Open main menu

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

This page is for entries in any language other than English. For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English.

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

Closing a request: A request can be closed when a decision to delete, keep, or transwiki has been reached, or after the request has expired. Closing a request normally consists of the following actions:

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

(Note: The above is typical. However, in many cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply "RFD deleted" or "RFD kept".)

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk page using {{archive-top|rfd}} + {{archive-bottom}}. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:piffle, Talk:good job. Note that talk pages containing such discussions are preserved even if the associated article is deleted.

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

Tagged RFDs


April 2017Edit


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

Note: this has been RFD'ed before; see Talk:pouasse. MG found that it was sufficiently common to keep; what makes you disagree with his assessment? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: 8030 hits for "la pouasse" (397000 for "la poisse"); 3150 hits for "quelle pouasse" (30900 for "quelle poisse"); 307 hits for "une pouasse" (11800 for "une poisse"). It's not that common (+ at least some hits concern the word for a kind of chemical, so they aren't misspellings); so no, I don't think it warrants an entry. --Barytonesis (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Abstain. It could be deleted a rare misspelling (WT:CFI#Spellings). pouasse,poisse at Google Ngram Viewer does not find pouasse, so no frequency ratio can be calculated and it must be rather rare. However, going by the web counts posted by Barytonesis above, I would say it could be a common misspelling, but I prefer to use Google Ngram Viewer for frequency ratios since it is a tool designed for frequency statistics. A frequency ratio calibration is at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Keep, seems common enough. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

June 2017Edit

многоквартирный домEdit

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

Russian entered to mean apartment building, and then there are other senses. Literally multi-apartment building, I guess. Is this the most usual way to render apartment building into Russian? How would I know that I have to use "много-" instead of just квартирный дом? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is the most usual way to render apartment building into Russian and those are, indeed "multi-apartment building", not two or three. It's still an SoP. The attributive adjective кварти́рный (kvartírnyj) is used for words related to apartments, not having multiple apartments, e.g. "квартирная плата" - "rent" (for the apartment), "квартирная хозяйка" - landlady. многокварти́рный (mnogokvartírnyj) means "multiapartment". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I have provided a usage example at многокварти́рный (mnogokvartírnyj), so that there is no loss of information:
многокварти́рный до́мmnogokvartírnyj dómapartment complex; mansion
--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
If that is so, I think this is better kept since I would not know this is the right term. It seems also no more SOP than apartment building; the English term is in rather many dictionaries, per apartment building at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. apartment building is arguably SOP as well, and its entry only serves as a translation hub, imo; the Russian entry has no such fonction. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


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

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

July 2017Edit


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

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


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

Keep as useful compound. Um ... translation target, anyone? Mihia (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. @Mihia: The "translation target" reasoning is explicitly only for English entries, because we don't place translation tables in entries in other languages (therefore they are incapable of being translation targets). This translation can remain in the table at chimney sweep, but with each of the two component words linked individually. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The "translation target" thing was just my little joke. Sorry if that was unclear. By the way, is the sugested SOP 煙突 + 掃除 + or 煙突 + 掃除夫? I find it a bit surprising that we have 煙突掃除夫 but not 掃除夫. Mihia (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
掃除夫 is also SoP and [doesn't appear in any of the wordlists Weblio Dictionaries] relies on. —suzukaze (tc) 10:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
If 掃除夫 doesn't exist then that is a slight point in favour of keeping 煙突掃除夫. As a general principle, I do not believe that Ja entries should necessarily be deleted just because the meaning can be interpreted as the sum of the meanings of individual characters. I believe that well-established compounds that are perceived as one word should be kept, just as we keep "caveman" for instance, even though it is "cave" + "man". Even 煙突 and 掃除 themselves are ultimately SoP, but I don't imagine anyone proposes deleting those. OTOH the issue of "perceived as one word" is harder when there are no spaces, and, I would say, ideally needs a native speaker's input for individual cases, unless we are just to copy what other dictionaries do (I see, by the way, that WWWJDIC has 煙突掃除夫). Mihia (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Japanese entered as chimney sweep; the sum is 煙突 (entotsu, “chimney, smokestack”) +‎ 掃除夫 (sōjifu, “cleaner”). If this is the most usual way to refer to chimney sweeps, I think this should be kept. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete per proponent. Per utramque cavernam 19:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

ge- -tEdit

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

ge- only appears if -t, -et or -en is added, there is nothing like geleg (without any ending). In certain cases only an ending and not ge- is added. Thus it should be ge- -t (ge- -et, ge- -en) and for certain cases (some derived terms or compounds like beschreiben (be- + schreiben) and foreign words like zitieren (from Latin)) just -t, -et, -en. In literature one can also read that ge- -t is a circumfix, e.g.:
  • 2014, Michael Schäfer and Werner Schäfke, Sprachwissenschaft für Skandinavisten: Eine Einführung, p. 110: "vom Zirkumfix {ge- -t}"
  • 2016, Roland Schäfer, Einführung in die grammatische Beschreibung des Deutschen, 2nd edition, p. 324: "das Zirkumfix ge- -t (schwach) bzw. ge- -en (stark)" 03:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Suffix plus separate prefix per Kolmiel. There's also a few cases where the prefix or its variants appear without a suffix (e.g. Getreide, glauben, gönnen). Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep. —CodeCat 12:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Getreide, glauben, gönnen do not contain a NHG prefix ge-. The OHG or MHG terms might have gi- or ge- in it, but that's not visible in the NHG terms anymore.
Better examples might exist in (older?) dialectal/regional German like geseyn instead of sein (or seyn). Some terms similar to this might also exist in 'standard' High German.
Anyway ge- alone doesn't form the past participle (unless it's somewhat strangely analysed like in ge- -t ("with ge- (for strong verbs)") and and ge-#German (the second prefix)). And if ge- -t gets removed, the sense would belong to -t (and -en, but not ge-). In -t it then should be something like "forms the past participle; usually together with ge-, but sometimes just -t". - 15:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: The fact that there are other ways to mark the past participle is not relevant. The question is whether the elements ge- and -t in, for example, gelegt have distinct meaning on their own, the way un- and -ed do in unnamed. They don't; they only have meaning when taken together as the marker of the past participle. Therefore, they should not be analyzed separately; they have to be considered a circumfix. So also with ge- -et and ge- -en. — Eru·tuon 00:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
What are you talking about? All endings have several distinct meanings of their own, one being that they are the ending of the past participle, with or without the prefix. E.g. entlarvt, verschnitten, erduldet etc. which are past participles, marked by the respective ending, without the respective prefix. ps.: New High German begins around 1400, so having an entry for a prefix 'ge-' for words like gesitzen is absolutely in the scope of Wiktionary's de code. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm talking about the meaning in the word in question, gelegt. Does the -t mean one thing and the ge- mean another in that word? — Eru·tuon 16:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
No, Peter Gröbner (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
NHG begins around 1350 or around 1500 depending on definition or view. The ISO code gmh ends around 1500 (which would imply de starts around 1500). Regardless of the beginning of de, NHG has a prefix ge-. And not just one forming collectives, but also one in verbs, as in "gesein" or "geseyn" for "sein" (once also "seyn") (infinitive) and "gewesen" (past participle). Those prolonged verbs usually are obsolete now, but there might be exceptions as "gebrauchen" versus "brauchen".
But is e.g. "gefragt" somehow analysed as "ge- + frag (stem) + -t", with -t marking the past participle and ge- being something else?
It's analysed as "ge- + frag (stem) + -t" with ge- ... -t being a circumfix at least by some (two sources were given above), and this might be the more usual analysis. - 21:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll say it frankly: I'm pissed off by your underhand tactics of pulling the musing that 'something might be X' out of your arse. It might also be a nutty fringe interpretation only upheld by your two sources. But who's helped by me mentioning that? If I wanted random guesses, I'd buy a magic 8-ball, if I wanted people subtly influenced with the mentioning of possibilities, I'd buy Frank Luntz. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep. It is not a combination of the prefix ge- and the suffix -t, because there is no intermediate stage: gesagt, *gesag, *sagt. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, or rework. Analyzable as prefix + suffix, a view reinforced by the separate presence of the ge- prefix and -t suffix in other words. In addition, the entry currently at ge- -t doesn't provide much utility, and it's unclear how a user would ever arrive at this page via search -- the only apparent avenue would be by clicking through from another entry, which could just as well link to something else instead.
Incidentally, the entry at -t looks woefully inadequate, and apparently wrong to boot -- the def is given as "-ed (used to form adjectives from nouns)", but then the terms in Category:German_words_suffixed_with_-t all seem to be derived from verbs...
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll throw in my view again: The entry is completely sum-of-parts. The parts being a participle prefix, which occurs without this suffix, and a participle suffix, which occurs without this prefix. And five people voting to keep doesn't make it less sum-of-parts. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to say keep, but the fact that native speakers want to see it deleted must be saying something. Abstain. Per utramque cavernam 19:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC) 
Keep, though the entry could probably use some work. I have seen no argument to delete that is convincing enough to outweigh the point mentioned by TAKASUGI Shinji above. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 07:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I have a potential argument. :)
Granted, sagt doesn't exist in strict terms as a preterite form. I believe this is due at least in part to a collision between weak-verb present third-person singular suffix -t and present second-person plural suffix -t with preterite suffix -t. For weak verbs, German differentiates the third-person singular present from the third-person singular preterite by adding -e to the preterite. This vowel might be analyzable as preterite -t + third-person -t, with vowel -e on the end either simply to differentiate present from preterite, or as some kind of excrescence in the presence of an otherwise-geminate -tt ending.
If we accept that the core person-less form of the preterite is *sagt, then the progression of forms is clear: present verb root sag, preterite root *sagt as present sag + preterite -t, participle gesagt as preterite root *sagt + participial prefix ge-.
@Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n], it's been a while since I've done much work on German derivations -- is the above analysis echoed by any German-language sources? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
While factually correct in terms of etymological theory that weak verbs' past tense is stem + *dʰeh₁, I've never read anyone describing it in these terms. That said, I'm neither a linguist nor is High German of great interest to me, so my acquaintance with works on German, and of course teaching materials, is more than superficial. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

August 2017Edit


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

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

Nakke NakuttajaEdit

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

Delete. Equinox 16:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
No objection to deletion, but I'd like to point out that we have an English entry for each of Santa's reindeer (Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzen, if one would want to check). Besides, I believe that there are situations when at least I might want to search this term in a dictionary. Unless we can delete Santa's reindeer, I would rather suggest that we add "Woody Woodpecker". Also, one might argue that Woody W is about as well-known fictional personality as e.g. Winnie the Pooh. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
We have the Santa reindeer entries because Daniel Carrero likes reindeer. That is not a lexical argument. Equinox 03:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
If there's one thing I fucking hate is when people put words in my mouth. I created the reindeer entries, yes, but I don't like everything I create entries for. I could have created an entry for cancer or something.
We seem to accept all mythical and folkloric entities like Santa Claus himself, but I don't mind to be proved wrong if we come up with some present or future rule against that. See also Category:en:Folklore and Category:en:Mythology.
This is different from fictional characters belonging from comics, films, etc. like Woody Woodpecker. Delete Nakke Nakuttaja in the absence of any good reason to keep it. Actually, maybe keep-ish since we have kept a few notable entries for characters for one reason or another, including Winnie the Pooh as mentioned above. Again, this is different from mythological and folklorical creatures that are not tied to cartoons, comics, etc. belonging to some specific company or author. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Santa's reindeer seem to be named by one person, too [1]. When do they become "folkloric"? When sufficient number of people use them without knowing the origin? Whatever the truth, this demonstrates how difficult it is to draw the line. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Might as well just delete. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 11:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam 23:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think we should reconsider undeleting Woody Woodpecker, given the statement at Talk:Woody Woodpecker that said "The debate here was whether to keep the entry, even acknowledging that it's attested pr FICTION, debating whether it's dictionary material." It seems Woody was deleted either in disregard of WT:CFI, which has a rather stringent provision for fictional characters, and even that provision seems to have been overriden. See Citations:Woody Woodpecker. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Undelete Woody Woodpecker and Keep Nakke Nakuttaja, because the term is definitely well-known and notable. 18:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm moving to start a RFD to undelete Woody Woodpecker (see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#Woody Woodpecker), and to assume its result on this deletion discussion as well, deleting this if the entry isn't undeleted and keeping this if it is. — surjection?〉 15:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

September 2017Edit


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

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

kde se nacházíEdit

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

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

être dans des transesEdit

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

kan du snakke engelsk?Edit

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

Maybe snakker du engelsk? (another entry) is more common [2] than [3]. DonnanZ (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it's rarely used, there's no reason to have it as a phrasebook entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Some searches: google books:"kan du snakke engelsk", google books:"snakker du engelsk". When I click to the right, as I have to with Google searches to see the actual number of hits, the latter search does not yield all that many more items. The entry was created by User:EivindJ, who used to declare themselves as Norwegian native speaker. The phrase is e.g. in Ny i Norge: Arbeidsbok by Gerd Manne, 1977. I think the searches for phrasebooks to apply something like the lemming heuristic are most useful for English phrases, and much less for non-English phrases. I'd say week keep, but input from Norwegian speakers would be welcome, and absent that input, I would err on the side of keeping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    That is a good point, "can you speak English" is more common in phrasebooks. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam 22:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: Would you consider to clarify whether that delete has anything to do with WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, where phrasebook is mentioned, and which observations, measurements and searches you considered in deciding your "delete"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: None. It suffices me to observe that no dictionary that I know of includes phrasebook sentences in its main body; AFAICT those are always gathered in a separate section, with a distinct colour code for example. If the CFI allows them, it means I disagree with the CFI. Per utramque cavernam 21:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so the above is a CFI override. WT:CFI: "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. Although these are included as entries in the dictionary (in the main namespace), they are not usually considered in these terms." A category: Category:English phrasebook. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Do you know of any dictionary that includes proverbs in its main body? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: The 2005 paper version of Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary has the saying charity begins at home, just below charity and as a separate subpoint of that entry. At English, it also has the sentence do you speak English?, but only as a usage example, not as a separate subpoint. Per utramque cavernam 21:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The fair entry in that same dictionary has several subpoints dedicated to idiomatic expressions, among which: to be fair, by fair means or foul, fair and square; and a final subpoint, labelled as a "saying": all's fair in love and war. Per utramque cavernam 21:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Let me then point out that we will have sentence entries in mainspace anyway--proverbs--and in addition to that, we can keep useful phrasebook entries: there are not so many to flood the mainspace. There is no consensus for abolishing the phrasebook concept as per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-12/Removing phrasebook. Some entries I find very useful, such as I'm thirsty, which in Czech is mám žízeň (I have thirst); more is at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#Usefulness of phrasebook. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Bold keep per my posts above; no Norwegian speakers have provided input, and instead, we received a CFI-overriding delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
If it's not "particularly common" as the request states, it doesn't meet CFI, given it states "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers." (emphasis mine) — surjection?〉 13:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Note that my statement about its uncommonness was in particular about Google Books. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Changing to keep. Most Norwegian phrase books on BGC seem to be without any preview, therefore biasing BGC as a heuristic. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

