Open main menu

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English

< Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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

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

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tagged RFDs


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!

kop of munt, kruis of muntEdit

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

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

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

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

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

If these alleged SoP uses are truly SoP, then so is heads or tails. But in my opinion the term is highly idiomatic; someone unfamiliar with the idiom will most likely not understand the question Kruis of munt?. The term is also used figuratively, similar to English coin toss, toss-up or fifty-fifty chance (which has an entry in the Cambridge English Dictionary):
    • ... een willekeurigheid bovendien, een kwestie van kop of munt, vriezen of dooien, fiftyfifty, je krijgt wat je krijgt, ... [12]
 --Lambiam 10:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

May 2017Edit

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

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

June 2017Edit

многоквартирный домEdit

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

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



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


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

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

accidente de tráfico / accidente laboralEdit

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

Yes. But why do we have road accident? The definition is dubious too. If a bicycle hits a pedestrian on a road, it's a road accident - or am I wrong? --Hekaheka (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I think we should also delete "road accident" (who says that anyway?). Any combination of [setting] + "accident", really. Ultimateria (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, Collins defines it as "a traffic accident involving vehicles, pedestrians or cyclists" [13].--Droigheann (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete, the components can be linked separately in translation tables. Per utramque cavernam 22:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

July 2017Edit


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

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

istuic, istuius, istujusEdit

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

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


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

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


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

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

ge- -tEdit

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

ge- only appears if -t, -et or -en is added, there is nothing like geleg (without any ending). In certain cases only an ending and not ge- is added. Thus it should be ge- -t (ge- -et, ge- -en) and for certain cases (some derived terms or compounds like beschreiben (be- + schreiben) and foreign words like zitieren (from Latin)) just -t, -et, -en. In literature one can also read that ge- -t is a circumfix, e.g.:
  • 2014, Michael Schäfer and Werner Schäfke, Sprachwissenschaft für Skandinavisten: Eine Einführung, p. 110: "vom Zirkumfix {ge- -t}"
  • 2016, Roland Schäfer, Einführung in die grammatische Beschreibung des Deutschen, 2nd edition, p. 324: "das Zirkumfix ge- -t (schwach) bzw. ge- -en (stark)" 03:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Suffix plus separate prefix per Kolmiel. There's also a few cases where the prefix or its variants appear without a suffix (e.g. Getreide, glauben, gönnen). Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep. —CodeCat 12:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Getreide, glauben, gönnen do not contain a NHG prefix ge-. The OHG or MHG terms might have gi- or ge- in it, but that's not visible in the NHG terms anymore.
Better examples might exist in (older?) dialectal/regional German like geseyn instead of sein (or seyn). Some terms similar to this might also exist in 'standard' High German.
Anyway ge- alone doesn't form the past participle (unless it's somewhat strangely analysed like in ge- -t ("with ge- (for strong verbs)") and and ge-#German (the second prefix)). And if ge- -t gets removed, the sense would belong to -t (and -en, but not ge-). In -t it then should be something like "forms the past participle; usually together with ge-, but sometimes just -t". - 15:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: The fact that there are other ways to mark the past participle is not relevant. The question is whether the elements ge- and -t in, for example, gelegt have distinct meaning on their own, the way un- and -ed do in unnamed. They don't; they only have meaning when taken together as the marker of the past participle. Therefore, they should not be analyzed separately; they have to be considered a circumfix. So also with ge- -et and ge- -en. — Eru·tuon 00:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
What are you talking about? All endings have several distinct meanings of their own, one being that they are the ending of the past participle, with or without the prefix. E.g. entlarvt, verschnitten, erduldet etc. which are past participles, marked by the respective ending, without the respective prefix. ps.: New High German begins around 1400, so having an entry for a prefix 'ge-' for words like gesitzen is absolutely in the scope of Wiktionary's de code. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm talking about the meaning in the word in question, gelegt. Does the -t mean one thing and the ge- mean another in that word? — Eru·tuon 16:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
No, Peter Gröbner (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
NHG begins around 1350 or around 1500 depending on definition or view. The ISO code gmh ends around 1500 (which would imply de starts around 1500). Regardless of the beginning of de, NHG has a prefix ge-. And not just one forming collectives, but also one in verbs, as in "gesein" or "geseyn" for "sein" (once also "seyn") (infinitive) and "gewesen" (past participle). Those prolonged verbs usually are obsolete now, but there might be exceptions as "gebrauchen" versus "brauchen".
But is e.g. "gefragt" somehow analysed as "ge- + frag (stem) + -t", with -t marking the past participle and ge- being something else?
It's analysed as "ge- + frag (stem) + -t" with ge- ... -t being a circumfix at least by some (two sources were given above), and this might be the more usual analysis. - 21:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll say it frankly: I'm pissed off by your underhand tactics of pulling the musing that 'something might be X' out of your arse. It might also be a nutty fringe interpretation only upheld by your two sources. But who's helped by me mentioning that? If I wanted random guesses, I'd buy a magic 8-ball, if I wanted people subtly influenced with the mentioning of possibilities, I'd buy Frank Luntz. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep. It is not a combination of the prefix ge- and the suffix -t, because there is no intermediate stage: gesagt, *gesag, *sagt. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, or rework. Analyzable as prefix + suffix, a view reinforced by the separate presence of the ge- prefix and -t suffix in other words. In addition, the entry currently at ge- -t doesn't provide much utility, and it's unclear how a user would ever arrive at this page via search -- the only apparent avenue would be by clicking through from another entry, which could just as well link to something else instead.
Incidentally, the entry at -t looks woefully inadequate, and apparently wrong to boot -- the def is given as "-ed (used to form adjectives from nouns)", but then the terms in Category:German_words_suffixed_with_-t all seem to be derived from verbs...
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll throw in my view again: The entry is completely sum-of-parts. The parts being a participle prefix, which occurs without this suffix, and a participle suffix, which occurs without this prefix. And five people voting to keep doesn't make it less sum-of-parts. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

