular pressure, maintained by the fluid of aqueous humour. Whereas if one speaks of áp lực nước mắt, one intends to mean the pressure of the tears, not any other fluid in the eyes. Nước mắt is a much smaller and very well-defined subset of the literal combination of nước + mắt. In ocular trauma and other medical contexts, nước mắt only refers to the lacrimal secretion as a response to irritation (the TĐTV definition), and not other fluids or discharges resulting directly from trauma, etc. See “Bệnh học chấn thương mắt”, “Vết thương xuyên thủng nhãn cầu”, “Chấn thương mắt”, “Chấn Thương Nhãn Cầu & Hốc Mắt”.
The other nước words need to be considered separately... as the words could be individually as intricate as this one. Wyang (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 : "Eye liquid" does not mean "tears" automatically. It is a quite obscure idiom, at best. 16:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to keep this term but we need to have a separate CFI for Vietnamese. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

eterna komencantoEdit

Just "eternal beginner"; not convinced that it's limited to meaning "eternal beginner with respect to Esperanto". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that seems to be the most common meaning. {{&lit}} could be added too. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 19:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

nấm mồEdit

Sum of parts; not a word. Wyang (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

How is it a sum of parts? "Mushroom tomb" doesn't make any sense, much less means a barrow. 05:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I personally find the collocation fungus grave to be quite amusing for some reason. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

temps primitifEdit

Sum of parts? The English translation doesn't seem to mean anything to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Probably SOP as temps = tense, primitif = primitive = original, not derived. An examples of a primitive tense could English present simple (I go, thou goest, he goeth or goes only contain a form of go and no helping verb), while perfect and non-simple could be non-primitive (I am gone, I am going are composed a form of be and a form of go). However, temps primitif needs an explanation how a tense is primitive and through the explanation primitive = formed without a helping verb it's not so SOP anymore. Additionally, other tenses (Category:en:Tenses) and grammatical terms (Category:en:Grammar) might be somewhat SOP-like too but do have entries. - 15:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018Edit

ajutor mutualEdit

Looks like SOP - mutual aid --Gente como tú (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete, it is SoP. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


A Spanish particle only used in inter caetera.

What criteria should we use for the inclusion of {{only in}} definitions? Surely we don’t need an entry for every string that only occurs in one or two set phrases. I don’t think it’s likely that someone who comes across inter caetera would consider looking up just caetera in the same way they might look up cuentapropia. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't mind if it's deleted. --Gente como tú (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, as it's a single word in a language which one might run across and want to look up. I don't see why it hurts to have "an entry for every string that only occurs in one or two set phrases"; there surely can't be so many set phrases consisting of words not otherwise used in the language that it will overwhelm the dictionary. In any case, I can certainly imagine myself looking this up. This, that and the other (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    You wouldn’t mind creating omne and hoc due to the existence of et hoc genus omne? Audi, alteram and partem due to audi alteram partem? — Ungoliant (falai) 00:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    Not at all. If one doesn't know a language very well it can be difficult to spot set phrases like this. Although before doing so I'd like to be certain that they are in fact English phrases, since both of them lack citations. This, that and the other (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Phrases like this should use |head=inter caetera and the like to prevent links to the individual words when the individual words aren't words of that language. I think it would be silly to have English entries for déjà and vu that say "used only in déjà vu". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. All words, all languages. A beginning learner would look it up. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to inter caetera. 16:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    It can't be hard redirected, because it's a string in another language besides Spanish. It's already a soft redirect. - -sche (discuss) 23:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Is inter caetera only used in Spanish, or is it a Latinism used in many languages? If the latter, then there is less argument for having a Spanish (and a French, etc) "only in" at "caetera", and I would rather the Latin entries for "inter" and "caetera" link to a Latin entry "inter caetera". If it's mostly just Spanish that uses "inter caetera", then I think our "only in" at "caetera" pointing to "inter caetera" is OK to keep, but only if somebody creates [[inter caetera]]! It doesn't make sense to point to a page that doesn't exist! If no-one creates [[inter caetera]] or it gets deleted, then delete this. - -sche (discuss) 22:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete, it looks to me like inter caetera is mostly (only?) used in Spanish when referring to a papal bull. So there would be no reason for either caetera or inter caetera as Spanish entries despite its importance for Spanish and Latin American history. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Nykysuomen sanakirjaEdit

