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. The most common reason 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 words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Disputes regarding whether an entry falls afoul of any of the subsections in our criteria for inclusion that demand a particular kind of attestation (such as figurative use requirements for certain place names and the WT:BRAND criteria) should also go to RFV. 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 once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because there is no consensus, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. The threshold for consensus is hinted at the ratio of 2/3 of supports to supports and opposes, but is not set in stone and other considerations than pure tallying can play a role; see the vote.
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: In some cases, like moves or redirections, 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 is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Rfd-sense Said as a request for an apology. I think this was intended to cover the use as a response to an insult. If that is the case, then this is a misinterpretation of this usage. It is really sense #1 (Said as a request to repeat information.), sort of like "What did you just say?". If I am wrong about what this sense was meant to cover, then I will RFV it instead. --WikiTiki8902:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the "You're an idiot!" / "Excuse me?" usage is a special case of "Said as a request to repeat information", but it may be special enough to deserve its own entry (or at least a separate usage example). There is another possible use, "Excuse me!" (exclamation mark not question mark, emphasis on "me"), which expresses the speaker's outrage, I suppose possibly implying a demand for an apology. Usage examples would be very valuable in this entry. Mihia (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion
Unsupported_titles/Double_period stands for "..", obviously.
rfd-sense: (computing) The parent directory.
rfd-sense: (programming) A range operator in some programming languages, including Perl and Swift.
Deletion rationale: Not in use to convey meaning in natural language; not used in running text, only in source code. One example in the entry is this: Type "cd PhotosWallpapers" to go to the Wallpapers folder. Then you can type "cd .." to go to back to the Photos folder. That is not use in natural language. A similar deletion rationale was used in a previous RFD now archived at Talk:Unsupported titles/Double period. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Do you think your keep in based on CFI? Do you intend the Translingual in the entry to mean trans-programming language? Shall we include JOptionPane (Java), std::cin (C++), equ (Win Batch), foreach (Perl) as quasi-attested in source code? All keywords and all APIs in computing languages, quasi-attested in source code? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
That is a direly needed thing, for the world in general, you must admit. Especially for users of this project who have the questionable pleasure of acquainting Lua... Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
That's no less than insane (I chose the same word before the edit conflict with DTLHS above). JOptionPane isn't even a keyword but an API/framework class. Extending this to .NET, to take one lone example, we would be creating (undefinable!) entries for many thousands of classes such as XmlSerializer, ToolStripSeparatorRenderEventArgs and AsymmetricSignatureDeformatter. And that's before we get onto the property, method and constant names within each of those thousands of classes — just in .NET, not C++, Java or any of hundreds of other frameworks! Equinox◑22:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
There's endless variation between programming languages in exactly what a given token "means", with a lot of it coming from the architectures of the different languages. Even details of the implementation of languages on different operating systems and of different versions/builds on the same system can make significant differences. This is a massive can of worms that should be avoided at all costs. Besides, this looks like a matter of operating systems rather than programming languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Comments. 1. I suspect use as a range operator is attested in running English on Usenet and the like (derived from Perl or somewhere). If so, the definition can be broadened and the sense kept. 2. This is not only a range operator but also a flip-flop operator, and, if kept for its computing senses, is missing that sense.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
rfd-sense: (programming, computing, networking)
This is in fact a heading for senses, the first of which is "Used as a space in e-mails." and example is "My email address is jon.smith@example.com"; for more of these senses, please see the entry.
My contention is that this is not "use" of the symbol to "convey meaning" in human language. In particular, my contention is that "point.x" in the C language to refer to member x of a structure is not a use for English Wiktionary's purpose.
One way to phrase my deletion rationale is as a series of questions: Shall we include JOptionPane (Java), std::cin (C++), equ (Win Batch), foreach (Perl) as quasi-attested in source code? All keywords and all APIs in computing languages, quasi-attested in source code? --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
IMO, delete all of these, for the reasons already rehearsed for .. (double dot). The only one that gives me pause is the domain-name separator, and that's only because of all the entries we have like .com, .mil, .tk: I personally think that such entries should not include the dot, since it is indeed a separator. Equinox◑09:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Do you mean creating a new sense at a defined as "a letter used in e-mail addresses"? No, a is just a letter. There is as much reason to create that sense and separate senses saying: "a letter used in some names of people", "a letter used in some flavors of ice cream", etc. I'd oppose any of that. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Unsure but I think this is at least regional. To me it suggests the hotplate (some kind of portable stove maybe). I don't think UK English generally has "plate" meaning "a dish or prepared meal"; same goes for things like blue-plate special. Equinox◑00:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Whether it's regional or not, it's surely SOP. I doubt that this sense is related to hotplate and I'm willing to bet it's pronounced hot PLATE (the SOP pronunciation) rather than HOT plate (the compound noun pronunciation). --WikiTiki8915:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with Equinox in that a "hot plate of chips" is perfectly good British English, although "a hot plate" on its own wouldn't suggest food. Also "we're having pasta; do you fancy a plate?" clearly refers to a plate of pasta rather than just a plate on its own. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
I suppose this should be an RFV. I recently changed it to a misspelling while checking plurals etc. I think Romanophile created a ton of en- forms for in- words at some stage and they might not all be legitimate. Equinox◑10:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Because it isn't, it's a noun, and it is covered as a noun. Satellite is of course an ambiguous definition and needs improvement, but nonetheless this is just the word image followed by the word satellite. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
French isn't a language I study, but I notice the plural seems to be either "images satellite" or "images satellites". Strange. DonnanZ (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Since a noun used attributively is invariable, if satellite is a noun the plural is "images satellite" and if it's an adjective it's "images satellites". That's how I was able to 'prove' that satellite is an adjective, because "images satellites" is attested. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
The complete terms are not lemmas; those just usually appear together. For example จังหวัดอุบลราชธานี is composed of จังหวัด + อุบลราชธานี, common noun + proper noun. We can understand just say อุบลราชธานี. Similar to รัฐ + โอไฮโอ, ประเทศ + ไทย, ภาษา + ไทย, คน + ไทย. For usage of ไทย we can describe in its definitions. IMO, I think about this for a long time for Thai Wiktionary policy not to include such entries and this should apply on other Wiktionaries too. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Octahedron80 Should entries เมืองไทย(mʉʉang-tai, “Thailand”) and ประเทศไทย(“Thailand”)be kept ("country" + "Thai")) or definitions should move to ไทย(tai, “Thai, Thailand”)? It may not be the best example, since some sources mention that "Thailand" is never/seldom used without the preceding word for "country" - ประเทศ(bprà-têet) and เมือง(mʉʉang).
What about คนไทย(“Thai (person)”) and ชาวไทย(“Thai (person)”)?
Just asking for your opinion and if there are any dictionary policies. Other languages with no clear word boundaries face similar CFI (criteria for inclusion) challenges, such as Chinese or Vietnamese. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)07:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
As I said above, เมืองไทย ประเทศไทย คนไทย ชาวไทย ภาษาไทย etc never be lemmas in official dictionary, but ไทย (Thai/Thailand) is truely the lemma. Similar to เมืองจีน ประเทศจีน คนจีน ชาวจีน ภาษาจีน etc, the main entry should only be จีน (China/Chinese). And so on around the world. (Except only if they have special meanings.) Redirects may be an option. --Octahedron80 (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Could we have some clarity on when terms should be retained as "translation targets"? I looked at WT:SOP, and the only relevant paragraph seems to be the following: "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers." However, it does not appear that "translation targets" are likely to be rare. Do we need to have a discussion and vote on the issue (@Daniel Carrero)? — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I am basically an inclusionist but I don't like the idea of "translation targets" exactly. The way I prefer to think about it is that when lots of other languages have unexpected translations for a particular concept, it's a clue that the English term, however denotionally transparent, is nevertheless idiomatic, and should be kept on those grounds. Ƿidsiþ13:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the existence of compound translations that use unexpected component words or patterns can be (strong?) evidence supporting English idiomaticity, at least if multiple language families or independent languages are involved. The argument would also support including terms like chalk and cheese, Mutt and Jeff, etc. DCDuringTALK17:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Classes of words such as the one you refer to seem to me to offer little support for idiomaticity. In the case of those translated into English as be + an adjective, I'd favor exclusion. I'm sure that are other patterns that similarly are trivially rendered into English phrases quite predictably. We already have a great deal of trivial content and hardly need more. DCDuringTALK18:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
But using an adjective to convey this idea IS idiomatic; most languages use a specific verb. (I am just talking about idiomaticity in an abstract way here; I agree that "be silent" doesn't need a dictionary entry.) Ƿidsiþ08:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Adjective. The citations look like attributive use of the noun. I doubt that citations can be found supporting non-attributive, "true" adjective use. DCDuringTALK18:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
OK, you know better than I do. You're not proposing deletion of sense 1 though, and the hottie sense (no Dutch translation there, by the way), is that not placing emphasis on stuk, e.g. she's a real hottie? SoP terms can be a minefield, and I wouldn't propose an entry for brown cow. But for the sake of completeness, if that's another meaning of lekker stuk? DonnanZ (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Both senses are SoP, delete the entire entry IMO. Lekker stuk as "tasty piece" is textbook SoP; lekker stuk as "hottie" might've been kept as being idiomatic had it not been for the fact that both constituent elements have the relevant romantic/sexual senses listed there as well: lekker can mean hot by itself, and similarly stuk can mean attractive person. In English an equivalent situation would be hot babe, which I think you will agree is SoP. — Kleio (t · c) 18:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
The difference with hot babe is that at least babe is a literal use (or arguably its primary meaning), while stuk is used figuratively (just like lekker) and is more commonly used for its more neutral senses, making this an idiomatic phrase. The first sense (tasty piece) is the equivalent of hot babe to me. I'd support deletion of sense 1 and keep of sense 2 (not bolded since I'm not sure my opinion counts yet).
I can totally imagine someone (someone learning the language, or a native not having heard of it yet) reading a phrase (e.g. Ik zag een lekker stuk daarnet) and being stumped on the meaning, thus needing to look it up in our dictionary. They shouldn't have to do the detective work of noticing both of those constituent words can be used in similar senses and putting two and two together. --Azertus (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
That's how the SoP rules here work (AFAICT) though: if the meaning of a multiple-word entry can be understood without too much difficulty by looking at the individual entries that constitute it, it is sum-of-parts and should not be here. In this case, I don't think it's really detective work anyway: both entries list the relevant senses (both labeled colloquial, too, making the connection even more obvious), they are not difficult to find, and the combination of the two does not have any unexpected change in meaning. From what I've seen in other discussions on this page and from WT:SOP, the end user is in fact expected to be able to put two and two together: that's pretty much the crux of the SoP deletion criterion. — Kleio (t · c) 15:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
It's crucially different from, say, lekker ding ("sexy person") , which is clearly idiomatic and should have an entry: ding is, after all, never really used by itself to refer to a person at all; only in the common expression lekker ding does it acquire this meaning. Both lekker and stuk however have independent and quite common meanings that, when combined, make the meaning of lekker stuk entirely obvious and thus SoP. — Kleio (t · c) 15:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't say that makes lekker stuk idiomatic and certainly not according to WT:SOP; in any case both elements are also common with the meanings "hot" or "hottie". The most that can be said is that lekker stuk is a pleonastic epithet, which can be mentioned in both entries or included in a usage example. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I defintely think it's SoP. Including lekker ding, as proven by L.B.D. above. This is just a fairly rare sense of stuk/ding combined with a very normal though not perfectly literal sense of lekker. So delete.Kolmiel (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
"ละครทีวี" doesn't mean "TV series", "TV show", or "TV program" though. If "television drama" or "TV drama" is acceptable, then "ละครทีวี" should be kept.
P.S. in Thai,
"series" is called "ซีรีส์" or formally "รายการชุด", or "ละครชุด" if referring to drama;
"TV series" is called "ทีวีซีรีส์" or formally "รายการชุดทางโทรทัศน์", or "ละครชุดทางโทรทัศน์" if referring to drama;
"TV show" is called "ทีวีโชว์" or "รายการทีวี", or formally "รายการโทรทัศน์";
"TV program" is also called "รายการทีวี" or "รายการโทรทัศน์".
"ซีรีย์" is a common misspelling of "ซีรีส์" and may be included.
Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion
This is covered by the appropriate sense at [[dump]], whither it should redirect. (It's also covered at [[Appendix:DoHaveMakeTake]], not that that affects this discussion. But the content of that appendix shows we ought not (and generally do not) have a page for every "take a [noun]".)—msh210℠ (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Fallacious. The American (or whoever) could argue: "If I had a bath, I would own it; but I can take a bath at my friend's house." I don't suppose you consider yourself to be stealing when you "take" time, precautions, or a phone call. Equinox◑16:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm reminded of the bit in Beavis and Butthead where one of them is parodying Andy Rooney by saying "Did you ever wonder why they call it taking a dump instead of leaving a dump? I mean after all, you're not really taking it anywhere!" —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion
Do we really want to have an entry for every standard with an acronym in front of it? Whatever we decide, there's also the matter of a category the contributor created for it, which doesn't tie into our category structure (or any category structure) at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I created this. I would like to keep it. I think the term conveys more meaning than the sum of its parts. Apologies if I got categorisation wrong. John Cross (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. We would end up offering a "definition" for every model of every product that chose to name their product with a model number, and for every road and route, and for every public or private standard combining an acronym with a number. bd2412T02:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
We already have e-numbers in Wiktionary. See for example E333. So there is some precedent for including a codeconsisting of letters and numbers which has a specific meaning. John Cross (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC), edited John Cross (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
We also have M25 (but not every numbered road in the UK). If we can find a text that uses "ISA 200" in a natiral way, without being a definition, then we should keep it. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
But couldn't such examples be found for, say, every numbered road, or every car model, or whatever it might be? Does a citation "I was driving down the A3062 in my Saab 340" justify inclusion in the dictionary of "A3062" and "Saab 340"? Where would it end? Mihia (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I think that the term I have added is a useful addition to Wiktionary - it is a term in regular use by a large number of professionals around the world and it is a term recognised by an international standard setting body. I know people are worried about the precedent this might set. I would suggest that as there is a separate policy for brands, any precedent set here should not extend to models of cars or other products or services. When it comes to road/route codes, some already appear in Wiktionary and I would suggest that those entries already create some form of precedent. I would like to keep the debate more focussed on whether names and codes for recognised international standards (auditing or otherwise) that are used in natural sentences can be added to Wiktionary. John Cross (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
This is also true of all of the RfCs, all of the ISO standards, and countless other standards which are domain specific. Unless the term has meaning outside of the standard I can't see value in keeping it. The "meaning" of the term is either "the ISA standard numbered 200" in which case it is SOP, or the actual standard itself, in which case it is encyclopedic and out of scope. - TheDaveRoss13:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I echo TheDaveRoss's argument here. Even after looking at the entry, and the sample usages, the definition parses out to just ISO + 200. The long-form title and other information belongs in an encyclopedia article, which would go at Wikipedia and would ostensibly be found under [[w:Category:ISO_standards]]. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig23:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Alt-spelling sense. The word (חג׳) that it's listed as an alt-spelling of is defined only identically to חאג׳'s other sense. Not speedying this in case there's really another sense of חג׳ that we should have and that חאג׳ is an alt-spelling of.—msh210℠ (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
In the past yes. Now you need to make sure the word exists and it is written in the right script. There are various romanisations (not proper language scripts). Only some standard romanisations are allowed by our policies.--Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)07:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
It's not the Sichuanese that's the problem, it's the pinyin. It may be found in some dictionaries, bʌt ðɛn, soʊ ɪz aɪ pʰi eɪ. If you really want to allow every script for every language, there are some German entries in Cyrillic that we deleted not too long ago... Chuck Entz (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
You said some things, but haven't explained the issue to me, apparently because you assume that I know something I don't. (This is a bad habit on Wiktionary both in conversations and help pages. I'm pointing this out here because it's making us opaque and prolly factors into new editors being scared off.) Are you implying that we're using some other system to represent Sichuanese on which users decided? Because you haven't said so. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Sichuanese should only have entries in Chinese characters. The version of Sichuanese Pinyin we are using in the Chinese pronunciation template {{zh-pron}} isn't used other than in dictionaries. (The system is essentially the same as the one in 四川方言词典, but replaces ȵ with ny). — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }17:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Okay, but why is it that when Westrobothnian entries are made in a non-existent system without consensus, people basically vote to keep them without attestation and when Sichuanese entries are made in an existing system without consensus, they are deleted even before discussion in RFD? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Korn: I have no knowledge of Westrobothnian, so I can't comment on that. (Hmm, have you assumed that I know something I don't? :D) AFAIK, there has only been one Sichuanese Pinyin entry that has been deleted before discussion in RFD, so I'm not sure what you mean. Sichuanese is a variety of Chinese, and our current policy puts all Chinese varieties that are usually written in Chinese characters under the same umbrella. Since there is already a way to represent Sichuanese (Chinese characters), and most of the Chinese varieties are not allowed to have romanization entries (exceptions being Standard Mandarin pinyin, Min Nan POJ and Cantonese jyutping syllables), we should not have Sichuanese Pinyin entries. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }21:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
1. Sorry, I assumed the entries were deleted because they're shown as yellow links. 2. No, I'm not assuming anything, my comment was meant as an indirect question to Chuck, who's present in both discussions. 3. Why are only some varieties allowed to have Romanisations? That makes it harder to look up Sichuanese, what's the reasoning? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
1. I'm not sure how they're yellow links. They look blue/purple to me. If they were deleted, shouldn't they be red? 2. Alrighty then. 3. Standard Mandarin and Cantonese were allowed by votes (Standard Mandarin 1, Standard Mandarin 2, Cantonese). I believe Min Nan POJ entries were allowed because they're attestable, since it is sometimes written in POJ. From my understanding, other varieties are not allowed to have romanization entries because (a) the romanizations were made by Wiktionary (Gan; Jin; Xiang; Wu) or (b) they are not very common (?) (Hakka PFS and Guangdong Romanization; Min Dong BUC; Teochew Peng'im). — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }22:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Fair enough. ps.: Yellow links are links to pages which exist but don't have the corresponding language section. I assume that square brackets link to English per default and that's the reason why the links are shown in yellow to me. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't really have an opinion on this at the moment, but without knowing much about the procedures here, wouldn't it just be a lot more convenient to have page sorting characters by Pinyin, considering we're talking about a mostly non-written vernacular here? I guess I'd support deletion if this listing could be automated, but until that happens I'm not so sure. Sichuan Pinyin was not invented by any user here, so there shouldn't be conflict of interest. Regarding another point, is Hanyu Pinyin even used that much outside of teaching and Romanizations either? I've also heard that Jyutping is even more seldom used in those capacities.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
We can definitely have page sorting by Sichuanese Pinyin if we allow Category:Sichuanese lemmas and such. That should probably solve the problem.
Hanyu Pinyin and Jyutping are not used in normal writing, but they are much more common than Sichuanese Pinyin. Hanyu Pinyin is used by most (if not all) modern Mandarin dictionaries published in the PRC, and it is taught in all schools in China. It has also been accepted by the ROC government as the standard romanization. Jyutping, while being less pervasive than Hanyu Pinyin, is gaining popularity and is definitely outcompeting the other Cantonese romanizations, especially on the internet.
Any reference is a mention, not usage. It would fail the CFV for most languages in most cases but this may be a special case for a language with limited documentation, I don't know.--Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)11:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
It was my impression that this was one. We might turn it into a precedent for unwritten languages recorded solely in IPA by foreign researchers. There should be more than one. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
This is not a precedent. There are already entries like these, e.g. tɕʰɑ³¹ŋɑ⁵⁵. I'm a little unsure about this being a language with limited documentation since we have lumped all varieties of Chinese under Chinese if they are written in hanzi. It is certainly not unwritten. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }17:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Are you sure that 筶 itself is a verb? In that case I'll support deletion. Otherwise the impression I got from the Wikipedia entry 四川方言字 was that its used in the idiom 筶一下, rather than an independent part of speech.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm pretty sure. I think the page is just giving an example. All the dictionaries I've checked use 告 instead though:
But instant mashed potatoes are potatoes processed in a particular way- what the modifier "instant" means changes based on the particular type of food. DTLHS (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Cooked food is still "cooked" whether it's baked, boiled or fried. Instant food is still "instant" regardless of how it got that way. Equinox◑19:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
We should determine which "instant" food came first, as this meaning of instant is probably a back-formation from that, so that entry should be kept. The rest I would delete except for instant noodles, which seems to embody some qualities other than its instantness. I believe coffee is the trend leader. See Rupert Hughes, Gift Wife (1910), p. 164: "In a small room opening off the hall the usual withered serving woman kept the coals of the kahve-ojak alive and water ready for instant coffee." bd2412T03:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
The cite doesn't fit the current definition, nor that of WordNet 3.0: "dehydrated coffee that can be made into a drink by adding hot water". Judging from the Google N-gram and inspection of cites in decades from 1900 on, through 1929 instant coffee referred initially to a liquid coffee concentrate, starting about 1921. At some point in the 1930s there is evidence of cubes and crystals. Sanka, which fits the definitions, appeared on the market around 1946. \
Of course, most dictionaries don't have an entry for instant coffee. None at OneLook, except for us, have an entry for instant mashed potatoes. DCDuringTALK13:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
How can you tell what cite the definition fits? In any case, I am proposing that "instant" referring to a food prepared in such a way that a normally arduous process is reduced to adding water or the like, is a back-formation, which would render the originating term idiomatic whether other dictionaries now have it or not. bd2412T17:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I find the description of production process unessential. If someone found another way of producing instant mashed potatoes they would still be instant mashed potatoes. For comparison: paper is paper, no matter how it's been made. delete --Hekaheka (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
A thought. Instant coffee (respectively instant soup) is both coffee (soup) that has been dried out and, once reconstituted, coffee (soup) again. Instant mashed potatoes are mashed potatoes that have been dried out; once reconstituted, they're not mashed potatoes in the literal sense, i.e. potatoes that have been mashed, though they may be indistinguishable from same. I don't know that that's a reason to keep, and am tending to think not, especially because the reconstituted stuff is called "mashed potatoes" irrespective of the literal meanings of those words. But it's something to think about.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
If chicory coffee is a kind of coffee, then the constitution of something does not necessarily matter to the SoPitude of the term. (Chicory coffee drinks resemble certain roasts of coffee in color and flavor.) That is, I don't think the ingredients or process by which something of general familiarity is manufactured (out of sight of the great mass of language speakers) necessarily has any legitimate impact on RfD questions. In contrast, instant is meaningful to normal speakers because it indicates something that is within their experience. DCDuringTALK00:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can tell, it can be idiomatic for John the Baptist. I can't speak for Latin, but it's sort of used that way in English (I say sort of, because it's debatable whether it's simply an allusion, or is an actually idiomatic name for St. John). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hadn't actually heard of it being used to refer to John the Baptist, I always associated it more with Isaiah 40:3. The Hebrew equivalent (קוֹל קוֹרֵא בַּמִּדְבָּר(kol koré bamidbár)) is used to refer to a speaker whose arguments go unheard or unheeded. I believe that the English voice in the wilderness is used in much the same way. Anyway, how do you establish in cases like this where something stops being an allusion, and becomes an idiom worthy of inclusion in its own right? — Kleio (t · c) 18:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
In the Gospel according John 1:23, John the Baptist says that he is the voice in the wilderness of Isaiah 40:3, so it's conceivable that other people have used the phrase to allude to him. Maybe this should be moved to RFV. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I found this definition when looking up an idiomatic use of the phrase in Taleb's The Black Swan:
Seeing how superfluous his measure was, and how it squandered resources, the public, with great help from airline pilots, might well boot him out of office. Vox clamantis in deserto. He will retire depressed, with a great sense of failure.
Comment: A pure interjection with the particle ね seems exceptional. I can’t remember any other word at this moment. Conjunction-derived interjections can have it though (じゃあね, またね, etc.). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thai entered to mean "Christian church". The indicated sum is โบสถ์ (church) + คริสต์ (Christian). If one believes Google image search, what it refers to is a building, and maybe less so the organization; for some reason, the organization popped up to my mind first. OTOH, buildings are visual unlike organizations, so they may naturally pop up first. Sanook[4] does not seem to have the word. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
google:"ヸタミン" finds 16 hits; the first three are dupes. That said, some of these look cromulent. google books:"ヸタミン" also finds seven hits. Albeit extremely rare, this one might meet CFI. Move to RFV.
I created the entry and I became uncertain if it's a lemma or SOP, as it can be treated as a mere combination of two phrases (ทรงพระกรุณา(song-prá-gà-rú-naa) + โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม(bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m)) or as a single, valid phrase (because it seems like the two phrases are always together). Anyway, since the meanings of the two phrases do not change when they are put together, I then requested deletion of this entry. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
This definition, unless anyone can show otherwise, seems to apply only to the phrase "at the mercy of", but I am not convinced that "mercy" in "at the mercy of" means "subjugation" or "power" at all. I think it has the usual meaning of forgiveness, compassion etc., as amply covered by other senses, and that "at the mercy of" means something like "dependent on the mercy of" or "subject to the mercy of". Mihia (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
SoP, redundant to double sense: "(intransitive) (often followed by as) To play a second part or serve a second role. A spork is a kind of fork that doubles as a spoon." Equinox◑01:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Additional thought: can something just double, without an as: "this kind of fork doubles"? I suspect not. Even so, the as feels strongly like an external preposition and not a particle. Equinox◑01:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Probably the definition needs to be improved as I'm pretty sure it refers specifically to circumcision, i.e. removal of the prepuce, and not to any old cutting. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
we have coffee break and water break. someone doesn't necessarily need to be drinking coffee or getting water during those breaks, which is why they have entries. likewise someone can use a restroom break for something other than using the restroom, which is why it should have an entry. note that we have urinary break. that seems more SoP to me than restroom break. 99.101.56.6800:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I found only one use of "urinary break" in BGC. Many Google hits are just mirroring Wiktionary > Agree with Equinox: hardly a set term. One more nail to the coffin: the entry was created by someone who is now blocked from all Wikimedia > delete at least "urinary break". --Hekaheka (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
It's an example of how Nynorsk can be unbelievably complex. There are two words for eye; auga and auge. There are also two prefixes for derivatives of eye; auge- and augne-. There is also a verb augne, also spelt øygne, but no noun. I suggest that you read the reference in the Nynorsk Dictionary if you haven't already done so.