August 2017Edit


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

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

Nakke NakuttajaEdit

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

Delete. Equinox 16:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
No objection to deletion, but I'd like to point out that we have an English entry for each of Santa's reindeer (Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzen, if one would want to check). Besides, I believe that there are situations when at least I might want to search this term in a dictionary. Unless we can delete Santa's reindeer, I would rather suggest that we add "Woody Woodpecker". Also, one might argue that Woody W is about as well-known fictional personality as e.g. Winnie the Pooh. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
We have the Santa reindeer entries because Daniel Carrero likes reindeer. That is not a lexical argument. Equinox 03:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
If there's one thing I fucking hate is when people put words in my mouth. I created the reindeer entries, yes, but I don't like everything I create entries for. I could have created an entry for cancer or something.
We seem to accept all mythical and folkloric entities like Santa Claus himself, but I don't mind to be proved wrong if we come up with some present or future rule against that. See also Category:en:Folklore and Category:en:Mythology.
This is different from fictional characters belonging from comics, films, etc. like Woody Woodpecker. Delete Nakke Nakuttaja in the absence of any good reason to keep it. Actually, maybe keep-ish since we have kept a few notable entries for characters for one reason or another, including Winnie the Pooh as mentioned above. Again, this is different from mythological and folklorical creatures that are not tied to cartoons, comics, etc. belonging to some specific company or author. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Santa's reindeer seem to be named by one person, too [14]. When do they become "folkloric"? When sufficient number of people use them without knowing the origin? Whatever the truth, this demonstrates how difficult it is to draw the line. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Might as well just delete. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 11:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


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

Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the "variable" sense is fairly important ($DEITY) but don't care for the others. —suzukaze (tc) 01:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Suzukaze-c; we can cite in running language "$" being used for variables.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep 'variable' sense, Delete the rest per previous comments. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2017Edit

All pages in Category:te:DecadesEdit

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

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


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

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

kde se nacházíEdit

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

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


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

There is such thing as '死掉', '毀掉' and '改掉'. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Weak keep. I think it's a useful entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 11:58, 3 July 2018 (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 [15] than [16]. DonnanZ (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it's rarely used, there's no reason to have it as a phrasebook entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Some searches: google books:"kan du snakke engelsk", google books:"snakker du engelsk". When I click to the right, as I have to with Google searches to see the actual number of hits, the latter search does not yield all that many more items. The entry was created by User:EivindJ, who used to declare themselves as Norwegian native speaker. The phrase is e.g. in Ny i Norge: Arbeidsbok by Gerd Manne, 1977. I think the searches for phrasebooks to apply something like the lemming heuristic are most useful for English phrases, and much less for non-English phrases. I'd say week keep, but input from Norwegian speakers would be welcome, and absent that input, I would err on the side of keeping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    That is a good point, "can you speak English" is more common in phrasebooks. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam 22:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

