Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request \| history \| archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request \| history CJK add new request \| history Italic add new request \| history Non-English (all other languages) add new request \| history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request \| history CJK add new request \| history Italic add new request \| history Reconstruction add new request \| history Non-English (all other languages) add new request \| history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request \| history \| archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.			Language treatment requests add new request \| history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

Shortcut:
WT:RFDN

This page is for deletion of entries in any language for which there is no specialised RFD page according to this list:

English, Middle English, Scots, Yola and Fingallian → Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English
Chinese, Japanese, Korean → Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK
Italic (Latin or Romance languages) → Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Italic
Reconstructed languages → Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Reconstruction
All other languages → this page

Scope of this request page:

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

Templates:

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

April 2018

Yaghnobi entries of User:Rajkiandris

Latest comment: 6 years ago18 comments8 people in discussion

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

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)Reply

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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Nationalist propaganda? Everything printed in Yaghnobi is in Cyrillic. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@Metaknowledge Could you take care of this please? It's months later and nothing has been done. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: I really don't have the time nor the energy nor the interest to do this all myself. I told User:Victar (and this applies to you too): if you go through and mark them all with, say, {{delete|Mass deletion of entries per RFD}}, I will finish the job and delete them. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

There has got to be a bot option for that. @DTLHS? --Victar (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how easy it would be to program a bot to do that, and DTLHS may not have time to write one, but if we all look over a few entries a day we can get this knocked out in a month or so. I've started going through the entries in Category:Yagnobi lemmas, removing the ones I can't find evidence for in books (I am using Google Books to check for English or Russian books that contain the word and its gloss in those languages). - -sche (discuss) 03:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I would have to look at the page histories of all Yagnobi entries to see that Rajkiandris actually touched the page, unless you have a list already. DTLHS (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

To echo what I wrote before, all the Yaghnobi entries should be deleted. Using cyrillic is nationalist propaganda taken from the site Rajkiandris sourced. --Victar (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've found references attesting Yagnobi words in Cyrillic script from at least as early as the 1970s; based on that and Guldrelokk's statement above, your claim seems overbroad. I don't have a problem with romanizing those sources/entries if it is felt that the Latin script is preferable, though. I can go ahead and move/recreate the entries I've found attested in Latin script straight to Latin script entries. - -sche (discuss) 17:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@-sche: Mirzozoda from the Tajik Academy of Sciences is the spearhead behind spelling Yaghnobi using Cyrillic, an otherwise unwritten language. The modified Tajik Cyrillic alphabet he uses was invented by him, but it is completely inept at properly representing Yaghnobi phonology. He also asserts that Yaghnobi and Tajik are closely related, which is demonstrably false, harkening back to my nationalist political propaganda comment. --Victar (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've gone through the ёs, аs, бs, вs, дs, еs, жs, гs, иs, яs, ғs, ӣs and ԝs and removed the ones I couldn't find other references for (which was most of them, about 50 entries so far). - -sche (discuss) 05:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

-ающий, -яющий, -ающийся

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Russian. 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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. --Wiki Tiki 89 17:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's a problem unless/until it's being misapplied in word-formation (or, in this case, conjugation). Are there people who misconjugate non-a-stem verbs?

Or are you suggesting we should apply the POLA? --Per utramque cavernam 12:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

This logic would require doubling all suffixes: for example, the agent noun of призывать (prizyvatʹ) is призыватель (prizyvatelʹ), which has a suffix -тель (-telʹ) with the same а in front of it. Guldrelokk (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

May I suggest moving it to -щий? The correct decomposition of such a participle is, for example указ-ыв-аю-щий. The stem is указ-, followed by a imperfective modifier -ыв-, followed by the infinitive suffix -ать, which is conjugated to 3rd person plural -ают and trimmed to -аю, followed by the participle ending -щий. Otherwise, all of the following would have to be created: -ащий, -ящий, -ущий, -ющий. These are not different forms of the same suffix, but different conjugation classes of the base verb. Nonetheless, I do agree that initial а/я is not part of the suffix. Quaijammer (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Keep all (process forms. A-OK) - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 19:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

-аемый

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

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

@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)Reply

Keep, as per the topic above. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

As per my reasoning in the section above, I suggest Move to -мый (-myj). The е/и is governed by the 2nd person plural conjugation of the verb (-ем/-им). It is not part of the participle suffix. Quaijammer (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Keep. Consistent with what I learned when I learned this language's grammar. - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 19:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

October 2018

odiatus

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

odiandus

Latin. This together with inodiatus and perodiatus are taken by L&S from Forcellini (edit: on another look odiatus doesn't occur even there; the other two words do). However, in Forcellini itself it says "word to be removed from the Dictionary, occurs only in Not. Tir. p. 77." This is what it's referring to: as far as I can tell, it's a manuscript/codex of Tironian Notes shorthand, and is indeed the only place I've found those words in. I don't know if misreading or scribal mistake is more likely. The words themselves reflect presumable proto-Romance forms (e.g. odiato) based on the verb odiare which doesn't exist in Latin. Those forms cannot derive from odīre - the perfect participle from that would have been *ōdītus or *ōssus. Unless someone can provide dictionary entries for those words from Medieval Latin dictionaries or cite examples from medieval texts, I think it's fair to conclude that the editors of Forcellini have mistakenly included them (forgot to remove them), whence they've found their way into L&S, but are not actual Latin words. Perhaps they have a place in the newly-emerging proto-Romance section.

--Brutal Russian (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just tried searching odiatorum and easily found a result; I haven't found anything legitimate for an inflected form of inodiatus, however. I'm not sure whether we should reject something only found in the Tironian Notes in any case, and perhaps they would be better to keep with an appropriate label. Also, for the future, this is the wrong place to post this; WT:RFVN is the forum where you should post entries that you doubt the existence of. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've found exactly 2 attestations of odiatorum in google: one is this 1591 edition which is corrected to exosorum in later editions; the other I haven't found corrections of. archive.org has been somewhat more productive, showing for instance a quote from what I gather to be a book by a 19th century Italian historian Pietro Martini - which I haven't been able to find - quoting an unidentified parchment. Another is this from ~1700. The word odiatus, as I've made clear in an edit, is absent from the edition of Tironian Notes I've linked to (presumably corrected to odietas as a marginal gloss of odiosus), the word inodiatus has 4 alternative readings, perodiatus one. Ernout, Meillet has this to say, marking odiatus with an asterisk. The words are not in De Vaan. This dictionary follows Forcellini with the same single (and apparently false) reference, and so do some other minor dictionaries.

Here's another article conjecturing that the form odiare must have existed based on that same codex as well as the Romance forms - however, as we've seen, the form isn't truly attested even there, and Romance points to proto-Romance, not to Latin. "Neue Formenlehre..." gives what seems to be a comprehensive list of all attested forms in pre-Medieval Latin, neither odiare nor odiatus are among them - the -ia- forms are presumably subjunctives, whose very existence by itself precludes a verb odiare from appearing. That said, inodiare at least does seem to have inscriptional evidence and is listed. Looking for perodiare will be a bit too much for me right now.

I think this should be enough evidence from me. However, I'd also like to raise a methodological question: if a word that is expressly ungrammatical in Classical terms, is attested during or after the Medieval Period a couple of times with dubious manuscript authority, and corresponds to or is indistinguishable from a proto-Romance form, can be included on wiktionary as a properly Latin entry, then I have to wonder - firstly, what's the point of having the Vulgar Latin category (whose name I take a big issue with and whose link doesn't appear to be working, but never mind)? And secondly - does this mean that I can add a Latin word (naturally marking it as "contemporary Latin" or the like) found in the personalised dictionary, or simply in the writings or speech, of some modern Latin-speaking circle or internet venue? How about a random PDF file with computer vocabulary floating around the net? Is being found on the Latin wikipedia a solid enough ground for inclusion? Certainly it would be more useful for a modern Latinist. Do medieval Latinised Germanisms and Gallicisms such that abound in all those early medieval laws quality as Medieval Latin? What about their corruptions that are firmly-attested by several manuscripts? Last, but by no means least — does Nutella Nutellae and other macaronic Latin qualify? I know this might seem like it's going well beyond the scope of this discussion, but I suspect the answers to this latter part might instead be at the very core of our apparent disagreement over the inclusion of the words in question. By the way, I'm henceforth including the alternative conjugation of odio into this discussion. Also, should we continue this here, at RFVN or at some other place? Sorry, I'm very poorly familiar with community pages. — This unsigned comment was added by Brutal Russian (talk • contribs) at 17:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC).Reply

Attestations from Vicipaedia or the like do not suffice. The question for mediaeval and modern Latin has been whether a single durably archived use or mention suffices (as it does for classical words), or whether three independent ones should be required. I support the latter position, and we have applied it with some success: it avoids words that just one person coined for, say, Harrius Potter, but still allows in words that seem like "bad" Latin but occur in multiple manuscripts and might reasonably be something that someone would come across and want to know the meaning of (like sewera). My viewpoint therefore leads me to be very inclusive of anything that may be classical (if there are several proposed readings, we can include them all with explanatory labels), and exclusive of things written after the Late Latin period unless they meet our more stringent requirements. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Regarding "WT:RFVN is the forum": If OP's opinion is that words only attested through Tironian notes should be deleted, it would be an RFD or BP and not an RFV matter.
Regarding "random PDF file with computer vocabulary floating": That's probably not durably archived (WT:CFI). And even if it were, there would be the mentioning stuff (such as "should maintain a list of materials").
Regarding CFI, types of sources (Tironian notes, manuscripts, editions) and types of Latin: 1. Tironian notes, manuscripts and older editions (if they aren't clear misprints or misspellings) should be okay for attestation. There can be labels and usage notes to note such things. 2. Even Contemporary Latin obiously is an LDL too like so many others languages and no constructed language as for example Esperanto. And why shouldn't Latin Harry Potter attest Latin words, when other Harry Potter versions can attest words for other LDLs (e.g. Scots, Cymric or West Frisian)?

-80.133.110.139 21:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

It’s a good question what we do with well-attested manuscript corruptions that have creeped into literature. fariō (“salmon trout”) (whencever people are so sure about the meaning of this hapax) has even been borrowed into English though in Meillet’s and Ernout’s words “sans doute graphie fautive de sariō” (from long ſ to f as it seems). Imho using {{n-g}} and saying what kind of corruption (with what likelihood, if applicable) a thing is is a good idea (even in Medieval Latin “odiatus” is a soloecism). There are lots of examples for ancient languages, considering Semitic languages too, where occurences of “holy” scriptures are corrupt but only later found to be so etc. Because why shouldn’t we if we include misspellings? Traditional dictionaries write things like “so in the Ms. XYZ” (funny if juxtaposed with the three-quotes criterion, and tricky with the templates). Or we need a layout similar to {{no entry}} for corruptelae. You need to let your creativity work. Fay Freak (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, I've checked the Latin misspellings category and only one item in there can be said to be a misspelling, the hypercorrection pariens for pariēs (the status of nasalisation/nasal in this environment and its timeline seem to be unclear). Other items that aren't abbreviations reflect genuine alternative morphophonetic forms, even if -acius for -aceus is likely to be at least in part a result of phonetic developments. What criterion defines those alternative forms as misspelings? In some non-literary corpora, the rate of omission of the final -M can be well over 50% (data from Adams 2013) - this hardly qualifies for a misspelling any more, but the language of those inscriptions is undeniably Latin. Late inscriptions and early Medieval texts still identified as Latin (even if with reservations) consistently fail to distinguish between the Accusative and the Ablative; Medieval Latin always spells -e- for -ae- in the 1st declension. Why do we not supply these and other things as alternative Late/Medieval forms? Certainly it looks like that's what has been dome in the case of the alternative conjugation of odio, only there a whole paradigm has been made up, apparently on the barely-extant evidence of just the participle - one can walk away from wiktionary falsely convinced that all of those forms are good Latin. Even if we were to confirm that paradigm with more than the current 3 New Latin attestations (+1 emended one) of the participle, I think it's beyond doubt that the form is an erroneous back-conversion from a Romance language for the properly Latin invīsus — and it's in this connection that I've asked about macaronic language, because the only difference here is intention. Would 3 attestations of a macaronic word give it a pass?

It looks like the misspellings category is currently being used as the generic dump for any non-standard form that's either attested or doesn't foreshadow Romance forms, and thus cannot be filed under the reconstructed namespace. This doesn't seem like an optimal solution to me, but filing them under for instance "Medieval Latin" doesn't seem a much better option - indeed, hence my objection to the inclusion of odiatus etc under such a label. I think we need to somehow draw a clear distinction between forms current and accepted in some period and unambiguous corrigenda, non-literary (inscriptional etc), or as of yet unsettled or competing usage (modern Latin vocabulary). For entries currently residing under misspellings I would suggest "Non-literary form", an equivalent of "Dialectal form" in other languages, with a way to specify place and period. For solecisms like odiatus, including those found in dictionaries on shaky or wrong evidence, as well as corruptions, I agree with the above proposal — there has to be a way to clearly indicate the non-acceptance of the former and the corrupted nature of the latter. And I don't think we can have an "alternative" conjugation like that without every form's page indicating its essentially fictional nature — unlike the 1st conjugation there are 2 pre-Medieval attested forms of the 3d conjugation odere - yet those aren't sufficient grounds to make up a whole new conjugation for the verb either. If anything, the reconstructed space seems like just the place for those. As for odiatus, its most solid attestation is a species of midge called Culicoides odiatus — perhaps that's what the page should be provisionally reprofiled to. ♥Brutal Russian (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

February 2019

Incorrect uncontracted forms of Ancient Greek verbs

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I think the following uncontracted forms of ἀγαθοεργέω (agathoergéō) created by RexPrincipum, are incorrect. This is the fault of Module:grc-conj, which currently gives some uncontracted forms if you set the dialect to Koine rather than Attic. But Koine contracts in the same way as Attic, thus ἀγαθοεργοῦμεν (agathoergoûmen) not *ἀγαθοεργέομεν (*agathoergéomen), ἀγαθοεργῶσι (agathoergôsi) not *ἀγαθοεργέωσι (*agathoergéōsi).

list

ἀγαθοεργέοι (agathoergéoi)
ἀγαθοεργέοιεν (agathoergéoien)
ἀγαθοεργέοιμεν (agathoergéoimen)
ἀγαθοεργέοιμι (agathoergéoimi)
ἀγαθοεργέοις (agathoergéois)
ἀγαθοεργέοιτε (agathoergéoite)
ἀγαθοεργέοιτον (agathoergéoiton)
ἀγαθοεργέομεν (agathoergéomen)
ἀγαθοεργέον (agathoergéon)
ἀγαθοεργέουσα (agathoergéousa)
ἀγαθοεργέουσι (agathoergéousi)
ἀγαθοεργέωμεν (agathoergéōmen)
ἀγαθοεργέων (agathoergéōn)
ἀγαθοεργέωσι (agathoergéōsi)
ἀγαθοεργεόντων (agathoergeóntōn)
ἀγαθοεργεοίτην (agathoergeoítēn)
ἀγαθοποιέει (agathopoiéei)
ἀγαθοποιέειν (agathopoiéein)
ἀγαθοποιέεις (agathopoiéeis)
ἀγαθοποιέεσθαι (agathopoiéesthai)
ἀγαθοποιέεσθε (agathopoiéesthe)
ἀγαθοποιέεσθον (agathopoiéesthon)
ἀγαθοποιέεται (agathopoiéetai)
ἀγαθοποιέετε (agathopoiéete)
ἀγαθοποιέετον (agathopoiéeton)
ἀγαθοποιέῃ (agathopoiéēi)
ἀγαθοποιέῃς (agathopoiéēis)
ἀγαθοποιέησθε (agathopoiéēsthe)
ἀγαθοποιέησθον (agathopoiéēsthon)
ἀγαθοποιέηται (agathopoiéētai)
ἀγαθοποιέητε (agathopoiéēte)
ἀγαθοποιέητον (agathopoiéēton)
ἀγαθοποιέοι (agathopoiéoi)
ἀγαθοποιέοιεν (agathopoiéoien)
ἀγαθοποιέοιμεν (agathopoiéoimen)
ἀγαθοποιέοιμι (agathopoiéoimi)
ἀγαθοποιέοιντο (agathopoiéointo)
ἀγαθοποιέοιο (agathopoiéoio)
ἀγαθοποιέοις (agathopoiéois)
ἀγαθοποιέοισθε (agathopoiéoisthe)
ἀγαθοποιέοισθον (agathopoiéoisthon)
ἀγαθοποιέοιτε (agathopoiéoite)
ἀγαθοποιέοιτο (agathopoiéoito)
ἀγαθοποιέοιτον (agathopoiéoiton)
ἀγαθοποιέομαι (agathopoiéomai)
ἀγαθοποιέομεν (agathopoiéomen)
ἀγαθοποιέον (agathopoiéon)
ἀγαθοποιέονται (agathopoiéontai)
ἀγαθοποιέου (agathopoiéou)
ἀγαθοποιέουσα (agathopoiéousa)
ἀγαθοποιέουσι (agathopoiéousi)
ἀγαθοποιέω (agathopoiéō)
ἀγαθοποιέωμαι (agathopoiéōmai)
ἀγαθοποιέωμεν (agathopoiéōmen)
ἀγαθοποιέων (agathopoiéōn)
ἀγαθοποιέωνται (agathopoiéōntai)
ἀγαθοποιέωσι (agathopoiéōsi)
ἀγαθοποιεέσθω (agathopoieésthō)
ἀγαθοποιεέσθων (agathopoieésthōn)
ἀγαθοποιεέτω (agathopoieétō)
ἀγαθοποιεέτων (agathopoieétōn)
ἀγαθοποιεόμεθα (agathopoieómetha)
ἀγαθοποιεόμενον (agathopoieómenon)
ἀγαθοποιεόμενος (agathopoieómenos)
ἀγαθοποιεόντων (agathopoieóntōn)
ἀγαθοποιεοίμεθα (agathopoieoímetha)
ἀγαθοποιεοίμην (agathopoieoímēn)
ἀγαθοποιεοίσθην (agathopoieoísthēn)
ἀγαθοποιεοίτην (agathopoieoítēn)
ἀγαθοποιεομένη (agathopoieoménē)
ἀγαθοποιεώμεθα (agathopoieṓmetha)
ἀγερέει (ageréei)
ἀγερέειν (ageréein)
ἀγερέεις (ageréeis)
ἀγερέεσθαι (ageréesthai)
ἀγερέεσθε (ageréesthe)
ἀγερέεσθον (ageréesthon)
ἀγερέεται (ageréetai)
ἀγερέετε (ageréete)
ἀγερέετον (ageréeton)
ἀγερέῃ (ageréēi)
ἀγερέοι (ageréoi)
ἀγερέοιεν (ageréoien)
ἀγερέοιμεν (ageréoimen)
ἀγερέοιμι (ageréoimi)
ἀγερέοιντο (ageréointo)
ἀγερέοιο (ageréoio)
ἀγερέοις (ageréois)
ἀγερέοισθε (ageréoisthe)
ἀγερέοισθον (ageréoisthon)
ἀγερέοιτε (ageréoite)
ἀγερέοιτο (ageréoito)
ἀγερέοιτον (ageréoiton)
ἀγερέομαι (ageréomai)
ἀγερέομεν (ageréomen)
ἀγερέον (ageréon)
ἀγερέονται (ageréontai)
ἀγερέουσα (ageréousa)
ἀγερέουσι (ageréousi)
ἀγερέω (ageréō)
ἀγερέων (ageréōn)
ἀγερεόμεθα (agereómetha)
ἀγερεόμενον (agereómenon)
ἀγερεόμενος (agereómenos)
ἀγερεοίμεθα (agereoímetha)
ἀγερεοίμην (agereoímēn)
ἀγερεοίσθην (agereoísthēn)
ἀγερεοίτην (agereoítēn)
ἀγερεομένη (agereoménē)
ἠγαθοποιέεσθε (ēgathopoiéesthe)
ἠγαθοποιέεσθον (ēgathopoiéesthon)
ἠγαθοποιέετε (ēgathopoiéete)
ἠγαθοποιέετο (ēgathopoiéeto)
ἠγαθοποιέετον (ēgathopoiéeton)
ἠγαθοποιέομεν (ēgathopoiéomen)
ἠγαθοποιέοντο (ēgathopoiéonto)
ἠγαθοποιέου (ēgathopoiéou)
ἠγαθοποιεέσθην (ēgathopoieésthēn)
ἠγαθοποιεέτην (ēgathopoieétēn)
ἠγαθοποιεόμεθα (ēgathopoieómetha)
ἠγαθοποιεόμην (ēgathopoieómēn)

There might be other cases to deal with, so I named this thread generally. — Eru·tuon 21:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Added uncontracted forms of ἀγαθοποιέω (agathopoiéō). To do: uncontracted forms of ἀγαλλιάω (agalliáō), ἀγανακτέω (aganaktéō), ἀγαπάω (agapáō) maybe, ἀγείρω (ageírō). — Eru·tuon 22:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've seen your comment, but the thing is that, as a rule, these verbs also contract in koine, they still appear in their uncontracted forms throughout the corpus of text, although rarely. But do correct me if I am incorrect, I am not the most experienced. RexPrincipum (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@RexPrincipum: I'm haven't heard of uncontracted forms ever being used in Koine (except in short verbs like πλέω), but if you can find any evidence of them, I'd be glad to see it. — Eru·tuon 01:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Erutuon: Eh, It's just something I remember my greek teacher saying, I may be wrong. RexPrincipum (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

The dual was completely extinct by the time of Koine, wasn't it? If so, then setting the conjugation template to |dial=koi should suppress the dual column, and all the entries for dual forms of Koine-only verbs should be deleted too. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

In ἀγαθοεργέω, non-contracted -οε- in the middle of the word looks wrong in combination with contracted endings. My edition of the New Testament reads ἀγαθουργῶν (2x contracted) in Acta 14.17. Akletos (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

But ἀγαθοεργεῖν (non-contr - contr) in 1 Tim. 6.18. Akletos (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

December 2019

Old English pseudo-prefixes

Latest comment: 11 months ago10 comments6 people in discussion

See WT:Beer parlour#Old-English-pseudo-prefixes. I went through all the Old English prefixes and identified those that I think aren't true prefixes, i.e. they're just the first part of a compound word. I identified two categories: (1) those I'm pretty sure aren't true prefixes, (2) those I think aren't true prefixes but I'm not totally sure. They are:

(1) Those I'm pretty sure aren't true prefixes:

Prefix	Corresponding free lemma	Prefix category
ang- (“narrow, tight, vexed”)	ange (“narrow, tight”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with ang-
Angel- (“English”)	Angel (“Anglen (district in Schleswig)”)
Bryt- (“British”)	Bryt (“Briton”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with Bryt-
car- (“sorrow, sadness”)	caru (“care, sorrow”)
carl- (“male”)	carl (“man”)
eald- (“old”)	eald (“old”)
ealdor- (“origin”)	ealdor (“elder, parent; life, eternity”)
feoh- (“cattle”)	feoh (“cattle”)
feor- (“far”)	feor (“far”)
feorran- (“from afar”)	feorran (“from afar”)
folc- (“people”)	folc (“people”)
ful- (“full”)	~~ful (“full”), full~~	~~Category:Old English words prefixed with ful-, Category:Old English words prefixed with full-~~
fyrn- (“ancient, former”)	fyrn (“former, formerly”)
fæderen- (“paternal”)	fæderen (“paternal”)
fǣr- (“sudden; hostile”)	fǣr (“sudden danger, peril”)
gador- (“united”)	gador (“together, united”)
galdor- (“magic”)	galdor (“magic song, enchantment”)
ġearu- (“ready”)	ġearu (“ready”)
ġeō- (“former”)	ġeō (“formerly”)
ġiestran- (“yester-”)	ġiestran (“yesterday”)
hēafod- (“head, main”)	hēafod (“head”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with heafod-
hēah- (“high, main”)	hēah (“high”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with heah-
healf- (“half”)	healf (“half”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with healf-
hund- (“hundred”)	hund (“hundred”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with hund-
hund- (“dog, hound”)	hund (“dog, hound”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with hund-
īdel- (“empty, vain”)	īdel (“empty, vain”)
lād- (“leading”)	lād (“course, journey; leading, carrying”)
lah- (“law”), lag-	lagu (“law”)
lang- (“long”)	lang (“long”)
lēas- (“false”)	lēas (“false”)
lēod- (“people, nation”)	lēod (“people, nation”)
lēof- (“dear”)	lēof (“dear”)
līġ- (“fire”)	līġ (“fire”)
lyft- (“air”)	lyft (“air”)
lȳt- (“small, little”)	lȳt (“little, few”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with lyt-
lȳtel- (“small, little”)	lȳtel (“small, little”)
lǣċe- (“doctor”)	lǣċe (“doctor”)
læt- (“slow”)	læt (“slow”)
mēdren- (“maternal”)	mēdren (“maternal”)
mere- (“sea”)	mere (“sea”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with mere-
met- (“measurement”)	met (“measurement”)
mete- (“food”)	mete (“food”)
middel- (“middle”)	middel (“middle”)
mōnaþ- (“month”)	mōnaþ (“month”)
morþ- (“death”)	morþ (“death”)
mǣġ- (“kin”)	mǣġ (“kinsman”)
mæġen- (“strong”)	mæġen- (“strong”)
mæġþ- (“kin”)	mæġþ (“family, clan, tribe”)
mǣl- (“time”)	mǣl (“time”)
nēah- (“near”)	nēah (“near”)
nīw- (“new”), nīƿ-	nīwe (“new”)
oft- (“often”)	oft (“often”)
riht- (“right”)	riht (“right”)
rīm- (“number”)	rīm (“number”)
rūm- (“wide, spacious”)	rūm (“wide, spacious”)
sīd- (“wide, spacious”)	sīd (“wide, spacious”)
simbel- (“always”)	simbel (“always”)
singal- (“continual, perpetual”)	singal (“continual, perpetual”)
stæl- (“theft”)	stalu (“theft”)
wēa- (“evil, woe”), ƿēa-	wēa (“misfortune, evil, woe”)
wēas- (“chance”), ƿēas-	wēas (“by chance”)
wēden- (“insanity”), ƿēden-	wēde (“raging, mad”)
wer- (“man”), ƿer-	wer (“man”)
wīd- (“widely”), ƿīd-	wīd (“wide”)
wīf- (“woman”), ƿīf-	wīf (“woman”)
wīġ- (“holy”), ƿīġ-	wīġ (“idol, image”)
will- (“desire”), ƿill-	willa (“desire”)
yfel- (“evil”)	yfel (“evil”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with yfel-
þeġn- (“service”)	þeġn (“servant”)
þēod- (“public”)	þēod (“people, nation”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with þeod-
þweorh- (“cross, opposite”), þƿeorh-	þweorh (“cross, tranverse; adverse”)

(2) Those I think aren't true prefixes but I'm not totally sure:

Prefix	Corresponding free lemma	Prefix category
aġēn- (“again”) (wrongly found at aġēn, without hyphen)	āġēn (“towards, against; again”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with agen-
āweġ- (“away”), āƿeġ-	āweġ (“away”)
betwēon- (“between”), betƿēon-	betwēonan (“between”)
betwux- (“between”), betƿux-	betwux (“between”)
dūne- (“down”)	dūne (“down, downwards”)
~~eal- (“all”), eall-~~	eal (“all”), eall	Category:Old English words prefixed with eal-
efen- (“equal, even”)	efen (“equal, even”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with efen-
eft- (“again, back”)	eft (“again, anew; back”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with eft-
fēa- (“little; poor, lacking”)	fēa (“few”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with fea-
fela- (“many, multi-”)	fela (“many”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with fela-
foran- (“front”)	foran (“opposite, in front”)
hinder- (“behind”)	hinder (“after, behind”)
maniġ- (“many”)	maniġ (“many”)
miċel- (“large, great”)	miċel (“large, great”)
middan- (“middle”)	midd (“middle”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with middan-
niþer- (“below”)	niþer (“below”)
onġēan- (“towards, against”)	onġēan (“towards, against; again”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with ongean-
onweġ- (“away”), onƿeġ-	onweġ (“away”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with onweg-
samod- (“together”)	samod (“together”)
sel- (“rare”), seld-	seldan (“rare”)
self- (“self”)	self (“self”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with self-
sundor- (“apart”)	sundor (“apart”)
ūtan- (“on the outside”)	ūtan (“on the outside”)
wan- (“lacking”), ƿan-	wana (“lack”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with wan-
wel- (“good, well, very”), ƿel-	wel (“well”)
ǣr- (“before”)	ǣr (“before”)	Category:Old English words prefixed with ær-
þri- (“three”)	þrī (“three”)
þrim- (“three”)	þrīm (“dative of þrī (“three”)”)

(Notifying Leasnam, Lambiam, Urszag, Hundwine): Please let me know what you think, esp. of the 2nd category. Few of these prefixes, esp. in the first group, have corresponding categories like Category:Old English words prefixed with ful-; for those that do and we agree to delete, I will empty the categories before deleting the prefix. Benwing2 (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think "ful(l)-" exists as an uncommon verbal prefix (that is, it can behave like a prefix by being unstressed when attached to a verb). In present-day English "fulfill", at least, the main stress is on the second syllable, and this may also be the case for "fullfyllan" (I haven't found a reference yet for this specific word). Another "ful(l)-" prefixed verb is fuldōn. Some of the sources I've looked at distinguish between a few different types of elements that can be prefixed to verbs; e.g. Minkova 2008 says that niþer- is a "particle" (p. 24).--Urszag (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

When the meaning of a combination H + T is a specialization of the meaning of T, in which H serves as an attribute defining the specialization according to the meaning of free-standing H, then this is almost certainly an ordinary compound. This is most obvious when H is a noun. Lacking a generally agreed-on definition of when a morpheme is bound, we cannot hope to have a watertight criterion for separating the wheat from the chaff, so we need to proceed with some boldness. Not deleting will mean we harbour very many false prefixes. Deleting will mean we perhaps lose a few – probably not a big deal since the analysis of HT = H + T is not wrong. So I advocate to Delete all except those H- for which an argument can be made – like for ful- above – that some term HT is not an ordinary compound. (Since twi- is very likely a true prefix, it would not be surprising if an argument can be made that þri- is actually also a prefix inherited from Proto-Germanic *þri-.) --Lambiam 09:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK, I struck out ful(l)-, þri- and þrim-. Benwing2 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have emptied the categories for the first group; there were only a few entries to change. If no one objects, I'll delete the first group of prefixes in a few days. Benwing2 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

We have all- and even- and self- as prefixes in modern English, and some languages either predecessorial or related to Old English, which might suggest that eal-, eall- and efen- and self-, at least, might be real prefixes. - -sche (discuss) 00:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2, can you please close this RFD as you see fit? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I struck eal(l)-, efen-, and self- out of the list (as kept) per my rationale above. - -sche (discuss) 04:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

For some reason in linguistics (Indo-European linguistics at least) adpositions and adverbs when compounded are considered affixes, but other wordtypes aren't. I don't know how that tradition arose, but changing it would certainly require a policy discussion. (It could be done for example the way it has been accidentally done under aġēn, but that would require a lot of changes in a lot of languages.) In that context, @Benwing2 what you've done above seems sensible to me, as most remaining prefixes are considered prefixes in cognate languages. Anyway, this can be closed, no? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

