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 “green 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 "green leaf". It is occasionally used for undeletion requests, requests to restore entries that may have been wrongly deleted.

Out of scope: This page is not for requests for deletion in other namespaces such as "Category:" or "Template:", for which see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others. It is also not for 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 "[[green leaf]]". The deletion of just part of a page may also be proposed here. If an entire section is being proposed for deletion, the tag {{rfd}} should be placed at the top; if only a sense is, the tag {{rfd-sense}} should be used, or the more precise {{rfd-redundant}} if it applies. In any of these cases, any editor including non-admins may act on the discussion.

Closing a request: A request can be closed 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


"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)

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)
Delete, SOP. apartment building is arguably SOP as well, and its entry only serves as a translation hub, imo; the Russian entry has no such fonction. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2018 (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)

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!
Keep per discussion on Discord. See #很多. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


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)
  • I'll throw in my view again: The entry is completely sum-of-parts. The parts being a participle prefix, which occurs without this suffix, and a participle suffix, which occurs without this prefix. And five people voting to keep doesn't make it less sum-of-parts. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2018 (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 [14]. 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)


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)

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 [15] than [16]. 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

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. [17] [18] [19] 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: [20], [21], [22], [23] 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)
  • Keep, provided the quotes I mentioned are added, and it's properly tagged as rare and humorous. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2018 (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: [24], 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)
  • Keep. I have just googled it and found it is used as a verb (用途変更する) in real estates: Google results for "を用途変更する". Here it cannot be a sum of parts, because the accusative particle を is used with it, which means 用途 cannot be an object of the verb 変更する. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking at usage patterns visible in Google, I have to agree with Shinji here and vote keep. I've added the conjugation and a tentative etym to the entry. If anyone can nail down roughly when this verb usage arises, it would be great if we could add that to the entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

café para todosEdit

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

  • Keep using the lemming heuristic (WT:LEMMING), invoking the dictionaries mentioned by Wyang. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2018 (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)
  • Keep. I'm not even sure that an {{&lit}} would be citable, but it is certainly a small minority. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:52, 23 February 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)
Yes, IP is right. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

January 2018Edit


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)
    I sure hope we never go down that road. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:14, 20 March 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)


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)

антенна радиолокационного дальномераEdit

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

Entered as radar gunsight antenna. Sopitude seems plausible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:56, 22 April 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)
Keep per anon. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:55, 22 April 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)
:While I object to those phrases, too, I don't see a clear dividing line. There's still the phrase book appendix, subject to opposition, too. I have a suspicion that negative tone is responsible for the request, partially. 05:31, 13 May 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)

The Spanish is just as idiomatic/SoP as the English mud wrestling. —Stephen (Talk) 08:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

escala de piedrasEdit

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

To me it looks idiomatic. If you didn't know better, you might think it meant "rock scale", "rock ladder", "rock stopping point", or "rock list". —Stephen (Talk) 08:26, 3 April 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)

It's correct. Bouldering has other translations (borrowed from English), such as búlder, boulder, and bouldering, but escalada en bloque is also correct. —Stephen (Talk) 08:31, 3 April 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)
True. However, our categorization system (as encoded in templates), which puts participles (at least for the languages I actively edit in) in the non-lemma category, do complicate that a bit: this suggests that technically for Wiktionary purposes they aren't in fact the lemma form of their own inflected forms. (Whether or not this system is optimal is another matter admittedly.) Imo then, if we want to be consistent in how we categorize these things across languages, we should keep the current verb entry (as long as the verb lemma can be deduced with some certainty from the morphology of the inflected form). Perhaps we might include a usage note to the verb entry clarifying that its inclusion is based only on this single attestation. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 05:21, 24 March 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)


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)

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)
Keep all. Per Tooironic. As mentioned in the etymology of translation studies, the term is newly coined, instead of just SOP of translation and studies. The same goes for 翻譯研究, which is not SOP of 翻譯 and 研究. Jonashtand (talk) 04:30, 15 May 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)
Comment: 百度百科 is supposedly an encyclopedia, so it would be an invalid example for the lemmings test. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:21, 5 April 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)

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)

Delete, SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:38, 26 March 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)

From a cursory Google search this seems to be used in Indonesian mean bagasse, not baggage. This, that and the other (talk) 09:45, 11 March 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)
Am non-user, but I found my way to one of the pages and was pointed in the right direction. It was useful to me. I came here via the delete notice. Please consider cleaning up rather than outright deletion. 2606:A000:4001:5300:E534:C86:9F16:4BEC 03:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


  1. Make an Appendix page.
  2. No need for an appendix; use Category:Japanese kanji by on reading.

Suzukaze-c 08:27, 26 April 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)


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

@Miwako Sato Check in dictionary first -> ราชบัณฑิตยสถาน 2554 it has this word. --ZilentFyld (talk) 10:30, 14 April 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, 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)


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), 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)

Мова is also definitely not always used. беларуская itself is just as good. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. In the past I supported keeping language names with words for languages but now I I think we can lemmatise those by adjectives. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


I quite like Roman numerals and I am an inclusionist but per CFI: "Numbers, numerals, and ordinals over 100 that are not single words or are sequences of digits should not be included in the dictionary, unless the number, numeral, or ordinal in question has a separate idiomatic sense that meets the CFI." John Cross (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

certain Roman numerals above 100: CII, CIII, CVIIEdit

John Cross (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


Spanish misspelling. Uncommon as hell. --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete, could even be a typo. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete, BGC suggests that this has ½% of the hits of cuelgue. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep as a common misspelling, given the frequency ratio of 1000: (cuelge*1000), cuelgue at Google Ngram Viewer. Calibration is in User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


Spanish mispelling, uncommon as heck --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep as a common misspelling, given the frequency ratio of 1000: (alumnio*1000), aluminio at Google Ngram Viewer. Calibration is in User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