October 2017Edit

conserver un suiviEdit

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

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

liaison sans lendemainEdit

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

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

tiếng AfrikaansEdit

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

Will possibly apply to many or all "tiếng" words, see CAT:vi:Languages. A similar cleanup happened with a few languages to get rid of entries containing the word "language" in that language. @Fumiko Take, Wyang. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I know absolutely nothing about Vietmamese, but do the two words have to go together? There is no separate entry for Vietnamese Afrikaans. DonnanZ (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I would say so, though I'm still tempted to parallel them with Japanese (go) words (I've hardly ever bothered with them though), and I'm a little ambivalent about a few cases like tiếng Anh or tiếng Việt. Unlike Japanese, Korean and Chinese, Vietnamese doesn't distinguish "the UK", "Great Britain" and "England", so it's probably fine to consider tiếng Anh an SoP. Việt could be consider a free morpheme, but then it's usually used in a few compounds in non-literary contexts, so it's harder to tell if tiếng Việt is an SoP. Geez, Vietnamese, give me a break already. Personally, I'm not comfortable with tiếng Afrikaans even being a Vietnamese entry, but this is also a good opportunity to re-evaluate Japanese (go) words, Korean (eo) words and Chinese words too: are they also SoPs? They do seem to parallel with instances such as 奈良県 (Nara-ken), ネコ科 or ドラゴン (Doragon-zoku), which feature apparent bound morphemes, but also are coined very easily without consideration on how the morphemes would be affected by compounding like, say, Latin Felidae. ばかFumikotalk 11:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Fumiko Take: Thanks. I am suggesting to have separate CFI for languages with no clear word boundaries or w:scriptio continua, so that inclusion rules could be decided once and for all, hopefully. tiếng Việt might be one of the few exception, I understand why you hesitate. Is Việt really a productive adjective? tiếng, (),  () (go), (eo) or "人" words could be part of the CFI discussion - do we or do we not include words with these suffixes (prefixes) as words? In fact, there is little idiomatic about 中國人中国人 (zhōngguórén) - China person or 中國話中国话 (zhōngguóhuà) - China speech but dictionaries do include them, so do we. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's worth saying that when a page exists in the Vietnamese Wiktionary tiếng Việt appears in the left-hand column. DonnanZ (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
It's true that there is no Vietnamese entry Afrikaans and many other foreign proper nouns, for which there is no equivalent created in Vietnamese or it's rarely used. For a Vietnamese entry Afrikaans, it would be necessary to provide the phonetic respelling but native speakers usually frown upon these words as they are not really considered Vietnamese. For example, "Pakistan" has a native Vietnamese words Pa-ki-xtan, even if English "Pakistan" is also commonly used. It's still an SoP, unless we decide that words containing tiếng merit their entry. For comparison, Thai, Lao, Khmer, Burmese entries with the word "language" have been deleted, as was agreed by knowledgeable editors or native speakers in RFD discussions.
For example, Thai language can be expressed in various ways in Burmese:
ထိုင်းနိုင်ငံhtuing:nuingngamThailand (country)
ထိုင်းစာhtuing:caThai language (written)
ထိုင်းဘာသာhtuing:bhasaThai language
Thai: ภาษาไทย
paa-sǎa tai
Thai (language)
tiếng Thái LanThai (language)
tiếng TháiThai (language)
Even if it's common to use the word "language", the pattern is predictable, so there is no need to "boost" the number of entries by these combinations. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
tiếng means language, in one of the senses. In general, I am ok with keeping "X language" entries in various languages, especially if the "X language" pattern is the usual way of expression in that language, which I do not know for Vietnamese. Thus, if "tiếng Afrikaans" is more often used than "Afrikaans" to refer to the language, I'd prefer to keep "tiếng Afrikaans". --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 21:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

baignade à poilEdit

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

November 2017Edit

aktuelle begivenhederEdit

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

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

December 2017Edit


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

temps primitifEdit

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

Probably SOP as temps = tense, primitif = primitive = original, not derived. An examples of a primitive tense could English present simple (I go, thou goest, he goeth or goes only contain a form of go and no helping verb), while perfect and non-simple could be non-primitive (I am gone, I am going are composed a form of be and a form of go). However, temps primitif needs an explanation how a tense is primitive and through the explanation primitive = formed without a helping verb it's not so SOP anymore. Additionally, other tenses (Category:en:Tenses) and grammatical terms (Category:en:Grammar) might be somewhat SOP-like too but do have entries. - 15:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, IP is right. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

January 2018Edit


A Spanish particle only used in inter caetera.

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

  • I don't mind if it's deleted. --Gente como tú (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, as it's a single word in a language which one might run across and want to look up. I don't see why it hurts to have "an entry for every string that only occurs in one or two set phrases"; there surely can't be so many set phrases consisting of words not otherwise used in the language that it will overwhelm the dictionary. In any case, I can certainly imagine myself looking this up. This, that and the other (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    You wouldn’t mind creating omne and hoc due to the existence of et hoc genus omne? Audi, alteram and partem due to audi alteram partem? — Ungoliant (falai) 00:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    Not at all. If one doesn't know a language very well it can be difficult to spot set phrases like this. Although before doing so I'd like to be certain that they are in fact English phrases, since both of them lack citations. This, that and the other (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    I sure hope we never go down that road. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Phrases like this should use |head=inter caetera and the like to prevent links to the individual words when the individual words aren't words of that language. I think it would be silly to have English entries for déjà and vu that say "used only in déjà vu". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. All words, all languages. A beginning learner would look it up. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to inter caetera. 16:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    It can't be hard redirected, because it's a string in another language besides Spanish. It's already a soft redirect. - -sche (discuss) 23:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Is inter caetera only used in Spanish, or is it a Latinism used in many languages? If the latter, then there is less argument for having a Spanish (and a French, etc) "only in" at "caetera", and I would rather the Latin entries for "inter" and "caetera" link to a Latin entry "inter caetera". If it's mostly just Spanish that uses "inter caetera", then I think our "only in" at "caetera" pointing to "inter caetera" is OK to keep, but only if somebody creates [[inter caetera]]! It doesn't make sense to point to a page that doesn't exist! If no-one creates [[inter caetera]] or it gets deleted, then delete this. - -sche (discuss) 22:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete, it looks to me like inter caetera is mostly (only?) used in Spanish when referring to a papal bull. So there would be no reason for either caetera or inter caetera as Spanish entries despite its importance for Spanish and Latin American history. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


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

Agreed. Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
There's also 酷い目に遭う. Nardog (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Week keep. That is no more productive and I have a difficulty in creating a new phrase. Daijisen has an entry: [4]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


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


maybe this one too? —Suzukaze-c 06:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete. That is not a lexical unit. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

traue keiner Statistik, die du nicht selbst gefälscht hastEdit

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

Why not? It's used proverbially, ain't it? If the reason shall be, that it's SOP-ish or self-explaining, then as a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly, better safe than sorry should have to be deleted too. - 00:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
While I object to those phrases, too, I don't see a clear dividing line. There's still the phrase book appendix, subject to opposition, too. I have a suspicion that negative tone is responsible for the request, partially. 05:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
No. It just doesn't seem proverbial to me. Per utramque cavernam 00:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Keep.Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep. I looked at google books:"traue keiner Statistik, die du nicht selbst gefälscht hast" to see prevalence. The OP does not refer to WT:CFI. Then we learn that it does not seem proverbial, but proverbiality is not analyzed in any way. The statement is not literal, to say the least, with a considerable frequency, and reasonably short; its not being proverb, if actual, is unobvious. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll try to explain what I have in mind: to me, proverbs are inherited units of popular wisdom; they're short and concise, they use simple words, they're old, they express universal truths (as such they often have proverbial equivalents in other languages), they don't make use of irony.
The item we're concerned with has a certain "gnomic" feel to it, yes. But I think it is too recent; it uses the word "statistic" (that's not a complex word, but I wouldn't expect everybody to see straightaway what it is about); it looks more like the words of a wisecrack than the genuine product of conventional wisdom. And does it have proverbial equivalents in other languages? All in all, it doesn't look like what I (and others, I'm sure) am used to identify/recognise as a proverb. Per utramque cavernam 22:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky Per utramque cavernam 11:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the analysis. Can you point me to the part of WT:CFI that you think this item fails? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The very first: "A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense. Any of these are also acceptable: Compounds; Idioms; Proverbs; Abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms; Prefixes and suffixes; Characters used in ideographic or phonetic writing". traue keiner Statistik, die du nicht selbst gefälscht hast is neither a word, nor a compound, nor an idiom, nor an abbreviation of some sort, nor an affix, nor a character... Nor, in my view and as I was saying above, a proverb. Per utramque cavernam 11:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
That item does not purport to list a complete taxonomy of what a term is. In any case, I would argue that the discussed phrase is something like an idiom. Some German sources refer to the item as "Spruch", one source even as "Sprichwort", as per google books:"traue keiner Statistik, die du nicht selbst gefälscht hast". As an aside, fact-free and research-free opinions are the cheapest goods in the world: everyone has plenty of them and everyone is glad to share them (I am not the author, nor is it exactly true). --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
"That item does not purport to list a complete taxonomy of what a term is.": what is it meant to do then? Is it merely indicative? What other kind of items could we include? Why don't we mention them there? Per utramque cavernam 14:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
It plays the role of "including but not restricted to". It makes it explicit that something is not to be narrowly construed, in this case the notion of "term". There was a vote to make the list more extensive, aiming at completeness, and that vote failed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Two obvious examples are infixes and circumfixes. --RichardW57 (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Per utramque cavernam 15:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


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

Delete ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I would lean towards keeping it. Zahnwale (many toothed whales) is not the same as Zahnwale (order Odontoceti). --Hekaheka (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

All entries in Category:Turkish noun formsEdit

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

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

lucha en lodoEdit

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

The Spanish is just as idiomatic/SoP as the English mud wrestling. —Stephen (Talk) 08:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I disagree; I think "mud wrestling" is ambiguous, but "fighting in mud" is not. I say delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 00:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

escala de piedrasEdit

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

To me it looks idiomatic. If you didn't know better, you might think it meant "rock scale", "rock ladder", "rock stopping point", or "rock list". —Stephen (Talk) 08:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep or improve the entry for escala. By reading the entry one would never guess the term translates into English as "rock climbing". --Hekaheka (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


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

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

I don't have a strong opinion on unattested form entries, but I find the inflection tables OK. As soon as the lemma exists, the inflected forms are defined unless there are forms that cannot be used. Even if nobody ever used in writing the ablative singular form of pöytä (table) > pöydättä (without a table) I can use it any time I wish and will be understood by other Finnish speakers.--Hekaheka (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

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

If only the participle is attested, then everything should be deleted except the lemma form of the participle, which is νεκραγωγέων (nekragōgéōn). The attested form νεκραγωγοῦντα (nekragōgoûnta) is an inflected form of that. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Aren't participles considered non-lemma? What I'd do is keep not only the (non-lemma) entry for the participle (i.e. νεκραγωγέων), but also keep the (lemma) entry for the actual verb it belongs to (νεκραγωγέω, which is also listed in L&S), but delete all form-of (non-lemma) entries except the one attested form (νεκραγωγοῦντα). That at least is how I've been handling scarcely-attested Gothic verbs, which not uncommonly are attested only as a single participle form. (Probably will want a note on the lemma page anyway that it's only attested once) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mnemosientje: Participles are categorized as non-lemma forms, but Ancient Greek participles do also have their own inflected forms, so perhaps they should also be categorized as lemmas. It's a confusing case: they are a form of a verb, but they have their own inflected forms. There is currently at least one participle that doesn't have a corresponding verb entry: βιβάς (bibás). LSJ's practice of having the entry at a first-person singular present indicative even if it's unattested may not be appropriate for Wiktionary. (It's worse in the case of other verbs that don't have any present forms.) — Eru·tuon 00:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Gothic participles similarly have their own inflected forms, hence why I made the analogy. LSJ's practice is how I've been doing Gothic verbs and their participles all this time, tbh -- the lemma forms (due to the regularity of the morphology) are really predictable even on the basis of a single attested inflected participle form and pretty much every other dictionary seems to work that way. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 00:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Participles are sort of a hybrid. They're the lemma form of their own inflected forms, but at the same time they're inflected forms of the verb they're from. In a case like this, where the participle is the only form of the verb that occurs, we could probably get away with calling it an adjective rather than a participle. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
True. However, our categorization system (as encoded in templates), which puts participles (at least for the languages I actively edit in) in the non-lemma category, does complicate that a bit: this suggests that technically for Wiktionary purposes they aren't in fact the lemma form of their own inflected forms. (Whether or not this system is optimal is another matter admittedly.) Imo then, if we want to be consistent in how we categorize these things across languages, we should keep the current verb entry (as long as the verb lemma can be deduced with some certainty from the morphology of the inflected form). Perhaps we might include a usage note to the verb entry clarifying that its inclusion is based only on this single attestation. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 05:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
For the record, my vote here is keep for now: unless there is some meta-discussion on this, perhaps to bring Ancient Greek in line with Modern Greek (where currently participles are listed as lemmas, confusingly: I don't know any other language that does this on Wiktionary), the precedent would suggest it is to be kept, and as a bonus we get to follow the precedent set by other dictionaries as well instead of having to reinvent the wheel here. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

So far we have, in short:

  • User:Mahagaja and User:Erutuon voting to delete (arguing the rest of the verb paradigm shouldn't be supposed based on a participle form only and that the lemma should be at the base participle, not the verb theoretically underlying the participle);
  • User:Mnemosientje voting to keep (arguing that participle forms have usually been seen as attestations for the underlying verb that at least in theory can be supposed to exist and that it's not a bad idea to follow existing dictionary practice).

That's not a lot of input. Does anyone else have opinions on this, so it may be resolved? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Japanese US state names with 州Edit

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

These could be interpreted as SOP. But then, so could English New York City and New York State.
In terms of usage, some state names are more commonly found online with the (-shū, state) suffix, like Michigan or New Jersey. Other state names are more commonly found without the suffix, like Hawaii, which is well-known in Japan as a popular vacation destination. The suffix provides useful context, explicitly noting that the referent is a state, which is useful information when the name alone might be unfamiliar to the audience.
I see some usefulness in these entries, and no real harm from having them. Weak keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with the situation in Japanese (suffix vs. free morpheme), but we have decided for Chinese that the analogous entries (e.g. 新澤西) for Chinese placenames are SOP. The current practice for Chinese is to have {{zh-div}} to indicate the type of political division. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  SupportSuzukaze-c 04:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This RFD appears stalled at "no consensus". Despite that, User:Fumiko_Take is now deleting the ~州 entry content and turning these entries into hard redirects to the un-suffixed forms. This appears to be in violation of policy and procedure -- the RFD did not finish with a clear "delete" decision, and I don't think the hard redirects are the accepted way of doing things.
@TAKASUGI Shinji, Suzukaze-c, Wyang, other JA editors -- what is your take on this? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 15:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, there weren't any notices placed on the entries themselves. —Suzukaze-c 17:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
It is violation of policy, but he might not know this deletion request. How about voting now? I prefer keeping them, and I’m okay with redirecting. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


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

From a cursory Google search this seems to be used in Indonesian mean bagasse, not baggage. This, that and the other (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

February 2018Edit

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

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

(It is related to Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Template:ja-kanji_reading. —suzukaze (tc) 03:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC))
Most of these are like らい and need reworking rather than deletion (i.e. cleanup): these are valid kanji readings, and the practice has been for kanji readings to get hiragana soft-redirect entries.
At least one of these is an historical reading, (せう, discussed previously in August 2016), where I'm not sure quite what the consensus view is -- I think it's to keep historical readings, but I'm unsure. I think えう is another historical reading.
There are a couple I've run into like ごち, that appear to be reconstructed kanji readings that don't show up in actual use in the historical record. Again, I'm not sure what the consensus view is for these, if there even is any consensus. Do we keep reconstructed readings, even if there's no evidence of actual use? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Am non-user, but I found my way to one of the pages and was pointed in the right direction. It was useful to me. I came here via the delete notice. Please consider cleaning up rather than outright deletion. 2606:A000:4001:5300:E534:C86:9F16:4BEC 03:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


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

Suzukaze-c 08:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. Let's have a look at えう. It says On-reading of , , . Usage note says "All the above on-readings are archaic and obsolete in modern Japanese." I don't see anything wrong that relates to RFD process. If these items cannot be attested in use (WT:ATTEST), we have WT:RFV for that. The anonymous note "It was useful to me" above should not be ignored either. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment is Japanese restricted to only the modern form, all prior pronunciations being deleted form Wiktionary? We have extinct langauges on Wiktionary, so I don't see why these are being deleted for being archaic. Isn't there a tag for that? (lb|ja|archaic) -- 23:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


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

@Miwako Sato Check in dictionary first -> ราชบัณฑิตยสถาน 2554 it has this word. --ZilentFyld (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