RFD-partly deleted —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

March 2020

onca

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

Translingual. Sending this back to RFD. It can't be used on its own, and in fact it can only be used in Panthera onca. We have deleted these before; see Talk:mume. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don’t see the benefit of deletion, neither for the collective of editors nor for the users. Panthera onca is not some obscure species that you only find mentioned in specialized scientific literature, and we can provide an etymology for the epithet to the curious user. --Lambiam 12:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

All of which can be covered at the Panthera onca page. This is basically a cranberry morpheme that has no meaning outside of this one binomen. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

It is covered at Panthera onca, but that is of no avail to a user who looks up “onca” (unless they are savvy and persistent enough to click What, lynx here?). I still don’t see the benefit of deletion. --Lambiam 13:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Only used in Panthera onca ({{only in|mul|Panthera onca}})? Then people can find the species (and etymology etc.) if they just search for the epithet. --Bakunla (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Soft redirect as suggested above. Ultimateria (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Soft redirect, this should discourage people from adding it again. Thadh (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it can also be found in the synonym Felis onca. --RichardW57 (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's not separate: the species was first described by Linnaeus under the name Felis onca, then was transfered to the genus Panthera, which automatically changed the name to Panthera onca. It would be like treating the name on someone's birth certificate and their married name as two different occurences of their given name. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

April 2020

Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages/Retired_language_articles/Sunda–Sulawesi_languages. This one was based on original research and has no verifiable sources. Kwékwlos (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Delete. The subgroup is a spurious Wikipedia artifacts based on a misreading of Figure 2 (p. 431) in this paper, so the corresponding proto-language is also spurious. And FWIW, most reconstructions in Category:Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi_lemmas wouldn't even reproduce the correct reflexes in the putative descendants of "Sunda-Sulawesi" if the non-existent subgroup were taken at face value. See also my arguments here: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2021/March#Sunda-Sulawesi_Language_Group. –Austronesier (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

August 2020

⦙, ⧝, ⧜

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Translingual. Entered without any definition, just a description of what the glyph looks like, visually. In the wording of CFI, terms have to "convey meaning".__Gamren (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

“Incomplete infinity” is a concept that is discussed in the literature.^[1][2][3] I have no evidence,though, that the symbol _⧜ is, or has been, in actual use with that meaning. --Lambiam 13:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Do we not have entries for all Unicode characters? Just wondering. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so. @Erutuon? P U C – 21:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

No; as of the July 20th dump, we have mainspace pages for for 42,300 code points (out of 143,859 according to Wikipedia). — Eru·tuon 04:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Requested by "STIX Project of the STIPUB Consortium", as documented at w:Miscellaneous_Mathematical_Symbols-B#History > 00-002 and 00-094. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

-lending (Norwegian Bokmål)

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

As I said on the RFD for -lendingen: This isn't a suffix, it's just the result of applying -ing (second sense) to a word that ends in land, with attendant vowel change. It is silly to analyze islending as is + -lending ("ice + -lander"); it's Island + -ing (Iceland + -er).__Gamren (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Gamren: The reasoning for deletion seems incomplete to me. On the one hand, there is the question about whether -lending technically is a suffix. On the other, the vowel change cannot be presumed to be trivial; it is not like vowels can be changed willy-nilly in Norwegian. The information that -lending rather than -landing is used in demonyms and similar words should be stored somewhere in the dictionary; and given that an official Norwegian dictionary has an entry for -lending, my starting point is that we should have an entry for it here as well. --Njardarlogar (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

The given sense (both for Bokmål and Nynorsk) does not cover all uses; see innlending and utlending. --Lambiam 09:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it should be deleted either, the fact that it is in the dictionary is reason enough for me to keep it. Also it's pretty convenient to get all the derivatives containing -lending from this page. The Norwegian Academy Dictionary also states that it is in fact a suffix, as seen on the entry for "flamlending" on naob.no, though they don't actually have a separate entry page for it. I am in the process of sending them a list of words missing from their dictionary, and will include -lending. Supevan (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

-lending (Norwegian Nynorsk)

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

As I said on the RFD for -lendingen: This isn't a suffix, it's just the result of applying -ing (second sense) to a word that ends in land, with attendant vowel change. It is silly to analyze islending as is + -lending ("ice + -lander"); it's Island + -ing (Iceland + -er).__Gamren (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Sgconlaw This isn't a duplicate; there are two entries. Don't delete it.__Gamren (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, it looked identical so I thought it was a mistake. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Keep. It's an equivalent of -bøgg, -døl and -væring, not just a duplicate of -ing. Tollef Salemann (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

September 2020

hîr

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Min Nan. Quanzhou dialect not actually used to write (full) POJ. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Deleted by @Fish bowl (diff) but reinstated (in another form) by @Wikijb. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Full POJ has been widely used in Taiwanese Hokkien (including Quanzhou-like and Zhangzhou-like subdialects). Literature can be found at http://ip194097.ntcu.edu.tw/nmtl/dadwt/pbk.asp. Wikijb (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Wikijb: Can you show an instance of hîr in such literature? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, hîr (魚) appears in some Koa-á books, such as 新選笑談俗語歌 (1841) and 新歌林投姉 (1955). Wikijb (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Wikijb: Those are not POJ works, which means there is no attestation of the exact spelling of hîr in any POJ works so far. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I spoke too fast. I should say that these works were not originally written in POJ, and the pronunciation is given after, as far as I can tell. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's right. There were written in Han characters and then transcripted into POJ works. Wikijb (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

degjôj

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Albanian. Tagged but not listed nearly two years ago with the reason "It is misspelled; the correct spelling is dëgjoj". We do have an entry for dëgjoj, but degjôj is labeled {{lb|sq|Gheg}}, and there's a citation for the inflected form degjôn, so I suspect this is a valid spelling for Gheg dialect if not for the standard language. But I know virtually nothing about Albanian, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. Pinging @HeliosX, PlatuerGashaj as the creator and deletion proposer respectively. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

In Dhurata Ahmetaj's song, the verb is pronounced like this only the first time during the first minute. You can search the song online if you like to review its pronounciation. It can be noted that the rhyming word "preokupon" is pronounced here with the vowel [e] too but the pronunciation of the second verb can't be altered because of that only. HeliosX (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

So is this spelling attested in writing anywhere? Or is only a presumed spelling of a pronounced form? —Mahāgaja · talk 12:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

It will be highly difficult to establish this spelling in writing because Gheg is nearly always written without any circumflexes and often without the diacritic of the schwa letter. HeliosX (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

October 2020

กลัวเหมือนหนูกลัวแมว

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thai. Tagged but not listed by @Octahedron80 as "SOP". If it's a simile, can we get a literal translation?__Gamren (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Looking up the parts in Wiktionary, I arrive at “to be afraid like a mouse is afraid of a cat”. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

การชยันโต

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thai. Tagged by @Octahedron80 with the reasoning "ชยันโต only used as verb in speaking". Created by @Miwaki Sato.__Gamren (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to post here :P --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Arabic possibly incorrectly hamzated forms

Latest comment: 8 months ago8 comments7 people in discussion

(Notifying Atitarev, Mahmudmasri, Metaknowledge, Wikitiki89, Erutuon, ZxxZxxZ, عربي-٣١, Fay Freak): An IP marked the following forms for speedy deletion:

All of them were created by my bot several years ago, based on Module:ar-verb. When I created that module, I did a careful analysis of hamza spellings based on several sources. I documented my findings in detail in w:Hamza, where they still remain. I don't think I made any mistakes but you never know; this particular area of Arabic spelling is very hairy, and there are disagreements among different authors. The IP apparently thinks spellings like تسوءوا are more correct. If you look at what my module generates, you'll see it generates both spellings, and lists the IP's preferred spelling first. The dual spellings are intentional, since there is author disagreement in this case. Am I right or is the IP right? Benwing2 (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I was taught that following Quranic orthography, it was valid to write the hamza without a seat for e.g. سَاءُوا (sāʔū), but that doesn't even seem to be one of the options presented. That would be to avoid two wāws in a row, but for MSA usage where that rule is not generally applied, the wāw should be used as a seat instead. I don't know of any justification for using a yā', but based on w:Hamza, I would guess that it follows the trend of certain medial hamzas being typeset with yā' as the seat rather than seatless, even if not historically justified. So the IP is seemingly right from a prescriptivist perspective, but given that we're descriptivist, I don't see a problem with keeping anything attested (maybe labelled in some manner). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: The w:Hamza article mentions Barron's grammar books. I've got his 501 Arabic Verbs. The third-person masculine plural past active of جَاءَ (jāʔa) is given only as جَاؤُوا (jāʔū) (not جَائُوا (jāʔū)) but the third-person masculine plural non-past active indicative is given as يَجِيؤُونَ (yajīʔūna) (not يَجِيئُونَ (yajīʔūna)).

A Student Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic by Eckehard Schulz, however gives يَجِيئُونَ (yajīʔūna).

I couldn't find the verb سَاءَ (sāʔa) but it has أَسَاءَ (ʔasāʔa). Barron: the third-person masculine plural past active is given as أَسَاؤُوا (ʔasāʔū) and the third-person masculine plural non-past active indicative only as يُسِيئُونَ (yusīʔūna). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've reached out to the IP user but I am not sure they will engage in a discussion. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

As far as I recall I've seen the forms with ء (ʔ) only in older Quranic writing. I've never seen hamzas preceding a short or long u in the form of ئ (ʔ), but ؤ, as mentioned by Anatoli. --Z 14:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

It is يَجِيئُونَ (yajīʔūna), because i takes precedences before u. As no i vowel environs those third person male past plural forms they cannot be written with ئ (ʔ). If in some Arabic country the opposite is considered permissible, I plead ignorance; search engines even hardly find forms like شائوا and correct to شاؤوا even if in ASCII quotation marks. Forms like شائوا should be removed from the conjugation tables at least owing to undue weight. Following experiences like on Talk:هذا we have to expect that Arabic grammars also contain wrong forms. Fay Freak (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

No kasra or ى around the glottal stop, then it can't be ـئـ. These are basics in Arabic orthography. No damma or و around the glottal stop, then it can't be ؤ. Some words are acceptable to be spelled with either, but in the eighties, one of the Arabic language academies (in Egypt?) favored the ء on the line for some words over ؤ that was commonly used, e.g. دؤوب (traditional style); دءوب (newer style). — This unsigned comment was added by Mahmudmasri (talk • contribs) at 20:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC).Reply

I have never seen an unseated Hamza in front of a non-vocalic letter, I must admit. Apart from that, I too prefer شاؤوا or شاءوا to those forms with a Yā'-seat, because they should only ever appear next to unrounded high vowels.

Also, on a side note, this discussion is open since 2020. When is a good time, generally, to either close a RFD or act upon one? Who archives inactive discussions? -Konanen (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

November 2020

an sein

Latest comment: 8 months ago16 comments11 people in discussion

German. SOP: just an (adjective, predicative only) + copula sein. --2003:DE:371B:BD06:1404:1693:E7A8:CED2 12:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Move to ansein with a usage note that this spelling has been superseded in the 1996 spelling reform by an sein. (Compare ansein at the German Wiktionary.) -- — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 18:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC).Reply

~~Keep~~ -- The mere fact that it's possible to write it as ansein and then label it as superseded or historic or whatever means we should keep it. There's no need to play games with ourselves. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
- ~~In light of IP editor's comments: send to RFV. — Dentonius 11:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)~~Reply
  - Keep — Dentonius 00:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is ansein really valid, would it pass RFV? All I see in google books is this:

Ansein (n.),
ansein as OCR-error of an sein (preposition + pronoun),
mentionings (e.g. in Duden and a book about the spelling-reform),
1 usage ("eine Lampe, die beim Fernsehen immer ansein mußte").

--2003:DE:371B:BD12:6895:8452:AB79:88C1 20:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Keep. This one is in Duden with the definition "eingeschaltet sein" (to be on). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Literally "to be" + adjective. Fytcha (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Keep. This is in my German textbook. RealIK17 (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

ansein doesn't quite look attestable. I also don't understand the argument that "it's in a learners' textbook so keep"? I'm sure pass me the salt is in some English learners' textbooks too. What's more, the adjective an can be used with other verbs too, like machen. How do we feel about creating an machen, aus sein, aus machen etc.? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

(Notifying Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Atitarev, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak): To have more natives' opinions. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@ChemPro, Skunkassociation: Can I have your opinion on this matter? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Another example for the "to be + adjective" case is ab sein, which has an entry both in Duden and DWDS (even though no definition is given in the DWDS). --ChemPro (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. If we kept an sein it would be hard to argue why we shouldn't allow lemmata like zufrieden sein (zufriedensein until 1996), vorhanden sein (vorhandensein until 1996) or fertig sein (fertigsein until 1996) (and countless more, like ab sein, auf sein, aus sein, dabei sein, weg sein, zu sein). I second user Lambiam's suggestion to move to ansein and note the superseded spelling. Skunkassociation (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Move. I agree we might add the superseded version for posterity's sake with an explanation ("compounded from an + sein"), and maybe add that to either "sein" (or "an", or both?) under compounds? -Konanen (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Suyá ŋó

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The entry ŋó is simply a rendition of Suyá. The spelling ŋó does not follow any established orthographic conventions for the language (it is taken from Guedes 1992, which uses its own ad hoc conventions and is in general not a very reliable source on the language). I was unable to move it because the page ngô already exists. Degoiabeira (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

For a barely attested language like this, I feel like a single attestation in a single source might be enough for us to keep it at least as an {{alternative spelling of}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Delete. I don't really see any value in keeping ad-hoc phonological transcriptions when we can lemmatise at the established orthography. Thadh (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete ... we have this same problem with a few other languages, like Abinomn, where in some cases it's not clear what the proper spelling should be because two transcription methods overlap. But in this case, it's clear that ŋó is <ngô>, so I would move the word to the new spelling. —Soap— 10:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

ანგელოზივით

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

აღმოსავლეთისკენ

აღმოსავლეთისაკენ

მათთვის

So... I ask that these kinds of entries be deleted, because they contain a postposition, which is hard to translate in English as one word. Currently have found four words: ანგელოზი-ვით, აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ, აღმოსავლეთ-ის-ა-კენ, მათ-თვის. Now 1st can be translated as "like an angel", second and third "towards east", fourth as "for them; by themselves..." and other nuances the postposition carries. I don't think it's proper to have these forms on Wiktionary, since the pages would pile up and bad translations would arise. Just study grammar... I haven't actually looked whether this qualifies at all by the Wiktionary rules, so I'mma ask y'all. For comparison to other languages, these forms are kinda like if Korean 미국에서 (migug-eseo, “from America”) entry existed. I'll also ping @Dixtosa, Reordcraeft. Additional questions if we decide to delete them... would there be an easier way to actually find them? -Solarkoid (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Our concepts of SOP and words aren't all that good at dealing with agglutinative languages. A few precedents I can think of are "-que" in Latin and "'s" in English (forms with both of which are deleted as they're clitics that can go on syntactically-unrelated words), prefixed prepositions in Hebrew (prefixed forms excluded by Hebrew community consensus), and case endings in highly inflected languages such as Latin and Finnish. Latin accusative can be used for toward, ablative for away from, and locative for at. I'm not very familiar with Finnish cases, but there are a variety of cases with prepositional meaning. Then there are the long and complex German compounds that native speakers consider SOP, but that the overall community decided to keep. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ye that's understandable, to be honest. However, additionally the thing is, none of the postpositions listed there: 1) Can mean anything on their own 2) Aren't considered as cases by anyone; none of them were given names. Akaki Shanidze, a well-respected Georgian linguist, considered things like -ში (-ši) cases, since 1) they didn't show the case marker 2) they could be isolated as a case per meaning (like Locative case). Georgian, like any language, deals with postpositions like word-case marker-postposition, where pp can either be a isolated one or suffixed. -ვით (-vit) means "like (close to in shape, size, features...) for example, შესახებ (šesaxeb) means 'about' and is spaced. But like, I don't know what to do with them. I guess since Hebrew excludes the prefixed prepositions and Korean also does that with their "markers", there should be no need for ones in Georgian, since they don't just change meaning for one word or another, they're systematic. I'll look at different responses, see what other people think. Also see if Dixtosa responds, he hasn't been active muchito. Thank you for your answer. -Solarkoid (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Solarkoid: Why do you suggest deletion if the only problem is that the definitions are imprecise? We can treat them just like any other form-of entry. No? Dixtosa (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I partially agree. Forms like ანგელოზი-ვით can be deleted, but there are so many non-lemma forms for other languages, I doubt we should make it our priority at this point. When it comes to words like აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ (eastward, eastwards), I think we can keep them. These words are useful when it comes to navigation, whether on foot or by sailing a boat or flying a plane. All in all, we should look at the usefulness of each entry and not delete them in broad sweep. --Reordcraeft (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Honestly just because it has a one word translation in English using -ward doesn't mean it should be an entry in Georgian. I have more problems than imprecision in definitions. Typically, inflection of would be used for cases or conjugations and others, but not postposition. What inflection are you going to specify აღმოსავლეთისკენ as? LOCATIVE? Locative is a case, so is Ablative and others, so unless proven or discussd to be a case (like in case of -shi, -ze cf. Shanidze), you can't just assign them values like that. As for further problems with აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ: It's like so unnecessary. -k'en is a suffix for movement towards something. ANYTHING at that. You can select any noun and damn straight it'll work because it's a postposition. It is suffixed to a noun in genitive case, so, imho, keeping cases is fine and is in good will, while keeping postpositions is just unnecessary UNLESS you have linguistic proof that it can be considered a case. Also for "These words are useful when it comes to navigation" Well they can be built as easily by a person learning even a little bit of grammar as useful it is. Since there is no exact rule on agglutinative languages here, I think it's for community's best interest to deem such entries impractical, because they are so easily guessable from the root word. Unless you prove me that every little bit has to be here in this dictionary, then let's add entries like მიკაქალ, პაკა, ბაი, ოკ, სახში, ტვალეჩი (ngl last one kinda deserves an entry) since they are so widely used. Also მხოლობითი which I've heard far more than მხოლოობითი but is not attested in a dictionary. However: for Mingrelian and Laz these are cases and should be treated as such, but that's for future and they are clearly cases, so I'm not going to bring that here. I feel like I'm in court. Nothing further, Your Honor. Also I'm partially going off from Korean entries here too. @Karaeng Matoaya In your expert opinion, should entries like 엄마처럼/엄마같이 (not saying sole, dictionary words like 쏜살같이) and 왼쪽으로 be created? I'm asking you because it's kind of the same matter here, though y'all view those as particles instead. But I kinda have that problem too with some entries having -ც. -Solarkoid (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think what Solarkoid is trying to say here put very simply is that this is SOP, since these postpositions can be attributed to any noun by exactly the same method. This seems to me to be as SOP as any monoword compound can be, but with an enormous amount of entries to be created. Is there any point of not deleting them (for example Georgian speakers or learners not being able to recognize the suffix being a postposition)? If not, then a strong delete from my part. Thadh (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there are good reasons why we should not delete them. Someone may want to look it up, wow. That someone is probably neither a native speaker nor a learner though because it is pretty easy to guess any postpositional form from two basic forms (genitive and plural). But, have you ever looked up a word in a language you knew nothing about?

Now, is there any reason for deletion? Dixtosa (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think WT's objective should not be to include any variant of any word that anyone could find anywhere. The reason to delete this is so that it doesn't fill up the mainspace with words that can be deducted very simply. This isn't different from any SOP except for the fact it doesn't use a whitespace. Why not add whole sentences in Scriptio continua? Thadh (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dixtos, Wiktionary has this convenient little feature called "words containing..." under the search if the word you're looking up isn't an entry. We could even do redirects to the main entry where they can open the inflection table and see it for themselves. Like look up the word "დიდედისთვის", which doesn't exist, and it will tell you, that the word "დიდედა" contains the word, so I still stand by my opinion, that it doesn't matter. And if they can't find it that way still, let's just let them add it to entry requests, add main entry and add a redirect even. Redirect has to be discussed still, but we'll see. -Solarkoid (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Given the small number of languages using this script and their being limited to a relatively small area, the risk of overlap with words in other languages seems pretty small, and the likelihood that at least some Georgian editors will be able to spot it seems pretty high. That means you can be much more liberal with redirects than for scripts that are widely used by lots of languages with no connection to each other. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

January 2021

forene

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

@Hk5183 Sense "to have sexual intercourse with". It doesn't seem lexicalized to me, and AFAICT it's quite rare, too. Looking cursorily, I found one cite, and there is another on DDO, both of which seem like nonce euphemisms by romantic authors (Femina is a women's magazine). ODS lists a large number of minor semantic variations, but not this one.__Gamren (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I personally have never encountered this meaning in reading (only in DDO), so I cannot attest to it's usage. I agree that it is not at the core of the word's meaning, so delete it if you think best. Thanks! Hk5183 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The English verb unite is also used as a euphemism for the sexual act: [4], [5] – not a reason to add this as a new sense. --Lambiam 13:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

April 2021

посланець аллаха

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Seems as SOP as Allah's Messenger would be in English. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 08:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Which isn't very SOP. Without real-world knowledge of Islam, how is anyone supposed to know who Allah's Messenger is? —Mahāgaja · talk 09:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

The answer is easy: It’s always the one relevant in the narrative of the religion in question. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Lean delete, which religious titles to include and which not can be difficult because there are many metaphors and allusions involved, but this one is rather straightforwardly descriptive. So it is closer to Holy One of God (imo excludible) than to Lamb of God (imo includible). ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is a lean delete more gentle than a fat delete? --Lambiam 12:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't trust a delete with a lean and hungry look. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Speaking from a background that leaves me rather ignorant of much of Islam, I can only guess at what or who "Allah's Messenger" would refer to -- Might this be an angel? Any of the prophets? A specific prophet? I don't know.

In other words, I agree with Mahāgaja's point, and I cannot agree with Fay Freak's contention, that "[i]t's always the one relevant in the narrative of the religion in question" would mean any English speaker would perforce understand this in a sum-of-parts manner.

As such, keep, and ideally also include Allah's Messenger (if that is indeed an often-used term). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 08:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

In fact, Muhammad is the main messenger of all messengers of Islam. — This unsigned comment was added by Adamdaniel864 (talk • contribs) at 06:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC).Reply

May 2021

منتظر ... بودن

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This construction isn't really a word (not in Dehkhoda), and the attempt to treat it as a verb has produced the convoluted usage notes. The relevant information is now contained in منتظر#Usage notes, which I think conveys the information rather more succinctly.

I propose a hard-redirect to منتظر.--Tibidibi (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

June 2021

kawu

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

All of the entries for Barngarla on Wiktionary follow the standardised spelling (as specified here), except for one entry kawu, and two other entries kauo and kawi that specify themselves as alternate spellings of kawu. The version of this word with standardised spelling can be found at gawoo (and possibly also gabi). The Barngarla Language Advisory Comittee prescibes that Barngarla should be written according to the modern standardised spelling. These other spellings are not part of any sort of obsolete spelling system, but rather are just arbitrary spellings that some linguists used to transcribe Barngarla words prior to the modern spelling standardisation. Therefore I propose that these entries be deleted. --AndreRD (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Delete as per AndreRD's detailed explanation. Gawoo is the spelling and already appears in the Wiktionary. Native-title (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please delete the Barngarla lemma warradya too, as the correct form is warraidya. Native-title (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I looked into the situation here. The Barngarla language fell out of use by 1964, but has recently been revived thanks to an effort spearheaded by Ghil'ad Zuckermann, a linguist. Apparently Zuckermann himself developed a new orthography for the language. There are plenty of old pre-1964 texts with attestations (at least mentions) of Barngarla words not written in Zuckermann's orthography, but the evidence suggests these writers were using ad-hoc orthographies and there was no written standard. I suppose the most logical thing to do is to delete these old ad-hoc spellings - otherwise we'd clutter the dictionary with all sorts of one-off spellings for all kinds of LDLs. Do we have a common practice in these situations? This, that and the other (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Of course, Wiktionary is not paper. Incidentally, while we are at it, should we get these pre-1964 texts burnt? A sane compromise is to by default require 2 independent mentions with the same spelling if there are no examples of use. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

sugata

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The sense 'well-gone' (perpetrated by @咖喱饭) currently (26 June 2021) given for Pali sugata is either covered by 'faring well' or needs separate senses. "Well-gone" is not proper English in this context, but clearly a literal translation. --RichardW57 (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I just removed the sense. RFD-resolved This, that and the other (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

July 2021

การฆ่าช้างเอางา

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This idiom does not add การ-. --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is a tricky one to analyse. There are 784 raw Google hits, but the problem is that killing an elephant for its ivory is exactly what the poachers do, and examples referring to that would be straightforward SoPs. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep. I've found a quotation that clearly isn't about elephants. Unfortunately, it's about the killing of Rama VIII (the current king's uncle), from a book that's banned in Thailand. It does, however, clearly show the use of the abstract 'noun' of the idiomatic phrase, so as with the request above we need a clearer explanation of why the abstract noun from the idiom should be excluded. The example shows the noun as the object of a preposition, ถึง (tʉ̌ng) (or a verb acting like one, depending on your taste in grammar). --RichardW57 (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

See my message above. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

ความกลัวดอกพิกุลจะร่วง

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

การกลัวดอกพิกุลจะร่วง

This idiom does not add การ- or ความ-. See การสีซอให้ควายฟัง --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

د هغۀ, د هغې, د هغوی, د ... په منځ کې, د ... وروسته, خوځنده انځور, دويم ځل, بل ځل, ورځ په ورځ

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

SOPs. Not sure about ورځ په ورځ though. SAb54iudwe1 (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

August 2021

apostolisch vicaris

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Dutch, "vicar apostolic", SOP of apostolisch (sense 4) and vicaris (sense 1). ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I'd understand the meaning from the components. A vicaris is not, in general, a titular bishop, and apostolisch also does not imply bishopric. --Lambiam 07:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam But a vicar is often enough a substitute for a bishop, and a vicar apostolic in a sense is also a substitute for a bishop. I agree it's not a slam-dunk though. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

A vicar apostolic has usually been ordained and consecrated as a bishop and stands as such in the apostolic succession, so they may perform the sacrament of holy orders. They do not represent a bishop other than the Pope. A vicar acting as the representative of a Catholic diocesan bishop is usually not themselves a bishop; they have vicarious administrative or judicial powers, but not sacramental ones. --Lambiam 15:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

December 2021

A0

Latest comment: 11 months ago11 comments6 people in discussion

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

A9

A10

2A0

Note that all of these exist in the translingual section already. I see little to no value in having language-specific entries for these; the only language-specific data is the pronunciation which could surely be derived from the letter name and the number entry. See also Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup#A1. --Fytcha (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I created these entries while I was alphabetically creating entries from the Norwegian dictionary, where these are present. I think they are useful as they have the Norwegian pronunciation + some link to Bokmålsordboka, Riksmål dictionary, Norwegian lexicon and Wikipedia. Some of them even have other definitions, A4 has a definition unrelated to the paper size for example. Supevan (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I didn't mean to nominate the non-paper-format-related definitions. I'll change that straight away. Fytcha (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

There may be language-specific aspects (pronunciation, inflections). We currently have no entry for Dutch, but note that the entry A4 at the Dutch Wiktionary gives a gender and a pronunciation and lists plural and diminutive forms as well as several derived terms. --Lambiam 11:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, in practice these terms are attested in all modern languages in use by societies with a need for office supplies, so the entry could eventually become quite long, with endlessly repeated etymologies and definitions. The orthography, etymology, definitions, and related terms are common to all languages, while inflections, pronunciations (of little importance for this set of terms, as Fytcha says) and derived terms differ. There are good arguments for creating all the language entries as well for merging them up to a single Translingual entry; I tend to prefer the latter approach. I like the way the pronunciation section is set up at Homo sapiens, for example. This, that and the other (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete @This, that and the other I agree with this in principle. Is there a precedent for having things like gender and inflection in various languages in a table in the Translingual entry? A translation section is also desirable, as not all languages use A4. In Dutch for instance, the common term is A4'tje. @Fytcha Indeed, this should be discussed more extensively elsewhere (or has it already been?) —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete - these are covered by translingual. The pronunciation can be moved there. Theknightwho (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fytcha, Supevan, Lambiam, Theknightwho I reformatted A7 along the lines of Homo sapiens, as a pilot project before converting them all. Any thoughts? This, that and the other (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@This, that and the other: It's an interesting idea and I'm not per se opposed but I think the idea of allowing different pronunciations in a translingual entry should be discussed in a BP first because I can see why some would oppose it. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@This, that and the other, Fytcha: I like it, but I think we should make such sections collapsible (in the same manner as translations). Theknightwho (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

No consensus. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

سقى

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

RFD-sense "(transitive) to give water to, to quench the thirst of, to hydrate". Tagged but not listed (diff). --Fytcha (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Rationale not given, but it does appear redundant with the sense above. An Arabic speaker should simply merge them. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

леле мори мајко

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

мајко моја мила

Macedonian, tagged but not listed. Ultimateria (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

(Notifying Dimithrandir, Горец, Martin123xyz): Any opinions on these? Are these WT:SOPs as is claimed in the RFD reason? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

"мајко моја мила" is SOP, but I'm not sure about "леле мори мајко". Gorec (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

баярлаа

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Tagged but not listed (diff by @Atitarev). Reason given: "Phonetic respellings should be handled differently". --Fytcha (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Created by @Crom daba. The inclusion should be based on the usage. We don't create entries for "phonetic respellings" but we have (frequent) misspellings, alternative forms, etc. If the usage can be verified, the entry can be kept but as {{alt form|mn|баярлалаа}} or {{misspelling of|mn|баярлалаа}} --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Crom daba, LibCae, Fytcha: Still unresolved. It may not be just a "phonetic respelling" but a "common misspelling" (because it's how it's how it's pronounced). If this spelling is attestable, then it should be kept but needs a change of the label. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev: Sorry, I have absolutely no knowledge of Mongolian. I was just listing the tagged entry. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

-саан

Tagged but not listed (diff by @Atitarev). --Fytcha (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Similar to above. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

-наа

Tagged but not listed (diff by @Atitarev). --Fytcha (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Similar to above. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

-ноо

-нээ

-нөө

These are the unlinked vowel harmonic variants of -наа (-naa), so should be deleted if that term is. Theknightwho (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

January 2022

штири

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

@ZomBear, Russianrye, PetrGruko, Vedac13, Atitarev, Useigor, Tetromino, Fay Freak I don't know who the Rusyn editors are here so I am pinging the people who worked on штыри and штири, along with a few other likely suspects. What seems to have happened is that User:Vedac13, User:PetrGruko and User:Russianrye created шти́ри (štýry, “four”), marking it as Prešov. Recently, however, User:ZomBear created an entry under шты́ри (štŷ́ry) with the same meaning (marked as regional), and marked шти́ри (štýry) for speedy deletion. I don't know much about Rusyn but this looks fishy; I suspect there are competing standards for Rusyn spelling, which may have political ramifications. Benwing2 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Kercha (2012) gives the forms четыри, четверо and штыри as forms of the numeral "four". AFAIK, Rusyn orthography is pretty phonemic, with a three-way contrast ы-и-і. I'd say send to RFV. Thadh (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2, Thadh, ZomBear: Sorry, can't help with this. I lost my Rusyn dictionary. On "четверо" I wonder if it's a noun with the sense "four people", rather than a numeral "four".

