text:
Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2006/09

=Kept=

Kau neva no di yus of im tel til di butcha kot it of
Someone added the speedy delete tag to this, but we've had it for a long time. I think we should keep it. Robert Ullmann 16:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A slight variation in transliteration gets one Google books hit . bd2412 T 16:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmm...no non-dictionary hits on ordinary Google (or Metacrawler) though. Does anyone other than that book's author use it?...though I must say it does have a certain appeal...maybe there's a more usual spelling.  If it is kept, our list of languages suggests the language should be Jamaican Creole rather than just Jamaican. --Eng in ear 18:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Creole? I think it's Jamaican Patois. A creole is formed by a mix of languages, no? bd2412 T 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't have to be a mix to be a creole. Its name in ISO 639-3 is actually Jamaican Creole English. --Ptcamn 01:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Ok. Fixed that. bd2412 T 02:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps WT:LANG needs revisiting. I've forgotten where to find the link to ISO... --Eng in ear 19:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

One month later, and nobody's voted to delete this or in fact even proposed as much. Verdict: keep. DAVilla 16:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

䬠
Yes, that is a link. It is a character in the Unified Han range with an entry created by the NanshuBot that contains only the hex Unicode value (the example is 4B20). The rest is the blank "template" (form) for the Han charcters.

There are dozens of these, you can see them at the beginning of Category:Japanese kanji sorted under ? (a real question mark this time ;-) because they lack radical/stroke information.

They represent real codepoints, for real characters, but characters without OS support; not in the characters sets that preceded Unicode; presumably because they are seldom if ever used.

In any case, these entries are "blank", can they go away? Robert Ullmann 21:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Rather useless to have them in the dictionary if we are technically constrained from even showing the characters. Delete them all. bd2412 T 22:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I only looked at a couple of them, but I didn’t have any problem seeing them. I suppose they are probably rare and unusual, but I don’t see why they should be deleted. I looked, for example, at 䰗. To me it looks very much like 鬮 / 阄 (jiū), lots, to draw lots. I’m not sure it’s the same character, but I think it could be categorized according to its radical 門 / 门 instead of "?". —Stephen 22:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * You can see them (assuming you have the language script installed) whether or not they are of any value...I would say not. No information other than the unicode value would be like having "0041" for "A" and nothing else.  I say delete until they have meaningful content. - TheDaveRoss 22:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * FYI: The New Gulim font, or a version of it at least, seems to be supporting the glyph of 䬠|the character in this heading. I can see those characters on my browser Opera with no problems, and my MS Word chooses the font to display 䬠 (again, with no problems). --Tohru 03:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't see the harm in letting them be so long as that's the layout we're using. Someone will want to add content, and better that they should know what's requested. DAVilla 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The lack of OS support (in various cases) is just an observation; the question is do we want to keep entries that are blank except for the Unicode hex value? There isn't any harm, except that we would hardly keep dozens of (say) English language word entries that consisted only of the word? Robert Ullmann 15:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

 * we should try to find/add information. Concur with DAVilla. RFD withdrawn. Robert Ullmann 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Unihan database has information about these characters. 䬠 is falling rain or snow. --Ptcamn 14:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If they can be defined, vote withdrawn. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for completeness, these entries turn out not to be from NanshuBot; they were added by a user filling in some of the code points skipped (presumably because the Unihan DB had no useful information). I've stashed them in Category:CJKV characters with little information and put that in with things that need attention at some point. Robert Ullmann 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

stepfamily
Not sure if this can be salvaged. Transwiki to Wikipedia? --Connel MacKenzie 06:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikified and simplified. Wikipedia already has an entry. SemperBlotto 13:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

blood serum
This is a non-sense article.--Williamsayers79 08:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Made it into a real one. SemperBlotto 08:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten (but wouldn't the plural be blood sera)? bd2412 T 15:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Kept. — {admin} Pathoschild 01:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

noseeum
The picture. Aedes aegypti is neither a gnat nor a noseeum. it is the yellow-fever mosquito. Andrew massyn 20:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to use VfD for that! Just delete the pic. bd2412 T 03:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Kept. — {admin} Pathoschild 01:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nihilartikel, nihilartikel
This neologism originated as a hoax on the German Wikipedia. It has never been observed before and can be found only in mirrors and copies of, and references to the Wikipedia articles, with only a few non-notable exceptions. The English Wikipedia entry for Nihilartikel has been changed accordigly, most content of the old article has been moved to Fictitious entry. See the discussion on w:en:Talk:Fictitious entry. Cacycle 02:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with you. This reminds me of Wonderfool’s antics. Delete Nihilartikel and also nihilartikel. Or at least mark them as hoaxes and neologisms. —Stephen 02:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 * But it is wonderfully self-referential! Can we keep it? (Please, I found a kitten, can I keep it?) Robert Ullmann 23:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Only as Wiktionary jargon, at best, and I doubt that includes the German... unless it has independent citations like any other word. DAVilla 22:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I cant comment on the German. Would native German speakers make a decision.

The English nihilartikel is also up for rfv. I would like to keep it. It has been formatted to reflect a neologism and Wiktionary jargon. It seems to be gaining acceptance as a word, and I think it is one that should be accepted (Be bold remember). However, I am moving this discussion to RFD for consensus. Andrew massyn 06:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * English nihilartikel now cited: independent usage seems to be growing (starting May 05 or earlier) with significant archived blog use. --Eng in ear 09:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm treating this as an RFV. English passed, keeping German as referent. DAVilla 17:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cancel that. Deferring RFV, keeping as wjargon. DAVilla 17:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

just ducky
Really? SemperBlotto 20:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 * definition given is: Often heard in the sentence "Well that's just ducky" meaning "That's just great" but sarcastically.  - I use this term all the time and it's always sarcastic.. however, since detecting sarcasm in writing is difficult, finding something to cite to verify the sarcastic sense is another matter entirely.  --Versageek 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not so hard to find. --Connel MacKenzie 02:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, ducky is an adjective meaning "great"; personally, I associate it with the 1920's, but I'm not sure if it was current before then. An equivalent might be swell.   Like many faddish superlatives, once it's past its prime, it tends to be used in a mocking or ironic sense.  I'm not sure it should be written up that way, though, unless it's irrevocably become the primary sense.  Perhaps a usage note?  Also, it should definitely have the modifier removed.  Compare just great or really swell or totally rad.  Jeffqyzt 02:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I think those last three examples would meed meet CFI, easily. --Connel MacKenzie 02:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Connel, by "meed", did you mean "meet" or "need"? I can't tell whether you're for or against...and if so, whether it's for or against inclusion of this phrase, or the current CFI.

 * In any case, surely this would lead to massive proliferation of entries if we added (only to take the case of ducky) just ducky, not so ducky, pretty much ducky, always ducky, etc. In the specific case of "just ducky" (which can be used either ironically or not), surely just is only being used in its standard adverbial sense, and is no differerent than in the phrases just awful, just peachy, just great, just fine, etc.  In other words, I am arguing that the phrase is not idiomatically distinct from the combination of just + ducky. Jeffqyzt 13:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * "Meet", meaning that those three should probably be here. The 'thin-edge of the wedge' argument is quite invalid.  Wiktionary relies on citations to determine if certain combinations are used a certain way.  So "pretty much ducky" and "always ducky" would not only meet tremendous opposition on the grounds of common sense, they'd also be mostly unverifiable.  Your examples "just awful" and "just fine" clearly are not idiomatic, while the other two most certainly are.  --Connel MacKenzie 08:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Not sure when is the appropriate time to move this over to the Tea Room...anyway, here's some examples that seem to me analagous to "just ducky" (in its ironic sense.) Note that some of these are sarcastic/ironic, and others are "straight."

 * Q: "How are things today?"
 * A: "Just fine. I blew a tire on the way to work, and I've been stuck in meetings since I arrived."
 * A: "Pretty much ducky. ..."
 * A: "Just awful. ..."
 * A: "Really really swell. ..."
 * A: "Absolutely catastrophic. ..."

 * Also, here are some cites of "pretty much ducky":

 * 1995: Walter Olson, Juries on Trial
 * Indeed, The Wall Street Journal's news coverage of the law...subscribe[s] to the view of the world that sees the great majority of court cases as being resolved rationally at modest expense...and, in general, everything about contemporary American litigation as pretty much ducky (except that maybe there isn't enough of it).

 * 2005: Lauren, this hat will eat your soul on atypically.knit
 * I'm knitting a triple strand at the same ~2.5 sts/in that the Shannon knits at, and everything is pretty much ducky so far.

 * 2006: animate_mush on animate_mush's journal
 * Good fun. And tomorrow I'm flying up to SF to see my other favorite guy, so things are pretty much ducky.