October 2017Edit

conserver un suiviEdit

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

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


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

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

liaison sans lendemainEdit

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

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

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


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

  • Delete unless there's a verb surbaiser ("to over-fuck"???) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • nope, fun but no... you'll see it attested in Google search but there are spelling mistakes. --Diligent (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    • There are a few legit occurrences: [20], [21], [22], [23] and probably others. But this is a rare and humorous formation, not idiomatic. Please let's not start creating entries like fr:rererererecommencer... --Barytonesis (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
      • If there are at least three durably archived usages, the form can be created. We have rare and humorous formations here, and everything written as a single word is automatically considered idiomatic. The same applies to rererererecommencer: if it meets CFI, we can have an entry for it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, provided the quotes I mentioned are added, and it's properly tagged as rare and humorous. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • French adjective. surbaisé, surbaissé at Google Ngram Viewer ({{R:GNV}}) does not find surbaisé, and therefore, no frequency ratio can be determined, and thus, this could be deleted as a rare misspelling. On the other hand, if it is a rare humorous form, then it is intentional, and not a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

aktuelle begivenhederEdit

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

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

December 2017Edit


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


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

Redirect Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


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

RedirectMnemosientje (t · c) 16:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


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

RedirectMnemosientje (t · c) 16:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

année tchi veintEdit

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

Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

temps primitifEdit

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

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

January 2018Edit


A Spanish particle only used in inter caetera.

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

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


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

Agreed. Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
There's also 酷い目に遭う. Nardog (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Week keep. That is no more productive and I have a difficulty in creating a new phrase. Daijisen has an entry: [24]. — 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)
Keep.Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


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

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

All entries in Category:Turkish noun formsEdit

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

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


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

DeleteMnemosientje (t · c) 16:30, 30 May 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)

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)


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

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

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

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

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)


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

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


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

DeleteMnemosientje (t · c) 16:32, 30 May 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)


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

Delete, could even be a typo. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete, BGC suggests that this has ½% of the hits of cuelgue. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep as a common misspelling, given the frequency ratio of 1000: (cuelge*1000), cuelgue at Google Ngram Viewer. Calibration is in User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete There are an endless number of such possible misspellings in Spanish. I have seen resivir (= recibir), proíve (= prohibe), tiera (= tierra), etc. v and b sound the same, h is silent, outside of Spain c/z and s sound the same, etc. If we use Dan's 1000-1 ratio we'd be littering the dictionary with such misspellings. I think the "common" misspelling criterion is only meant to include *unusually* common misspellings like definately and maybe reccommend or similar, not just any old misspelling. Benwing2 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
@Benwing2 And yet, (definately*2000),definitely at Google Ngram Viewer. Quantitatively speaking, definately is worse than cuelge. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's (reccommend*8000),recommend at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's (resivir*10000),recibir at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete. -Ultimateria (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


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

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep as a common misspelling, given the frequency ratio of 1000: (alumnio*1000), aluminio at Google Ngram Viewer. Calibration is in User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete See my rationale above for cuelge. Benwing2 (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam 21:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

March 2018Edit


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

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

virage en lacetsEdit

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


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)


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)

аддаць перавагуEdit

аддаваць перавагуEdit

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

And @Atitarev agrees with me. @Guldrelokk? Per utramque cavernam 08:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 00:09, 3 August 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)

Selbstmord begehenEdit

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

Because on average there's no ambiguity about how many selves you're going to kill or have already killed. When talking about the abstract notion as opposed to a specific act, 'Mord begehen' without an article is found too. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
DeleteMnemosientje (t · c) 16:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete, not even a collocation. Fay Freak (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