Trying to find what is right in Rusyn can be frustrating as different authors can use very different words and spellings. There are multiple standards but it seems to be no standard. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Here is another source шты́ри (štŷ́ry) — Horoszczak, Jarosław (1993) “шты́ри”, in Перший лемківско-польскій словник [First Lemko-Polish Dictionary]‎^[6] (in Polish), Legnica: Stovaryshynia Lemkiv, page 248

I did not come across in Rusyn dictionaries шти́ри (štýry). --ZomBear (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

February 2022

ܐܬܘܪܝ

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Classical Syriac.

Tagged by @Antonklroberts, but not listed due to unfamiliarity with the template. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Antonklroberts Could you please explain why you think this entry should be deleted? If the reason is "it doesn't exist", we deal with that through Requests for Verification: WT:RFVN and the {{rfv|syc}} template. Thanks, This, that and the other (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

It does exist in Classical Syriac but not as a lemma. I believe @Antonklroberts is referencing its non-existence in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, in which he would be correct. I'll clean the article up and remove the deletion template. --334a (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

दस करोड़, दस लाख

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Hindi. Not covered by CFI: WT:CFI#Numbers,_numerals,_and_ordinals. I usually speedy these SOP numbers per Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2022/January#Non-English_entries_that_don't_meet_WT:CFI#Numbers,_numerals,_and_ordinals but I didn't feel comfortable doing so this time because 1. the number system is markedly different from the languages that I'm familiar with and 2. the article was created by a sysop. (Notifying AryamanA, Atitarev, Benwing2, Smettems, Kutchkutch, Bhagadatta, Msasag, Svartava2, Getsnoopy, Rishabhbhat): . — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 08:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete if not speedy; different number system does not mean that it isn't decipherable by its components and it isn't one word. —Svārtava (t/u) • 09:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete, unless there's proof of them being used figuratively as 'very large number'. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Normally I think CFI's allowance for deleting numbers is too strong, but in this case if you have any idea what a lakh and a crore are, the expressions "ten lakh" and "ten crore" are completely transparent, so I am not opposed to deletion. Benwing2 (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Rishabhbhat, Svartava Would you consider any of the following uses to be idiomatic/figurative for 'very large number' rather than the SOP meaning?

जानकारी के अनुसार आज जिले भर के बाजारों में लगभग दस करोड़ों की खरीदारी हुई।

दस करोड़ों की लागत से बनाया आधुनिक तकनीक का डबल लेन ब्रिज में पांच सालों के भीतर ही दरारें पड़ गई।

योरप में कितने ही ऐसे कला-प्रेमी पड़े हुए हैं जो उनमें की एक-एक तस्वीर के लिए दस-दस लाख पौण्ड तक देने को तैयार हैं।

बाकी दस करोड़ों की आबादी में कितने ही बूढ़े, कितने ही मरीज, कितने ही डाकू, कितने ही भिखमंगे, कितने ही साधु शमिल हैं।

ऐसा गोल्डन लिफाफा दस लाख लोगों को भेजा गया है।

मारुति सुजुकी गुजरात प्लांट में दस लाखों कारों का उत्पादन हुआ पूरा

सौ करोड़ रुपये से कम बिक्री-राशि की दशा में निकटतम सैकड़ों, हजारों, लाखों अथवा दस लाखों या उनके दशमलवांशों में पूरा करके दिया जा सकता है। (ii) सौ करोड़ रुपये या उससे अधिक बिक्री राशि की दशा में निकटतम लाखों, दस लाखों अथवा करोड़ों या उनके दशमलवांशों में पूरा करके दिया जा सकता है।

ये कार्यकर्ता आने वाले नब्बे दिनों में हर दिन दस लाखों बिल्डिंग्स में जाकर लोगों के स्वास्थ्य की जानकारी लेंगे

खत्म होगी मुसाफिरों की मुसीबत, हाईवे के लिए दस करोड़ों राशी स्वीकृत

Even if they are deleted as SOP, it may still be helpful to keep [[दस]] [[करोड़]] & [[दस]] [[लाख]] at Module:number list/data/hi and the translation tables at one hundred million § Translations & million § Translations. Kutchkutch (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch: Even in these sentences, in the first one - लगभग दस करोड़ों की खरीदारी हुई - the use might not be figurative: it translates to nearly ten crores of purchasing. I don't think that even the figurative use for "large number" should be enough to keep it because in any case it would translate to "ten crore(s)" even when figuratively and the meaning (from the components) and figurative use is obvious. —Svārtava (t/u) • 03:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch: Yes, whenever a term is deleted as SOP, I always relink its translation to its parts (instead of removing it) as every sysop should, so nothing would be lost there. The question only is whether this term merits a full entry by itself. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 08:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

יום השבת

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hebrew.

SOP. Sartma (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

יום שבת

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hebrew.

SOP. Sartma (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep as a synonym. This reminds me of semantically redundant forms like Assamese ৰৌ মাছ (rou mas) and অজগৰ সাপ (ozogor xap) that are useful & worth keeping as synonyms. Pinging the creator of the entry, @Ruakh. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep. It seems like a compound term hyperonymous to שבת with a slightly different meaning (more formal?). The Torah uses this word as a synonym to שבת. Correct me if am wrong on this one. Tollef Salemann (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

April 2022

Јованка Орлеанка

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Ioana d'Arc

ジャンヌ・ダルク

Jeanne d'Arc

聖女貞德

Following the deletion of English Joan of Arc (proper noun). ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 07:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Japanese term ジャンヌ・ダルク (Jannu Daruku) has no other meaning than the name of the historical person. As written in WT:NAMES, particularly WT:NSE, we must delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

RFV issue. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep and undelete the literal sense in Joan of Arc. The deletion of the person sense from Joan of Arc was incorrectly justified. In Talk:Joan of Arc, we can read "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia" as the justification for deletion. But this does not mean there can be no senses for people, only that the senses should not describe the people in encyclopedic manner. The quoted sentence also refers to places, and under the incorrect interpretation of the sentence, we would also need to delete senses for places from place names, which we do not want to do and have not been doing. It was further said that "Most terms in Category:en:Individuals are not entries about individuals but about terms named after individuals", which is not obvious to me and even if it were true, many of the entries there are for specific individuals, e.g. Aristotle: "An ancient Greek philosopher, logician, and scientist (382–322 B.C.E.), student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great." We did see some efforts to get rid of senses for specific individuals in the past, but that never achieved anything like consensus; see e.g. Talk:Xenocrates. And in Talk:Joan of Arc I do not see 2/3-consensus for deleting the literal sense, so the closure does not appear correct as for consensus either. In Talk:George VI I do not see the required 2/3 supermajority for deletion either. WT:NSE does not require us to delete Joan of Arc's literal sense, from what I can see. As pointed out elsewhere, we have other multi-word names such as Jesus Christ, Alexander the Great, Darwin's Bulldog, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Mary Magdalene, Robin Hood and I have just checked that they contain senses for specific people. “Joan of Arc”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows support of multiple lemmings, so we can even use WT:LEMMING as an arbitrary aid. Thus, the deletion of Joan of Arc person sense contradicts the usual interpretation of the part of CFI quoted for the support for deletion and contradicts common practice shown on very many of the entries in Category:en:Individuals even if not all of them, and contradicts WT:LEMMING, which can help us when we feel undecisive about what to do as part of WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
I now restored Joan of Arc person sense since I carefully verified there was no 2/3-consensus for the deletion of the literal sense and documented that in Talk:Joan of Arc. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

As for WT:NSE's "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic", "of Arc" is neither a family name nor a patronymic, so this does not apply. The notion that we exclude all person senses from multi-word person names was refuted above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Revisiting this a bit late.

From the WP article at w:Joan of Arc, particularly the #Name section, my understanding is that the of Arc or d'Arc portions of the name are in fact patronymic, at least as understood by the chroniclers who first recorded (something like) this version of her name roughly 24 years posthumously.

The EN entry at Joan of Arc currently has no proper noun sense, only the figurative sense -- which seems correct to me inasmuch as I understand the policy at WT:NSE.

The JA entry at ジャンヌ・ダルク (Jannu Daruku) currently has only the proper noun sense -- which seems like an entry we shouldn't have?

Bringing this back up in an effort to resolve the RFD still in place for the Japanese entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete all unless figurative senses are attestable. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Added 3 quotations from some books to the Romanian entry. Bogdan (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have struck Ioana d'Arc. The quotations check out and the entry is thus outside the (intended) scope of this RFD. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep the figurative senses of these entries, at the very least (I'd have no objection to keeping the literal senses either but whatever approach we take should be consistent across entries). If attestability is in doubt then RFV is the appropriate forum to discuss that, so it's not relevant to discussions here. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

abajurlu, abajursuz

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The suffixes -li/-lı/-lu/-lü and -siz/-sız/-suz/-süz can be added to any Turkish noun to form adjectives meaning “with ...” and “without ...”. For example: şekerli kahve = “coffee with sugar”; şekersiz kahve = “coffee without sugar”. IMO there has to be a specific reason to have entries for such adjectives, such as that they have a specific idiomatic meaning (tatlı = “sweet”, not the regular “having taste”), or that there is a dedicated corresponding English adjective (ünlü = “famous”). --Lambiam 17:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

If we go based on these 2 rules we'd have to delete a lot of pages. Maybe mirror other dictionaries. {{R:TDK}} has the +-li form for some fruits, for example. Mainly those used as flavouring or in bakery. To my surprise they also have abajurlu and abajursuz. Then I came to discover that there's lampshaded. --Whitekiko (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete MhmtÖ (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep abajurlu. Weak keep abajursuz --Whitekiko (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

May 2022

abambulātūrus

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Fake participle formed from the fake supine of abambulō above:

Theknightwho (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, I can't find any uses of any of these forms, even in post-classical Latin. - -sche (discuss) 22:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

abnatātūrus

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Fake participle formed from the fake supine of abnatō above:

Theknightwho (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, I can't find any uses of any of these forms, even in post-classical Latin. - -sche (discuss) 22:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

för sen

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(Swedish) SOP, just like its English translation. Glades12 (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete This, that and the other (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

June 2022

GBN

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Translingual, supposedly meaning the ISO 3166-1 three-letter code for Great Britain (the island).

This is factually wrong, because GBN is not defined in ISO 3166-1 (which gives 2 and 3 letter codes to all countries). The codes for the UK are GB and GBR, and no mention is made of Great Britain the island anywhere.

It also can't be a member of the related standard ISO 3166-2, because those codes all refer to subdivisions of countries and follow a strict pattern, which in this case would be GB-GBN.

@Urhixidur - could you please let me know where you got this information from? Theknightwho (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete, it's wrong. Perhaps the mention of "GBN" was seen here, not realising that this actually refers to GB-GBN. This, that and the other (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I spotted that (and the table on Wikipedia that actually says GB-GBN) but didn't want to overcomplicate the original request because I have a feeling that Wikipedia's wrong. I think they mention the codes EAW, GBN and UKM in the remark "for completeness" because they're in the (now obsolete) UK standard BS 6879 that ISO 3166-2:GB is based on, but they haven't actually been incorporated into the ISO standard. In any event, GBN alone is clearly not correct. Theknightwho (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ah, that makes sense. I found various uses of GB-GBN in the wild, but given the power of Wikipedia it's quite possible they all originated with a Wikipedia editor making the same misconstrual I made. This, that and the other (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

شابة

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

South Levantine Arabic. — This unsigned comment was added by AdrianAbdulBaha (talk • contribs) at 13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC).Reply

صدغ

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

South Levantine Arabic. — This unsigned comment was added by AdrianAbdulBaha (talk • contribs) at 13:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC).Reply

ذراع

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

South Levantine Arabic. — This unsigned comment was added by AdrianAbdulBaha (talk • contribs) at 13:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC).Reply

قدح

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

South Levantine Arabic. — This unsigned comment was added by AdrianAbdulBaha (talk • contribs) at 13:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC).Reply

@AdrianAbdulBaha What is the reason you think these entries should be deleted? This, that and the other (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

They're not used in any dialect I am personally familiar with, and they were added by a non-native speaker I know who was adding words from a vocabulary list that is somewhat dubious. The question of whether a word that is attested in Standard Arabic may be considered to be attested in the dialect is a difficult one with no clear answer, because Standard Arabic vocabulary may be borrowed when specificity is required, as in the case of "arm" and "temple (of the head)". But I argue that they don't have any currency outside of those settings. (Note that this is different from terms labeled as "formal", which may be borrowed from Standard Arabic but are valid in the dialect and have the function of elevating the register of speech.) I would basically argue that just as we have started using Arabic dialect language sections on Wiktionary to include dialectal terms (instead of trying to accommodate them within the Standard Arabic banner), it doesn't make sense to use the dialect sections to accommodate all Standard Arabic terms that could be conceivably used in the dialect, which is nearly an infinite list. AdrianAbdulBaha (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

extrem

Latest comment: 2 years ago31 comments11 people in discussion

(Notifying Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak): German adverb. I thought we don't have these null-morpheme, 100% predictable conversions. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why wouldn't we? I see nothing at WT:ADE forbidding it. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja: Because every German (and Romanian) adjective can be used as an adverb without morphological change. It's not insightful and just needlessly clutters Category:German adverbs as well as the adjective entries. It is also more or less de facto policy to not include these (seeing that we have 1.8k adverbs and 13.7k adjectives). Further, no major German (or Romanian) dictionary includes these conversions as separate adverb entries. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

WT:CFI is actual policy, and it says "all words in all languages"; this is a word in a language. On the other hand, CFI says nothing about excluding completely predictable derived forms without morphological change. We're not paper, so we don't have to worry about saving space like major German (and Romanian) dictionaries do. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind them being there, and it might be useful to add quotes under a more appropriate heading, instead of lumping everything together. – Jberkel 11:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this principle for German, but in this individual case I am not sure whether it has not sufficiently detached in development, for many sloppy speakers interchangeable with sehr (“very”). Rightly we also list derbe (adverb), and also others linked on Thesaurus:sehr. Fay Freak (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Worth noting that the majority view among grammarians is to not consider adverbially used adjectives to be adverbs but adverbials:

w:de:Adverb#Alternativen:_Das_„Adjektivadverb“: "Die soeben dargestellte Auffassung, dass die adverbielle Verwendung eines Adjektivs keinen Übergang in eine eigene Wortart Adverb bedeutet, ist in der Sprachwissenschaft heute deutlich die Mehrheitsmeinung.^[11]"
w:de:Adjektiv#Syntaktische_Funktion: "Die Wortart Adjektiv ist unabhängig von ihrer syntaktischen Funktion.^[4]"

— Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fytcha It's probably worth defining what adverbial means in this sense, because the current definition doesn't explain what distinguishes words like this from adverbs. There is also the separate question of whether all adjectives can be used this way. Theknightwho (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: Usually, Adverb refers to a lexical and Adverbial to a syntactic category:

2016 December 17, Peter Eisenberg, Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik‎^[7], Springer, →ISBN, 6.1 Abgrenzung und Begriffliches, page 204:
Kein terminologischer Glücksfall ist das Nebeneinander der Begriffe Adverb und Adverbial. Meistens - aber längst nicht immer - wird Adverb als kategorialer, Adverbial als relationaler Begriff verwendet. Wir folgen diesem Usus und gebrauchen ›Adverbial‹ synonym mit ›adverbiale Bestimmung‹ als Bezeichnung für eine syntaktische Relation (s.u.).
(please add an English translation of this quotation)

As to whether all lexical adjectives can relationally be converted, the following book argues no:

2016 February 16, Wolfgang Imo, Grammatik: Eine Einführung‎^[8], Springer-Verlag, →ISBN, →OCLC, page 78:
Dafür spricht auch, dass alle Adjektive attributiv verwendet werden können, aber nicht alle Adjektive auch adverbial oder prädikativ. Das Adjektiv klein kann z.B. nur attributiv (das kleine Auto, der kleine Junge etc.) oder prädikativ (Das Auto ist klein. Der Junge ist klein.) verwendet werden, nicht aber adverbial (*Das Auto fährt klein. Der Junge läuft klein. etc.). Adjektive wie monatlich oder jährlich können nur attributiv (das monatliche Erscheinen der Zeitschrift; die jährliche Feier) oder adverbial (Die Zeitschrift erscheint monatlich. Die Feier findet jährlich statt.) verwendet werden, nicht aber prädikativ (*Die Zeitschrift ist monatlich. ?Die Feier ist jährlich.).
(please add an English translation of this quotation)

Maybe creating Category:German adjectives that cannot be used predicatively and Category:German adjectives that cannot be used adverbially is an idea worth considering. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

If such categories are necessary, then your original assertion that these adverbial forms are 100% predictable is no longer the case. The 2016 passage suggests that such exceptions are common. Am I right in thinking these generally correspond with English adjectives that can be suffixed with -ly, or are they far more common than that?

To contrast, every English noun can be used attributively and every English verb has a gerundive form that conjugates in the same way as the present participle. That's why we exclude those forms, because they're inherent to what it means to be a noun or verb in English. That reasoning doesn't seem to apply here. Theknightwho (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: My first post was not that clear, apologies. What I wanted to get at with that part was semantic predictability: almost all adverbially used adjectives mean exactly what you'd expect them to mean (hence, they're predictable); the ones that have gained additional semantics in adverbial usage (e.g. schnell) are of course to be included.

I did assert that every adjective can be used adverbially but, looking back, that's not even all that important of an argument. The most striking argument is that the majority of grammarians don't consider these forms (adverbiale Adjektive) to be adverbs.

Also, contrary to what is claimed in Wolfgang Imo's book, I'm currently not convinced that klein cannot be used adverbially.

2014 January 29, Melanie Thomas, Taking a Punch at the Queen?: Die Darstellung von Königin Victoria in den Karikaturen des Satiremagazins "Punch" 1841-1901‎^[9], Tectum Wissenschaftsverlag, →ISBN, →OCLC, page 97:
Russell wird im Punch durchgehend winzig klein gezeichnet.
(please add an English translation of this quotation)

How is this not an adverbial use? The reason why his examples don't work is because they are semantically absurd. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Now that I think about it, this usage exists in English as well, though it's generally informal: "eat healthy", "fit snug" etc. Theknightwho (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, none of these in either German or English are adverbs.

The manner specifically of eating has no bearing on it being healthy (you can eat like a pig and it would be equally healthy), rather it is the subject categorized as healthy, the one who eats has a healthy attitude towards nutrition and thus eats healthy food. In Latin it would be in the nominative, apparently covered for Latin by German Wikipedia as Participium coniunctum and for German as Prädikativum#Freie Prädikativa, leading us to the term depictive as correctly categorizing their syntactical function.

Where as in the German example “klein gezeichnet” it is a resultative, covered by Prädikativum#Resultative Prädikativa. Fay Freak (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I suppose the reason one cannot say *Das Auto fährt klein. Der Junge läuft klein. etc. is the same as why one cannot say *The car drives small. The boy runs small. – what would it mean? --Lambiam 08:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak: Thank you for the links, interesting. In that case, the book is probably right in asserting that klein cannot be used adverbially. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fytcha @Fay Freak Having looked at these again, they seem to be used with copulative verbs, so as Fay Freak says, the adjective describes the subject. Cars might not be able to drive small, but one can certainly drive unsteady, perhaps after going large. As well as depictive and resultative, they can also be inchoative. Theknightwho (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete – in general we do not include such entirely predictable uses. In Dutch and Turkish too, it is a property of the language that adjectives can be used adverbially without morphological change, meaning in a ... way. For example, o güzel bir şeydir means “that is a nice thing”, and aferin, çok güzel yaptın means “bravo, you have done it very nicely”. --Lambiam 08:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC) — PS. In English, adjectives can predictably be used as nouns for a collectivity of people: The people have three worries: that the hungry will not be fed, that the cold will not be clothed, and that the tired will not get rest.^[10] In almost all cases we do not have the corresponding noun entries for adjectives. (However, we do have this noun sense for rich and poor, and also for hungry, in the latter case without indication that it is grammatically plural. We do have a noun entry for cold, but it is not this collective sense.) At least for Turkish, several verb forms can predictably be used adjectivally: meyve olgunlaşacak “the fruit will ripen” next to olgunlaşacak meyve “the fruit that will ripen”; bu meyve olgunlaşmaz “this fruit won’t ripen” next to bu olgunlaşmaz meyve “this fruit that won’t ripen”. --Lambiam 09:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep. In general, I'm not a fan of the idea that predictable or formulaic (non-SOP) entries should be removed for that reason alone. The overwhelming majority of plural forms are easy to guess, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have entries. The same applies here. Binarystep (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Delete per Fytcha. Binarystep (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

May I take it then as a predictable that you’d support listing the entirely predictable noun sense^[11][12][13] of predictable? — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 15:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC).Reply

@Lambiam Bad example, because those show predictable being used as a noun, and we can even see the plural predictables. In fact, predictability is a total red herring here and should not be used as a basis for deletion: the real reason why extrem is not an adverb is because it never actually describes the manner in which a verb is done. If the water “runs red”, that doesn’t make “red” an adverb, because it refers to the water, not the manner of running. The same applies here, because it’s used with copulative verbs. This also applies to your Turkish example - ripen is a copulative verb in English, too. Theknightwho (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Maybe “regular” is a better term. But if the grammar rules of a language state that adjectives can be used adverbially without morphological change, then it is predictable that such regular uses can be attested. The point with predictable was that this is another example of the regular use of a term as another part-of-speech (here noun) than the most typical one (here adjective); that this boundary transgression is possible is not an exception but an instance of a general rule. The use of PoS labels on Wiktionary is a bit loose; we assign adverb to in brief and under the influence, while these are prepositional phrases most often (but not exclusively) used adverbially. And we label the verbal phrase come in from the cold as a verb, verb phrase being explicitly disallowed. I don’t get your point about olgunlaşmak; I don’t think it is copulative, and certainly not in these examples, where there is no complement. --Lambiam 17:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The example was poor because it doesn’t hold true for English. You cannot use every adjective that way, even if it might be obvious what it means in certain circumstances. In any event, you’re ignoring that these German examples are copulative uses, because they describe the subject.

I read too quickly with the Turkish example - they seem like participles. Theknightwho (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Binarystep: It's not "that reason alone". The most important reason is that adverbially used adjectives aren't adverbs (i.e. don't belong to the lexical category of adverbs) per the majority view of German grammarians as I've already laid out above. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Binarystep: Are you going to address this point? Why exactly are you in favor of including something that doesn't exist per the majority of the experts? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Apologies, I don't always remember to check back on discussions. Reading over this again, it's pretty clear I was wrong. Binarystep (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is terrible reasoning. Vininn126 (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete. To paraphrase others' arguments- if grammarians do not regard these forms as adverbs, and if they are entirely predictable adverbial uses of adjectives, it doesn't make sense to mark potentially several thousand adjectives as adverbs. An exception can be made for cases where the adverbial usage has developed new senses. Nicodene (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

On a balance, delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 17:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

On one hand, Duden has it only as an adjective and I believe those who say that German grammars traditionally treat these only as adjectives. On the other hand, one needs an adverb if one wants to enter the near-synonym sehr, which is never an adjective. Compare Thesaurus:sehr, which lists pure adverbs such as äußerst and adjectives+adverbs such as ungeheuer. How do you enter an adverb-thesaurus link into an adjective-only entry extrem or adjective-only entry ungeheuer? de:extrem lists äußerst as a synonym and even a definition of an adjective sense; that looks odd. And de:extrem translation table is incomplete in so far as it does not include any -ly translation yet that is applicable if this also covers adverbial usage. Furthermore, if it is true that "nicht alle Adjektive auch adverbial [verwendet werden können]", then one cannot say this is an exact analogue of English attributive use of nouns: each noun and gerund can be used attributively without modification. I don't think we are listing English adjectives as synonyms of English nouns. As for "semantic predictability", that's not particularly relevant since -ly adverbs are perfectly semantically predictable from their base adjectives. As for English "the hungry", our poor entry does have a noun section for "the poor". Since not every adjective can be used adverbially and since true synonymy does not hold between adjectives and adverbs, having separate adverb sections contrary to German grammatical tradition has considerable merit. About adverb vs. adverbials, I would say that what these grammars are saying is that all adjectives are so readily used as adverbs that it makes no dictionary sense to document them as such. The question whether they "truly" are "adverbs" probably means almost nothing: they behave like adverbs, and the rest is a matter of conventional treatment. From looking at Category:German adverbs, what is being discussed here seems to be a proposed change to a widespread previous practice, impacting possibly hundreds of entries, and "we don't have these null-morpheme, 100% predictable conversions" seems contradicted by observation: we do have these and they are not 100% predictable since not all adjectives produce adverbial behavior. Some examples from "f": feige, fachlich, fassungslos, figürlich, fleißig, förmlich, fragend, freudig, and furchtbar. I say keep in RFD: it makes no sense to delete hundreds of entries via individual RFDs. This needs to be adopted as a policy change via a proper channel so that one can then start removing these adverb sections in volume without RFDs. Our de facto policy so far has been to allow these adverb sections, and the nominated entry is no lone outlier. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/german-english/extrem is a German-English translation dictionary that shows extrem as both adjective and an adverb. This makes it possible to state extremely as a translation. So do https://en.pons.com/translate/german-english/extrem and https://www.dict.com/german-english/extrem. By contrast, https://www.wordreference.com/deen/extrem indicates German extrem only as an adj, but lists both adjectival and adverbial English translations. If we want to list adverb translations, these most naturally fit into an adverb section. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

If one dislikes categorizing them as adverbs, one can put them into a separate category such as "Adverbial adjectives" or "Adjectival adverbs" and use a dedicated template for the purpose. That's an easy fix. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

July 2022

ixil-ixila

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Reduplication in Basque is a regular process which can be applied to virtually all adjectives. In all cases the reduplication of [adjective] means "very [adjective]", so this expression is certainly not idiomatic.--Santi2222 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

kapı yapmamak

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Turkish. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete. If deleted, a search will find the lemma kapı yapmak, just like searching for kapı yapmadı and other forms of the verb will do. --Lambiam 11:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete per Lambiam. -Konanen (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

m/s, m/s²

Latest comment: 2 months ago15 comments9 people in discussion

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English § m/s, m/s².

Based on precedents above. Might be more controversial as they're more common and somewhat "standardised" for what use them. I'd prefer them deleted. —Svārtava (talk) • 16:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, it seems a bit strange to delete terms as common as these while keeping stuff like YWb. Not saying we should delete YWb, but m/s in particular feels lexicalised. I can’t quite put my finger on why, though. Theknightwho (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

YWb is an abbreviation and is entry-worthy (just like km), while the nominated terms are SoPs. Delete. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 05:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

YWb = Y (symbol for prefix yotta-) +‎ Wb (symbol for weber). --Lambiam 09:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

We find m/s used without further explanation in articles written for a general audience, not just in the scientific literature or science magazines, so the unwashed masses are assumed to know its meaning. --Lambiam 09:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

What made User:Eyesnore (diff) and User:J3133 (diff) think these are restricted to metrology? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I followed m/s, which is Translingual and has a metrology label; I am not against removing it. J3133 (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I took it as a topic label in a broad sense - they can always be a bit fuzzy. Theknightwho (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Maybe adding a note to WT:CFI somewhere is an idea at this point seeing how many of these compound units people have created. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's almost like some people find them useful, or something... Theknightwho (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

If these are deleted, the Unicode characters should be kept, which were redirected by @Octahedron80 and @Mahagaja, respectively. J3133 (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

m/s² was originally at ㎨ (the single Unicode character); I moved it to m/s² because of the RFM now archived at Talk:㍹. If we want to keep the Unicode character but not the string, then maybe we should simply move it back to its old name and not delete anything. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep – m/s is the standard SI unit for speed, m/s² is the standard SI unit for acceleration. If you break up these symbols into smaller parts, they loose their meaning. -- Sloyment (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't know why this wasn't closed but a belated keep as per WT:FRIED. As above, m/s specifically as a unit of speed is arguably its own unit, with a meaning more specific than its constituents. 🌙🐇 ^⠀talk⠀ ^{⠀contribs⠀} 08:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

(And same for m/s² as a unit of velocity.) 🌙🐇 ^⠀talk⠀ ^{⠀contribs⠀} 08:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

আমার সোনার বাংলা

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Encyclopedic. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

What about God Save the Queen, O Canada or Hatikvah? Meghmollar2017 (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

They have been nominated for deletion as well: see WT:RFDE#God Defend New Zealand. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 09:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

If the name were a single term like *বঙ্গগীতি (compare Deutschlandlied), then it would be entry-worthy. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 09:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Presumably, a “single term” means here, “a term that is written without spaces”. This is obviously a problematic criterion for languages that are traditionally written without spaces. Is 中華民國國旗歌 a single term? It also “favours” more agglutinating languages. IMO, Tietoyhteiskuntapuolue is not part of the Finnish lexicon and should not have a dictionary entry. --Lambiam 15:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

peñizcar

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

This contradicts the etymology for pellizcar but the ll-ñ alteration is non-standard in Spanish. AztecWarrior28 (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I do not see a contradiction.
What is the rationale for the requested deletion?

--Lambiam 08:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is, apparently, also a variant form peñiscar.^[14][15] --Lambiam 08:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

This should be an RFV issue and am contemplating just moving it there. AG202 (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The OP did not claim the term was not attested (which is what RFV is for), but solely that it contradicted an etymology in some unspecified way and that the alteration was non-standard. The latter point is not an issue arguing against inclusion – while there is no standard for alterations, many observed alterations are in some way anomalous, such as the unexplained shift from -o- to -e- in Esperanto tendeno, borrowed from English tendon. That is not an RFV issue. We should try to avoid internal contradictions, but absent an indication of what the claimed contradiction is, it is difficult to discuss it, but this too is not an RFV issue; etymologies should be discussed in the Etymology scriptorium. I think we should close this for failing to present a rationale. --Lambiam 12:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Let's at least do the OP the courtesy of a ping: @AztecWarrior28 can you elaborate on your reason in light of Lambiam's comment? This, that and the other (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

August 2022

𒆪𒋛

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Akkadian. This is a misspelling. It should be spelled 𒆳𒆪𒋛. See Ashurbanipal 061 — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 22:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 23:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Isn't it better to move this to 𒆳𒆪𒋛? Also note that this cuneiform spelling is not listed at Kūsu § Alternative forms. --Lambiam 08:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam: What do you mean with "move"? A redirect? I can't see the use of it. That entry is misspelled, why keep it?

That cuneiform spelling is not listed in Kūsu because I usually only give the nominative (which would correspond to the entry). Phonetic cuneiform spelling are just given as examples anyway, I don't try to be exhaustive. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 13:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I mean, shouldn't the page 𒆳𒆪𒋛 be created and the info (Proper noun Cuneiform spelling of Kūsu) be moved over to there? --Lambiam 18:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Moving the entry preserves the edit history. Seems like a better option. Theknightwho (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam, @Theknightwho: 𒆳𒆪𒋛 (Kūsi) is the genitive of 𒆳𒆪𒌑𒋢 (Kūsu). We don't even have inflected Akkadian entries at the moment, so it makes no sense to give their cuneiform spellings. We didn't even cover the basic vocabulary...! Akkadian cuneiform entries are not a priority at the moment, so I'm not creating them. But you're more than welcome to go ahead and do so yourselves.