There are variants in Bokmål also, where øye in compounds can also be øyen-, from an old genitive plural, but it's not regarded as a prefix for some reason. DonnanZ (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Probably because of the two spellings, auge is entered as the alternative form of auga, but that may have been the editor's personal preference. One could use the spelling auga, and in the next line use an auge- derivative I guess. DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
It may make sense from an English point of view, but not to a Nynorsk speaker. Another oddity is that the definite plural of auge is (guess what) auga, which can be highly confusing to us. DonnanZ (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Calling it a prefix doesn't make sense from a linguistic point of view, regardless of the native language of the observer. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hm, I had to think of that a bit. As so much in one's native tongue, I've never had cause to consider it before. I suppose the point is that the Nynorsk noun for "eye" can take the forms "auge" or "auga", these are not separate words, just different forms of the same word, meaning they are completely interchangeable in every context. Whereas if you use it as the first part of a compound word, you cannot use the form "*auga-", only "auge-" or "augne-" [Whereas *augne is not a valid form of the noun on its own]. So from a Nynorsk grammarians point of view, this makes "auge" and "auge-" two different... hm... lexemes(?) Donnanz writes "One could use the spelling auga, and in the next line use an auge- derivative I guess." Indeed, this true, in fact, one would have to' use an auge- derivative, because there are no *auga- derivatives. I hope this was comprehensible.--Barend (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't have much to add, but if auge- would be worthy of an entry if there was no such form as auge, then I think it would make more sense to keep auge- than to delete it, as it is still a distinct prefix form of auga. So for me, I think the question boils down to whether or not auge- is worthy of an entry if we only had auga. --Njardarlogar (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
There is a somewhat similar situation in Finnish. Adjectives ending in -inen regularly change the ending to "-is" when they are used as modifiers in compound terms. We don't regard the -is -ending terms as prefixes but rather as adjective forms. But, as such, they still may merit their own "form of" -entry. For example, the word kreikkalaiskatolinen is not categorized as "Finnish term with prefix kreikkalais-" but as "Finnish compound term" or "Finnish compound term with kreikkalainen" if such category existed. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand Finnish, but "-is" seems to be something like a modified interfix between parts of words. But I guess showing it as a compound of kreikkalainen and katolinen (as has been done) is the best treatment. Different methods are needed for different languages. DonnanZ (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I would appreciate more input, particularly from users not familiar with Norwegian. Angr's question still hasn't been answered satisfactorily: why are the words in Category:Norwegian Nynorsk words prefixed with auge-not to be compounds of the word auge? I would also like to ask an additional question: How, in theory, could compounds of auge and those of auge- be differentiated? —CodeCat20:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
The way I see it, it's merely a historically grown form of the lexeme auga/auge and we should handle it thus: 1. Indicate prefix‐form in the head template for languages where they're applicaple. For example:
auga n (definite singularauga, indefinite pluralaugo, definite pluralaugo, compound formauge‐oraugne‐)
This seems to be a combining form used for compounding, albeit a trivial one since it seems identical with the base noun. Combining forms that were deleted via RFD: barne- from barn and kraft- from kraft; tron- from trone; these were nominated for deletion by Donnanz. A combining form that was kept: jedno-. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
This is little, sense 5: Used with the name of place, especially of a country, to denote a neighborhood whose residents or storekeepers are from that place. There are literally infinite ways to use little in this sense with countries (or even regions or cities), and they're all entirely transparent. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
On the other hand, if the area is marked on maps as Little (whatever) you would have to accept that it's been accepted as a name. This happens in London with Little Venice, which I think got its name because it's at a canal junction. The name appears in my A-Z Master Atlas of Greater London. DonnanZ (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
It's a bit weird, because "little" here converts proper nouns into regular nouns. "Italys"/"Italies" is a very weird word, but "Little Italys" is quite common. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I was not aware of that sense at little when I created these. I think the OED has one or both. I'm not fussed about keeping them. Equinox◑15:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Little Italy is in Oxford Online - chiefly North American; "any urban district inhabited predominantly by Italian immigrants or people of Italian descent". No entry for Little Pakistan however. DonnanZ (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete all "surname + given name" entries based on WT:NSE. Weak delete for style names (except those specified below). (Should 孔明 as a name be deleted as well?) After checking Guoyu Cidian and Hanyu Da Cidian, the following should be kept for having other meanings:
Comment. I advocating deleting names, while agreeing with Wyang that we should keep names that have derived terms. Surely we should keep style names (字) though, as they function basically the same as nicknames do in English (e.g. J-Lo, J-Law, K-Rod, etc.). ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Style names are not comparable to English nicknames or given names; they are more akin to English "first name + middle name" combinations, such as "John Michael". English given names (e.g. John) usually have interesting etymologies, but Chinese style names (e.g. 文謙) are simply a sum of parts. On the other hand, Chinese nicknames or certain stage names are certainly worthy of inclusion, such as 鳥叔, 成龍. Wyang (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Maybe it should be an RFV. Are the books written by John Buchan any help here? If I remember correctly they contain a lot of Glaswegian dialect. DonnanZ (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete. These are of course pyramids of distinct regional styles (except the very obviously SOP ancient pyramid), but then again, that doesn't mean they should be included. We don't include Hellenistic bronze, do we? Or Roman mosaic? — Kleio (t · c) 14:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete them all per KIeio. The stated rationale for them is poor: "Terms that imply certain social knowledge that could not be derived from any of the constituents, nor from their combination. For instance, an Egyptian pyramid has a different shape to an Aztec pyramid." Well, a Japanese sword has a different design than a Roman sword, but they're still SOP... - -sche(discuss)08:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
BTW, isn't it bad practice to use a word like "short" in a definition such as that of billy club or baton? MWOnline defines nightstick as "a police officer's club", which seems much more to the point. DCDuringTALK00:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
White smoke could be used for multiple purposes. Also, the announcement isn't the white smoke itself, the white smoke is just the visible signal. DTLHS (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I could imagine the term being used metonymously to refer to the decision itself, but I don't see that as sufficient justification for inclusion. DCDuringTALK00:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Take a look at these examples [15]. Would they be understandable to someone who is not aware of the origin of the expression? keep and add the figurative sense. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
On the second thought, I'm not sure if we need the concrete sense. I added a figurative sense and an etymology in which its origin is explained. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I suppose that any signal traditionally associated with a decision could be used metonymously for the decision, but the essence of the matter is that it indicates a decision and is not the decision or the "event" of the decision. As Donnanz suggests it is "a signal". It seems like the scheduling of a press conference after some portentious meeting. All five of the hits for "white smoke" (in quotes) from Hekaheka's source read to me a "signal". Putting the encyclopedic sense in the etymology seems appropriate. We could still have {{&lit}} for the "smoke that is white in color" sense. DCDuringTALK14:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
An afterthought: the white smoke only tells the outside world that a new pope has been chosen, his name would be given later in the official accouncement. DonnanZ (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I am happy to weakly keep "X language" entries, especially if the open compound "X language" is more common than its single-word synonym. Thus, if in English, "English language" were much more common in reference to the language than "English", I would support keeping "English language". I do not know the relative frequency for Lithuanian, the language being discussed here, though. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. Sense 4 looks like more than one definition to me. Of the ones offered "not up to reasonable standard" might fit. (MWOnline has "not meeting an accepted standard", with ill manners as its usage example.) What other nouns form an NP with that definition of ill? I can't think of any right now. Not that there aren't any. DCDuringTALK16:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Look-see works with take, get, give, allow, as object of prepositions such as for, etc. In addition, one can "have/take/get/give/allow oneself a look-see". There are numerous other collocations and grammatical roles look-see can play, all with about the same semantics. No OneLook source has the various verb+look-see combinations, though many have look-see entries. DCDuringTALK07:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete. It might be nice to have some formal way to list the verbs and prepositions that a word "takes", but creating loads of near-cloned entries is not the way. For now we can at least include some typical citations or usexes. Equinox◑10:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I have been thinking about creating a vote to get rid of the more egregious misspellings, but I mostly end up doing actual useful stuff, like creating words. I am happy to discuss such a vote by e-mail with anyone else who is annoyed by shit like this. Equinox◑
My main problem with including misspellings is that they can end up on word lists or indexes appearing as valid words. Otherwise, I see no reason not to include the common ones. If someone reads the word "keytone" and comes here to find out what it means, isn't it more helpful to tell them? Mihia (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Ideally that's part of the work of the search engine. If someone types NAIT then they might mean night or knight, sure. That's an argument for having phonetic search suggestions. I don't think there's any good argument for having entire entries, on the same level as "real" word entries, that only serve to deal with people's spelling errors. Equinox◑00:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I would advocate a more positive response than "did you mean?" for spelling errors that are commonly encountered. If someone types in a word that they have read, and believe to be a word, and they are told "did you mean ...?" then they might think, no, I meant what I typed, and then assume that their word was not entered in the dictionary. I do agree, though, that misspellings and errors being, as you say, "on the same level" as real entries is not very satisfactory. Mihia (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Personally, if I am looking something up which I read in a non-edited source and I cannot find it in any dictionaries, I assume it is not a word. I am in favor of paring back significantly the misspelling entries. - TheDaveRoss13:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
So am I, in principle, but in practice, it can sometimes be very difficult to distinguish between a misspelling and a rare alternative spelling; and over time, something that started out as a misspelling can become an alternative spelling (often not a rare one), like lite, tonite, and barbeque. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep as a common misspelling (WT:CFI#Spellings): (keytone*1000),ketone at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. suggests a frequency ratio of 1000, which is good enough for common misspellings by my calibration at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. Since we expressly mark the item as a misspelling, any downstream reuser who does not want misspellings can easily filter it out. Editors who want to tighten the misspelling filter can consider a lower shreshold for the frequency ratio. I think common misspellings are a usability tool: I find it much more friendly to land on a page that expressly tells me that what I was searching for was a misspelling, and what it was a misspelling of. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Μετάknowledge: GNV distinguishes capitalization, unlike Google Books: check e.g. keytone,Keytone at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. Admittedly, when I ignore the uppercase occurrences in the Google Books search, I also find the likes of "The central tone in a key is called a keytone", but even if these would drive the frequency ratio to 2000, that would still be acceptable for a common misspelling by my lights. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This has been RFD before, but didn't attract much attention [16]. Not listed as a suffix in Oxford Online, but it is in Cambridge [17]. I think it should be discussed further. DonnanZ (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion
sapiens#Translingual. The content, including descendants, of such an L2 section for a taxonomic epithet that is the same as a Latin lemma (adjective, participle, genitive form of noun) should appear under the Latin L2 section of the Latin lemma. DCDuringTALK13:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Your argument rests on missing or faulty premises, faulty data, or inappropriate considerations:
Why should it matter who the author of any particular entry or move of an entry is? The treatment of taxonomic epithets is, in any event, an unsettled matter. I was hoping that a case like this would help us reach consensus about which taxonomic epithets clearly best presented as Latin.
laherparepvec is part of the name of a drug, not a taxonomic epithet.
Some of the terms in question are epithets for subspecies, varieties, forms, etc, so "taxonomic epithet" (which is SoP) is a bit more accurate than "specific epithet".
The matter in question is more how to present terms rather than whether they "are" Latin or Translingual, the kind of question that only a linguist could love. We certainly don't bother attesting the Translingual nature of CJKV characters. We show almost no medical and legal Latin terms as Translingual. And we fail to show as Translingual many classical Latin terms that are used in many languages as set phrases (eg, "cave canem", "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"). IOW, there is no reason to assume that the fact of Translingual use is at all compelling of presenting something as Translingual. Translingual is essentially a residual category for terms otherwise without a language to call home.
There seems to be evidence for many taxonomic epithets that they were in use in Classical, Medieval, and New Latin, not just in taxonomic names. Do you really want to do the work of creating all the duplicate L2 sections or do you want someone else to do it? Personally, I'd prefer to do the much lesser amount of work to eliminate Translingual L2 sections where a Latin L2 already exists and participate in the effort to document post-Classical non-taxonomic use of other taxonomic epithets, for which [[lividans]] is a good example.
1. One could abuse the moving like this: (a) Move or change all entries to a personally preferred form (like placing the taxonomic epithet "sapiens" in an Latin entry). (b) Claim that something is common practice or even consensus (like claiming that it's common practice that taxonomic epithets are Latin). (I'm not saying that you did this or are doing this, I'm just saying that one could do it like that.)
2. Just like talimogene laherparepvec is English, laherparepvec might be English and not Translingual. Searching for "laherparepvec" on google books only had English results and two German results. One German result had "Talimogen Laherparepvec" and the other had "Talimogene laherparepvec" in italics, so it should be the English term. As German is not a LDL three cites are required. Thus with google books it's not attested in German.
4.
CJKV: I don't know CJKV languages and their writing and encoding good enough, but from what I've read, not all characters are necessarily Translingual. The communists in mainland China simplified some characters, so these characters could be simplified Chinese and not Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese, and so they maybe aren't Translingual.