se glisser dansEdit

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

Redirect to glisser and make a new sense there. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 16:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
This might be worthy of a usex, but not of a new sense. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
DeleteInternoob 04:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
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 9788711588505)
      I Cambodia bliver der aldrig fred, vi gravede massegrave op, vi så nogle af khmerernes videoer, og jeg siger dig, Troyat, man bliver så træt, man bliver så træt af mennesker, at man til sidst siger til sig selv: Lad dem dø, der er alt for mange af dem, og de er overalt, lad dem dø ganske naturligt af pest og kolera og aids, jeg er ligeglad, der er alt for mange, nedlæg medicinalfirmaerne og lad dyrene være i fred og lad menneskene dø af det, de nu skal dø af, de vil få et meget bedre liv.
      In Cambodia there will never be peace, we dug up mass graves, we saw some of the Khmers' videoes, and I say to you, Troyat, one becomes so tired, one becomes so tired of humans, that eventually one says to oneself: Let them die, there are far too many of them, and they are everywhere, let them die quite naturally from pest and cholera and aids, I don't care, there are far too many, close down the medicine companies and leave the animals alone and let the humans die of whatever they're dying of, they will get a much better life.
    • 2011, Anna Perera, Fanget på Guantanamo, Rosinante & Co (ISBN 9788763823180)
      Han bliver så træt ved tanken om,at det emne skal forfølge ham resten af livet, ...
      He becomes so tired at the thought of that topic pursuing him for the rest of his life, ...
    • 2014, Vibeke Marx, Af ingenting, Modtryk (ISBN 9788771462067)
      Bliver så træt, og indimellem vred, over altid at frygte noget, endda noget hun ikke rigtig ved, hvad er.
      Becomes so tired, and sometimes angry, about always fearing something, and on top of that something she doesn't quite know what is.
It is definitely my impression that the "fed up" sense is usually found in the construction træt af. @PseudoSkull Can you perhaps find some occurrences to support your implied statement that træt alone contains enough meaning to account for træt af?__Gamren (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

'e llènteEdit

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

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

усанд сэлэхEdit

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

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam 21:52, 26 November 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)

hermana mayor, hermano mayor, etc.Edit

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

Yes, Delete them all. The only excuse we might have for keeping such entries is the translation hub exception, but that doesn't apply to non-English terms. This kind of entry tends to proliferate because it's easier to link to the whole thing in a translation than to figure out how to link to the parts- or which parts to link to, for that matter. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
hermana mayor is also a Tagalog word with a different definition. Carl Francis (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Carl Francis: Well, the only language that's there is Spanish, so I think delete is still appropriate, unless you want to add this Tagalog word (with {{bor|tl|es|hermana}} {{m|es|mayor||older sister}} as the etymology instead of {{bor|tl|es|hermana mayor||older sister}} because I still think at least the Spanish entry is headed toward deletion). – Gormflaith (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete per Chuck Entz. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 00:09, 3 August 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)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fine. Keep now, I haven’t come up with better arguments. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:33, 30 June 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)

pneumático lisoEdit

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

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 21:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

neumático lisoEdit

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

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 21:48, 26 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)


For both Chinese and Japanese. WT:NSE: Family name + given name (which happens to be a courtesy name). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, we keep nicknames like JBiebs and J-Lo, why not courtesy names? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: The problem is that this includes a surname with a given name, not that it's a courtesy name (which is why I said "happens to be"). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
True. I suppose including this would open the flood gates to 蒋介石, et al. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Dunno if this changes things at all, but in Japanese, this also appears to be the title of a piece of music in Noh theater. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I think we can allow personal names if derived terms (e.g. idioms based on the name) have been created, and delete if derived terms are absent. Wyang (talk) 03:20, 15 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)

ponerse aEdit

Spanish: Covered at ponerse. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Maybe redirect. Ultimateria (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete, redirect if really necessary. Per utramque cavernam 11:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


自動回復=自動恢復=auto recover, 自動回覆=自動答覆=自動回應=auto-reply. --LNDDYL (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@LNDDYL: Keep. 自動回復 has plenty of hits on Google books. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Fascinating, the semantic drift. In Japanese, 回復 (kaifuku) means recovery. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:46, 12 July 2018 (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)

vær beredtEdit

Looks SOP to me. Was nominated previously, but kept on the rationale "as above". I don't see that the above, in this case, is germane.__Gamren (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam 11:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


Seems to have been created in error: all sources point to "sptarijiet" being the correct plural. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 21:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


Literally "bottom of the foot". Not included in the monolingual dictionaries I checked. —Suzukaze-c 23:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the KDJ lists it. Medical dictionaries also include this, glossed as planta or planta pedis. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Not so intuitive. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