US states in ArabicEdit

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

Names of languages in BelarusianEdit

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

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

Мова is also definitely not always used. беларуская itself is just as good. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. In the past I supported keeping language names with words for languages but now I I think we can lemmatise those by adjectives. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I am inclined to keep "X language" entries, especially if the "X мова" form is the usual one, which I am not sure it is. Let's use the principle of least surprise and make the dictionary user-friendly; the sum-of-parts deletion rationale has to exist, but should be treated with reasonable flexibility. Quoting Anatoli's argument for Russian: 'A Russian textbook would be titled "учебник русского языка", not just "учебник русского".' Note that беларуская мова synonym section has беларуская as colloquial; if true, it would be good to have also a neutral (non-colloquial) item in the dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
It's true but the real formal usage can be demonstrated in adjective entries, such as a usage example on белару́ская мо́ва (bjelarúskaja móva, Belarusian language) @ белару́скі (bjelarúski, Belarusian (adj)). This is endless and predictable. It's the normal practice in published dictionaries. ру́сский язы́к (rússkij jazýk, Russian language) is looked up in ру́сский (rússkij, Russian (adj, noun)). Editors should create lemmas, not all possible combinations of words. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I am somewhat inclined to delete these entries, although not super strongly. The decision we make should also apply to Russian. Benwing2 (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
As for "not all possible combinations of words", that's certainly not what we are talking here; we are talking the most common and expected term to refer to a certain thing in a non-colloquial context. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
What purpose do those entries serve, in your view? Per utramque cavernam 00:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

March 2018Edit

virage en lacetsEdit

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


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

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




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

Well, including the forms at the suffix lemma page is definitely useful. However, this doesn't look like a proper suffix to me, e.g. islending isn't is + -lending ("inhabitant of ice"?) but Island + -ing with a vowel change in land. Same for utlending (< utland), sørlending (< Sørland(et)). Same thing happens in Danish, but spelled -lænding.__Gamren (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete; per Equinox, inflected forms are made by inflecting the full word, not by inflecting the suffix. And per Gamren, it's even worse: -lending should be deleted too. --Per utramque cavernam 14:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
While I agree that both should probably be deleted (though without outright supporting it), I contest your statement that “inflected forms are made by inflecting the full word, not by inflecting the suffix”: in Germanic, especially Nordic, languages, nominal suffixes usually form the basis of the inflections of the words they derive, determining properties such as gender and countability. The same can be observed in much of the rest of Indo-European.  — J​as​p​e​t 20:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
There may be two schools of thought with -lending, “-lending” in The Nynorsk Dictionary., and for example “islending” in Det Norske Akademis ordbok (NAOB)., where it asserts it is Island + -ing. Thus I am not proposing the deletion of -lending. DonnanZ (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
In Russian, which is heavily inflected, we also inflect suffixes where appropriate. For example, -ский (-skij). —Stephen (Talk) 05:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


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


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

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

ciruela albaricoqueEdit

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

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

tomber sur le nezEdit

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

  • Delete unless a more figurative sense is forthcoming. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn’t it also describe people who don’t fall nose‐first? — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 16:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep. From a literal point of view, falling on your nose is not the same as falling on your face. Falling on your nose would hurt a lot more. —Internoob 04:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

April 2018Edit

Cebuano fractional numbersEdit

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

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

træt afEdit

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

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

غير قانونيEdit

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

I specifically saw this in an ad, but I'm not going to claim all ads with Arabic have good Arabic in them, so I'll defer to people with more expertise. Finsternish (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
With that said, look here: It seems to be idiomatic, as Al Maany is reputable. Finsternish (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Apart from that it also turns up a lot of Google results and seems to be in regular use. Finsternish (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not disputing that it is real; not legal is also real. I am stating that is the sum of its parts, and therefore not dictionary content. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I see. I misunderstood the rule on "idiomatic," thinking it meant only common collocations were permitted. Finsternish (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, غير‎ is different and unusual. It is often translated as a negative non-, un-, in-, dis- (which superficially seem just like the English), but that's not its meaning. غير‎ ("change") is a noun, from the verb غير‎, meaning to change, be dissimilar, be different, to differ. As a noun, غير‎ means change, and includes the connotation of different from, unlike. So غير قانوني‎ is literally "change legal", but means illegal. —Stephen (Talk) 05:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yaghnobi entries of User:RajkiandrisEdit

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

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

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

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

@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)

@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. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
There has got to be a bot option for that. @DTLHS? --Victar (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@-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)
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)

core CaryophyllalesEdit

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

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

-ающий, -яющий, -ающийсяEdit

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Comment: Daijisen does list 「御神木」, with the description 「『神木』に同じ。」 ("Same as 「神木」."). (I don't have an opinion as to whether it should be included in Wiktionary.) --Ornilnas (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


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

  • Keep. SOP applies to multiword phrases, not polymorphemic words and affixes. Otherwise we'd have to delete English boys and English walked and all sorts of things as being SOP ([[boy]]+[[-s]], [[walk]]+[[-ed]], etc.). —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Mahagaja: But boys and walked both are free morpheme + bound morpheme. -innen is just two bound morphemes, which I don't think deserves an entry. -in isn't a stem; you can't add morphemes to it. In forming the word Schülerinnen, I believe it's: Schule + -erSchüler + -inSchülerin + -en = Schülerinnen. By the -innen logic, should we have an entry for -erinnen too? I feel like that's going a bit overboard. And there's not a clear precedent with this: we have -esses and -rices, but not -ers, -ettes, -ees, -ings, -oids, etc. – Gormflaith (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I see your point, but we do also have -schaften and -ungen, not to mention 874 entries for suffix inflections in Latin. Rather than decide these on a case-by-case basis, we need to develop some sort of general policy either allowing or disallowing inflected forms of bound affixes. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I agree; I didn't know there was 1000+ suffix forms here. I'm going to be bold and say that I think they all should be deleted and confined to declension tables... though you can't really decline a suffix. I might create a vote for this. Even if it doesn't pass I think there should still be a policy about this. – Gormflaith (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
          • @Gormflaith: Do you still intend to do this? I'd support it. I think you should take it up to the Beer Parlour first though. --Per utramque cavernam 21:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
            • @Per utramque cavernam: Kind of, but I'm not confident in making a proposal that would affect tons of languages I don't know anything about. I'll start a BP discussion tomorrow when I have a bit more time so I can get more input. – Gormflaith (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Can't remember which entry now, but there was a discussion at one point about suffix entries having plurals (!) e.g. ism, plural isms: this is sth that struck me as silly because you don't pluralise until you have formed a complete word, i.e. you don't morphologically do true + -isms but rather (true + -ism) + -s. If that applies here (I only know a couple of words of German) then delete. Equinox 19:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Equinox: Yep, exactly. Even the entry for Schülerinnen says "plural of Schülerin" not, like, "plural of Schüler, but now they're girls". – Gormflaith (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Devil's advocate: what if there is some strange plurality that comes from the suffix, e.g. loaned -ium may become -ia? Does that change things? Equinox 01:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking about that too. I actually like how it is now: no plural on -ium (but useful notes about it in the defs) and "Used in forming plurals of nouns in -ium and -ion." at -ia. It specifies that the nouns are being pluralized rather than the affix. However, for all the actual Latin suffix forms, I'm not sure. Looking at the word patrium: I think it's best analyzed as an inflection of patrius, rather than pater + -ium, right? But what about metallāria? Should it be analyzed as metallum +‎ -āria, or an inflection of metallārius? I don't know... Gormflaith (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete per Gormflaith and Equinox. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm on the fence, leaning weakly towards keep because of the added n. I note that the verb-forming suffix -ieren was deleted on de.Wikt on these grounds: that it's "really" -ier(-) + -en. - -sche (discuss) 03:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if I agree with the -ieren deletion. -ier isn't really a morpheme in German. (I think). – Gormflaith (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not sure I agree with that either. We shouldn't take parlieren (parlier + -en) as evidence of a suffix -ieren, but that doesn't mean that the suffix doesn't exist; otherwise how do you explain buchstabieren, halbieren, etc.? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@-sche, Gormflaith What do you think of this? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I've tweaked it to note that -ier(en) is the/a traditional rendering of e.g. -ire, -iare and other non-homographic suffixes. -ier is a morpheme in German, btw: besides being a noun-forming suffix, it was argued by one of de.Wikt's resident professional linguists (against some of the standard dictionaries!) that -ier is the true verb-forming suffix, visible in e.g. imperatives, to which the infinitive suffix -en is added to form the infinitive. (Which is a plausible-enough analysis, though I think it was unhelpful that it was then used to delete all trace of -ieren as a verb-forming suffix, because dictionaries normally lemmatize the infinitive for German, and it's odd for de.Wikt to instead lemmatize -ier here.) - -sche (discuss) 14:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Since Gormflaith reads German, she might be interested: de:Wiktionary:Löschkandidaten/Archiv_2012/2#-ieren_(erl.,_verschoben) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@-sche, Per utramque cavernam The rebracketing explanation is what I interpreted this as. parlier as the verb stem borrowed from French, plus the native -en verb forming suffix. Like how we say "the alcohol" (I once read an absolutely ridiculous pop linguistics article about how we should not use "the" with alcohol, alchemy, etc). And then rebracketing to get -ieren for halbieren, buchstabieren, usw. But the argument over at de.wikt is interesting. To me -ieren looks good it right now (thanks for the edits). But I'm not a morphology expert. (Also: our entry at -en is "A suffix of all verbs in their infinitive form.", which would exclude -ieren form being an infinitive suffix). – Gormflaith (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep: We do already say "plural -innen". Usage note at -in would be the last place to look for orthography hints, when the meaning is already clear. Or if the page can' t be found.
I'd also argue that this may be parsed as a suffix by some speakers. The doubt about a slippery sloap to -erinnen is interesting but not entirely convincing, because Zugführerinnen is not formed from' 'Zugfuhre, nor Zugfahrt. While it could instead be derived from the root verb plus agent suffix, I'm not even convinced -innen was -in + -en. Rather -in might be -innen / -en. That's probably inconclusive or perhaps outright wrong.
Nevertheless I am trying to make the case that -innen is attached to male plural forms, so the singular + in would be a backformation.
On a related note: -en as adjectival suffix (sense 3, e.g. golden), makes me think that the plural suffix was derived therefrom.
So, -en was perhaps more often applied to female terms because women were often objectified (materialistic, pun intended). This -en was MHG -in!
Now, the ety for -in mentions -inne next to -in, but that doesn't have an entry. That's the most important point. If -inne was a suffix, -innen surely is from plain -in + -en. The ety for that -en is not really informative either. Could someone clarify?
Would you rather delete if uncertain or keep and improve? I dislike incorrectness as much as anyone else, but this one wouldn't really hurt to keep.
By the way, could such a development compare to Beamtin, for a perhaps similar development? Beamtinnen should be virtually non existent, whereas Beamtenin seems (to me, slowly loosing focus) seems more natural. The point however is that die Beamte very impersonal, derived from a property. 05:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Having entries for inflected forms of lemmata is uncontested common practice in Wiktionary, I don't understand why we have this discussion. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    It's not uncontested for suffixes. --Per utramque cavernam 13:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I am not contesting it, however, so I'm standing behind my Keep. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: I see no harm in keeping inflections of suffixes as long as they make sense. It is not sum of parts in WT:CFI#Idiomaticity parlance since it does not arise from separate components; and furthermore, it is a combination of a derivational suffix with inflectional suffix. Above, Mahagaja shows a long-standing practice of including inflections of suffixes: Category:Latin suffix forms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. On a balance, I think it's more useful to have this, especially to explain the added -n-. I note that de.Wikt has an entry for it, despite their relative scepticism of 'inflected suffixes' which I note above. Incidentally, it can house an etymology section noting that it goes back through Middle High German (vriundinnen) and possibly Old High German (friuntinnen). - -sche (discuss) 16:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I notice that some people justify having the entry on the grounds that the added n may be unexpected. I think it needs to be realised that having an entry for a form and merely listing it as a form on the lemma page are two different things. Inflection tables and headword lines do not have to generate links to the forms they list; they can show forms without a link. I am 100% in favour of listing all possible inflections on affix entries. It's valuable information, because it tells you how to inflect a word that is formed with that affix and can sometimes also tell affixes apart if their lemmas coincide. However, I see less of a need to have actual entries for all of these inflections. The basic principle is to provide entries for things that someone might encounter in a text. Neither affix lemmas nor affix inflections are encountered in texts under normal circumstances, so that counts against including them. Entries for affixes are invaluable for the purposes of understanding word derivation and etymology, but the same can't be said for their inflections. The only pressing reason to have entries is so that they can have pronunciations, but I'm not sure of this because what you always end up pronouncing is a full-formed word that includes the affix, and the pronunciation of the affix may be different in the full word than it is in isolation. —Rua (mew) 20:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


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

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

May 2018Edit


Discussion moved from WT:RFVN.

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

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

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

よーろっぱ, ゆーらしあ, おーすとらりあEdit

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

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


See also Talk:porta-.

Pace the Italian wiktionary, this is not a prefix but a verbal compounding form. Although I find it unnecessary (we could put the list of compounds at portare), I'm ok with keeping the entry itself since it exists in other dictionaries; see Treccani for example.

Note however that Treccani does not describe porta- as a prefix, as opposed to pre-. Saying it's a prefix makes as much sense as saying cutthroat is cut- + throat, or killjoy is kill- + joy, or spitfire is spit- + fire.

Category:Italian words prefixed with porta- needs to be deleted. --Per utramque cavernam 08:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I   Support deletion, though I’m fine with keeping it different from a prefix, too. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] (parla con me) 10:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

safari njemaEdit

We don't have have a good trip or have a safe trip or any of the things I might say in the same context as this phrase. It's not wrong, but just rather SOPpy. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

bon voyage? The translation table is full of pages that are SoP, but they're protected by wt:Phrasebook. Ultimateria (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018Edit

pointe aux âmesEdit

Sum of parts. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


Spanish, user's only contribution. Has sparse cites, none of which correspond to the given def. Ultimateria (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, per the RAE's official Spanish dictionary:

La palabra arroñar no está registrada en el Diccionario. La entrada que se muestra a continuación podría estar relacionada:

  • carroñar

Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
It's listed in "Boletín del Instituto de Estudios Asturianos, Issues 71-74" (1970) with the definition segar. Also in "Estudios sobre escritores montañeses" (José María de Cossío, 1973) as "Hacer roeños." DTLHS (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
How would you translate this? "Este cerco amurallado a medio caer, este castillo arroñado que sirvió para defender el puente hoy inexistente y anegado, este campo labrado o el patio de armas lleno de amapolas ... " (Mi libro de Zamora, Luis Cortés Vázquez, 1975). DTLHS (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Any chance this is a mistake for, or development from, arrollar? That fits the meaning.
Looking etymologically, arroñar could be ad- + roñar, the latter of which shows up in the RAE entry with apparent senses of to groan, grunt, grumble; to take a piss; to sting (if I've understood things correctly).
Alternatively, it might be a development from roña (dirt, grime; rust; meanness; mange; grudge; trick). The first two senses point towards dilapidation or degradation, which would also seem to fit the quote above. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The RAE dictionary is not like the OED. The RAE dictionary makes no attempt to list all Spanish words and it comes nowhere near to doing so. arroñar means collapse, fall apart (usually said of old structures, old houses, etc.). Also used of a person who is falling apart, or, due to bad health, cannot stay upright. Synonym for derrumbarse. —Stephen (Talk) 03:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Este cerco amurallado a medio caer, este castillo arroñado que sirvió para defender el puente hoy inexistente y anegado, este campo labrado o el patio de armas lleno de amapolas …This crumbling walled enclosure, this collapsed castle that served to defend the now missing and flooded bridge, this tilled field or the poppy-covered parade ground …
  • Re: how the RAE operates, thank you for the note -- I realized after posting that they aren't shooting for full coverage.
Re: the derivation of arroñar, do you have any additional information? Is it a derivation from (or otherwise related to) noun roña? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 15:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the etymology is. Possibly from roña, I guess, but I think it might be from arruinar, modified to arroñar by speakers of the Asturian language of northwestern Spain. —Stephen (Talk) 06:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I do believe that arroñado is an adjective (barely citeable, so I won't add it), derived, as Eirikr points out, from roña. All the GB results for arronado and its forms could be understood as "grimy, filthy, dirty, rusty": "Un mendigo, por arroñado y en mal uso ..."; "los mástiles estaban arroñados — ¡caray con la humedad de Bilbao!"
The quote provided likely means "fallen" but potentially "filthy". There is one other cite that definitively fits the "fallen" definition: "los magníficos castillos ideológicos de cartón piedra son arroñados como simples castillos de naipes". But @Stephen G. Brown would have to provide a third citation for this to pass. I can't find any more. Ultimateria (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Previously kept (Talk:元讓#RFD discussion: May–September 2017). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This appears to be surname + given name, which is in violation of WT:NAMES, but it was previously kept because of usage in idioms like 狗咬呂洞賓. I don't think that's a valid argument for keeping. However, WT:LEMMING may apply because it appears in some monolingual dictionaries that generally do not carry names of individuals, like Hanyu Da Cidian and 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典. @Atitarev, Tooironic, Dokurrat, Suzukaze-c, Geographyinitiative, Dine2016, thoughts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
From Chinese Wikipedia: "呂祖的传奇可说是道教神仙人物中最多者". We have an entry for Robin Hood. Considered a mythical/ religious being. I would lean towards keep, but idk. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete, I think, unless it's proven it means something other than "surname + given name". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

July 2018Edit

dar pitacoEdit

SOP. dar + pitaco —This unsigned comment was added by 2602:252:d2b:3aa0:85a2:1a9e:d7f7:47bc (talk) at 12:23, 8 July 2018‎.

