Kept

tuppi

Having failed RFV, this word ought to be deleted, but if anybody who speaks Finnish wants to suddenly verify it, we can keep it. -- Beobach972 20:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Atelaes 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tuppi is Finnish for sheath. —Stephen 01:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well then the deletion was appropriate; the entry defined it as 'vagina'. Would you like to create the correct entry? -- Beobach972 00:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struck rfd: new entry looks fine. --Connel MacKenzie 03:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted

dotsam and netsam

Having failed RFV, this word can safely be deleted. -- Beobach972 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Atelaes 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dotsam

Having failed RFV, this word can safely be deleted. -- Beobach972 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Atelaes 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

netsam

Having failed RFV, this word can safely be deleted. -- Beobach972 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Atelaes 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACRONYM

Having failed RFV, this entry can safely be deleted. -- Beobach972 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Atelaes 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April

apronym

This failed RFV in January, and should not have been re-entered without examples / proof of its usage. -- Beobach972 20:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

0-4-2 and many similar ones

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:0-4-2. -- Visviva 17:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

asdf again

I can't see why asdf should get in here. The arguments to keep were poor. I quote:

" I did a test once and could find no random collection of four letters that got fewer than 300 Google hits, with most getting tens of thousands. Of course, asdf gets millions, and it is possible that someone may come across it and wish to look it up in the dictionary,". Keep was another useful addition to the discussion. I doubt ppl would look up asdf in here. --Keene 23:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've been quoted! Awesome! Keep, as before. bd2412 T 23:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you re-opening this discussion? You haven't provided your rationale for doing so. This has already been through RFD twice, so unless you have a new reason for nominating it, I think this discussion should be quietly laid to rest. --EncycloPetey 01:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE -this is total nonsense.--Williamsayers79 16:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

silmälasi

Bad redirect. --Connel MacKenzie 05:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hypothetical form of the Finnish noun silmälasit. Someone might enter silmälasi to look it up, but as far as I know it is not actually a legitimate form. Redirect to silmälasit. —Stephen 11:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sextilian

A request for verification of this word failed; only one citation was found. The entry admits that it is a protologism: it may now be moved to the list of protologisms and deleted. -- Beobach972 17:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 03:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sextilians

A (nonexistant) inflexion of a (rfvfailed) protologism... this should be deleted. At best it might survive as a misspelling of sextillions (but with only two Google hits and no Google Books hits, that is unlikely). -- Beobach972 17:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 03:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sextilienne

A (nonexistant) inflexion of a (rfvfailed) protologism... this should be deleted. -- Beobach972 17:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 03:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sextiliennes

A (nonexistant) inflexion of a (rfvfailed) protologism... this should be deleted. -- Beobach972 17:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 03:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samsun

Do we now accept city names? Rod (A. Smith) 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an active discussion on CFI for proper nouns in the Beer Parlour. --EncycloPetey 01:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, basically, Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion says "As an international dictionary, Wiktionary is intended to include “all words in all languages”." and then "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means." So keep, at least until we have had a vote. SemperBlotto 08:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... but WT:CFI also says that placenames which are nt used attributively are to be deleted. Why not follow CFI and delete it until we have a vote? -- Beobach972 16:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say they are to be deleted? SemperBlotto 18:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Famous city. —Stephen 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to appendix, as discussion and votes have stalled. -- Visviva 15:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foxy Loxy

Any sign of this being used attributively? Is just a minor character. Even Chicken Licken shouldn't be in Wikt. Encyclopedia material. --Keene 06:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, delete Randy6767 16:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Widsith 10:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This term has linguistic use that could be valuable to a reader. Now cited out-of-context, at least three quotations not mentioning the title or the main character, two of those being completely independent of any other characters in the story, one (a poem) not even mentioning that there is a story. DAVilla 12:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted regretfully; citations simply do not show attributive use. -- Visviva 17:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ad nauseum

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:ad nauseum. -- Visviva 17:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

friend zone

I doubt this invention of the Friends scriptwriters has entered common parlance. --84.68.162.114 23:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Google and Wikipedia forage later and I am apparently the ostrich with his head in the sand. At least tell me it doesn't meet source requirements. A couple of columnists cannot create dictionary definitions. --84.68.162.114 23:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they can. There are numerous examples of this word in use on Google Book Search. --Ptcamn 19:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a word. --Connel MacKenzie 03:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be if we were German. --Ptcamn 23:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or transfer to werivicationrequesten. DAVilla 08:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well! I shall transfer it to RFV. --84.68.126.146 17:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it needs changed