July 2018Edit


"The reading of this character is shù, and there is no Chinese character pronounced niě." - There indeed does not seem to be a character with this reading. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 15:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I note that, according to the Unihan database, only one character (may) be pronounced niě in Mandarin: . But this may be wrong. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The niě reading isn't currently listed at the Wiktionary entry, but if it is added, I am ready to withdraw this RFD. However, it seems like it would be an old variant reading of some kind. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 09:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

tomara queEdit

Seems SOP to me, for the same reason that we don't have Spanish ojalá que, but I could be missing something. @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIVΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The only other interjection that AFAIR behaves like this is oxalá, and very rarely, so this is certainly information that we need to mention somewhere. It is more similar to verbs like esperar and querer than interjections. A redirect to tomara + usage notes works, but I have no preference.
Note that the usage is different from interjections like será, ainda bem, que pena/merda/sorte/etc. and graças a Deus that are either used alone or with que + a phrase with a verb in the indicative tense. These certainly don’t need separate entries with que, but tomara que requires special consideration. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Both "tomara" and "tomara que" are related terms, indeed. However, they are syntactically different. "Tomara" is an interjection -- it works fine on its own. On the other hand, "tomara que" is a phrase, used with a verb in the subjunctive mood. I don't think there is any need for a specific entry for "ojalá que", because "ojalá" can be used alone (as an interjection) or with a sentence (as a phrase) with or without "que". Conversely, when "tomara" is used as a phrase it is required to use "que" every time. CaiusSPQR (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

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)


The link to the dictionary of the digitalised treasure of the French language was fake, and it does not appear in other authoritative dictionaries. —This unsigned comment was added by Refulgir (talkcontribs) at 13:12, 10 July 2018‎.

The French section was added by a Canadian IP diff in 2008. Apparently "the Habs" are a Canadian hockey outfit. No idea who added the link. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The TLFI links were added mostly by bot, with the understanding that a having a lot of good links with a few dead links was better than having no links at all. I wouldn't call any such bad links "fake", just in error. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

l'an passéEdit

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 19:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

delete. It would be l'année passée anyhows. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
No, l'an passé is good French, but it should be an passé (because it can appear as "un an passé", "ans passés". —Stephen (Talk) 23:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
l'an passé is indeed good French, and sounds substitutable with l'année passée ~ l'an dernier ~ l'année dernière to my ear, but no, we don't need or want an passé (I'm not sure what you mean by "it can appear as "un an passé", "ans passés""). Per utramque cavernam 08:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Isn’t there a semantic difference between last year and past year? Like, when on 26 July 2018 someone says, “Last year we experienced a major crisis”, they probably mean "during the calendar year 2017". But when they say, “During the past year we managed to realize many important improvements”, this is more likely in reference to the past 365 days, roughly half in 2017 and half in 2018. Now un an passé means "a year that has passed", i.e., any of several past years. (To complicate matters, it can also mean “a year ago”.) But l’an passé does not simply mean "the past year" as above; normally it corresponds to English "last year", a calendar year. This suggests there is an idiomatic aspect beyond SOP – although it may be at least partly a peculiarity of English idiom.  --Lambiam 09:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
This would only say that French passé and English past mean different things. But nothing further I say here because it is immaterial what is in English. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Someone may know the meanings of the, other, and day, but that does not suffice to construct the meaning of the other day. Is knowledge of the meanings of l’, an, and passé, sufficient to understand the term l’an passé? Would one know that – as I surmise – it does not simply mean the same as English ”the year that has passed”?  --Lambiam 16:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The usage is provided in usage examples, appendices. The French translations for last year are now given as: l'année dernière, l'année passée, l'an dernier, l'an passé by User:Per utramque cavernam, with each word linked separately, which is sufficient and correct in this case. No need for obvious sum of parts entries. Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Is it an obvious sum of parts? My argument above is that it is not. I may of course be wrong, but I feel you should not merely state that it is but at least also explain why you think it is.  --Lambiam 20:42, 8 August 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)

produrre in serieEdit

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 15:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 21:09, 4 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)


So, I know nothing about Japanese, but it seems wrong to have both Shishi and shishi as translits....--New WT User Girl (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

One is a proper noun 🤷 —Suzukaze-c 18:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Ya, this is SOP for JA terms that have proper nouns -- the romanization of the proper noun takes initial capitalization. If there's also a homophonic term that is not a proper noun, then you have cases like this one, where there are two romanizations that differ solely in capitalization.
See also Mandarin Qín and qín as a similar example in a different language. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:51, 3 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)

thịt chóEdit

An anon put a speedy tag on it with the reason "sop", but I thought it better to give it due process. It does look rather SOPpy, but I note that we have 狗肉 (gǒuròu) and the like. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Obviously. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:15, 10 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)

più di quanto tu possa immaginareEdit

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 21:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete. The English phrase is idiomatic, the Italian is not. Ultimateria (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

castanha do ParáEdit

According to Portuguese orthography (and upheld by the Orthographic Agreement of 1992), "castanha do Pará" is not a valid word. Botany-related words are always hyphenated, thus "castanha-do-pará" is the only valid word. CaiusSPQR (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