Keep. There is no need to delete it. It's a valid expression, and it's even indexed in some online dictionaries. CaiusSPQR (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


RfD-sense of "Very pleasant situation". This seems like nothing more than figurative use of sense 1. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Many fairy tales tell a fairly nasty story, including those in which “they lived happily ever after”. The statement “My life is like a fairy tale” implies that it is unfolding in a way that it’s hard to believe it is for real, not that it is particularly pleasant. So if in Dutch use the pleasantness rather than the incredibility may be an implied sense, it may be worth recording this. By the way, Turkish masal may have the same sense of a dream come true – which may be a better definition than “very pleasant situation”.  --Lambiam 00:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

donner le tournisEdit

It's rather SOP. You can also say "avoir le tournis" (j'ai le tournis = my head is spinning). The interesting word is tournis. Per utramque cavernam 08:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018Edit

anh haiEdit

Tagged by 2405:4800:52a7:99c:4104:f793:b3d:b0c0 but not listed. Comment: "SOP; compare bác hai, chị hai, cậu hai, etc." SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 20:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

atterrare a motori spentiEdit

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 16:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

atterraggio senza motoriEdit

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 16:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

That IP has quite a few more entries that could qualify as SOP, actually... SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 16:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I suspect this is Angelucci (talkcontribs), who was already a problematic contributor a few years back. Per utramque cavernam 16:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

замын машинд дайгдахEdit

Seems to be a sum of parts, literally "to be taken by a car" Crom daba (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

grand-père maternelEdit


grand-père paternelEdit


oncle paternelEdit


oncle maternelEdit


We can link the components separately in translation tables. Per utramque cavernam 21:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest to keep those (words of family tree) because many languages have individual words for them. Judging them as compound words is okay. Like maternal uncle. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
If these were English and there was a need for somewhere to put those single-word terms as translations, you might have a point, but this is French. I know of at least one language that has a single word meaning "I saw those two women come this way out of the water", but that's no reason to create a French entry for it. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. I agree that these are SoP. Ultimateria (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


See Talk:Pippi Longstocking. —Suzukaze-c 23:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

en bonne santéEdit

Sounds pretty SOP to me; yes, it's the usual way of translating healthy into French, but we can link the components separately (which is what we're already doing, in fact). And we don't have en mauvaise santé. Per utramque cavernam 12:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I'm surprised to see that in good health has never been created, but I'm sure it would have been RFD'd too. Ultimateria (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)





Per utramque cavernam 11:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


This entry was originally a general "Nahuatl" entry covering multiple varieties. For some reason it got changed to "Classical Nahuatl" even though this word is not attested in Classical Nahuatl. If we don't want to treat Nahuatl as a single language, then the individual varieties should each have separate entries, and this pseudo-Classical entry should be deleted. --Lvovmauro (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm reseach this word, calatl is a Huacteca Nahuatl, a tree frog., Thank you by the comentary. No delete calatl, other option in Classical Nahuatl, a diferent word by cueyatl.--Marrovi (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
In that case, "Classical Nahuatl" should be changed to "Eastern Huasteca Nahuatl" and/or "Central Huasteca Nahuatl" as appropriate, and the Mecayapan information should be deleted since it's a different language that uses a different spelling. --Lvovmauro (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Lvovmauro: So the Huasteca Nahuatl entries should be at kalatl? Can you please clean this one up yourself so it can be closed? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to touch it since I don't have a source. It's not listed in the dictionary of Central Huasteca Nahuatl that I have.
I did fix up ca̱la̱ꞌ though. --Lvovmauro (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

September 2018Edit


SoP? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably Keep, maybe Move to 一鍵式 considering we already have 一站式, among others. I just can't think of a English equivalent... --Tsumikiria (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


This is very likely sum of parts and the sense's usage is limited to Lu Xun's quote. Probably better off deleted? --Tsumikiria (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Other than the common phrase 第一個吃螃蟹, I found some individual uses of this: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. May be worth keeping after cleanup. Wyang (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
It's certainly in use, but many of it uses quotations marks to surround it to indicate that it's from the Lu Xun quote, not "eating crabs" itself. Are there precedents to justify a inclusion? --Tsumikiria (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Are there precedents to delete things which usually have quotation marks around them? Helenpaws (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Keep. I've cleaned up the page and included three quotes that use the phrase without quotation marks. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

October 2018Edit


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)

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. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
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. 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 (talkcontribs).
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. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • 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)?
- 21:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)

to gangerEdit

(Bokmål) User:Jonteemil nominated this for speedy deletion. I have redirected it here. Personally I don't see anything wrong with it. DonnanZ (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's SOP as it's literally just "two times"? SOP-ness is a proper reason for WT:RFDN. - 19:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
That shouldn't apply when the translation is a single word. DonnanZ (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
It literally means ”two times”. I also added en gång and en gang which literally mean ”one time”. All of these four should be deleted since they aren’t idiomatic whatsoever. Unless you create articles for one time, ten times or seventeen times they can be swiftly deleted.Jonteemil (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Moved en gang and en gång here too. They are not candidates for speedy deletion, be more careful how you use that. DonnanZ (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, my bad.Jonteemil (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Donnanz: IMHO SOP can still apply. It just means, the translations has to be linked properly like this: "Norwegian: to ganger" [ Norwegian: {{t|no|[[to]] [[gang]]er}} ]. The English synonym of twice can be given as two times [ {{l|en|[[two]] [[times]]}} ] BTW. - 21:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I don’t really know what either of those acronyms mean but that’s how it should be anyway.Jonteemil (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, BTW; SOP. - 07:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

två gångerEdit

And Jonteemil did exactly the same with the Swedish entry. DonnanZ (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

keep "en gång" and "två gånger", but do not create "tre gånger" etc. Reason: it is NOT obvious that no preposition is needed. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

en gångEdit

As above. DonnanZ (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

keep "en gång" and "två gånger", but do not create "tre gånger" etc. Reason: it is NOT obvious that no preposition is needed. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

en gangEdit

As above. Perhaps he would like to delete engang as well, as it is derived from en gang. DonnanZ (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Engang and en gang seems to be used quite differently entirely so engang should not be erased.Jonteemil (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
engang is a single word - thus by WT:COALMINE it's ok. (And if en gang and engang would be alternative forms of each other, en gang would be ok too, even if it were SOP.) - 21:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep all of these anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Donnanz: You want the four entries to be kept??Jonteemil (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I said. It's nice to have the boot on the other foot for once, as compound words are two a penny in Scandinavian languages (and there are some that seem to be made up on a whim), but don't always qualify for English equivalents. For example there is an entry for shop window (butikkvindu) but not for kitchen window (kjøkkenvindu) or bedroom window. This opinion you obviously don't agree with, but there it is. And these entries are useful, it can't be helped if there is no Scandinavian one-word equivalent for once and twice. DonnanZ (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Donnanz: Answer me this. If the English translation of kjøkkenvindu doesn’t have an entry, why does two entirely seperate words such as ”en gång” have an entry. I might look up ”I am” or ”nine times” but they don’t deserve seperate entries since you can check up I and am, and nine and times seperately. Only because it’s useful, it doesn’t deserve an entry, right. Then we might as well change this name to wikitranslate where every grouping of words have an entry.Jonteemil (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I was debating yesterday whether to add entries for foreldreløst barn and foreldrelaust barn (translations of orphan) but decided against it - they would have to be minimal entries without inflections, which can be complex. En gang could be considered idiomatic though, and I added a reference to the Bokmål Dictionary. I can't answer why en gång has an entry, I wasn't the creator, but I wouldn't delete it either. I think you're looking from a Swedish point of view, mine is from an English point of view. DonnanZ (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Donnanz: To respond to that I would like you to define ”idiomatic” since it seems to be somewhat of a false friend in Swedish and English.Jonteemil (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Edit: not a false friend. I’m just not too sure about that definition. Please define it anyway so we can avoid ant misunderstandings.Jonteemil (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Donnanz.Jonteemil (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless these are shown to have idiomatic meanings, delete. We don't have nor want an entry for French deux fois, for example. Per utramque cavernam 13:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete the ones meaning "two times", but keep those meaning "once"; both can pass COALMINE and at least en gang can probably pass the Lemming principle as well. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: What are those two terms? I’ve never heard of them. A google didn’t give me anything either unfortunately.Jonteemil (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jonteemil See WT:COALMINE and WT:Lemming principle. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: So if I’m not mistaken, ”coal mine” should exist so that no one thinks that ”coalmine” is the correct spelling. And prime number should exist since it, eventhough seemingly appears as a sum of two parts, exist in dictionaries, such as merriam-webster. If that is true, then en gang should probably be kept so no one thinks ”en gang” is spelt without spaces, the same goes with the Nynorsk spelling ein gong. Since there is no word called toganger though, to ganger and all of the other requests for deletion should be erased.Jonteemil (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jonteemil That is roughly it, though with "common/usual spelling" for "correct spelling". Anyway, I believe that en gang has now been coalmined (see relevant senses at engang). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo I did come across an instance of "en gang" in the negative translating to "even", so I included it as a usex (from Wikipedia, maybe not durable). But I'm still sticking up for "to ganger = twice". DonnanZ (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Can some admin delete to ganger and två gånger?Jonteemil (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
keep "en gång" and "två gånger", but do not create "tre gånger" etc. Reason: it is NOT obvious that no preposition is needed. Page one hundred and one is tolerable but one hundred and two is not. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

La Roue ChanceuseEdit

TV show. Also delete Wheel of Fortune defn for TV show. --XY3999 (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete, in case it wasn't clear. Per utramque cavernam 22:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

La Roue de la FortuneEdit

As above. I don't feel it's entry-worthy. Per utramque cavernam 14:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2018Edit

engel des doodsEdit

Dutch for "angel of death", engel + des + doods. I am not sure that we should have these noun phrases with a genitive element, rather than just having the genitive phrases. The idiomaticity seems arguable at best, it is just an angel that brings death, but the term can be used figuratively. This contrasts with steen des aanstoots for instance, which is always used figuratively. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the idiomaticity pretty much the same as that of the English term angel of death, at least the first sense? Beyond that, it also seems to be used to refer specifically to various bringers of death associated with genocides which have little to do with the SOP meaning of the phrase with engel, particularly the Holocaust. Most famously of course in the case of Mengele, but I also found a Nazi in Treblinka being described using that phrase in a quick Google Books search. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, the senses "murderous caregiver" and "shinigami", not to mention a translation hub argument, seem to justify the English entry to a greater extent than the Dutch entry is justified by figurative use. But feel free to RFD that one as well if you want to. ;) ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The figurative sense of “murderous caregiver” is also found in Dutch: [20]; [21]. And here the shinigami is called an engel des doods. The epithet is also applied here to Azrael, as well as on the Dutch Wikipedia.  --Lambiam 21:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


I don't think this deserves a separate Spanish entry --XY3999 (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed; removed. —Born2bgratis (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree. What reason is there not to include it? --Lvovmauro (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not used in Spanish, it's used in other languages. The quotations are mentioning its use in those languages. You could find the same type of examples in English ([22]). DTLHS (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Nobody is claiming it's used in the Spanish alphabet. The fact that the Spanish quotations are talking about another language does not mean the language of those quotations is no longer Spanish. You could equally argue that alfa should be deleted because Spanish isn't written in the Greek alphabet. People talk about other alphabets in Spanish. --Lvovmauro (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
"Alfa" is the name of the letter just like saltillo is the name for ꞌ. We don't have a Spanish entry for α even though people talk about the Greek alphabet in Spanish. DTLHS (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The names of letters are often represented by the letter itself, and pronounced as the letter's name. In English H is a noun, pronounced /eɪtʃ/, and has a plural H's. H is just as much a noun as aitch, and the two could be considered variant spellings of the same word. Its grammatical status as a noun, that functions as such within English sentences, doesn't change based on whether you choose it to write it with one letter or with several letters. (And yet Wiktionary currently treats the two differently, which is clearly wrong.)
If you could find Spanish quotations using α in a sentence (e.g. la α, las αs), then I would accept α as a Spanish word, though that's probably rare. I consider a Spanish noun because it's used in Spanish text with the definite article and a verb agreeing with it. --Lvovmauro (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Here is your “la α”; it should not be hard to find many more cites. But take this English sentence: Your fable of the monkey and the pig is what the Italians call ben travata. Should we now have an entry ben travata#English? Clearly, the author of the sentence himself does not consider this to be English. Likewise, the author of the Nueva gramática griega might have been extremely surprised to hear that in a distant future people could consider his use of “la α” evidence of “α” being a Spanish word.  --Lambiam 07:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
"what the Italians call ben travata" is a mention, not a use. --Lvovmauro (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, so is the α in “la α”. That it is not explicitly set off as by quotation marks, like we see here, is surely because it was felt to be already sufficiently distinguished by being in another alphabet. Another way of looking at it is this: consider how “la α” will be translated if the grammar book is translated to some other language, like English or German. The translator would not consult a Spanish–English or Spanish-German translation dictionary to find a translation for α. They would simply leave it as is, using “the α” or “das α”. A point could be made to include the sense “the first letter of the Greek alphabet” under α#Translingual.  --Lambiam 08:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
About la α I tend to agree with Lambiam: in English too, when you write a comment about a sentence written in another language, you might use the before any foreign word, this cannot be considered as a use in English. It's not the same as highway used in French or autoroute used in English, which deserve entries. Lmaltier (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam 19:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


And all the codes of {{ccTLD}}. How is this lexical? --Per utramque cavernam 19:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It's an abbreviation with a well-established meaning though. Keep Purplebackpack89 20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete. These are not used with meaning in running text, only in URLs. URLs are outside the scope of a dictionary. —Rua (mew) 21:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep all We are not a normal dictionary, and these might be useful to someone. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
We're not a normal dictionary, but we're still supposed to be a dictionary. Per utramque cavernam 23:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete. These have no semantics, they are computer codes for DNS server software. Guldrelokk (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
They do have semantics, as noted below. This one is a domain name suffix meaning 'associated with France'. Now, the names may be applied sloppily - may mean 'Google for French' rather than 'Google for France', and has nothing to do with Belgium. And they do occur in speech; I've compared prices on and in a conversation. We could argue that it's a suffix rather than an abbreviation. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Lots of domain names in .fr aren’t associated with France at all. They are sold freely, I could set up a website about Japan in Czech there if I would like. There is really nothing behind the .fr other than being a top-level DNS domain. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Setting up such a domain would be perverse. What would be the motivation? The interpretation of the name would be that there was some connection with France. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Delete; these are not lexicographic lemmata. Why not move that material to an appendix or to a sister Wikimedia project? —Born2bgratis (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep all. I'd expect some folks to come to Wiktionary to look these up. It is advantageous to Wiktionary to be a go-to resource for all kinds of semantic lookup. These clearly mean something, ie, a given country, in the context in which they are used. There is even a grammar in which these are used. Why should users have to learn the arcane rules by which we exclude such things? I'd be inclined to revisit some of our decisions to exclude, say, airport codes, telephone codes for countries and regions, etc. DCDuring (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Why stop at the top-level domains? clearly means something, namely the company Amazon Inc., with which its subdomains are associated – in fact, much more consistently than those of .fr. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
There are rules restricting company names on Wiktionary. But if we allowed, then its etymology would have to reference the TLD. There would also be an SOP issue. -- (late signature) RichardW57 (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Strong delete, with POSSIBLE exceptions for the very commonly spoken ones like .com and .net: as a guy who has spent his entire life in an IT career. These are definitely erroneous: the dot is a separator. In a string like, the units are bob, users, example and com (which express a hierarchy) and the dots only serve to separate. In everyday slang people use words like dotcom but it is ignorant and foolish to include the dot as part of every TLD in general. It's like having a phone number "0123-456-789" and telling someone that your number is "-456-789" and including that separating hyphen, when you omit the local prefix. Equinox 02:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
To clarify: we could perhaps keep entries like fr, de, jp, but definitely not .fr, .de, .jp: that whole approach is so many shades of wrong. Equinox 02:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe that in normal parlance, where TLD is an unfamiliar TLA, the '.' is part of the expression, just as with file extensions (.doc etc.). I can certainly imagine, "He used a .fr domain for his Czech website about Japan!" How would you account for the '.' in a grammatical analysis? --(late signature) RichardW57 (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think ".fr" is analysable at all within the grammar of natural language. It's simply spelling out the suffix of the domain literally. It can be argued that the speaker has parsed the URL wrong, but that's a matter of the person's understanding of URLs, not their understanding of English certainly. —Rua (mew) 22:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: What about the phrase, "you're the!"? Please note that "" does not yet have an entry here. Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz Does .com actually have any meaning there? I interpret the sentence as meaning exactly the same as you're the bomb!. The .com part doesn't seem to contribute anything to the meaning of the sentence, and one of the requirements of WT:CFI is that terms convey meaning. —Rua (mew) 22:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rua Yes; I agree. Johnny Shiz (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