March 2018Edit


Sum of parts surely. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure. This is a proper noun, as the name of a treaty, and as such has some lexical specificity. I'd object if this had been created as a phrase:
生物毒素兵器すること禁止する条約 (seibutsu no dokuso wo heiki ni suru koto o kinshi suru jōyaku, literally treaty that prohibits the making of weapons out of the toxins of living things)
But as the entry currently stands, it refers to a specific thing, and has value as a glossary item, at a bare minimum for translation purposes. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Even if it's not SOP, it looks encyclopedic to me. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm confused, how is the entry encyclopedic? I had understood (perhaps incorrectly?) that encyclopedic in reference to Wiktionary entries meant that the entries provide the kind of content you'd expect from an encyclopedia -- long-form descriptions of the subject matter. All that the linked Japanese entry provides is the kind of information one expects from a dictionary: etymology, pronunciation, and a brief definition, enhanced in this case by linking to the relevant WP article.
Is the [[BWC]] entry then also encyclopedic? What are the criteria for encyclopedic-ness? (Honest question, no snark.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Eirikr: By encyclopedic, I meant that it's something that should not belong in a dictionary but in something like Wikipedia. It's a name of a treaty, so I don't think it's worth inclusion. I think this is related to WT:NSE. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Eirikr: (Forgot to answer this:) I wouldn't consider BWC to be encyclopedic because it's an initialism, which would be useful to include, as long as it satisfies WT:ATTEST. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
As a counterpoint to your Wikipedia use case, there are many things that aren't in Wikipedia in all languages, where Wiktionary entries could be useful. The three examples above from Tooironic are such examples. w:Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions is apparently only available in English, w:Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro is only available in English, Arabic, Bahasa Melayu, and Chinese, and w:Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty is available in 34 languages, but certainly not all of them. Moreover, if I'm looking up what something in Language A is called in Language B, I would turn first to a dictionary -- not to an encyclopedia -- and I would hope to find the kinds of things usually in a dictionary, like etymology and pronunciation.</devil's advocate> ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
That it would be harmless or even useful to have these entries is beside the point, imho. The only question we should ask ourselves is: "does it belong in/does it fall within the scope of a dictionary?".
And I share Justinrleung's discomfort here. I think that kind of things could belong in an Appendix (a underused namespace); putting them on an equal footing with things like robot, because or wow is mélanger les torchons et les serviettes (to mix apple and oranges). As DCDuring said, "the core of a dictionary are substitutable definitions." --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
As a professional translator who often struggles to find translations of things like the [[BWC]], I would argue that this does indeed fall within the scope of a dictionary. (As a side note, if we are to keep the [[BWC]] entry solely for its usefulness for unpacking the initialism, shouldn't we expand the entry to include at least some of the other potential matches?) For that matter, if we are to keep the [[BWC]] entry for its usefulness in essentially redirecting the user to the full English term, I don't understand the apparent opposition to keeping 生物毒素兵器禁止条約 for its similar usefulness in redirecting the user to the full English term. Like initialism expansion, translation is a matter of substituting definitions: a translation of a term can also be viewed as a definition of the term, given in a different language.
As a learner of various other languages, with an avid interest in etymology, word formation, and pronunciation patterns, I would again argue that entries like this fall well within the scope of a dictionary. Even if we accept the premise that Wikipedia might have corresponding articles in all languages for subjects like this (which coverage is, in actuality, spotty at best), I hope we can agree that lexical information like etymologies and pronunciation is not likely to be found in most Wikipedia articles, and is more appropriately included in a dictionary entry.
Lastly, and focusing on this specific term rather than the broader issue of WT:NSE, the Japanese term is not quite SOP, and not quite transparently obvious as a translation for Biological Weapons Convention. As a one-to-one translation out of the English, a person might more likely come up with 生物兵器協定 (seibutsu heiki kyōtei) instead, literally biological weapon + convention, accord, agreement. Going the other direction from Japanese into English, a more direct rendering would be treaty prohibiting biotoxin weapons. This kind of mismatch looks to me like evidence of idiomaticity. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Even though translations, etymologies and pronunciations are an important part of Wiktionary, they are not the main reasons for inclusion. Treaty names and such are bound to have "official" translations, and the same goes for other titles, but that doesn't mean we need to include them here. Many Chinese entries for titles have failed RFD, e.g. 扮豬吃老虎, 基度山恩仇記, 清明上河图.
Now, about BWC, we should definitely include other terms that it can refer to, so long as it can meet the attestation criteria. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per justin(r)leung. The Italian Wiktionary used to include even book titles, but IMO these are not words such as belong in a dictionary. The only kind of dictionary I might not be surprised to find this in would be a translation dictionary of the sort that also included (at least as run-in entries) translations for common collocations like lock the door and be startled by smth which we also exclude. - -sche (discuss) 21:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
    The monolingual JA-JA Daijirin dictionary has an entry for the Japanese name of the BWC. I've also seen, and participated sometimes, in many discussions over the years about terms in either EN or JA that were deemed SOP, but were ultimately kept as translation targets.
Do we have any clearly articulable reasoning for excluding things like treaty names, law names, book titles, etc., even though they meet attestation requirements, and even while we keep initialisms like [[BWC]]? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that this would mean we would have to include an almost inifite number of entries? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
That certainly didn't stop the community from aiming for “all words in all languages”.  :)
Bear in mind, I'm not bringing this up and insisting that you get cracking creating all of this. I'm simply trying to suss out what are the actual bounds here, in the absence of any clearly expressed reasoning. As I've described above, there seems to be plenty of lexical information that would be useful to users and that is specific to what dictionaries provide. I see a clear use case. So far, I have not seen any compelling and cogent reason not to include these items. The arguments so far appear to boil down to we just don't include that kind of content (no clear explanation of why), these aren't "words" per se (arguable), other similar entries have been deleted before (no clear explanation for why), and there are too many (not compelling in my view, when we're already attempting to catalog all words in all languages).
If someone has already bothered to create an entry like 生物毒素兵器禁止条約 (Seibutsu Dokuso Heiki Kinshi Jōyaku), and if that entry is correct and useful, what harm is there in keeping it? I fail to see why this merits removal. What do we gain by not including this entry? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

virage en lacetsEdit

SOP, not particularly lexicalised. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


Does anyone actually use this kanji spelling?? —suzukaze (tc) 18:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

google books:"持てる" would suggest, "yes". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I should have been more specific. I meant, as the "right" spelling of モテる. —suzukaze (tc) 21:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, thank you.  :)   Scanning through the googits, it looks like there may be a sense distinction happening when writers use the katakana spelling. I'm not that up on slang-y usage, however. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
This spelling is attested but should be marked as dated: [25]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


Not exist. Perhaps misspelling of គូថ (kuut). --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

There are a lot of Google hits for it. It is also listed in Tuttle Practical Cambodian Dictionary (page 14). There is a song named រាំបិទគូត (rom bət kut). I think it exists, but it might still be a misspelling or dialectal. It needs the eye of a native speaker. —Stephen (Talk) 12:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I confirm this spelling exists in the dictionary and prefer to keep it, although there are only two results in Google books. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Is it a slang or something? --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Octahedron80: It must be a slang. Although we should only keep verified terms, slang or neologisms should probably use some other criteria. Khmer must be still an exotic language for digitised book, especially slang. It has been confirmed that it exists in a published dictionary, though. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I changed to RFV instead. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Hits in Google Books are very unreliable for Khmer, because they rely on OCR. OCR programs work well for English, but very poorly for most other scripts, such as Arabic, Thai, Tibetan, Lao, Telugu, Burmese, and especially Khmer. Most or all hits will be scanos, and virtually all valid cases will be completely overlooked. OCS has not caught up to the complexities of most non-Roman scripts. In any case, គូត (kuut) would not be slang, since the pronunciation is identical to other spellings. At worst, it could be a misspelling. I don't think it can qualify as a misspelling, though, because it is acceptable in Khmer to spell words in other ways that achieve the correct pronunciation. Most cases of Khmer misspellings involve subscript consonants, since the subscripts of some consonants are identical to those of other consonants. —Stephen (Talk) 06:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)




(Norwegian) Inflections of suffixes aren't usual in my experience, but I am not sure what the policy is in other languages. I doubt that this is of any use, users are more likely to look for inflections of complete words using the suffix. . DonnanZ (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, including the forms at the suffix lemma page is definitely useful. However, this doesn't look like a proper suffix to me, e.g. islending isn't is + -lending ("inhabitant of ice"?) but Island + -ing with a vowel change in land. Same for utlending (< utland), sørlending (< Sørland(et)). Same thing happens in Danish, but spelled -lænding.__Gamren (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete; per Equinox, inflected forms are made by inflecting the full word, not by inflecting the suffix. And per Gamren, it's even worse: -lending should be deleted too. --Per utramque cavernam 14:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
There may be two schools of thought with -lending, “-lending” in The Nynorsk Dictionary., and for example “islending” in Det Norske Akademis ordbok (NAOB)., where it asserts it is Island + -ing. Thus I am not proposing the deletion of -lending. DonnanZ (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


SoP --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


Same as above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

These two terms are no more SoP than flat tire. Also, while both are composed of the same two words in different order, their meanings are different. As they are not SoP, both are included in Khmer dictionaries, such as the SEALang. —Stephen (Talk) 07:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks you for fixing បែកកង់ (baek kɑng). To me, flat tyre and flat tire are also SoP's and they haven't been through an RFD process. If flat tyre and flat tire are kept, these may be kept as well. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

CAC 40Edit

Having an entry for a specific index seems to me to be encyclopaedic. A better place for an entry is at CAC, which I have added. Compare this with an entry for FTSE but not for FTSE 100, FTSE 250, FTSE 350, FTSE All-Index, and so on. -Stelio (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Also for consideration is the Spanish index IBEX 35, which I'll hold back from editing pending a decision on CAC 40. -Stelio (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Not sure. (I added this.) The phrase is trotted out so regularly in French and seems to me, perhaps because of the alliteration, quite "set" – you don't talk in French, as far as I know, about the CAC 60, the CAC 100 etc., nor is "CAC" much used without the "40". I just did a search on Le Monde for "CAC" alone and all the results seem to be for unrelated acronyms. Also note that Wikipedia, too, has articles for FTSE and NASDAQ, but not (in this sense) CAC – only CAC 40. Ƿidsiþ 14:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure too. Could you provide some quotes for CAC alone? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Fine challenges. Some responses:

  • "FTSE 100" is trotted out very regularly in the UK. We don't have a FTSE 100 entry.
  • There is an English Wikipedia article on CAC only.
  • Other CAC indices include CAC Next 20, CAC Mid 60, CAC Small, CAC All-Tradable. Which we presumably don't want to list as Wiktionary entries.
  • If one considered "CAC 40" to be "CAC" + "40" then every citation of "CAC 40" (and other CAC indices) is a citation of "CAC".
  • I've further added three citations (from different years) of "CAC" on its own (without the "40") to the entry CAC.