I don't speak Finnish, but if this simply means "A Dictionary of Modern Finnish", I'm not sure we should have it. We're not going to create A Dictionary of the English Language simply because it's a famous dictionary. @Hekaheka? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion is fine for me. I have changed all links from other en-Wiktionary articles (save some User Pages) so that they refer to Wikipedia instead (see Nykysuomen sanakirja). --Hekaheka (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. We have no clear policy on book titles, but I tend to only vote keep on those with a one-word name. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
In which way you think the one-word names are better than the two-word names? --Hekaheka (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I am inclined to only keep titles that are at least sometimes used generally, in line with what I wrote at Talk:Kama Sutra, and as far as I can tell, that is not the case here. I would also be inclined to keep other very old, very famous single-word works even if they weren't sometimes used generally, although I think they all are (the Odyssey, the Bible and the Kamasutra are; is "Edda"?). This entry seems to belong in an encyclopedia but not a dictionary. - -sche (discuss) 06:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


Sum of parts. 痛いに遭う、大変な目に遭う、酷い目に遭う… —suzukaze (tc) 03:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
There's also 酷い目に遭う. Nardog (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


See above. —suzukaze (tc) 04:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

des Pudels KernEdit

Bad entry title. Should not include the "des". SemperBlotto (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't speak German well enough, but I suspect it's necessary (Kern des Pudels, not Kern Pudels). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it should, just as the de-wikt entry de:des Pudels Kern does. It's a fixed expression that always includes the des. If you'd prefer, we can call it a phrase rather than a noun. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 16:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep, "des Pudels" is a genitive and the result of getting rid of the "des" would probably be unattested and grammatically incorrect or marginal. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm still hoping for more input from other German speakers. @-sche, Florian Blaschke, Kolmiel, Korn: was meint ihr? Does the "des" belong as part of the entry title? Is this a noun or a phrase? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's an article, same as in English, so if you're stupidly strict, it's not part of the term, but I've literally never heard it used without the article, because the article is part of the quote and 'the core' is unique and definite by nature. I think it's similar to philosopher's stone/Stein der Weisen. If you completeness, they all should have the article, as nobody's ever looking for a philosopher's stone, but I could understand if we leave it out for lexical reasons too. After all, we don't list Tod as der Tod, although I can't think of a single German phrase that would naturally omit the article. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
The article isn't nominative (der = the) but genitive (des = of the), and it's parsed as (des Pudels) (Kern) not as (des) (Pudels Kern). Thus the article is part of the term.
As for Tod: With the plural it can be used without article ("lieber tausend Tode sterben als ...") and in the singular it can be used with the indefinite article too ("eines schnellen, plötzlichen, ... Todes sterben"). With the article it's just parsed as (der) (Tod). - 15:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Korn: The first sentence of de-wp's article w:de:Tod is: "Der Tod (...) ist das Ende des Lebens bzw. (als biologischer Tod bei einem Lebewesen) das endgültige Versagen aller lebenserhaltenden Funktionsabläufe." The second instance of the word in that sentence has no article. Would it be possible to say something like "Ich betrachte das als metaphorischen/symbolischen/wichtigen Pudels Kern", with an adjective modifying Kern taking the place of des? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
That would modify the Pudel, not the Kern. *(des blauen Pudels) (wichtiger Kern) or *(eines blauen Pudels) (symbolischer Kern) are grammatically possible, but in my experience it's - at least usually as a proverb or phrase - only (des Pudels) (Kern). - 15:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
What the IP says. You can say what you wrote, and people will interpret it as (adjective Pudels | Kern) and never as (adjective | Pudels Kern). You could also place an adjective before Kern though. It's just really rare to modify a standing idiom. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that's how such an expression would be interpreted, and that "des" is normally part of the lemma; browsing other dictionaries, they all also include the "des" (one even includes it in the title of the work: Des Pudels Kern: Sprichwörter erklärt). Idiomatic usage without "des" does exist, but is probably too marginal to be grounds for omitting it from the lemma form IMO, although I have put a redirect at [[Pudels Kern]] to cover it (I also put a redirect at [[Kern des Pudels]]), and we are right to have put links at [[Pudel]] and [[Kern]], for any non-native or unfamiliar speaker who tries to decompose the term into pieces.
I see only one hit for "eines Pudels Kern", an 1841 Zeitschrift für die Alterthumswissenschaft saying "einen solchen Geist [...] hat bereits unser grosse Göthe als Charakterbild für alle Zeiten in seinem Faust sich aus eines Pudels Kern entwickeln lassen", which is literal, not idiomatic. Likewise the two hits I see for "Kern eines Pudels" are an 1897 Neue Zeit with the observation that "damals entpuppte sich doch als Kern eines Pudels der leibhaftige Teufel" (also literal) and a 2013 Adrian Kübler book saying "der Kern eines Pudels kann doch nicht der Kern des Menschen sein". I see only five distinct hits for "als Pudels Kern", of which one is again literal ("Mephisto entpuppt sich erst als Pudels Kern") and the rest of which seem marginal (and half are from more than a century ago: "als Pudels Kern dieses Antrages", "sie will endlich als Pudels Kern: alle deutschen Stämme [...] vereinigt sehen"). - -sche (discuss) 17:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
In fact, [[des Pudels Kern]] uses archaic syntax, the genitive preceding rather than following the head noun (which is now only done when the dependent is a proper name). The contemporary word order would be [[Kern des Pudels]]. Literally translated, this fixed phrase would be "of the poodle core", or more idiomatically, "the poodle's core". [[Pudels Kern]] is not completely ungrammatical, but a different construction (since it treats "Pudel" like a proper name: "Poodle's core"), and the fixed phrase is overwhelmingly cited as [[des Pudels Kern]] and sounds odd when used without "des". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't recall an entry on RFV that was as easy to cite as would be a Philosopher's Stone; a Google Books search produces a number of hits. ,,das also war des lers, ein Scolarzimmer und ein Pudels Kern“ shows up on Google Books, once, and has a number of Google hits, including one that might hit CFI. My German's pretty rudimentary, but it does seem marginally attestable with indefinite articles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