I'm just asking for the misspelled entry to be deleted. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 00:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I’ve added 𒆳𒆪𒋛 (^kurku-si) to Kūsu. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 17:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Might be worth adding acceleration for the Cuneiform spellings, so they're trivial to add. Up to you, of course. Theknightwho (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: I'm not familiar with acceleration. How would it work? — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 14:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Sartma Do you have the gadget enabled in your preferences? It makes certain links go green, and if you click on them it automatically generates the page for inflected/alternative forms.

WT:ACCEL can explain much better than I can, but in essence it automatically generates the appropriate {{form of}} on the definition line. Setting it up involves adding some extra parameters to the {{l}} templates in the {{cunsp}} template that tell it what to put. It's pretty straightforward once you've done in a couple of times, to be honest. Once it's done, it's literally a two-click process to create the page. Theknightwho (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

September 2022

اکادمک

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hindi transliteration. نعم البدل (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

اکادمی

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hindi transliteration - IP address adding new unreferenced terms for Urdu. نعم البدل (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

https://rekhtadictionary.com/meaning-of-ikaidamii uses the word to explain the meaning of a different form of the same word. Rekhta Dictionary is still under development but I think this should be taken as a reference here. RonnieSingh (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

انترم

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hindi transliteration - IP address adding new unreferenced terms for Urdu. نعم البدل (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus

Latest comment: 9 months ago12 comments3 people in discussion

@Surjection, Hekaheka What do you think? YYA-sopimus obviously qualifies, but this seems encyclopedic. I do not know of a site-wide policy on the names of deals and agreements. brittletheories (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think this can be deleted as encyclopedic (it can be described under YYA-sopimus if need be). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. YYA-sopimus is short for ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus, not the other way round. We have alternative spellings of many other terms even if they can be described somewhere else. A dictionary is made for users. If someone sees term A in a text, how helpful is it for them if the term is "described" under term B? Keep. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also, it is labeled "historical". The term used to be quite common. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Hekaheka Similar issues were discussed at length in Wiktionary:Votes/2022-06/Updating CFI for names of organizations. To me, linking to Wikipedia from the acronym is enough, but there is no consensus on this. However, the term is historical, as we define the word, and has been for 30 years. brittletheories (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

YYA-sopimus being short for the full form is correct, but we can just link to Wikipedia from the template. This is done a lot in English entries (just one example: NBA). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 05:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Did you know that the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 wasn't the only agreement of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance the Soviet Union made. In fact it had similar agreements with many other countries. On top of bilateral agreements the Warsaw Pact was officially a Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. Thus, the term does not refer to individual agreement but to a type of agreement. I edited the text of the entry accordingly.--Hekaheka (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the term ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus refers to any of those other agreements. The Warsaw Pact is "Sopimus ystävyydestä, yhteistyöstä ja keskinäisestä avunannosta". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's its full name, yes. Which happens to be the full name of Finland's YYA-sopimus as well. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, but I have never seen "ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus" used to refer to anything else than the Finno-Soviet pact and cannot find any such usage either. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

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

Labeled "historical". --Hekaheka (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Found usage not related to Finland on Parliament of Finland's web page[16] and in YLE[17]. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

October 2022

အကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Old Mon.

The essential problem is that the author misencoded repha in the page title as <RA, ASAT> instead of <RA, ASAT, VIRAMA>. I have moved the file to the correct name, and am requesting removal of what was the residual redirect. To show what was happening, I have copied the original content from အကုသလကရ်္မ္မပထ to အကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ before making further modifications. It is အကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ whose deletion I am requesting. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

An additional complication is that the author was User:우습게, who has been banned as a 'sockpuppet' of User:咽頭べさ 'Dr Intobesa'. Is there any point in opening communication with him via the Mon Wiktionary to seek his approval to the deletion? Communication with him has not been entirely fruitless. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@RichardW57: Both user accounts have not been blocked from editing their talkpage (yet), so you could try communicating with them there. At this point, I wouldn't presume they know much more on the topic than you do to be honest. Thadh (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have asked his opinion of the deletion at User talk:咽頭べさ#အကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ. If he agrees, I believe the deletion can be speedied, without having to find someone else who knows enough about mediaeval Sanskrit spelling or even Old Mon. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

He has replied, "Just do as you like". --RichardW57 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

buah arbei

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Indonesian. Tagged in 2021 but not listed. Austronesier (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete. SOP. –Austronesier (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'd be interested to know if the buah word meaning fruit is more often used with this than with others. If not I'd say that we could just delete this and move on. —Soap— 09:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

November 2022

ychteccatetlatzontequiliani

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

A Nahuatl word for which our sole sample sentence spells it as two words, and which seems like it would be sum-of-parts even if the spaceless spelling was an acceptable alternative. Also, does Nahuatl have geminate stops? Thanks, —Soap— 20:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

It seems that the distinction between ichtequi and ichtecqui is gemination, so I can believe the spelling is accurate, but this still seems like the very sum-of-parts thing we look for in other languages as a rationale for deletion. However, if we delete this, we probably need to point out on the ichtecqui page that the final vowel rotates to -a when it is juxtaposed in this fashion (maybe it's the genitive case marker?) Thanks, —Soap— 09:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

-nda

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Turkish. The definition is wrong but the correct interpretation is simply -n- + -de; -n- also combines with the other case suffixes so this is best documented in just one location, at -n-. @Anylai as the creator. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

What about -y-? I saw AZ suffixes with the postvocalic forms so I did the same but in TR schools -y is also taught as an interfix, a "glue letter". Should we delete the postvocalic forms and create -y-?

Delete, also -nde. --Lambiam 23:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

obegränsa

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Swedish.

The adjective obegränsad (“unlimited”) is formed as o- (“un-”) + begränsad (“limited”). By surface analysis it can instead be interpreted as the past participle of the verb obegränsa (“to unlimit”). However, that verb is seldom (if ever) attested. Most likely the page was created as a misunderstanding. I suggest that it to be deleted for that reason. Gabbe (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Go to WT:RFVN.

I think you are right. Seems to be missing in SAOB as well. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Support Deletion. ZERO hits in Corpus. Taylor 49 (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

December 2022

Everything in Category:az:Languages and Category:uz:Languages

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Delete, and I'll volunteer to carry it out if (hopefully once) the RFD ends up for deleting too. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete as they seem to be transparent formations from the word for the nationality followed by the word for language. If there are any exceptions ... e.g. if fransuz can mean the French language by itself but ingliz cannot mean the English language by itself .... then we can handle that on the individual entry pages for the exceptions, so i would still vote delete in that case. —Soap— 09:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete all pages under Category:Thai rhymes

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Please delete all pages under Category:Thai rhymes EXCEPT the page Rhymes:Thai. We will use rhyme categories instead that they do not need to be updated. Another reason is that Thai word list take lots of memory for transliteration; it cannot handle thousand words in one page. Octahedron80 (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

At this point we need to vote on keeping or deleting the Rhymes namespace entirely rather than decide on a language-by-language basis. Ultimateria (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, considering that the rhymes template automatically creates templates, any rhymes pages that match the categories are obsolete. Vininn126 (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is it possible to generate a table with clickable links like Rhymes:Thai in the category namespace too? —Soap— 09:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

τρίπα αλά βενετσιάνα

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Greek.

I cannot find any references. --FocalPoint (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The reference is from a guide to Egyptiot Dialect speech. https://www.sah.aegean.gr/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Αιγυπτιώτικα-Mυτιλήνη-22_10_2019.pdf. Aearthrise (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Aearthrise, thank you for showing the reference. I put it in τρίπα αλά βενετσιάνα. I am trying to look for further instances, I found this in a tweet "όπως κ να το κανεις ακουγεται καλυτερα ετσι,σαν την τρυπα αλα βενετσιάνα που οπως λεει κ η αρωνη,ειναι πατσάς με σαλτσα ντοματα" (with υ instead of ι). FocalPoint (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I also found a "τρίπα φιορεντίνα". FocalPoint (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Greek is not an LDL, but Egyptiot Greek might in my opinion qualify for the more lax attestation criterion. --Lambiam 16:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam, this makes sense. Indeed Egyptiot Greek is not well documented. FocalPoint (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

references/attestation is a matter for WT:RFVN, and modern Greek is a WT:WDL. (Category:Ancient Greek language doesn't even mention Egyptian Greek.) — This unsigned comment was added by 93.221.41.136 (talk) at 17:15, 13 February 2023.

Pretty old but since it hasn't been closed I'm commenting. It is mentioned in an academic publication regarding an endangered idiom, I think that's enough attestation in this case. Antondimak (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

January 2023

триста, тридцать, три

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

Russian. Entered by User:Xyzzyva. I doubt its entry-worthiness. Delete. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Per our criteria for numbers, delete. Vininn126 (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Thadh (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Comment – This is not a number, numeral or ordinal, but a phrase whose meaning (if it can be attested) is opaque. What, precisely, is a potentially valid rationale for its deletion? --Lambiam 17:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep – The usage of countdown phrases is language dependent, often opaque, and sometimes even in dispute (such as 1-2-3, whether to go on 1 or on the beat after)—the kind of phrases that need a dictionary entry to be understood correctly. This one is in no way different than ready, aim, fire, other than the constituent parts being numbers. The numbers in this case don't even mean anything numerical, they're being used for sound and familiarity. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep on the same basis. It's not at all clear what this means without context, and it certainly isn't a number. Theknightwho (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep per Lambiam; I don't know how I would feel about the Russian equivalent of "three, two, one" (which is at least obviously counting in a sequence), but "three hundred, thirty, three" is definitely opaque, the meaning/use is not guessable from the parts IMO. - -sche (discuss) 23:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

hiersum

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Old English. To my knowledge, hīersum isn't attested (cf stīele). The old Leasnam would have loved to create hīersum, and I almost did, but I've been converted. The WS hȳrsum is the most common attested form, the other being hērsum. Leasnam (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Unless you feel the need to create a reconstruction entry, delete. ~~I don't think anyone would have cared either or.~~ -- Skiulinamo (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see @Hundwine believes normalizing spellings without marking them as reconstructions is the way to go. I disagree and find that practice outdated and misleading. --Skiulinamo (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Normalizing spellings is not outdated at all. It's easy to find recent works that normalize spellings, e.g. Fulk's A Comparative Grammar of the Early Germanic Languages and Ringe & Taylor's The Development of Old English. All dictionaries that I'm aware of do it, including wiktionary.

As far as it being "misleading": has anyone come out and said, "I was misled"? Or is this hypothetical? I talk to people who study Old English all the time, and no one has ever complained that the normalized spellings on wiktionary caused them any problems. In fact it makes looking up words easier, since you can often tell what the normalized spelling of a word will be by glancing it at, whereas idk how anyone's supposed to predict which alternative spelling is gonna be prioritized for each word if the normalization is done away with. Some words appear with dozens of different spellings.

In fact, requiring all spellings to be attested, and not just all words, would cause huge practical difficulties. Presumably this would have to go for every inflection of a word, since those are supposed to have pages too and they're automatically linked to on the mobile version of wiktionary. That greatly multiplies the number of spellings that have to be checked for attestation and the number of new reconstruction pages to be created, to the point where the category for reconstructed words will be unusable or the same declension tables will be full of different spellings from different dialects, depending on which ones are attested. It's a ton of work just to make the site inconsistent and unwieldy. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure there is no source that lists every attested spelling of every word, so the task is not just onerous but impossible. Much better to just keep the normalized spellings. Hundwine (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

For the record this was relatively recently discussed at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/October#Normalization of Umbrian (@Catonif), perhaps {{normalized}} should be used for OE as well. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I find normalizing the spelling of these types of vowels to be misleading or potentially misleading. (I certainly don't have an issue with normalizing the spelling of letters with the same pronunciation, such as ƿ > w, ð > þ). To give a specific example, even with the disclaimers at ielf, I didn't realize that that form is alleged to be completely unattested until reading the following statement in The Meanings of Elf and Elves in Medieval England (by Alaric Timothy Peter Hall (2004): "Nor is *ielf, the i-mutated form of West Saxon */æ^ulβi/, attested (the form <IELF> on coins being an epigraphic variant of <ÆLF>: Colman 1992, 161– 62; 1996, 22–23); the absence is worth noting because ielf is frequently cited in grammars and dictionaries" (page 212). I wonder whether the same applies to derivatives such as ielfisċ or ielfcynn, which do not even include any disclaimers. Even if this word is a special case, the fact that the form ælf could be "borrowed into West Saxon at an early date" indicates that this kind of inter-dialectal borrowing was possible. I wonder whether this kind of issue is particularly likely to occur with "ie", which seems to be pretty limited in terms of actual attestation (I think it only occurs in Early West Saxon)?

Aside from vowels, another point that I was misled on is the existence of infinitives of modal verbs such as mōtan and sculan: apparently they are not attested ("The evolution of surviving English preterite-present verbs (āgan, cunnan, *durran, *magan, *mōtan, *sculan): a corpus-based study", Magdalena Tomaszewska, 2019) and it has been argued in some linguistic literature that this absence was not accidental, but grammatically determined ("Grammaticalization of modals in Dutch: uncontingent change", Griet Coupe and Ans Van Kemenade, March 2009, in Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory (pp.250-270), Editors: Paola Crisma, Giuseppe Longobardi; see page 4). There probably will not be many similar cases of defective verbs; although it's typical to cite verbs in the infinitive, maybe it would be worthwhile for us to add an asterisk or note to these verb's inflection tables?--Urszag (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind normalised spellings either, but we need to decide one way or the other on this. There needs to be consensus. If there were simply ONE attested form as hīersum (and 10 of another spelling), I would have made the entry as hīersum, heck that IS the most etymologically perfect form. But other editors have pulled me the other direction. Please, let us decide on one and stick with that. I edit across multiple languages, and I cannot keep track of micro-preferences for each. Leasnam (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

February 2023

-zki

Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Grease pit/2023/February.

Please delate the page -zki (and it feminine version: -zka) In Polish, there is one ending -ski, but it shifts some consonant cluster to -cki (when the last letter represents some voiceless consonants in our alphabet, e.g. Sopot + -ski = sopocki) or -dzki (when the last letter represents voiced consonant, e.g. Łódź + -ski = łódzki) -- both are pronounced the same.

The only reason that English Wiktionary has 3 forms, is because it has also 2 forms for -izna (-izna, -yzna) that also depends on the last consonant before it.

There is no "special" -zki ending in Polish language. And the link to the page should be for -dzki. There is the difference (both pronounced the same) between: Francuzki 'French women' (Francuz 'French man') and francuski 'French' (adj.).

If your language has a word with -zki, you should add it as part of that language, because in Polish -z- here is a part of the digraph in -dzki.

Regards. Caslonc (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep; -d- is part of the stem; -zki is the voiced allomorph of -ski. P U C – 18:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. I'm only now noticing we've had -zki instead of -dzki from the very beginning, but I'd be inclined to change it per the request if we're to analyze either as separate from -ski. I don't really see how -zki can be the voiced allomorph of -ski; the -k- devoices the preceding obstruent, so it never is actually voiced, and given together with the -d- stem it constitutes the digraph dz, making it pronounced identically to -cki, it makes no sense to analyze it as separate (nor have I seen others do so prior). Hythonia (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete per Hythonia, and considering there are many natives who see it this way, I'm inclined to speedy (but I won't). Vininn126 (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Move to -dzki and mark it as an alternative spelling of -ski. But I think we should get rid of Category:Polish terms suffixed with -cki and Category:Polish terms suffixed with -zki and move all suffixed terms to Category:Polish terms suffixed with -ski.--Urszag (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I was wrong about the sonorization, but -cki and -dzki still aren't suffixes: in both cases the real, underlying suffix is -ski. That -s- is written differently when next to a dental doesn't change that fact; it's simply a spelling feature. So: keep -ski, explain everything there, and delete the rest. P U C – 13:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

FYI the general practice is to keep entries for allomorphs of suffixes and soft-redirect them to the canonical form. This is done in several languages. Benwing2 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 The underlying suffix is "-ski", these are merely orthographical variants that shouldn't affect our analysis at all, jeez. Delete Shumkichi (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

also, who cares how other languages are treated? that's not a valid argument. change them too, here, problem solved. Shumkichi (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Shumkichi Being consistent across languages and esp. Slavic languages *IS* important IMO. Benwing2 (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

tl;dr delete voices: 4 (sorry, 5, if we count the person who proposed it); keep voices: 1. delete Shumkichi (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Soft redirect from -dzki per Urszag and Benwing. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

mennä nukkumaan

Latest comment: 27 days ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Finnish. Surjection suggested it be deleted. P U C – 13:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. I haven't changed my mind - you can replace mennä with basically any synonym, and even terms that aren't synonyms, like palata (“to go back”) to form palata nukkumaan (“to go back to bed”). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why? We have go to bed. This is the Finnish equivalent to it. This is the type of saying one might want to look up in a dictionary - in other words it is a useful entry. It does not matter if many verbs can be combined with "nukkumaan": this is by far the most common way to express "go to bed" in Finnish. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

The English entry is basically a translation hub with some additional idiomatic meanings that the Finnish word does not have. Besides, mennä nukkumaan is not the overwhelmingly most common way to express this concept. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

As we have mennä nukkumaan and laittaa nukkumaan as usage examples under nukkua we might as well delete these two as separate entries - to get rid of the RFD's, if not for anything else. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete, this and laittaa nukkumaan, per consensus. Wikiuser815 (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

laittaa nukkumaan

Finnish. Like mennä nukkumaan above. Better as a collocation. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Hekaheka as the creator of this and the one above — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why? We have put to sleep. This is the Finnish equivalent to it. This is the type of saying one might want to look up in a dictionary - in other words it is a useful entry. It does not matter if many verbs can be combined with "nukkumaan": this is probably the most common way to express "put to sleep" in Finnish.--Hekaheka (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

As above. The English entry is basically a translation hub and doesn't justify the existence of the Finnish entry. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Both RFD-deleted — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Two unencoded entries

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

𐮱𐮵𐮿

𐮼𐮵𐮹𐮵𐮵

Middle Persian. These two terms are supposed to be in the Book Pahlavi script, but it hasn't been encoded in Unicode yet. As such, they're using codepoints that haven't been assigned. I suspect they're using suggested codepoints from some kind of application to encode the script, but the document Unicode link to from their roadmap doesn't have them. Not that it matters much, as we wouldn't be able to rely on mere applications anyway.

I should stress that this is very different to the situation we had a few months ago with some Kaktovik characters. Those were added a few months before Kaktovik was added in Unicode 15, but after the codepoints had been finalised (meaning they were very unlikely to change). Book Pahlavi hasn't even been accepted into Unicode yet - and may not be for several more years - so the whole block might end up somewhere totally different; nevermind the fact that the characters within it are very likely to change, too.

It's just not tenable for us to have entries like this, as they're essentially unusable.

Note: we also have Module:Phlv-translit, which is a transliteration module for Book Pahlavi that suffers from the same problem. I've nominated it at WT:RFDO. Theknightwho (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete, they ain’t much good. Fay Freak (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sadly, unicode approval of Phlv got derailed from when I created Module:Phlv-translit, while communicating with Roozbeh Pournader. I would move it under my userspace but "Scribunto" content is not allowed on page, so please just keep for now. Delete the two entries though. -- Sokkjō 21:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sokkjo You can put modules in your userspace by prefixing them with User:Sokkjo:. Technically it's still in the module namespace, but the software treats it like it's your userspace anyway. Theknightwho (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to try, but I get the error above. -- Sokkjō 21:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Derp - I meant Module:User:Sokkjo:. Theknightwho (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

παρενδυσιομανής

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Greek. Not enough references. This seems to be a made-up word. --FocalPoint (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

This and the one below should be handled at WT:RFVN if the problem is lack of attestation. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

παρενδυσιομανία

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Greek.

I could not find enough references. It seems like a made up word. --FocalPoint (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I believe that correct term is παρενδυσία, although I'm not experienced enough in Greek to say definitively that παρενδυσιομανία is indeed incorrect. – Guitarmankev1 ^(talk) 13:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

March 2023

U+0085 and similar redirects

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We have an entry at [18] (not sure how else to link to it) that is a redirect to Appendix:Control characters#C1 set. This and other non-printing control chars in the C1 plane are listed in Appendix:Unicode/Latin-1 Supplement. Pywikibot actually chokes on the U+0085 entry, throwing an InvalidTitle error. I don't see the point of this at all and it creates technical issues, so delete it. Benwing2 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete and salt. That sounds like a bug in Pywikibot - my guess is that it’s set to assume all control characters are bad titles, when in fact that only applies to the C0 codes. That being said, allowing C1 codes as titles is probably a bug in the first place - this was flagged way back in 2006, and it’s still not fixed: [19]. I’d normally be ambivalent about having them, but since they’re almost certainly useless, we should get rid of them to stop any technical problems they’re causing. Theknightwho (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Charta 77

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Czech. Encyclopedic material. Vininn126 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Benwing2 (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep, names of political movements seem to be included in en.wikt, see e.g. New Labour. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

April 2023

olla samaa mieltä

Latest comment: 25 days ago9 comments3 people in discussion

olla eri mieltä

olla sitä mieltä

Finnish. These are now SOP that olla mieltä exists, and it's a better place to present these anyway. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've redirected olla sitä mieltä (I didn't notice I had created it). That only leaves the other two. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I think instead of deleting it's better to redirect to olla mieltä. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Redirect both to olla jotain mieltä. Wikiuser815 (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering if the lemma should be olla jotakin mieltä because olla mieltä is hardly ever used independently. Olla mieltä should then be redirected to this. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is quite often used independently in e.g. questions (mitä olet mieltä?). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that's true. The correspondent of "jotakin" in your example is "mitä"? There's always a pronoun in partitive, except in case of "eri". --Hekaheka (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Arguably so. I'm not really sure which lemma would be better, but they should definitely at least point to each other. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Redirected. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

zne-

Latest comment: 6 months ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Czech. This is imo incorrect, or at least unnecessary. Looking at the definition, it feels like someone took the English prefix mis- as a starting point and tried to make Czech fit it.

znečistit is not zne- + čistit, but z- + ne- + čistit or z- + nečistý + -it or z- + ne- + čistý + -it
znemravnit is not zne- + mravný + -it, but z- + nemravný + -it or z- + ne- + mravný + -it
zneškodnit is not zne- + škodný + -it, but z- + neškodný + -it or z- + ne- + škodný + -it

Etc. P U C – 11:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Voting delete but perhaps if someone more knowledgeable than me votes otherwise I might listen, but I am basing this on Polish niedo-, which is a pseudo-affix. Vininn126 (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree and this is good to know. I personally would be appreciative of having the option to know this is a misnomer. Perhaps listing it as a misnomer. Another aspect, if zne (actually 2 stacked prefixes) is removed as a (single) prefix, and then I search "czech words beginning with zne", would these "double prefix" words not populate? just a thought. 75.201.24.4 15:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Don't know Czech remotely well enough, but this would appear to be a situation analogical to Polish za- + nie-? In verbs like zanieczyścić, zaniemówić, zaniedbać, zaniemóc and so on. Hythonia (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

delete z(e)- -et/-ět, z- -it/-nit (se) ɶLerman (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jansen van Vuuren

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Cebuano. @Carl Francis. If anything, it should be an Afrikaans name. It's equivalent to having, for example, a Guarani name labelled "van Helsing". Kwékwlos (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

We have Lomboy as an English surname from Cebuano, Leblanc as a German surname from French, and Zaldarriaga as a Cebuano surname from Basque. If these are possible, why not this one? It is more likely, though, if attestable as a Cebuano surname, that it should be defined as a Cebuano surname from Afrikaans. --Lambiam 19:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Many non-canonical (i.e. not native or from Spain) family names permanently have made their way into the Philippines via migration or intermarriage. I have mentioned the well-known Tausug family name Schuck in a related discussion. This is not a matter of "weil nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf", but we need solid attestations. The creator of these entries (@Carl Francis) still owns us a proper explanation about what motivated them beyond their stupid comment ("This is stupid") in the Beer Parlour[20].

@Kwékwlos: Please take them to RfV, not here. It would be best to consolidate all into a single section. Austronesier (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sommerauer

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Cebuano. @Carl Francis. Why did you add an Austrian name when this should be a German entry instead? Kwékwlos (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Take this to RFV. Theknightwho (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Unsupported titles/g tag

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Translingual. This is used in Internet slang to indicate that the user is grinning. However, the enclosing < > symbols can be replaced with * * or even ( ). Furthermore, any word (or sentence) can be used in a similar manner (common examples include the unabbreviated <grin>, <facepalm> and <sarcasm>, see also the list at * *). I've added an identical sense to g#Noun, so this entry is now a sum of its parts (g + < >). There is also German *fg* (“cheeky grin”), which could probably be moved to fg. Einstein2 (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ok, delete and move. Fay Freak (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

حقدا

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arabic. Any verbal noun can be used that way. It’s called مَفْعُول لِأَجْلِهِ (mafʕūl liʔajlihi). --2001:16A2:EBBD:1F00:5C20:928E:3C40:C0FD 01:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

یوگیہ

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#یوگیہ.

pojistná smlouva, nájemní smlouva

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Czech. Respectively "insurance contract", "rental contract". Both seem SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Vininn126 (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Abstain for now, it's a grey area imo.

We have an entry for insurance policy (insurance contract is a synonym-of entry), and there are several translations there themselves worthy of an entry.
We don't have an entry for rental contract or lease agreement, but imo we could. Although they probably wouldn't be protected by THUB in its current version, gathering translations there (French contrat de bail for example) could still be useful.
What about kupní smlouva (“contract of sale”) and pracovní smlouva (“employment contract”)? P U C – 09:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep per arguments by PUC. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

vedestä noutava lintukoira

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Finnish. SOP: "a bird-hunting dog that fetches [birds] from the water". @Hekaheka as creator — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

SOP - yeah, in Finnish it is, but it is not self-evident nor easily or in fact at all guessable that this is water dog in English and not a "bird dog that fetches from water" nor a "from-water-fetching bird dog". One important function for an interlingual dictionary is to help people find foreign-language equivalents for precise (even if they are SOP-) terms in their own language. Unless you can come up with a better way to tell to the users that this term actually translates as "water dog" into English, I would keep it. Are we writing the dictionary for actual users or for some other purpose? --Hekaheka (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

We can have it as a collocation and keep it as a translation for water dog - that ought to be enough. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Delete, move to collocation. Vininn126 (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Besides, it's actually wrong. water dog is not technically restricted to dogs that hunt fowl. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

římské právo

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Czech. SOP, meaning is "Ancient Roman law". (We could have any number of similar terms referring to specific cultures, and all would be SOP.) Benwing2 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Vininn126 (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

We do have Roman law, though. I don't know how I feel about French droit romain. Abstain for now. @Fay Freak? P U C – 16:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep as it is corresponding to Roman law. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

May 2023

kvalitativní ukazatel, kvantitativní ukazatel

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Czech. Respectively "qualitative indicator", "quantitative indicator". Both SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete, unless someone thinks this is WT:PRIOR, but I think if both entries are separately updated these could be turned into collocations. Vininn126 (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete, SOP. P U C – 17:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

ingen alls

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Swedish SOP: ingen (“nobody”) + alls (“whatsoever, at all”). Glades12 (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Alla tajders, Mårtensås What do ya'll think, is "ingen alls" a valid term in Swedish?Tollef Salemann (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

That is not relevant. No one will dispute that none at all is a valid term in English, yet it does not meet our criteria for inclusion|. --Lambiam 13:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

účetní závěrka

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Czech. "Financial statement", for which we don't have an English equivalent in Wiktionary, which strongly suggests this is SOP. I have created závěrka, and one of its meanings is "(financial) statement". Benwing2 (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Leaning delete, however there might be a case for WT:PRIOR. Vininn126 (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep per WT:PRIOR. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Шизгара

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Russian. I'm not sure whether we should keep this, hence why I have put it to RfD rather than using {{d}}. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's not a dictionary material, IMO, even if if something may find it interesting. Lean on deleting. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

ماديا

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Arabic. SoP. Regular derivation of adverbs. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 09:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

We normally allow pages for inflected forms. If the rule for Arabic is different then Wiktionary:About Arabic should have an explanation of the policy. Or do you mean it should simply be defined as an accusative case and not as an adverb? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

أدبيا

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arabic. Same as above. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 09:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

بەيلە

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Kazakh. Misspelling of بەلە. LibCae (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

somor

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Pecheneg. Tagged by an IP. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 22:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Failed Vipgame321 (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

elĉifrigilo

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Esperanto. No sources, hardly any usable Google results. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

liepota

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Whoever created this page was probably imitating the orthographic norms of 19th century Croatian and NDH (1942—1945). The problem is that in this word 'ie' is not correct according to those norms, cf. the NDH orthographic manual – it's just ljepota. The form may have been used somewhere before the 19th century, but without an attestation that's just speculation, there's no attestation even in the JAZU dictionary. — Phazd (talk|contribs) 01:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Phazd: This is incorrect. I have no difficulties finding mid- and late-19th century texts having this word, and others of the same stem, in this spelling. Fay Freak (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak Fair enough. I must however question whether noting the endless variety of pre-Vuk/-Broz spellings of BCMS has any value at all, even for professional linguists. — Phazd (talk|contribs) 18:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

June 2023

Category:Ubykh_language

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments5 people in discussion

It appears that some 1,350 words in this language use a transcription system that is, to put it lightly, completely made up. The guide for the transliteration (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Ubykh_transliteration) given has no basis in Ubykh literature and in the user talk pages you can see these editors discuss what letters are used for the transliteration.