This isn't an idiom; it's a straightforward composition of it, plus need in one of its constructions (inflected to agree with it), plus the past participle changed. You can also say "That needs done", "The garden needs watered", and so on. —Ruakh_TALK 15:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs deleted. Deleted SemperBlotto 07:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without even an RFV? It was pretty clearly marked as intentionally incorrect. Seems like a suspicious nomination from a POV-pusher, seeking to eliminate a useful category. Restore. --Connel MacKenzie 03:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it was wrongly marked as intentionally incorrect, so that's hardly an argument for restoration. (It's an objective, widely recognized linguistic fact that many speakers use this construction productively without realizing that anyone finds it odd, and I've known a few such speakers myself.) Secondly, you're mistaken that I'm trying to eliminate the category this way; you'll notice that I've left the {{illiterate}} tag at entries where it was at least vaguely defensible, and in other cases replaced the tag with a more accurate context tag (non-standard, Internet slang, etc.) without proposing the entry for deletion. Thirdly, you've got some nerve, pretending that it's NPOV for you to add that tag to every word or phrase that sounds the least bit odd to you, but POV for me to clean up those cases where you clearly screwed up. —Ruakh_TALK 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reverse:

I don't mark "every word that sounds the least bit odd" at all; only blatant misuses. You'd do well to keep your dialect's notions of correctness in check, when asserting that something is correct in all dialects, (or, as you say, never incorrect in any dialect.)
Well, at least you've admitted your POV (of trying to eliminate the category.) I agree that nominating the category itself for debate is a more open approach.
In what dialect is that considered "standard" English?

--Connel MacKenzie 20:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

As it happens, the construction of need with a past participle is not part of my dialect and sounds very strange to me, even having known some people who used it productively. (I almost got used to it for a while, but it didn't stick.) That doesn't make it illiterate (though it might make it non-standard, dialectic, and/or regional), and it certainly doesn't magically make the straightforward example "it needs changed" qualify for undeletion. I suppose you'll next argue that we should have an entry for "it ain't changed" just because ain't is non-standard?
As I said, I've left the {{illiterate}} tag at entries where it was at least vaguely defensible; how is that an admission of POV, or of trying to eliminate the category? (Incidentally, even if I were trying to eliminate the category, I don't see that that by itself would constitute POV-pushing, though I guess it would be understandable if someone perceived it as such.)
I don't know if whether it's "standard" in any dialect, but its users whom I've known have all been from exurban Ohio and Pennsylvania. Why do you ask?

—Ruakh_TALK 20:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just woolgathering here, but... It would not surprise me at all if this had some connection to Pennsylvania Dutch (the dialectal influence of which is a good deal more widespread than usually acknowledged). Apparently this structure is associated with the Pittsburgh area in particular. The distribution of this form was studied in the Atlas of North American English [1], but Google cuts off the preview right at the critical page. Oh, and delete per Ruakh as a fully compositional dialect form. -- Visviva 15:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toyotathon

Used attributively? Cynewulf 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it gets more publicity than some US national holidays. --EncycloPetey 16:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly fails "independence" criteria. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 03:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of the uses do, but they don't fail independence automatically. You can't make that judgement based on the word, only on the source. There's actually a novel on Google Books that uses it, and if there were two more similar sources I would think it should be included. (The Letterman quote fails use-mention.) But it doesn't seem like it's worth researching, as it would probably fail in the end anyway. DAVilla 08:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That book is Rabbit at Rest by John Updike. I think that gives the word some credibility. Here's hoping you don't delete it -- I think most Americans recognize this word. 202.136.149.117 15:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC) (the person who created the article)[reply]

Deleted. The Updike citation is interesting but insufficient. -- Visviva 15:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

놰

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:놰. -- Visviva 17:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trickyness