-Stelio (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Well, maybe. I don't know how CAC 40 can exactly be CAC + 40 since the Cotation assistée en continu is not actually used anymore - "CAC 40" is, as I understand it, a fossilised term. Maybe a French person who understand economic infrastructure better than I do can chime in. I only know from living and working in Paris for several years that everyone talks about the CAC 40 and I never heard anyone refer to the "CAC". Ƿidsiþ 15:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

To restate my case, with perhaps more clarity:

  • I agree that the CAC 40 is a thing, that people talk about it, and that it differs from the CAC.
  • However I believe that CAC 40 is not appropriate as an entry in Wiktionary, and instead should be held on Wikipedia, as it is encyclopaedic rather than lexical.
  • I see this as being analogous to Wiktionary having an entry for Fiat but not for Fiat 500.

In my opinion the criteria for inclusion are open to interpretation as to whether it is appropriate to have an entry here for an individual stock market index name (there isn't clear guidance either way). Perhaps it is worth formally calling a vote on the matter, if there is no clear consensus on this one case? I see that in the meantime, @SemperBlotto has added FTSE 100. ;-) -Stelio (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I've raised the general topic for wider discussion at BP: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2018/March#Stock market indices. -Stelio (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

die Arme in die Hüften gestemmtEdit

die Arme in die Seite gestemmtEdit

As pointed out on the talk page, this seems awfully SOP in German, and [[akimbo]] should link to the individual words, not to this. - -sche (discuss) 21:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 22:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The gloss is wrong, Akimbo means "mit verschrenkten Armen". Being slightly tired, and not used to the phrase, I had first read Armee and couldn't figure the meaning, so I figure it's slightly idiomatic, hard to translate, too, and probably doesn' work with many other verbs or appendages. weak keep. 05:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

ciruela albaricoqueEdit

Probably an invention by our old friend Luciferwildcat. --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Move to RFV: no RFD rationale given, and while most hits on BGC are enumerations, there do seem to be a few that have this as a single noun phrase. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Seems okay to me. Less commonly, ciruela de albaricoque. It is a variety of Prunus domestica (European plum) or pluot. —Stephen (Talk) 07:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

аддаць перавагуEdit

аддаваць перавагуEdit

SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

tomber sur le nezEdit

(it might be an RFV matter) I don't see how it's an idiom. If there's no other sense than the one that's already on the entry, it's SOP. @106 for now? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete unless a more figurative sense is forthcoming. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn’t it also describe people who don’t fall nose‐first? — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 16:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep. From a literal point of view, falling on your nose is not the same as falling on your face. Falling on your nose would hurt a lot more. —Internoob 04:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Selbstmord begehenEdit

Arguably SOP: "suicide" + "to commit" = "to commit suicide". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Because on average there's no ambiguity about how many selves you're going to kill or have already killed. When talking about the abstract notion as opposed to a specific act, 'Mord begehen' without an article is found too. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

se glisser dansEdit

This is not particularly idiomatic. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to glisser and make a new sense there. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 16:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
This might be worthy of a usex, but not of a new sense. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
DeleteInternoob 04:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


This gonna be scribble. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


It’s attested, of course, but it’s not used in the same way as such is life. It is rather a literal translation of c'est la vie or that's life. The phrase actually used in such situation is 仕方がない or しょうがない. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

(User:Haplology, 2013: "I have never heard this one". —suzukaze (tc) 00:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC))


SOP. This is not a noun, but a verb + object, i.e. "to control the temperature". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018Edit

Cebuano fractional numbersEdit

Some entries in the Category:Cebuano fractional numbers should be deleted. I don't think we need to create entries for mixed numbers. See tulo ug usa ka sikatulo, and duha ug usa ka sikatulo. Carl Francis (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not up on Cebuano, but in many South and Southeast Asian languages, fractional numbers are idiomatic and deserve a separate category. —Stephen (Talk) 07:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown Those aren't idiomatic. Plus, we dont have entries like two and one third (tulo ug usa ka sikatulo), five and two thirds (lima ug duha ka sikatulo) and one and three thirds (usa ug tulo ka sikatulo). In the case tulo ug usa ka sikatulo, it can be split into tulo and usa ka sikatulo. Carl Francis (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete per proponent. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


Sum of parts? Talk:Christmas_present#birthday_present. —suzukaze (tc) 22:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Definitely. And the postpositional adjective sense of English present (as in, "now, currently") doesn't apply at all to the Japanese プレゼント (purezento).
Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

træt afEdit

Danish. I'm sorry, @Gamren, but tired of is SOP and has never had an entry. It is my opinion that træt af is essentially træt + af, just as tired of is just tired + of. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologise. I looked for instances of træt outside of træt af denoting "fed up", but it feels difficult to separate it from the "in need of reprieve" sense. Here are some (unedited, i.e. haven't checked year and translator, if any) QQ excerpts:
    • 2016, Grete Roulund, Setans porte, Lindhardt og Ringhof (ISBN 9788711588505)
      I Cambodia bliver der aldrig fred, vi gravede massegrave op, vi så nogle af khmerernes videoer, og jeg siger dig, Troyat, man bliver så træt, man bliver så træt af mennesker, at man til sidst siger til sig selv: Lad dem dø, der er alt for mange af dem, og de er overalt, lad dem dø ganske naturligt af pest og kolera og aids, jeg er ligeglad, der er alt for mange, nedlæg medicinalfirmaerne og lad dyrene være i fred og lad menneskene dø af det, de nu skal dø af, de vil få et meget bedre liv.
      In Cambodia there will never be peace, we dug up mass graves, we saw some of the Khmers' videoes, and I say to you, Troyat, one becomes so tired, one becomes so tired of humans, that eventually one says to oneself: Let them die, there are far too many of them, and they are everywhere, let them die quite naturally from pest and cholera and aids, I don't care, there are far too many, close down the medicine companies and leave the animals alone and let the humans die of whatever they're dying of, they will get a much better life.
    • 2011, Anna Perera, Fanget på Guantanamo, Rosinante & Co (ISBN 9788763823180)
      Han bliver så træt ved tanken om,at det emne skal forfølge ham resten af livet, ...
      He becomes so tired at the thought of that topic pursuing him for the rest of his life, ...
    • 2014, Vibeke Marx, Af ingenting, Modtryk (ISBN 9788771462067)
      Bliver så træt, og indimellem vred, over altid at frygte noget, endda noget hun ikke rigtig ved, hvad er.
      Becomes so tired, and sometimes angry, about always fearing something, and on top of that something she doesn't quite know what is.
It is definitely my impression that the "fed up" sense is usually found in the construction træt af. @PseudoSkull Can you perhaps find some occurrences to support your implied statement that træt alone contains enough meaning to account for træt af?__Gamren (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

'e llènteEdit

I would have just deleted this, but it has a long edit history – Hippietrail RFVed it years ago, and Stephen defended it. The title means just "the glasses". The lemma for "glasses" should be at lente, which is the standard lemma form. When you add the definite article, the initial consonant is doubled, but that is a normal feature of Neapolitan nouns; in sentences without an article – "I like glasses", for instance – it would just appear as "lente", not as "'a llente". (Also, the accented è is not written - per Wikipedia, "accent marks are not used in the actual spelling of words except when they occur on the final syllable.") Ƿidsiþ 09:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete. As for the old discussion, I'm not sure that Stephen was defending it so much as explaining it without considering whether it should be kept. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

eiusdem generisEdit

Sum of parts. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete unless the phrase is used in languages other than Latin (the way sui generis is), in which case convert it to that/those language(s). —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Seems to be a legal term. (source source source). Keep and move to English and whatever other languages it's used in. – Gormflaith (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete for nominator's reason. (The English term ejusdem generis should be kept as a legal term of art.) — SGconlaw (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Never mind. Delete for now. I think it could be a rare variant of ejusdem generis, but I couldn't find any good cites; most of them were mentions, I think, rather than uses. – Gormflaith (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