Medical and legal Latin terms and Classical Latin terms as Translingual: (a) Wiktionary is not complete, so a lack of something doesn't necessarily mean anything. Maybe many Translingual terms are simply missing. (b) It could be a matter of attesting terms. Attesting one term in one language is one problem, but attesting one term in several language is a harder task. (c) It could be a problem of current usage and understanding. At least in German, Latin terms became rarer and often aren't understood anymore. So even a simple "per definitionem" isn't so simple anymore and it's rather an elevated term. (d) BTW: In case of German there could be the matter of spelling: "cave canem" could become "cave Canem" as canem/Canem is a substantive.
"Translingual is essentially a residual category for terms otherwise without a language to call home.":
As of Wiktionary:Translingual#Other languages, terms can be Translingual and also, for example, English, so terms can be Translingual and can have possible languages to call home.
Many Translingual terms could be English, French, German etc. instead of being Translingual, that is they could have languages to call home. E.g. H2O and E numbers are used in English and German. So Translingual might contain terms attested in multiple languages and also terms which could hypothetically be used in multiple languages. If E100 is used in English and German, then it's used translingually and thus Translingual. As E101 could be used similarly in English and German, it's also Translingual, even if might ATM be unattested for English or German. But that "could hypothetically be used in multiple languages" has to be restricted and is restricted: Wiktionary:About Translingual#Accepted.
5.
If "lividans" was never used in Latin but just in other languages, it shouldn't have a Latin entry as that's incorrect and misleading. So it could be English ("Streptomyces lividans" is attestable in English texts) or Translingual. Also compare with pseudo-anglicisms which are considered to be French, Italian, German etc. and not English. If lividans would be Latin, even if it was never used in Latin, then French tennisman should be English.
The "duplicating" maybe could be used to differ between earlier taxonomic terms and taxonomic terms accepted or once accepted by ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature). ICZN claims to only accepts terms invented in or after 1758: "3.2. [...] No name or nomenclatural act published before 1 January 1758 enters zoological nomenclature [...]". In fact, ICZN violates this by accepting some slightly earlier terms from 1757. So if older terms were never used in other languages, they could be Latin, while younger terms are Translingual. Homo sapiens for example is used in English and German, so it's used translingually and thus it's Translingual. But well, if older terms were also used translingually, one can't differ like this. And it might be likely that older terms were used translingually.
As there are Translingual entries like Streptomyces, it's more consistent, if lividans is Translingual too. Also it's easier to state that taxonomic terms are Translingual than to state some taxonomic terms are Translingual while some are Latin or English.
"much lesser amount of work": The amount of work doesn't determine the better or correct solution. Instead of doing RFVs/RFDs, it's easier to simply delete questioned entries. But this easy solution would be nonsense.
Regarding the work question: I was already considerend to move or duplicate some of them (as the WT:RFV discussions seem to have stopped). Problems I had: (a) It maybe wouldn't be consensus. (b) I was and am somewhat busy. Holiday time (like Christmas time) for me is a better time to do such things. (c) Proper Translingual templates could be missing. And some people do have problems with IPs creating or even just editing templates. Semi-solutions I saw: (a) Posting in the WT:RFV discussions again. (b) Starting a WT:BP discussion. But because of a lack of time and as IPs not rarelly get mistreated, I hesitated. So how about having a WT:BP discussion regarding the placement of taxonomic terms?
Possibilities and some arguments:
Putting taxonomic terms under a Translingual header.
It's consistent.
The Latin origin is irrelevant, like pseudo-anglicisms also aren't English.
By attestation some terms would be Translingual, while younger onces would just be English ATM. So placing them under Latin is misleading and incorrect.
Putting some taxonomic terms under a Translingual header and some under a Latin header.
Con: It's inconsistent, and thus might also irritate users and might lead to new incorrectly created entries.
It might be easier as it doesn't need new templates or anything.
Putting taxonomic terms under a Latin header.
It's consistent.
It might also be easy.
It orginated in Latin and has some Latin features. -- Con: But it's used or also used in other languages, and some terms might be unattested in Latin.
Putting taxonomic terms under the languages they are attested in.
It's consistent.
It might also be easy.
In this way one can provide more information like pronunciation and inflection. -- Annotation: In case of other choices, the information could be generalised and put on a about page.
Con: E.g. Homo sapens would than have an entry in several languages which is redundant.
@Daniel Carrero:
"They are presumably citable in taxonomic names in multiple languages other than Latin, and therefore I believe they are Translingual": In case of modern terms (like donaldtrumpi) it should rather be a problem to cite them in Latin than in English (or French, German). With google books I could attest iroquoianus only for English and not for another language (compare Wiktionary:RFV#iroquoianus). As it could be used in French or German as well, it might however be Translingual.
-84.161.53.3621:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC) (And sorry for being a TL;DR text writing guy, but not giving arguments as well as ignoring other persons' arguments or concerns, wouldn't be good too.)Reply
@DCDuring: I'll reply now to all your five points. I'll copy your questions below, between quotation marks.
"Why should it matter who the author of any particular entry or move of an entry is? The treatment of taxonomic epithets is, in any event, an unsettled matter. I was hoping that a case like this would help us reach consensus about which taxonomic epithets clearly best presented as Latin."
It matters because of this reason: you had said that sapiens "should appear under the Latin L2 section of the Latin lemma" which might give the impression that it's a settled regulation. The page moves are evidence that, while we have some Latin entries for specific (or taxonomic) epithets, there is still some disagreement. Some people have created Translingual entries for epithets. That said, naturally I'm OK with discussing and seeking consensus.
"laherparepvec is part of the name of a drug, not a taxonomic epithet."
Point taken, sorry for the mix-up.
"Some of the terms in question are epithets for subspecies, varieties, forms, etc, so 'taxonomic epithet' (which is SoP) is a bit more accurate than 'specific epithet'."
Point taken, "taxonomic epithet" sounds great to me.
"The matter in question is more how to present terms rather than whether they 'are' Latin or Translingual, the kind of question that only a linguist could love. We certainly don't bother attesting the Translingual nature of CJKV characters. We show almost no medical and legal Latin terms as Translingual. And we fail to show as Translingual many classical Latin terms that are used in many languages as set phrases (eg, 'cave canem', 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc'). IOW, there is no reason to assume that the fact of Translingual use is at all compelling of presenting something as Translingual. Translingual is essentially a residual category for terms otherwise without a language to call home."
I disagree with the "Translingual is essentially a residual category ..." and I'd suggest using Translingual for medical and legal Latin terms. I believe at some point you supported the idea of using Translingual for medical/legal terms too, if I'm not mistaken.
Here's a proposal. (I actually intend to propose it on BP eventually.) Whenever a taxonomic name is attestable, let's be allowed to create a Translingual (and not Latin) entry for the specific, and possibly other taxonomic epithets. These may probably be automated by bot. Reasons for this proposal are in my next answer, below.
"There seems to be evidence for many taxonomic epithets that they were in use in Classical, Medieval, and New Latin, not just in taxonomic names. Do you really want to do the work of creating all the duplicate L2 sections or do you want someone else to do it? Personally, I'd prefer to do the much lesser amount of work to eliminate Translingual L2 sections where a Latin L2 already exists and participate in the effort to document post-Classical non-taxonomic use of other taxonomic epithets, for which [[lividans]] is a good example."
Admittedly, I basically never work on taxonomic names, whereas you work on them a lot. Still, nobody needs to create duplicate Translingual/Latin sections for specific epithets. To be fair, sometimes duplication seems to be OK, like creating multiple language sections for pizza, sushi and place names. But for specific epithets, what I proposed above is just using Translingual. Why duplicate? We don't need to create an additional line of text in the Latin section meaning "specific epithet".
If sapiens is used in Latin to mean "discerning, wise, judicious", "discreet", "(substantive) a wise man, sage, philosopher" then we probably are going to find quotations with these senses in latin running text. This is completely separate from the use of "sapiens" in specific epithets, which exists in multiple languages, and therefore Translingual is appropriate it in my opinion. Translingual taxonomic names have different quotations, uses and possibly pronunciations in different languages. Plus, they are going to have a list of all taxonomic names that use that epithet. I'd rather find it in one place (the Translingual section) rather than search the Latin section and discern the actual Latin from the specific epithets.
If specific epithets are Translingual, it's consistent with the practice of keeping taxonomic names as Translingual. If someone wants to use Latin for specific epithets, they may as well do the whole job and move all taxonomic names to the Latin section, too. (I'm not proposing that, I'm only saying that using only "Translingual" or only "Latin" would at least be consistent.)
In fact, even if a taxonomic name is only attested in Latin texts, I'd still propose using only the Translingual section for it, because it fits a group of Translingual entries. If "Homo erectus" (or another taxonomic name) were used only in durably-archived quotes in Spanish, I'd still support creating a Translingual section for it, not a Spanish section.
If we create new sections for specific epithets by bot, then it's actually less work, as opposed to the current labor of creating senses manually in the middle of the Latin section. Admittedly, probably the bot could work equally well to create Translingual or Latin sections for specific epithets. (Heck, the bot could even create duplicate sense lines meaning "specific epithet" in both Translingual and Latin, which you mentioned above as one thing you apparently don't want.) Still, I'd use it only for Translingual, not Latin, for the reasons I said above.
Delete. This is stupid, and a bad practice — if there's consensus for Daniel's idea, then it has to be gotten from the community and done on a broad scale. In the mean time, the Translingual entry should go. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds01:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Currently, a few senses about a "specific epithet" exist in both Latin and Translingual. Do you think they should all be deleted until we have consensus to add them in a broad scale, or are you OK with using Latin? To repeat what I said, I think using Latin is a bad idea, because it's inconsistent with the practice of using Translingual for taxonomic names. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
What is the point, beyond one kind of "consistency", of having both Translingual and Latin L2 sections for a term like albus? If there is a point, eg, "Wikidata would need it that way" or "Tabbed Languages needs it that way", then let some bot add the duplicate sections, that being an automatable task, perhaps requiring manual review. DCDuringTALK12:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
The entry you mentioned (albus) does not have any sense like this: "A specific epithet." You don't have to create that sense if you don't want, but senses like this can probably be created en masse by bot as I mentioned. As long as that entry doesn't have that sense, it can have only the Latin section. But, I insist, if we want to add that sense, it must be Translingual, in my opinion. Consistency is important. That sense is simply not restricted to Latin only; it is used in multiple languages. It is, therefore, Translingual. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Daniel Carrero Does your personal opinion about the importance of of consistency connect in any way to any purported importance to Wiktionary and its users of this particular set of instances of consistency? DCDuringTALK17:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Daniel Carrero (12:20, 9 March 2017): Regarding 5 (2), "Translingual taxonomic names have different quotations, uses and possibly pronunciations in different languages.": They have as seen in Homo sapiens#Pronunciation.
@Metaknowledge: It's not a matter of anyone's idea. A voting like "delete until there is some concensus" would mean that many taxonomic terms under a Translingual or Latin header have to be deleted as there is also no concensus to put the taxonomic term iroquoianus under a Latin header. But with WT:Translingual#Accepted one could argue that there is, or maybe was, concensus to place taxonomic terms under a Translingual header.
@DCDuring (12:57, 15 March 2017): Consistency is a good point. Proper categorisation is another, compare Category:mul:Taxonomic names: Translingual sapiens can be put into a Category:mul:, but Latin sapiens would be misplaced in it. Furthermore, sapiens might be attested in Latin as a taxonomic term - but Translingual iroquoianus isn't, so it fails WT:CFI as a Latin entry and has to be deleted as a Latin entry. But ok, this leads to the argument consistency. Then there's the matter of declension. Translingual taxonomic terms aren't declined as in Latin in many languages as seen by the wrong accusative "Homo sapiens" in a German example in Citations:Homo sapiens or by the wrong English singular Homo sapien. Another argument could be this: Translingual taxonomic terms might miss macrons (or macra) which are used in Latin dictionaries and grammars. So Latin macrons for a Translingual taxonomic term could be hypercorrect. BTW: Taxonian might rather be a constructed 'language' similar to Klingon, New Ancient Greek (as e.g. used in Asterix comics), etc., for which maybe compare WT:CFI#Constructed languages, WT:ID#What's the language?. I used ' around language as it's maybe not really a language like Klingon which has a grammar or New Ancient Greek, but just something else similar to a language.
Delete. It's simply wrong. Alone, this word is not translingual, it's simply Latin. Even very modern such words should have a Latin entry (modern Latin, but Latin nonetheless). But complete scientific names should have their Translingual section as well as other language sections when needed to mention pronunciation in the language, quotations in the language, gender in the language (very important), etc. Lmaltier (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
The argument "Alone, this word is not translingual, it's simply Latin" may work in this case. But: 1. There are many species epithets where it doesn't work, that is, the species epithets are not attestable in Latin but only in non-Latin taxonomics. 2. For Latin one could argue that "(New Latin) Used as a taxonomic epithet" is not a specialised sense but just the meaning wise. Even for Translingual taxonomics one could argue that they simply use the Latin word meaning wise to form species names like Homo sapiens. So one could delete both, the Translingual entry and the taxonomic epithet sense. Compared with Wiktionary:About Translingual ("Accepted [...] taxonomic names"), Category:Translingual taxonomic eponyms (which contains some epithets) and Category:Species entry using missing Translingual specific epithet ("that are missing entries or L2 sections for the species name, presumed to be Translingual, ie, [= i.e.] not Latin"), one could argue that a Translingual entry sapiens is justified. -84.161.12.406:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think I have succeeded in making "A sectarian" redundant by adding "A member of a particular sect of thought or practice, school, party, or profession."