 * I'm not really proposing the "wedge" argument. I'm merely proposing that just is being used in its standard adverbial sense, and the phrase is merely the sum of its parts without additional idiomatic implication.  Or are you arguing that the phrase "just ducky" is always sarcastic? If it's the latter, here are some cites of non-sarcastic use:

 * 1994: David Reid, Sex, Death and God in L.A.
 * I'd love to say that in Santa Barbara Max and I went to a motel and things were just ducky because that's my idea, really, of how things should turn out.

 * 2000: Barbara Weltman, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Starting a Home-Based Business
 * This all sounds just ducky: built-in concept, built-in products, advertising, and systems.

 * 2003: Kim Grant, Lonely Planet Florida
 * For a brief period after a hurricane, as if to add insult to injury, conditions become just ducky for a tornado.

 * If anything, I'd say that it's the adverb just that has the preponderance of usage in ironic situations, irregardless of what adjective it's paired with. So...I'm basically wondering what your rationale for specifying that this particular combination of adverb + adjective should be defined as a term is, verses any other combination.  Or should they all? (P.S. if this is becoming irrelevant to the question of RFV, please send me a message and I'll shut up or move my discussion to the appropriate venue. Jeffqyzt 19:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Does it matter that it has not been given a definition - or even formatted? Παρατηρητής
 * Not really. Why go to the effort of reformatting it if it may be deleted?  Now that it is more likely to stay, it will need attention.  --Connel MacKenzie 08:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Specifically, I don't think this meets WT:CFI. Jeffqyzt 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I would support its deletion, but the argument would have to be transferred to WT:RFD . DAVilla 21:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Does it need to complete RFV first? Or can I create an entry in RFD at the same time?  Or does an admin need to do it, since it's currently still under RFV? Jeffqyzt 23:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It's a judgement call. Just don't impede the obstruction of injustice, or something like that. DAVilla 21:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it has idiomatic meaning, but only from context I agree that just is a modifier, but it is not a set phrase. Take the following sentences and compare them. Four different meanings, each derived from context.
 * I have a duck in my pond and a ducky in my bath.
 * 'Ello ducky. Arn't you looking beautiful.
 * Thieves broke in. Life is peachy. Everything is ducky!!! HA!
 * Look Johnny. See the duckies.

To Rfd then. Andrew massyn 11:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Andrew, you've proved the point that just ducky is idiomatic, unlike ducky on its own. The third 'example' you have listed just above is the only one remotely close to the topic, but doesn't match the wording of the entry being requested for verification at all.  With all these citations amassed, why did you move this to RFD from RFV?  I see only one person seriously opposed to keeping the entry (because it is not an idiom by his definition) yet quite a few citations here with exactly that idiomatic use.  Perhaps moving to RFC would be more appropriate.  --Connel MacKenzie 02:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all. My objection is to the word "just" which is irrelevant to the meaning, which is derived from context. The definition shoulc come under "ducky" only. Andrew massyn 08:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Your example provided above shows that in some strange dialect, someone has used the term without "just" preceding it.  But the normal construction is just ducky, not ducky.  --Connel MacKenzie 09:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I have no idea where you dug up your citations for pretty much ducky, but in comparison to just ducky your construction obviously could only be an error or a nonce. Note: also compare this to this (the latter pointing directly here, to this conversation!  --Connel MacKenzie 09:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Connel, I'll agree with you that "just ducky" is the most common construction. However, I disagree that the meaning is only conveyed by that particular construction, for the reasons I've outlined above.  In this case, just is one of a series of modifying combinations that can be applied.  The combination just ducky is a modification of ducky with the adverb just.  Nothing more.  The meaning of ducky remains intact whether it is modified by just, not so, always, quite, etc. (all of these have Google Books hits) or even when it's not modified at all (also has Google books hits, try "was ducky".)  You're not going to find a wealth of uses, though, because the word is just not that common.   I'm not opposed to a usage note at ducky indicating its most common construction, though. --Jeffqyzt 13:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I disagree. I do not think the label "idiomacy" restricts a set phrase to only one idiomatic form.  To me, "just ducky" is an order of magnitude more common than "ducky" as an independent form.  While it can be manipulated into a free-standing form, the common construction is "just ducky."  What argument of yours above says that "just ducky" isn't a set phrase?  --Connel MacKenzie 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No clear consensus, closed without deletion. Now taking suggestion and votes of approval for the just ducky test: (1) Is the phrase more common than the same meaning for one of the component words as found in isolation, outside of that phrase? or (2) Does the phrase more commonly carry a sarcastic meaning rather than the literal? Does "just ducky" qualify under either of those rules, or is it more of a combination? DAVilla 17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

'cos
--Connel MacKenzie 18:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Impossible to verify with a straight Google search, as hundreds of thousands of false positives come up (mostly relating to cosines); however, searching for the phrase "'cos I said" yeilds nearly 20k hits, and 14 book hits:
 * Tony Brown, Jimi Hendrix (2003) p. 24.
 * ‘I was down in the Village, it was right before I quit this R&B group, you know, ‘cos I said, ‘well come on down to the Village so we can get something together,' ...
 * S. C. Williams, Religious Belief and Popular Culture in Southwark C. 1880-1939 (1999) p. 133.
 * ... it was shining on the chamber and I screamed ‘cos I said, ‘look, it's Jesus here!' and we fell down the stairs we were so frightened.
 * Rick Delbridge, Life on the Line in Contemporary Manufacturing(1998) p. 54.
 * Angle's response was,  'Cos I said so'.
 * Note that many hits cite "cos" (in "cos I said so") without the initial apostrophe. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Should that be ’cos rather than ‘cos? Unless the editor made that mistake too, that is. DAVilla 06:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Right now it's at 'cos - I'd put different apostrophe styles down to a spelling variation. bd2412 T 13:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

 * rfd removed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Kau neva no di yus of im tel til di butcha kot it of
Someone added the speedy delete tag to this, but we've had it for a long time. I think we should keep it. Robert Ullmann 16:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A slight variation in transliteration gets one Google books hit . bd2412 T 16:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmm...no non-dictionary hits on ordinary Google (or Metacrawler) though. Does anyone other than that book's author use it?...though I must say it does have a certain appeal...maybe there's a more usual spelling.  If it is kept, our list of languages suggests the language should be Jamaican Creole rather than just Jamaican. --Eng in ear 18:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Creole? I think it's Jamaican Patois. A creole is formed by a mix of languages, no? bd2412 T 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't have to be a mix to be a creole. Its name in ISO 639-3 is actually Jamaican Creole English. --Ptcamn 01:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Ok. Fixed that. bd2412 T 02:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps WT:LANG needs revisiting. I've forgotten where to find the link to ISO... --Eng in ear 19:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

One month later, and nobody's voted to delete this or in fact even proposed as much. Verdict: keep. DAVilla 16:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

TEOTWAWKI
This seems like a pretty arbitrary acronym... - TheDaveRoss 03:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But still has its own article in wikipedia? \Mike 03:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - tens of thousands of Google hits, 20+ Google Books hits. It's attested and has a set meaning. bd2412 T 03:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or move to rfv. --Connel MacKenzie 21:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Kept. --Connel MacKenzie 19:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Probably a moot point now, but just FYI to my knowledge it dates to the late 80s, as the abbreviation of a R.E.M. song title. It is in sufficient "hipster" usage that one of the San Francisco weekly indy newspapers (The SF Weekly or the Guardian, I forget which) used it in a headline, a couple of years ago, under the assumption that it would simply be recognized.  Took me about 20 sec. or so, but I did, so I guess the assumption wasn't that far off, at least if your intended audience is SF & Silicon Valley thirty-somethings. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 08:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

算数する
User Gliorzio added RfD tag to this entry, did not add it here. Probably is a fine word; this user has been steadily vandalizing Japanese entries by blanking information (removing hiragana, unlinking rōmaji, etc) for over a year. AFAIK, this user has never added information to the wiktionary. (yes, if you go back at least a month or so, and look at the non-Japanese entries) Robert Ullmann 18:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, 算数する is a good page. I think Gliorzio wants to delete it simply because it’s the sum of its parts. If this were the Japanese Wiktionary, he’d have a point. It is often difficult for native speakers of other languages to grasp the different needs and requirements that English-speakers have with regard to the foreign language entries. Gliorzio seems to be editing for a native Japanese readership, but that does not serve an English audience very well. I encounter this same problem with other languages. —Stephen 20:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The entry has a couple of things in its favor:

 * 1) User:Izumi5 has a consistent track record of quality Japanese entries.  He is also a native speaker.
 * 2) The use of the word in this way can be found via Google.  Granted, it is not an impressive number of hits, but still enough to attest to its usage.

I'll leave it to the native speakers to debate the "correctness" of using the term as a verb (Perhaps those hits are all examples of incorrect usage).