усанд сэлэхEdit

Some of parts, means "to swim in water" Crom daba (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

غير قانونيEdit

As SOP as not legal. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I specifically saw this in an ad, but I'm not going to claim all ads with Arabic have good Arabic in them, so I'll defer to people with more expertise. Finsternish (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
With that said, look here: It seems to be idiomatic, as Al Maany is reputable. Finsternish (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Apart from that it also turns up a lot of Google results and seems to be in regular use. Finsternish (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not disputing that it is real; not legal is also real. I am stating that is the sum of its parts, and therefore not dictionary content. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I see. I misunderstood the rule on "idiomatic," thinking it meant only common collocations were permitted. Finsternish (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

hermana mayor, hermano mayor, etc.Edit

SoP; obviously non-idiomatic. I think we should delete these and similar entries, but make sure they're at the appropriate translation hub first. Gormflaith (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Delete them all. The only excuse we might have for keeping such entries is the translation hub exception, but that doesn't apply to non-English terms. This kind of entry tends to proliferate because it's easier to link to the whole thing in a translation than to figure out how to link to the parts- or which parts to link to, for that matter. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
hermana mayor is also a Tagalog word with a different definition. Carl Francis (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Carl Francis: Well, the only language that's there is Spanish, so I think delete is still appropriate, unless you want to add this Tagalog word (with {{bor|tl|es|hermana}} {{m|es|mayor||older sister}} as the etymology instead of {{bor|tl|es|hermana mayor||older sister}} because I still think at least the Spanish entry is headed toward deletion). – Gormflaith (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete per Chuck Entz. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Yaghnobi entries of User:RajkiandrisEdit

In my opinion these need to be all deleted as they were taken without credit to the author from:, unless someone wants to contact them and ask for retrospective permission. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I spent a few minutes looking at the entries they made and comparing it to the source, for anyone interested. I'm inclined to say that they're innocent, or they at least didn't rip all of them. As for what to do, I think a more experienced editor should weigh in.
асп vs. "N. English: horse. Tojiki: асп. From: Tajik."
хоҳак vs. "V. English: want. Tojiki: хостан."
панир not in source
нун vs. "N. English: bread. Tojiki: нон. Etym: Tajik?."
хварак vs. "V. English: eat. Tojiki: хурдан. See: жавак."
тиреза vs. "N. English: window. Tojiki: тиреза. From: Tajik."
пун vs. "Adj. English: full. Tojiki: пур. Etym: Yaghnobi, from Tojiki?."
панч vs. [pantʃ] Quant. English: five. Tojiki: панҷ. Hom: панч2. / N. English: key. Tojiki: калид. Syn: калит; Hom: панч1.
зивок vs. "N. English: language. Tojiki: забон."
Gormflaith (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The editor in question added a lot of bad entries and was quite uncareful; we know for a fact that some are copied from that site. We also don't have anyone equipped to assess whether they're correct. Unless such a person appears, I think we may have to delete them to be safe. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I think they should all be deleted as well, but also because Yaghnobi should be written using more accurate Latin characters. Using Cyrillic is nationalist propaganda claiming that Yaghnobi as closely related to Tajik, which is unquestionably not at the case. --Victar (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
After looking a bit more, I agree with you guys... I shouldn't have been so quick to judge (in favor). Side note: some of the etymologies had straight up zero links 😕 – Gormflaith (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Nationalist propaganda? Everything printed in Yaghnobi is in Cyrillic. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Gormflaith for looking at the entries in more detail. If this is agreed upon then, then they ought to be deleted sooner rather than later, as once the data is re-used by Wikidata under a different licence I think it will be impossible to delete, won't it? @Metaknowledge Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

If it's decided to delete all of this user's Yaghnobi entries, note that some Yaghnobi entries were not written by this user, so look at the edit history before deleting. - -sche (discuss) 20:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


+ 沿って<沿う. This shouldn't really exist. —Suzukaze-c 21:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It's been a month and no objections. I moved the core content to a usage note at 沿う and deleted the problematic に沿って entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

core CaryophyllalesEdit

Caryophyllales, like many higher plant taxa, has been undergoing revision in order to render it monophyletic. Some authors wish to discuss the monophyletic grouping without redefining the term (in order to avoid confusion), and therefore refer to it as the "core" of the taxon as usually defined. I don't think this kind of terminology is a true taxonomic name, just a delimiting noun plus a taxonomic name. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

For that matter, it's also not Translingual — it's English. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The English problem might also be a matter of core and its related terms, and several other terms like angiosperms. - 13:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
It is a term with specific hyponyms and hypernyms, somewhat variable over time, and synonyms used much more specifically than core + Caryophyllales. DCDuring (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Almost all the usage at Google "core Caryophyllales" (BooksGroupsScholar) indicates to me that core Caryophyllales is used in a manner clearly parallel to that of other taxonomic groups with names that follow the older taxonomic naming practices. That the name is used in two of the databases in the entry suggests that it has gained sufficient currency when referring to a particular group of families to be used for an entry or section title. The usage may turn out to be relatively short term, as Caryophyllales is used by more authors to have the same families as core Caryophyllales. As long as both concepts are being used, the need for a distinguishing name may continue. That the name can be interpreted as SoP in the minds of a broad population of readers does not mean that it is so interpreted by the authors and their fellow professionals. DCDuring (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


You can repeat any adverb like this. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Also: быстро-быстро, долго-долго, много-много. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
много-много says it also has the unpredictable meaning "at most". If so, it should be retained. Benwing2 (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
It surprisingly does. Should be marked obsolete. Guldrelokk (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I've done so, and removed the RFD tag. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


First, this is not a suffix, this is a separate stem used to form compounds.

Secondly, there is nothing special about it: all adjectives participate in compounding, and строительный is a perfect adjective by itself. Guldrelokk (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete. @Atitarev, Benwing2, another D1gggg creation... --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
It can be perceived as a suffix but I'm OK to delete it. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Benwing2 (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


It already has the written form ꪉꪴ --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep, and have an admin update Module:languages/data3/b to add Latin as a script for this language. SIL (see Ethnologue, Script Source) says it also uses Latin and Thai scripts. Also, apparently "few of the Tai Dam can still read their heritage script (Phan Lương Hùng 2010: 14)", so it would make sense that they use a more common script like Latin or Thai as well. If anyone with access to better sources could confirm this, that would be great. – Gormflaith (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I’m afraid few of the Tai Dam can still read their heritage script is more likely to mean that most of the others read and write only in Vietnamese. From the Unicode proposal it seems that even the Tai Dam diaspora uses the Tai Viet script to write their language. I think it would be better to remove all Latin script Tai Dam entries and make a transliteration module instead. Guldrelokk (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right about the quote. "Literacy rate in L1 1%-5%; L2 50%-75%". And as for the diaspora, I couldn't find anything in the Unicode proposal about script usage overseas ), though I did find a couple images using it, and even a YouTube comment (top one). Any Latin script I've come across (that may or may not be just transliterations) doesn't have any diacritics, so I do think that these entries should be deleted. I also found a YouTube video that uses all three scripts in the title. Perhaps Latin is used in the diaspora for convenience? I imagine it must be easier to text your mom in Latin rather than Tai Viet script. Sorry if this comment is too speculative to be of any use. – Gormflaith (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I meant this part:
Traditionally, the Tai Viet script did not use any further marking for tone. The reader had to determine the tone of unchecked syllables from the context. In recent times, however, several groups have introduced tone marks into Tai Viet writing. Tai Dam speakers in the United States begin using Lao tone marks with their script about 30 years ago, and those marks are included in SIL’s Tai Heritage font. These symbols are written as combining marks above the initial consonant, or above a combining vowel, and are identified by their Laotian names, mai ek and mai tho.  These marks are also used by the Song Petburi font (developed for the Thai Song language), although they were probably borrowed from the Thai alphabet rather than the Lao.
This seems to be one of the solutions used in Tai Dam entries, like ꪹꪣꪉꪡ꫁ꪱ.
Most languages occasionally get written in Latin script on YouTube, in SMSes and the like, but it is generally too defective and inconsistent to be suitable for a dictionary. As you pointed out, even tones are not marked. Guldrelokk (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Wow, I don't know how I missed that; thought I'd thoroughly read the paper. Thanks for finding it! – Gormflaith (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