Keep, per your and DAVilla's comments in the last RFD discussion. If one said "I was served breakfast in bed," it would be an SOP expression, but it's usually used with "have": "I had breakfast in bed," which makes it at least somewhat non-SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
It's mostly the fact that it heavily implies that one was served breakfast in bed rather than simply eating it there. I'm not strongly opposed to deleting it, but it feels like it's more than SOP. Now, if we had a collocations section, I would be fine with relegating it to there... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete; having it served is not a necessary part of the definition. Here's a case of someone saying "I had breakfast in bed" when they were alone and had to get it themselves. There are other similar cases. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Along the same lines many of the instances in this Google Books search are examples in which the server/preparer of breakfast and the one served are the same. The logistics of the situation (How often would I want to get out of bed, make breakfast, then return to bed to eat it?), not the meaning of the words seems to be what makes breakfast in bed normally involve a situation in which someone else is preparing and serving it. DCDuringTALK18:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Grabbing a bagel and eating it in bed in the morning would not be referred to as "breakfast in bed" (except perhaps humorously). Even if someone brings you a bagel while you're lying in bed, that probably wouldn't count. It implies some sort of fanciness; whether someone is serving you, or you're serving yourself, there is still the idea of service and luxury. --WikiTiki8920:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Maybe in your idiolect, but other people's usage seems different, eg:
I have this feeling that there may be other entries, including for true idioms, that need work more than we need to cover every collocation, especially those not covered by any other OneLook reference. DCDuringTALK22:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I may be misunderstanding you, but it looks to me like these support WikiTiki and my position. They all seem to support idiomaticity, especially the third one. It's clear that she didn't actually make her aunt breakfast while in a bed, but rather prepared her aunt's breakfast to be eaten in bed. In the first quote, "Megan" isn't taking breakfast while in bed, but rather taking breakfast in bed to her parents and for herself. Between those three quotes, I'd say there's an even stronger case for idiomaticity than I had thought. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Wikitiki made the point that point that there was some connotation of fanciness and being served (though he backed away from both elements, in the end merely claiming that the term implied luxury even when the service was by oneself and the food was simple).
There is some kind of connotation, but only because of the pragmatics, the situations in which one is likely to have breakfast in bed. But many collocations have some kind of connotations, often, as here, simply because of the situations in which they are used.
Should romantic dinner have an entry? For that matter, should oyster have a separate definition because of its connotational association with sex (It's a supposed afrodisiac.). DCDuringTALK15:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't really understand what you're trying to say. What I was trying to say is that it has a specific connotation of luxury and/or service or something like that. When in reality there is no luxury or service, the use of this phrase is ironic. Oysters may sometimes have an association with sex, but when they don't there is no irony. --WikiTiki8920:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think that cases like these would be easier to resolve if a "set phrases" exemption to the SoP rule could somehow be framed. Mihia (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Um I don't know what to say about this except that it's inherently incorrect. If everyone disagrees then we'll keep it. Just drawing attention. Equinox◑22:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
Translingual entry. I don't think ICAO is truly translingual - it's English. English has been chosen the language of international aviation, but that does not make English aviation terminology translingual. AFAIK, most languages have a spelling alphabet of their own for their national use. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep, these terms are used in all languages. It's no more English than Canis is Latin. Moreover, the pronunciation is prescribed in IPA and notably does not match the regular English pronunciation in several cases. —CodeCat21:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Nope. It is clearly an English set and it is used only in a context where English is the assumed language of communication. ICAO set does not even contain all letters of all languages. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The alphabet involved has various names, depending on what organisation is using it [18], a key sentence in this article says "critical combinations of letters and numbers can be pronounced and understood by those who exchange voice messages by radio or telephone regardless of language barriers or the quality of the communication channel", which I can well believe. In fact the alphabet has a multilingual flavour anyway, Alpha, Bravo, Delta, Echo, Hotel, Lima, November, Quebec, Sierra, Tango, Zulu and maybe others all come from other languages in the first place. I suggest making them all translingual if not already done - I notice that Hotel has two entries, one with a small "h". DonnanZ (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
"ICAO set does not even contain all letters of all languages." I think compromises are found - Ü as UE, ß as SS (which it is in capitals anyway), Æ as AE, Ø and Ö as OE, Å as AA (which it used to be anyway), and so on. DonnanZ (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
@DonnanZ: It's said that ICAO has alfa or Alfa with f. German has its own spelling alphabets and has names for German letters including the umlaute and ß. At least Danish also had other ways of spelling, like "aa" instead of "å".
I would generalise and extend Andrew Sheedy's question: Is the ICAO alphabet used in other languages than English (and, of course, is it attested in other languages than English)? Do Spanish pilots etc. speak Spanish and use ICAO, or do Italians, Frenches or Germans speak their language and use ICAO? If Spanish pilots use ICAO's alphabet and speak English, then it's English. If they speak Spanish and use ICAO it's also Spanish and thus Translingual. So this could be a RFV instead of RFD. -84.161.53.3617:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep : I already heard these ICAO letters used in French (not by pilots; and no English was used at all). There is a standard pronunciation, but usual pronunciations in each language should be given in each language section. Lmaltier (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I just heard a use of Kilo in Dutch by the police in a documentary. I'm unable to post a link because the spam filter blocks it. —CodeCat22:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
These three entries (-/-, -_- and -*-) contain only one sense:
POS section: Interfix
(neologism) Used to separate multiple gendered inflections in gender-neutral writing.
Freund/innen; ein/e Beamt/er/in
friends (of any gender); an officer (of any gender)
(neologism) Used to separate multiple gendered inflections in gender-neutral writing.
Freund_innen; ein_e Beamt_er_in
friends (of any gender); an officer (of any gender)
(neologism) Used to separate multiple gendered inflections in gender-neutral writing.
Freund*innen; ein*e Beamt*er*in
friends (of any gender); an officer (of any gender)
I don't speak German, but I believe these are just punctuation marks (/, _ and *) that can be used inside words, not interfixes. The first one looks like just the punctuation mark found in "I want to meet him/her." It's used like this in Portuguese, too. We already have a couple of senses like those at /, though I'm not sure why they are marked as "proscribed" and "sometimes proscribed".
Aah, please can we change the entry into cute smilies instead of deleting them. The first one could be for Two-Face. The second one a sleeping dude, and the third one perhaps for a Hindu with a dot on the forehead. I vote for being Cute. --Quadcont (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Creating emoticon entries for -/-, -_- and -*- sounds plausible (especially this, IMO: -_-) iff they are citable. This is separate from the idea I proposed above of deleting these specific German senses. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
-/- in "ein/e Beamt/er/in" is different from / in "his/her" or German "sein/ihr": While "his/her" could be rephrased as "his or her" and "sein/ihr" as "sein oder ihr", "Beamt/er/in" would be, but with change of meaning, "Beamter oder Beamtin" and "ein/e" would be "ein oder eine" (bold part has to be added when -/- is used). If one would incorrectly treat a -/- like a /, one would get "ein oder e" which doesn't make sense.
"We already have a couple of senses like those at /": Well, one could move some of the senses from / to -/-.
"I'm not sure why they are marked as "proscribed" and "sometimes proscribed"": It could depend on the spelling, and not necessarily on the meaning. "she/he" could be "sometimes proscribed" like "actor/model" while "s/he" is "proscribed".
"Plus if I want to know the meaning of the slash in "Freund/innen", I guess it's more intuitive to search for / than -/-.": It is more intuitive, but intuitions can be wrong. One could add -/- in an {{also|}} or mention it like / / in / ("See also: / / for the use ..." and "See / / for uses of ...").
"! would be a suffix": ! is not added to a word, at least in usual English words or German. In English words like !Kung and in African languages ! might be a prefix or suffix when originally representing some click sounds, but that's something different. "( ) would be a circumfix": Aren't circumfixes only added at the begining and at the end like [circumfix part 1][word or stem][circumfix part 2]? ( ) instead is added elsewhere like in "dog(s)", "(re)write", "colo(u)r". So if ( ) would be some affix, it would be of another type. But well, the POS "Punctuation mark" might be more fitting and then / might be the proper entry. However, one has to differ between "ein/e" and "ein/eine": 1. In case of "ein/e" something has to be added (a single "e" makes no sense there). 2. / in "ein/eine" has the meaning of or and so "ein/eine" is bi-gendered (like "a man or woman"). "ein/e" on the other hand is said to include various sociological genders and is multi-gendered (like "a man or woman or possibly other"). 3. / meaning or as in "ein/eine" can be used elsewhere like in "und/oder" (= and or or, i.e. an emphasised inclusive or).
Keep (as creator) "Freund/innen" is a good example of why -/- isn't simply a slash. It's not "Freund"/"innen", nor is it even "Freund [singular]"/"Freundinnen" - it's "Freunde [plural] and Freundinnen". The slash specifically draws attention to the fact the use of the -innen suffix does not necessarily mark the gender of the friends (It makes more sense for words like Mitarbeiter/innen where the masculine plural is the same as the singular). Similarly, in "Beamt/er/in", it's not "Beamt"/"er"/"in", it's "Beamter"/"Beamtin". It's doing something unique that it only does when inserted into words. All of the examples given by the OP, with the exception of the slash in s/he, are punctuation marks with the same meaning both inside and outside words. (There's also the fact that, for -*- and -_-, you can't use these symbols any other way: you couldn't write "ja/nein" as "ja*nein" or "ja_nein". They only work as interfixes). Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
RFD-sense "2. To clean by rubbing." Undoubtedly true, but this is just unidiomatic "rub off" for a specific purpose. We don't include senses like "to deface by rubbing" either. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Agreed: if the example was "I rubbed the dirt off the old lamp", it would be SoP, but "rubbing off" a toy rabbit (cleaning it) seems a phrase of its own. Equinox◑19:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
A couple of on-line dictionaries 21.431 a include a (sub) sense involving cleaning for rub, usually under a sense corresponding to Wiktionary's sense 2. It does seem an existing sense not limited to rub off. [21][22]Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was going to fix the definition, which is for "flag carrier". When trying to formulate a better definition it began to look more and more like "an airline that is national". --Hekaheka (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
The corresponding definition of flag carrier doesn't convey that the term often refers to a carrier/airline that is typically the sole airline that provides some class of international service and may be government owned or have a special charter giving it a monopoly. I think that the meaning of the term has changed where "open-skies" regulatory regimes now govern. DCDuringTALK15:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Consistent with my long-term stance, a spelling whose frequency ratio to its alternative spelling is very low (or very high, from the other direction) is likely a misspelling. For the above spelling, no frequency can even be determined in GNV. What is your criterion for a misspelling? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't have a criterion or criteria. I'm glad I don't because it seems that your plausible criterion has gotten this one deadwrong. DCDuringTALK16:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete per nom, as a rare misspelling. Of the relatively few books that use "deadwrong", many also use "dead wrong", which suggests that the use of the rare nonstandard spelling is an unintentional error rather than deliberate. Other books only use the term once, preventing such an analysis. - -sche(discuss)05:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Delete [as English] or reclassify as Latin like ec-; and probably sug- et al should be recreated as Latin; for the same reason as Talk:sug-: it seems to me that Etymology 1, the prefix supposedly meaning "out of", is describing a Latin conditional variant prefix and not an English one. Looking at the "derived terms", "evict" is borrowed whole from Latin, it is not "e-" + *"vict"; "egress" is from Latin, not "e-" + *"gress"; etc. - -sche(discuss)16:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Even if this is enough to keep the section, we ought to add information to describe the real situation (that nearly all words with this e- are Latin borrowings). — Ungoliant(falai)16:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Merriam-Webster says ebracteate is from New Latin ebracteatus and enucleate is from enucleatus, and I can find ecostatus and elocatio and enodalis as (New?) Latin words which would account for ecostate, etc. In all of those cases, e- looks like "sug-": like the prefix only existed in Latin. The invocation of "e-" in our etymology of "elamping" seems to be someone's guesswork, qualified by that question mark at the end. "Evacate" seems likely to also have a Latin or other etymon like "evacuate", or perhaps it is a variant of that word. I can't find a reference that explains the etymology of "etypical"; can anyone else? - -sche(discuss)21:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Are there any cases where English uses e- where Latin would use another allomorph of ex- due to the initial sound(s) of the word? Any examples of the suffix being used in an "un-Latin" way would be evidence of it being thought of as an English prefix. —CodeCat21:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Probably delete [as English] or reclassify as Latin for the same reason as Talk:sug- and #e-. "Efform" and "effranchise" claim to have been formed using this suffix, but I suspect they were borrowed whole or represent unusual phonological alterations, since the norm when attaching "ex-" to "f"-initial words is not to switch to "ef-" ("exfranchisees sued the company"). The only English dictionaries which have this also have sug- and hence seem to have different inclusion criteria than us. - -sche(discuss)16:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I find older dictionaries with derive efform from Latin efformo, which is an attested Latin word; ef-form seems like a superficial analysis like in some dictionaries' entries for "suggest" which say it's "sug- + gest". As for RFV, some have argued that the question of deleting an affix (even on the grounds that it does not occur in a given language) is an RFD matter; cf the discussions of -os. Sug- was discussed at RFD rather than RFV. - -sche(discuss)21:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Not a fan of us being an atlas, but we do do place names, and this is one, and not SoP (as explained by Blotto). (P.S. Why did I create it if I don't like the place-name entries much? Because it was in one of Ungoliant's word lists, and I tend to be thorough...) Equinox◑14:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