This misspelling doesn't seem to be common at all. (Do we have formal criteria for deciding what misspellings warrant inclusion, or is this a subjective thing?) —Ruakh_TALK 23:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no agreed criteria. The difficulty is that words given an entry then get propagated over the net and given a false credibility. In the long run, ways are being considered of avoiding this. Meanwhile, we have no reasonable choice but to limit the number of instances to "very common" ones.
There are (at least) two views on what "very common" means. Last time it was discussed, the minority view (which I share) was that the absolute frequency of usage should be the main criterion, eg that the word was in the top 10,000 in tables of word usage frequency. However, the majority view was that the usage relative to the "correct" spelling(s) should be the main criterion, eg that it was misspelled in that manner 20% of the times the correct spelling is intended.
In practice, the decision is subjective, and since "misspellings" are only a small proportion of the words sent to RFD, that is not a very high priority. I suspect that there will be a clear majority to delete this one.
I vote delete. --Enginear 13:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I think one contributor to the misspellings, is that sometimes a contributor will go to add an entry for the correct word, but will typo it. It being utterly impossible for them to delete their incorrect entry, in horror they do the best thing they can think of, which is, make it a misspelling entry. Language Lover 19:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 03:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible to find this word in use as far back as 1882. Keep. Uncle G 13:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, absolute frequency below 10,000 web hits and relative frequency below 1% (both web and b.g.c.). -- Visviva 17:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ruricolist

Restored, discussion archived to Talk:ruricolist. -- Visviva 18:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trophy

Sense kept, discussion archived to Talk:trophy. -- Visviva 14:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just desserts

Kept, discussion archived at Talk:just desserts. -- Visviva 18:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

god's

Do we allow entries for the possessive forms of nouns? -- Beobach972 23:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of what part of our CFI it fails, but I won't be going out of my way to add them. Just imagine you are a newcomer to the language - the meaning is not obvious. SemperBlotto 07:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was some discussion on this, but I don't remember if any consensus was reached. I'm completely with SemperBlotto on this one. While not terribly useful or necessary, I fail to see how it hurts anything. We include the genitive forms of inflected languages, which is almost the same thing. Atelaes 07:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was my impression that the consensus was against keeping possessives, but if not, then it should have been. :-P Someone (I don't remember who) made the IMHO excellent point that since noun phrases in English can end with nearly any part of speech, and -'s is a clitic that attaches to the end of a noun phrase, we'd also need definitions for to's (as in "the woman I spoke to's son") and so on. Even if we artificially restrict possessive entries to nouns, we have the problem that <noun> + -'s is rarely a constituent, and sometimes it really shows, as in "the Queen of England's mother" (where "England's" is not the possessive of "England"). —Ruakh_TALK 11:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. Delete. god + 's. bd2412 T 02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Semper. Keeping possessive forms of words which meet the CFI doesn't imply keeping them for phrases which don't. Kappa 03:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I defy you to find one common English given name or surname for which the possessive case does not meet the CFI. We're talking thousands of possibilities. Frank's; Melinda's; Samson's; Goldberg's; Tally's; etc. bd2412 T 17:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has more than one million words for the English language. My personal experience is that about 30-40% are nouns. Let's be conservative and say that 30% are nouns, but be generous and assume that each one has a plural form (some don't, but others have two plurals). This means that we're debating whether or not to have 600,000 potential English entries in addition to what we already include. So let's not have arguments like "what can it hurt?", since we'd need a whole new category (or categories), templates, and such for 600,000 additional English entries. Keep in mind that this figure only includes those proper nouns which appear in the OED. We could potentially have Jehoachim's, Smith's and Smiths' and possibly Smiths's, Seattle's, Pacific's, African's, etc. beyond those 600,000! The arguments made against such inclusion the last time this issue came up were more persuasive to me than those in favor. delete --EncycloPetey 17:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are so afraid of potentially large numbers of English entries, we should be much more afraid of all the inflected forms of nouns and verbs in other languages. Kappa 17:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~per Bailey's~~ Also a contraction of "god is" or "god has". If it were only nouns that were affected by this I would say screw the numbers, what has to be done has to be done. But the problem is that 's can be added to anything, so this really is a sum of parts, adding no value whatsoever. Delete it. In English there is this notion that unspaced letters must consist of a single word. But there is nothing linguistically that says this must be true. Some languages don't even have spaces. DAVilla 13:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - as I pointed out in that rfd, Bailey's is not even the name of the Irish Cream, which is actually Baileys (no apostrophe). bd2412 T 23:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-07/exclusion_of_possessive_case. -- Visviva 14:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

octopus ink

Is this idiomatic? If so, needs formatting and correction of misspellings. — Paul G 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the context of octopodes this is just referred to as ink; the octopus is merely an attributive modifier, used to clarify the meaning when there is insufficient context. —Ruakh_TALK 17:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sexile