It already has the written from ꪁꪫꪱꪥ --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


It already has the written form ꪅꪺꪀ. --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

dai lineamenti grossolaniEdit

Looks SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

-ающий, -яющий, -ающийсяEdit

These are not suffixes: the preceding а is a part of the verbal stem. It can be a suffix on it’s own or another а-final suffix like -ывать (-yvatʹ), but in any case it will be present throughout the inflection. The participle suffix is just -ущий (-uščij), -ющий (-juščij). Guldrelokk (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Move to -ущий, -ющий.
Speaking of metanalysis, I've always wondered whether our analysis of nouns ending in -ание was right. Don't these always come from a-stem verbs? If yes, I think we should consider parsing описа́ние as описа́ть + -ние, the same way we parse Latin words ending in -atio as "a-stem verb + -tio"; see interpretatio for example. I only know of two cases of a genuine -atio suffix: gradatio and *coratio; are there similar counterexamples in Russian?
@Benwing2, Wikitiki89, Atitarev, what do you think? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
IMO, they are suffixes, e.g. ука́зывающий (ukázyvajuščij) = ука́зыв (ukázyv) + -ающий (-ajuščij). The stem is -казыв- (-kazyv-), not -казыва- (-kazyva-). And there are several forms of present participle active forming suffixes.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Why do you think the stem is not указыва- (ukazyva-)? It is present in all forms of the verb. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
For verbs yes, better examples are: де́лающий (délajuščij) = "дел-" + "-ающий", призыва́ющий (prizyvájuščij) = "призыв-" + "-ающий". "-а(ть)" is part of the first class of verbs. -Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The stem of делать (delatʹ) is дела-, the stem of призывать (prizyvatʹ) is призыва-: that’s why it is present throughout the inflection. Guldrelokk (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the problem we're having is that native speakers tend to naturally think of the а being part of the ending and not the stem, when historically it's part of the stem. --WikiTiki89 17:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


Same goes for the passive participle. уваж-ать, уваж-а-ю, уваж-а-емый. Guldrelokk (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk Let's think this through before just deleting these suffixes. My motivation for -аемый is that for many verbs, the passive participle suffix clearly replaces the infinitive suffix, e.g. терп-е́ть -> терп-и́мый, ма́зать -> ма́ж-емый, hence the same could be said here, e.g. уваж-а́ть -> уваж-а́емый. This is the same reason I prefer to treat -ание (-anije) as a suffix, parallel to -ение (-enije), rather than having two suffixes -ние (-nije) and -ение (-enije) that behave in non-parallel ways. Since I've been the main person working on adding etymologies, you'll find lots of words with etymologies that reference -ание (-anije) , and so it's not so simple to just delete that suffix. -аемый doesn't have so many words referring to it but we should maintain consistency of analysis. Benwing2 (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep, as per the topic above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Benwing2: But compare терпим and уважаем. Verbs that drop the stem-final а, like писать (pisatʹ), пишем (pišem), do not have this participle at all, so there is simply no way to treat а as part of the suffix: it would be plainly wrong. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

мажемый (mažemyj) does not exist, for example, if only as an extreme occasionalism. It is not grammatical. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

To the active participle: note how писать (pisatʹ), пишу (pišu) has пишущий (pišuščij). So to summarise: -ющий (-juščij) only occurs after а when the stem invariably has it. Whenever it is possible to ‘replace’ the vowel, it does that. Thus, in уважа-ющий -ющий is clearly suffixed to the stem уважа-, which has no allomorphs altogether: if it could drop its а like писать (pisatʹ), it would be уважущий (uvažuščij). On the other hand, -емый (-emyj) only occurs after those stems in а which have no allomorphs altogether: for other verbs of the first conjugation the corresponding participle does not exist. So again, уважаемый is clearly уважа-емый, because if уважать (uvažatʹ) could lose its final а, it wouldn’t have a passive participle.

I think that -ание (-anije) is a way harder and a very different question. I’ll need to think a lot about it. But the participle suffixes I requested for deletion are unjustifiable: removing them will not change anything globally. Guldrelokk (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Move to -емый (-emyj); I favour correct segmentation over artificial consistency. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


-ист (-ist) +‎ -ка (-ka). Guldrelokk (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You've described the etymology but it's a suffix as well. Keep. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Atitarev: What makes it a suffix? -ка (-ka) is a usual feminitive-forming suffix: it doesn’t matter whether the word ends in -ист (-ist) or not. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
IMO, it's a compound suffix, like German -istin. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
How are cases of words in -ист (-ist) being suffixed with -ка (-ka) distinct from cases of other words being suffixed with -ка (-ka)? Can you find sources that treat -истка (-istka) as a suffix? Guldrelokk (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Note that -istin is not an entry. Guldrelokk (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete per proponent. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


-лог (-log) +‎ -ия (-ija). Guldrelokk (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk I disagree with this. -логия (-logija) is a suffix in its own right; agentive nouns in -лог (-log) are more likely backformed from -логия (-logija) than the other way around. (Compare патологоана́том (patologoanátom) from патологоанато́мия (patologoanatómija), педиа́тр (pediátr) from педиатри́я (pediatríja), графома́н (grafomán) from графома́ния (grafománija), etc.) Benwing2 (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Benwing2: This is a matter of etymology: I am not aware of descriptions treating -логия (-logija) as a suffix. Diachronically педиатр (pediatr) has been back-formed from педиатрия (pediatrija), as should be pointed out in entries; synchronically педиатрия (pediatrija) is педиатр (pediatr) +‎ -ия (-ija), and that’s why -ия (-ija) exists. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Guldrelokk: I would wager there are words in -логия (-logija) without the corresponding agentive nouns in -лог (-log); also, it is certainly a matter of opinion whether педиатри́я (pediatríja) is synchronically formed from педиа́тр (pediátr) or vice-versa, and in general I am loath to make synchronic analyses that disagree with the diachronic analysis unless there's a good reason to. Benwing2 (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Benwing2: There are no such words, and it is not at all a matter of option. педиатрия (pediatrija) is a derivative of педиатр (pediatr) and not vice versa, as follows from the word structure. I do not think you can find such an account anywhere. Guldrelokk (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I said there are no such words: I forgot about the second sense of -logy. There are words like гаплология (gaplologija) and трилогия (trilogija), but they contain -ия (-ija) too, as can be seen from adjectives like гаплологический (gaplologičeskij). Guldrelokk (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

IMO, that is not probative, any more than claiming we can analyze -logy into -log + -y because we can similarly form adjectives in -logical in English. Benwing2 (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand English morphology very well. This is a perfectly good reason to analyse -логия into -лог-ия, because -логический is not derivable from -логия. Stems in -лог form clusters of derivatives. Thus all descriptions treat -логия as -лог-ия. Likewise, химия (ximija) doesn’t have a corresponding *хим (*xim), but there are other words from the same stem, like химический (ximičeskij), and they show that -ия (-ija) is a suffix here, as Wiktionary agrees. Guldrelokk (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The basic morphological principles are the same across languages. Your example of химия is a good one; this is properly analyzed as follows:
хи́м(ия) (xím(ija)) +‎ -и́ческий (-íčeskij)
In other words, хими́ческий is formed by adding -и́ческий directly onto хи́мия, and the rules of derivation for -и́ческий say that if added to words ending in -ия, that suffix is deleted. Another similar example is гармони́ческий = гармо́н(ия) + -и́ческий. Given that there's no such word as *хим or гармо́н, the analysis хим + -и́ческий or гармо́н + -и́ческий is impossible (although such an analysis does apply to e.g. ритми́ческий = ритм + -и́ческий and цилиндри́ческий = цили́ндр + -и́ческий). This similarly means that гармо́ния should not be analyzed as *гармо́н + -ия; rather, гармо́ния is probably a direct borrowing from (Old?) French harmonie or Latin harmonia (or perhaps Ancient Greek ἁρμονία (harmonía)), with the form of the word influenced by the existing suffix -ия (-ija), and all words with the stem гармон- in them are either formed from гармо́ния or are themselves direct borrowings of foreign words (e.g. гармони́ровать (garmonírovatʹ) is probably a direct borrowing of German harmonieren + -овать, alternatively analyzable synchronically as гармо́н(ия) + -и́ровать). This means that there's no problem analyzing words in -логи́ческий as something-лог(ия) + -ический, and logically this makes sense because e.g. генеалоги́ческий "genealogical" means "related to генеало́гия (genealogy)" and not "*related to генеало́г (genealogists)". This should be made clearer in English where there's no such word as "*genealog" and "genealogical" is necessarily "genealog(y) + -ical", but the same principles can and do apply in Russian. Benwing2 (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Exactly because -ия gets deleted it is a suffix. Гармония is the motivating word for гармонический, but they are not formed from each other: both suffixes can be widely seen elsewhere, and here they share a common stem, гармон-. So do гаплолог-ия and гаплолог-ический. Гармония - гармонический and гаплология - гаплологический are in the same relation, so there is no need to posit -логия as dictinct from -лог-ия. There is a good reason nobody does that.
As for what was directly borrowed and what was not, that doesn’t matter. Native speakers have no idea: they only have idea about synchronic relations. Guldrelokk (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a good treatment of derivation in Русская грамматика-80.