-aise, -aisesEdit

Not suffixes, but sums of 2 or 3 suffixes (-ais + -e, -ais + -e + -s)! Would you say that -tions is an English suffix? Lmaltier (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, totally SOP.  --Lambiam 21:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, conceptually mistaken. Per utramque cavernam 09:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes I wonder why we don't have -tions as a soft redirect to -tion, and/or at least list it as the plural of -tion on that entry's headword line. I agree these are transparent, and current practice would have us delete them, for sure. - -sche (discuss) 06:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

épater le bourgeoisEdit

Not an idiom in French. Per utramque cavernam 06:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Three cites: [23], [24], [25].  --Lambiam 11:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Cites aren't lacking; what I'm arguing is that it's not idiomatic. Per utramque cavernam 17:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
So is your argument that this collocation is SoP?  --Lambiam 18:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Though I'm not so sure now; I don't think I would have needed a dictionary had I encountered it in context, but it seems to be a genuine (obsolete) expression. Per utramque cavernam 21:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree: when you use this phrase, you don't take épater + bourgeois, you take it as a part of the French vocabulary. épater is not limited to bourgeois, you use bourgeois only because it's part of the phrase... It's really a set phrase. Lmaltier (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Proof that it is indeed a lexicalised expression in French? Per utramque cavernam 23:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
What would that look like? 21:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


Does not make sense as a Translingual noun; it is merely an etymological element in the names of some obsolete taxa. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting that an English dictionary found it useful to include. DCDuring (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep (if it exist). --QueeroDeera (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)












These are just Latin words used in specific epithets, and thus as Translingual entries, they are duplications of the Latin entries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment As they are used in several different unrelated species, then, wouldn't they have been borrowed into transligual, instead of individual instances of use in a translingual term? -- 22:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment several of the Latin entries have several senses listed, while the translingual term only pertains to one of them, so not the same, as the translingual use is not all uses in the Latin use. -- 23:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "hircus" -- the translingual use is not for a male goat, as a species use it is unrelated to the gender of the goat, so not the same. -- 22:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "taurus" -- the translingual use is not for a bull, as a species use it is unrelated to the gender of the bovine, so not the same. -- 22:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


Another odd Translingual entry, but this time not taxonomic, but planetological. Mountains on other planets do tend to be named in Latin, but I don't see how that justifies the existence of a Translingual entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

You may recall that MW3 had a label "ISV", for International Scientific Vocabulary, which they used for many mathematical, scientific, and technical terms.
For us Translingual would seem a natural home for many scientific terms that are used in multiple languages. I see no validity to a claim that scientists aren't capable of combining words and morphological elements into terms that are intended to be understood by international communities of specialists.
Further I see no reason to make it difficult for someone in a specialist community to find common morphological elements by dispersing them into multiple languages and even multiple scripts.
Keep. DCDuring (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


I'm not entirely sure about this Translingual entry, but it looks like it should be merged into English (and then whatever other languages it's attested in). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit reluctant to create a Russian entry to cover things like this or a Japanese entry to cover this. Even languages with the same script, like German don't seem to integrate it grammatically, though it's capitalized in some texts like a German noun would be. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep. It seems to refer to a type of utility and would probably appear embedded in running text in multiple languages. DCDuring (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Can confirm this is a generic type of protocol and not a specific program or platform. Not sure about the three separate sense lines, though. Is it safe to use "noun" part of speech for Translingual like this ("any computer program used for accessing...etc.")? Equinox 23:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep. If we can have entries for Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat, then why not whois. However, move' to WHOIS, because that's the spelling on the official website? Johnny Shiz (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


RFD of the second sense, which is just an etymological element that does not exist on its own. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean something like a prefix or suffix? Perhaps we should just move it to -psitta DCDuring (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
You know, that's probably a good call. I support that suggestion, instead of deleting it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Afrikaans hier's, daar's, jy's, sy's, hy'sEdit

Replaceable by an entry -'s, similar to English -'s (= is), German -'s, -s (= es (it))? --Magic Ivan (talk) 06:08 + 18:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Similar to English -s' as being a contraction of is, but not really similar to German -s. One advantage of a new entry Afrikaans -'s is that it will also cover the (easily attestable) forms ek's, julle's and hulle's. However, I see no need to delete the existing entries. They are similar to English here's and you're.  --Lambiam 08:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
At the risk of getting off-topic: I've created quite a few English contraction entries myself, but this makes me wonder why we have them. Isn't the 's of "here's" just as widely applicable as possessive 's, i.e. can't any word take an elided is? "Writing's easy. Conjugating's harder. Cat's in the house. Jacob's leaving. Sweden's cold." google books:"Dogs're", etc. Do we have some policy on which ones to include, the way we do on possessives? - -sche (discuss) 06:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Keep as creator. As Lambiam pointed out, we have such entries in English. It makes even more sense to have them for Afrikaans, where (at least as far as I know) -'s is not used on any old word, but principally on pronouns and certain adverbs. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep per above. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018Edit

sedile passeggero anterioreEdit

SOP. I'm getting sick of this Italian IP creating so many questionable entries. Per utramque cavernam 17:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The literal meaning of the Italian term is “front passenger seat”. While just il sedile passeggero, without prior reference in the context to a specific passenger seat, will normally be understood to be the front seat, it is actually more common in Italian to use the longer designation, unlike in English, where the front passenger seat is most commonly referred to as “the passenger seat”, even though any back seats (aka rear seats) are also passenger seats. I think French behaves the same way as English (siège passager versus siège arrière). I don’t know if this observation makes a difference for the SoP-ness of the Italian term.  --Lambiam 20:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


SOP: 𢯎 (to scratch) + (head) = to scratch one's head (literally) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Should that also apply to 𢯎头?  --Lambiam 09:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Obviously, soft and hard redirects go when the main entry fails. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


RFD-sense: "second generation of one's ancestor". This seems to be SoP; it could be X世祖 for any number X. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


RFD-sense: certain generation of one's ancestor. For example, second generation of one's ancestor is called "二世祖". This seems to be a misbracketing: (number + 世) + 祖 instead of number + 世祖. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

salto di qualitàEdit

The Italian IP is back at it again with SOP entries. This seems to literally just be "jump/change in quality". SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 17:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

per favore mi traduce in italiano cosa sono i SOP entries. grazie —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
@SemperBlotto I believe you have mentored this IP editor before?
Non riesco a parlare bene il italiano, perciò perdonami (sto utilizzando un traduttore ora). "SOP" sta per "sum of parts". Sono voci del dizionario che consistono di più di una parola e non hanno significato idiomatico, solo un significato che si può capire dal solo dalle parole. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 17:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it is more than the sum of its parts - but I have changed the translation to breakthrough. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I suspect it is Italian for qualitative leap, which is a key concept in Hegel's dialectical method; Hegel himself called it dialektischer Sprung.  --Lambiam 15:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The term is used in a footnote here in the Hegelian sense.  --Lambiam 17:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
OK. I have added that translation and also a simple definition of qualitative leap that may need improvement. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

gracias de antemanoEdit

SOP; the components can be linked separately at thanks in advance. Per utramque cavernam 12:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Undelete and turn it into a phrasebook entry. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

pelle non lavorataEdit

pelle non conciataEdit

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 17:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


A chemical symbol. We don't have NaH, CaO, for example. Could this be SOP? --Pious Eterino (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

We have Category:mul:Chemical formulae which includes, for example, H₂O and , but not C₂H₅OH. The number of chemical formulas is endless; I estimate that Wikipedia lists some 13000 of those, including obscure ones like C23H34O4, shared by Androstenediol diacetate, Calcitroic acid, Digitoxigenin, Prebediolone acetate, Rostafuroxin, and Testosterone diacetate. I suggest that we amend CFI to require at least three citations in general, non-scientific publications – where popular science articles or books are also considered scientific and do not contribute to the count.  --Lambiam 18:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a fraught topic. See User talk:-sche#CFI for chemical formulae for links to previous discussions and further thoughts by several editors on this subject. What is clear is that we need a vote to handle this across the board, instead of it coming up again and again in RFD discussions. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Can a single word be SOP? Another issue is that it is not immediately obvious that it is a chemical formula, so someone may easily fail to analyse it from its elements. Its also much less of an SoP than silicon germanide, which is not being nominated for deletion! --RichardW57 (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Is it a word? It's a combination of symbols combined according to rules that have nothing to do with human speech. There's actually some precedent for not using spaces as a criterion in languages that don't have spacing the way English does, like Thai or Chinese. The fact that chemical formulae aren't English and never contain spaces might lead to them being considered SoP unless there's some meaning that's not inherent in the parts. It might be useful to have translingual entries for chemical formulae that have names in human languages (vitriol and water, for instance), along the same lines as taxonomic-name entries. If we just assume that nothing written without spaces can be SoP, we end up in danger of allowing entries for any random combination of elements that's appeared three times in print, because we have no notability criteria. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Language is more than speech.
When it appears in English, SiGe acts like a word. Identifying a word is hard in Thai, though a first pass approximation would be to look at where line-breaks occur. (That wouldn't work for Lao.) How are we throttling back German, Swedish and Sanskrit compounds? Why aren't regular inflected forms sums of parts? --RichardW57 (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I think this falls under our second definition of word. I would keep them all, but not go out of my way to add lots more. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it would be preferable to develop some general guidelines rather than RFDing these piecemeal. Take a look at User:-sche/chemicals, and don't vote yet (we can move it to the BP or set it up as a vote once it's ready), but let me know if you have other proposals or if you foresee any of the proposals having unintuitive side effects. - -sche (discuss) 21:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
In the talk page thread Meta linked to, I mulled over something similar to Lambiam's proposal above, a sort of "BRAND for chemicals"; it seems a bit subjective/hard to enforce, but I've taken a stab at it (please tweak the proposal as needed). - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
LiCl and LiOH would be included too. --Pious Eterino (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Notice: I opened a straw poll about the general inclusion/exclusion of chemical formulas in the BP. - -sche (discuss) 02:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Absent an agreed-on policy, I am using the following: Keep a chemical formula only if the chemical it denotes has a CFI-meeting name: e.g. H₂SO₄ has sulfuric acid or AsH₃ has arsine. This criterion ensures that the inclusion of chemical formulas no more than doubles the number of items in the dictionary. This entry meets that criterion since it refers to silicon germanide. The entry also meets the arbitrary "keep a chemical formula only if it involves no more than 3 chemical elements and no more than 10 atoms", which I mentioned in Talk:LiBr. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

cidre de poireEdit

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 18:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment there are two definitions listed, one an apple-based alcoholic beverage, and one a pear-based alcoholic beverage. -- 23:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

vin de poireEdit

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 18:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment there are two definitions listed, one a grape-based alcoholic beverage, and one a pear-based alcoholic beverage. -- 23:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

ripassare con lo spazzoloneEdit

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 18:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

There must be a sense missing of ripassare, maybe "to move back and forth" Drunken Skunk (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Lots of senses are missing. Like French repasser,[26] Italian ripassare has a wide range of meanings, many of which are somewhat broad or vague and require context-dependent translations. One of the broad transitive meanings is “to go over (something) (with something)” – which will often but not always be a back-and-forth motion. Ripassare una camicia means “to iron a shirt”, but a combination like ripassare il pavimento is probably best translated as “to swipe the floor”.  --Lambiam 15:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

en pleine cambrousseEdit

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 00:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

"In the full countryside" means "In the middle of nowhere"? Drunken Skunk (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
cambrousse doesn't just mean "countryside", it means "the middle of nowhere" ("c'est la cambrousse, ici !"). As for plein, see sense 5 ("en plein centre", "en plein milieu", "en plein cœur", "en pleine mer", "en plein désert", "en pleine campagne", "en plein match", "en plein concert", etc.) Per utramque cavernam
Would the backwoods be a good translation of cambrousse? One of the quotations at middle of nowhere puts us en pleine mer, but I think cambrousse implies that we remain on land.  --Lambiam 15:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. Added. Per utramque cavernam 14:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Bild ↓Edit

Apparently means PgDn on a German keyboard. This does not look to have any lexical importance, and neither does PgDn. --Pious Eterino (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

1. All those keys should be treated the same (Entf, Druck, Esc, Del, Ctrl...). Either keep or delete all of them. 2. The key names can be used in running text and need translation: "press Ctrl" = "drücke Strg". Hence keep (if attested). 3. That there are multiple forms of highlighting should be mentioned in a note. That there are multiple ways of spelling could be too, especially if the text differs from keyboard to keyboard and if forms aren't erroneous spellings (like Esc, ESC, Esc, esc could all occur on keyboards so none of them might be erroneous). 3. Highlightings and spellings include:
  • a box around the text (as is done with this wikipedia template)
  • bold type
  • brackets of any kind
  • low caps like CTRL
  • alls caps like CTRL
--QueeroDeera (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

January 2019Edit

résistance de l'airEdit

Sounds SOP to me. Per utramque cavernam 11:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

劍橋春天, 剑桥春天Edit

Name of a housing estate. —This unsigned comment was added by Sameer (talkcontribs).