Question, what is current Wiktionary thinking with respect to suru (to do) verbs. Most Japanese dictionaries do not have separate entries such as word suru. Instead, they list the word, then indicate that it may be used as a verb when followed by suru. In other words, Wiktionary should have an entry for 勉強 (to study), which includes 勉強する in the entry, but 勉強する should not be a separate entry. I don't think it necessarily hurts anything to have it as a separate entry, it just seems unnecessary if we already have 勉強. A-cai 20:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I stand corrected. My Seiko Japanese electronic pocket dictionary does list 勉強する as a separate entry. A-cai 20:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 * In general, we list all the forms of a word as separate entries. Even if the Japanese dictionary does not, we would still want the suru form, particularly because it is often a verb form of a noun stem. We also want all the conjugations at some point ... Robert Ullmann 21:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I've updated WT:AJ to remove the reference to redirecting pages. (the wikt hasn't redirected forms for a long time) and give examples of referencing (e.g.) suru and na forms to their stem forms. Robert Ullmann 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Removed rfd. —Stephen 13:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I think we don't need to delete it, but need to be careful about the rareness. I left more on the talk page. --Tohru 05:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

 * My general feeling is that we should make -する verbs (except perhaps especially common ones) redirect to the noun form. They are all Japanese, so there is no danger of conflicting with other languages, and there's no reason, in my mind, to keep them at separate entries.  They should not be considered merely the sum of their parts, however.  For that, Japanese has +をする, which is really the sum of two parts (noun + verb).  The +する form is actually, as far as any text I can recall goes, is actually considered a single term, and it's no more the sum of its parts than, say, drinkable or antiwar, which have entries in probably just about any dictionary.  For the record, the 電子辞書 that I carry with me has +する as it's own sub-entry underneath the noun term--separate from the noun, but subordinate--which is basically what I'm recommending. Jun-Dai 00:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Kept. --Connel MacKenzie 19:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

=Delete=

flog the mule
All "flogging the mule" hits save one are in lists for terms for masturbation, and all "flog the mule" terms are also. The two books.google hits are both for literal mule floggings, and not supportive. - TheDaveRoss 14:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I knew what this was going to say before I read the definition. Perhaps we should have a generic entry for the universal understanding that "[verb indicating torsion or abuse] the [animal]" = masturbate. E.g. person #1 "I think I'll go home and smack the walrus". Person #2, "yeah, I'm going to go punch the penguin myself". Hmmm... perhaps not. bd2412 T 15:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Consensus is delete. This conversation can move to WT:RFDA in a week.  --Connel MacKenzie 18:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

demopath
No onelook, no legit Google, no books.google, WT:LOP perhaps. - TheDaveRoss 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved it to WT:LOP in case it is (or, so that it can be) deleted... it was too interesting a word to simply let it die. Beobach972 02:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

homophobophobia
Move to WT:LOP and drop it, even if the sole reason for doing so is this line from the entry "It is ill formed etymologically as equally as the word “homosexual”." - TheDaveRoss 02:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh no, but doing so would be homophobophobic! (If you can't tell, I'm not being serious; lol.) Beobach972 03:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

 * This belongs maybe on BJAODN, except that it isn't even funny. Since the contributor was so adamant about removing the RFD tag, I've deleted it, redirected and semi-protected it (for a day or two, I suppose.)  --Connel MacKenzie 03:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Er...the word seems to have gone missing. Thats rather queer dont you think? Andrew massyn 19:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

W.A.N.D.A
(Note missing trailling period) Encyclopedic. Transwiki to Wikipedia (if it meets the 'notability' criteria there.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A pilot fish called WANDA
--Connel MacKenzie 23:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

FUDIE
Google (english only) I read through the google hits and the only ones I found which used this term were Wikt and some lists of defs. - TheDaveRoss 18:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 16:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

yeard
Plausible, a possible protologism. Jonathan Webley 12:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

 * One google hit besides en:w, searching on "yeard hairstyle" almost all the hits are mispellings of "years" with "hairstyle" coincidentally elsewhere in the page. This entry is a copy of the en:w entry made 5 days ago. (and immediately tagged for deletion) Robert Ullmann 13:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

shizzo
No meaning was provided by the author, although an example sentance would suggest 'shit' was the intended meaning.

google hits are primarily names, blogs and forums, even Urban Dictionary doesn't have this one. --Versageek 05:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Solid carbon dioxide
complete crud..

 * Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 15:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

IBTL
This entry looks like it should be in Urban Dictionary. Could be well meaning vandalism of sorts?--Williamsayers79 08:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Stufadoo
zero google hits.. --Versageek 23:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

stufado is yummy. Παρατηρητής

stupilicious
only a hand full of google hits, mostly blogs/forums & myspace type pages --Versageek 18:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would've guessed stupendilicious, but then, that doesn't meet our criteria either. --Connel MacKenzie 18:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

braekdanc
{{alternative spelling of|} michei jachson is the beast man in a world.
 * No entry for braekdanc. DAVilla 06:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Do you suppose he meant breakdance, breakdancing? —Stephen 04:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

shannon tweed
Is this someones name or a plant?--Williamsayers79 13:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I can only find refs to a person. It doesn't seem to be a type of tweed cloth.  Recommend .  What sort of plant did you mean? --Eng in ear 14:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Capitalized it is a person. Deleted. SemperBlotto 15:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

rulitis
A protologism perhaps? Jonathan Webley 12:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly that. Added to list and then deleted. SemperBlotto 13:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

соаз
No search results for either соаз + татарча or соаз + tartar. Beobach972 16:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is real word, but more frequently spelled as саз.   Eric Utgerd 13:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To Andrew massyn: KEEP both spellings. Thanks. Eric Utgerd 07:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have now located verification for the spelling саз at the Русско-татарский краткий словарь, therefore I recommend that the spelling саз be kept; however as no verification for the spelling соаз has been found, I recommend that it be deleted, and this discussion archived. Beobach972 20:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Two different recommendations. I can't decide. To rfd. Andrew massyn 13:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

 * No evidence of use in Tatar texts. Deleted'. —Stephen 15:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

сабид
I can find no Tartar attestations. Beobach972 16:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you can see placed references. Because of this, please remove RVF. Eric Utgerd 02:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To Andrew massyn: KEEP. Thanks. Eric Utgerd 07:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My recommendation is that this word (сабид) be deleted because it fails to meet Wiktionary CFI : a) no Tartar-language usage has been provided (the citations being in Russian), and the citations furthermore b) do not convey meaning. Beobach972 17:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Two different recommendations. I can't decide. To rfd Andrew massyn 13:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The references are nothing more than personal given names in Russian documents. I cannot find this word in any Tatar texts. Delete. —Stephen 15:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 21:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

hoar'd
I can find no usage of this in Tartar. Beobach972 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is just another way of etymological spelling Cyrillic харт, Latin hart.  Eric Utgerd 13:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To Andrew massyn: KEEP. Thanks. Eric Utgerd 08:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The Tartar section of hoar'd has been moved to the more accurate transliteration / Latin spelling hart; therefore I recommend that hoar'd be deleted. Beobach972 21:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Two different recommendations. I can't decide. To rfd. Andrew massyn 13:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Tatar харт should be linked to from hoary, but hoar'd is not a word. Deleted. —Stephen 15:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

googledork
Previously listed on RFV, but indicated that it passed incorrectly. Only two books.google hits convey very different meaning than definition currently given (which has previously been indicated to be a copyright violation.)

This needs an expidited RFV (due to incorrect removal) and RFDing. --Connel MacKenzie 19:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "googledork" was coined by the author and originally meant "An inept or foolish person as revealed by Google." After a great deal of media attention, the term came to describe those who "troll the Internet for confidential goods." Either description is fine, really. What matters is that the term googledork conveys the concept that sensitive stuff is on the web, and Google can help you find it. The official googledorks page lists many different examples of unbelievable things that have been dug up through Google by the maintainer of the page, Johnny Long. Each listing shows the Google search required to find the information, along with a description of why the data found on each page is so interesting. —This.
 * A further discussion on the term.[] Andrew massyn 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I can understand the assertion that this is perhaps a slang term. If it is, then certainly durably archived printed references can be found for it.  For example, slang drug terms see many, many occurences in print.  But something as obscure and narrow as this 1) hasn't entered the English language, 2) Is not likely to be looked up (as the term as defined can only be used in a miniscule, narrow context.)
 * RFV tag restored. --Connel MacKenzie 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly think the term can be expanded. As far as I have seen, it has two or possibly three meanings: As cited; A neglegent webmaster who allows personal information to be revealed; A person who opens his computer to the world by sheer ineptitude. As for it's existence, I have no doubt that it exists and accordingly removedthe rfv. If necessary it should be moved to rfc or to the Tea Room. However in my opinion rfvpassed. I shall check google books, but will not be disapointed if I dont find it there yet It is bound to make its way into print.
 * More discussion. Andrew massyn 18:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Two book results: one for googleDork and one for googledork. Andrew massyn 18:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Page was vandalized again today. Talk page still listed bogus references.  Redirecting and protecting.  --Connel MacKenzie 06:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I see deletion as a bit bold but not out of line, if only because I agree that something a little stronger and more convincing would be nicer as proof. Redirection and protection: see below. Disagreement is not vandalism! DAVilla 18:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Connel wants to ditch it, I want to keep it. To rfd for consensus. Andrew massyn 08:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The page seems to be missing. Andrew massyn 08:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that the quotations on the talk page should not have "disappeared". Whether the process clarifies this I don't know, but it should always be possible to reincarnate the page with the right citations. To me that's more an effort of accumulation that has to build on previous effort. What would be the appropriate place if the talk page is not kept? DAVilla 17:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The move to --error link target-- was also a bit strong and unnecessarily pre-emptive. The RfV tag may be/probably is appropriate given the current discussion, but insistence on its removal should be met with protection, not with page deletion, unless with some certainty RfV failed, in which case deletion alone, and not protection, should be enough. DAVilla 18:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