антенна радиолокационного дальномераEdit

SoP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

lobe de l'oreilleEdit

SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


SoP. Dokurrat (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete: SoP and encyclopedic. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Lots of Italian muscle termsEdit

Entries like muscolo subcostale, muscolo spinale, muscolo digastrico, &c. are good for an encyclopaedia, but I think that lexicographically they’re unnecessary and easy to figure out. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 21:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Compare Category:it:Muscles with Category:en:Muscles (e.g. cardiac muscle, oblique muscle, skeletal muscle), Category:es:Muscles (e.g. músculo frontal, músculo occipital). - 15:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

traue keiner Statistik, die du nicht selbst gefälscht hastEdit

I don't think that belongs in a dictionary. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Why not? It's used proverbially, ain't it? If the reason shall be, that it's SOP-ish or self-explaining, then as a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly, better safe than sorry should have to be deleted too. - 00:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


There is a proper noun sense, as a common name for Odontoceti, but I fail to see how this is separate from the noun plural. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Guerre d'AlgérieEdit

Not lexical. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep. We have a precedent of including names of wars; see Talk:Iran–Iraq War for the most recent such RFD. Indeed, it makes lexical sense to do so (I would have thought that the French name for the Algerian War would be *Guerre algérienne). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

All entries in Category:Turkish noun formsEdit

Thanks to User:Sae1962's sloppy editing, this category contains so many incorrect forms that it would take forever to fix them all. —Rua (mew) 00:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

That does not seem to be the right way to go about this. A native speaker should be able to scan them for errors relatively quickly. A more technological approach might be to run a script that could isolate those forms which get below a certain threshold of ghits, and then assess those separately. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


maleficium and beneficium can be parsed as maleficus + -ium, beneficus + -ium; there's no need for a new suffix. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

lucha en lodoEdit

Spanish: literally "fighting in mud" - looks NISOPpish from where I'm standin'. --Gente como tú (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

escala de piedrasEdit

Looks SOP --Gente como tú (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

escalada en bloqueEdit

Doesn't seem to be an accepted name for bouldering. --Gente como tú (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


This word, to lead the dead, seems to have only been used once, and in the participial form νεκραγωγοῦντα (nekragōgoûnta), yet it has inflection tables for six tenses and entries for many inflected forms. Unless this word is used more often than a search of Greek Wikisource and the Perseus website indicate, I propose deleting all the inflection entries and moving the entry to νεκραγωγοῦντα (nekragōgoûnta). I see no point in having inflection tables and entries for unattested forms.

Pinging @GianWiki, who created the lemma and entries for its non-lemma forms. — Eru·tuon 02:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if I should be posting here or in WT:RFM, because I'm proposing the deletion of inflected-form entries, but the moving of the lemma. — Eru·tuon 02:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