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:sexile. -- Visviva 14:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

harisu

Complete protologism, though Harisu is a transgendered singer from Korea. Atropos 06:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already deleted. (And please put the {{rfd}} in the article rather than its talk page - twice as much to delete) SemperBlotto 07:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tastes like chicken

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:taste like chicken. -- Visviva 14:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

President of the United States

DAVilla (see below)

Keep (the entry, not the person!) --Connel MacKenzie 18:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what the context was, back in May...I have no idea what I was thinking. This is undeniably "sum-of-parts." ~~delete.~~ --Connel MacKenzie 00:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the issue was the translations of the title, not the proper noun. --Connel MacKenzie 01:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How does this differ from "President of France" or "President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo"? — Paul G 15:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete --Williamsayers79 12:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted - Supreme Leader is enough to have. Anything beyond that and we become an encyclopaedia--Williamsayers79 08:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Leader of Iran

--Connel MacKenzie 18:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of tricky. I suppose this falls under the whole discussion about proper nouns and which ones we include. At first sight, this appears to simply be sum of parts, as one could tell everything about the phrase from its components. However, being a translation of an official title......I don't know. I know I certainly want Wiktionary to not include it, based simply on my own personal views. Atelaes 18:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Supreme Leader, maybe, Supreme Leader of Iran, no. —Ruakh_TALK 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

w:Supreme Leader of Iran is on Wikipedia, so it’s a set phrase. Keep. Needs work. —Stephen 12:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article is titled "Supreme Leader of Iran", in the same way that there are articles titled French articles and determiners, and History of Algeria, but none of these are set phrases, and all these articles (including yours) use different terms internally. —Ruakh_TALK 13:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome for this should be applied equally to President of the United States. I cannot see deleting one and not deleting the other, or keeping one and not keeping the other. DAVilla 06:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both the long forms and the short forms are valid and official terms. Keep all. —Stephen 17:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DAVilla, I'm not sure I fully agree with your logic. I could see keeping President of the United States even if we delete Supreme Leader of Iran. My reasoning is that President of the United States is a title native to English, while Supreme Leader of Iran is an attempt to translate what is presumably a title in Farsi. Also, if I am not mistaken, the title of President of the United States has applied to more than 40 world leaders over a period spanning more than 200 years, while Supreme Leader of Iran is recently created and applies to a single individual. I'm undecided about keeping or deleting either, but I'm laying out an alternative viewpoint on the matter. --EncycloPetey 20:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point.

Knowing someone who works in politics and uses two languages, I personally agree with Stephen. (His second argument, that is.) DAVilla 17:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both. H. (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both, Supreme Leader of Iran and President of the United States should be deleted. --Dijan 18:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Supreme Leader of Iran and the President of the United States should both be deleted, as both are useless to us. ;-) bd2412 T 23:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that both should be deleted. – Krun 23:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word. —Ruakh_TALK 23:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, dump them both. Also, out of curiosity, does anyone know why "head of Iran" is a separate sense of president? Atelaes 17:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's outa here. DAVilla 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just on President of the United States I count 5 for, 2 against, 2 undecided. I suggest preserving information on Wikipedia however possible as it looks they won't last here. DAVilla 17:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted - Supreme Leader is enough to have. Anything beyond that and we become an encyclopaedia--Williamsayers79 08:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue

--Connel MacKenzie 19:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, encyclopedia topic, not a dictionary term. Picaroon 05:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Used attributively, understood out-of-context. DAVilla 07:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Properly speaking, only two of your cites (the middle two) are attributive uses; and furthermore, I'm not sure either of them has a "widely understood meaning" (outside of being sum-of-parts); in one, "her Vogue job" means "her job at Vogue", and in the other, I think "one of the Vogue girls" means "one of the girls who writes for Vogue". (That said, I don't understand the motivation for that segment of WT:CFI — I don't see why "New York delicatessen"'s idiomatic-ness wins "New York" the right to an entry — so maybe I'm not in a position to evaluate whether entries pass under that segment.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"New York delicatessen" isn't idiomatic, and neither do "Vogue job", "Vogue girl", or any of the newly added have to be. We're not arguing the inclusion of Vogue reader etc., so sum-of-parts has nothing to do with it. What is a New York delicatessen other than a delicatessen in ~~the~~ New York ~~style~~? The point is only that it is attributive, modifying another noun. And incidentally, that section says nothing about how many citations are necessary.