 * While what you say sounds reasonable, I don't think it is. One affect of leaving bogus pages on Wiktionary is that mirrors propogate the term.  This intereferes tremendously with determination efforts.  The page was bogus to begin with; the citations added were never citations from a durably archived source...unless, like google, you consider Wiktionary itself to be a durably archived source.  The practice of leaving orphan talk pages also needs serious review.  One excellent contributor has been very helpful in archiving this page, however, insists on retaining the "failed" entries where they seem to be causing secondary problems.

 * In this particular example, the long time between it accidentally non being listed here, caused additional mirrors to report it as a seemingly valid term. One question about the term I still have is what its nature is; is it a nonce, or a trendy-pop term.   The profferred citations suggest the latter, but since those web pages don't exist, it is hard to verify even that.

 * I'm not sure that moving the conversion now, to RFD is any more benefical than discussing it right here. --Connel MacKenzie 18:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Basic English Word List
Deleted. See discussion 07:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:*Wiktionary
Deleted. See discussion. 11:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:dpp
Deleted. See discussion. 11:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Indefinitely blocked Wiktionary accounts
Deleted. See discussion. 11:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:wikipedia/languages
Deleted. See discussion. 11:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Davilla/samples
Deleted. See discussion. 11:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dangherous/Another WOTD suggestion
Deleted. See discussion. 11:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dangherous/Counselling n psychotherapy terms
Deleted. See discussion. 11:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dangherous/Main Page
Deleted. See discussion. 11:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dangherous/New proverbs
Deleted. See discussion. 11:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dangherous/Sandbox
Deleted. See discussion. 11:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category: Characters of the Bible
Deleted. See discussion. 11:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:English words affected by prescriptivism
Kept. See discussion. 00:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphans from Template split
'Templates' were originally called 'custom messages' and intermingled with the interface messages in the [ MediaWiki namespace]. In June 2004, these were moved to their own [ Template namespace] in three steps by a script designed for the task (see [Foundation-l Template initialisation script]). It then updated all pages to use the new template namespace.

However, a byproduct of the process is that the 'custom messages' still exist as unused and orphaned redirects, even though some of the templates they redirect to have since been deleted. These clutter a few specialpages, the uppercase-to-lowercase redirects combined with the MediaWiki-to-Template redirects to make a mess, and some of them are broken redirects. Tim Starling (developer) confirmed on IRC that these are no longer used anywhere; since there's no use for them since early 2004, there's no point spending time maintaining them ever after.

I propose the templates in the MediaWiki namespace be deleted, along with any broken double redirects from the later capitalisation redirection. MediaWiki custom messages is a very incomplete list of these; a more complete list can be obtained from Special:Contributions/Template namespace initialisation script. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 05:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. Delete. —Stephen 10:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clear explanation of the history of these. Delete.  --Connel MacKenzie 17:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that everything in here? — Vildricianus 09:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. Those 272 pages should take less than half an hour to delete, once I get around to it. // [ admin ] Pathoschild ( talk / map ) 03:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * deleted. - TheDaveRoss 01:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


text:
Talk:a.

 * 22 May 2005: Requests for deletion (kept)

RFV discussion: May–July 2023
Rfv-sense" abbreviation of azure. I haven't been able to find this. (The usual abbreviation is az.; bare a. seems like it would be ambiguous with argent.) - -sche (discuss) 19:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:a.


text:
Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2006/07

=Kept=

Zuñi
Zuni already exists and has the Spanish there. --Allamakee Democrat 01:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems like a valid alternative spelling. Kappa 02:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Kept, directed Zuñi to the modern Zuni. — {admin} Pathoschild 02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
Sorry to do this, but I don't think this should belong in Wiktionary. I was tempted to RFD Wiktionarian too, but didn't. --Expurgator t(c) 17:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Then Oxford English Dictionary will also have to go. And what about all these bands? The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, ... — Vildricianus 17:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure about these. Are you nominating them? Could we define clearer criteria? Davilla 17:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Bah, yes, no. Feel free to discuss a bit :-). Dunno, later perhaps. — Vildricianus 17:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedic. Delete after transferring contents to SOED, which can stay. Davilla 17:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Um, what? There is more than a little lexical difference between SOED and Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.  SOED should indicate what it stands for, the majority of the content should be at the long form.  Keep.  --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay then, like this? ASCII, AAFPRS Davilla 17:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, I think so. It might be considered a little unreasonable to go through them all, but this does match the tradition of having separate entries for each spelling, inflection, etc.  --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep If a short form meets the CFI all longer forms should automatically meet the CFI if they can be attested as used. --Patrik Stridvall 21:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Of course keep. In fact, we should have short entries for most good dictionaries and encyclopedias - and not just the English language ones. SemperBlotto 07:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete; it has nothing to do in a dictionary. Neither has the neologism Wiktionarian. Jon Harald Søby 18:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete. Belongs in Wikipedia. I don't see why we should have "short entries for most good dictionaries and encyclopedias". As for Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd, they should be deleted too. And in theory, the page for Wiktionary should be deleted, but I'm sure we can make an exceptio for that, seeing as its OUR GODDAMN DICTIONARY! And The Beatles should also be deleted, but again, we cn make an exception as they're, well, The Beatles! --Dangherous 18:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete. A dictionary is not a list of products or publications. — Hippietrail 21:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Turns out to be a borderline one. I say delete, per HT again. —Vildricianus 15:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep, as per the three previous discussion on the topic. (We need these archived better!)  --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

 * That's funny -- in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary down below, Davilla claims that the result of previous discussions has been "delete". Who's right?  (And where are those other discussions?) –Scs 22:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I only meant as per comments in previous discussion. I'll revise. Davilla 15:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

 * You've registered a first "keep" above as well. I take your second to be meant only as additional supporting comments. Davilla 18:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete We are not listing names of books. That is for Wikipedia if they have the energy. Andrew massyn 18:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

--Dangherous 09:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC). Already had my say. --Dangherous 09:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm relisting Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. I'd like to have another word about it, here on this page. Not just a word, no, I'd like to hear some good arguments for having these "short entries for most good dictionaries and encyclopedias". Why should we do so, and not, for instance, have "short entries for popular US Senators" ? Because we are a dictionary? Then we should as well include "short entries for popular wikis", because we are a wiki. PS: I don't want to hear 'delete' or 'keep', I want arguments. — Vildricianus 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 18:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep no consensus to delete.
 * 2) Keep we should list all Senators, not popular ones.
 * 3) Keep relevance to this subject (writing a dictionary) is unquestionable.
 * 4) Keep this nomination is a specious relisting.