If only the participle is attested, then everything should be deleted except the lemma form of the participle, which is νεκραγωγέων (nekragōgéōn). The attested form νεκραγωγοῦντα (nekragōgoûnta) is an inflected form of that. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Aren't participles considered non-lemma? What I'd do is keep not only the (non-lemma) entry for the participle (i.e. νεκραγωγέων), but also keep the (lemma) entry for the actual verb it belongs to (νεκραγωγέω, which is also listed in L&S), but delete all form-of (non-lemma) entries except the one attested form (νεκραγωγοῦντα). That at least is how I've been handling scarcely-attested Gothic verbs, which not uncommonly are attested only as a single participle form. (Probably will want a note on the lemma page anyway that it's only attested once) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mnemosientje: Participles are categorized as non-lemma forms, but Ancient Greek participles do also have their own inflected forms, so perhaps they should also be categorized as lemmas. It's a confusing case: they are a form of a verb, but they have their own inflected forms. There is currently at least one participle that doesn't have a corresponding verb entry: βιβάς (bibás). LSJ's practice of having the entry at a first-person singular present indicative even if it's unattested may not be appropriate for Wiktionary. (It's worse in the case of other verbs that don't have any present forms.) — Eru·tuon 00:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Gothic participles similarly have their own inflected forms, hence why I made the analogy. LSJ's practice is how I've been doing Gothic verbs and their participles all this time, tbh -- the lemma forms (due to the regularity of the morphology) are really predictable even on the basis of a single attested inflected participle form and pretty much every other dictionary seems to work that way. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 00:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Participles are sort of a hybrid. They're the lemma form of their own inflected forms, but at the same time they're inflected forms of the verb they're from. In a case like this, where the participle is the only form of the verb that occurs, we could probably get away with calling it an adjective rather than a participle. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


SOP; should be redirected to 千層麵.--Zcreator (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


SOP. Probably move to 銓敘部.--Zcreator (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Sum of parts. We don't usually include department names, unless they are really short and (therefore) hard to decipher according to their individual components. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


SOP.--Zcreator (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Common collocation though that should be added as an example in the component entries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


This is probably a SOP, as we can have <anything>中毒. However we already have 鉛中毒铅中毒 (qiānzhòngdú), 酒精中毒 (jiǔjīng zhòngdú), etc.--Zcreator (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. There are many translations for botulism in Chinese, this one doesn't seem fixed in any way. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


Don't think we should include this.--Zcreator (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Sum of parts. We couldn't possibly include every 學院 out there. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

計劃生育政策, 一邊倒政策Edit

SOP.--Zcreator (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Sum of parts. We couldn't possibly include every 政策 out there. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


SOP. Move to 渾身解數.--Zcreator (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. See 浑身解数. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


Probably SOP as meaning can be deduced from 計算機 and 編程 unambigously (unlike English). But I am not sure.--Zcreator (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Refers to a specific professional process and field of study, like computer programming. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


SOP.--Zcreator (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Sum of parts. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


Probably SOP (lit. long focal length lens), but not sure.--Zcreator (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Refers to a specific device in photography, i.e. a telephoto lens. Synonym of 望遠鏡頭. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


Probably SOP.--Zcreator (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Sum of parts. But add as a collocation in the respective entries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


SOP as 保護罩 already identifies the object.--Zcreator (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Sum of parts. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

翻譯研究, 社會研究, 女性研究, 婦女研究, 文化研究, 郵票研究Edit

SOP as 研究 is not a suffix.--Zcreator (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: If we delete these, the equivalent English forms (e.g. translation studies, women's studies) should probably be deleted as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep all. These refer to specific fields of academia. They are not sum of parts. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


SOP.--Zcreator (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Passes the lemmings test: importantly, included in 現代漢語規範辭典. Also on 百度百科. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


SOP.--Zcreator (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. But include collocation at respective entries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


SOP.--Zcreator (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete, but add as an example at 打發. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete. But add collocation to respective entries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


SOP.--Zcreator (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Sum of parts. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Japanese US state names with 州Edit

Are these terms SOP and should be redirected to names without 州?--Zcreator (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

These could be interpreted as SOP. But then, so could English New York City and New York State.
In terms of usage, some state names are more commonly found online with the (-shū, state) suffix, like Michigan or New Jersey. Other state names are more commonly found without the suffix, like Hawaii, which is well-known in Japan as a popular vacation destination. The suffix provides useful context, explicitly noting that the referent is a state, which is useful information when the name alone might be unfamiliar to the audience.
I see some usefulness in these entries, and no real harm from having them. Weak keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with the situation in Japanese (suffix vs. free morpheme), but we have decided for Chinese that the analogous entries (e.g. 新澤西) for Chinese placenames are SOP. The current practice for Chinese is to have {{zh-div}} to indicate the type of political division. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

đặc khoản đầu tưEdit

SoP. Wyang (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

ataque sorpresaEdit

Looks SOP to me. Not sure what WF was smoking on Christmas Day when making this --Gente como tú (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


SOP.--Zcreator (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Sum of parts. Common collocation though that should be added at the relevant entries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


Tagged, but not listed. Also see #足濟, chiok chōe above. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