The only writing system this language has used in recorded history was the Turkish Latin alphabet and a transcription system based off of this snippet is in the back of A Grammar of Ubykh (ISBN-10: 3862880508) which can be visually shown here. ~ Burned Toast (talk)

You’re not wrong. This was done on the basis that it’s used by Ubykh revivalists, as it’s an extended form of the Abkhaz alphabet, but I’ve not actually seen anything that suggests it’s actually in use. @Thadh, Apsaros1921? Theknightwho (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vahagn Petrosyan. Thadh (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is an unwritten, extinct language. The language is attested in scholarly works, each using a different transcription system. There is no standard. We can choose whichever system we want and even devise our own one as long as the spelling normalization rules are clearly documented. Vahag (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Piggybacking on this comment, since Russia generally doesn't generally have a high tolerance of non-Cyrillic writing systems (to put it mildly), most languages will eventually develop a Cyrillic orthography one way or the other, if any is developed at all. The only exceptions to this I can think of are Finnic languages and communities in Siberia whose mainstream counterparts live outside of Russia. Hence, if we are to create a writing system based on the fact that the language is undocumented, since Ubykh was spoken on the territory of Russia, I indeed believe it's best to devise a Cyrillic-based orthography. Thadh (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

However, most ethnic Ubykhs live in Turkey since the Caucasian war with the Russians (1864). Sure, it could make sense to base it off of Cyrillic since their native land is modern day Sochi but most of them live Turkey or other places that use a non-Cyrillic writing system. Burned Toast (talk) Burned Toast (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

In that case I don't see any problem in adopting a different kind of orthography. I was making general statements more than anything else, since I'm not familiar with Ubykh myself. Thadh (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

The ethnic Ubykhs have forgotten their language. We can choose Latin to make it easier for them to study their ancestral language. Or we can choose Cyrillic for consistency with all the other Northwest Caucasian languages. It doesn't really matter. These things are usually decided by the active editors of the language. Our only active editor is Apsaros1921 and he prefers Cyrillic. Vahag (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

That is not an acceptable answer. Burned Toast (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is it solely attested in scholar's works? CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can tell, yes. Vahag (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

The issue in this case is that the most recent publication of Ubykh literature has Fenwick state that the language has three vowels, which contrast in quality not length: [ɐ ɜ ɨ]. The entries use a very old dictionary with a transcription system (which the user has based his off of) which can't accurately describe the language as it includes vowels that don't exist - such as /oː/ which has been rejected by everyone else in the field - or excludes consonants from words that should exist. So none of the entries are correct on two points. If we are going to include any Ubykh at all, we should include a citation to A Grammar of Ubykh since it is the most up-to-date work in the field. Burned Toast (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Expand Wiktionary:Ubykh transliteration by adding columns for all available transcription systems for Ubykh like I did for Laz at Wiktionary:Laz transliteration. Choose one of the columns as Wiktionary standard. Convince Apsaros1921 to use it. Describe the normalization rules from all other systems to your system. Vahag (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

تو را

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just + . Not in any dictionary I can find.--Saranamd (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

মীর জাফর

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bengali sense: Mir Jafar. The meaning of the specific person is clearly out of scope by virtue of WT:NSE.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

saliʔ

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Lushootseed. Converting {{d}} to {{rfd}} since I don't know, comment from the nominator: "sáliʔ is the correct spelling -PersusjCP" - TheDaveRoss 12:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@CedarForest14 as someone who probably knows something about this. Thadh (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lushootseed uses accents over vowels to mark stress in dictionaries and such, but are omitted during regular writing. For example the entry for saliʔ in the dictionary (Bates et al. 435) is sáliʔ rather than saliʔ. I am fine with Lushootseed entries on Wiktionary either incorporating accents (which is proper, but potentially misleading for those not educated in Lushootseed) or dropping them (which is less proper for a dictionary), as long as there is consistency. I guess it depends on the precedent set by other languages with optional academic stress markers (like Hebrew?) but I don't know what that is here on Wiktionary. PersusjCP (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm also happy to follow whatever seems to be in suit with other such projects, but can say that the vast majority of Lushootseed entries so far have been made without stress markers. When I started adding Lushootseed entries, I did my best to follow what the majority of the pre-existing entries seemed to go with beforehand.

I'll also add that stress is different from dialect to dialect. The Bates-Hess-Hilbert dictionary doesn't mark the difference between Northern & Southern dialects in terms of stress, & while we can try to determine based off the speakers cited in the example usages, it's hard to say which the markers usually follow (although much of the dictionary treats Northern as the standard, we can't assume, & it isn't clearly stated). The inconsistency of stress, & the fact that we don't currently make the clearest distinctions between Northern & Southern except as marked in entry text, leads me to think that the accents might be overly misleading & best dropped. CedarForest14 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

My personal preference would be to omit stress markers, like you I agree it is misleading, as I often see people copy-paste Lushootseed with the markers included. Sadly there isn't much precedent for either online, however in my personal experience working with the language, the stress markers were omitted. I think either works as long as there is consistency. I'm fine with moving all the Lushootseed entries to not have stress markers. Like you said, I think they could have a place wherever dialectical differences might be marked, which really isn't part of many entries as of now. PersusjCP (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@PersusjCP@CedarForest14 Hey folks, I also agree that accents should probably be dropped in page names for the same reasons. Although, maybe we should include them in the pages themselves somehow? They may differ across dialects, but recording the accents from the Bates et al. dictionary would be really valuable.

Looking forward to contributing more to Lushootseed on wiktionary with you all in the future! AdJHu (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The pronunciation section has that information as part of the IPA, so there is really no need. We can make different entries in the pronunciation section for different pronunciations, if it is spelled the same. Different spellings should probably be their own pages though, under alternate forms. I'm going to start moving pages to have no stress markers based on this discussion. saliʔ should not be deleted, either. PersusjCP (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

ônamaq

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Khalaj. Tagged {{d}} by User:Xenos melophilos, no rationale given. - TheDaveRoss 15:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Here's why: what I have seen is that in a word where a vowel is followed by "y" (for example bôyun and oynamaq), the "y" is dropped and replaced with vowel length (so oynamaq becomes "ônamaq" and "bôyun" becomes "bôun"). In the case of "bôun", this becomes"bûun" because of diphthongization. Xenos melophilos (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

User:TheDaveRoss edit-warring over removing deletion tags, refuses to follow procedure

Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments5 people in discussion

Rather than contributing to the edit-war, I'm reporting it here.

The instructions on the deletion tag are that, if DR contests the deletion, they should file an {rfd} or {rfv} and ask for review here.

The reason for the nomination is that there is no content apart from the Unicode data. DR agrees that is reason for quick deletion, but argues that mathematical symbols should be exempt. They give no reason why there should be an exemption.

These entries may actually be harmful, as many Unicode names are misnomers. If the "definition" blindly repeats the Unicode name, we risk mis-defining the symbol. At the very least, if we can't devise a definition ourselves, there should be a link to the WP article that covers the usage. If we can't identify usage, we have no way of knowing if the Unicode name is accurate as a definition. Also, if the name is e.g. "circulation function", as one of them is, and we independently link 'circulation' and 'function', then we have a fake definition, because this mathematical usage is not covered under our entry for 'circulation'.

(In fact, when I changed the link to the phrase 'circulation function', making it clear (by being a red link) that we don't actually have a definition for this symbol, DR reverted it to the fake definition.)

All of which means these articles should be deleted, unless someone is able to verify/correct/cite them.

They are ⫛ ⨼ ⨝ ⨖ ⨑ ⨐ ⨋ ⨋ ⨊ ⧧ ⅄.

kwami (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

So if they can be verified, we shouldn't delete them? I sure wish we had an established process that other editors could use to verify... and if only there were a template to request verification... Vininn126 (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Even if they can be verified, they're not intelligible definitions. They provide the reader no understanding of what the symbol is actually for. I've cleaned up a few, but I've never seen most of them. If we have an article with an empty/fake definition, it should be deleted. RfV templates sit for months with no action. There would be almost zero effort involved in recreating these articles, and meanwhile we haven't lost any information (the Unicode name is visible when you check a character with a red link). kwami (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

So that gives you the right to subvert the entire process, instead of trying to rewrite a definition to make it better/check if it's real? We don't do that for anything else, I don't see why these should get special permission. Stick to the process like the rest of us. Vininn126 (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I *was* following process. DR is the one subverting it, by refusing to follow the straightforward instructions on the {d} tag. I'm already doing their work for them.

As I said, I have rewritten definitions in some cases. But in most I have no idea what I'm talking about, so it would not be appropriate for me to add some garbage and pretend it's a definition. That's the problem I'm trying to fix. kwami (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is a long-standing custom to not use {{d}} if the matter is not clear and has to be discussed. You were told numerous times that this was the case here, yet you continue to use the template. Stop making others do your work for you and start using {{rfv}} and {{rfd}} yourself! Thadh (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Um, this thread is from a month ago. Where have I done this in the past month?

Also, if the instructions for how to use {d} are wrong (as multiple people have now said they are), you might consider correcting them so they do not mislead people who do not have inside knowledge. kwami (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The documentation seems straightforward and accurate to me? "If there is any possibility that the entry should maybe be retained for any reason whatsoever, then use {{rfd}} instead." —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The template itself says that if you believe it should be kept, then you should change it to rfd. Evidently that is incorrect, or at least that is what people have been saying. kwami (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't see what is incorrect or misleading here. The notice on the template serves to inform anyone who comes across it that they can change it to an RFD if they challenge it. That does not contradict, and rather reinforces, the convention noted in the documentation that if you perceive any chance of it being challenged in the first place you should save people's time by not using it in the first place. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see, sorry, Richard adding a new thread threw me off. Thadh (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Thadh: I'm sorry, but I think they're going to have to be picked off one-by-one. I suspect that even the three path integrals (⨖ ⨑ ⨐) are not going to be bunchable, and the Southfork symbol (⅄) is probably on its own. The modulo two sum ⨊ is probably exactly what it says, but finding evidence may be difficult. (I think it comes from a use of ⊕ as sum modulo 2.) --RichardW57m (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

⫛

'Keep'. The definition 'transverse intersection' works fine for the intersection of one-dimensional submanifolds of a two-dimensional manifold. I've referenced the general definition under transverse. We ought to add the verbal meaning 'to [[intersect]] [[traverse]]ly', but I can't find an acceptable quotation for that either. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I added a 'geometry' tag and your definition. kwami (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami:

The moratorium on editing these has not been lisfted.
You mangled my definition. I said that looking up the words of the definition worked in one case, which I suppose is the prototypical case. It should actually work well now - those who need the definition should have enough background to at least vaguely understand the definition in Wikipedia. The term is not limited to one-dimensional submanifolds of a two-dimensional manifold.

At least we're now mainly into {{rfc}} territory: {{rfv}} would be disruptive. --RichardW57m (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

⧧

I've found some examples of use - Quiet Quentin delivers some, and Google yielded https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01166. They're a bit esoteric, but they're showing usage, and it looks as thought the meaning is indeed as non-specific as 'thermodynamic'. So here are three quotations from Quiet Quentin, to be added when the moratorium is lifted:

2020 March 4, Gary A. Mabbott, Electroanalytical Chemistry: Principles, Best Practices, and Case Studies, John Wiley & Sons, →ISBN, page 165:
CONTROLLED POTENTIAL METHODS 165 Equilibrium conditions Net reduction Ox + ne Red Ox + ne Red y g ren e Reactants Products e e r F ΔG f ⧧ = ΔG b ⧧ = ΔG o ⧧ ΔGf⧧ = ΔGo⧧–αnF(E–E°ʹ) ΔGb ⧧ = ΔGo ⧧ +(1–α)nF(E–E°ʹ) Reaction coordinate […]
2020 November 22, J. Chris Slootweg, Andrew R. Jupp, Frustrated Lewis Pairs, Springer Nature, →ISBN, page 147:
The kinetic C6H4 (AH⧧ parameters extracted for the formation of 1-NMe2 -2-B(Ar)(thiophenyl)- AG298 = 19.9 ± 1.1 kcal‧mol–1; AS⧧ = − 30.9 ± 3.1 cal‧mol −1 K−1; ⧧ = 28.4 ± 2.0 kcal‧mol–1) are in agreement with the computational data […]
2022 April 17, Jianwei Xu, Ming Hui Chua, Ben Zhong Tang, Aggregation-Induced Emission (AIE): A Practical Guide, Elsevier, →ISBN, page 649:
6 Schematic graph of the two nonradiative decay channels NR-VR and NR-MECP (A) BDP-1A and (B) BDP1G with the Gibbs free energy of activation ΔG⧧, the nonradiative decay rate constants, and the corrected quantum efficiency.

Not the nicest of quotes, but I think we need a thermodynamicist to make the improvements, if possible. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

ledamot av Europeiska kommissionen

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Swedish SOP, meaning "member of the European Commission". Glades12 (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete, SOP. P U C – 15:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

ledamot av Europaparlamentet

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Swedish SOP, meaning "member of the European Parliament". Glades12 (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete, SOP. P U C – 15:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

ไปสู่สรวงสวรรค์

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thai. A sum-of-parts. --Miwako Sato (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

muntra upp sig

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Swedish.

The term is simply the sum of parts (muntra upp + sig). Unlike other reflexive verbs with sig, this does not have a distinct meaning. Gabbe (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Same goes for:

klä av sig = klä av + sig
klä på sig = klä på + sig
ta av sig = ta av + sig
ta på sig = ta på + sig

The argument is identical. Compare modern klädde av barnet ("the mother undressed the child") versus barnet klädde av sig ("the child undressed itself"). No fundamental change in meaning. Gabbe (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

July 2023

one-piecee

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Chinese Pidgin English. SoP: one (=English one) + piecee (classifier). The same construction is valid for other numerals, for example:

examples

1862, 唐景星 [Tong King-sing], 英語集全 [Chinese English Instructor], volume IV, marginalia, page 65; republished as “Pidgin English texts from the Chinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews, Geoff P. Smith, editors, Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics‎^[21], volume 10, number 1, 2005, pages 79-167:

米其地快都卑士
*mai⁵ ki⁴ di⁶ faai³ du¹ bi¹ si⁴
makee divide two piecee
divide this into two
1862, 唐景星 [Tong King-sing], 英語集全 [Chinese English Instructor], volume VI, marginalia, page 43; republished as “Pidgin English texts from the Chinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews, Geoff P. Smith, editors, Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics‎^[22], volume 10, number 1, 2005, pages 79-167:

合吉地⿱竹厘卑時毡地文甘顚拿
*hap⁶ gat¹ di⁶ li¹ bi¹ si⁴ zin¹ di⁶ man⁴ gam¹ din¹ naa⁴
hap got three piecee gentleman come dinner
3 gentlemen dine with me
1862, 唐景星 [Tong King-sing], 英語集全 [Chinese English Instructor], volume VI, marginalia, page 33; republished as “Pidgin English texts from the Chinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews, Geoff P. Smith, editors, Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics‎^[23], volume 10, number 1, 2005, pages 79-167:

合吉昔士卑士林安黎科卑士𠲟忒記巴臣治
*hap⁶ gat¹ sik¹ si⁶ bi¹ si⁴ lam⁴ on¹ lai⁴ fo¹ bi¹ si⁴ gen⁶ tik¹ gi³ baa¹ seon⁴ zi⁶
hap got sixee piecee room only four piecee can takee passenger
6 rooms but only 4 to spare
1862, 唐景星 [Tong King-sing], 英語集全 [Chinese English Instructor], volume VI, marginalia, page 32; republished as “Pidgin English texts from the Chinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews, Geoff P. Smith, editors, Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics‎^[24], volume 10, number 1, 2005, pages 79-167:

昔士地卑士文輝卑士烏文
*sik¹ si⁶ di⁶ bi¹ si⁴ man⁴ fai¹ bi¹ si⁴ wu¹ man⁴
sixty piecee man five piecee woman
60 males and 5 females

I think the reference (Gow) is correct in interpretating this as "one" for the purposes of a guide book, but from a linguistic point of view it's simply sum of parts. – Wpi (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

ႊ

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Shan. @Kwamikagami complained it had no content. I'll add some soon. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to go through and remove the 'delete' tags that I added for the articles that, thanks to you, now have some content, but per above I don't see any problem in you doing that yourself. kwami (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami: Have you not read the top of this page? It takes a month from adding to removing an {{rfd}} tag! --RichardW57m (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep. I've added content, but I can't find anything better than a mention. It looks as though it not a character that would occur in a standard Shan lexicon - see w:Shan language#Tones. --RichardW57m (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

ႌ

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Shan. @Kwamikagami complained it had no content. I'll add some soon. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

BTW, IMO the definitions and examples you're giving are perfect. kwami (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep. I've added a definition and a quotation, though I can't work out what it means. --RichardW57 (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

ႍ

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Shan. @Kwamikagami complained it had no content. I'll add some soon. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep. Content and quotation added. The quotation demonstrates the mark, but it's translation and transliteration need some expert attention. --RichardW57 (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

RFD-kept, has content This, that and the other (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

ႋ

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Shan. @Kwamikagami requested deletion on the grounds of 'no comment'.

Keep. I've added a comment. I've found the same text in several orthographies on p315 of Sai Kam Mong's 'the History and Development of the Shan Scripts', and I may be able to use that for quotations if the need arises. Unfortunately, I don't have much faith in the typesetting of the book. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Correction: The grounds were 'no content', and I added content, not a mere comment. My verdict stands. RichardW57m (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

ဇ

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(Translingual section)

Supposedly translingual when the entry is actually for Burmese. RichardW57m asked about this kind of edit at the Beer Parlor, and was told that the 'translingual' header is for translingual items, and that words/letters of specific languages need to be under the header for that language. Yet he continues to edit-war over the issue, calling for a "ban" of anyone who attempt to correct his abuse.

Burmese belongs under 'Burmese'. Since this entry already has a Burmese section, the 'translingual' section should either be deleted as redundant or turned into a translingual section. Easiest to delete it and let someone create a proper translingual section in the future if they wish.

BTW, I have tried changing these bogus sections to proper translingual ones, only for RichardW57m to revert me. This isn't a confusion over what "Burmese" means, e.g. of the country of Burma or of the Mon-Burmese script -- he admits that means specifically the Burmese language and alphabet (ဇ is the 8th letter of the Burmese alphabet, but may have a different sorting order in other Mon-script alphabets.) These are supposedly "translingual" because of the Burmese Army. kwami (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep. It is the Burmese script representative of the 8th letter of the Brahmi alphabet, which originally represented a voiced unmurmured oral stop (and its descendants prototypically still do) and we are confident that it is the 8th consonant letter of the Burmese, Mon, Pali and Sanskrit alphabets. As there is currently a moratorium on editing single character entries, here are some examples for its translinguality:

Burmese ဇစ် (jac, “zip”)

Mon ဇၞော် (jnok, “big”)

Pali ဇယ (jaya, “victory”)

Rakhine ဇာလောက် (“how many”)

These languages are using the same letter! The letter is best known for its rôle in the Burmese alphabet because the Burmese conquered Burma prior to its conquest by the British, with a massive dimunition in the rôle of Mon. The domination is also demonstrated by the use of the ethnic name of the Burmans to denote the territory in English (and Thai พม่า (pá-mâa), for that matter). --RichardW57m (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

hyvällä tuulella

Latest comment: 27 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Finnish. Sum-of-parts, see tuuli (2), there's also "hyvälle tuulelle", "huonolla tuulella", etc. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete, or redirect to "tuuli". Wikiuser815 (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFD-deleted — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

общественное мнение

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.

Sum of parts. Dylanvt (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Entered in the wrong section. DonnanZ (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)'Reply

Not a Russian-speaker but if public opinion (+ opinion publique etc.) isn't SOP it seems unlikely that this one is. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is there any reason to believe those other ones aren't SOP? They seem to be to me. Dylanvt (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

public opinion arguably involves an idiomatic expansion of opinion (senses 1 and 2), given that strictly speaking an opinion can only be formed and held in the mind of an individual. public opinion is a shorthand for the opinions of individuals considered in aggregate. Voltaigne (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lean on keeping per Voltaigne, also for the terms in other languages. I have expanded translations on public opinion. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

At the very least it involves WT:FRIED since "public opinion" does not just mean "an opinion that is public". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

strona internetowa

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Polish. SOP. Better as a collocation, which WSJP has. Vininn126 (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

August 2023

kafaz lepujsh

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Albanian. SOP. Moved to the collocations of kafaz. Catonif (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete, SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

англо-российский

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Russian. SoP. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Should англо-америка́нский (anglo-amerikánskij) and а́нгло-еги́петский (ánglo-jegípetskij) also be taken into consideration here? Voltaigne (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Voltaigne: Yes. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Vininn126 (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

stopień sprężania

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Polish. SOP, collocation in WSJP, not even in PWN. Vininn126 (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

stosunek płciowy

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Polish. SOP. The term stosunek by itself can mean this. Vininn126 (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not saying it's not SOP (I'm on the fence; let's add it as a collocation at least), but I think your argument isn't good; if anything, it would seem to indicate that stosunek płciowy and stosunek seksualny are pleonastic. I suspect that sense of stosunek arose by ellipsis from stosunek płciowy / stosunek seksualny. P U C – 10:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, the full designations are shortened in speech because it has been perceived as indecent to talk about sex, so the noun without attribute could only mean the same as the noun with attribute after the wieldy term has been established. Thus German Verkehr is entered in dictionaries as “euphemism” and the like. This one though claim to not stand for sexual intercourse but for sexual relation in general, so you hear Verhältnis in old films said with a certain tone for Liebesbeziehung, and even English affair apparently also shortened “euphemistically”. So why do we even have sexual relation? Or as another obvious example, French fille, of which not the most transparent compound term would be SOP to mean “prostitute”, likewise German Dirne if one opines that written-together terms can still be SOP, because the shorter term in this meaning is only secondary. (WT:JIFFY.) Fay Freak (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I believe it might depend language to language - one can see evidence of stosunek being the original metaphor and later collocations being added - I wouldn't exclude it being under influence of other languages however. Agree with PUC it should at least be a collocation. Vininn126 (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

In English one can say that two people are “having a relation”, which is usually understood to be romantic and to include (probably, but not necessarily) sex, but also hanging out together socially. This also applies to “having a long-term relation” but not to “having a good relation”; when someone states they have a good relation with their boss, there is no romantic connotation. If one says two people are “having a sexual relation”, it implies that this is not just “sexual intercourse” (the first definition given at stosunek płciowy), but repeated sexual intercourse during an extended period. The connotation that they are hanging out together socially is absent. I don’t know how this is for Polish, but if it is similar, the term is a SOP. --Lambiam 06:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

stosunek seksualny

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Polish. SOP. The term stosunek can mean this by itself. Vininn126 (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

كهذا

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Arabic. SOP. --2A02:9B0:405B:196:F13E:9AD8:6C42:C3C6 17:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 04:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I thought if would be a good idea to create the page كهذا, as you can also find هكذا, كما, كمن . Why should it be deleted? Mbursar (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

bigarren solairu

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Basque. SOP. Santi2222 (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Interesting cultural difference but this is pure SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't trust what it says about cultural differences: this was created by an Indonesian IP who was convinced that finding ads in any language with floor listings made them qualified to add translations and entries for those languages. To give you an idea, here they're explaining Finnish floor numbering to a native speaker. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

بمن

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Arabic. SoP. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 04:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I thought if would be a good idea to create the page بمن, as you can also find لمن, عمن, ممن. Why should it be deleted? Mbursar (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

كمن

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Arabic. Determiner. SoP. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 04:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I thought if would be a good idea to create the entry كمن, as you can also find لمن, عمن, ممن . Why should it be deleted? Mbursar (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

September 2023

myśli samobójcze

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Polish SOP; compare suicidal thoughts (I'm not sure suicidal ideation deserves an entry either.) P U C – 10:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have mixed feelings on this one - on one hand it seems SOP, on the other it seems lexicalized. Furthermore, I suspect that it's usage in psychology might mean it has a specialized meaning? Unsure. Vininn126 (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

October 2023

सहीफ़ा ख़्वाँ

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hindi. Possibly SOP. Kutchkutch (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete can't find any instance of use except by rekhta dictionary. SOP as, सहीफ़ा(originally: book/writing; in islam: divine scripture) + ख़्वाँ (reader) कालमैत्री (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

ja ci pokażę

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Polish. I'm RFD'ing this to open a broader discussion in general - I feel this definition is already covered in pokazać. Vininn126 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

What is the topic of the wider discussion? --Lambiam 10:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Namely if you look at the usage notes/alt forms of the Polish entry, you'll see that the pronouns can vary widely, meaning we can "boil" them away, leaving us only with "pokazać". I believe this is the same for English. Furthermore, English "show" as in "threaten" can be in the past tense as well. So the broader subject is "the Polish and English forms should just be at the verb". Vininn126 (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

November 2023

يەھۇدى دىنى

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Uyghur. SoP — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 01:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

μ

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Translingual. Sense: “(sciences) micro-”, with the usage example “μs: microsecond”. Added by Equinox. A duplicate of μ-. J3133 (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I thought it was the micro sign. Guess not. Equinox ◑ 18:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. It's a prefix, so it should be entered with a hyphen, as it already is. And µ- (micro sign hyphen) redirects to μ- (mu hyphen). PierreAbbat (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

December 2023

треш стример

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Russian "trash streamer". Few contributions of User:PulauKakatua19 have linguistic value. I can see he also started making Russian/Ukrainian romanised entries and transliterations into Cyrillic. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

треш стрим

As above. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I deleted trash streamer and trash stream (entered as Russian terms!) on sight. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev This is a matter for WT:RFVN. Theknightwho (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure these are verifiable, the question is are these Russian or transliterations/pronunciations of English? Thadh (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Оставить Bortkastningskonto (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Kept, given this was the wrong forum and no-one's voted delete apart from the nominator. Theknightwho (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

djakwo

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Acehnese. Not a real word or a lemma. It’s a combination of the lemmas (obsolete spelling of ‘jak’) ‘djak’ + ‘wo’ (or woë). Monarchatto (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Bulgarian malformed verbal nouns

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion

In Bulgarian, a verb can have a verbal noun derived from it, which in turn can form its own plurals and behave like a noun in its own right. Some of these, such as the ones that end in -е (-e), are able to form the plural form by adding -та (-ta), e.g. ‎бране (brane, “picking, gathering”) + ‎-та (-ta, plural suffix) → ‎бранета (braneta, “pickings, gatherings”). In some cases, they can further be made definite, with the prefixed meaning "the", by suffixing -та (-ta) again, e.g. ‎бранета (braneta) + ‎-та (-ta) → ‎бранетата (branetata, “the pickings”).

However, sometimes, forming the plural is done with the -ния (-nija) suffix instead, and the -та (-ta) suffix is invalid or rare. In the majority of cases, it's -ния (-nija), although there are also times when only -та (-ta) is acceptable. Now, we have recently discovered that there are a lot of entries that were created by mistake using the -та (-ta) rule, many of which by User:ArathVerbFormBot (see бушуванетата) once upon a time. User:Chernorizets sifted through many of these candidates, and we found almost all of them were not worth keeping. As a result, the following ~800 pages, all malformed -та (-ta) plurals and their definite forms, have been found to be in need of deletion (all are totally empty besides the bad Bulgarian content.): User:Kiril kovachev/RFD BG Verbal nouns. If you need to delete these using a bot, I also have them listed in plain text (no wiki formatting, each word on its own line) at User:Kiril kovachev/RFD BG Verbal nouns/plain. Thanks very much, Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 23:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

P.S. For discussions and to see how we arrived at this conclusion, please see Module talk:bg-verb#Verbal nouns are not handled correctly in several ways and User talk:Kiril kovachev/Verbal nouns to check. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 20:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

apragod

Latest comment: 23 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Scottish Gaelic. No uses found. Colin Mark's dictionary appears to be the source of the spelling, with all successive mentions likely able to be traced back either to it, or to Wiktionary itself. Several other dictionaries mention apracot as the correct spelling; a move may be preferable to a deletion. Qwertygiy (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

How about adding labels (like rare), usage notes, and making it an alternative form of a more common form? --05:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I've now created the main entry at apracot and converted apragod to an {{alt form}} and removed the RFD label. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

סאמעט

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Misspelled, and סאַמעט (samet) already exists. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep now. I marked it {{yi-unpointed form of}} a day after this RFD was listed but forgot to say so here. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Every Egyptian hieroglyph entry by User:Loukus999

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments5 people in discussion

These entries are riddled with so many errors (in formatting, matters of fact, referencing, transliteration, and other matters) that it would take more work to fix them than to nuke them all and start from scratch. See comments by various users at User talk:Loukus999. In my opinion, not worth trying to salvage. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 09:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

If the consensus is to delete, I can carry it out. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection Hi! It’s been a month, and it doesn’t seem like further discussion is likely. Would you do the needed deletions? Many thanks! — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 07:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can, but the RFD should be closed in that case. Where would it be archived, though? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe Appendix talk:Unicode/Egyptian Hieroglyphs? Category talk:Egyptian symbols could also make sense. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 07:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, in any case, I'll get to this once I have the time (later today): — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pragmatic solution. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vorziblix, Surjection, Fay Freak Where was the {{rfd}} warning to hint that repair work should not be started? As a partial aid to anyone else tempted to start fixing them, an at least partial list is:

𓎨 𓏞 𓃖 𓄯 𓏋 𓊨 𓏘 𓃒 𓏎

𓐮 𓄮 𓃮 𓊩 𓃄 𓁴 𓐩 𓂺 𓊰 𓃓 𓏁

𓐡 𓃁 𓐫 𓎾 𓃯 𓎿 𓏂 𓇾 𓏠 𓏗 𓁜

𓉴 𓁮 𓈔 𓊚 𓃟 𓏢 𓏙 𓃙 𓊹 𓎽 𓉳

𓉹 𓁿 𓐓 𓐗 𓐘 𓊮 𓂇 𓃡 𓐬 𓊢 𓊭 𓊀 𓏜 𓉻 𓐪

𓃴 𓐐 𓃕 𓏈 𓃷 𓏍 𓐨 𓁧 𓂿 𓃃 𓃛 𓂹 𓁭 𓃔

𓊫 𓏟 𓃢 𓃱 𓊽 𓁝 𓊦 𓃫 𓈈 𓃲 𓏄 𓐖 𓃞 𓊄

𓐏 𓄦 𓊵 𓏡 𓃸 𓃅 𓄂 𓃩 𓃵 𓏚 𓇶

𓃠 𓂾 𓃚 𓇵 𓊯 𓂊 𓏉 𓊑 𓊓 𓐤 𓐎 𓃪 𓃂

𓊕 𓏇 𓈞 𓏊 𓁲 𓎟 𓄒 𓎬 𓐧 𓊬 𓐒 𓃘

𓉶 𓐕 𓉸 𓁯 𓄁 𓃬 𓈒 𓊤 𓐭 𓄢 𓂈 𓐔 𓈜 𓏣

𓃜 𓏖 𓊔 𓄟 𓃝 𓊝 𓊧 𓈃 𓂉 𓉽 𓇿

This was was prepared as a list of entries with language ':Egyptian:'. Formally, the countdown to deletion has not started yet, though they were vanishing as I typed. --RichardW57m (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

If someone competent in Egyptian wants to create valid entries with correct content, that would be great, but as pointed out above and as I (unaware of this RFD) independently noticed and posted at RFC, the entries Loukus999 created had so many errors in formatting/layout and content/notation that it'd be about as easy to create good entries from scratch as to fix everything wrong with the entries that existed. - -sche (discuss) 20:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@RichardW57m: Hi! I concur with -sche above; also see my response at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2024/January#Bulk_Deletion_of_Hieroglyphs. From sheer practical considerations, putting a warning on every single one of the entries in question (there are literally hundreds of them) would be impractical, and at least in my opinion a waste of time that could be better spent on building actual content, considering how little time and effort the original creator of these pages spent on them — almost all the material is just crudely copy/pasted out of Egyptian lexical entries that I made, and often doesn’t belong at the hieroglyph entry in question at all (e.g. all the references are wrong, all the descendants sections are wrong, most of the definitions are misformatted or outright wrong because they’re mindless copy/paste jobs, all the ‘transliterations’ are wrong...). I recognize that it’s not ideal and could be seen as out-of-process; if you want any of the entries in question restored, or want to discuss further before any more deletions take place, we certainly can. I just don’t think there’s anything to be gained from trying to fix these entries when practically everything in them needs to be totally rewritten anyway. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 20:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vorziblix: What was wrong with the new headings? I agree that most of the descendants sections would need rewriting or deleting on a subsequent pass (there are Meroitic descendants for a few of them), and the statuses as phonogram needed massive revision, for which I was at least sorting out the biliterals as I fixed the headers.