 * What? Specious relisting? I've been soliciting decent arguments for weeks, without having heard a single one. Check the various Beer parlour, CFI and RFD topics before calling this "specious". Of course there's no consensus to delete, like as there is no consensus to keep. Can you (in a neutral way) determine from the above whether to keep or delete? And what? Senators? Oh my. — Vildricianus 12:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, a specious relisting. As even Richardb pointed out not too long ago, if there is a single objector, the entry can be kept, unless the community as a whole is getting upset by it.  As this one is pretty evenly split, it is clear that there is no consensus to delete.  There is no such thing as needing consensus to keep here on Wiktionary.  The decrepit annihilation of something useful is not simply the opposite of permitting something harmless to exist.  Do European Senators have a minor role, compared to those with the same title in the US?  --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was about to quip that senators in English-speaking European countries ruled universities and nothing more; then I remembered that English is one of the official languages of Eire. On checking Answers.com, I found "the Senate or Seanad Eireann (60 seats - 49 elected by the universities and from candidates put forward by five vocational panels, 11 are nominated by the prime minister; members serve five-year terms)", so I suppose there are a few, but in the UK we hear of US senators much more often! --Enginear 09:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Any objections to removing the RFD tag from this (and related) entries? --Connel MacKenzie 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 * No objections. —Stephen 23:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 * No objection. --Eng in ear 16:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Please remove the tag and let it fly free. SemperBlotto 16:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you all. Removing tags.  --Connel MacKenzie 17:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

bacon-faced
Only cites for it are stuff like "Francis Bacon faced Middle England ...", oh, and an 1811 slang dictionary if we accept that as a reference. --Dangherous 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete . Speaking of the 1811 dictionary, the definition for this term seems to be copied and pasted right out of it. The page should be deleted until it is, at least, phrased in original wording.  And "Full-faced"?  What does that mean anyway? o_0 –Gunslinger47 03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep. Is in the OED, and so is "full-faced". Expanded the article. Ncik 13:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep, considering Ncik's improvements. Good job. –Gunslinger47 03:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kept. — {admin} Pathoschild 16:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

kaiserdom
It's been on rfv for a couple days. It's a German word, yes, but not an English word. Unless someone wants to redo it correctly, it should be deleted.--Allamakee Democrat 01:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep The OED says: "Kaiserdom=Kaisership"; and then: "Kaisership, the office of emperor, the rule of the Kaiser". Note that the German word Kaiserdom has a different meaning: In German, the three letters dom are not the English suffix -dom, but are a separate word, Dom (meaning cathedral; so Kaiserdom=the Kaiser's cathedral). Ncik 13:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Kept, I added an English definition from the Dictionary.com Unabridged, v1.0.1. — {admin} Pathoschild 17:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

biblicist
Bad form.

 * Made into a proper entry - so keep. SemperBlotto 07:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Considering SemperBlotto's recent edits, it is perfectly acceptable. –Gunslinger47 03:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Struck. bd2412 T 06:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wookiee
Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. The term wookiee has no meaning in common language other than referring specifically to the fictional Wookiee race. It does not belong in a dictionary. –Gunslinger47 01:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * You just gave its definition. It's pretty common and is also used attributively (suggesting excessive body hair or a tendency to react violently). As somebody said in WT:RFV recently, real words can have imaginary referents, e.g. "aether", "tooth fairy", and "unicorn". Rod (A. Smith) 01:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Where is the line drawn? Which terms do not belong in a dictionary?  Is Wiktionary just "Wikipedia in a nutshell", taking all terms on Wikipedia and summarizing them in three sentences or less?  Now, I'm just taking the position of a reasonable man, but it seems that what we're talking about is common language.  If a word has not entered into common language, and has meaning only within its own context (ie, Star Wars in this case), then it should not be included in Wiktionary. –Gunslinger47 05:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * You're right that we need to draw a line somewhere. WT:CFI defines that line. In the case of "wookiee", a quick browse through http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=wookiee+-star shows that the term easily qualifies. It's quite common outside of the Star Wars movies. Rod (A. Smith) 06:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Such as "I bent my wookiee"? -Ralph Wiggum If you look through the supplied search results, you'll see that even though there's no explicit mention of "Star Wars" in the text, the vast majority of the authors are still, never-the-less, explicitly referencing the fictional race. Most of the matches appear to be from names.  Either blog names or user handles.  It is very difficult to find people using the word to relay meaning, such as furriness or aggressiveness.  And even in these rare cases, the meaning is relayed via a comparison - similies or metaphor - not by the word's own merit. Saying "Cut your hair, your turning into a wookiee." doesn't make the term qualify for addition any more than saying someone is "Just like George Bush" qualifies George Bush for an entry.  To qualify, it needs to enter common language, such as the word bushism. –Gunslinger47 08:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I think I understand your argument, but I disagree with it. The sentence "Cut your hair, your turning into a wookiee" is an excellent example of the word "wookiee" entering the language. We don't exclude words because their referents are in fictional works. We only include or exclude them based on WT:CFI. Rod (A. Smith) 16:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Hrm… it seems the grounds for inclusion on Wiktionary is a lot lower than I would expect it to be. So, basically any string of letters at all that bears meaning, and any string of words that mean more than the sum of its parts, should be included in Wiktionary?  Making even Saiyan a viable addition?  Should we make an entry for every one of the Pokémon while we're at it? :( –Gunslinger47 20:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I happen to agree with [Gunslinger47]. I don't think we can offer any non-encyclopaedic definition of the word. Widsith 08:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Existing dead-tree dictionaries do, in fact, include entries for specific individuals and fictional species. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language includes an entry for Bush, George Herbert Walker (the latest edition is from 2000; I'm sure Bush, George Walker will be in the next edition), and the Oxford English Dictionary has an entry for Dalek:
 * A type of robot appearing in ‘Dr. Who’, a B.B.C. Television science-fiction programme; hence used allusively. Also attrib. and Comb.
 * --Ptcamn 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Request Retracted. I retract my nomination.  There'll never be a consensus to delete at this rate and my resolve is wavering. –Gunslinger47 04:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You might have better luck with some of the entries which are linked from this one. Kappa 23:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Struck. bd2412 T 06:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A look at the Symbols
I have several items that i found on the symbols page:

%s - this link just goes back to the wiktionary main page

$1 - What makes this on any different then $2 $# or $4

'80s - It is the only one, no '70s or '60s

Also, all the numbers 1-99, can't they just be confined to one page intead of defining them by the number previous and the one after.

Thank you.

 * %s - Names that begin with % are not accessible as far as I know. $1 - I don’t see anything wrong with having this, especially since it would be written differently in different languages ... the French would write it 1 $. '80s - I don’t see anything wrong with having this. As for the numbers from 1-99, yes, we need them on separate pages because of the translations and, in some cases, idioms. —Stephen 15:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Strong Keep for %s. Look here for details: Wikipedia:Talk:%s.  I use Firefox quicksearches frequently.  No comment on the others that you've nominated, however. –Gunslinger47 21:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment. Well, sixty-eight might qualify for removal because it is just the sum of its parts, sixty and eight.  That said, numbers like sixty-nine should be kept, as they have meaning beyond that of a single number. –Gunslinger47 21:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for $1, because it is not merely a sum of money, but describes an object - a one dollar bill; for this reason, we should also have $2, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100, $500, and $1000 (even though the last two are defunct). Consider this use of $100. bd2412 T 03:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What does $1 say that $ and 1 do not say separately? Unlike the idiom two cents, one dollar bill doesn't say anything more than the sum of its parts (as far as I know).  This is not an encyclopedia. We're here to describe words, no that which words might refer to. –Gunslinger47 03:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't write either "do you have $" or "do you have 1" and convey the same meaning as "do you have $1" - this is even more clearly true with larger denominations - if I say, "I have a $50 - can you make change?", it does not mean that I have an unspecified collection of bills that happens to add up to $50; it means I have one fifty-dollar bill. Thus, $1 and $20 and $50 and the like have two senses each - one being that amount of money (which, granted is sum of the parts) and the other referring to the specific piece of currency. bd2412 T 13:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hrm. You don't quite seem to get what I mean by "one dollar bill" having no more meaning than the sum of its parts.  I guess "separately" should have been "together" or something to make my meaning less confusing.  But, anyway, moving on:  You're saying that "$1" is typing a short hand for "$1 bill" or "one dollar bill"?  I've never seen this.  Can it be attested?  I'm doing a few searching on Google right now, and I can't find a single instance where someone refers to a $1 bill without typing "bill" afterward. –Gunslinger47 21:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On further research, I found a case where people are using it. Consider the phrase "Do you have change for a 'hundred?"  As you can see, Wikipedia already notes this use of the word "hundred", as well as twenty, ten, one and whatnot.  Searching the Internet for "change for a $X" does show several people using the $X to refer to the X dollar bill without being followed by "bill", though they are in the minority.  At best, this is a form of lazy stenography, at worst, a common grammatical error.