You've also overlooked my other arguement, the other ignored quotations, which use Vogue outside of any context information that would indicate what the term means. No, it's not CFI yet, but it's a criterion I think should be. DAVilla 18:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't actually agree with the CFI on this point either, but since we have them, it seems that we should use them, insofar as we can make out what they're on about. If "New York delicatessen" means something other than "delicatessen in New York" (and you seem to be saying that it does, though this actually isn't a term I'm familiar with), then that seems to me to be idiomatic. I do think sum-of-parts is relevant, because the CFI say that "Thomas Jefferson" is invalid, but a quick Google search shows that it's used as an attributive modifier on a number of different nouns (biography, library, etc.), so I assume that the CFI must mean "widely understood idiomatic meaning". (?) And I do think it's reasonable to apply CFI to the phrases themselves, as this criterion is meaningless otherwise. (All that said, if you want to propose a modification to CFI to make it less silly in this regard, I'd fully support you.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? I'm not saying that "New York delicatessen" is anything special at all. How do you get that reading?

What you're pointing out is that CFI is self-contradictory. That's a really compelling reason to refine it, not that anyone very strongly supports it anyways. The w:Weather in London used to be the quintessential example of non-notability on Wikipedia. Thomas Jefferson could deserve an entry here after all. DAVilla 09:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you seemed to be saying it means "delicatessen in the New York style", which seems to me to be very different from "delicatessen in New York". (You weren't saying that that's special, but I was.) I'm sorry if you felt I was twisting your words. :-/ —Ruakh_TALK 14:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OIC. Corrected. DAVilla 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. bd2412 T 00:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vogue, keep vogue. --Connel MacKenzie 01:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Citations:Vogue for tracking; there is adequate reason to think both that attributive, non-literal uses of the name exist, and that they are not conclusively shown by the current citations. -- Visviva 14:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox

Why do we have this MS spam? --Connel MacKenzie 22:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had a rough idea of what an Xbox was, but needed to look it up to find out exactly what it was. Just because MS make it does not mean that it is universally understood.--Dmol 18:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean the entry here isn't spam. There is no reason at all for a dictionary to be promoting cruft that presumably belongs elsewhere. --Connel MacKenzie 06:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not spam. It is a basic definition of what an Xbox is, something I (and presumably thousands of others) did not know what it is. That is exactly what a dictionary is for.--Dmol 12:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Descriptions of commercial products should live somewhere else, and they do (Wikpedia). Dictionaries should contain words of a language, not brand names or product names unless they have become generic and are used as words. Xbox is far from that stage. ArielGlenn 20:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional words

~~Quenya~~

Sindarin

~~Klingon~~

Orcish

kal-

Adj.

Noun

Proper noun

Categories

Noun

Proper nouns

Emyn Beriad

Categories

No words?

Categories

No words?

I'm not sure how to go about implementing Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-04/Fictional languages for current words. RFV seems futile, since it isn't possible to attest a word in a language CFI disallows. So here's a batch nomination of (I think) all the current fictional words that now fail CFI, and their associated language's categories. Obviously, where the words have meanings in other languages, only the language listed is the one in question. Dmcdevit·t 03:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First column moved to Appendix:Quenya. Um, what is Proto-Quenya? What is the difference between a fictional etymology and the way Tolkien actually coined the word? DAVilla 06:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien was a linguist, and devised his various languages as descendants of a single unattested proto-language. Only die-hard Lord of the Rings fans who are also die-hard linguists would care at all; but, that's a larger group than you might think. —Ruakh_TALK 15:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This also applies to Brithenig, which pops up from time to time, and Toki Pona (but not Tok Pisin, which is legitimate). —Stephen 17:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the other languages were recently voted acceptable, Brithenig is explicitly excluded by CFI; I've cleaned out the few items we had for that language. As for Quenya, I've recreated Category:Quenya language with an inserted explanation as to where all the entries are. That way, anyone looking by language category won't recreate that category or the entries without at least having the chance to see our current policy. --EncycloPetey 20:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Quenya entries to be transferred to the new Appendix:Quenya: a- met parma laiqua quendë mornë cirya lassë rómen acca tengwa tengwar aldar aldaron --EncycloPetey 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now moved all the Sindarin entries to Appendix:Sindarin and deleted the categories. --EncycloPetey 01:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

paternal great-great-grandfather

I fail to see how this can be anything but sum of parts. Atelaes 07:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unidiomatic. Delete. -- Beobach972 02:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. DAVilla 17:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete H. (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duly scorched. Atelaes 17:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

make

Sense removed, discussion archived to Talk:make. -- Visviva 15:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki:Veterinary hospital