Highly elaborated dictionaries by both Тихонов and Ефремова divide -логия into -лог-ия. I do not see a reason to contradict these good sources as well as the whole of native grammar tradition. Guldrelokk (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • The Czech analogue is -logie. I searched for sources and found two that rank cs:-logie as a suffixoid, so something a bit like suffix but not entirely like it. Personally I find Ben Wing's analysis convincing, and I find it preferable to keep Russian -логия. A usage note could be added stating that some sources analyze this as a composition of -лог and -ия. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


In all honesty, it is ungrammatical. @Benwing2, did your bot create more entries like this one? Guldrelokk (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Nor is it attested historically: there are three occurrences, all from the 19th century. The first is from a dictionary of weird literal translations of something. Онъ предвидѣлъ будущее, но не взялъ предосторожности is not Russian. The other is from an artificial religious semi-Church Slavic text, and the third is from an early grammarian’s work side by side with other non-existent participles coined by him. Guldrelokk (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk My bot creates entries depending on the conjugation tables. You need to look at Module:ru-verb. I didn't write this module originally (it was User:Atitarev), but I did a lot of work on it. Zaliznyak is the ultimate authority on this; his description of these participles is at the top of p. 86. It has a fair amount of discussion of which participles exist and which ones are in common use. When I have more energy I will quote it. Benwing2 (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Benwing2, Guldrelokk: If I understand that page correctly, with type (class) 6a verbs on -ять form OK present passive imperfective participles. With the rest of the class on -ать, only some 6a verbs can have it, e.g. дви́гать (6a version) -> дви́жимый. Zaliznyak also says that the first group of verbs includes classes 1a, 2a, 12a, 6a (ending on -ять) and 13a where these participles are commonly used. The other group includes where these participles are "awkward" or rarely used. 6a (ending on -ать) belongs to the 2nd group. Technically ма́жемый (mážemyj) is correct but "awkward" and rare. Another example would be па́шемый (pášemyj) from паха́ть (paxátʹ). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, some of the present passive imperfective participles need to be validated if they are actually used and perceived as correct. I think we can make notes on these "awkward" or something (Benwing2 might remember what term we used. P.S. I may not be able to reply in the next 24 hours but I will read your comments. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
What is says is this:
Имеется только у переходных глаголов несовершенного вида, причем только в следующих морфологических группах: 1) у глаголов с 1 мн. наст. на гласную + безударное ем (т.е. у глаголов с основной частью индекса 1a, 2a, 12a и глаголов на -ять с основной частью индекса 6a), а также у глаголов типа 13; 2) у глаголов типа 4; 3) у отдельных глаголов типа 5, а также типов 6 (на -ать), 6°, 7. При этом, однако, только причастия первой группы (например, чита́емый, рису́емый, бре́емый, мо́емый, дава́емый, се́емый), достаточно употребительны. Причастия второй группы (например, по́мнимый, серди́мый, чи́стимый) в современном языке обычно образуются с затруднением, употребляются очень редко и имеют возвышенно-архаический оттенок; лишь немногие из причастий данной группы достаточно употребительны и лишены этого оттенка (например, стро́имый, храни́мый, люби́мый), ср. замечание на стр. 102. Причастия третьей группы (например, гони́мый, ведо́мый) представляют собой изолированные формы и имеют такой же возвышенно-архаический оттенок, ср. замечания на стр. 105, 111, 116.
Данное причастие образуется добавлением -ый к форме 1 мн. наст. (но если эта форма оканчивается на согласную + ём — заменой -ём на -омый). Ударение в I спряжении такое же, как в этой форме, во II — как в 1 ед. наст. Исключение: в типе 13 это причастие образуется от основы инфинитива (и с тем же ударением) (даватьдава́емый). Склонение — как у прилагательных с индексом 1a (имеются полные и краткие формы), например, храни́мый, кф храни́м, храни́ма, храни́мо, храни́мы.
Benwing2 (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
6a (ending on -ать) seems to belong to the third group, for which passive participles generally do not exist. Forms of the second group are correct but generally awkward, they mostly function as adjectives. терпимые отцом муки borders on ungrammaticality. Forms of the third are completely lexicalised and have to be added manually, only a few verbs have it, so мажемый (mažemyj) isn’t awkward, it’s just not a word. Guldrelokk (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We need to decide, among the verbs of groups 2 and 3 above, which ones should be listed as normal, which ones should be footnoted as "awkward and rare" (which is the terminology we've normally used to correspond to с затуднением), and which ones should be omitted entirely. There's a long note on p. 102 for type 4 verbs (in -ить) that seems to list which ones occur most commonly; I'll transcribe that at some point. There's a similar shorter note on p. 105 for type 5 verbs (in -еть, conjugated like -ить verbs), and another one on p. 111 for type 6 verbs in -ать, and another one on p. 116 for type 7 verbs. Benwing2 (talk)

As for participles in consonant + -емый, Zaliznyak says only three of this kind ever occur: глаголемый (glagolemyj), колеблемый (koleblemyj), колышемый (kolyšemyj). Guldrelokk (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk Since you seem to have access to Zaliznyak, can you quote or paraphrase the sections I reference above on pages 102, 105, 111 and 116? Once it's clear to me what exactly Zaliznyak says about present passive participles for type 4, 5, 6 and 7 verbs, I can (try to) fix the module appropriately. Benwing2 (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Дополнительные сведения о типе 4…
Прич. страд. наст. от большинства глаголов типа 4 (например, помнимый, грабимый, сердимый, хоронимый) в современном языке образуется с затруднением и употребляется очень редко (преимущественно в книжном и возвышенно-архаизирующем стиле). Лишь небольшая часть этих причастий достаточно употребительна и лишена указанного стилистического оттенка (или обладает им в незначительной степени). Важнейшие причастия этой группы таковы: любимый, давимый, ловимый, водимый (а также соответствующие производные, например, приводимый, производимый, руководимый), судимый, тревожимый, возимый (а также соответствующие производные, например, привозимый, перевозимый), хвалимый, палимый, хулимый, томимый, хранимый, ценимый, чинимый («устраиваемый»), теснимый, строимый, даримый, творимый, боготворимый, носимый (и соответствующие производные, например, приносимый, произносимый), просимый. Как обычные прилагательные выступают мнимый, мыслимый, часто также любимый.
Дополнительные сведения о типе 5…
Формы слышимый, видимый и гонимый, приведенные в основной таблице, чаще всего выступают как обычные прилагательные («доступный слуху», «доступный зрению, кажущийся», «подвергающийся притеснениям»); но изредка они функционируют и как причастия (например, гонимый ветром). Бывшие причастия терпимый и зримый выступают теперь только как обычные прилагательные. Прочие глаголы типа 5 прич. страд. наст. не образуют.
Дополнительные сведения о типе 6…
Прич. страд. наст. регулярно образуется в типе 6 только у глаголов на -ять. Из глаголов на -ать его имеют только глаголать, колебать, колыхать (глаголемый, колеблемый, колышемый). У двигать эта форма записывается как движимый. Теоретически возможные формы щиплемый, треплемый, сыплемый, гложемый, полощемый и др. практически не употребляются. Слово искомый является обычным прилагательным.
Дополнительные сведения о типе 7…
Возможность образования этой формы ограничена у глаголов типа 7 приведенными в таблице формами везомый, пасомый, несомый, ведомый (очень редко употребляющимися в современном языке и имеющими возвышенно-книжную окраску).
Guldrelokk (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Benwing2, Guldrelokk: Guys, you seem to have it under control now, thanks. The additional info above is quite useful. @Cinemantique: Hi. You might want to check па́шемый (pášemyj) in ruwikt. According to the above, it's not valid. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm at a conference now but I'll try to get to this soon. Benwing2 (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Move to RFV: It is a participle, and the lemma form or an inflected form of it should be attested, per WT:ATTEST. If it is attested, it could only be deleted if it is a rare misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