For the purposes of English Wiktionary, prescribed orthographies are only relevant to the extent that speakers take them seriously. While the current standard Portuguese orthography (described by the Orthographic Agreement of 1990) is taken much more seriously than that of German or Dutch, there are some regulations that are usually ignored. One of them is the requirement that compound names of species (not all botany-related words) be hyphenated. You can easily find hundreds of books and scientific articles that were written, proofread and published with this spelling.
In fact, if we were to follow this regulation to the letter, we would have to remove scores of terms which are only attested without the hyphen (although this is not the case with castanha-do-pará). There is no reason to delete castanha do Pará or to consider it a misspelling, since only a minority of educated Portuguese speakers de facto consider it a misspelling. The only change I’d consider tolerable (but not ideal) is to include a label of proscribed or similar, but even that should be done on a case by case basis, since like I said there are many compound vernacular names that are only attested without hyphens. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I see your point, and by the way, sorry for making the mistake of getting the year wrong. I agree with labelling the entry as proscribed in this case, because most of the people don't get the word wrong (at least according to Corpus do Português, where the frequency of "castanha-do-pará" is higher than that of "castanha do Pará"). So taking those points into consideration (the OA and the frequency on Corpus do Português), I think the discussed entry should either be deleted or at least labeled as proscribed. CaiusSPQR (talk) 20:11, 19 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)

September 2018Edit


This is not a word in any variety of Nahuatl I have access to. Words for "cat", for reference:

--Lvovmauro (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

im VorübergehenEdit

The German phrase is not idiomatic. It really means "while passing by", "while walking past someone". German for "in passing" is nebenbei or beiläufig. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 19:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC).

Delete as SoP. The term definitely has the literal meaning in the single given quotation by Stefan Zweig. I could not find any uses with a non-literal meaning.  --Lambiam 12:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

accesso a pagamentoEdit

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 15:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


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)


Encyclopedic. —Suzukaze-c 02:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


  1. Does not exist in this form: google:"ヤングの干渉は". Seems to be properly called ヤングの干渉実験
  2. Sum of parts or encyclopedic.

Suzukaze-c 06:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha it’s not even a sum of parts. Young's interference experiment is an interference experiment by Young, not an experiment to see Young's interference! Delete. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Encyclopedic, not dictionary material. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


  • I see no unambiguous indications from attested forms (compare Category:Vandalic lemmas) that this is the correct form this suffix would have had in Vandalic (some latinisations have -rix, some have -ric);
  • I do not know of an accepted orthography for Vandalic (reconstructions?) from scholarly sources nor one that is accepted on Wiktionary (due to the paucity of sources and dependence on mentions embedded in Latin texts in latinised forms);
  • This entry should probably be marked as reconstructed in the first place if it is to be kept.

Still, perhaps I am missing something? (See also some of the last remarks at Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Move to Reconstruction namespace if there is any scholarly source whatsoever to support this (and I assume there must be). If not, delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Mnemosientje, can you please figure out whether this can be sourced as a reconstruction? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge I won't be home until after the weekend, I'll see what I can do then. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
    Not finding anything with this spelling. The main problem is that the extremely fragmentary Vandalic material is entirely in Latin mentions (a handful of words) and Latinized names, which seems to have caused linguists and historians commenting on the Vandalic language to avoid trying to use some sort of distinctly Vandalic orthography. Instead they just comment on the strong similarity to Gothic (some seem to regard Vandalic as little more than a variant of Gothic, hardly a distinct language) and on the Proto-Germanic etyma. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:30, 27 November 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: [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. 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)

