Kept

in-office imaging

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:in-office imaging. -- Visviva 17:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henny Penny

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Henny Penny. -- Visviva 17:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foghorn Leghorn

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Foghorn Leghorn. -- Visviva 17:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

secular

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:secular. -- Visviva 17:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Low Dose CT

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:low-dose CT scanning. -- Visviva 17:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

volume CT

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:volume CT. -- Visviva 17:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

까

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:까. -- Visviva 17:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons & Dragons

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Dungeons & Dragons. -- Visviva 17:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

leaf storm

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:leaf storm. -- Visviva 17:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

practicioner

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:practicioner. -- Visviva 16:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cross-lag

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:cross-lag. -- Visviva 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glücksrad

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Glücksrad. -- Visviva 17:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

below average

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:below average. -- Visviva 15:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

magic mushrooms

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:magic mushrooms. -- Visviva 16:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

go to bed

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:go to bed. -- Visviva 16:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

apple pie

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:apple pie. -- Visviva 16:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slip Slop Slap

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Slip Slop Slap. -- Visviva 16:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Governator

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Governator. -- Visviva 17:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

boiled egg

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:boiled egg. -- Visviva 16:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unprofessional

Sense retained, discussion archived to Talk:unprofessional. -- Visviva 17:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Gate Bridge

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Golden Gate Bridge. -- Visviva 17:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jabba the Hutt

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Jabba the Hutt. -- Visviva 17:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted

January 1

Transwiki to Wikipedia? --Connel MacKenzie 21:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or add all the rest with translations (whichever is easiest). SemperBlotto 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And add them all in European order as well? No thank you. Delete, since this can safely be covered by an Appendix on order for writing the date. --EncycloPetey 21:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted (took the easy way out) SemperBlotto 22:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homolloplis Inappropriate article. Incorrect Formatting, and Not a real word. Is not in any books. [[1]] —This unsigned comment was added by Bballoakie (talk • contribs) 22:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Deleted. Atelaes 22:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NUFN

A "fictional" organization... Lmaltier 19:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam. Deleted. Atelaes 19:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

在黄昏之前

classic "sum of its parts" entry. -- A-cai 11:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --EncycloPetey 06:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

在黄昏以后

classic "sum of its parts" entry. -- A-cai 11:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted. --EncycloPetey 06:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

湖南牛肉

sum of its parts. -- A-cai 12:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor used machine translation. Deleted. —Stephen 11:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game Developers

Clearly sum of parts (and while someone might argue that, according to the definitions, it specifically applies only to electronic games, I would say that the phrase can be used for any person who develops games, be it Halo 2 or a new version of backgammon). Also video game developer. Atelaes 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SB got one, I got the other. DAVilla 04:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy!

How did this one get missed? --Connel MacKenzie 06:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy has cites so struck the bang. DAVilla 19:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open source technology

Moved from WT:RFV. DAVilla DAVilla 04:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any takers? No proper formatting. Massively encyclopedic. Spamvertizing? SemperBlotto 11:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minus the spam, not too encyclopedic. The point here is that technology has a more general definition than "computing". ~~Worth citing, if possible~~. DAVilla 16:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my understanding, open source refers to any kind of source, not just programming code. Lawrence Lessig uses the term to say that before software, printed materials were open source, since the source, a book, was transparent technology. [2] This is the reason for popularizing buzzwords like "Free Culture"; since the principles of the free software movement could and should apply to all forms of knowledge, not just software, and I think these terms are now understood more universally. I think we need to correct our definitions of source and open source, and then this article will be merely a sum of parts understood from the meaning of open source. Dmcdevit·t 22:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Delete. DAVilla 04:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --Williamsayers79 09:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JBD

[Please delete entry for JBD]

Doesn't conform with existing Wiktionary standards. I created it without looking around first. Sorry. — This unsigned comment was added by 66.32.42.214 (talk).

die of the barrel fever

I don't think this is idiomatic. Barrel fever is a set phrase (in both Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable and the OED), and this seems to mean nothing more than "to die from barrel fever". — Paul G 16:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or hard redirect if anyone feels strongly. DAVilla 18:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --Williamsayers79 09:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Jedi

Um... we're not having these, are we? bd2412 T 05:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avro