 * Incidentally, typing "Do you have a 1/one?" and "Do you have a $/dollar?" do actually mean the same as typing "Do you have a $1?" Interesting how that worked out.–Gunslinger47 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * True - I've found one writer who says "I have a $20, dated 1929" (writer also has "a $50 from 1928"), but that's about it for uses that don't have "bill" afterwards. However, I will argue (to no particular end) that one dollar bill can not be the sum of its parts as it is susceptible to multiple meanings - could refer to a charge received for something (e.g., I don't use the phone much, so I got a one dollar bill from the phone company). Or, it could refer to a bill (as in a duck's bill) that cost a dollar. But it is universally understood to refer to the littlest dead president... bd2412 T 02:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying "This month, I only got a one dollar bill from my phone company." is literally accurate, if confusing. –Gunslinger47 03:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ...and why is it confusing? bd2412 T 04:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because one normally recieves a bill for payment from a phone company, yet a one dollar bill is usually a set phrase. (Subject/object mismatch.)  --Connel MacKenzie 16:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Right - ergo, keep. bd2412 T 16:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't see any of these as serious deletion nominations. The numbers issue has been discussed several times now.  No we don't allow entries one through infinity but we do have entries for key numbers, as well as all that are specifically idiomatic.  We do need entries for the other decades (with the preceding apostrophe) most of which are absent, now.  --Connel MacKenzie 16:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

kept. — {admin} Pathoschild 17:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

reekin o' pish
Kept. Discussion moved to talk:reekin o' pish. DAVilla 22:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Moved back per recent archival standardisation. — {admin} Pathoschild 17:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I
Latin section only. Remove section after identifying copyvio source. Entire section (Latin) is bizarre and encyclopedic. --Connel MacKenzie 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To the extent it is non-encyclopedic (ie a sentence stating that it can be used as a consonant as well as a vowel in some languages) surely it is translingual rather than just Latin. (Or is the Greek I a different character, and perhaps there are no other examples in the Roman alphabet?).

 * While we're at it, shouldn't I in the sense of interstate be English rather than translingual? --Enginear 11:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Latin section transferred to Wiktionary:About Latin. --EncycloPetey 05:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries about moving or changing, but it's not a copyvio, I wrote that 7 Jan 06 (having consulted the perseus L&S and an old 1868 dictionary I've got - not made clear I guess). The idea was to explain the different typography i vs j (both seen, both valid). -- Kevin Ryde 01:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Closed, Latin section moved by EncycloPetey. — {admin} Pathoschild 18:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

plamph
plamph - To go the same way as pwarmpf. And for the same reasons (scrolling up 5 sections should do the trick). Me no like--Anonymous editors 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Strong keep for all the same reasons. --Connel MacKenzie 23:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I say keep it if we find three attestations, or whatever the rule was. Here : A cite of a dictionary :

 Usage :  Beobach972 05:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Try again with . No link exists. --Anonymous editors 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmprf, silly broken link. And I can't tell if Connel is being sarcastic or not. Nevertheless :    Beobach972 05:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider this common usage personally and judging from the refs from Beobach972 it would seem I'm not wrong! Anywho are we OK to leave this in now? And do we need to put in the references or a note in the talk page of the article to stop further rfv,s?--Williamsayers79 09:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we remove the rfd now and put a comment on the articles talk page to say it passed rfd?--Williamsayers79 10:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Kept. — {admin} Pathoschild 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

pratique
Copyvio? --Connel MacKenzie 08:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Kept, replaced with proper content. — {admin} Pathoschild 19:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

asdf
--Connel MacKenzie 19:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete. What he means is referred to as Greeking, and any number and combination of letters will work just as well as asdf. In fact, in the graphics and publishing industries, snippets of Latin text are normally used for Greeking. —Stephen 16:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Actually, asdf has more significance than your average bit of keyboard hammering.  Like 47 is the quintessential random number, asdf can be seen as the quintessential bit of Greeking, trailed shortly by fhqwhgads in terms of notoriety.  Oh, and speaking of which.  Using the Wikipedia:Pokémon test, if fhqwhgads stays, asdf stays. However, asdf itself has no intrinsic or even acquired meaning in language.  It is, by definition, meaningless.  Regardless of that, if the page is improved, then it should be kept.  It is conceivable that someone might come here to look up its meaning, or lack thereof.  –Gunslinger47 01:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've improved the article. It should be more acceptable. –Gunslinger47 02:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Consensus has NOT been reached, it’s poor form for you to claim that it has. Delete. Any number of any combination of letters and symbols may be used for the same purpose, in any language. These four letters certainly are NOT the quintessential form of qwerty or anything else. The quintessential qwerty is qwerty. All the rest is random nonsense. —Stephen 03:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * It would indeed be poor form of me had I claimed that there was a consensus, but I did not. You must have read my edit summary for  and become confused.  Please try to keep a civil tone. As for the second part of your reply, again you have me mistaken.  I claimed that asdf was the quintessential (ie, the best, most well known example) of Greeking, or of complete, nonsensical typing.  It stands above other nonsensical typing due to usage alone.  Google can find about 6,800,000 instances of its deliberate usage.  In light of such apparently widespread usage, it is easily conceivable that an Internet user might come to Wiktionary looking for asdf's definition. –Gunslinger47 03:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Here you stated in your Edit Summary remark that "consensus has been reached." An internet user is just as likely to come looking for 09yu, ar8y, q4y-q, 4pagae7, 69y, iae8, 8sigh, ioiyzxcjkkljhpoituq, euiu, or jlkkl. —Stephen 04:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * That link you pointed to shows that I was speaking under the subcategory.  By stating that there was a consensus to keep biblicist, I am not claiming that there is a consensus to keep asdf. –Gunslinger47 05:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Um, hold on a second. We are NOT Wikipedia.  We have our very own criteria which does not match Wikipedia's at all.  Notably, notability has no play whatsoever, here.  --Connel MacKenzie 05:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We're   NOT  ?!? *ahem*  Yes, I realize that.  My above discussion with Stephen regarding asdf's widespread usage was in direct response to his statements, and were not specifically meant as an argument to keep.  My argument to keep is essentially this:  The four letters arranged in a word-like manner are widespread enough that people might wish to look it up on Wiktionary, and... umm... That's pretty much it.  Asdf is meaningless.  Asdf refers only to asdf.  The only substantial thing we can give readers is pronunciation and a soft redirect to the Wikipedia entry for further reading.  Oh, and despite changing from Weak Keep to Keep, my position on the matter is still tentative. –Gunslinger47 22:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Keep. bd2412 T 04:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The question is, do we need both this and fgsfds (see below)? —scs 16:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep. asdf has entered semi-common knowledge. However, fhqwhgads and fgsfds I have never even heard of before. If we are going to delete something, let it be those words. --Dictionary Geek 00:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 * User:Pufferfish101 you are not well known here. Obscuring your username as "--Dictionary Geek" discredits your statement(s).  --Connel MacKenzie 18:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Closed, no consensus. I'll start a new discussion for this class of word (meaningless but of encyclopedic relevance) in general, since the discussion centered around that issue. — {admin} Pathoschild 04:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

sparrow hawk
See sparrowhawk
 * Keep. They are different birds (I have corrected definition). SemperBlotto 07:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Any difference in pronunciation? Would seem to deserve a usage note. DAVilla 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1), The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, and WordNet 2.0 all have both birds named sparrow hawk and no definition for sparrowhawk (see entry). Sparrowhawk seems to be in usage too, though; perhaps we can make it a see instead entry? — {admin} Pathoschild 06:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To add to the confusion, OED2+ Online lists only sparrow-hawk, but includes both sparrowhawk and sparrow hawk in cites for that entry, so suggesting they're all for the same creature. --Eng in ear 15:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is normal OED practice. It assumes "a b", "a-b" and "ab" are all the same "word" and lumps it all together. SemperBlotto 15:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've merged the content from sparrowhawk to sparrow hawk, leaving the former as a variant link. The latter seems to be the most common form. Is that an acceptable solution? — {admin} Pathoschild 15:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Kept, merged. — {admin} Pathoschild 04:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

googleblock
First appeared January 2006. Keep/delete? — Vildricianus 19:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC) I don't think it's quite the same as delist. It's delist with a particular intention, which would explain the lower number of results. I'd heard techy people use this word, the link is the only place I've seen it used in print.
 * Redirect . It's an obscure synonym for "delist", which oddly doesn't have an entry yet.  Searching for "google delist" will give you more than ten times the results as googleblock or "google block".  It should be redirected and/or merged into "delist" or a more suitable term. –Gunslinger47 01:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirects are practically never used for definitions, and certainly not in a case like this. If it's legit it gets its own page, even if it means the exact same thing. DAVilla 20:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize this now. I was recently aware of your semi-policy. –Gunslinger47 01:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Kept as no consensus with no discussion in four months. Please submit a fresh nomination if you still feel this should be deleted. — {admin} Pathoschild 04:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Persil
Do we include brands of British laundry detergents in this free online wiki-based dictionary? I'd've thought not. --Anonymous editors 23:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we include brands of American carbonated drinks... Kappa 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we include brand names because people come across them while reading and want to know what the word refers to. Only last night I was reading a book in which two detectives ate Krispy Kremes - I think they are doughnuts / donuts, but it would be nice to know. SemperBlotto 07:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You sure you'd want a dicdef for them? I'd think the 'pedia page would suffice.  The trendy KK donuts started in only a couple years ago.  Very much the craze, even still.  I do like watching their machines make the donuts.  Some decades ago, a similar boom happened for Dunkin' Donuts (Dunkin' Donuts.)  I'm rather hard pressed to work up a definition for either, though.  --Connel MacKenzie 07:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Major name brands such as Persil and Coca-Cola that have a significant history, certainly. Minor brands that are here today and gone tomorrow, such as "Body Shots" spray fragrance for men, not. As for Persil, it is unknown in the U.S., but we sometimes hear it mentioned in the British comedies that we see on PBS, and even read about in German literature (e.g., Pimmel). We need it explained to us. —Stephen 09:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The line needs to be drawn somewhere, unless Wiktionary is to become a database of company names as well. In my opinion the best place to draw it is where the term has become generic, meaning for instance not only the Coca-Cola brand softdrink but any softdrink in general. Normally these would appear in lower-case, like "xerox" vs. "Xerox". The reason for drawing the line here is that no company would want to admit that its product name is generic, and so this avoids the flood issue. 59.112.42.174 08:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So to continue this thread of reasoning, has Persil become generic, meaning any brand of detergent? DAVilla 21:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The slippery slope argument is not grounds for deleting a term. We are discussing "Persil", not every trade mark in existence. Where the line is drawn (and it already has been) becomes apparent the more of these terms are RFD'd. — Paul G 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Kept as no consensus with no discussion in three months. Please submit a fresh nomination if you still feel this should be deleted. — {admin} Pathoschild 05:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