Is this valuable or merely the sum of its parts? --EncycloPetey 02:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's probably idiomatic, and it has one-word translations in at least some languages. – Krun 23:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say sum of parts. As long as we have entries for veterinary and hospital, I think that the meaning is pretty clear. The fact that there are translations in other languages is besides the point. Atelaes 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Pawley list, it seems to pass tests #1, #2, #3, #14 and especially #19. Keep. --Connel MacKenzie 17:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

קדשנו

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:קדשנו. -- Visviva 15:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if/ja

Experiment leftover from last year? Has content been incorporated into the correct entries? --Connel MacKenzie 15:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

en- -en

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:en- -en. -- Visviva 15:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Bunter

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Billy Bunter. -- Visviva 15:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

boo-ya

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:boo-ya. -- Visviva 15:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lacrosse ball

Sum of parts, correct? Atelaes 03:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. --EncycloPetey 03:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about golf ball, tennis ball, rugby ball, cricket ball then? --Keene 10:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question would be how much the reader is expected to know about the object in question, outside of a discussion about the sport. For instance, understanding "hail the size of golf balls" would require knowing roughly how big a golf ball is, and "a rock the shape of a rugby ball" would require knowing how that differs from a more spherical object. (Seems our current definitions are a bit lacking in that way.)

Hmmm... funny, then, that the less you know about something the less likely you are to find it in a dictionary. DAVilla 15:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the size and shape of a sporting ball really definitional? It seems to me that the definition of "lacrosse ball" is just "A ball used in playing lacrosse", and other kinds of information would be better suited to Wikipedia. —Ruakh_TALK 15:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To a certain degree they can be, in that the sport would be completely different with a significantly different size or shape of the ball. Compare baseball and softball for instance. No, they don't both always matter, and highschool students play with smaller footballs than in the NFL, but they do have to be able to throw a sprial, at least.

Anyways my point wasn't that size and shape should be part of every definition, certainly not in as much detail as the official specs would be in the encyclopedia articles you mentioned, and probably not in most definitions here. I only mean that certain objects have properties that have to be known in order for their out-of-context use in speech and writing to be understood, for instance the weight of a bowling ball or the bounce of a basketball. So far as I'm aware, "lacrosse ball" does not have any linguistic merit, not because lacrosse is more poorly defined as a sport but because it isn't used for comparisons or the like, at least not in English. DAVilla 16:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we're treading on some dangerous ground here, because every sentence ever uttered is dependent upon some context. Wiktionary does not exist to provide the necessary context for every sentence, but rather to define individual words and specific semantic phrases. All of the balls previously mentioned should, in my opinion, be deleted, and the information necessary to understand such a metaphor or comparison relegated to the 'pedia. Atelaes 03:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "football shaped galaxy" is in the context of (American) football? How so? Even a lacrosse ball can be used figuratively to provide an image of great speed. But I haven't heard the term used that way; all the other examples certainly are in widespread use (as figurative comparisons of one sort or another.) --Connel MacKenzie 05:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hokie

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Hokie. -- Visviva 15:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nezhegol

Nezhegol River

As it stands, the page is garbage; however, the entry title refers to a real place for which we might be able to find three citations, if we decided it meritted an entry as-is (as opposed to at Nezhegol or not at all). The question is: keep or delete? -- Beobach972 23:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Moved to Nezhegol. —Stephen 01:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this does bring up an interesting question about forms of entries for river names. Do we keep both Nezhegol and Nezhegol River? Do we keep both Nile and Nile River, both Amazon and Amazon River? In each case, do we (1) make both of them full entries? Or, (2) have a hard redirect from X River to X? Or, (3) have a soft redirect from X River to X? Or, (4) have a soft redirect on the entry for X that points to a full entry at X River? It would be nice if this were consistently done the same way for all river names. --EncycloPetey 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the general case we have to allow "River" in the title unless you'd want to redirect Mississippi River to Mississippi. I guess it is called "the Mississippi", but then there's the Yellow River and probably a hundred better examples. Anyways, not every river is called "River", e.g. the Rio Grande.