(@GeographyinitiativeSuzukaze-c 04:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC))
@Sameer, Suzukaze-c The total population of this residential community is probably several thousand, much bigger than Loving County.
"【2013年代码及城乡分类】420111002: {...} ~041 111剑桥春天居委会" [27]
"420111002041 111 剑桥春天居委会" [28]
"Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." (WP:GEOLAND) You want me to create entries based on usefulness, but I am creating entries based on notability. If this doesn't satisfy wiktionary's policies of criteria for inclusion, then I will quit making these articles. In my ideal, all the village-level divisions, including 社区, would appear on wikipedia, wiktionary etc. The name of 中南财经政法大学南湖社区 doesn't look as pretty as the two-character names of many other 社区, but I found it in two sources, and it seems reasonable enough. No question that it administers thousands of people. To avoid including 中南财经政法大学南湖社区 is to say that Loving, where there are less than 100 people, is more important than this 社区, where there are thousands of people. The way I see it, all minor geography is minor and could be considered less useful than other work. But in fact, I'm setting down a foundation for a wiki world in which Chinese minor geography is more 完善. I have added some cities too. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

--Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The location is a residential community, which is a village-level division (5th level of divisions) of the PRC. As such, it is included in "Category:zh:Residential communities". --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC) (modified)

肏屄, 操逼, 操屄, 肏逼Edit

SoP: ("to fuck") + ("cunt"). @Atitarev. Dokurrat (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep. I know some Chinese editors don't like inclusion of these vulgarities but they are not too intuitive, IMO, and seem idiomatic. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev: You said that they seem idiomatic. May I ask if you can show us the idiomaticity? Dokurrat (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: It's idiomatic, especially if you compare with many other "verb + object" Chinese verbs, which are translated into intransitive English verbs:
吃飯吃饭 (chīfàn, “eat rice = eat”)
開車开车 (kāichē, “drive car = drive”)
etc. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Show us how is 肏屄 different from 肏 + 屄. Dokurrat (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: 肏屄 is a rude word for to "have sex with a woman", which literally means to "fuck cunt", I have already given examples above. The reason why 吃飯吃饭 (chīfàn, “eat rice = eat”) is in dictionaries but "肏屄" is not, is because the latter is vulgar. I have already expressed my opinion, no need to ask me again. So far, no consensus to delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Oh honey, no. Why would you ignore my question? You still did not give anything substantial. Just tell us, how is 肏屄 different from 肏 + 屄? Where's the idiomaticity? Dokurrat (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Was "honey" called for? Piss off. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Is it that simple? Dictionaries also don't seem to have 喝水. —Suzukaze-c 05:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
No change in meaning here, just "drink water", unless you have something else in mind. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that's the point. Dokurrat (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
喝水 = drink water, and 肏屄 = fuck cunt = fuck a woman? —Suzukaze-c 05:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev: May I ask, what's the difference between claiming "肏屄" idiomatically means "to fuck a woman" and claiming "drink water" idiomatically means "to drink colorless liquid"? Dokurrat (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: I don't know what you mean. I haven't changed my mind about the idiomaticity of the entry but I am withdrawing my support for keeping the entries. So far, it's two against one for deleting, so be it. Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Dokurrat, Atitarev: Comment: I think the main argument for idiomaticity is that 屄 is not a woman, so there's some metonymy. I think it can also be interpreted that 肏 has two subtly different senses, just like f***; you could f*** sb (sense 2) or sth (sense 3). However, another argument of idiomaticity is that we often have entries for verb + default object (like 吃飯 and 開車 from above), which is often equivalent to the intransitive in English. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, that’s exactly my point too. These terms are as idiomatic as 吃飯吃饭 (chīfàn) and 開車开车 (kāichē). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


SOP. See next topic. --Octahedron80 (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


SOP. These are descriptive translations. There are various ways to call the vending machine. One may call it the simplest way as ตู้ or ตู้ขาย... (that still be SOP). --Octahedron80 (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

niezależne mediaEdit

Not widespread, it could refer to any political force that one believes controls the media, but such a new sense would leave us with something like what this CFI rule covers. Wrzodek (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

If the usage note is correct that this is a right-wing propaganda term, then it is newspeak rather than sarcasm. Can you enlighten us regarding the use? Perhaps this should move to rfv.  --Lambiam 12:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I can barely make sense of it too (in my opinion this neologism doesn't exist [widely enough]). The usage note is misleading because Law and Justice (all other right-wing forces get abysmal attention) doesn't propagate this definition, it sounds like what an opposing (left-wing or center) party would the voters to believe. Maybe when the entry was created was this definition more up-to-date (the government and the opposition switched places months later), yeah, a neologism should have some longevity. The fact that political neologisms do happen is true, but this one is unlucky because it's a SOP, therefore we'll find mentions instead of uses. And so the subject (who controls those media) varies, like in one of the first Google Books hits, when it's the former government. IIRC now the crucial sentence was highly sarcastic. Whether this should go to RFV or stay in RFD, someone with more experience should decide. Wrzodek (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


Nominated by @Geographyinitiative:

I consider this obvious SoP; this is a complement phrase (补语短语); 得多 and 得好 are similar constructions; 得很 does not appear as a word in the Chinese dictionaries 现代汉语词典7, 现代汉语规范词典3, 教育部國語辭典簡編本, or 教育部重編國語辭典修訂本; such a commonly used construction could not have been accidentally skipped- it was skipped because it is not a word

Suzukaze-c 06:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

[moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English]
Please note 得很 dehen is in the Taiwan TOCFL vocab. list. For those studying for and taking TOCFL tests its useful to keep dehen. It appears in 進階級, line 234. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
I see it in the list there. I guess it could be a word? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
It's not necessarily a "word", but a phrase that merits inclusion IMO. 很 is an adverb, which makes it an unusual complement for 得. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: While this sequence of characters does occur sometimes in text, the 很 does not necessarily modify 得. For example, take the sentence "他喜欢吃西瓜,吃得很多。" (He likes to eat watermelon, [he] eats very much.) In this excerpt, 很 unarguably modifies 多, not 得. In Chinese, 得 (de, neutral tone) doesn't mean anything on its own. It simply exists as a particle to separate verbs and adverbs. 很 is an adverb that describes adjectives and other adverbs, but not particles like 得. Personally, I haven't seen it in text myself, but I'll believe that it occurs on the Taiwanese TOCFL vocab list. Can someone please confirm this? Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
We are not talking about this kind of incorrect parsing; the entry has examples to show how it's used. As Geographyinitiative has said, it is in the TOCFL vocab list (specifically 進階級). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


Japanese. The correct transliteration for the Canadian Football League's Grey Cup is actually グレイ・カップ. Johnnysama (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that this is not the official transliteration, it is a form that can be attested: [29], [30], [31]. So perhaps the entry should say something like “alternative transliteration of Grey Cup”, giving the correct one in the usage notes. Funny though that we have an entry on the Japanese transliteration, but not on the English term, whose meaning, in particular as also designating a championship game and not just the trophy, is not obvious.  --Lambiam 09:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
On a semi-related note, I've added the English entry on this Wiki for the Grey Cup. If anybody wants to add to it, feel free. Johnnysama (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019Edit


The request is to delete the first sense of the Polish entry. I know it is usual to have an rfv first, but in this case I have no doubt that the sense can be attested; I just think it should not be included as a separate sense. In Polish the word pierogi is simply the plural of pieróg, just like English pancakes is the plural of pancake. In the sentence “The Johnsons had pancakes for breakfast”, the meaning of the word “pancakes” is a dish (it isn’t like Mr. Johnson had a pancake and Mrs. Johnson also had a pancake), but we wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) list that as a separate sense. The Polish Wiktionary gives only one sense for pierogi: an inflectional form of pieróg. We should do the same here.  --Lambiam 11:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

pieróg is not defined as pierogi; it's defined as dumplings. Cooking definitions can often be a bit opaque to me, but I think the English reader would like to know, somewhere, the relation between pierogi (Polish) and pierogi (English). I'd interpret this change as saying the Polish word was specialized being borrowed into English, to a subset of "dumplings", that the first sense of the Polish entry is not in fact correct.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I think this is adequately explained by the English etymology section “From Polish pierogi, singular pieróg, from Proto-Slavic *pir (festivity, banquet).” If you think this is not sufficient, any elaboration should be added to the English section, but I believe that the reader is intelligent enough to understand that a dish of dumplings named with a word borrowed from Polish is not a bunch of Chinese-style dumplings, but dumplings that owe their characteristics to Polish cuisine. If they want more information, they can follow the link to Wikipedia. The Polish Wikipedia uses the term for dumplings in general (for example, mantı is explained as Turkish or Central Asian pierogi) and their article Pierogi discusses dumplings in a variety of national or ethnic cuisines (African, Belarusian, Brazilian, Chinese, Czech, Finnish, Georgian, German, Greek, Indian, Italian, Japanese, Jewish, Korean, Lebanese, Lithuanian, Mexican, Russian, Spanish, Tartar, Tibetan, Turkish, Ukrainian, and Uzbek), although a large part of the article is devoted to Polish-style pierogi. I think this is a perfectly natural thing. English kielbasa invariably refers to a Polish sausage, but in Polish kiełbasa is used for any sausage, including Italian salami, German Frankfurter Würstchen, and Austrian Vienna sausages. In Turkish, pilav is simply cooked rice (or bulgur) and the Turkish Wikipedia has no problem writing that pilav is traditionally the main Japanese food, but in English pilav refers specifically to Turkish-style pilav. So indeed the first sense of the Polish entry is not in fact correct in the sense that it is too specific; the correct definition would have been dumplings – which is already the second sense.  --Lambiam 20:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the problem is with the singular entry (Polish pierogi). For me, a dumpling is something you make by putting a piece of solid dough in soup to cook with the soup. That entry should make clear whether pieróg includes my sense, or whether it's specific to what is called pierogi in English (see w:Kluski, for instance). Either way, I doubt that Polish speakers would see the first sense as anything but another way of saying the second sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Based on the descriptions on the Polish Wiktionary and Wikipedia, a pieróg is supposed to have a filling. But it does not have to be the kind of filling you’d expect when having pierogi in a Polish restaurant. Ravioli and potstickers also qualify.  --Lambiam 01:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

triangle équilatéralEdit

triangle rectangleEdit

SOP. See Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English § acute-angled triangle. Per utramque cavernam 18:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete both, SOP.  --Lambiam 11:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

expressão idiomáticaEdit

Portuguese for idiom. SoP as "idiomatic expression"; "expression" could be swapped out for any number of terms. Ultimateria (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 19:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Keep. I don't think it's exactly a SoP. Some dictionaries such as Priberam have a specific section for that word. See hereCaiusSPQR (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


Translingual looks English. --Pious Eterino (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleted. Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


望 (verb) + 住 (verb suffix)? —Suzukaze-c 05:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 10:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


Delete. Posthumous name for numerous Chinese emperors, literally (, “martial”) + (, “emperor”).

Note to entry creator: Please check if the lemma exists in any Chinese dictionary and verify its meaning before creating the entry. KevinUp (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@KevinUp: I created the entry because I found it under the "synonyms" section on 漢武. I don't know who put the (red) link to that page, but it was not me. Anyways, I found nothing in the Xiandai Hanyu Zidian, therefore I'd say delete. Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Update: It was @A-cai, when he first created the article back in 2006. Let's see what he has to say. Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Keep. We usually allow posthumous names for emperors, like 文帝. It's definitely not SoP as it refers to specific individuals. It probably needs some expansion to include other emperors using this name though. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

thiền thầnEdit

Tagged by PhanAnh123 for speedy deletion with the comment "misspelled, the correct spelling is thiên thần", but that's not a valid reason for speedy deletion, since it could be kept if it's a common misspelling. So I'm bringing it to RFD instead. No vote from me. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted because it's not common misspelling. It's basically a typo. The one who created this probably had a slip up or took it fron a faulty source.PhanAnh123 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


Keyword in certain programming languages. We don't tend to include these and shouldn't; the discussion has been had before but I can't remember where. If we did include them by policy, we would immediately be pulling in thousands upon thousands of obscure, supposedly "translingual" words, with varying capitalisation (sometimes allowed to vary, sometimes forced upper, sometimes forced lower) and they could not be defined in a dictionary style since they are programming keywords with a logical interpretation. I hope delteing this will be a no-brainer. Equinox 07:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Is it English like if, else, iff, for, class and also used in regular text (and not only source code)? If so just fix the language. Delete the Translingual; keep the English (if it exists). --QueeroDeera (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not used with the same sense in English (nobody says "do this, elif that, then do another thing"); it can be used to count occurrences ("there are two elifs in this code") but I don't think that's enough to keep it. Indeed I even remember a normal English word having its noun deleted for this reason: something like "two somewhats on the page". Equinox 11:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect uncontracted forms of Ancient Greek verbsEdit

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).


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

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)

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)

@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)
@Erutuon: Eh, It's just something I remember my greek teacher saying, I may be wrong. RexPrincipum (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The dual was completely extinct by the time of Koine, wasn't it? If so, then setting the conjugation template to | 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)

Rep. Popular de PoloniaEdit

República Popular de Polonia and rep. should be enough for anyone. --Wonderfool early February 2019 (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, it is not English.  --Lambiam 21:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Moved to RFDN.Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019Edit

kakilima beratapEdit

Not attested. Ilham151096 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ilham151096 Attestation is a RFV rationale. Should this be in RFV instead? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)



Sum of parts: the corresponding English entry American imperialism has been deleted for the same reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Idiomatic. The short form (the US) functions as a prefix to 帝國主義, making it one word, similar to 大漢族主義, 唯科學主義, etc. It has also derived its own short form 美帝. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Not quite seeing your point. The term seems sum-of-parts because it is just (short form of the United States) (as you mentioned, used as a prefix) + 帝國主義 (imperialism). We are justified in having 美帝 as an entry because that is a short form which may not be clear to readers, but not 美帝國主義. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I think ("United States; of United States") can be viewed as a free morpheme / a word rather than a prefix; it can be used alone. Dokurrat (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


One many bad edits from this user. Latin form is impossible, as PIE *bʰr- would have yield *fr-. --{{victar|talk}} 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I put it as either borrowed from Proto-Germanic *brūnaz, itself descended from *bʰruHnós, or as directly descended from that reflex. The former one is more likely, but I wasn't completely sure so I put both. How does this constitute the deletion of the entire page?
Additionally, I at first had the page as *bʰruHn-, which is listed as the source of brown. It was Bezimenen who moved the page to *bʰruHnós. The only thing I've been doing here is going off of what other pages have. GabeMoore (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@GabeMoore: As the Latin cannot possibly be descended from this PIE form, that only leaves the Proto-Germanic and as we do not allow for PIE reconstructions with only a single descendant, this entry should be deleted. --{{victar|talk}} 23:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@GabeMoore, Victar: Regarding the change to *bʰruHnós: Technically, *bʰruHn- is not a root [at least not within early Proto-Indo-European]. The available literature (mainly V. Orel) points towards it being a Caland adjective and all other Caland adjectives, which I've seen on Wiktionary, are given in their full form. For this reason, I changed it. Bezimenen (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bezimenen, and that was the correct thing to do, but it's really a moot point in light of the issues I listed above. --{{victar|talk}} 23:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*bʰrewh₁- lists *bʰruHnós as a descendant. If the latter is deleted, its descendants should be moved to *bʰrewh₁-. A related issue: The etymology of Proto-Indo-European *bʰébʰrus states that it is from a nominalization of *bʰrew- (brown). Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰrew- redirects to Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰrewh₁-, and the latter gives *bʰrew- as an alternative reconstruction, but the only senses listed are to boil and to brew. Is the sense “brown” mentioned in the etymology section at *bʰébʰrus in error?  --Lambiam 06:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
That has since been deleted as well. --{{victar|talk}} 16:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I created a more proper entry at *bʰerH-, though it's pretty shaky, which may be why we didn't have an entry for it. --{{victar|talk}} 16:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


Virtually empty and poorly put together reconstruction. Recommend delete. --{{victar|talk}} 15:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete per Victar. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


SOP --Miwako Sato (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


Incorrect. Should be CA. --I learned some phrases (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep (if it exist). --QueeroDeera (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


The Kazakh version was deleted by User:Vtgnoq7238rmqco. We need to go through the process. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I attempt to delete it because the word does not comply with the latest standard of latinisation in Kazakhstan. Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

moved from Talk:bağdarlama

@Vtgnoq7238rmqco: Hi, I'm not too keen to have all possible Roman spellings for Kazakh but this probably requires a proper WT:RFDN discussion. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I attempt to delete it because it does not comply with the latest standard latinisation.

Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vtgnoq7238rmqco: We normally provide entries for ALL ATTESTED romanisations (dated, obsolete, even non-standard). The entry could move to bag'darlama, the future Kazakh spelling but it's not attested yet. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Vtgnoq7238rmqco: Module:kk-translit and WT:KK TR will require changes. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Then the entry should be baǵdarlama because diacritics rather than apostrophes are used in the latest version.

Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Or you could just put all one one spelling as “normalized”, ignoring the minor differences. What has to be attested are the lexemes themselves; then even unattested romanizations can be soft-redirected like Pinyin transcriptions aren’t real entries. In an environment where there are freely convertible scripts one even quotes texts that are written in one script in a different script. So it has always been done in Yugoslavia. People made dictionaries in Cyrillic quoting Latin-written texts as though they always were Cyrillic. Somebody says something in Croatian and Serbian newspapers quote it in Cyrillic if they are else written in Cyrillic. Vuk Karadžić wrote things in Cyrillic and it is republished in Latin. There is no fault in it, and nobody relies on whether it has been republished in such a form. The scripts are just representations of the same livelihood that is the topic. Not like Syriac and Hebrew-square-script Aramaic living separate lives. These alphabets are all by one community. The problem you have is that the whole orthographies do not span much more than a year. Otherwise if an orthography is widely accepted it would be laudable to convert all words in it schematically. It is a dire waste to attest the alphabet forms. Attest words and don’t split your precious attention for that, like the number of attestations required for a word needed to be multiplied by the number of alphabets. If you like literalism, the CFI speak of “terms” and “words” to be attested, not the way of writing them down. What do you do with words only attested in audio? Kazakh rappers release CDs then you quote in which alphabets? In all established ones. It all proves that the spellings don’t need to have been around. The words have to exist, easy rule. There it is good that you have alphabets and not Chinese script where there must be encoded signs around for words which isn’t always the case for dialectal words. If you delete a term here, it might be because the whole alphabet does not span enough to justify additions covered by the mentioned reasonings. Fay Freak (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(sigh) Too much waffling again, too confuse everyone. Kazakh is allowed to have entries in three scripts, according Module:languages/data2, which can treated as a current language policy: "Cyrl", "Latn", "kk-Arab". Inclusion of "Latn" justifies [[bağdarlama]] as a full entry, not a redirect. If bağdarlama is attestable as a Kazakh word, we need to keep it. Neither bag'darlama nor baǵdarlama are attestable yet, despite the government regulations and currently ongoing transliteration policy changes (in Kazakhstan or Wiktionary). I suggest to just delete, to save time in WT:RFVN and we can update Module:kk-translit and WT:KK TR to match the latest development. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
No, I am saying that if a word is attested in Cyrillic, like бағдарлама (bağdarlama), then the Latin forms should be added automatically. “bağdarlama attestable as a Kazakh word” is a wrong concept. bağdarlama is only a Latin script representation of a Kazakh word. Only the Kazakh word must be attested, not its representational form. It would rather save time not to care whether a term is attested in a certain alphabet. Fay Freak (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
This is the English Wiktionary, and the rules are mostly set up from an English perspective. English doesn't have major alternate scripts or spelling reformations. It does have quite a bit of spelling variation, though. That, as well as the convenience thereof, is why things are the way they are.
Write a discussion on the Beer Parlor and try and take a large picture view; don't argue the matter here on each entry in RfD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The rules are either set up for other languages too or there isn’t any rule for other languages or a rule which excludes unattested spellings. But this is not the case, the rules are clear in this: Spellings are normalized, words only known from audio-records are entered, even for English. Also it is commonly accepted that not all forms of an inflected word need to be attested for its paradigm to be given and all forms created, only the paradigm itself needs to be certain. You would need to write a discussion in the Beer Parlour. I only render the current version of the rules that you both misinterpret. It’s always been like that, you just did not know it until I have told you. I have had the large picture view, no need to assume that I don’t have it but you. But why do you care to apply different rules? It is an inane question whether all forms are attested, for a lexicon only the lexemes matter. I emphasize that I care little about this specific word, the rules need to be interpreted correctly though in the future by you all. Fay Freak (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The rules are clear, but a user with 3,000 edits over ten years and an administrator with a quarter million edits don't understand them. The rules are what the users of Wiktionary defined, and if the literal meaning of the rules disagree with our group understanding, the rules will change. Spellings aren't normalized. I know of no word entered from audio, and I would object to entering words in well-attested languages from audio.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
All words. If this is a word that has seen sufficient use, then it should be kept. I do not believe in forcing users to figure what the current spelling might be or ignoring what's actually being written in exchanged for proclaimed orthographies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I have deleted bağdarlama#Kazakh. Despite Module:languages/data2, we don't have a policy for keeping unattested forms and transliterations of words are not words. We only have a couple of exceptions based on votes. Yes, it's better to discuss the specific Kazakh language policy separately in WT:BP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Who has forced? It is an additional orthography. You don’t know here wholly what’s actually being written. On the one hand internet use supposedly does not count, on the other hand you only look on the internet to find out if it is in use. But what’s actually being written does not wholly matter. People also hear words and then perhaps look them up in the Latin alphabet. Why are people who know about languages pretending that the written forms are the words? It is like confusing letters and phonemes. Fay Freak (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
70% of your phrases have no meaning. Please try rephrasing or ask someone to help translate into proper English. No-one's forced, no-one's pretending, no-one knows what's written, nothing matters. I'm just following the rules and policies. The entry may have been deleted prematurely but we need a solid ground to keep it. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
They all have meaning. You just refuse to interpret with the necessary complexity. Yes you follow the rules, but wrongly. The existence of the word, which is not doubted, is a solid ground to keep its Latin spelling. Fay Freak (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Of course we have a policy of keeping unattested forms. The reasoning is outlined supra. It is not specific to Kazakh. Because the forms are not the words themselves. The only question is if the alphabet itself has had sufficient use to justify “mirroring”. Fay Freak (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


incorrect initialism --I learned some phrases (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Bild ↑Edit

This doesn't seem lexical to me. --Pious Eterino (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a translation of an English entry and it's used in running text, so I don't see what the problem is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Pos 1Edit

The German definition given is simply:

  1. Home.

I assume it is related to computing, judging from the fact it was made at the same time as Bild ↑ and Bild ↓. --Pious Eterino (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

As can be seen here, it is the inscription on one of the keycaps of a German PC keyboard. I am inclined to think this is non-lexical, but we also have Home, PgUp and PgDn. If the English inscriptions are includable, then so should be their counterparts in other languages, so do we have guidelines for this kind of thing?  --Lambiam 07:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


Redundant, what with RU. Redirect? Possibly. Is this the standard form for French abbreviations? Probably not. --I learned some phrases (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

When standing for Royaume-Uni this is an initialism in French, pronounced as the succession of the letters ⟨R⟩ and ⟨U⟩: IPA(key): /ɛ.ʁy/. The traditional rule of Franch orthography is that acronyms (e.g. OTAN) are written without full stops while initialisms have full stops after each letter (see Sigle on the French Wikipedia). However, the trend has been to leave them out there as well, and that is pretty established by now. The French Wiktionary does not have an entry for R.U. and not even a redirect; they only have RU.  --Lambiam 18:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep (if it exist). --QueeroDeera (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find this. What I can find is “R.-U.”, with a hyphen: [32], [33], [34], [35].  --Lambiam 19:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019Edit









The presence of derived terms is not enough to prove that the base term existed in that language. Compare English begin and Dutch verliezen; they no more prove that *gin and *liezen exist. Likewise, cranberry does not mean *cran exists. They should only be kept if it can be shown that the derived terms were formed within Gothic and not within Proto-Germanic. —Rua (mew) 10:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  • The fairly regular inflectional morphology of Gothic and the relatively large prevalence of prefixes used to modify verbs (gaggan (gaggan) and atgaggan (atgaggan) as just two examples) provides enough evidence that the base forms exist with reasonable certainty. Incidentally, verliezen is derived from *fraleusana which can be broken up into the prefix fra- and the base leusana. So even if *liezen does not exist, a base form in Proto-Germanic does. —This unsigned comment was added by 2604:3D08:8E80:7800:B886:B0FD:3282:A842 (talk) at 01:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC).
  1. Reconstruction:Gothic/𐌰𐌲𐌾𐌰𐌽 - Leaning keep. The lack of cognates in other Germanic languages makes me suspicious: if it was so productive in Proto-Germanic as to produce three prefixed inherited terms in Gothic, why did it not leave any traces in other languages? Assuming a Gothic origin doesn't seem unreasonable in the case of its three derived terms.
  2. Reconstruction:Gothic/𐌱𐌹𐌿𐌳𐌰𐌽 - Delete, though it may well have existed. Both "derived terms" existed in Proto-Germanic.
  3. Reconstruction:Gothic/𐌳𐌰𐌿𐌸𐌽𐌰𐌽 - Uncertain, leaning keep; attested with perfective prefix - compare the mirroring pair 𐌳𐌰𐌿𐌸𐌾𐌰𐌽 (dauþjan)/𐌲𐌰𐌳𐌰𐌿𐌸𐌾𐌰𐌽 (gadauþjan).
  4. Reconstruction:Gothic/𐌳𐌴𐌸𐍃 - Uncertain, leaning keep. Köbler says waidēdja is a calque, but it could be *waidēþs + -ja, or it could be wai + *dēþs + -ja. Due to the lack of a cognate (that I know of) in any Germanic language for *waidēþs (whereas other Germanic words with *dēdiz were preserved in many different languages), I am inclined to think that word didn't really exist in Proto-Germanic and the calque was instead done using *dēþs as a productive Gothic element.
  5. Reconstruction:Gothic/𐌵𐌹𐍃𐍃 - Keep for sure, in some form or another. Many of the derivates are considered calques (cf. Köbler, but I am sure other sources confirm this as well: a comparison with the Greek text on which the Gothic Bible was based clearly shows it), e.g. þiuþiqiss and wailaqiss. This shows that as an element in word formation at least it was productive, similar to (and calquing) Greek -logia. Perhaps it should be noted that it may have been a suffix instead, but it should definitely be kept.
  6. Reconstruction:Gothic/𐌷𐌻𐌰𐌸𐌰𐌽 - Probably delete. Likely existed (no other word seems to fill the semantic gap in case of its non-existence in Gothic), but the size and nature of the corpus makes this difficult.
  7. Reconstruction:Gothic/𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐍃 - Probably delete. Likely existed (no other word seems to fill the semantic gap in case of its non-existence in Gothic), but the size and nature of the corpus makes this difficult.
  8. Reconstruction:Gothic/𐍃𐌺𐌰𐍀𐌾𐌰𐌽 - Probably delete. Nonetheless, I'm inclined to think it existed (cf. the verb form scapia in the Vandal Epigram and the agent noun skapa "creator" in the Codex Bononiensis). While the term from the Vandalic epigram may be in the "Vandalic language" according to some and thus fail to attest the Gothic word, I am of the opinion that there is no good reason to see Vandalic as anything other than a variant or dialect of Gothic, probably entirely mutually intelligible. Procopius (6th century historian) notes that the Vandals and Goths both spoke the same language (called Gothic). (Others have hypothesized that scapia may instead be an agent noun, though, corresponding to regular Gothic *skapjan + -ja.) All of this doesn't go far enough to make me vote to keep, though, especially since it's largely based on my personal view of the status of Vandalic vs. Gothic.
I somewhat agree with the IP above, but some of these seem difficult to salvage. Anyway, there's a lot of uncertainty here and I'd be interested in hearing some other opinions. @Mahagaja, perhaps? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


A mere graphic device. Any word can be written with as many vowels as necessary to represent a drawn-out pronunciation. Guldrelokk (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

We also list elongated forms if they can be attested, such as, for instance, nooo.  --Lambiam 14:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Why in the world? Can’t any number of o’s be attested three times? Google Books shows hundred of results for nooooooo, noooooooo, nooooooooo, noooooooooo, noooooooooo and so on. I don’t think anyone needs this garbage, may be it is worth changing? Guldrelokk (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
We specifically have a rule, approved by vote, that there can be a maximum of three repetitions of an element. So no, noo and nooo can exist, but not noooo and longer. —Rua (mew) 18:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Writing is a mere graphical device. Generally for Wiktionary, text is conceptually encoded as plain text, split into words and each word with a spelling difference gets its own page. This can be very important for the student, who might well be confused by не-ет or looove.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
He should open some reference on the orthography then. Any letter can be written any number of times in prose, arbitrarily including a few ‘elongated forms’ does not help anyone. I still don’t believe this is dictionary material, but whatever. Guldrelokk (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree.
Wiktionary:Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables. See Talk:seeexy, where I and other people suggest that all of those be disallowed. ChignonПучок 08:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The entry не-ет (ne-jet) is rubbish and should be deleted. (The transliteration "ne-jet" doesn't represent how it's pronounced.)--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Since when has a personal opinion of "rubbish" been a reason to delete? Don't we follow WT:CFI and things?--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
That's not true, at least in English. The complex rules on when consonants are duplicated in English are only resolvable by a dictionary lookup, and I don't think consonants are ever duplicated in English for emphasis. Maybe we can resolve when vowels can be extended, but I'm not sure it's clear to me when vowels can be extended, since digraph vowels are common in English orthography. In any case, we have had a vote on this matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
You don’t need to do it for emphasis. You can do it for countless reasons in prose. You can do it to represent stuttering: b-but, b-b-but etc., or whatever else you want. A dictionary will never be able to help you with that. Guldrelokk (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not whatever you want; in your example, "b-b-but" separates things out with hyphens and leaves the whole word at the end.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The vote Wiktionary:Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables deals with English and reduplications of vowels ("pleeeeeease", not "ple-e-e-e-e-e-ase", not exactly the same we have here with the use of hyphens, which is occasionally used to show the long pronunciations in Russian. I don't know if the vote is applicable to this case. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
No offense to Benwing, who has done exceptional work with Russian otherwise, but this is rubbish; delete. ChignonПучок 11:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, no offence to Benwing2, I didn't even look at who created the entry but there was a ruwikt entry, so, it was sort of expected. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

besser ein schreckliches Ende, als ein Schrecken ohne EndeEdit

only definition given is a literal translation. It really just means the sum of its components. This is not a proverb. -- 19:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The saying is ascribed in this 1924 book to “a leading [Austrian] politician”. It is stated here as an old saying. Some random other occurrences: [36], [37], [38].  --Lambiam 20:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like another of those pseudo-proverbs (traue keiner Statistik, die du nicht selbst gefälscht hast, I'm thinking of you). Canonicalization (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
it's probably more a pun/aphorism than a real proverb, but it is in common use. an etymology will make the entry more useful. – Jberkel 23:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


This has only one descendant, dubious phonology and no sources. Not really a secure enough reconstruction to me. —Rua (mew) 00:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Is Germanic *habulô not a descendant ? Leasnam (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
No, it has the wrong form. The expected Germanic form, based on the PIE one, would be *hafōlaz or *habōlaz. The occurrence of u in Proto-Germanic points to a different PIE form. —Rua (mew) 01:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
According to Kroonen, the Sanskrit form reflects *kap-ola- (where the length is presumably due to Brugmann's law), although he puts a question mark after it. I don't find that very secure. —Rua (mew) 01:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


The source I gave for this word, both when I listed it as a descendant of PIE *h₂ówis and when I made the actual entry on Wiktionary, uses the singular form of the word as an entry. It is not reconstructed; it is entirely attested. The person who originally listed awi as a descendant of *h₂ówis gave no source for their entry and as to why it should be in the plural, and I can't see any reason why there should even be an entry for the plural, as that's not the lemma form for Tocharian B. GabeMoore (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@GabeMoore, Rua: āᵤw, or ā₍ᵤ₎w, as {{R:txb:Adams:2013}} fashions it, is a reconstructed transliteration. There is no <ᵤ> character in Tocharian alphabet, and, as far as I know, that word is only attested in plural. --{{victar|talk}} 15:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
But it is common across Wiktionary to infer the lemma form from the attested forms. We do it for Gothic, we do it for Latin. I don't see why this is any different. —Rua (mew) 16:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rua: We also don't do so for a lot of languages, like Old Persian and Oscan, and for poorly attested languages, where scholars still debate the declension these attestations, this should be the norm. @JohnC5 --{{victar|talk}} 16:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Victar: I emailed Dr. Adams about it, who wrote the source I referenced. He confirmed that the nominative singular form is attested, and specifically that he did not reconstruct it. GabeMoore (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Really? Funny because I wrote him and he said it isn't. =P Hearsay external communications are inadmissible. Please show me a source text. --{{victar|talk}} 03:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The source text is the dictionary itself. If the term was reconstructed, it would have an asterisk by it, as reconstructed terms typically do; Adams confirmed this explicitly, both in our email and in the foreword of the book. Would submitting a screenshot of the email count as sufficient proof to back this claim? (Genuine question; I'm not completely sure what's considered "admissible" in that regard.) GabeMoore (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm aware where it's from -- what I'm asking for a citable text with the word in the nominative singular, ex. PK LC I.4: orotsana awi as cited for the nominative plural, or at least another source that cites the existence of a And no, a screenshot wouldn't help. --{{victar|talk}} 04:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Why would the locus of the term be necessary though? There's nothing at all in the dictionary indicating that the term is unattested apart from the lack of an example of the attestation, which isn't given for many of the entries therein. GabeMoore (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Because I doubt it's existence, thus the RFD. Published works aren't infallible, which is why we look for multiple agreeing sources. --{{victar|talk}} 19:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Template:keep per the principle of placing entries at the lemma. —Rua (mew) 20:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete unless it can be cited elsewhere as attested because we don't lemmatize most poorly attested languages. --{{victar|talk}} 00:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


Sense 2 is seemingly redundant to sense 3. —⁠Desaccointier 08:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Sense 2 is for a group of people, just like senses 1 and 4. Sense 3 is for an individual.  --Lambiam 11:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

grattis i efterskottEdit

SOP, "grattis i efterskott". — surjection?〉 16:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