=Deleted=

kestral
It's a kestrel. My bad. --Allamakee Democrat 08:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - deleted SemperBlotto 21:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

technotheistic
Originally put on RFD with following comment:
 * Google shows only one running source that seems valid. - TheDaveRoss 01:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

—Vildricianus 21:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Moved back to RFD. Andrew massyn 14:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly a protologism? Andrew massyn 14:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Rubbish - Delete. Παρατηρητής
 * deleted - TheDaveRoss 22:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

fire alarm, fire alarm pull station, fire alarm control panel, fire alarm system, fire alarm horn, fire alarm strobe and pull the fire alarm
Sum of their parts. Gorrut 13:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Inasmuch as "fire alarm" seems to be accumulating one-word translations, I would say it is worth keeping as a translation article, at the least. The rest might also be worthwhile as well, if they have specific legal or technical meanings, with the possible exception of "pull the fire alarm". --Dvortygirl 15:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

 * In principle, I agree, but actually the modern legal definitions of fire alarm control panel and fire alarm system (in UK and, I'm fairly sure, US) are somewhat different from the definitions given, since they are shorthand for fire detection and alarm .... Archaic alarm systems did of course rely on manual (or rather visual and nasal) detection followed by manual activation, so the system and control panel dealt with alarms only.  However, such systems are now obsolete (or at least obsolescent) and in current usage the unchanged phrases refer to systems which include automatic detection in addition to manual activation.  Pull station and pull the fire alarm are not in UK use.  Are they actually used in US only as (literally) defined, or have they morphed, like fire alarm system, to now idiomatically describe more modern methods of manual activation, eg break-glass pushes? Enginear 01:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, keep fire alarm, to distinguish it from an alarm made of fire, see e.g. Warning beacons of Gondor. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 18:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep all and block User:Gorrut for a day for POINT/silly disruption. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is hard to tell what is going on here. Gorrut's last dozen+ nominations here have met higher than normal resistance.  But, on the other hand, they were almost all nominations of entries created by sockpuppets (and most of the more questionable submissions of which have already been deleted...such as the ridiculously large numbers.)  Perhaps these nominations are much more legitimate than they seemed at first.  --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep fire alarm, delete the others. Widsith 08:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep fire alarm but I make no comment for others.--Jusjih 02:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep fire alarm of course, and pull the fire alarm as metaphoric and apparently regional in use. "fire alarm system", "fire alarm pull station", and "fire alarm control panel" are sum of parts unless they are or have ever been considered legal jargon. Delete the others. DAVilla 21:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No legal jargon so far as I know, or have been able to determine. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 17:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Struck fire alarm, deleted the control panel, system, and strobe, articles... fire alarm pull station, fire alarm horn, and pull the fire alarm still seem unsettled. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 17:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Closed, opening new discussions for the remaining pages. — {admin} Pathoschild 16:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 16:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Jezzer
No traffic since 2005, and it's a def, not user space. It's also badly catted. I won't remove the cat but an admin can.--Allamakee Democrat 00:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if you must. The urban dictionary has an entry for birkin, which it claims that it is specifically British police slang for running off from the pumps.  I heard this practice referred to as "splash and dash" before.  I can find suitable reference for neither term on Google, so it would not meet the criteria for inclusion assuming it was a regular article.  Which it is not, thus I say "don't bother".  Strip the category and be done with it. –Gunslinger47 00:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * If either "to jezzer" or "to birkin" exists in British slang, it can be moved there and cleaned up. Otherwise, Delete. —Stephen 01:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * It is a User page, and therefore can have whatever crap it likes (more or less). Weak keep (I shall try to research the meaning sometiome) SemperBlotto 14:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Weak Keep. The category is now stripped. There is no longer any point to deleting it, as it's a user page. –Gunslinger47 20:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete. Bad contributor, created user page to bypass WT:LOP, where this may belong (if not the deletion log only.)  --Connel MacKenzie 18:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. — {admin} Pathoschild 17:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Landenhof
Encyclopedic entry needs transwiki'd to Landenhof. (Isn't there a template to indicate that?) Rod (A. Smith) 04:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's spelled "Lindenhof", actually.  Lindenhof is a hill between the Limmat and Sihl rivers in Switzerland.  It has a little bit of history, but the term is not idiomatic in the English speaking world, so there's little point to having it in a dictionary.  Further, the article in question is not about the historic site, but rather it's regarding a school for 150 kids. It is highly unlikely that this would pass Wikipedia's notoriety tests, so moving it there would be pointless. –Gunslinger47 04:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted SemperBlotto 14:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Pricked
The word is fine but it has a page that has no definition, just search it.
 * Already deleted. — {admin} Pathoschild 17:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yawiktionary
Spam, right? --Connel MacKenzie 18:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Referenced -pedia entry does not exist. Deleted SemperBlotto 14:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes spam? There are no ads on the page. I happen to be the creator. I would like to know what constitutes "Spam" ?

Yawiktionary exists, and will continue, and was inspired by my love and enjoyment of Wiktionary, and my wish to extend and change it. Information is wants to be free. Yogiudo

 * Several parts of your story don't add up. Specifically your claimed love for Wiktionary.  Is English your native language?  Why don't you create an account here?  You made one over at Wikipedia:User:Yogiudo less than two months ago, I see.  You also created this account after you began the Yawiktionary project.   Why don't you apparently know the first thing about discussion on talk pages?     Well, anyway.  That aside...

 * What Blotto was referring to is linkspam. While you may not have any advertisements at the moment, MacKenzie suspected that the article was created for the soul purpose of promoting the website.  That may or may not be true, but at this point, it doesn't much matter.  The word Yawiktionary has no literary importance.  It fails the criteria for inclusion in every sense. –Gunslinger47 04:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 * While my RFD nomination may have been unduly harsh, the term nominated does not seem to meet en.wikt:'s CFI at this time. Pages we have here for outside projects are few and far between, and exist only because they weren't caught earlier on.  If we allow the ones we "like" then we'd end up overwhelmed with a page for every website that exists.  Yet none of them are likely to be considered "dictionary material" even under the best circumstances.  I consider an entry "spam" if it seems to be using Wiktionary to promote a particular website.  --Connel MacKenzie 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, no problem. I registered the project with gnu, see if they take a bite or not. Maybe one day if the project gets legs then it might be included. I'm working away on it w/ a few others in my spare time so we'll see if it gets anywhere. By the way, I just did a ton of small anonymous edits and didnt create an account until later on. I had an account way back, but I moved to Asia for about a year and didnt do much with it so I think it was deleted, or I forgot my username etc. I dont like to use wiki formating because it is ugly in my opinion. English is my native language. I didnt know this was going to be so personal. And / or that I would have to defend myself in this kind of way. I've been programming for 6 years, so what. I'm not the best programmer in the world, no way. I never even HINTED at anything remotely like that. Now I'm on the defensive. Ok fine. I'll go away now. I wont come back. And I wont edit anything anymore to save you the trouble. Obviously I'm not welcome. I wish you all well. On a final note, the word "Wiktionary" should be removed because it "it seems to be using Wiktionary to promote a particular website."

Redirect pages from Old Prussian word migration
Hey guys and gals, I do hate to pester you admins so much, but could you delete these words (be careful to delete the majuscule letter Redirect pages, not the minuscule pages that have real enties) :

Tāws, Tāwas , Mātē , Gērwē , Dīmens , Līdi , Zemman , Wūla , Sunis , Rīki , Rīdā , Rettawi , Rikīs , Rettawis , Retenīks , Renti , Raps , Prālī , Plīns , Mārtjan , Madla , Damrawa , Dimstis , Dragges , Drastus , Dubnas , Dājā , Dāki , Dāngs , Dīliniks , Bilā , Dīwans , Dags , Dīlin.