But the names of counties should not be added in such a way. I think the info for "McClain County" would be better off moved to McClain. As said above, it's not dictionary material, and I've actually NEVER seen an entry with "county" at the end of it that wasn't in the deletion log until now. This baffles me. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Then why don't we have names for every county? Do you think we should include the other tens of thousands of US counties with the name "County" at the end of them? How is that dictionaric? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
We don't have them because nobody has added them yet. Consensus and the place-name policy say that yes, we should have them. Personally I don't care much. Equinox◑15:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep. The "County" part doesn't necessarily come after in English, so I think it's useful to include it. For instance, in Alberta, one can find the "County of Two Hills" and the "County of Vermilion" (neither of which can be shortened) but "Sturgeon County" (which can be shortened to "Sturgeon"). "County" is part of the name (at least in Canada), and it's not always predictable whether it precedes or follows the rest of the name (again, at least in Canada). Thus, it is as useful to have as "New York City," IMO. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't see why this should be included any more than tens or probably hundreds of thousands of other minor place names. Is a dictionary really the place for all these? I think they belong in Wikipedia. Mihia (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't see any harm in what is in most cases a one-line entry. A link can be added to Wikipedia where an article exists; Wikipedia is of course the place for an in-depth description. DonnanZ (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think the question is less about "no harm" and more about what is the purpose of a dictionary. I do not personally think that the purpose of a dictionary is to list potentially hundreds of thousands of minor place-names. Mihia (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
We recently voted on and passed a policy to include counties (see the fifth bullet of CFI#Place names), so if you oppose their inclusion, you'll have to get enough support to overturn that vote. I find etymologies of place names very interesting, so I don't see any good reason why we shouldn't include them in Wiktionay. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Yes, place name etymologies are very interesting. Do these belong in a dictionary? I would say no. It does not bother me enough to campaign to overturn that vote, however. Mihia (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
They may not belong in a regular dictionary, but I think they are perfectly appropriate for a dictionary with unlimited space, a goal to be comprehensive, and no expenses to worry about. As long as someone wants to add them, I say go for it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
What you find uninteresting may be of interest to other users; personally I am interested in place names. How places got their names can also be interesting, and etymology is included in some cases. When creating Mascot I found that the original preferred name was Ascot, but the postal authorities weren't in favour for some reason, so the name was changed. DonnanZ (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't know about Wyang, but my objection is solely to the listings with "County" in the name. I have no objection whatsoever to including county names under their "simple" names, such as McClain in this instance. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I am leaning keep because from what I know (as a non-Usonian) county names in the US are always named with the word "County" included, it's a fixed part of the name. Would McClain County ever be referred to as just McClain? If someone asked which county you are from, would the answer likely be McClain or McClain County? —CodeCat22:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep (oppose blanket deletion) per Andrew, and New York City: sometimes a place name includes the nature of the name (like city or county), and removing that word gives you a name that isn't what human beings use to describe the place. I think this is coming from a misguided idea about what SoP means (and I say this as a deletionist!). Equinox◑20:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I think the title of the category is far too long, and should be shortened to say "US counties". This would make addition of the category to entries much easier. DonnanZ (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
About placenames: note that there are placename paper dictionaries e.g. Dictionnaire des noms de lieux (Le Robert), which are purely etymological. Etymological information belongs to the Wiktionary project. Placenames should be welcome, even very minor ones (but not including placenames which cannot be considered as words, such as Excelsior Hotel or 4th Street). Another important reason to include them is demonyms. Lmaltier (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete. These are inherently encyclopedic, as are all of the newly CFI-compliant place names. At least when the bar was at the state and primary administrative district level there wasn't the potential for hundreds of thousands of worthless entries, only hundreds. - TheDaveRoss12:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
One work that agrees with this view is A Student Grammar of German by Paul Stocker, 2012[23]. This work is just a hint; I do not intend to present the author as ultimate authority on the matter. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep, I think. De.Wikt and the Duden both consider this a prefix, and Michael Lohde, in Wortbildung des modernen Deutschen: ein Lehr- und Übungsbuch (2006, ISBN 3823362119), §3.3.3.2.3, Präfix haupt-, says "haupt- hat zwar seinen Ursprung in dem freien Grundmorphem Haupt (Kopf, leitende Person), ist aber im Laufe der Zeit zu einem eigenständigen Präfix geworden." Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar (2014, ISBN 3110366274) explains that it went from being a prefixoid to being a full prefix as the ability to use Haupt as a free word in the relevant sense declined. Are there references which argue it is not a prefix? - -sche(discuss)20:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep for the reasons Dan gave. Yes, it's derived from the noun Haupt, but these senses only occur when it's combined with another word, so listing them on the noun page feels a little cheaty. Consider that, if the reasons for deleting are considered valid, then all prefixes that have a corresponding independent word would have to be deleted, because they could all be treated as specialised "in compounds" senses. —CodeCat20:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
No one said that compounds have to always be SOP. The question is: does the combined form have an inherently different meaning than the meaning when separate. A sword with two edges is a two-edged sword; a monster with two heads is a two-headed monster; a document with two sides is a two-sided document. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
If you heard a gunshot & somebody yelping or screaming, you can safely assume that somebody’s been shot. If you see a bullet hole on somebody, you can likewise assume that they’ve been shot. Why bother stating the obvious? — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 00:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
IMO "tinkling" in "tinkling bells" is probably not a true adjective. I doubt that "tinkling" is ever a true adjective. Mihia (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
"The piano is very tinkling"?? It doesn't sound right to me. I think the required adjective would be "tinkly". I don't know anything about OED sense 2. Mihia (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
That's why I said it's an attributive adjective, before the noun. "The wind chimes are tinkling" is a present participle, "the tinkling wind chimes" an attributive adjective. That's how I see it. DonnanZ (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I would draw a distinction between what I called a "true" adjective, and the fact that any present participle can be put in front of a noun to modify it, as a regular feature of the English language. I do not believe that participles in the latter cases need separate "adjective" entries where they mean no more than "X doing Y". Where there is a special or extended meaning, yes, but I don't see that with "the tinkling wind chimes". Mihia (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete. I don't agree with having what are essentially brand names unless they really have widespread adoption outside of talking about the product. I gather policy is similar. Equinox◑19:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Maybe the language - and BTW maybe the POS too - is once again wrong? Too often English phrases and abbreviations are created as Latin entries here. This GBS result has "inter alios" in references and is English. So does this GBS result though it uses italics. This GBS result has "[...] a verdict inter alios may [...]". dictionary.com knows "inter alios" too. So maybe it's an English phrase? -80.133.103.613:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Are you implying that "stupidity" and other such things have literal sounds? Because that seems to me to be the only way it could be SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The current definition is very inadequate, not indicating that the phrase is incomplete as it stands, nor what needs to be added to finish it. Equinox◑12:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The reason 1000000 doesn't redirect to million appears to be that because there are an infinite number of SOP numbers, NSOP numbers, which are nearly, but not quite, as infinite, must get the same treatment. Siuenti (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep I am assuming the "actual spelling" target is NSOP. That makes it a legitimate search term and synonym for a Wiktionary entry. We should make it as easy as possible for people who used the term to find the word. If there are no other possible NSOP targets for the title, redirect it. If there are possible targets, which seems unlikely in this case, make a page like 1000. If people think this should be deleted I would like to know if 1000 should also be deleted, and if not why not. Siuenti (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
It seems to me that it would be a good idea to redirect 1000000 to million because it's a plausible and unambiguous search term for an NSOP word. However I know that a great deal of thought has gone into the deletion of redirects to NSOP words in English, possibly related to their near-infinite number, so if you wouldn't mind I'd like you to explain Barney-style why the harm of these redirects outweighs any possible benefit of people being able to find what they were looking for. Siuenti (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think you should read the previous discussions about it rather than asking us to rehearse it all again for you. As noted elsewhere, searching for 1000000 already finds million as the first search result
A user has added this project page to [[Lua error in Module:languages/errorGetBy at line 16: Please specify a language code in the first parameter; the value "{{{1}}}" is not valid (see Wiktionary:List of languages).#Wiktionary:Requests for deletion|requests for verification]]([{{fullurle:Lua error in Module:languages/errorGetBy at line 16: Please specify a language code in the first parameter; the value "{{{1}}}" is not valid (see Wiktionary:List of languages).|action=edit§ion=new&preload=Template:rfv/preload$1&preloadparams%5B%5D=%3Cstrong+class%3D%22error%22%3E%3Cspan+class%3D%22scribunto-error+mw-scribunto-error-c0e4237e%22%3ELua+error+in+Module%3Alanguages%2Ftemplates+at+%5B%5BModule%3Alanguages%2Ftemplates%23L-18%7Cline+18%5D%5D%3A+Parameter+1+is+required.%3C%2Fspan%3E%3C%2Fstrong%3E.%20&preloadtitle=%5B%5BWiktionary%3ARequests+for+deletion%23rfv-notice--%7cWiktionary%3ARequests+for+deletion%5D%5D}} +])
If it cannot be verified that this term meets our attestation criteria, it will be deleted. Feel free to edit this project page as normal, but do not remove {{rfv}} until the request has been resolved.
Ok let me go look. I guess this is only tangentially related but the first search result for 1,000,000 appears to be
Creating 1,000,000
Wiktionary does not yet have an entry for 1,000,000.
To start the entry, type in the box below and click "Save page". Your changes will be visible immediately.
If you are not sure how to format a new entry from scratch, you can use the preload templates to help you get started.
If you are new to Wiktionary, please see Help:Starting a new page, or use the sandbox for experiments. Also make sure your entry meets our criteria for inclusion.
Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted.
You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. The deletion and move log for this page are provided here for convenience. Note that administrator comments older than one year may be inaccurate, as explained in Deletions.
13:37, 17 May 2008 SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page 1,000,000 (Bad entry title)
I wonder why the discussion to delete 1000000 and 1000000000 (which Equinox tells me totally did happen and I believe him implicitly) didn't link to those entries. These are the smallest members of the set I believe, and people typically link to examples in deletion discussions. Maybe they just didn't in this case. Anyway although I haven't still found this discussion, which totally totally does exist, because Equinox is not the kind of person who would send people on a wild goose chase due to not having a clue what he is doing, I will keep on searching and eventually, without doubt, I will find it. Or the people at the help desk where I asked in good faith will find it for me. Siuenti (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I have deleted the redirect that was created. Either it deserves a full entry, or it deserves no entry. A redirect misleadingly implies that only English and the few other languages at the entry for million use this number. --WikiTiki8917:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
If it is an established set phrase used in the stated context, I think it should probably be kept. The fact that it has an acronym, SSC, at least according to the Wiktionary article, might support this. Mihia (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
"A picture of a knife and a fork, used to signal a restaurant." Any picture can be referred to by the name of what is depicted: "there's an apple on page 3"; "that's my sister in the photo." Not lexically distinct. Equinox◑11:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I guess one could be called an alternative form of another, but I'm not sure what the usual practice is. Ask in BP maybe? —CodeCat18:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion
Spanish keyboards come with ñ as a separate letter from n; when such a keyboard is not available, speakers will usually substitute n for ñ (though I've seen some Spanish speakers use n~ instead). So this isn't a misspelling that would occur in any Spanish text unless said text was composed on a non-Spanish keyboard, in which case it wouldn't be a misspelling in the usual sense, but an intentional misencoding. Either way, our search bar will redirect to español anyway, and I don't think we should have entries like this. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds03:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete per the reasons above, to which I add that it fails to meet the criterion in Help:Misspellings stating that “we only accept common misspellings”, and given that users without a Spanish-language keyboard layout are extremely rare… In those cases, we would compromise as “espaniol”, but not “espanol”. ―Born2bgratis (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure. Technically you're right. But the compound form tends to have a different meaning than the adjective. The adjective means "old, of high age", the compound means "not used anymore". Like altes Holz is "old wood", while Altholz is "wood waste" or "wood to be disposed of". It's not clear-cut because the adjective could have that sense as well. Still, I'm tending towards keep, but with a better definition and some notes. Kolmiel (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I created this entry because several times I encountered this expression to not literally mean back of the throat (otherwise it would be SOP). I asked this on Reddit but people there are telling me that it is simply an anatomy error. Anti-GamzDust (There's Hillcrest!) 20:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I have never heard of "nature preserve". I think it is AmE. I would have taken it as an error for "nature reserve". On that basis I vote keep, at least for that one. Mihia (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Not idiomatic. "schaffen" has the general sense of "to get something done, to succeed in something". The "es" is not unusual in German syntax and refers to the following infintive phrase or subordinate clause. It is used that way with many verbs. Sometimes it's obligatory as in "es verstehen zu" ("to know how to"), "es verweigern zu" ("to refuse to"). Sometimes is used alternatively as in "es einsehen zu", "es akzeptieren zu" (both "to accept to"). There are dozens of these and it doesn't make sense to treat them all as idiomatic. One might add usage notes for verbs that are construed that way.