With the lack of an entry for i efterskott or indeed efterskott I suggest holding fire on this. DonnanZ (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
There should be an entry for i efterskott ("in arrears"?), the Swedish Wiktionary doesn't have one even though it tends to be colloquial. -- 17:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019Edit


lorsqu' + il. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 10:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Do we have a policy or guideline for contracted forms? In English we have can't, don't, isn't, I've, I'd, and so on and so forth. For French we also have jusqu'à, jusqu'alors, jusqu'ici, lorsqu'on, qu'à, qu'au, qu'elle, qu'elles, qu'en, qu'eux, qu'il, qu'ils, qu'on, qu'un, qu'une, and probably some more I didn't think of. If we delete such contracted forms, we should try to be a bit consistent and not just delete a few random ones.  --Lambiam 14:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
In absence of any policy, keep. Harmless and relatively easy to mistake for a word in its own right, for those who would not define this as a word already. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I was inspired by the request above for #d'une and #d'un. If all of these are included, what would prevent us from include things like qu'Anne? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


Per the talk page, another element reconstructed solely on the basis on being in a name. @Mnemosientje, RuaΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

DeleteMnemosientje (t · c) 08:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


Language does not match level 2 heading. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


as above. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Convert to Translingual. Why would you nominate correct entries for deletion in the first place? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

France profondeEdit

SOP, profond can be appended to any region's, country's or continent's name with the same meaning ("rural", "small-town", etc.): "Wallonie profonde", "Russie profonde", "Afrique profonde", etc. Canonicalization (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep not transparent to non-native speakers and has many connotations besides the literal translation. – Jberkel 07:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete, and add "rural", "small-town" sense to profond. Julia 17:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Done. Canonicalization (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


Is this a prefix? —Rua (mew) 15:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

For an Ancient Greek word like ἄρθρωσις (árthrōsis), the answer should be that indeed the word was formed from a prefix ἄρθρ(ο)- (árthr(o)-) + a suffix -ωσις (-ōsis). Modern English arthrosis – not a direct loan of the Greek word, which means something else, viz. “articulation” (of speech) – mimics the way Greek words were formed in ancient times, so for the coiner the morpheme arthr(o)- was “morally” a prefix – and if medical researchers need to come up with a new word for something related to joints, they will surely feel quite comfortable to reuse this morpheme. My conclusion: calling it a prefix is a defensible position.  --Lambiam 11:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that it's not prefixed to anything at all. Prefixes form new words by attaching to existing words, this one doesn't. See also Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2019/April#Classical compounds in Category:English words by prefix and Category:English words by suffix where I argued that these are not affixes, but their own type of morpheme that follows its own rules. —Rua (mew) 11:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
So is there a term for a morpheme that is used to form new words but that does not qualify for affixhood sensu stricto?  --Lambiam 21:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I see that I suggested the term “classicistic component” in the prior discussion.  --Lambiam 21:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I thought "combining form" (from WT:POS) might qualify, but I guess it implies that there is a full word that the morpheme is a form of, so it couldn't be used for English morphemes derived from Latin and Greek that don't have corresponding full words, only for the Ancient Greek or Latin versions of the morphemes. So ὑδρο- (hudro-) is the combining form of ὕδωρ (húdōr), but hydro- isn't a combining form because there isn't an English word (*hydor?) that it derives from. — Eru·tuon 21:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
We could go with a generic "morpheme". There's a category for them already, why not use it? —Rua (mew) 21:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


A ghost word 1 2 (p. 72). Guldrelokk (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Besides itar being a ghost word, ittaranni appears to be a loan from Hurrian. --Lvovmauro (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I believe the word is attested in the 20th line of this tablet. I've got to admit that the sign has four initial stokes instead of three. I don't know the context though, so I'd be unsure about it, scribal errors are pretty common. –Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 16:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Here is the reading in question. Guldrelokk (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


SoP: 扮嘢 + + . can be inserted after any verb in any verb + object construction, like 食飯, 曬命. can be inserted before to intensify it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

publika ĝardenoEdit

SOP. 2600:1000:B111:FB4A:B04B:1245:328E:5BE4 10:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

A public garden is not necessarily a park, and a park is not necessarily a public garden.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Just “park” is not a good definition. A better definition is “urban park” (which is always public), also called “public garden(s)” – I think the plural form is more common in English usage.  --Lambiam 11:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Urban parks aren't always public; there's at least one near me limited to the local homeowners. I'm not familiar with the phrase "public gardens" and using the phrase "garden" to refer to a place with mowed grass and tennis and basketball courts strikes me as wrong. A local park has gardens, where people can grow vegetables. Some of this might be my idiolect or American English, but if this is deleted as SOP, I'd like to see clarification on ĝardeno.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
As seen here in British use, this “Public Gardens” (note that this is grammatically treated as a singular) is really a park (where one would not be allowed to grow veggies), complete with children’s play area and bowling green. In US use, “public garden” appears to mean what I’d call a botanical garden, at least according to the American Public Gardens Association. I think that a park in an urban environment with access restricted to residents, such as Gramercy Park in NY, would be called a (private) neighborhood park; most definitions of “urban park” define it as a public space, like here: “Urban parks are accessible to the public.”  --Lambiam 09:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
When I said "A local park has gardens", I think it sounded more general than I was saying; one of my local parks has a small gated area where people can grow vegetables. (Accessible by request and assignment of space only.) Unless public gardens are more limited in Britain than parks are in the US, I'd almost expect somewhere to have tried something similar, but it's not a common thing here.
It's possible this would be clear with more definition of ĝardeno, but this looks like a calique of public garden, which is opaque to me as an American and seems to be not entirely SOP with respect to British English.
Delete. The distinctions here seem speculative. Fay Freak (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Note sense 1.1 of garden: “(in the plural) [An outdoor area containing one or more types of plants grown for ornamental purposes] to which the public have access.” (The plural form “have” reveals this was written by a Briton.) I don’t see which elements in the above are considered speculative, considering that everything is sourced. While it is obvious that a publika ĝardeno is public, it is less obvious that in this collocation ĝardeno is not a vegetable garden open to public use, but a park intended for recreational use by the public.  --Lambiam 15:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

energia eolicaEdit

energia nucleareEdit

energia rinnovabileEdit

energia solareEdit

All are SOP: the meaning in English is in each case the literal translation.  --Lambiam 11:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Can't the same be said for English and other languages? Canonicalization (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Not for English – for example, “solar energy” could also have meant the energy produced by the fusion process in the Sun’s core, about 384.6 YW, and not the tiny fraction that reaches Earth in the form of sunlight; also, the meaning of the English terms is not a translation – but, indeed, in most cases for many other languages. But not always; for example, Dutch duurzame energie, the equivalent of English renewable energy, literally means “durable energy”. Because of such exceptions, I think the English terms are defensible as translation hubs.  --Lambiam 16:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Couldn't your case for "solar energy" be applied to "energia solare"? Ultimateria (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Anyone can readily see that “energia solare” means “solar energy” in English; we do not need the entry for that. If someone doesn’t know what solar energy is, they may have to look it up. The notion that “energia solare” needs an entry just like “solar energy” because it could also have meant something else, should naturally lead to the conclusion that its definition needs to be rewritten:
energia solare f (plural energie solari)
1. energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation emitted from the Sun; especially that part of this energy that is converted into usable thermal or electrical energy by humans.
 --Lambiam 23:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I hate to be the one to trot out the slippery slope, but there are several thousand multiword entries in Romance languages that could be deleted by the same logic. Perhaps we need to add more concrete rules for non-English terms to the Idiomacity section of CFI, disallowing "literal translations" of English, after first deciding what that means. Ultimateria (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I think it's a grey zone. I've been creating some similar entries in French, but that's one of those cases where I'm not sure I should. Canonicalization (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


Duplicate of *sárȷ́ati. --{{victar|talk}} 17:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Duplicates can be merged tacitly, especially if you are the competent one to do it. Fay Freak (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

a alguna parteEdit

Spanish for "[to] somewhere"; literally "to some place". SoP. Ultimateria (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

en ninguna parteEdit

"nowhere"; literally "in no place". SoP.

I would also delink Spanish translations with [preposition] + algún(a)/ningún(a) + parte, as parte already has a sense for "place". Any of its synonyms for "place" can be substituted, this is just the one most commonly used for somewhere/anywhere/nowhere. Ultimateria (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. Linking is done automatically by the {{t}} family of templates and cannot be turned off, as far as I can see. I think we should add synonyms like “en algún lugar” and “a ningún lado” to the translations to show that in Spanish these adverbial phrases are not frozen idioms.  --Lambiam 20:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
But if you use {{t|es|a [[alguna]] [[parte]]}}, you get “a alguna parte” with the individual words linked.  --Lambiam 21:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the bad phrasing; that's what I planned to do to the translations. Ultimateria (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

fare la paternaleEdit

Another seemingly SOP Italian entry, but I had some doubts, so I'm bringing it here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it is sufficient to give examples at paternale that show the term is typically used with the definite article, and that the verb of choice is fare (and not e.g. tenere or servire). After that, Delete as SOP. I’m not a native Italian speaker, but I have the sense that the term paternale generally has a connotation of being condescending.  --Lambiam 21:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


This doesn't refer to any particular city. Instead, there are various cities with this name, but they were independently named and thus not cognate. Besides, it's literally just the words for "white city" stuck together, which is almost SOP. —Rua (mew) 20:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Thought the same. Fay Freak (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


Supposedly Albanian, but Index:Albanian implies, and the Wikipedia article on the language says it only uses Roman letters. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

During the Ottoman empire several scripts were used to write in Arbërisht: latin, greek, arabic, etc. Arbërisht (αρbε̰ρίσ̈τ) is still written in the greek Alphabet, but only by an minority group living in Greeve (called 'Arvanites' in Greek). Arbëreshë living in Italy use the latin Alphabet, same goes for modern Albanian. Arbërisht is Old Albanian. Also "Arbërisht" (the native term) is called "Arvanitika" in greek tongue. Arvanitika is an endagered language. I don't quite get why my entry should be deleted. Here's the Αρβανιτικα' / Αρbε̰ρισ̈τ - Alphabet (greek and latin script) + Standatd Albanian Orthography.

  • latin/greek/standardAlb. | IPA
  • A a / Α α / A a |[a~ɑ]
  • B b / Ƃ ƅ / B b | [b]
  • C c / ΤΣ τσ / C c | [ts]
  • Ç ç / ΤΣ̈ τσ̈ / Ç ç | [ʧ]
  • D d / D d / D d | [d]
  • Dh dh / Δ δ / Dh dh | [ð]
  • E e / Ε ε / E e | [e ~ ɛ]
  • Ë ë / Ε̱ ε̱ / Ë ë | [ə~ʊ̣]
  • F f / Φ φ / F f | [f]
  • G g / Γ γ / G g | [g]
  • Gj gj / Γj γj / (g) | [gʲ]
  • --- / --- / Gj gj | [ɟ]
  • H h / Χ χ / --- | [x]
  • --- / --- / H h | [h]
  • Hj hj / Χ̇ χ̇ / --- | [xʲ]
  • I i / Ι ι / I i | [i]
  • J j / J j / J j | [j]
  • K k / Κ κ / K k | [k]
  • L l / Λ λ / L l | [l]
  • LJ lj / Λ̇ λ̇ / L l | [ʎ]
  • Ll ll / ΛΛ λλ / --- | [ɣ]
  • --- / --- / Ll ll | [ɫ]
  • M m / Μ μ / M m | [m]
  • N n / Ν ν / N n | [n]
  • Nj nj / Ν̇ ν̇ / Nj nj | [ɲ]
  • O o / Ο ο / O o | [ɔ]
  • P p / Π π / P p | [p]
  • Q q / Κ̇ κ̇ / (kj) | [kj]
  • --- / --- / Q q | [c]
  • R r / Ρ ρ / R r | [ɾ]
  • Rr rr / Ρ̇ ρ̇ / Rr rr | [r(ˑ)]
  • S s / Σ σ / S s | [s]
  • Sh sh / Σ̈ σ̈ / Sh sh | [ʃ]
  • T t / Τ τ / T t | [t]
  • Th th / Θ θ / Th th | [θ]
  • U u / Ȣ ȣ / U u | [u]
  • V v / Β β / V v | [v]
  • X x / DΣ dσ / X x | [dz]
  • Xh xh / DΣ̈ dσ̈ / Xh xh | [ʤ]
  • Y y / Υ υ / Y y | [y]
  • Z z / Ζ ζ / Z z | [z]
  • Zh zh / Ż ζ̇ / Zh zh | [ʒ]

  • Macrolanguage: Albanian (sqi), code sets: 639-2/T, 639-3
    • Identifier | Reference n. | Code Sets
    • aat | Arvanitika Albanian| 639-3

IMIPER (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

In the entry αρbε̰ρ and the text above (Αρbε̰ρισ̈τ) I see a tilde below the ε, but in the table above the diacritic is a macron below. Is there a (formal or de facto) authority for the orthography of Arbërisht written in the Greek alphabet? In this gif from a defunct web site I also see a ligature Ȣ ȣ not represented in the above table.  --Lambiam 12:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
ȣ is there under U.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019Edit

Entries of Category:fi:Languages with "...n kieli"Edit

SOP. Earlier discussion: Talk:bulgarian kieli. — surjection?〉 22:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Further: I don't see how this is different from having entries for "English language" or "Finnish language". The pattern is predictable: genitive (singular) + kieli, and it can be used to describe any language. The usage note I added at kieli serves this purpose far better. — surjection?〉 12:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. See Albanian entries nominated above. Ultimateria (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
RFD-deleted. Please archive this discussion to Talk:bulgarian kieli. — surjection?〉 11:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

con sordiniEdit

con sordinoEdit

senza sordinoEdit

senza sordiniEdit

sordini levatiEdit

Musical terms in English that are SOP in Italian, and therefore should not have Italian entries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

indurre al sonnoEdit

Italian, "lull to sleep". SoP. Ultimateria (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

avere conati di vomitoEdit

Italian. We already have conati di vomito; SoP. Ultimateria (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

scuotere la testaEdit

Italian, shake one's head. SoP. Ultimateria (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

монгол хэлEdit

Per Talk:манж хэл. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletesurjection?〉 16:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


As a sort of testcase, because it was restored by @Robbie SWE, here is an entry for an ISO language code. Note: if we want to have these, we also need to check if they're attestable. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

SOS AlarmEdit

"a Swedish state owned non-profit organization handling emergency calls". Isn't this encyclopedic? — surjection?〉 10:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I created the article solely because it can be used synonymously with the words 112, 90000, and nittiotusen. It wasn't meant to be more encyclopedic than a dictionary entry.--Christoffre (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Synonym links can also be made to point to Wikipedia entries, although if it serves lexical purpose as a term for the number, it might be worth keeping (but the definition needs to reflect that). — surjection?〉 20:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
There was no Wikipedia entry at the time of writing (but there is one now). Can you give an idea on how to improve the definition to reflect a more lexical purpose, or point towards any certain help article?--Christoffre (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
The way I would personally do it is to either only have a definition that goes something like "synonym of 112 (the emergency number)" and point out that it is actually the name of a company in the Etymology section (along the lines of "From SOS Alarm, the name of the publicly owned company that operates the number.") Naturally, some editors may think otherwise, but as far as I know, there isn't a consistent guideline for this (the closest thing is the CFI policy on company names). — surjection?〉 09:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
When used as a synonym of “112” (or "nödnummer”) in a collocation like “ringa SOS Alarm”, is it still a proper noun, or should it then be classified as a common noun? (Compare the classification of Xerox as (just) “Noun”.  --Lambiam 18:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


The Norwegian entry has been there since 2005, before the Swedish entry. The correct Norwegian spellings are Filippinene (Bokmål) and Filippinane (Nynorsk). The -erna definite plural ending is Swedish anyway, and not used in Norwegian. DonnanZ (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete the Norwegian entry.  --Lambiam 18:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

andar per acquaEdit

Per the rationale for deletion of Italian tener presente; see Talk:tener presente  --Lambiam 19:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems pretty harmless as a redirect, no? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

پارسا نیستمEdit

Two native Persian speakers pointed out on the talk page many years ago that this phrase is somewhere between wrong and unlikely to be used. Certainly not phrasebook-worthy. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

no rights reservedEdit

It incorrect language. There is an absence of law on this issue. Henceforth, there is an absence of right. —This unsigned comment was added by Lplessard (talkcontribs).

If people say it in the real world, we can include it, even if it isn't formal legal language. It does seem rather like a self-evident sum of parts to me, though. Evidently a layman's modification of the better-known "all rights reserved". Equinox 16:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Should be in the English section, not non-English. DonnanZ (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)