They're redirects created when I migrated the Old Prussian common nouns from majuscule to minuscule. EncycloPetey and I were disacussing deleting them, but he seems to be a little busy and hasn't been on in a while, so I'll ask here. Beobach972 00:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Normally we do not delete redirects from caps to valid lowercase entries. Why do you want to delete them? —Stephen 15:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, in that case, keep them. I don't mind whether they're kept or deleted; I just asked because EncycloPetey said Wiktionary frowned on redirects. Beobach972 22:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 * We do delete a lot of redirects, but only when the spelling is different. When entries are capitalized differently the redirects are generally encouraged (since most words in English can be capitalized for numerous reasons...therefore a cut-n-paste lookup needs to find the correct entry.)  --Connel MacKenzie 16:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted per recent practice, now that a script automatically redirects users to the correct case. — {admin} Pathoschild 17:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

bigsmall
This word was invented by Toyota for a recent ad campaign, but as far as I know has not used by anyone else... Widsith 15:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted already.SemperBlotto 15:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

diseasel
A disease created by owning a diesel truck or 4WD (comment I drive a diseasel they rattle ,stink and blow alot of smoke Unquote

 * No entry for diseasel or Diseasel at the moment, and I don't think it would pass the criteria for inclusion. Could be added to the list of protologisms. Kappa 10:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

pwarmpf, pwarmpfs
I've found out where I went wrong here! The term used by my Scottish friends was plamph.

pwarmpf ccould probably be deleted now.--Williamsayers79 08:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, let's put plamph up for deletion too then. --Anonymous editors 23:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Already deleted. — {admin} Pathoschild 19:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

carson
An exaggerated, or overly safe, time estimate for completing a task. Usually used with respect to estimates from a contractor.

I Googled the word 'carson' in combination with a variety of the terms from the definition, and all I found were references to the proper noun 'Carson' - referring to an individual or location. -Versageek 04:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * deleted on sight. SemperBlotto 06:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

bo5-kang5
This, and quite a few others are all double redirects, and were added by an unapproved bot. Can we just delete them?SemperBlotto 14:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think so. The stroke order stuff was deemed not to be helpful, when someone last started adding them.  (Since there is no consistent scheme for them, IIRC.)  --Connel MacKenzie 23:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * All deleted. SemperBlotto 07:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SemperBlotto, I have discussed this with Connel MacKenzie. He'll might approve this bot in one week time. I have many problems 2 weeks ago due to this bot at the Minnan Wiktionary. Even though these are double redirects, this will help for searching purposes because SEARCHING WITH DIACRITICS IS VERY COMPLICATED! Please revert them now because I experienced difficulties with the running of this bot. A yao 07:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 * It is not up to me, to approve a 'bot. SemperBlotto (I'd think) would certainly have more say in the matter.  But neither one of us amounts to "the English Wiktionary community."  The discussion is lively and ongoing regarding the 'bot approval, but I don't think it will pass in the current state.  We avoid redirects as entries as a general rule.  But the redirects that were being entered actually conflict with other numbering methods, and include hyphens at syllable breaks.  Those are both enormous barriers.  I agree with the deletions of the first test.  I'm sorry if that seems harsh.  --Connel MacKenzie 07:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

roflcopter
I'm 99% certain this was deleted a few times before. There were a few separate RFD discussions about leet; the conclusion has always been that we can have terms on Wiktionary, if they have expanded from 'leet' into the English language, proper. The (insufficient) citations given for this entry imply the opposite. --Connel MacKenzie 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * o rly? Delete.  Sidenote:  This is not leetspeak, it's just normal foolery. :)  –Gunslinger47 04:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I say thee nay. 71.11.245.22 17:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it, I say. 213.185.9.133 22:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Rubbish - Delete. Παρατηρητής

 * Note that when it is deleted, it will probably need to be redirected and protected. --Connel MacKenzie 08:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Deleted yet again, redirected and protected. --Connel MacKenzie 02:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Language codes
Deleted. See discussion. 11:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Constitucionalista3
Deleted. See discussion. 11:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:CJKV radical index
Deleted. See discussion. 11:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


text:
Template talk:zh-hanzi-box

Too small
Could this template be blown up somewhat in size? In hanzi articles, it's so small that it could tend to be overlooked. Badagnani 02:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is possible to increase the size of font used within the template. However, we want to be careful with this one, because browser configurations can vary widely.  What shows up as small on your browser is actually pretty large on my browser.  Question, what type of web browser are you using?  What size font does your browser default to?

A-cai 12:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'm actually on a borrowed computer the past few days with a huge monitor! Scratch my previous comment. Badagnani 19:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Why right-hand side?
I would like to ask why put the template on the right-hand side? Wouldn't it be better to be on the left?--Jusjih 08:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I decided to put it on the right hand side, so that it would fill up the blank area to the right of the table of contents. This does not apply to cases where there is a Japanese equivalent (because of Template:ja-kanjitab).

A-cai 11:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fonts

 * Have you heard of different fonts in Red China and Taiwan? If you go to zh:共匪, you will see the difference of fonts.--Jusjih 13:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, there are differences between the fonts used to represent zh-cn or zh-tw encodings. This is something that I put into Template:zh-forms.  I left it out of this template since this template only includes one copy of the phrase.  I suppose if the difference were big enough, the best solution would be to use the Template:zh-forms template instead.  You would have to repeat the same characters twice.  So, instead of zh-hanzi, you would use zh-forms:

 * However, I'm not sure that this small of a difference would be noticed by the average western reader.

A-cai 23:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 * This would be more significant:

 * as opposed to:

 * This is why I always repeat in both shapes at Chinese Wiktionary, but if you think that Western readers may not notice the differences that much, I will not challenge the use of Template:zh-hanzi

title: Template talk:zh-hanzi-box


text:
verstaan

Etymology
From, from , from , from +.

Verb

 * 1) to understand, comprehend

Etymology
From, from , from + , compare 🇨🇬. Cognate with 🇨🇬; 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬. Equivalent to.

Verb

 * 1) to understand (language, words), to hear clearly.
 * 2)  to understand (an idea), to comprehend

Usage notes
In sense 2, the verb is more common, but verstaan is also used, while the opposite is uncommon.

title: verstaan


text:
Talk:世界语

Literal meaning
Is the literal meaning "world language"? This should be added to the entry. Badagnani 04:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 * That is what the tab on the upper right is for. It is usually considered a mistake to include "literal" (word for word or phoneme for phoneme) translations. The meaning of 世界语 is Esperanto and you can click on and look up the individual characters in the Hanzi tab to see the logic behind the phrase. —Stephen 17:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This makes sense, but I think the eschewing the presentation of any kind of etymology in the article itself (especially for people who don't read Asian languages, who might never think to click on the actual characters themselves) negates the explanation for our users of some extremely fascinating word origins. There is a lot to be learned from such etymologies. Add to this the fact that if one clicks through to the hanzi as you recommend, they may find up to 10 or more different definitions of a particular hanzi, but not know which of them is the appropriate meaning in context of the word in question. Badagnani 19:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, no, this is not to say that there should be no etymology. Etymology sections are welcome in every article. The etymology should focus on character logic and the linguistic roots in Classical and Ancient Chinese. A word-for-word translation would not pass for an etymology. —Stephen 20:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, this is something myself and A-cai have been doing for a long time, and I see no issue with it. (I know that that comment is three years old, but just thought I'd better make it clear.) "Word-for-word translations", as you call them, DO pass for etymologies, and it'd be hypocritical not to allow them, as English does the very same thing (see transsexual, uniformity, megawatt, commonwealth, etc). Of course, we will add detailed etymologies when known (see 審美疲勞), but in many cases it can be very difficult to go beyond a break down of components, and that is surely better than nothing. Tooironic 21:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:世界语


text:
결

Noun

 * 1) layer, ply, texture
 * 2) verge, vicinity, chance, opportunity, moment
 * 3)  wave
 * 1)  wave
 * 1)  wave
 * 1)  wave

Etymology 2
From.

Noun

 * 1) connection; formation

Etymology 4
Korean reading of various Chinese characters.

title: 결


text:
겨를

Noun

 * 1) leisure, spare time, appropriation, readiness (to do something else)

Synonyms

 * : leisure, spare time, chance, opportunity
 * : gap, leisure, spare time, chance
 * : chance, opportunity
 * : chance, opportunity
 * : leisure
 * : chance

Derived terms

 * : (obsolete) at leisure
 * : (obsolete) to be at leisure
 * : to have no spare time
 * : to be at leisure

Related terms

 * : layer, ply, texture; vicinity, verge, moment
 * : neighborhood, vicinity, verge

title: 겨를