As there were less than 200 entries with the colons in the language, it looks as though the headings were at least getting better as Loukus999 progressed.

Are you going to plead enforcement of your copyright for the deletions? --RichardW57m (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@RichardW57m: Nothing was wrong with the new headings; unfortunately, the same cannot be said for all the other content under the headings, which would still need to be totally rewritten. The problem with the copy-pasting wasn’t copyright (as mentioned on my userpage, all content I add is released into the public domain, and I claim no copyright whatsoever over it); rather, the problem is that no effort was put into making sure the copied content belonged on the new entries being created. For instance, all the references in each hieroglyph entry were good references for the particular Egyptian words they were originally copied from, but often had no relevance whatsoever for the hieroglyphs they were being copied to. The descendants sections are another such case; none of them belonged on the hieroglyph entries, since they were listing descendants for particular words, not hieroglyphs. This confusion of words and hieroglyphs ran through the entirety of Loukus999’s entries and is also visible in such things as the misconceived ‘transliterations’ present in many of these entries.

If you’d be willing to fix all these entries thoroughly, rewriting them with reference to actual scholarly sources, I could certainly restore the deleted content for you; just let me know. Again, though, I really don’t see what you would gain compared to just re-creating the entires from scratch. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 13:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vorziblix: I was planning incremental fixes, so the headword lines would probably be fixed in one pass, and the descendants (largely by deletion) in another. It is arguable that there should be an explicit redirect from the words to the transliterations, though again the descendants as words would belong at the main lemma.

The main references I would be using are those I know have access to, Gardiner and Allen, and templates were already set up, but not filled in. Additionally, the headings seemed to be free of typos, apart from the inappropriate colons. I hadn't worked out what to use for the biliterals - I was considering just using a Wikipedia list, though fleshing them out with examples appealed to me.

Unfortunately, I don't think I can commit to reworking about 150 hieroglyphs - I have too many stalled Wiktionary projects - fixing Mon entries, Welsh numbers, Sinhala script Sanskrit, Tai Tham Visuddhimagga, and I'm currently trying to set up Tamil script Sanskrit, which is currently mired in an unresponsive Unicode Technical Committee - there's an issue with the Unicode non-Standard. --RichardW57m (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

January 2024

Old English "phrasebook" entries

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

hu mæg beon butan

hu mæg þæt beon

hwænne bið he acenned

hwænne mot ic hine geseon

ic beo mid eow

wuna mid me

þær ys an to lafe

Tagged by YthedeGengo but not listed. The deletion reasons on each entry are slightly different, but all boil down to "not a common expression" (not phrasebook material) and WT:SOP. This, that and the other (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC) This, that and the other (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, first time rfd and I forgot about this step. Thank you for adding for me! A couple of those are also not properly normalized to academic Early West Saxon Ythede Gengo (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

تبادلۂ خیال

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Urdu. SOP: exchange of ideas/thoughts Word0151 (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

sweordes ecg

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Old English: "sword's edge"

This seems SOP, even though it's used metaphorically/poetically- more of a collocation than something lexical. This is just one of many possibly-SOP phrase entries that @Wuduweard has created in Old English, Old Saxon and Proto-West-Germanic. I'm nominating just this one to make sure there's consensus in order to avoid disruption if I'm mistaken. If we do decide to delete, there are many more where this came from. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the reason I created these is that these collocations seem to be reconstructable formulae often limited to poetic contexts, though that is definitely debatable. I'm fine with them being deleted if there's consensus. wuduweard (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

djakwo

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Acehnese. Nominated for speedy deletion with rationale "not a lemma, it’s two being combined. From ‘jak’ (obsolete spelling: djak) and ‘woë’". Ultimateria (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ultimateria: In general, I don't see how this automatically stops it also being a word. Additionally, will a user automatically recognise it as two words? Keep, but open to dissuasion. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Vojska Jugoslavije

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Serbo-Croatian for RFD-failed Talk:Yugoslav Army. Ultimateria (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Југословенска народна армија

Jugoslawische Volksarmee

And two translations of Talk:Yugoslav People's Army. Ultimateria (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

at kveldi skal dag leyfa

Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This is a half-line from the Hávamál and only attested there (source). It is sort-of idomatic, but it's not a fixed expression. Nor is it semantically complete, the poem continues listing other things and when one should praise them (e.g. a woman when she is married-off, a frozen river when one has crossed it and so on). @Mnemosientje ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything 03:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete, had assumed the phrase recurred elsewhere but if it only occurs there then the entry should not have been created. A big part of the Edda is gnomic, doesn't mean that all of those verses should be added as proverbs. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. The expression is well documented as an extant idiom in Icelandic. "Að kveldi skal dag lofa" Vettlingr (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vettlingr that can justify the creation of an Icelandic entry að kveldi skal dag lofa but has no bearing on whether an Old Norse entry should exist. This, that and the other (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

funkcja podcałkowa

Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Polish. Potentially SOP. The adjective podcałkowy is used with funkcja podcałkowa most likely the most, but wyrażenie podcałkowe is also used often in the same meaning. Aside from that I was able to find dodajnik podcałkowy [25], element podcałkowy [26], iloczyn podcałkowy [27], and a couple of others. Hythonia (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have mixed feelings - I'm not sure how much WT:PRIOR applies here. Vininn126 (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Failed all. Keep the quotes pls Denazz (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Kinda hard to call it failed when one person says potentially SOP and the other says potentially WT:PRIOR. Vininn126 (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

February 2024

как обычно

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

SOP innit P U C – 14:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

як звичайно

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

SOP innit P U C – 14:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

barúg

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.

This isn't a Welsh word. The creator of this entry misunderstood the initial element of the compound form barúg-wallt as being a stand-alone word when in fact, the acute accent is solely a consequence of its being part of a compound. (Modern spelling would dispense with the hyphen, which in turn would obviate the use of the acute, to give barugwallt.) Llusiduonbach (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Llusiduonbach This is a matter for WT:RFVN. Theknightwho (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Κιωουία

Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Copied at Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#Κιωουία at the request of administrator. Please delete. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 18:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unknown word in Greek script by anon. It also appears at Kyiv#Translations. Discussed at Talk:Κιωουία Thank you. ++ And who is the Medieval author of Med.Latin Kiovia? ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 14:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Could the text (Latin) of the Ferrara-Florence Council be examined? And a Greek translation of it? Also, the texts for the creation of w:Metropolitanate_of_Kyiv? ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 15:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sarri.greek This belongs at WT:RFVN, not here. Theknightwho (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is no mention of this word at all, anywhere. It should have been speedy deleted. FocalPoint (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@FocalPoint That's precisely why we list them at WT:RFV, and RFD is explicitly not for claims that terms don't exist. Even if it was we wouldn't speedy delete it, because the whole point is that we give people time to find attestations. Theknightwho (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Khowar entries

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

All these entries must be deleted, they are all misspelled variations of the actual term, which I have replaced with the correct entries. Akhaeron (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Akhaeron This belongs at WT:RFVN, not here. Theknightwho (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

What do I there? Because that's for verfication of a page but I'm requesting for these entries to be deleted. Akhaeron (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Akhaeron: RFV is for verifying whether the term exists in the language in question. We have entries for misspellings, but only if they've actually been in use and people might find it somewhere- that's a matter for RFV. For Well-Documented Languages we don't bother with rare misspellings, but this is a Less-Documented Language. RFD is for cases where it may exist, but issues like WT:SOP or WT:BRAND mean it would inherently not be suitable for an entry whether it esists or not. If no one finds sufficient evidence of usage that meets WT:CFI, it gets deleted. Also, there's no need to put an {{rfv}} template here (I removed it)- that goes in the entry so people know it's been challenged. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

365

Latest comment: 10 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English.

What's the reason of keeping this number? Literally it has no definition other than it being a number. So it doesn't meet WT:CFI then. Heyandwhoa (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete for non-compliance with WT:CFI, unless there is some idiomatic sense which has not yet been added to the entry. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment: what about as part of expressions such as (but not necessarily limited to) 24/7/365? I've never seen it written like this, but I've heard it, and I can certainly imagine someone wondering what "365" means out of context. Specifying it as shorthand for "every day of the year" might be useful, and we do have a separate entry just for 24/7, so I think perhaps an entry for "365" is justified, although the current entry doesn't really explain why. Of course, this year it could be 366—but nobody uses "366" to mean "every day of the year", and I think that helps explain what distinguishes "365" from other numbers that could, but don't usually possess lexical meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Update: I've supplied a basic definition along those lines, modeling it after the one at 24/7. P Aculeius (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Entry needs fixing up first. Currently it has definitions outside of any language (not Translingual, English, or anything). Equinox ◑ 15:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fixed, sorry! Missed that. Anything else obviously need to be corrected? P Aculeius (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Inqilābī 18:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

unattested ota term

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

-lteen

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Finnish.

I don't think we should have entries for nonstandard suffixes. I'm not opposed to entries for words that are actually used, like tahalteen if properly labelled. But we should not give a non-suspecting user the possibility for misunderstanding that this suffix could be used generally as replacement for -llaan (which we don't even have). --Hekaheka (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Nonstandard suffixes" are fine IMO. No opinion on whether we should have this as an entry, though, but we should probably either have this and -llaan, -lleen, etc. or none of them. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we need -llaan because it is just -lla + -an. Likewise for -lleen.--Hekaheka (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

WT:CFI states:

"All natural languages are acceptable."

Wiktionary isn't a dollar store Kielitoimisto. -lteen is a common and productive suffix, and should be included. -llaan is SOP, in my opinion. brittletheories (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

teẏrn

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Unless anyone can point to any source for ẏ being considered a separate letter from y in any form of Welsh (I don't believe it is), this really should be deleted. Also if the editor is using the Laws of Hywel Dda/Howell the Good on Wikisource, this is Middle Welsh (wlm) not Modern Welsh (cy). Arafsymudwr (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Arafsymudwr Would it not be better to convert this to Middle Welsh? Also, this belongs at WT:RFVN, not here. Theknightwho (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho thanks, I'll remember that. It should be deleted rather than converted (which I have already done for other Middle Welsh mistakenly marked as Welsh), for the same reason that Latin amō goes on the page amo rather than getting a separate page. Arafsymudwr (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Arafsymudwr Makes sense, and that is a valid reason to request deletion here. Theknightwho (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

March 2024

don on

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry to put this up, but this is SoP dōn (“to put”) + on (“on”). :( Leasnam (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

القرآن والسنة

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Arabic. SOP --Etisop (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete, SOP, inasmuch as the English version that occurs. Fay Freak (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

kawi

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Barngarla. See kawu. Request for deletion was added in june 2021. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

taakse poistu

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Finnish. I've learned about SOP since adding this entry, and I see now it's clearly just "taakse" + "poistu"--Wikiuser4815162342 (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC).Reply

Delete — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This seems like a set phrase to me. There's no other way to communicate the same command to a formation of soldiers. The English transmission is missing, though. Keep. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

shouldn't there then be a page for "vasemalle - poistu", "eteen - poistu" and "oikealle - poistu"? Wikiuser4815162342 (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do these commands exist? I did my military service 50 years ago and only remember taakse poistu. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe they do, they're just barely ever issued. See page 34 of this pdf of the 2016 sulkeisjärjestysopas, under 2.15 Poistuminen ja järjestyminen. Wikiuser4815162342 (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

درپں

Urdu. Tagged by @Rodrigo5260 but not listed. Delete. The correct form is at دَرْپَن (darpan), former redirect.

அஃது

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[Middle] Tamil.

I have no clue whether we should treat Middle Tamil as a separate language from Tamil and Old Tamil, but this isn't the way one would do it. All the language codes are "ta", so all the categories say "Tamil". As it stands now, Middle Tamil is treated on Wiktionary as a variety of Tamil, so we shouldn't have entries under a separate Middle Tamil header Chuck Entz (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

slyva

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lithuanian. Rfd-sense: Vocative singular (slỹva) of 'slyvà'.

The lemma, which we name using the nominative singular, 'slyvà', and the vocative singular, 'slỹva', have the same orthogragraphic form, 'slyva'. Therefore, we should not give the vocative singular and the lemma entires in the same section, just as we have no entry for Latin ablative singular mēnsā next to its lemma mēnsa (“table”). --RichardW57 (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

eshte

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I disagree that this page should be deleted because it is an orthographical error; omitting the trema on ë in written Albanian is certainly informal, but it is very common and not any more wrong than it is in Russian, yet alternative spellings of words with ë in Russian are maintained on Wiktionary MaxenceLE (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

begej

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Malay.

This and many other Malay entries created by User:Pgrasie such as imejinesyen and federesen, while made in good faith, have clearly been made up by said user. This is most obvious when one googles for any of these supposed terms whereupon no relevant results in the Malay language would pop up. --GinormousBuildings (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Don't forget that if they're ever used, Malay speakers would likely spell them unadapted. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

April 2024

הראשון

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is not really a definite form. It's essentially some of parts: an adjective with the definite article, "the first". They are just written as one word. In Hebrew, the definite article ה can be added to almost every noun and adjective, it's mostly consistent in orthography, and it's not considered a grammatical form.

(The same could apply to all or almost all entries in Category:Hebrew adjective definite forms, of which there are very few. This is just the first one I encountered.) Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

abajurlu

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Turkish. To me it makes very little sense if any. Correct: many nationalists would like to clean up loanwords in some specific language. Pretty soon we may decide to kick "PUTIN'" out of Russian. Rational? Not necessarily! — This unsigned comment was added by 64.114.129.169 (talk) at 02:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC).Reply

See § abajurlu, abajursuz. --Lambiam 23:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

калонь кундама, калонь кундай

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Moksha. Can't find a reason not to consider them SOP. Thadh (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

abô-abô

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Slovincian.

Not a noun but a construction akin to German "entweder ... oder", as denoted by Lorentz. Should be converted to a collocation. Vininn126 (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is identical to Polish albo-albo which also is translated as "entweder - oder", no reason to delete. Sławobóg (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm fairly certain that was not the intention of the entry in Lorentz's dictionary. Vininn126 (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Svenskar äro vi inte längre, ryssar vilja vi inte bli, låt oss alltså bli finnar.

Latest comment: 4 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

A Swedish quote arguing for Finnish independence. Good material for Wikiquote but not for a dictionary. Glades12 (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It could also be converted into a quotation, but I'd agree that it's not entryworthy. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

What entries would we put the quotation in then? Almost all of the words in it are well-known and in general use today as well as in Ivarsson's time. The only exception to the latter is äro, an archaic but formerly standard verb form. Glades12 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

finne is a good candidate. And in fact, it seems it's already there. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

önümüzdeki

Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Turkish, SoP, not recognized by {{R:tr:TDK}}. Orexan (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The synonymous term sonraki is far and far more common. The literal meaning of the term önümüzdeki is “that is in front of us”. In English it is much more common to use “next week” than ”the week that is in front of us”, and Turkish is not different. However, the term is easily attested. The question is whether it is a transparent sum of parts, for which we do not have a satisfactory criterion in the case of agglutinative languages. Note that the person can be varied, as in önünüzdeki yıl, “the year that is in front of you, which IMO shows the form is transparent. --Lambiam 20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I think your arguments are pretty valid but I just want to clarify that Turkish is way more different than English. If we go by literary translation Turkish doesn't have a proper word for "next" since sonraki also literally means "which is after" and in English we wouldn't say "week which is after". I also don't think that person variability matters since the meaning of "next" is usually lost when the person is changed as in "önümüzdeki yıl" being "upcoming/next year" while "önünüzdeki yıl" being "the year that is in front of you" and not "the next year". So I think its an entry we should have. Kakaeater (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hajksenmeista

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This looks like a misspelling of Hakjsenmeista. Note the spelling of the source word Hakjs.Linguoboy (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

अववर्जति [28]

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sanskrit. Currently a redirect, this form was a pure invention by the original creator of the page (a class 1 verb instead of a class 7 verb from अववृज् (avavṛj)). Exarchus (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

itakysé

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sum-of-parts. Trooper57 (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

lūt

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Old Dutch. Moved to lut, shouldn't use a macron. Preupellor (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

May 2024

-óg

Latest comment: 11 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Polish. This also concerns -óg#Kashubian and -óg#Old_Polish. These stopped being productive in these languages and only exist in inherited forms. Do we want non-productive affixes? Why not include non-productive affixes from PIE as well? Vininn126 (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keep all three. There is no rule against having unproductive suffixes. They are still morphemes and people might want to know what they mean(/meant) and where they come from. There are many entries for unproductive suffixes, e.g. English -en (feminine), Hungarian -ű (present participle). —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

-óg

Kashubian, same as above. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

-óg

Old Polish, same as above. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

1

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Swedish, symbol: “The number one (1).” Redundant to Translingual; identical English sense was removed per RfD in April. J3133 (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFD-deleted, no need to discuss this one further This, that and the other (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

ფრანგული ენა

Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Georgian. Tagged but not listed by @Fenakhay.

It's an SoP as any other language name with ენა (ena). It is more standard to use language names this way, with ენა (ena), they are still SoP. Delete all such terms in Category:ka:Language. @Dixtosa. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Delete Dixtosa (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yep. Delete. Nicodene (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

niiet

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Estonian. Tagged but not listed as "incorrect" by User:Joonas07. Ultimateria (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

pärit olema

Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Estonian. Potentially SOP, but page pärit doesn't exist yet. Ultimateria (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It should exist because come from exists, it also has its own entry in the Estonian dictionary Sõnaveeb. From a learner's point of view, it is very helpful to see the conjugation as it is not clear that the words change order when conjugated, and which case the verb governs ("olema" and "pärit olema" governs different cases). Honestly this is the kind of entry that a learner of Estonian would realistically search for on this website. Supevan (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sõnaveeb isn't a great source. pärit should be a separate entry and the usage can be illustrated in the examples. Including 'olema' in the entry is redundant. Joonas07 (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

silmadega õgima

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Estonian. Tagged but not listed. Ultimateria (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

This literally means "devour with one's eyes" and is glossed in our entry as "to stare at someone or something very single-eyed, greedily, longingly".

The õgima entry has an example: "Naine õgib meest etteheitva pilguga. ― The woman is devouring the man with a reproachful look." If this is a typical way of using that verb, then it is SOP (and should be added more explicitly to the verb's entry).

This really needs input from an Estonian speaker. This, that and the other (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

June 2024

забони форсӣ

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Tajik. SoP. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 12:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete — SAMEER (؂・؄・؏) 21:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

golvanek

Latest comment: 14 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Cornish. Given in a list of birds on this site as a suggested term to be used. However, the Akademi Kernewek's "Terminology Panel" has already opted to borrow Welsh bras instead. There also does not seem to be any consistent or widespread use of this term (see these sites).

Người mang giấm (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. "Suggested term to be used" implies no real-world usage. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

5-DM-Banknote

Latest comment: 8 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

10-DM-Banknote

20-DM-Banknote

50-DM-Banknote

100-DM-Banknote

500-DM-Banknote

1000-DM-Banknote

5-Euro-Banknote

10-Euro-Banknote

20-Euro-Banknote

50-Euro-Banknote

100-Euro-Banknote

Fünf-Euro-Banknote

Zehn-Euro-Banknote

Zwanzig-Euro-Banknote

Fünfzig-Euro-Banknote

Hundert-Euro-Banknote

German.

Big pile of completely SOP, non-lexical entries created by an IP (they have no more meaning than "five euro banknote" would in English). They also created a lot of synonymous entries along the lines of Zehnmarkschein, but since those are more debatable as one word terms I'll leave them for now. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Smurrayinchester: Must be kept due to WT:COALMINE. 😆 IP put the coalmines under hyponyms at Eurobanknote, and even with amounts in words and the whole terms without hyphens they are all valid spellings, as seen edited in FAZ writing Hunderteurobanknote. It is only a question of time till they all have more hits, journalists have a habit of not wasting too much space so far, so 100-€-Banknote wins and in tabloids 100-€-Schein, since the colloquial prefers Schein for Banknote, so start at Fünfeuroschein, more readable than Fünfeurobanknote, yet of equal validity, which in German does not depend so much on actual usage as the English one does. The IP had systematic considerations here. Fay Freak (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think German should be treated like Chinese, i.e. an SoP term is not automatically accepted if it is written without spaces and adequately attested. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@King of Hearts: Preferably. Editors make analogical considerations when deciding whether an entry is even useful, which the IP apparently didn’t, mechanically applying the coalmine rule, which was enacted with an unclear set of languages in mind. Fay Freak (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@King of Hearts: I'd be strongly opposed to that. Luckily, there's long precedent to keep these solidly-written SOPs, see WT:ADE. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

cirkumflektirani a

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Slovene. The name of the symbol The name of the symbol ȃ.

Isn't this just "circumflexed a"? Seems SOP. Theknightwho (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

လ်ုဆီ့

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Eastern Pwo. SOP: Just "one" + "ten". Thadh (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

က်ုဆင့်ထီႋ

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Eastern Pwo. SOP: "elephant + male" = "male elephant". Eastern Pwo has scriptio continua, so it's not a situation like in German. Thadh (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

July 2024

Министерство внутренних дел

Latest comment: 8 months ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Russian. SoP of министерство (ministerstvo, “ministry”) + внутренних (vnutrennix, “interior; domestic”) + дел (del, “affair”). Also cf. the RFD discussion of Talk:ministry of education.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keep. It is clearly idiomatic. 178.49.152.129 16:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete as SOP. Nothing idiomatic about it. Nicodene (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

'Внутренние дела' is an idiom which is not used in any other context. 178.49.152.129 04:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's not what an idiom is. It's precisely as trivial as “internal affairs” in English, of which it is a calque (or both calqued from some other European language). Nicodene (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is no way to deduce the sense of that expression from its constituent words. 178.49.152.129 08:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suppose that's possible if someone is illiterate and can't make sense of the shapes in front of them. Nicodene (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete, obvious SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

biliþe

Old English.

The instance of ⟨biliþe⟩ in the Daniel poem is now regarded as a corrupt spelling of blīþe (“happy”).

Alternatively it could be made into an alternative spelling page for the aforementioned word, with perhaps a note regarding the abnormality and its widely perpetuated misidentification. — This unsigned comment was added by YthedeGengo (talk • contribs) at 05:59, 20 July 2024.

All terms in Category:mul:File formats

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Are we going to include everything in w:List of filename extensions? How does CFI even apply for "words" used by computers? Ioaxxere (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. This are not lexical terms. --Lambiam 11:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

des te meer

Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

SOP: des te + meer Stujul (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note that, from an etymological point of view, the bracketing is not des te +‎ meer but des +‎ te meer. --Lambiam 11:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

True, but my point is more that meer can be substituted with any comparative adjective.

Stujul (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

tanamp chito aiisht hushsa achaffa

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Choctaw. Ignoring the misspelling for now, User:Kmack says "unsure if merits its own entry regardless", which sounds like SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

August 2024

kolme varttia

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Finnish. "three quarters of an hour" is naturally 45 minutes and is not idiomatic. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not so sure. 1) One never uses any other number as specifier together with vartti in the sense "15 minutes". 2) We have the equivalent English expression three-quarters as entry. 3) In other context than time "quarter" is translated into Finnish as neljäsosa. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

1) is because there are more natural ways to express the same concept. Nevertheless, the others are fully understandable and occasionally used; kaksi varttia is probably attestable from BGC. 2) IMO does not mean much, and I'd rather say the English entry should also be deleted. 3) is irrelevant, as vartti itself already means "quarter of an hour", and it is not really possible to interpret kolme varttia any other way. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

mɔ̀

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Yoruba. Rationale was "This page is to be deleted for not following the rules of Yoruba languages entires, in addition to the fact that Ṣábẹ̀ẹ́ has its own ISO code making it its own language". Ultimateria (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. It should be moved to mɔ and put under the Ede Cabe header with proper orthographic rules. I can get to it sometime later if no one else does. AG202 (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mĩ nguỵ

Latest comment: 3 months ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Vietnamese. Tagged with edit summary, “False understanding of the term, as the correct form is Mỹ - Nguỵ or Mỹ, Nguỵ. Meaning Americans and puppets. Nguỵ (僞; illegitimate, pseudo-) here is short for Nguỵ quyền and Nguỵ quân, referring to VNCH forces.” MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete it! Erminwin (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like we have enough information to replace this entry the correct definition at the correct title? Minh Nguyễn ^💬 06:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I re-etymologized and re-glossed it. So should it be kept? @MuDavid

Still, "Mĩ - nguỵ" or "Mĩ, ngụy" (& each form's alternatively spellings) are much more frequently attested. Those entries need created.Erminwin (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it’s still SoP. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

So do I. Still, I can imagine an advocate for "Mĩ - nguỵ ~ Mĩ ngụy" being full-fledged compound, not just SoP by adducing the fact that the somewhat well-attested form "Mĩ, ngụy" defies the punctuation rule (in Vietnamese) that comma should be used to separate items in a list having three or more ("Khi nào nên dùng dấu phẩy? - Khi danh sách có nhiều hơn ba mục, để phân tách rõ ràng giữa các thành phần: [...]" source: https://mytour.vn/vi/blog/bai-viet/chuc-nang-cua-dau-phay-va-vi-du-minh-hoa-ngu-van-lop-6.html ) Erminwin (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’m not sure I follow you there. The fact that people blatantly ignore punctuation rules doesn’t mean much, as a great many Vietnamese people are blissfully unaware of the existence of punctuation (and many other) rules. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@MuDavid: Well, I constructed a hypothetical scenario where somebody claimed that 'Mĩ, nguỵ' is not merely a SoP, but is a full-fledged compound because whoever coining 'Mĩ, nguỵ' violated the punctuation rule regarding how to use comma in a list, therefore, in the coiner's mental grammar, "Mĩ, nguỵ" was a compound word - just one lexical item -, instead of a SoP - a list of two lexical items -; had the coiner (aware and mindful of that rule) intended to coin a mere list consisting of two lexical items "Mĩ" and "nguỵ", they would not have violated that rule. However, you correctly objected that many Vietnamese are not aware of punctuation (& many other) rules, so whoever coining "Mĩ, nguỵ" might also not know that rule at all and might have intended "Mĩ, nguỵ" to be just a SoP, a list of two lexical items. Erminwin (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

So, I will not change my vote to delete this entry (see above discussion). Anyone else? Erminwin (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Doing some more thinking + Googling, I think this may, indeed, be more like a compound than like a juxtaposition, with the following arguments:

Many sources write Mỹ-ngụy, as if it were a full compound for them.
Some write “CIA và Mỹ-Ngụy”, as if “Mĩ, nguỵ” were not just Americans + puppet government but rather a subset of Americans + puppet government. Furthermore, if “Mĩ, nguỵ” were a juxtaposition, it would be “CIA, Mỹ và Ngụy” (or more probably something like “CIA, Mỹ, Ngụy” or “CIA, Mỹ, Ngụy…”); nobody ever puts và in between the first and second element of a three-element list, do they?
Some write “Mỹ-Ngụy, Mỹ-Diệm, Mỹ-Thiệu” as if these were three separate entities rather than four (Mỹ, ngụy, Diệm, Thiệu).

Therefore, I vote keep, but move to a form with hyphen. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

ဗှေ်

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Mon. Currently entered as a "non-standard encoding of" ဗှ်ေ, pulled from the SEAlang Library Mon Dictionary, apparently. This feels even worse than including a typo, to be honest: the fact that the SEAlang Library Mon Dictionary didn't encode the term properly isn't meaningful, and certainly isn't something we should care about recording. It doesn't even render properly. Theknightwho (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

kementerian pendidikan dan kebudayaan

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

menteri pendidikan dan kebudayaan

Indonesian for "ministry of education and culture" and "minister of education and culture". Probably SOP to clear redlinks from acronyms(?) Kemendikbud and Mendikbud. Ultimateria (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

-einander

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

German.

I could be wrong, but this doesn't seem like a true suffix- just einander in cases where something gets tacked on in front. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have the same impression. Pinging @Tajoshu. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It could be seen as just a clitic rather than a true suffix, but there are many formations with -einander that are treated as lemmas by Duden and have their own entries on Wiktionary. Ssome potential -einander formations are rare compared to the standard ones. So I think there is a degree of lexicalisation here, it acts like a productive suffix in my opinion. Some other arguable clitics also have entries like this, such as -e (etym. 3) and -n't, as well as all of German's "separable prefixes" (e.g. auf- vs auf have separate articles), which are also more like clitics, but have lexicalised combinations; I think the latter are in a similar situation. There are even combinations of separable prefixes and -einander acting as a separable prefix themselves, like aufeinander (aufeinanderfolgen etc), which could also be seen as just auf + einander + folgen that happens to be spelled without spaces. In my opinion, it makes sense to distinguish between einander used without a preposition, and einander used with a preposition (the latter spelled as a suffix in standard orthography), so it's not like it's a complete duplicate. Of course, they are essentially the same in form and there is still a lot of things shared between them that doesn't need to be duplicated (hence why I said to refer to the usage notes of einander in the -einander entry).

So this is basically what my line of reasoning was. Tajoshu (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

ⲙⲉⲛⲣⲉ-

Latest comment: 8 months ago10 comments4 people in discussion

ⲥϧⲉ-

ⲭⲁ-

ϣⲑⲉⲣⲧⲉⲣ

Coptic nominal states. The latter is currently formatted as a lemma which is incorrect according to User:Sérgio R R Santos. Ultimateria (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keep all, but reformat the last one appropriately. These should not be lemmas, but they should exist, just as we have inflected form-of entries in any language (the relevant policy is at Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Inflections). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 18:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is this a discussion or is it already settled? - i dont know, it's my first time in this space. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sérgio R R Santos: Hi! It’s basically a discussion over whether or not to delete on the basis of our current policies/practices. A change to our policies themselves would take a little more work, but can be done through creating a discussion at the WT:Beer Parlour and getting community consensus there, if you so wish. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 00:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sérgio R R Santos If you feel these are unattested, WT:RFVN would be better. There are descriptions of the use of these fora at the top of their respective pages. Vininn126 (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

well, in my opinion the policy of criteria for inclusion mentioned by @Vorziblix that wiktionary currently has always annoyed me a little bit: what is the point of having a whole page that just says "this is an inflexion of such and such" - that's basicaly a full fledged redirect page. Even if a user is searching a non lemma form of a word, and that secific form doesnt have its own page, as long as that word is mentioned in the lemma page they'll ultimatly get to that page, even if indirectly, in the search results.