Well, uh, we don't have an entry for English IndyCar... —Suzukaze-c 23:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Searching about here and there, 1) this appears to be a brand name, and thus 2) it should be a proper noun, from what I can find, and 3) this is only used in specific contexts, c.f. w:ja:インディカー and google:"インディカー", where Google throws up a suggested English hit in the right-hand sidebar (for me, anyway) for the IndyCar Series, a series of races apparently sponsored by Verizon.
Dunno if this meets CFI from the perspective of WT:BRAND, however. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


This is not a lexicalized term, but simply 神木 (shinboku, sacred tree) with the honorific prefix (go).

Some terms in Japanese that include this prefix have indeed lexicalized, like 御飯 (gohan, food, a meal, literally honorable + cooked rice), and such terms merit inclusion. However, 御神木 is not one of these, and is purely SOP.

Moreover, just comparing usage patterns, the unprefixed form is much more common.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

大S, 小SEdit

This is an undeletion request. I don't think they are not dictionary materials and we already includes plenty of nicknames.--Zcreator alt (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Are these stage names (as the deleted entries state) or nicknames? If they're stage names, then keep deleted. (We don't have entries for Jay-Z, Diddy, Pink, etc.) But if they're nicknames, I don't see how it's any different than Scar-Jo or A-Rod, so undelete. – Gormflaith (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


German and Dutch. SoP; -in (feminine suffix) + -en (plural suffix). The double < n > is to keep the < i > checked. Can be explained in the usage sections of -in. – Gormflaith (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. SOP applies to multiword phrases, not polymorphemic words and affixes. Otherwise we'd have to delete English boys and English walked and all sorts of things as being SOP ([[boy]]+[[-s]], [[walk]]+[[-ed]], etc.). —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Mahagaja: But boys and walked both are free morpheme + bound morpheme. -innen is just two bound morphemes, which I don't think deserves an entry. -in isn't a stem; you can't add morphemes to it. In forming the word Schülerinnen, I believe it's: Schule + -erSchüler + -inSchülerin + -en = Schülerinnen. By the -innen logic, should we have an entry for -erinnen too? I feel like that's going a bit overboard. And there's not a clear precedent with this: we have -esses and -rices, but not -ers, -ettes, -ees, -ings, -oids, etc. – Gormflaith (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I see your point, but we do also have -schaften and -ungen, not to mention 874 entries for suffix inflections in Latin. Rather than decide these on a case-by-case basis, we need to develop some sort of general policy either allowing or disallowing inflected forms of bound affixes. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I agree; I didn't know there was 1000+ suffix forms here. I'm going to be bold and say that I think they all should be deleted and confined to declension tables... though you can't really decline a suffix. I might create a vote for this. Even if it doesn't pass I think there should still be a policy about this. – Gormflaith (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
          • @Gormflaith: Do you still intend to do this? I'd support it. I think you should take it up to the Beer Parlour first though. --Per utramque cavernam 21:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
            • @Per utramque cavernam: Kind of, but I'm not confident in making a proposal that would affect tons of languages I don't know anything about. I'll start a BP discussion tomorrow when I have a bit more time so I can get more input. – Gormflaith (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Can't remember which entry now, but there was a discussion at one point about suffix entries having plurals (!) e.g. ism, plural isms: this is sth that struck me as silly because you don't pluralise until you have formed a complete word, i.e. you don't morphologically do true + -isms but rather (true + -ism) + -s. If that applies here (I only know a couple of words of German) then delete. Equinox 19:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Equinox: Yep, exactly. Even the entry for Schülerinnen says "plural of Schülerin" not, like, "plural of Schüler, but now they're girls". – Gormflaith (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Devil's advocate: what if there is some strange plurality that comes from the suffix, e.g. loaned -ium may become -ia? Does that change things? Equinox 01:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking about that too. I actually like how it is now: no plural on -ium (but useful notes about it in the defs) and "Used in forming plurals of nouns in -ium and -ion." at -ia. It specifies that the nouns are being pluralized rather than the affix. However, for all the actual Latin suffix forms, I'm not sure. Looking at the word patrium: I think it's best analyzed as an inflection of patrius, rather than pater + -ium, right? But what about metallāria? Should it be analyzed as metallum +‎ -āria, or an inflection of metallārius? I don't know... Gormflaith (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete per Gormflaith and Equinox. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm on the fence, leaning weakly towards keep because of the added n. I note that the verb-forming suffix -ieren was deleted on de.Wikt on these grounds: that it's "really" -ier(-) + -en. - -sche (discuss) 03:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if I agree with the -ieren deletion. -ier isn't really a morpheme in German. (I think). – Gormflaith (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not sure I agree with that either. We shouldn't take parlieren (parlier + -en) as evidence of a suffix -ieren, but that doesn't mean that the suffix doesn't exist; otherwise how do you explain buchstabieren, halbieren, etc.? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@-sche, Gormflaith What do you think of this? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I've tweaked it to note that -ier(en) is the/a traditional rendering of e.g. -ire, -iare and other non-homographic suffixes. -ier is a morpheme in German, btw: besides being a noun-forming suffix, it was argued by one of de.Wikt's resident professional linguists (against some of the standard dictionaries!) that -ier is the true verb-forming suffix, visible in e.g. imperatives, to which the infinitive suffix -en is added to form the infinitive. (Which is a plausible-enough analysis, though I think it was unhelpful that it was then used to delete all trace of -ieren as a verb-forming suffix, because dictionaries normally lemmatize the infinitive for German, and it's odd for de.Wikt to instead lemmatize -ier here.) - -sche (discuss) 14:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Since Gormflaith reads German, she might be interested: de:Wiktionary:Löschkandidaten/Archiv_2012/2#-ieren_(erl.,_verschoben) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@-sche, Per utramque cavernam The rebracketing explanation is what I interpreted this as. parlier as the verb stem borrowed from French, plus the native -en verb forming suffix. Like how we say "the alcohol" (I once read an absolutely ridiculous pop linguistics article about how we should not use "the" with alcohol, alchemy, etc). And then rebracketing to get -ieren for halbieren, buchstabieren, usw. But the argument over at de.wikt is interesting. To me -ieren looks good it right now (thanks for the edits). But I'm not a morphology expert. (Also: our entry at -en is "A suffix of all verbs in their infinitive form.", which would exclude -ieren form being an infinitive suffix). – Gormflaith (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep: We do already say "plural -innen". Usage note at -in would be the last place to look for orthography hints, when the meaning is already clear. Or if the page can' t be found.
I'd also argue that this may be parsed as a suffix by some speakers. The doubt about a slippery sloap to -erinnen is interesting but not entirely convincing, because Zugführerinnen is not formed from' 'Zugfuhre, nor Zugfahrt. While it could instead be derived from the root verb plus agent suffix, I'm not even convinced -innen was -in + -en. Rather -in might be -innen / -en. That's probably inconclusive or perhaps outright wrong.
Nevertheless I am trying to make the case that -innen is attached to male plural forms, so the singular + in would be a backformation.
On a related note: -en as adjectival suffix (sense 3, e.g. golden), makes me think that the plural suffix was derived therefrom.
So, -en was perhaps more often applied to female terms because women were often objectified (materialistic, pun intended). This -en was MHG -in!
Now, the ety for -in mentions -inne next to -in, but that doesn't have an entry. That's the most important point. If -inne was a suffix, -innen surely is from plain -in + -en. The ety for that -en is not really informative either. Could someone clarify?
Would you rather delete if uncertain or keep and improve? I dislike incorrectness as much as anyone else, but this one wouldn't really hurt to keep.
By the way, could such a development compare to Beamtin, for a perhaps similar development? Beamtinnen should be virtually non existent, whereas Beamtenin seems (to me, slowly loosing focus) seems more natural. The point however is that die Beamte very impersonal, derived from a property. 05:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Having entries for inflected forms of lemmata is uncontested common practice in Wiktionary, I don't understand why we have this discussion. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    It's not uncontested for suffixes. --Per utramque cavernam 13:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I am not contesting it, however, so I'm standing behind my Keep. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: I see no harm in keeping inflections of suffixes as long as they make sense. It is not sum of parts in WT:CFI#Idiomaticity parlance since it does not arise from separate components; and furthermore, it is a combination of a derivational suffix with inflectional suffix. Above, Mahagaja shows a long-standing practice of including inflections of suffixes: Category:Latin suffix forms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