The example phrase is only an elision of the infintivie phrase "an die Spitze zu kommen" (to get to the top). This, too, is a very normal thing in German syntax with verbs of "going, coming, moving". Like: "ich kann nicht mit(kommen)" (I can't come along), "ich trau mich nicht aufs Dach (zu gehen)" (I don't dare to go on the roof). So nothing idiomatic there in my opinion. Kolmiel (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Another argument, if it be necessary: I can make the same kind of elision with other verbs. es versuchen: "Er versucht es nicht mal aufs Pferd." (He doesn't even try getting on a horse, literally: "he doesn't try it on the horse"). Kolmiel (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete, sum of parts. Random note: I'd consider that one example phrase to contain the verb mitkönnen instead of an elision. Nice example of how language isn't definite. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete. This reminds me of the literal verb sense of rain: one of the peculiarities of English syntax is that weather verbs like this always have "it" as their subject, but we don't have "it" in the entry name (of course, one could argue that's only because subjects are never expressed in our lemma form, the infinitive). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Just in defence of them who created the entry. We do have "make it", and "es an die Spitze schaffen" is more or less literally the same as "make it to the top". Just in English it's idiomatic, in German it isn't. Kolmiel (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
"Eye dialect spelling of for crying out loud." Doing this with entire phrases, rather than single words, does not seem wise. Equinox◑19:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I know. But it is simply because it's attested that it should stay. I don't believe in deleting eye-dialect alternative forms just because there are too many of them, unless of course it's something like having Elephant with a definition like # Alternative capitalization of elephant, used at the beginning of sentences. Attestation is key here. I'm not saying that you challenged its attestation; I'm saying rather that because it's attested it should stay. All words in all languages that are not SOP and are attested with 3 valid durable citations should stay. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The great thing about the word mythos is that it implies nothing about whether, or whether not, or to what degree a story is "historically true". So the Bible is definitely full of mythology, and even a born-again fundamentalist should be able to agree. The point is that biblical mythology is SoP. (Nevermind, if there was some double or backwards irony in your statement that I didn't quite get.) Kolmiel (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Whether it's SoP or not, it's debatable whether the bible is mythology or not. A non-believer would say it is, a believer wouldn't necessarily agree. So it may be better to delete this entry as an unproven and disputable fact, not because it's SoP. DonnanZ (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
One of the main components of mythology is oral transmission through many generations, thus the Bible itself is clearly not mythology. However, the definition given in this entry says "the mythology giving rise to and contained within the Bible". This is where we have a difference of opinion on whether the Bible is an encapsulation of pre-existing oral traditions (i.e. myths) or a documentation of events that were supposedly happening at the time (whether or not they actually happened, and whether or not they were accurately documented). But again, this is all irrelevant since as a dictionary we have to decide whether words exist and what they mean, and no more. And that still doesn't matter because this is this still SOP. Delete. --WikiTiki8913:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
This is indeed irrelevant to the question of deletion, but does mythology really imply "oral transmission through many generations"? That's not my understanding at least. I understand it as "transmission", in whatever form, of "mythoi", that is "sets of stories having a significant truth or meaning to a particular culture". It's in this sense that I said that the Bible is mythology. Kolmiel (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
This probably isn't the first thing that comes to mind when someone says "mythology", which carries a different connotation from mythos. I think it often carries a meaning of "being false" from myth rather than "stories of significance" from mythos. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }17:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep, I think. Reference added. It doesn't necessarily mean static machinery, but can refer to heavy items such as bulldozers and earthmovers. The definition needs tweaking. DonnanZ (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
It can refer to static machinery as well. I have added a quote that illustrates this. And how would you change the definition - it is substantially similar to the def in the reference. Kiwima (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The reference should be to the Cambridge Business English Dictionary, not the Cambridge English Dictionary.
"Heavy" agricultural equipment seems to be frequently mentioned, and also mining equipment, rolling mills, printing presses, rotary kilns, etc. General-purpose transportation equipment, plans, ships, locomotives and railroad carts, and cars, buses, and trucks are almost always excluded. For example, a very common warning refers to "driving or operating heavy machinery", which I take to mean "driving (cars or other vehicles) or operating heavy machinery", NOT "driving (heavy machinery) or operating heavy machinery".
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This def isn't SOP, but it's not a particularly accurate or consensus view of what the term means. In general, the debate boils down to what we consider to be intelligence or an unmistakeable sign of the same — but that doesn't necessarily mean that every interpretation of that deserves a definition. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds22:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
It definitely can and often does refer to terrestrial beings. So that must be corrected. I'm not sure if it'll make it SOP, though. Kolmiel (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I came across an interesting one this morning - "railway-fuelled building", referring to development spurred by the building of a railway in the 19th century. DonnanZ (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
French tends to use avoir with nouns that correspond to English adjectives describing someone's condition (cold, hot, hungry, thirsty, afraid, etc.), so it could be argued that such expressions are predictable and transparent if one is familiar with this aspect of French grammar (there are parallels in several other European languages, as well). Still, looking at all the terms starting with avoir, it becomes apparent that there are a number of these. Deleting just one would be inconsistent, and deleting all of them would be rather disruptive. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep. It means "to look forward to", not "to have impatience" or "to have haste", and I would argue that it's more idiomatic than "avoir soif" or "avoir faim". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep, per Sheedy. SOP rules are there to protect us from spam, not to remove useful content. I would go as far as saying that if a knowledgeable speaker of the language has to spend a moment thinking about whether a term is SOP, we should just keep it. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
First, hâte doesn't mean impatience but haste, hurry, rash, precipitation. Only in "avoir hâte" does it mean "impatience", i.e. to languish or looking forward to something. Most importantly it doesn't mean "to hurry up".
Second, while "avoir hâte" is totally legit, using a synonym of hâte instead leads to a non-extant phrase: *avoir précipitation, *avoir empressement. I believe all "avoir" phrases are alike. So it's a definite keep. —Julien D. (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The infinitive isn't a good form to use for measuring usage: it's used more as a citation form for mentions than in sentences conveying meaning. It's hard to say anything meaningful about relative frequency when there aren't a lot of hits for any form. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
oldest occupation looks like a prime example of an idiomatic expression to me. Starting with the fact that prostution is, of course, not the historically oldest occupation. (That's hunter-gatherer.) So definitely keep. One may consider deleting the other two versions, though. Kolmiel (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep "oldest occupation": it is not a semantic sum of oldest and occupation, in which regard it is like oldest profession. The other two items can be argued to be sums of parts with respect to oldest occupation; hard-redirecting them would be an option other than deletion. If I were arguing as a devil's advocate for deletion, I would say that "oldest occupation" is obtained from "oldest profession" by synonym replacement, which makes it a certain kind of summation, meaning the idiomatic semantics would be taken from "oldest profession", but I do not find that argument convincing enough. Interestingly, “oldest occupation”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. finds nothing, whereas “oldest profession”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. finds Merriam-Webster[25] and en.oxforddictionaries.com[26]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Without previous knowledge of Star Trek, there's no guessing what people are referring to when they call outer space the "final frontier". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete as probably SOP, but this should have better been nominated at RFV for non-existence, where it would probably fail, per Metaknowledge. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
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. —CodeCat17:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Keep. Dictionaries often consider wars and other historical events to be under their purview. Why did you nominate this and not World War Two? If you accept that we should keep that one, then you accept we should keep this as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds19:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I chose not to nominate World War Two mainly because of notoriety. I mean, just skim through the list of wars on Wikipedia. For instance, there are hundreds of wars and battles which have taken place on Swedish soil alone. Keeping the discussed term sets quite a dangerous future standard. PS: who can forget the War of the Golden Stool? We definitely need to add this one! --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge Hold on a minute, who said it didn't affect me? I never downplayed the seriousness of said war. It wasn't my intention to bring this up for discussion in order to evaluate the severity of wars and make anyone around here feel bad. I just wanted to bring this to the attention of the greater community before we had a user who intended on adding a list of wars and other conflicts which might be pushing POV. --Robbie SWE (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
delete not dictionary material. If there is a dictionary that includes specific wars as terms I'd like to see it but I haven't come across such a dictionary yet. World War II was not nominated so far and "we have this, so we must keep that too" has never been a valid rationale for keeping any term. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Dictionaries including at least some wars can be found in “World War II”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., including Merriam-Webster[27]. Inductive or extrapolative arguments certainly are used for names of specific entities, governed by WT:NSE, and I don't see why they should not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Jesus, already? I bet anyone here could find three citations from sources that have nothing to do with the Transformers franchise. This is like Beyblade. If I could find citations for that, we can certainly find citations for this. Did you even bother to look? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Then do Beyblade too because no one has opposed it thus far except you. And Transformers is not just a favorite toy of one person, but an extremely popular franchise that has been mentioned throughout books and the media. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Easily attested, at this capitalization. E.g., 2015, Steve Berry, The Patriot Threat: A Novel, p. 304: “It's like a Transformer today,” Stamm said. “It appears as one thing, then becomes another.” bd2412T02:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
* However, I don't think we need separate senses for the toy and the character. The character is just an animated version of the toy. bd2412T02:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
"(French, colloquial) thank you". Yes, it's actually glossed as French. I think we had a similar case with Russian da or nyet once. The fact that French may jokingly be used in English doesn't make French words English words. Equinox◑12:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The fact that it's glossed as French as stated. An alternative option would be merely to remove that gloss and say "okay, merci is English". Equinox◑15:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
If you really mean this as RFV, it is cited. As for the SOP issue, I would be more inclined to consider thick as pig shit and alternative form of the same expression. That said, I found a few other quotes (which I put on the citations page) that use "as shit" as an intensifier for other meanings of thick, which lends credence to the SOP viewpoint. The fact that it almost always refers to stupidity, however, makes me think that the "fried egg" rule applies and those few quotes are an anomoly. (BTW, I was unable to find any other meanings of thick when looking up "thick as pig shit") Kiwima (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep: I am in favor of keeping common similes in general. Without this entry, how would a non-native speaker know one actually says this in English to indicate someone is stupid? With entries like this, I enter Czech blbý jako tágo, and find how to say this in English. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Excrement is not, in fact, stupid, so this is no tautology or SoP.Delete as DCDuring has pointed out the existence of a single entry for as shit. Equinox◑22:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I made both entries two days apart, and the edit summary for the other one says "weird, it got deleted". I probably didn't remember adding the question mark. It's probably a good idea to delete it. —Aryamanarora(मुझसे बात करो)02:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep Several dictionaries have entries for it. OTOH is|isn't|seems|doesn't seem up to (doing something) are pretty common too. DCDuring (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete, it doesn't seem to be as idiomatic as, say, the die is cast is in English. Still, it might be useful to get an Icelandic native's opinion on whether it might be idiomatic enough for inclusion; @Krun? — Kleio (t · c) 17:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete. I don’t really think it is idiomatic. It would generally be understood as a reference to the poem by Steinn Steinarr, and I don’t think it has any other general meaning. – Krun (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, dunno, its usually separable with an object. From Oxford (shower):
1.4 (shower something on/upon) Give a great number of things to (someone)
‘the government showered praise on the young volunteers’
More example sentences:
‘The sane people of the world saw it purely as a piece of comic genius, and showered awards upon the badly-drawn comedy.’
‘He also recognized me, congratulated my brother and showered his blessing upon me.’
‘The functions were not rituals to merely shower gifts on the birthday boy.’
‘By showering favours on Elizabeth's relatives, Edward began to build up a faction to counter Warwick.’
‘Pupils from the Harwich School and five primary schools joined in the custom, which represents the newly-elected mayor showering his blessings on the children.’
‘Hillary forgives him and then Bill showers gifts upon her in gratitude.’
‘It must have certainly helped him to shower benefits on his beloved city.’
‘But his language mistakes were no barriers as kids and elders alike wanted to hear the man as he showered gifts on them.’
‘He showered praises on the union parliamentary minister saying he enjoys the full support of Congress men in the state.’
‘She consumed lavishly herself, showered expensive gifts on her dealers, and promoted Tupperware as part of an affluent suburban lifestyle.’
‘The preposterous image of a benign West showering its goods on a grateful Africa / India / Indochina/wherever would surely have no purchase in a society where informed debate was the daily order.’