Now having said all that, regarding the current discussion, i thing they should be deleted if all they say is "this is a particular form of x", which like i said just sounds like a redirect page to me, but i think they should be kept when they provide further information, like usage examples or quotation of that form beig used.I dont know how difficult that distinction would be able to be put in practice, but I gess in this particular case we're just talking about half a dozen cases. Sorry for the long and meandering response, i'm incapable of going straight to the point. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned, if you wish to change that policy, please go to the beer parlour. As it stands, if these forms are attested, then they pass RFV and would need to be sent back here for RFD if you somehow manage to convince everyone to not include pages for inflections. Vininn126 (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

then do what the policy sais.i for now am just entertained with adding and improving coptic pages; if semeone wants to create non lema pages, good for them, it doesnt bother me. I might some day ending up going to the beer parlour, but it better have some beer! Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

coincidently, i just made a search in my coptic dictionary and the very first (unrelated) entry that came up includes pretty much all verb forms for all dialects - except the absolute form for bohairic. so i gess in certain cases having a page for a non lemma form is unavoidable. or... inevitable. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll reformate the page in question appropriately. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

September 2024

-eso

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Czech suffix. The three words which use this purported suffix (koleso ← kolo, sloveso ← slovo, těleso ← tělo, to which we can add nebesa (pl.) ← nebo) come from Proto-Slavic words with a -s- in their paradigm (*kolo, *slovo, *tělo, *nebo), so it's simply analogical levelling at play. As can be seen at *kolo, Czech is not the only language where this happened. P U C – 07:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If these are our only words, then delete and change etymologies to say "relevelling" somehow. Vininn126 (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Translations at gold medal, silver medal, bronze medal

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The reason for the existence of these English entries, as I understand, is their figurative use as (I assume) appositions to denote ‘(by extension) Finishing in first position, winning’ (‘the gold medal project’, ‘the gold medal runner’).

That every language grammatically allows such use is unlikely, and the majority of the corresponding entries only give the literal meaning. I presume all others to be SOP and in need of deletion. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

бетке жасалган косметикалык операция

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Kyrgyz. facelift.

This is self-evidently sum of parts: "cosmetic surgery on the face". It's not even defined correctly, either. Theknightwho (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

радиоактивдүү заттардын жаашы

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Kyrgyz. fallout

Self-evidently sum of parts: "fallout of radioactive substances". Theknightwho (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

бир таңгак куурай

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

One bag of hemp? Is it any attested usage examples of it? Sounds kinda legit, but the user who added it seems to not be a native speaker. Tollef Salemann (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

бир байлам чыбык

One bunch of brushwood? Tollef Salemann (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

ак ниет менен

ак ниеттик менен

адилеттик менен

адилеттик кылып

ыраазы болуп

кыраан куштарды алып чыгуу

авария режимине өтүү

ишенген кызматкер

косметикалык ремонт

жумшак майлык

жумшак жуугуч

Kyrgyz. Sum of parts. Theknightwho (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

لا يزال

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Arabic. We have an entry for the verb at زال. I don’t think we need this. --Etisop (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete, not helpful, not likely looked up, though even if unlikely we may have hard redirects for all possible forms. Fay Freak (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

яблуков сок

Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Pannonian Rusyn. SOP. @Vininn126, Insaneguy1083 Thadh (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Vininn126 (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can delete it if you two agree to it. I just made the entry because it appears as a separate entry in English as well. Same goes for мачанка. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

In this vein you could also look into whether ноцни живот (nocni život) and ноцни клуб (nocni klub) are SOP. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Just sending it again in case you missed it. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

яблукова мачанка

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Pannonian Rusyn. SOP. @Vininn126, Insaneguy1083 Thadh (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Vininn126 (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

October 2024

амарантовый цвет

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Russian; SOP. Tetromino (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

𒋤𒀭𒀀𒀀

Akkadian. Wrong cuneiform.

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/Alamann-

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This should be merged with *alamann-. There's no need for a separate page. Ethnonyms in this language are also generally not capitalised. — This unsigned comment was added by Haimariks Wandilaz (talk • contribs) at 16:00, 11 October 2024.

Keep. Proper nouns are intended to be capitalized. --{{victar|talk}} 03:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Merge. Tollef Salemann (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Øresundsbron

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is it only me who find this entry being weird? Especially the part mentioning some company. Tollef Salemann (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"being weird" is not grounds for deletion (so in the absence of a rationale for deletion, my vote is keep - it looks keepable enough in its current state).

If you think the entry could use some work, feel free to improve it (or slap an {{attention}} or {{rfc}} on it and hope for the best).

If you are unsure if the term is attested, the proper venue is WT:Requests for verification/Non-English. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

akutirani a

Slovene. It's just a phrase formation, the same as saying in English "acute a" Linyker¹²³ (talk)

Ross und Reiter

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

German.

Doesn't seem to have any meaning beyond the literal SOP "horse and rider", although I'm willing to be corrected on this if there's an additional definition we need. Not to be confused with Ross und Reiter nennen ("call a spade a spade"), which is idiomatic. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete as is. Can be recreated later if an idiomatic sense is found. This, that and the other (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

রাঁধুনি

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bengali. Rfd-sense: Proper noun: "(trademark) Radhuni (a particular food-products company)"

WT:BRAND applies. DCDuring (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

чорный

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Russian. A hoax. The pre-1917 spelling is чёрный. If this is not enough, one can consult any pre-1917 book (as scanned on Google Books) for verification. --Ghirlandajo (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd take to RFV. It's conceivable this is an alternative/nonstandard spelling encountered both before and after 1917. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It may be pre-1917, but long before 1917. Not common spelling in the last centuries anyway. Tollef Salemann (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

November 2024

SoP adverbs in Welsh

Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

In Welsh, any adjective (sometimes verb) can become an adverb with the preposition yn. In the past, yn unig has been deleted as a SoP for this reason. Given this, I am nominating the following for deletion as SoP:

Terms that I wouldn't consider SoP:

On the fence about this one:

yn lle

For SoP terms that are commonly used as equivalents of non-SoP in other languages, I would suggest adding a sense to the "mother" lemma, e.g.:

Adjective

parod (feminine singular parod, plural parod, equative paroted, comparative parotach, superlative parotaf)

ready
(adverbially, as yn barod) readily

Verb

dal (first-person singular present dalaf)

to catch
to continue
1. (adverbially, as yn dal) continuing, still, yet

I appreciate some terms may survive due to reasons not to remove SOP here.

This is a matter for the Greasepit, but maybe adverb forms should part of the template for adjectives, alongside plural, comparative, superlative equative.

Arafsymudwr (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete the ones nominated for deletion above as SOP.

—Mahāgaja · talk 18:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Deleted entries in the top table. Ultimateria (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do want to keep yn oes oesoedd, yn ôl, and yn lle, as they are not using the adverb-forming yn at all but rather the preposition yn (“in”). Also, yn dal does not use the adverb-forming yn but rather the progressive marker yn, but it's still SOP as any verb can be made into the functional equivalent of a present participle by preposing yn to the verbal noun. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

min-

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dutch. Not really a prefix; listed derived terms can be easily explained as deriving from min. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

עברא כדברא

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

עבדא כדברא

Aramaic.

These were mistakenly created as badly-formatted Hebrew entries (Hebrew wouldn't end these words with "א"), by someone who obviously has no clue.

You can find these in the etymology for abracadabra as a theoretically-possible/hypothetical origin for the Latin word. As Aramaic, however, they just mean something like "what has been said has been done"- nothing idiomatic. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Update: I have now added a second entry that was created at the same time and edited my explanation above to reflect the change from one to two entries. The first one is a spelling variant of the second (they differ in only one letter, a common type of variation because the letters look almost identical). The first one is a closer match to "abracadabra", but the second matches the "what has been said has been done" translation. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete theoretical coinages for the origin of a word whose origin is still unknown that has already been published for too long. Hftf (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

einræða persónu

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Icelandic. Literally, "soliloquy of a person", SOP. Created by User:BiT. Benwing2 (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

December 2024

garip

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Turkish adjective meaning “weird”. The deletion request is only for its listing as an interjection. Using an adjective by way of a full sentence (as in “ ‘Weird,’ he said”) does not an interjection make. For Turkish, garip is in fact a grammatically standard one-word full sentence, meaning “he/she/it is weird”. (See garip § Declension.) A much more common similarly uttered Turkish one-word sentence is inanılmaz (“he/she/it is incredible”), which must, of course, also not be lexically categorized as an interjection. --Lambiam 10:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

pembayar cukai

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Indonesian. An WT:SOP entry, also not listed in KBBI. Alfarizi Mokoginta (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

toistaiseksi voimassa oleva

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Finnish. Not idiomatic; this should be a collocation. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I edited this today according to how it's stated in the Finlex Data Bank, for example [29]. Should this be edited akin to voimassa oleva? 86.50.68.196 16:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

of mikill

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Icelandic. Yes, User:BiT created this too. Also nominating of mikið. Seems transparently "too" + "much". Benwing2 (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete both. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Template:vrd-ī

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't think this Sanskrit template should have been created (by blocked user). The 3 pages that link to it are just feminine forms of the vriddhied adjective on -a. Exarchus (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

eitthvað annað

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Icelandic. Created in 2005 by User:Schneelocke. This is glossed as "something else" and looks like a transparent SOP to me. I strongly suspect the masculine and feminine equivalents "someone else" exist as well. Benwing2 (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Could be listed as a collocation at one of the constituent terms. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

banda sa

Tagalog. SOP.

Delete. 𝄽 ysrael214 (talk)

galing sa

Tagalog. SOP.

Delete. 𝄽 ysrael214 (talk)

January 2025

phải cái

Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Vietnamese: “phải + cái from the beginning of the adjacent noun phrase. With the example provided, not a construction, maybe someone can provide an example where grammaticalization has progressed further?” MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

"cái" doesn't always have to be followed with a noun. "Phải cái là X" should also work I think? The phrase probably has the same grammar as được cái. Duchuyfootball (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with @MuDavid of his opinion on the usage of phải cái. What I've seen people are using is that the phrase go with verb or adjective, but never before seen anyone using it with nouns. There are also examples on the Internet about the phrase: phải cái nói, phải cái nghịch, phải cái kêu, phải cái ngữ (may be idiomatic) phải cái nghĩ, phải cái lương (seems to be using with a clause).

About the own entry itself, I don't think the authors of phải cái do really consider how it is really used ("Used to introduce a negative statement or clause"). IMO it should be introducing someone's personality trait or some event deemed undesirable (not vaguely as negative statement or clause). HungKhanh0106 (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thinking back, I judge that the term should be merged into cái because people also use có cái, được cái, bị cái with verbs and adjectives, which I think is to emphasize what is said. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused, why should it be merged because there are other idiomatic forms being use? Duchuyfootball (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think that they are all of the same ~~sense/~~usage (to emphasize an info), so maybe a merge would be a better idea than to split them all in different pages? HungKhanh0106 (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not sure about that. Where does one go to if they want to find info about one of these above terms? Intuitively (and hopefully), not "cái". A usage note in the entry for cái would be nice, but seperate entries for these terms are needed. Duchuyfootball (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

dahil sa, dahil kay

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tagalog. SOP

dahil sa = due to, because of

All usages involving the sense "to; of", will involve sa (for nonpersonal names) or kay (for personal names). Papunta sa tao (going to the man), papunta kay Manny (going to Manny)

Usage notes is enough, which it already is included in sa and kay pages. 𝄽 ysrael214 (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Asasara

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Eteocretan. Nominated for speedy deletion by @Kumwawa, but this is clearly a matter for RFD. Reason given is: "Asasara(me) is a suggested Minoan god found in Linear A, not Eteocretan inscriptions. Maybe put it in the Minoan or Linear A Category (with lab signs not grc)."

In any event, the source on the entry is an Etruscan dictionary which merely states see Cretan asasara divine name [dep], which is not enough to justify this entry, in my view, and I see no compelling reason to have Latin-script entries for Eteocretan. Theknightwho (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

على سيرة

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion

South Levantine Arabic. Marked as SOP, "speaking of". Ultimateria (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

قليل ما

قطع الإشارة

Unrelated terms but all tagged as SOP and not listed, recently nominated for speedy deletion. Ultimateria (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Vietnamflagge

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Egregious German SOP. ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep, single-word compounds do not fall under WT:SOP by long-standing Wiktionary practice (hence criteria like WT:COALMINE). See also WT:Criteria for inclusion#General rule: "This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic.". (Changing this would be quite the can of worms.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, keep per Mnemosientje. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Mậu Tuất

Latest comment: 3 months ago21 comments3 people in discussion

Vietnamese SoP. Just the name of the heavenly stem + the name of the earthly branch. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@MuDavid Each of these terms constitute one of the sixty years of the Vietnamese sexagenary cycle. If they were SoPs, then how did the Vietnamese, and ultimately, the Chinese calendar emerge then? --ChemPro (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Edit: Because each of these terms correspond to one year of the sexagenary cycle, they must be greater than the sum of their parts. --ChemPro (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

There's the cycle of the ten heavenly stems and then there's the cycle of the twelve earthly branches. The lowest common multiple of ten and twelve being sixty, the combined cycle is sixty years. That's how the sexagenary cycle emerged: as a sum of two parts. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@MuDavid That's not how the sexagenary cycle emerged. If the sexagenary cycle were be a mere sum (or rather a combination) of two parts (or cycles), then the number of possible combinations would be 10 * 12 = 120, leading to a 120-years cycle. The reason why only half of the number of possible combinations are used is the following:

Five of the ten heavenly stems have a yang property. The other five have a yin property. The same goes for the earthly branches. Six of them have a yang property. The other six have a yin property. According to the principle that yang heavenly stems can only combine with yang earthly branches and yin heavenly stems only with yin earthly branches, we get a total of 5 * 6 + 5 * 6 = 60 possible combinations.

It's therefore a summation of the two parts according to a principle (here the yin-yang principle), which makes the actual sum less than the theoretical sum. --ChemPro (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Guy, don’t you know the least common multiple? That’s basic math, mate. Here, look it up on Wikipedia. That yin–yang principle of yours was probably just slapped onto it post hoc. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I've already looked it up. In my view, it's rather a coincedence that the sexagenary cycle concludes at the 60th term, which happens to be the least common multiple of 10 and 12. I'm pretty sure that the inventor(s) of the sexagenary cycle didn't purposefully construct the cycle based on the mathematical notion of the least common multiple. But if its true though (meaning the inventor(s) did create the sexagenary cycle based on the notion of the least common multiple and not on the principle of yin and yang or some other principle), then yeah, the sexagenary cycle would be, indeed, just be the least common multiple of 10 and 12 and therefore a sum of parts. But, after all, it's just an assumption. You'll have to prove it. --ChemPro (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why the heck is it a coincidence? It’s just basic math. Why do you think anybody “created” the sexagenary cycle? They created the branches and the stems and out came a cycle of 60, end of story. If there’s anything else behind it, it’s up to you to prove it. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I did some research and came across an enlightening image, which might resolve our differences. You can view it in The Chinese Sexagenary Cycle and the Ritual Foundations of the Calendar by Adam Smith (2010), p. 3. I'll quote the description of that image here:

„The 60-cycle envisaged as a pair of toothed wheels representing the 10-cycle and the 12-cycle. Even-numbered positions never engage with odd-numbered positions. Six turns of the 10-cycle correspond to five turns of the 12-cycle, after which the system has returned to its original state. [...]”

Given two cycles, if each of their positions have been numbered and a parity assigned to it, then a summation of these two cycles leads to the emergence of exactly two larger cycles where each of these larger cycles is the result of one particular way of pairing. There are only two ways of pairing: Each position of the two smaller cycles can be paired with each other with positions of either the same or the opposite parity. This leads to the conclusion that the sexagenary cycle is the result of one kind of pairing, where each position of the two smaller cycles haven been paired with each other with positions of the same parity. Which proves my point I made earlier: It's a summation of two parts according to some principle which makes its actual sum less than its theoretical sum. ∎ --ChemPro (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The greatest common divisor of ten and twelve is two, so there’s two ways to get a cycle of sixty out of one of ten and one of twelve. Your “enlightening image” is nothing but that. And out of the two possible sexagenary cycles, an accident of history chose one. Don’t go searching for more principles.

All that doesn’t change anything to the fact that an Ất Tị year is just one that is both Ất and Tị, no more no less. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's all due to parity (or yin-yang in the Sinosphere). Yes, the greatest common divisor (gcd) of ten and twelve equals two. But the number two also happens to be the number of parities an integer can have: even or odd. Also yes, the lowest common multiple (lcm) of ten and twelve is 60. But the number sixty also happens to be the number of possible combinations after the even and odd numbers of ten and twelve have been paired based on the same parity. I question whether there is any correlation between the sexagenary cycle and the gcd/lcm at all, and whether the gcd/lcm are just post hoc mathematical descriptions of it. Now coming to the crucial question: How come that the combination of Ất and Tị leads specifically to one Ất Tị year and not an Ất Tị day, Ất Tị month, or Ất Tị something else? --ChemPro (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Generally, concepts like the gcd and the lcm, which work pretty well for numbers on a linear number line, don't really work well for the sexagenary cycle due to its cyclical nature. --ChemPro (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Sigh.) You really don’t know basic math do you? And apparently you don’t know the Chinese calendar either. There are Ất Tị days: the 5th of February this year will be an Ất Tị day. There are Ất Tị months: on the 6th of May 2027 an Ất Tị month will start. Given that you obviously don’t have the faintest idea of what you’re talking about, I’m not going to continue to argue with you. When you understand how the Chinese calendar works, we can continue the discussion. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

For someone like me who reads the forums one diff at a time, this has gotten really, really old: 40+ revisions to make 6 replies. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Damn, you guys got me. Seems like I have to go back to primary school and review some basic addition. Let's see if I can get this straight: Ất + Tị = Ất Tị. Okay, that wasn't too bad... Wait a minute. An Ất Tị can be either a day, month, or year. How does one proceed from here? --ChemPro (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep for now. The entry heavenly stem only mentions it in its usage notes that they are used as the first component of each of the sixty terms of the Chinese sexagenary cycle. If this section can be somehow included into one of its definitions (the same applies for the entry earthly branch), then I'd vote for possibly SoP. --ChemPro (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

In addition, the number n of its nth term cannot be easily derived by combining the heavenly stem and the earthly branch without knowing the underlying pairing principle of the sexagenary cycle. An explanation of how to number n can be obtained might be provided in the usage notes of the entries heavenly stem and earthly branch. --ChemPro (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

nói gì thì nói

Latest comment: 3 months ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Vietnamese SoP: the structure “X gì thì X” is not limited to nói. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete Duchuyfootball (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the word functions more idiomatic/figurative than literal ("nói gì thì nói" isn't understood literally as "whatever [person specified] say", even there are cases which it does not need any people to speak, somewhat akin to be that as it may). It is also used a lot (in colloquial contexts) as compared to other forms of "X gì thì X". HungKhanh0106 (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you give some examples? Duchuyfootball (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I also encountered this term a lot in colloquial contexts. Would that be a case for WT:FRIED? --ChemPro (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Still, can you give some examples? Duchuyfootball (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nói gì thì nói, ông ấy vẫn là người rất tốt. ― Anyway, he's still a very good person. --ChemPro (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking it still means "whatever I/you/they (might) say". If anyone can pinpoint the idiomatic sense, I'll withdraw my vote. Duchuyfootball (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I cannot confirm its idiomaticity, but its pretty much a colloquialism. --ChemPro (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've added the relevant examples. Hope it can clear things up. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

tệ nạn xã hội

Latest comment: 3 months ago17 comments4 people in discussion

Vietnamese SoP: tệ nạn + xã hội. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

~~Delete~~ Duchuyfootball (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

~~Delete~~. --ChemPro (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The term is really in widespread use though. Should we keep it per WT:IDIOM#Empty space test? HungKhanh0106 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

How does that test applies here? Where's the redundant word(s)? Duchuyfootball (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've never seen "tệ nạn" being used with any adjective outside of "xã hội" (to create the word "tệ nạn xã hội"). Also "tệ nạn" is currently used to mean "an evil that is pervasive in society" (as what I've known) so "xã hội" is redundant in the word, that's why I think the empty space test can be applied here. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

"xã hội" is not an adjective. Also, I think you misunderstood what empty space test mean. Duchuyfootball (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The rule outlines that "frequent use of terms appearing to contain elements of redundancy" can be used in a RFD argument. Apricot tree, empty space, HIV virus are cited as examples: apricot already have the sense "apricot tree", space already have the sense "vacuum" (space that contains no matter), HIV already have the sense "virus"^[reference]. In that matter, people may be adding tree, empty, virus to those words to narrow down to some (or just 1) specific senses, thus rendering the them "redundant" (it could have ambiguities otherwise, such as a standalone space could be understood as parking space etc.). About its application to tệ nạn xã hội, there is xã hội being the redundant part (newspapers nowadays uses tệ nạn standalone in the context of the whole society, though old publication(s) may narrow the scope of where tệ nạn happens (?)^{[refer to one of the quotations on entry tệ nạn]}, which should also match the case of "narrowing down" stated above).

I would also argue that xã hội should be an adjective in certain situations because it "describes a noun's referent" (refer to its Wiktionary entry), such that seen in these examples: chủ nghĩa xã hội, khoa học xã hội, vấn đề xã hội, etc. I also see that some dictionaries (as I suppose from info on this webpage) which also attest the word as an adjective. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

What I think you are saying is, any noun that follows "vấn đề", "khoa học", or "chủ nghĩa" is an adjective? Then we would have a lot of adjectives. Is "máy tính" in "khoa học máy tính" an adjective? Is "dữ liệu" in "khoa học dữ liệu" an adjective?

Noun can "describes a noun's referent" too (refer to its Wiktionary entry). While that usage might be rare in English, it does not have to be in Vietnamese.

But your explanation of the empty space test is great. Thanks! Duchuyfootball (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep. English and Chinese both have similar entries.Duchuyfootball (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep. Both the English and Chinese entries have the meaning of social issue (which is not a SOP), while the Vietnamese entry translates to social ill (which is a SOP). Tệ nạn translates to English ill rather than issue, turning it into a SOP hypothetically. Nonetheless, I've changed my vote to "keep" as well because of the application of the empty space test mentioned by Hung Khanh. --ChemPro (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why is social issue not an SOP, while social ill is? Duchuyfootball (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The reason why social issue is not an SOP comes down to the difference between an issue and a problem. An issue is "any question or situation to be resolved", whereas a problem is specifically a "difficulty that has to be resolved or dealt with". Because social issue refers, per definition, to a problem, WT:FRIED can be applied.

I thought about social ill for quite a while and whether it's an SOP or not, it really depends on whether it is used in the same way as social issue or not. If it can be attested that social ill is synonymous to social issue, then that would make both social ill and tệ nạn xã hội not an SOP. --ChemPro (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Are you saying that a social issue is not an... issue, but a problem? By that logic social ill probably qualifies too because of this and this. There are sources that say it IS synonymous to social issue too! And while I'm at it, what about other instances where issue might be defined as problem (global warming issue, global issue, personal issue?

The only reason I'm accepting is that the word itself serves as a translation hub, but then again there's the Chinese entry. Duchuyfootball (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Duchuyfootball I think "social issue" refers to specifically "a problem" (e.g. immigration, racism, unemployment, etc.[30]^{the page is unsourced, but I think it can also be verifiable via Google}), but tệ nạn xã hội here have a more specific meaning, to mean specifically "ills/evils" ("moral wickedness"), not just any problem (e.g. prostitution, gambling, narcotics, etc.). HungKhanh0106 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think tệ nạn xã hội is used to refer to the problems (e.g. prostitution, gambling, narcotics, etc.) also? Like when you say "đẩy lùi tệ nạn xã hội", what exactly is being alleviated (if not problems)? I don't think the word means "moral wickedness". Duchuyfootball (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the confusion, but what am I doing here is pointing out precisely that tệ nạn xã hội refers to specific problems (that includes prostitution, gambling, narcotics, etc.) that have negative effects on the society, that should akin to "moral wickedness". "Social issue" should refer to broader topics (such as immigration, racism, unemployment, etc. - as Simple English Wikipedia pointed out). Google also returns results that indicate that those are "social issues". HungKhanh0106 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ǒ

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is o-caret, not o-breve as used in Ślabikŏrz. Vxern (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2025 (GMT)

RFD-deleted. Vininn126 (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

đạo Do Thái

Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Vietnamese. SOP. --ChemPro (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm note sure whether Do Thái here means "following the religion of Judaism" or "of or relating to Jews". The former would make it a SoP, the latter not. --ChemPro (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

It means both to me. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep because there's no indication given that the part Do Thái of the compound đạo Do Thái means exlusively "following the religion of Judaism", which would make it an SOP. --ChemPro (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

February 2025

@admin

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Translingual. Telegram message syntax. Catonif (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

bȩ̃rs

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Seems to be a misspeling of bērs. Burzuchius (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

доӏахк

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Possibly an error from доӏах. There is nothing similar in the dictionaries. ɶLerman (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

дихк

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Possibly an error from дийхк. There is nothing similar in the dictionaries. ɶLerman (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

-vuus

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

-mattomuus

Finnish; simply a combination of two suffixes which will never be used in etymology sections, because the corresponding -va/-maton also always exists. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

siebë

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is no source indicated, and I doubt that there is an Alemannic dialect that diphthongized short /i/, as implied by the spelling. Flœœru (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

kilobit per detik

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

SOP Suku Melayu (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

mathematical symbols with no definition

Latest comment: 2 months ago11 comments4 people in discussion

The definitions of these characters are no more than a fleshed-out version of their Unicode names. No indication of what they mean or how they're used.

ℼ, ℽ, ℾ, ℿ, ⅅ, ⅆ, ⅇ, ⅈ.

Two of these, ⅀ and ⅉ, have already been deleted kwami (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

[⅀ has now been recreated, again without a definition]

So why not just add their definitions then? The latter four at least have "sometimes used for…" descriptions in the Unicode charts. I know Wolfram Mathematica at least uses double-struck symbols as default representations of some constants in its interface, and probably provides the alternate symbols to not clash with variable-name usage needs while allowing natural-looking code (e.g. in interactive TraditionalForm). Online docs: ⅆ ⅅ ⅇ ⅈ; ⅉ (same as previous) ℽ (Euler–Mascheroni constant) ℼ (no default assignment). That leaves ⅀, ℿ (likely just n-ary sum/product) and ℾ (likely the gamma function). Hftf (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

If someone who knows what they're doing is willing to do that, that would be great.

The mathematicians I know say that double-struck letters have no real mathematical use -- they're just handwritten substitutes for bold letters, which is how they should be typeset in print. kwami (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The symbols

\mathbb {N}

and

\mathbf {N} ,

meaning the set of the natural numbers, are used without distinction in meaning. The open typeface is called “mathbb“ in the widely used AMSFonts package for LaTeX, where “bb” abbreviates blackboard bold. It found its way into typesetting because some authors appreciated the aesthetic appearance. I don't think I've seen uses of blackboard bold symbols with another meaning than the plain bold version. In only a few and rare cases is a bold letter used in mathematical publications with a specific commonly understood meaning (as opposed to an ephemeral meaning defined for local use in one publication). The use in Wolfram Mathematica is interesting, but not sufficient for the criterion of attestation of use in at least three independent instances, as given by our CFI. --Lambiam 21:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Many symbols, especially in math, are used without distinction in meaning – so therefore, they can be synonyms/alt forms, just like <= and ≤.

I respect the attestation criteria. I'm not one to say Wiktionary should mirror Unicode, and I don't think Unicode does nearly enough to define characters much of the time. Unicode already has its own attestation/whatever requirements and these must have met already it some time ago (25 years). We read that major math publishers asked to encode them [1, with original meaningful character names] [2]. Lots of our symbol entries have no citations sadly. Has anyone at least tried googling "mathbb d" or "mathbb gamma" or "mathbb sigma"?

At this stage in time, regarding blackboard-bold/double-struck letters, both "they're just handwritten substitutes" and "they have real mathematical use" are true. Rarely are they distinct in meaning (ignoring nonce usages so common in math), but sometimes they are the preferred form. It is at least definitely the case that today, if looking at an 𝐍 with no context and a ℕ with no context, the latter is going to have less ambiguity; if you "ask mathematicians" to close their eyes and see in their mind the symbol for natural numbers, they will imagine just "the letter ℕ", not a composite lexicon entry like {printed

\mathbb {N}

, handwritten drawing of N on blackboard like

} or {printed 𝐍, handwritten ℕ} or anything like that. Which isn't surprising – this is no different from how new full-fledged words and meanings are gained, e.g. #.

By the way, your recent additions of "A handwritten form of" at ℕ etc. and "The original print form" at 𝐍 etc. really make no sense, especially not inside the definition/gloss. Perhaps in an etymology, but I would rather just link to Wikipedia's blackboard bold which is going to do a better job with that information. We don't define & as "the handwritten form of and" – it's not true, it's not its meaning, and it's not relevant. If you admit you don't know what you're doing, why do you keep doing it? And "mathematicians I know say…" doesn't do us much good. Hftf (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, moving it to the etymology section would work well. I'll do that.

I'm doing it because no-one else is. But that's also why I'm here.

Many many of our articles were created by people who didn't know what they were doing, with no more reason than that they are characters in Unicode. Consensus has been that's not enough. We don't create an article for every emoji, for example.

Unfortunately, Unicode often does not have adequate attestation for their characters. An example offhand is the letter 'oi', which is really 'gh'. The proposal didn't even get the distinction between vowel and consonant right. For another, the alchemical block has duplicate Latin letters 'C' and 'T', which isn't supposed to happen. They've been replaced with poorly attested composite forms to avoid the duplication, but they weren't justified to begin with. There are also numerous allographs in that block, which again isn't supposed to happen, because the proposers at the Newton Chymistry Project didn't understand Unicode criteria, and Unicode didn't understand alchemical symbols. There are also blocks of early symbols that were added for compatibility with other computer encoding systems, with little reasoning preserved in the documentation.

The mathematician I'm speaking of, who is a prof at a major university, witnessed the addition of the alphanumeric block to Unicode, and says that the person drawing up that proposal was ignorant of actual mathematical usage, and that the people at Unicode were unable to judge. Two series of script letters should've been added, for example [they're now handled with variation selectors, with poor font support], and the four sans-serif series have no basis in mathematics. I'm not asking you to make decisions based on my sourceless reporting of second-hand accounts, but I do think we should follow Wk attestation criteria for math symbols the same as we do for English words. kwami (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

But back to the deletion request -- those characters have no definition, and so shouldn't be on Wk. They can always be recreated if someone can attest to a meaning to give them. They shouldn't remain just because someone who didn't know what they were doing created them. kwami (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think some kind of indication that these are unused duplicates of other characters and linking to the correct ones would be useful enough to keep the entries- basically like a "misspelling of" definition. It might prevent someone from using them by accident, or help them to recognize and correct bad OCR artifacts. The part about how they got into Unicode by mistake might go in the etymology, I suppose. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree, but sourcing might be a problem. The mathematician I talked to has very strong opinions on this but wanted to remain anonymous because he knows the people involved. But his source is 3+ decades of experience in the field, nothing we could cite even if he was willing to share publicly.