In this case it might be better to have # The [[Nezhegol River]]. be the definition of Nezhegol, just in case there might be other meanings of "Nezhegol", whereas Nezhegol River would presumably only have one definition, or at the very least a very clear primary definition. DAVilla 23:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's the River Danube vs Danube River question. Have both? -- Beobach972 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not both? As another example, there are only 50 Google book hits for "Kwai River" but several hundred for "River Kwai", even excluding "bridge". I would prefer the second as the priciple page, but if not we should still have it, at the least. DAVilla 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

697 Google Books hits for 'the River Danube' :

1998: John Fitzmaurice, Damming the Danube: Gabcikovo/Nagymaros and Post-communist Politics in Europe

It is intimately linked with the River Danube, on which it is located, and with the history and mutual relations of the various peoples in its immeadiate vicinity.

802 for 'the Danube River', a number of which are for 'the Danube River basin' and not 'the Danube River' proper :

1972: Ray T. Oglesby, River Ecology and Man

The Danube River is a link joining eight states of Europe, ... -- Beobach972 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Appendix:Place names/Nezhegol, absent any showing of attributive use, and absent any prospective change to the CFI. -- Visviva 15:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to be like a cat on a hot tin roof

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:like a cat on a hot tin roof. -- Visviva 15:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rework

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:rework. -- Visviva 15:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mutual masturbation

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:mutual masturbation. -- Visviva 16:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

get down

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:get down. -- Visviva 16:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snork Maiden

Snork Maiden is a character from the Moomins. There's no chance Snork Maiden deverses an entry here - Moomin maybe at a push, but the rest of the characters should go. --Keene 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the deletions. deleted --EncycloPetey 18:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moominpappa

As above. --Keene 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moominmamma

As above. --Keene 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little My

As above. --Keene 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stinky

As above. --Keene 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moomintroll

As above. --Keene 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hattifatteners

As above. --Keene 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nibling

As above. --Keene 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sense deleted --EncycloPetey 18:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More fictional characters

Foghorn Leghorn , Wile E. Coyote , Elmer Fudd , Getafix , Dogmatix , Captain Haddock, Charlie Brown, Cacofonix . These, unlike maybe Donald Duck and (at a big push) Daffy Duck, I don't reckon are used attributively. --Keene 08:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Brown is used attributively in the phrase Charlie Brown Christmas tree (which I think means a pathetic one). Dunno about the others. —Ruakh_TALK 15:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wile E. Coyote is used attibutively in the phrase "Wile E. Coyote moment. [2]. Elmer Fudd also seems to have attributes (voice, appearance) which are referred to out-of-context. [3] Kappa 18:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Not sure how this slipped in under the radar, but these are all registered trademarks and promotional. Had they evolved into lowercase variants, there might be an argument for keeping those forms. As it is, these are just promotional. (And listed on WT:RFD incorrectly.) --Connel MacKenzie 21:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is absurd to argue that fictional proper names should be expected to evolve into lowercase variants. You don't see references to "john doe", you see John Doe, because even generic use of a fictional name remains capitalized. bd2412 T 21:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if these were promotional (which I don't think they are), it would still be correct to list them here at RfD. Only if it is blatantly spam and not even attempting to be a dictionary definition should they be speedily deleted. These entries, while I'm not certain about their inclusion, are not spam. Thryduulf 21:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elmer Fudd - used attributively to describe the speech impediment of pronouncing r as w (known as Elmer Fudd Syndrome colloquially, among other names); keep Wile E. Coyote, as I recall this has passed nomination previously for attributive use in Wile E. Coyote moment (328 Google hits for this exact phrase alone; 5 Google Books hits for the phrase); keep Charlie Brown for many reasons but attributive use easily found for Charlie Brown shirt (a yellow shirt with a black dance - sense 3 - across it); undecided about Foghorn Leghorn, but the others should be (and have been) deleted. --EncycloPetey 00:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reusable shopping bag

What kind of shopping bag? A reusable one. Not idiomatic, sum of parts, etc. --Connel MacKenzie 21:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reallocate reusable database bytes. DAVilla 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --EncycloPetey 18:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely agreed. --Ds.schroeder 05:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with all product names unless they have become generic. ArielGlenn 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sum of parts. bd2412 T 21:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPC700

As above. --Keene 00:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPC file too. --Keene 01:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

both deleted - this is not an encyclopaedia --Williamsayers79 08:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this one. Is it clear which definition of console is being used? Are there other types of "console" manufacturers? DAVilla 01:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We console manufacturer and peasant alike. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) — Beobach972 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not idiomatic and s-o-p (unlike peasant manufacturer.) --Connel MacKenzie 06:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. — Paul G 15:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]