牽著, 盼著, 朝著, 迎著, 光著, 有著, 冒著, 循著Edit

All sum of parts in Chinese. 著 is an aspect marker that marks the continuation of a state or action: 吃著 (in a state of eating), 喝著 (in a state of drinking), 躺著 (in a state of lying down), 坐著 (in a state of sitting), 站著 (in a state of standing), 寫著 (in a state of writing), 打著 (in a state of beating), 掛著 (in a state of hanging), 看著 (in a state of looking), 問著 (in a state of asking), etc. and the ones above are non-idiomatic, unlike 跟著 and 隨著. Wyang (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete. —Suzukaze-c 22:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, 活著 might be worth keeping. It's in Guoyu Cidian (with two pronunciations). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, retracted 活著. Will expand soon. Wyang (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem is, there are a lot of people who don't realize that the lack of a space between zhe and the pinyin for the verb does not mean that these are words. I agree with deleting these, but is there a way to help the people who type "youzhe" into the search bar? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The answer lies in the improvement of the search function. Maintaining Pinyin entries is a waste of editors' time: every language in a non-Latin script has Roman-letter transcriptions +/- transliterations, yet only Chinese and Japanese include these as entries. People search in romanisations all the time, e.g. kataba for Arabic كَتَبَ(kataba), sawatdee for Thai สวัสดี (sà-wàt-dii), annyeong for 안녕 (annyeong), not just with Hanyu Pinyin. Wyang (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Right now, the search function is not easily capable of what it should be. How do you propose changing it so that this is no longer a problem? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Chinese is different from most languages written in non-Latin scripts, in two ways. It's not written in a phonetic script; transcription of words written in Korean or Cyrillic scripts can to some degree be humanly transliterated back to its original script. It's also standardized in the Latin script; there is no one or two ways to transcribe Korean or Russian in Latin script, but Chinese in Latin script has been officially and in pract standardized as Pinyin.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I created some of these. I don't have an opinion on their deletion, but would hope that their definitions can be kept in usage examples at the main character entry. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


Apparently a misspelling in Ojibwe --XY3999 (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this is actually an English loanword from the Ojibwe word. It's hard to find examples but here's one:
He said this is symbolic of Anishinabek peoples all being in a canoe being steered by the joganosh, allowing them and their rules/laws/policies guide us blindly. (
--Lvovmauro (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's English from Ojibwe, but not Ojibwe. —Stephen (Talk) 03:52, 26 September 2018 (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)

vedere attraversoEdit

It is not an idiom, unlike "see through".--3knolls (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 21:57, 1 November 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)

monaco buddistaEdit

Even among the other entries created by this anonymous editor (many of which are probably SOP too), this is really transparent: it's just "Buddhist monk". SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 16:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. The other entries are really very doubtful, but this is sure to not be passable.--3knolls (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You mean it's not a Buddhist from a certain principality on the Riviera? ;-) Chuck Entz (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    • That would be a "buddista monegasco". SemperBlotto (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. All of their entries should be checked. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 21:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


"Voice of America". Is this dictionary material? —Suzukaze-c 00:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep. It's marginal, but the translation is not obvious and of some value to the dictionary. You could argue that it falls under the purview of WT:BRAND and send it to RFV, but I think the cites needed to pass it exist. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Not dictionary material. Wyang (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete. It's the name of radio station, not a word. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

allanamiento de moradaEdit

Spanish, SoP: "break-in of dwelling". Ultimateria (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. --XY3999 (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 21:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

hacer aquaplaningEdit

SOP - like hacer deporte, jugar al tenis --XY3999 (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

La Roue ChanceuseEdit

TV show. Also delete Wheel of Fortune defn for TV show. --XY3999 (talk) 14:07, 28 October 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: [41]; [42]. 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)

animale selvaticoEdit


animale selvaggioEdit


animal sălbaticEdit

SOP. @Robbie SWE?

Delete, SoP with no additional idiomatic meaning. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

k'ita uywaEdit


See also Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/English#wild_animal

Per utramque cavernam 10:26, 4 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 ([43]). 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)


I have searched the internet. There are no durably archived accounts of "yines". Aearthrise (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in RFV? 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:3549:9B8B:E0C2:E2A2 17:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It should. I added 2 quotes. --XY3999 (talk) 12:59, 5 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)
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)

манж хэлEdit

@Crom daba marked this term for speedy deletion saying it was non-idiomatic. But I have no way to verify if it's idiomatic or not, so bringing it here. —Internoob 23:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