The blackboard bold characters C N P Q R Z are frequently used in print as alts to regular bold, and the undefined ones above presumably are as well. None of the sans-serif characters or monospace currently have articles, and if we wanted to preemptively warn people about them, I don't know what we'd say they're equivalent to. I suppose roman sans-serif and monospace = ASCII and bold and italic sans-serif = regular mathematical bold and italic. But I don't know how I'd defend doing that if challenged. kwami (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Of these blackboard bold characters,

\mathbb {P}

is the only one that (as far as I’m aware) is not a standin or alternative for the plain bold letter. ‑‑Lambiam 21:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean for probability? Is that only ℙ and not 𝐏? I'm actually only finding italic P. kwami (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

thừa biết

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Vietnamese SoP. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep because one might easily confuse between the adverb and the verb. Duchuyfootball (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

staro-

Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Polish. Just a common compound element. Vininn126 (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep as a combining form, per #światło- and #ćmawo- above. There probably needs to be a wider discussion about combining forms in Slavic languages in general rather than nominating individual entries in individual languages, which will inevitably lead to more inconsistency and confusion. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I can agree a broader discussion would be useful. Vininn126 (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. P U C – 15:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

-sja, -zja

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Polish. Created as "non-productive" meaning these aren't really suffixes in Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete - These are outcomes of Latinate borrowings undergoing naturalisation. vxern (Dorian M. Oszczęda) (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

-istka

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Polish. All -istka nouns are just -ista + -ka, it's not a unique suffix. Vininn126 (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per OP. (See also -істка (Ukrainian) below.) Voltaigne (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

-ystka

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Polish. All -ystka words are just -ysta + -ka, not a unique suffix. Vininn126 (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per OP. (See also -истка (Ukrainian) below.) Voltaigne (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

-istka

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Czech. Same thing as above in Polish. F. V. Lorenz (talk)

Delete per OP. (See also -істка (Ukrainian) below.) Voltaigne (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Heldin

Old High German. appears to be a simple typo or misread, the listed source in the entry (Schatz) iists a name "Helidin", not Heldin. Inummerable citations of Heldin, but none appear to be OHG

delete rd's from digits in the Appendix:Unicode/Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols

Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Clarification: the appendix is correct as it is. I'm only proposing that we delete some of the redirects and thus turn blue links into red links, when the blue links don't lead the reader to a definition of the symbol.

These symbols have specific mathematical definitions, at least theoretically,* and are not simply digits. They should therefore not be redirects to the articles for the basic digits. For example, 𝟏 [or equivalently 𝟙] is the indicator function in set theory, not the number/digit 1. The two characters 𝟏 and 𝟙 are the only ones that we give definitions for; the others are just rd's and should be deleted. I haven't tagged them since there are so many.

I think we're justified in treating numerical characters from other blocks, i.e. superscript, subscript, fullwidth and segmented [digital clock form] digits, as mere graphic variants and therefore appropriate as redirects and in the character variant info boxes where they are now. The monospace variants are probably justified as well; AFAICT they are not defined mathematically, and good fonts provide monospace digits as character variants for column alignment.

BTW, italic C, D and beta should be deleted for the same reason, but I tagged them individually because there's only the three of them.

*I say 'theoretically' because, AFAICT from talking to mathematicians, the four sets of sans-serif letters and digits in the alphanumeric block have no definition, and were encoded into Unicode in error.

kwami (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain the meaning of “rd” in this context? AFAICT the page presents a faithful listing of the “Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols” (Range: 1D400–1D7FF) of The Unicode Standard, version 16.0. If we decide to change it, we should make it very clear that this is a modified listing. ‑‑Lambiam 11:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I didn't mean to modify the appendix, which is correct as it is, but to delete the redirects from it. We have for example a redirect from 𝟑 to 3. But those characters don't mean the same thing -- 𝟑 is intended as a mathematical symbol, possibly for a function or something, not as the digit 3 -- and we don't explain the symbol 𝟑 at the article for digit 3. Including it would be like redirecting 'honeybadger' to 'honey' and then not explaining what a honeybadger was on the honey article. The only one of this series we get right is 𝟏, which has its own article. But we can't create an article for 𝟑 without knowing what it means. Even if we hope to figure out what it means in the future, the rd is inappropriate as we don't explain it now. kwami (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

So the answer to the question actually asked would be "in this context, an 'rd' is a 'redirect' ", or more precisely: "a link to a redirect"... Chuck Entz (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

-cka

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Polish. All are formed from the masculine. Vininn126 (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per OP. Voltaigne (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

March 2025

-ęcie

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Polish. Just -cie with regular alternation of ą and ę. Vininn126 (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

-ęcy

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Polish. The emerging -ęc- is from the stem. Vininn126 (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per OP. Voltaigne (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

-iczek

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Polish. Not an actually productive suffix. Vininn126 (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Affixes do not need to be productive to have entries at Wiktionary. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind pointing me to where this is stated? There's a few problems with making such a general statement: 1) there's a difference between no-longer productive and never productive. 2) We can in theory create compound affix entries ad-nauseum if we allow ones that have never been productive. Vininn126 (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also did you look at the entry in question, or are you just making contrary general statements for the sake of it? Vininn126 (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't know whether it's stated in black and white anywhere, but you only have to peruse CAT:English suffixes to see that the current practice is that we do allow nonproductive affixes. And the entry in question says nothing at all about the current or former productivity of -iczek, so of course my comment was made in response to your argument for deletion. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

روباه

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Persian. Rfd-sense: "the UK or England." I would like evidence that this specific sense is lexicalized separate from the sense of "fox, cunning person."--Saranamd (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

delete — BABR・talk 06:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

-ska

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Polish. All of the feminine forms here are formed from the masculine. Vininn126 (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per OP. See also -ська (Ukrainian) below. Voltaigne (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

-zka

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Polish. All of the feminine forms are formed from masculine. Vininn126 (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

-c

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Polish. Inflectional ending. Not a suffix. Vininn126 (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

-źć

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Polish. Inflectional ending. Not a suffix. Vininn126 (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

-ść

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Polish. Inflectional ending. Not a suffix. Vininn126 (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

ruterfordijs

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Only 4 usages https://goaravetisyan.ru/lv/chto-takoe-kislotnye-svoistva-kislorodnye-i-vodorodnye-soedineniya/ https://forums.dieviete.lv/forums/topic/82334-suna-vards/ https://winplast.ru/lv/serebristo-belyi-radioaktivnyi-metall-radioaktivnyi-metall-i/ https://lv.alegsaonline.com/art/84907 Sayoxime (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Four usages is enough to pass RfV, and no reason for RfD. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

hooratama

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Estonian. I've never heard this word before and I can't even find it in books or dictionaries, besides the fact that this entry was created by an IP (91.129.103.10) with no idea what they were doing (based on their other edits). Auringonlasku (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

otsi „hooratamine“:

https://www.emakeeleselts.ee/omakeel/2014_1/OK_2014-1_04.pdf

Kirmuses oli mingi luuletusgi veel, aga ma ei saanud seda linki lahti.

enamasti on tegu selgelt madalkeelse väljendiga, ning avalikus kõneruumis pigem välditud ning kirjakeeles kõvasti haruldasem kui kõnekeeles (sealgi pigem teatud ehitajate ja masinistide pruugis).

Pigem leiad selliseid otsesemas tähenduses erootilisest kirjandusest ja mingitest seksfoorumitest (sageli avalikkusele suletud) — ning pigem teatud trükimeedias kui avalikus veebis (kuna digar kasutab enamasti OCR-i, siis on mõningaid asju raskem leida sõltuvalt kuidas poolitatud või kas tähetuvastuses esines vigu).

kaudsemas tähenduses kasutavad mingid masinistide ja tuunijad mootorite kohta, nt: "ära hoorata mootorit", samas kus teised kasutavad selleks "hoorama".

Rohkem vasteid leiad pööretes, nt: „hooratavad“.

see pole minu väljamõeldis ning on täitsa olemas, seda ka küllalt kaua - küll on ta üsna haruldane ning selgelt madalkeelne. Küsi laiemalt ringilt üle kuskil, redditis või Facebookis näiteks.

ise suurem asi keelemees pole, seepärast ka raskusi selgitamise ja muu säärasega — tean ainult et olemas ta on. Mul oli tarvis peamiselt tabeleid, sest üks keelt alles õpiv inimene koperdas nendele otsa ning tal tekkis küsimus, et mismoodi küll eestlased neil üldse vahet teevad, näiteks: hooratas (hoo-ratas ja hoora-tas) või hooaja (hoo-raja vs hoora-ja). Kirjapildis üksikuna on need kõik ju üks-ühele samad, ent häälduses neid segi ei aeta (küll võib mõnele õppijale tekitada raskusi tema aksent), jne.

Puhtalt "abiks ikka" põhimõttel ma neid ei eemaldaks — abiks neile kes nendele veel otsa komistada võivad. Ka näide mis vahet häälduses, ning tegusõna ja nimisõna erinevast kasutusest, ning selle olulisusest - ehkki mitte just kõikse esinduslikum. 91.129.103.10 00:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ma saan sust aru, ent teostus on pehmelt öeldes ütlemata lohakas.

Pealegi, ingliskeelses wikis peaksid siiski katsuma inglise keeles toime tulla. 87.119.177.73 06:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

„hooratamine“: https://foorum.naistekas.delfi.ee/read.php?15,10704143 91.129.103.10 01:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is for RFV, not for RFD. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

sr-

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Polish. None of the mentioned forms are actually affixed, they are blends. Vininn126 (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep until we decide where we can place this entry or how else to classify it. vxern (Dorian M. Oszczęda) (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Spotifajo

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Esperanto. Fails WT:BRAND just like English did. Ultimateria (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

The actual name of the brand is not Spotifajo, though, but Spotify. We do include nicknames of brands, why not foreign adaptations? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

In its current form the page is presented as a translation and not a nickname. Ultimateria (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

lũ nhóc

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Vietnamese, SoP. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Clearly SoP. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

lũ trẻ

Same. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Clearly SoP. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

tảng băng

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Vietnamese, tagged as SoP. A literal interpretation would give any big slab of ice though, not just those floating on the ocean. It’s true that many sources use tảng băng trôi (which is obviously SoP), but many leave out the trôi, making it idiomatic. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete of SoP. There are other usages of tảng, such as tảng đá (big rock), tảng xương heo/bò (pig/cow bones connected altogether), so I think tảng băng should be SoP. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

jaꞑь

Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Bashkir. It uses the long-obsolete Yañalif orthography, and there are only 5 words in the orthography in Bashkir lemmas category: jaꞑь, jьl, Jaꞑь jьl (this one could even be falling under WT:SOP), ʙajram, ʙəjge. If really wanted to be kept, it's probably better to make an orthography template, like the Persian regional spellings template, or the Kazakh spellings template.

Also, it's important to note that much unlike Persian or even Kazakh, Bashkir isn't official anywhere outside Bashkortostan, which doesn't necessitate any other spelling at all, let alone the long-obsolete Yañalif. If we are to keep the 5 words, then we are to duplicate everything else too. If we are to delete one, then we are to delete the rest too. Bababashqort (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ultimateria tagging you here for the rationale for my earlier page deletion. I thought it was a no-brainer/obvious page to be qualified for deletion, I'm sorry if it wasn't the case. Bababashqort (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Bababashqort: Thank you for opening this discussion in the right place. I didn't see a reason to speedy delete because I know absolutely nothing about the language and I doubted that anyone else who patrols the deletion nominations would be qualified to make that decision. Ultimateria (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

So I guess it's a yes? Bababashqort (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yanalif is of same kind obscurity as Romanian transitional Cyrillic, Norwegian/Icelandic/Swedish post-reformatoric runes, Belarussian Lacinka and Belarussian Arabic. May it be a good idea instead of creating own entries in Yanalif, just add commentary to entries about Bashkir letters which letters are corresponding to Yanalif? Like I did with runic use of Norwegian letters (see for example, at Norwegian P, etc). Tollef Salemann (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

A chart in «Башҡорт яҙыуы тарихынан» places the number of Latinized Bashkir books as 284 from 1928–1932, and w:ru:Башкирская письменность states that Latinization was used for a full decade (1930–1940). As the official orthography used by Soviet materials as part of a campaign against illiteracy, I doubt that Yañalif is too insignificant for inclusion in Wiktionary.

Speaking entirely personally, I would not put the effort into actively creating such entries, but I also do not believe there is sufficient reason to ban Yañalif entries entirely. «Башҡорт яҙыуы тарихынан» (as well as https://bashkort-tele.livejournal.com/tag/латиница) describes fluctuation of spelling rules, but I doubt that it is severe enough to disregard Yañalif. Although I am not familiar with Bashkir, I believe that I'm familiar with what type of content is typically in Wiktionary, and Yañalif is not out-of-place.

(As for templates like Template:fa-regional, note that these always output links, and that some types of editor have an obsession with eliminating any such red links; creating such a template is not much of a solution, although it would definitely be useful for containing Arabic, parallel to {{tt-variant}}.) —Fish bowl (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

What Fish bowl says. Ignore them. Fay Freak (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

As someone who is familiar with Bashkir (a native speaker), I would disagree. No Russian entries contain the pre-Peter orthography lemmas, let alone the Soviet Latin lemmas.

On top of that, by this logic, it would be much, much more reasonable to add Volga Türki lemmas, since the literary language was used, quite literally, for hundreds of years before the Yañalif. And it did eventually transform into a Bashkir-specific variant, which poets like Shaykhzada Babich, in fact did use for more than a decade.

Regarding the spelling rule fluctuation — such adaptation of foreign words was actually a practice in almost every latinized language (which is common knowledge to those familiar with the surface level knowledge of Turkic historical linguistics), including significant examples like Kazakh. The only reason modern Cyrillic lacks such adaptiveness is the language regulation institutes' policies, that are also the reason why we use the hard sign (ъ) in words like донъя, instead of writing it as "доня" (compare with Uzbek Cyrillic дунё, which didn't adopt such policy), or why the Udmurts write "эшъёс" instead of "эшёс" when there's nothing preventing this in the practical sense.

In conclusion: the Yañalif is in fact not significant enough for inclusion in Wiktionary. In fact, so insignificant, that even Unicode didn't include the I with bowl, which is present in the alphabet. These 5 lemmas are simply out of place, and if we keep them, then we have to duplicate every other lemma too. There is absolutely no reason to keep them alone, and absolutely no reason to not delete them. Keeping the lemmas would lead to duplicating the whole lemma list in Yañalif — the same reason why Unicode didn't accept inclusion of I with bowl: 1, 2, 3, 4.

On top of that, a significant part of the contributions of the user who created the page, 139.194.37.72, seem to consist of simply creating such spelling variants, such as Teajikistan, or altьn (which is tagged by WT:NORM too), or creating non-lemma forms, such as metin dosya, metin dosyası, for which (not specifically, but same kind of entries) Anatoli T. had warned him. This fact about the page creator also contributes to the insignificance of these lemmas.

There shouldn't even be much thinking in this regard. As I had said previously, this is a no-brainer. I don't understand why this discussion even should have been made — it hadn't been started to create these pages in the first place.

I would also kindly request @Atitarev to finally proceed with mass-deletion of 139.194.37.72 entries, since practically none of those pose any significant contribution, the user hadn't been active since 2020 (or at least the IP hasn't), and as you have already stated, it's much easier to mass-delete than to fix the mess they have created (the mess also being an (in?)direct cause of this discussion as well). Thank you in advance. Bababashqort (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

After thorough consideration and talk with @Thadh, I present this idea: include Yanalif entries only if they have a lexicographical significance, especially the properly/uniquely adapted loanwords like ədəʙejət, miljon^[31], and many others. As such, there would be no need to duplicate words with the same spelling in Cyrillic, like the aforementioned jaꞑь, jьl, ʙajram, ʙəjge, and no ignoring the Yanalif completely. But move the Yanalif entries to the end of lemma list, so that they won't clutter the first page of Category:Bashkir lemmas.

If everyone is agreeing, I would like to request admins to proceed with the deletion of jaꞑь, jьl, Jaꞑь jьl, ʙajram, ʙəjge (and as I previously mentioned with the reason, other entries of 139.194.37.72 as well), and move the Yanalif lemmas to the end of the lemma list. Bababashqort (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

mieć prawo

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Polish. SOP. prawo#Polish sense 4. Listed as a collocation by WSJP. Vininn126 (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Not used like German Recht haben (“to be in the right”). Create mieć słuszność. Fay Freak (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think you mean mieć rację... Vininn126 (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

SbH₃

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

and the vast majority in Category:mul:Chemical formulae, per WT:CHEM. Hftf (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

po francusku

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Polish. SOP. All such adjectives can use po + this Old archaic ending. No idiomatic definition present. Vininn126 (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. This is an instance of a still-productive sense of po. vxern (Dorian M. Oszczęda) (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

po niemiecku

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Polish. SOP. All such adjectives can use po + this Old archaic ending. No idiomatic definition present. Vininn126 (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. This is an instance of a still-productive sense of po. vxern (Dorian M. Oszczęda) (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Speedy delete for me. Best regards. — This unsigned comment was added by Kelawaikas (talk • contribs) at 11:29, 16 March 2025.

fakyo

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Indonesian. Was created with the meaning fukyo (a Japanese word meaning "not permitting"). It's most likely a gibberish/nonsense. Alfarizi M (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Speedied. Ultimateria (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

liếm gót

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Vietnamese. PhanAnh123’s comment for @Minhandsomely: “SOP. Find a better example please, you chose a really bad example (liếm gót giầy) to illustrate the idiomaticity of this.” Doesn’t actually mean to kiss up but to lick the heel. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

As much as I can find, the phrase in question is a calqued translation of an actual word, bootlicker, in English and it does have idiomatical meaning, not just "to lick the heel" as you might think. Minhandsomely (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

The fact that it is a calque is irrelevant. The correct translation of the example you gave would be “licking the Westerner’s heel”, making it not idiomatic. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

You can do your own reseach and will know that "liếm gót giày" and "liếm gót" are just the same. Minhandsomely (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Telling other people to do it is not how collaborative projects work. And whether or not they are the same is irrelevant to the question of idiomaticity. Have you read our criteria for inclusion yet? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

ᚩᚾᛋᚹᛁᚾᛁ

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Old English. @Mahagaja, I would like to ask you to reconsider deleting this entry. Here I list two more reputable sources, to add to those that I previously referenced, discrediting Stephens' reading of the Collinham Stone inscription.

Page, R. I. (1999), An Introduction to English Runes, →ISBN, pages 131-6. Vieter, Willhelm (1897), The Collingham Runic Inscription. Modern Language Notes, 12(2), 60–1. Hempl, George (1897), The Collingham Runic Inscription. Modern Language Notes, 12(2), 62. Stevens, William O. (1904), The Cross in the Life and Literature of the Anglo-Saxons, page 48.

From these, and this high quality photograph, courtesy of "The Megalithic Portal", I think it is apparent that the rune just right of the center of the cross is most certainly ᚦ, and therefore a reading of ᚩᚾᛋᚹᛁᚾᛁ cannot be possible. And since the leftmost runes are entirely unreadable, and were reportedly already so in Stephens' own time, it is simply better then that this inscription not be referenced in the creation of Old English entries, due to its illegibility and controversy; especially as it has lead to likely false, or at the very least otherwise unverifiable, assumptions about the progression of the Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law and the dating of cross itself.

And here can be found the original claim for further reference: Stephens, George (1866) The Old-northern Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and England. Vol. I, pages 390-1. (A summary version appears on pages 121-2 of his Handbook of Old-northern Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and England (1884)) Yeldred Gengo (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

падыкчьы

Northern Altai. In Todozhokova's dictionary, палықҷы is similarly to палыкчьы (қ=к, ҷ=чь in 17 pages). Thus, I made палыкчьы, and падыкчьы is error spelling that I wrote.

In conclusion, I thought that this error spelling will be deleted, so I determined the deletion of this page - падыкчьы. — This unsigned comment was added by 118.216.30.67 (talk) at 03:10, March 31, 2025.

-ічна

Latest comment: 1 month ago8 comments1 person in discussion

Ukrainian. It's an inflected form (feminine nominative singular) of -ічний (-ičnyj). I'm unaware of instances where this is an independently generative suffix in its own right. Voltaigne (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

-ична

Ukrainian. Same issue as -ічна above. -ична is an inflected form (feminine nominative singular) of -ичний (-yčnyj, adjective-forming suffix). Voltaigne (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

-ська

Ukrainian. Rfd-sense: "female equivalent of -ський (-sʹkyj)". It is a inflectional form (feminine nominative singular) of -ський (-sʹkyj, adjective-forming suffix). Female equivalent suffixes are those that produce female equivalent nouns. Voltaigne (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

-лява

Ukrainian. It's an inflected form (feminine nominative singular) of -лявий (-ljavyj, adjective-forming suffix), not an independently productive suffix AFAIK. Voltaigne (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

-лива

Ukrainian. It's an inflected form (feminine nominative singular) of -ливий (-lyvyj, adjective-forming suffix), not an independently productive suffix AFAIK. Voltaigne (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

-істка

Ukrainian. It isn't a distinct suffix. It's just -ка (-ka) added to nouns ending in -іст. See also -istka (Czech and Polish) above. Same principle. Voltaigne (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

-истка

Ukrainian. It isn't a distinct suffix. It's just -ка (-ka) added to nouns ending in -ист. See also -ystka (Polish) above. Same principle. Voltaigne (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

-їстка

Ukrainian. It isn't a distinct suffix. It's just -ка (-ka) added to nouns ending in -їст. Voltaigne (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

April 2025

Vultrogotha

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I request this page to be removed because:

This name is heavily Latinized or simply Latin. The expected Old Dutch form would be more like '...guta', where Vultra-/Ultra- seems very hard to connect to any Germanic naming element (RC:Proto-Germanic/wuldrą perhaps?);
Though it is partially personal preference, I think 5th-6th century is too early for an Old Dutch lemma, a reconstructed Frankish lemma would be fine to me;
Old Dutch lemmas shouldn't contain a 'v-' at the start of a word, as for standardization. This is only possible as an newer form of 'f-' (which can't be the case because this woman is from the 5th to 6th century) or a Latinization of 'w-' (and I dislike using Latinizations for lemmas).

I request that someone with more expertise than me look into it before coming to a final decision. Preupellor (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

-ла

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ukrainian. Again, this is not an independently productive suffix. It is an inflectional form of other suffixes. Voltaigne (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

förintelseförnekelse

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is the Swedish word for Holocaust denial. The English entry for Holocaust denial was deleted following a discussion. SnappyDragonPennyroyal (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Speedy keep, invalid argument. I think that "Holocaust denial" was deleted as being SOP, an argument that does not apply to one-word terms. In general, terms in different languages should be considered on their own merits. ‑‑Lambiam 09:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep. The English entry was for a two-word phrase that was SOP. The Swedish entry is a one-word compound and isn't subject to deletion as SOP. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

חבר אוריינות

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hebrew. Reviewed per RfV. Unattested. Seems most likely a misreading of חסרי-אוריינות, or, less likely, some mutilation of רב אוריינות, Multiliteracy. Danny lost (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

dż

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dż

Kashubian.

Digraph. Vininn126 (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

כוץ

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hebrew. Following RfV. No attestation. Probably a misreading of פוץ (“putz”). However, קוץ can also be used in the same sense, as a clipping of קוץ בתחת (“pain in the ass”), that is also influenced (or vice versa) by klutz. Danny lost (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

dũng cảm có thừa

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Vietnamese. SoP: dũng cảm + có thừa (roughly: to have in abundance). Duchuyfootball (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

zo niet

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dutch. SOP: zo ("if") + niet ("not"). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

pengamanan arsip

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Indonesian. Possibly SOP. Also, this entry doesn't have any definition. Alfarizi M (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

pemeliharaan surat

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Indonesian. Same as above. Alfarizi M (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

עבר על החוק

Latest comment: 13 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hebrew (‘to break the law’). While certainly a collocation, it is clear that this sense of the word can be applied to a range of objects. I admit that dictionaries do not give this as a dedicated meaning for עָבַר, relegating it instead to its derived expressions, but I find this contrary to Wiktionary principles.

Milon Even-Shoshan gives in its list of expressions featuring עָבַר the combinations עבר על מצווה, עבר על דין, עבר על דברים, as well as the transitive עבר את מצוותו, עבר את פיו. (Perhaps a native speaker may lend his expertise and inform us of nuances of register, frequency and currency—which professional Hebrew dictionaries never bother to do.)

In consequence, I propose deleting this entry and adding the following to עָבַר:

(transitive or intransitive) to break, violate [with עַל or (eventual qualifier) direct object]
עָבַר עַל הַחֹק ― avár al hakhók ― to break the law

―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Such a change would have prevented me from learning about this idiom as a consequence of looking up חוק. I would recommend leaving the reference and duplicating it for עבר. SwiftSurge (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

A collocation (as suggested above by me) is more prominent than a mere link, but it’s true that we should duplicate the information across עבר and חוק. ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

*келi

Latest comment: 29 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The letter i in this entry is Latin rather than Cyrillic. Generally, a single Kazakh word should not be written in multiple scripts. In addition, there has already been a correct entry I created years ago (келі).

In consequence, I propose deleting the entry *келi.

Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Speedied as "created in error". Usable content was merge to келі (kelı). —Mahāgaja · talk 13:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

ஜங்கிள்

Latest comment: 24 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tamil. @Pixelpito There seem to be a lot of online citations for this term. Could you elaborate on why it should be deleted? For example, is it an improper adaptation from English? Kutchkutch (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

வாத்துக்கள்

Latest comment: 24 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tamil. @‪Pixelpito‬ According to the entry for -கள் (-kaḷ), வாத்துக்கள் (vāttukkaḷ) is the plural of வாத்து (vāttu). Is this incorrect? Kutchkutch (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

May 2025

²²⁄₇

Latest comment: 14 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Translingual. Absolutely no reason for this to exist - at least the other fractions are a single codepoint. This one isn't. Mathematical trivia does not make this any more entryworthy. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

mid þȳ þe

Latest comment: 14 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The correct page is mid þy þe (I forgot about the move option before creating the correct page).

Speedied as "created in error", no need to bring to RFD. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

míchearte

Latest comment: 12 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The comparative degree of mícheart is míchirte, not míchearte. The page is incorrect. Anonymous8245 (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Speedied as deletion was requested by the creator and no one else had edited the page. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

every entry in "Category:German terms spelled with :", "Category:German gender-neutral terms", "Category:German gender-neutral nouns", plus the categories

Latest comment: 12 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The so-called gender-neutral spellings of words listed in these categories are neither firmly established nor officially standardized in German. No references are given, either. HГq (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is a completely useless RFD. Inclusion of words is subject to the attestation criterion. If a word meets this criterion, it stays. (And that is a WT:RFVN matter, so this page - RFD - is not the right place.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

My concern is that all of our German gender-neutral terms seem to use the "gender colon", but the "gender asterisk" is much more common in practice. So when checking attestation, we need to keep in mind that Mitarbeiter*innen (for example) is likely to be better attested than Mitarbeiter:innen. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

سوشینت

Latest comment: 12 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Persian. Couldn't find anything on this form. Probably a misspelling. Light hearted sam (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is for RFV, not RFD. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

-menne

Latest comment: 11 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This supposed suffix is only attested in ǣmenne, and there is no reason to interpret this as anything but ǣ- + mann + -e with umlaut. I see no reason why we would have a page for it when there's no indication that it truly existed. Vergencescattered (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

чёрно

Latest comment: 11 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Russian. Tagged but AFAICT not listed. Noticed it by chance due to it being a borked redirect. It's still linked to by monochrome. - -sche (discuss) 01:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Speedied as unwanted redirect. I also fixed the link at monochrome#Translations, but it's also still linked to by чёрный (čórnyj) as an adverb. If that's true, obviously it can be re-created as such if anyone so desires. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

dearadh mapa

Latest comment: 10 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Irish. SOP: dearadh (“design”) + mapa (“map”) = map design. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

pole namiotowe

Latest comment: 10 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Polish. SOP. Listed as a collocation on WSJP. Vininn126 (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

-ş-

Latest comment: 10 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Azerbaijani. Tagged since May 17, 2022, but not listed. No rationale for deletion was given. ‑‑Lambiam 09:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. This is not an infix, but a duplicate of the Azerbaijani entry -ş, which can occur word-final (e.g. in tanış, the second-person singular imperative of tanışmaq). ‑‑Lambiam 09:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

kayın-

Latest comment: 10 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Turkish. Tagged since May 18, 2022, with the rationale "not a prefix but a noun, see kayın", but not listed. ‑‑Lambiam 09:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep. If this was a noun in compounds such as kayın +‎ baba, kayın +‎ birader, kayın +‎ peder and kayın +‎ valide, one should see the nominatives *kayınbabası, *kayınbiraderi, ..., instead of kayınbaba, kayınbirader, and so on. Compare dere +‎ ot → dereotu, hanım +‎ el → hanımeli. (I suspect that the noun kayın in its familial sense is a clipping of kayınbirader.) ‑‑Lambiam 09:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

sahip *imek

Latest comment: 10 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Turkish. Tagged for verification on December 6, 2022, but not listed. I think this should be deleted, even if it can be "verified".

Delete. For one thing, this is a clearly transparent sum of the noun sahip (“owner”) and the "reconstructed" verb *imek (“to be”). You can say, "sahip imişsiniz" – "apparently, you are the owner". You can likewise say, "baba imişsiniz" – "apparently, you are the father", "şef imişsiniz" – "apparently, you are the boss", and so on and so forth. Then, to own is transitive, whereas sahip *imek is intransitive. Furthermore, when you specify the item possessed, you need to use the possessive, changing the form of the noun: "Bu evi beğendik. Sahibi imişsiniz." "We like this house. Apparently, you are the owner." ‑‑Lambiam 12:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

kumaafkan

Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Indonesian. Does the SoP rule apply to cliticized terms like this? Anyway, I think this is SoP because ku- is a clitic and not a real inflecting prefix, and it is optional and doesn't always have to be in front of verb for example "kutelah tahu", "telah kutahu" and "aku telah tahu" (all mean I already knew) are all acceptable, just like the clitic -ku which is aslo optional for example "anakku" and "anak aku" are both acceptable. Alfarizi M (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The SOP rule generally doesn't apply to terms conventionally written together without a space, at least in languages written in scripts that use word spacing, which Indonesian is. Still, the Indonesian editors could get together and agree to exclude things like this, and have that agreement recorded at WT:AID. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nôbita

Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Vietnamese. See WT:FICTION: “With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense.” MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request \| history \| archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request \| history CJK add new request \| history Italic add new request \| history Non-English (all other languages) add new request \| history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request \| history CJK add new request \| history Italic add new request \| history Reconstruction add new request \| history Non-English (all other languages) add new request \| history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request \| history \| archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.			Language treatment requests add new request \| history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English

April 2018

Yaghnobi entries of User:Rajkiandris

-ающий, -яющий, -ающийся

October 2018

February 2019

Incorrect uncontracted forms of Ancient Greek verbs

December 2019

Old English pseudo-prefixes

March 2020

April 2020

August 2020

⦙, ⧝, ⧜

-lending (Norwegian Bokmål)

-lending (Norwegian Nynorsk)

September 2020

October 2020

Arabic possibly incorrectly hamzated forms

November 2020

Suyá ŋó

January 2021

April 2021

May 2021

June 2021

July 2021

د هغۀ, د هغې, د هغوی, د ... په منځ کې, د ... وروسته, خوځنده انځور, دويم ځل, بل ځل, ورځ په ورځ

August 2021

December 2021

January 2022

February 2022

दस करोड़, दस लाख

April 2022

abajurlu, abajursuz

May 2022

June 2022

July 2022

m/s, m/s²

August 2022

September 2022

October 2022

November 2022

December 2022

Everything in Category:az:Languages and Category:uz:Languages

Delete all pages under Category:Thai rhymes

January 2023

February 2023

Two unencoded entries

March 2023

U+0085 and similar redirects

April 2023

pojistná smlouva, nájemní smlouva