‘Muthuraman, who has over 100 films behind him, set the tone for the function, showering praises on Balachander, and the superstar Rajnikanth rounded it off.’ DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
On the contrary, shower with and shower on have different objects (you shower [praise] on someone, but shower [someone] with praise), so the verb’s meaning is not the same. – Krun (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This suffix simply does not exist. It exists in Latin where it was used to form some words borrowed into German, but it can never be used independently from those words. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion
"To eat a light, quick snack". Algrif intended to send this to RFD in 2009 but evidently never got around to it. Note to closer: though this is an RFD-sense, if it fails, the whole entry should be deleted, as this is the only idiomatic sense presently. @Chuck Entz, Kiwima —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds05:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I say delete as SOP. We have "a small meal or snack" as a definition of bite, and people also say "have a bite", "stop for a bite", etc. Kiwima (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep. The only sense of 'take' we have that would somewhat fit this is 'to remove'. This phrase is not as self‐explaining to a foreigner as it might seem to native speaker and it would benefit our users if we kept it. I edited the entry. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Actually, there's a sense for "eat" in take. That would sort of apply. But I am still sympathetic to your point of view that it isn't self-explanatory. — Eru·tuon00:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't have a strong opinion, but maybe we should consider adding fair trial instead. I wrote this entry back in 2012, because it seemed to me that this term might have a well-defined juridical meaning. I admit that I have not done a good job in writing the definition. See:
Is this a valid Chinese word? The anonymous editor who added it mentioned this website in an edit summary, but I do not see the use of isolated English words in Chinese text as necessarily indicating that the words are regarded as Chinese. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep as being the only word the Chinese use for the concept. If the Russians used флаш(flaš) no one would bat an eye, but the Chinese are more familiar with the Latin alphabet and didn't want to transcribe it using Chinese characters and here we are. —suzukaze (t・c) 07:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
While I agree with Wyang, Suzukaze-c asks a legitimate question - how we deal with this type of words, which don't have a Chinese equivalent (yet) but apparently are used in a Chinese context by Chinese. We need a CFI for Chinese. It happens every now and then. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)11:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Anatoli that it would be useful to have a discussion of this issue. Perhaps editors with some linguistic background can explain how experts regard a foreign word as having been incorporated into a particular language. I can't help thinking it is a bit strange that a term in language B can be regarded as part of language A when it is not even rendered in the usual script of language A. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Rfv-sense: Does this term exist with this definition except as an alternative form of SoP liberal + Republican? DCDuring TALK 15:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I had a final look, and all quotes I found with this capitalization refer to the Liberal Republican party (or movement) of the 1870s. As no one else has produced citations with this capitalization in over a year, I am calling this RFV-failed. Kiwima (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Conservative Democrat
Analogous to above. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
DCDuring, these two terms have a set meaning, which encompasses parts (but not all) of the two words they are composed of. Liberal Republicans tend to be liberal on certain issues; conservative Democrats tend to be conservative on the same issues. I can produce stacks of Google Books citations that use the term (for example, search for "Liberal Republican" and civil rights); and I believe the terms should be kept, SoP or no. Purplebackpack89 15:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I doubt it. Facts before arguments. Let's see the citations. DCDuring TALK 16:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
This isn't even an RfV, @DCDuring. This is just and RfD pretending to be an RfV. I will cite the definitions as written. SOP is not a question for RfV and I will not bother trying to meet your off-topic SOP threshold. Purplebackpack89 17:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring I have added citations for LR. Those citations bear out the definition as written. If they pass muster, I'll add citations for CD later. Purplebackpack89 18:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Not one of the three citations offered at Liberal Republican is for the headword. Try again. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
If you're complaining that they are for "liberal Republican" instead of "Liberal Republican", by god, I can just flip which is the primary and which is the alternative. Otherwise, the citations are valid. Purplebackpack89 20:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Virtually no-one, bar a handful of ideologues, is liberal or conservative on every single issue. There are at least two groups of "conservative Democrats" in the US - social-conservative Blue Dogs and fiscal-conservative New Democrats (I can find cites calling both conservative Democrats). Not all conservative Democrats fit the definition given, it seems, and I'd be surprised if all "liberal Republicans" do either. Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I doubt they use LR and CD to refer to people who are 90-10. But you do concede that this definition is a valid description of some people, Murray? Purplebackpack89 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Do I think that there are Republicans who are (relatively) liberal and Democrats who are (relatively) conservative? Sure (as you can see from the citations I linked). Do I think that liberal Republican means anything more than a Republican who is liberal? No. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
But, Murray, isn't your second question an RfD one instead of an RfV one? Purplebackpack89 23:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Following @DCDuring's concerns about headwords, I have moved the primary definitions to liberal Republican and conservative Democrat. I have left the RfV templates on. Purplebackpack89 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
SOP. These "terms" exist, but as no more than collocations of “liberal | conservative” + “Republican | Democrat”. The definitions as given in the current terms at liberal Republican and conservative Democrat are unsupportably narrow, as noted by Smurrayinchester above.
Delete, or move to RFD, then delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the only way to find out if this is SOP is to read every use of LibRep and ConsDem on Google Books and find out if, in practice, the terms are always used the way Purplebackpack89 has defined them. Let's do some researching! Khemehekis (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
This has been sitting here for over a year, because it is an argument that belongs in RFD not RFV. I have cited both entries. I would vote for delete if this were moved to RFD, but as an RFV issue, I must say it has passed. Kiwima (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
This is a misspelling of farvel, which already has an article for both Nynorsk and Bokmål. All relevant information is already in those articles.--Barend (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Those aren't direct translations for "cost a pretty penny" but general idiomatic equivalents of "cost a large amount". bd2412T22:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
SoP, be + in on. It's hard to find it without be, but it seems perfectly possible that it could be used with e.g. wish or announce. Just found this: "Although more entrepreneurs wanted in on their success, only four Top Hats were ever opened." Equinox◑02:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
My first attempt at a definition was not great. I have changed it to say: "A command to begin a police raid or a military operation, especially the storming of a building." I hope that addresses the point. John Cross (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion
Not IMO a prefix. Feels more like an adjective. There's virtually always a hyphen when it's used in longer words, and it doesn't have any particular special meaning beyond the usual noun. Equinox◑19:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I'm not going to argue with those dictionaries. The concept that adjectives must be comparable is rather bizarre. Anyway twin as an adjective can be discussed in the Tea Room if you want to do that. DonnanZ (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Donnanz: Comparablity and gradability are two sufficient conditions in out decision making about whether a candidate term to be considered an adjective. The only necessary condition is that it modify a noun, without which condition the adjective PoS would probably be speedily deleted. We follow the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language for PoS tests where possible. DCDuring (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I would call it a modifier. But it's all good. It's being used as a prefix even if we don't call it one; I'm satisfied with that. The concept that a prefix cannot be a standalone word is bizarre to me. But it's the consensus here, and I respect that. delete :) Leasnam (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
It is not attributive, it's an adjective. It just feels attributive now because the noun is so much more common. Ƿidsiþ08:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I suppose you're right--it was an adjective in Old English (alongside ġetwinn which was the noun). It must have survived unrecorded in ME to this day. I'll update the entry Leasnam (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Examples are easily paraphrased to use twin as a separate word: the plane has twin engines-->it's a twin-engine plane. The fact that it's attached to the following word is merely an artifact of how phrases are treated when used as modifiers.
The matter of whether twin as a modifier is an adjective is a bit murkier. It obviously started out as attributive use of the noun, but it's hard to be sure that it hasn't changed into something else, whether an adjective or a determiner, I'm not sure. There's also the matter of having two as opposed to being one of two: twin engines may be twins to each other, but they aren't twins to the plane, and someone with sisters who are twins to each other but not to them could say "I have twin sisters", but not "I have a twin sister". Chuck Entz (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Nothing in Vertical Forms is semantically different from the normal form. Japanese ー and Zhuyin ㄧ(yī) also are rotated in vertical text, but they don't have their own codepoints, because they don't need them. —suzukaze (t・c) 22:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think the definition at drill could be improved if fire drill is going to be deleted. The current one doesn't include the notion of the practice being done in preparation for a possible future event/disaster. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think that about covers it. I question the parenthetical "especially as a military exercize". Is that accurate as the definition now stands? Perhaps the definition is better off split into two separate senses or subsenses? A military drill and a fire drill don't "feel" the same to me, at least. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep sense 1, I don't see the point in deleting it when the rest of the entry is being kept. That's mind-boggling silliness.DonnanZ (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
I have added references, and it's in my Oxford hard copy ("a practice of the emergency procedures to be used in case of fire"), so it's definitely dictionary material. DonnanZ (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep in mind that we are different from other dictionaries. Regardless of other dictionaries, Wiktionary simply does not allow SOP terms. Notice that, for instance, we don't have Internet meme, though I'm sure many online dictionaries have this probably. standardized test is probably also in a lot of dictionaries. It's not "mind-boggling silliness" to delete the sense; in fact, since fire drill is so commonly used to refer to the school drill, I suggested above that we replace the definition with an &lit. And you just said " I don't see the point in deleting it when the rest of the entry is being kept. That's mind-boggling silliness." So basically you're saying that all rfd-sense situations are wrong. I don't understand this at all. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
I have struck the offending sentence. The truth of the matter is that dictionaries can't call themselves dictionaries unless so-called SoP terms are included, not even Wiktionary. A lot of terms don't lend themselves to be compounded (though some users seem to think otherwise, and Wiktionary contains a lot of ghastly compound words). A check of derived terms for fire proves this point. So you can't delete every SoP entry. DonnanZ (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
SoP and a wrong definition. It refers to an alarm system that was triggered by something, eg. a malfunctioning alarm worked but there was no security problem. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)02:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
You could have speedied it yourself: any time an entry is the only hit Google finds on the entire web, it's safe to just delete it as a protologism. The Norwegian IP is a further (but less reliable) clue. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Trivially attestable, so I've moved -sche's post from RFV here to RFD. There were two senses originally in the entry, one for "soldier of Christ", which is patently SOP, and one for the Miles Christi religious order, which is patently not Latin (and which I have therefore removed). Looking at actual attestation, however, I see that some writers have used miles Christi or miles Dei to refer not only to crusaders or other soldiers motivated at least nominally by Christianity, but to all Christians in general. I presume that this metaphorical usage is not exactly lexical, however. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds03:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
The first sense is in the wrong case form anyway, it should be at miles Christi if it is to be on any entry at all (and I don't think it should be). The second sense is encyclopedic imo and not dictionary material. Delete. — Kleio (t · c) 17:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
It could also be an English entry under a wrong language header, cp. this older revision with its likely English references and English see also terms: this revision. For English it wouldn't be SOP and as an English entry it doesn't need Latin inflection. -84.161.7.22621:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
The Chinese entry can stay as it passes the Lemmings test, being in the 现代汉语规范词典. The English entry is yet to be created. It is a term used in political science. See the Wikipedia entry. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Request for undeletion (cp. WT:Sysop deleted#What if I think the deletion was wrong?). SemperBlotto deleted the entry with "Bad entry title" (SemperBlotto's personal opinion?) as reason and without having a RFD for it and as far as I know without moving it or anything else. Note also that SemperBlotto did not remove links to the entry QVES from other entries, likely SemperBlotto did not even check the "What links here" page, thus leaving links to the by SemperBlotto deleted QVES in other entries. The word was cited as "QVES" from the senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus from CIL and L&S s.v. quis spells it "QVES" too which was added under ===References===. By the cite it is attested passing WT:Criteria for inclusion as Latin and especially Old Latin is a Limited Documentation Language (LDL) and not a Well Documented Language (WDL). The entry also does not fall under WT:Page deletion guidelines as it was no rubbish or garbage, not misspelled, no protologism, no self-promotion, no licence or copyright violation, and it does not fall under WT:Sysop deleted#Bad entry title as the title wasn't "bad" as it was no misspelling, did not contain a formating error (like two spaces instead of one), and was no error by not knowing wiktionary's case sensitivity (of which one is often reminded by "WARNING! The title you are using may be wrong. Remember that Wiktionary is case sensitive."). In the contrary, the entry was useful, cited and came with an example and with a translation. And it was a real example, not just a mentioning of places where it was used like in some Greek entries, and it was cited from a reliable durable archived source and not from an internet page which includes wiki projects like wikipedia, wiktionary and wikisoure. Furthermore, besides attestation and the reference, there are other reasons why this spelling makes sense: It emphasises that the word is old and from an inscription, and it conceals the vowel length. In Classical Latin it could have been *quēs (qu- with -ēs from the third declension), but in Old Latin it could have been different; see e.g. the Greek third declension plural ending -ες (-es) and Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-tōr with -tor in (Classical) Latin, but with the reconstruction *-tōr and Greek -τωρ (-tōr) which means before or in early Latin the ō was shortend to o which means there were sound changes before or in early Latin. In wiktionary however "ques" without macron would mean that the vowel is short but that's not necessarily correct and I don't have any reference to support this, or any other vowel length. The only shortcoming the entry might have had, was that the inscription contains abbreviations and errors like "VTR A" for "VERBA" and "SENATORBVS" for "SENATORIBVS" and I didn't bother to give other references - which do exist - for non-abbreviated forms or for corrections. A non-reliable source for it would be w:Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus#Text which compared with CIL and wiki's picture also contains unmarked corrections like "BACANAL" (line 3) for "SACANAL". -84.161.7.22621:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latin (and, as far as I know, Old Latin) entries are entered in lowercase, not in all-uppercase (except in cases like SPQR); I'll restore and move the page. Note that Old Latin has its own language code here, itc-ola. - -sche(discuss)02:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
It now has the requisite 3 citations for the "cringeworthy" sense; I have added a second sense (cited from 1917!) that I found while searching. Equinox◑01:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Arsenal is a single word, unlike A.C. Milan. These entries were added by an anon who just linked the definitions wholesale to English Wikipedia. Given that the construction of this term is the same as the English equivalent, this fails WT:CFI. The same also applies to K聯賽, J1聯賽, and J聯賽. Nibiko (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Of size is itself an example of a syntactic construction of broad application: A woman of renown, nothing of substance, a cross of gold. DCDuring (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Done. I redirected it to the normal ellipsis (…) and added a character box for the vertical ellipsis in the horizontal ellipsis entry. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)