pneumático lisoEdit

SOP, IMHO. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

neumático lisoEdit

SOP, IMHO. Cup --Cien pies 6 (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


It looks like "A generally despicable person." is just rewording the def "bastard, shit, son of a bitch". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep: One is an interjection, the other an appelation of sorts, a noun anyway. Now, I don' t expect this page would lead to prolongued discussion of the need to separate differences between interjections, nouns, but have to note that those are separate at yuck. 03:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


This is a revision undeletion request. I don't think just made by a blocked user is a reason for revision deletion as 1. I don't know how the edit is vandalism per se and 2. I don't think this can not be kept in page history (compare criteria for revision deletion in Wikipedia).

Note: If the username is improper, only the username should be deleted, not the whole edit.--Zcreator alt (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Zcreator alt: These edits were made by a problematic user who is evading blocks and abusing multiple accounts. Deleting these revisions, no matter what they were, is to ensure that we are not allowing them to make any edits. Perhaps @Wyang should have been more transparent in the revision deletion summary. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
In Wikipedia edits evading blocks are only reverted and not revision deleted (unless reverting or ignoring are insufficient to handle, such as the version is insulting, degrading, offensive or purely disruptive).--Zcreator alt (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but this is Wiktionary. We don't have a lot of manpower, especially in foreign languages that this banned user edits in. Wyang (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018Edit

Purported Japanese suffix 助者 (-josha, “helper, aide”)Edit

Not a lexical term. The only examples are cases of mis-parsing, where the (jo, helping) and the (-sha, person) are from separate etyma. The suffix is (-sha), added to words that happen to end in (jo). There is no suffix 助者 (-josha). There is a term 助手 (joshu, assistant) as a noun, but that's the closest valid term. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

bữa sángEdit

SOP, literally "morning meal". bữa can be paired with any word for "time of the day": bữa trưa (literally noon meal), bữa chiều (literally afternoon meal), bữa tối (literally night meal), bữa khuya (literally late night meal). ばかFumikotalk 04:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


This is not stated in any dictionary ever, plus wrong transcription. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


Not exist in any dictionary. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


Discussion moved from WT:RFVN.

This was marked for speedy deletion by User:Fumiko Take on the grounds that "Furansu is not normally written in hiragana". Given that the entry has been there for 8 years, and that there are hits in Google Books, I didn't think this merited speedying. Of course, hits aren't necessarily actual usage, especially since Google has problems with non-Latin scripts and with languages without clearly-visible word boundaries.

Note: if this passes, there's the possibility it could be challenged in rfd as a rare misspelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

All the previewable Google Books results are of children's textbooks (except for this one bizarre "Glossika" result), and all of the same sentence. Katakana is one of the basic Japanese scripts alongside Hiragana, and I'm guessing the textbooks are for children who haven't learned it yet. It is as legitimate a spelling as English FRENCH or french. —suzukaze (tc) 03:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Meh. Attestable, albeit not very common. It's valid, and there's no harm in us retaining this. Keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I said "not normally" which means some authors do use the hiragana form for ruby in certain ways in their writings. It's not a "normal" (=commonplace) practice though. ばかFumikotalk 03:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I concur with Eirikr: it's not at all common, but it is legitimate (especially, as suzukaze-c notes, in children's books). I don't see any harm in keeping it more or less as is, perhaps noting that it is uncommon. Cnilep (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to move this to RFD because it seems attestable, and users above seem to agree it's attested, the argument is that the books it's attested in are rare or oriented to children. - -sche (discuss) 23:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Moved from RFV. Discuss: is an uncommon spelling which is mostly attested in children's book and language-learner books includable? - -sche (discuss) 23:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

よーろっぱ, ゆーらしあ, おーすとらりあEdit

suzukaze (tc) 02:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to move this to RFD, as above. - -sche (discuss) 23:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


crappy adj form entry. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

this should be at WT:RFDE, methinks — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Dìzhōnghǎi (Mandarin Chinese Pinyin)Edit

Request deletion of Dìzhōnghǎi. IMO: Non-standard pinyin format of 地中海 should be deleted. Have already created the page with the corrected pinyin form: Dìzhōng Hǎi. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: You could have just move the page Dìzhōnghǎi->Dìzhōng Hǎi or Dìzhōng hǎi, whatever. Pinyin entries are unimportant, since they are just soft redirects and don't require RFD. The spelling in the entry should generally match the pinyin if you bother creating them. It makes more sense to create pinyin entries for terms with identical pronunciation, until a better way is found to disambiguate Chinese terms with the same readings. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Atitarev I have only ever done two transfers of a page to a page with another name, both on wikipedia. I forgot it could be done that way. But I am also unsure about whether there may be another standard in which 'Dìzhōnghǎi' is deemed acceptable. Here's what I've got: 1) 汉语拼音正词法基本规则》条.2012. pp.8. "汉语地名中的专名和通名,分写,每一分写部分的首字母大写." 2) I've also seen it written as Dìzhōng Hǎi. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
(chiming in)
Sometimes we include slightly non-standard redirections, especially when spacing is variable -- as it often is when writing CJK terms in the Latin script. I see that we also have an entry at Dìzhōng Hǎi. I would recommend keeping Dìzhōnghǎi in addition. There's no harm in keeping it, it increases usability (in case a user leaves out the space, they can still get to the main entry), and the main entry at 地中海 clearly displays the preferred romanization of Dìzhōng Hǎi. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Dìzhōnghǎi is parsed by natives as dì + zhōng + hǎi though, not dìzhōng + hǎi. Dìzhōng is not a word. Wyang (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Wyang, Geographyinitiative: In that case Dìzhōnghǎi was the correct romanisation and should be kept. Or should it be Dì zhōng hǎi? I don't think pinyin standards go to that level of details and it's sort of up to the dictionary publishers, i.e. us. Or else just use what's attested. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
One consideration: all content here is provided by contributors under a license that requires attribution. There's not much actual content here, but in general, moving all the content from an incorrect spelling to a correct one means you leave the page history saying who created the content behind, in effect taking credit for creating it yourself. If the incorrect spelling is going to be deleted, it's always better to move the page to the new spelling so that the page history goes with it, unless a page already exists (even then, an admin can merge the histories). Chuck Entz (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I accidentally created a mess here. Anyway, I have a book for Chinese learners that says "Dìzhōng Hǎi", and that spelling formatting seems basically consistent with the Zhengcifa rule I cited above. I'm fine with not deleting Dìzhōnghǎi, deleting Dìzhōng Hǎi, keeping both or whatever is decided. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

дайте мнеEdit

дайте (dajte) мне (mne).

This is not even a collocation of any kind, мне (mne) can be freely omitted. Guldrelokk (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


Spanish. Not sure how Romanophile found the cite, but there are no others in Google Books. Ultimateria (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


While we're on the topic of diarrhoea, اسهال‌ should probably be deleted. The user probably meant إسهال. I made the same mistake all the time while working as a doctor in Teheran... but really, these look exactly the same. What's the difference between them anyway? Oh, and maybe we should check that Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talkcontribs) hasn't left any more shit around here. Genecioso (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)