Added to speedy candidates by User:Ilham151096 on 1 Jan. Reason was "typo". RFD may be more appropriate. Wyang (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018Edit

えう, げい, ごち, ごつ, ざく, ざん, せう, でい, でん, ひち, ぶく, へき, へつ, もく, らい, りき, りち, わいEdit

Poorly formatted Japanese entries with hardly any usable content, nominated for speedy deletion by User:Suzukaze-c in late Dec 2017, but no one has been brave enough to delete them in the meantime. Sent to RFD. Wyang (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

(It is related to Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Template:ja-kanji_reading. —suzukaze (tc) 03:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC))
Most of these are like らい and need reworking rather than deletion (i.e. cleanup): these are valid kanji readings, and the practice has been for kanji readings to get hiragana soft-redirect entries.
At least one of these is an historical reading, (せう, discussed previously in August 2016), where I'm not sure quite what the consensus view is -- I think it's to keep historical readings, but I'm unsure. I think えう is another historical reading.
There are a couple I've run into like ごち, that appear to be reconstructed kanji readings that don't show up in actual use in the historical record. Again, I'm not sure what the consensus view is for these, if there even is any consensus. Do we keep reconstructed readings, even if there's no evidence of actual use? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


SOP.--Zcreator (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

lăn bóng gỗEdit

Sum of parts (and definition is not correct). Wyang (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

đu đũEdit

Uncommon misspelling of đu đủ. Wyang (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


SOP.--Zcreator (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

ydy unrhywun yma yn siarad SaesnegEdit

This phrase is incorrect. "Does anyone here speak English" is "Oes rhywun yma'n siarad Saesneg?" or in some cases ""Oes unrhyw un yma'n siarad Saesneg?". Llusiduonbach (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: Why would we delete this? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
atchoum is the usual form, and the only one I'm familiar with. atchou seems marginal at best. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I have amended the definition line to reflect that, but it is still no reason to delete it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Not really a matter for RFD; more an RFV thing. If it's attested, keep it. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


SOP --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


I see no reason to use/invent/posit such a suffix. soliloquium can be parsed as solus + loquor + -ium and vaniloquium as vanus + loquor + -ium (as for colloquium, I'm pretty sure it's plain wrong: it's colloquor + -ium). I think we should abstain from creating that kind of "compound suffixes" unless absolutely necessary; I prefer we see the forest for the trees, and keep small derivational units whenever possible. See the business with -ficium above. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


Czech. Delete as rare misspelling, having only 3 hits in google books:"pětnáct"; one of these hits even mentions the spelling as a would-be entity, not a real one. Regulation: WT:CFI#Spellings, "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included." --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


Candidate of SoP. @Tooironic. Dokurrat (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No opinion on this. It could be construed as sum of parts. We do have "player killing" under PK already. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

trám hươngEdit

Uncommon misspelling/scanno (?, judging from GBooks) of trầm hương. Wyang (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


Obvious mistake, correct is nejmenší. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: I've corrected the section title: it's nejměnší you want deleted, right? By the way, you don't have to use the rfd procedure for obvious mistakes/typos, you can simply put {{delete}} on the page. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, thank you. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


This isn't a word. I think it's been autogenerated in the mynd conjugation table and then someone has made it into an entry.Llusiduonbach (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


This isn't a word. I think it's been autogenerated in the mynd conjugation table and then someone has made it into an entry. Llusiduonbach (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

If you doubt that the word exists, WT:RFVN is the correct place to bring it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait, I see that @Mahagaja created them. Maybe he can resolve it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I got them from Kathryn Klingebiel's 234 Welsh Verbs: Standard Literary Forms (ISBN 0-926689-04-5), but it's true they aren't listed in {{R:cy:GPC}}. BGC shows them both being listed in various 19th-century Welsh grammars and dictionaries, but actual use in running text is quite rare. I did find this for mutated fynedadwy and this for mutated fynededig. Since Welsh is an LDL, I think even those two uses should be sufficient to keep them. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

US states in ArabicEdit

There are a bunch of full names of US states, like ولاية نيو جيرزي, which links to State of New Jersey. I'm pretty sure we don't want these Arabic entries for the same reason that the English is a redlink. The full list can be found here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Names of languages in BelarusianEdit

RFD'ing беларуская мова and its sisters (англійская мова, грэцкая мова, etc. See the complete list). These entries are not needed; that мова is more or less always used doesn't make it any less SOP. We can write {{t|be|беларуская мова}} in the translation table at Belarusian.

For previous discussions on similar cases, see Talk:tadžikų kalba, Talk:старославянский язык, Talk:Türk dili, Talk:bulgarian kieli. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


SOP. There should probably be an entry on 重·次輕. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)