See Манж, хэл. Crom daba (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I guess we need a lower case манж (manž, Manchurian) and then we can delete манж хэл. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Arguably these are the same word language internally, with a capitalization pattern taken from Россия vs. российский, I'm not sure how we should organize the entries, presumably with some sort of soft redirect. Crom daba (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Crom daba: Thanks for the response. The answer depends on the standard spelling. We have both монгол (mongol) and Монгол (Mongol). If forming language, nationality names are formed by (capitalised) [country name] + хэл (hel, language), хүн (hün, person), etc. then no need to worry. If lower case forms exist, their usage is different, then we definitely need them. If they are just alternative case, you can still define them with {{alternative case form of|Манж|lang=mn}}. I know it's pain in the neck, especially if you're the only one looking after Mongolian entries but this is what needs to be done eventually. Again, depends on the capitalisation rules in Mongolian. They may be loose like in some languages. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not completely confident in my understanding of the rules of Mongolian capitalization, but to half a page dedicated to it in a Mongolian high school textbook, it seems that it comes down to state names being capitalized and ethnic names not. So that we have Франц (Frants, France) = Франц улс (Frants uls, literally French state) = Бүгд Найрамдах Франц Улс (Bügd Najramdah Frants Uls, French republic, literally all peaceful French state) (see бүгд найрамдах улс (bügd najramdah uls), not sure why every word is capitalized), but франц хэл (frants hel, French (language)), франц хүн (frants hün, Frenchman), францчууд (frantsčuud, Frenchmen, the French).
I suppose this means we should have separate pages for capitalized and non-capitalized forms, which is kind of unnatural since it's the same word just being used attributively (very common in Mongolian as in English), but I suppose orthography needs to be described too. Crom daba (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Is there something in Mongolian grammar that can be used to distinguish compound nouns in which the principal noun is modified by a noun adjunct from combinations consisting of a noun modified by an ordinary adjective?  --Lambiam 15:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
No, many grammars even consider adjectives and nouns to be indistinguishable in Mongolian (Janhunen shows that there are some differences when used as predicates though.).
However there are also genitive phrases like Францын хаан (Frantsyn haan, the King (khan) of France) where Франц is a understood as a full noun rather than as a relational attribute (as in English). Crom daba (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
We should then also delete the term монгол хэл, and likewise for ᠮᠣᠩᠭᠣᠯ ᠬᠡᠯᠡ (the same in Mongolian script).  --Lambiam 08:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree. BTW, I like this linking more: ᠮᠣᠩᠭᠣᠯ
(mongɣol kele)--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

decir piroposEdit

Seems SOP to me. --XY3999 (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete; agreed. Besides, piropear exists. —Born2bgratis (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 21:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

contestar el teléfonoEdit

Seems SOP to me. --XY3999 (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

inmunocompleja and inmunocomplejasEdit

The word inmunocomplejo (immunocomplex) in Spanish is, just as its translation in English, a noun. Someone added it as an adjective and, therefore, added the feminine forms "inmunocompleja" and "inmunocomplejas", which don't exist. Pablussky (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • It was Wonderfool. He screws up all the time. Thanks for fixing it. I'll have a word with him about bieng more careful --XY3999 (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2018 (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: [44], [45], [46].  --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)


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)












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)


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)


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)

sentenza ambiguaEdit

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 17:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete. The meaning in Italian is indeed simply ambiguous sentence. But not a sentence in the linguistic sense. It means: “ambiguous judgement”, as seen for example here. The Italian term for sentence in the linguistic sense is frase. The given definition is, furthermore, also wrong in another sense: a garden path sentence is actually not ambiguous.  --Lambiam 08:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted SemperBlotto (talk) 07:27, 3 December 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)

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)


Just the first sentence of a prayer, doesn't make any more sense than including an entry for pater noster qui es in caelis. When talking about the prayer, it seems not the whole first sentence is used (as in the title here), but rather the two first words (ma tovu) as an incipit (cf. the wikipedia links). So this should probably be deleted or moved to מה טבו. (Not sure what is up with the hyphens either.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete, but now it's got me humming מה טבו to myself... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Moving is better than deleting. For whatever reason, when the prayer is referred to by its first two words, they are usually spelled מה טובו‎, with an additional mater lectionis, so that should presumably become the lemma.  --Lambiam 11:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that. Worth documenting, I suppose. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:13, 7 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)


Misspelling, cf. source:

  • Abegg, Emil, (1911) Die Mundart von Urseren (Beiträge zur Schweizerdeutschen Grammatik. IV.) [The Dialect of Urseren], Frauenfeld: Huber & co. p. 75 (in § 78): "kwættı Balkenwerk", p. 111: "Gewëtti n. 78"

-16:06, 9 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)