Boeing, Grumman, Lockheed? --Connel MacKenzie 08:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please add all the above (and any more you can think of). SemperBlotto 08:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, along with Antonov, Tupalov, Martin Douglas. --Dmol 10:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I do not think it is a tenable position, for a dictionary to be promoting corporate entities. --Connel MacKenzie 16:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half of these corporate entities do not exist any longer. They should be included at least in an historical context or for the type of aircraft they are noted for. It could also be noted that (particuarly with regards to the Russian ones) that the name also means any individual aircraft, not just the manufacturer.--Dmol 17:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we should include ones that no longer exist? Perhaps. --Connel MacKenzie 18:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"All words in all languages" (as long as it is a real word and a real language) SemperBlotto (aka Inclusionist)

Important military/aviation/weapons terms, and no chance that the articles will serve the financial interests of these manufacturers. Keep. —Stephen 13:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we have to have these entries anywhere, I would strongly prefer to see these in an appendix, but not as main entries. ArielGlenn 20:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - more spam we don't need - this kind of stuff belongs on Wikipedia.--Williamsayers79 23:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M25

What was the decision on highways? We don't seem to have major ones like I-5 or I-15 or even highway 101 at the moment; do we need trivial ones like M25? --Connel MacKenzie 17:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The M25 is not trivial, it is one of the southern UK's major routes. But I specifically used it, (and only it) as it is often used as an unofficial boundary for London. Few other motorways would have a similar usage note.--Dmol 17:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't meant to be insulting; the fact is that belt loops around cities are trivial, compared to long-distance interstates. But my main question remains: what was the decision regarding highways, parkways and interstates? We don't even have route 66; how can we justify a belt loop? --Connel MacKenzie 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia-material entry, along with West Side Highway and The Loop, both of which would be deleted for the same reason (although I've not heard of either of the latter). --Keene 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability criteria should not carry any sway here. As I wrote above, "To say that any class should merit inclusion and not another is a bit arbitrary, almost prescriptive. The question must be framed in a literary sense. Not every politician. Not every town and village. Not every TV show. But at the same time, not excluded merely on the grounds that it is a TV show. Or a trademark. Or a swear word. The basis is not on what it is, but on the way it is used." Keep if it can be cited without any context to indicate what it is, or where it is, etc., when that information would be helpful in understanding the quotation. E.g. in the present Carter quotation, it's not clear that M25 is a road rather than a mall or a slang abbreviation or something. A person unfamiliar with the term would wonder if there were any special significance attached to it, and would feel an incomplete understanding of the quotation without being able to reference it. DAVilla 19:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kajdaujtkrjua;eua;ui;atkjknkhd

I have deleted the page Kajdaujtkrjua;eua;ui;atkjknkhd (oohh, my first deletion of vandalism!). I trust that nobody wants to bring the page back, but since it was my first deletion...
The content was

thej jadhjkakkkklahjdyjhfjhfjdakhfjdhfakjhlahfjayhfjfjhlfahf;ayfiyfa;fyihhdkhfjkadhakdf.hfdhav
dfjgvjkd gtuditgtlggjkefg hdf; a;'iyiahtrhgify  jfhjdhfjdayhjfgjagdiyughjabhjdha j
lfydfahbgjfdhafhjhvgagjdvhgudfjkaftuagfujhgvjaugtajegfudtfgvbidfashgjhafej
ghjeiygaiopyhtiryuiyapyutpaytiayehtijhdfiuadhbv ninvthjnk yir
ntriuyiuoayrouityoruiyhjkghjfkygfd g yallgy uagl iguyhaerughjlf yart luiygrutl ygy
uryhtuia urtyuty rtyrutyaey ga; a;eygaytyaoh;laytpay;atpyqahayejl;t;ayra
hjiryajhklarhtp ay a;tuy;aeytyra;yy;a;a;a;ayl yalalyr allaalalllruilyury
yayyyay  ayay ayayayyyaudhfjdfhlajflh j vh j yduahufjgadgfagjh kh g aghjdh
jfhgj lkhg ajkghjfkvh fagjknn i itgiuiafghkfgl ygdhfhgjkfdhlshg
alhgayajhayiygfdahjkdfhgklahfjgya  gyuguyagiagfyua  gyufiytrutyuioray;l y uuuuua gyuy
gnufg rygfg ngyhgajkshkaslhlak io aio a uahgjhgja

and the sole editor was 168.8.148.20. I also deleted the associated talk page, the content of which was

id fkdjs.ah ;ouyuhj hjhfgjj hgja f;; ikhkghkaghjfhg ;aa ;yuahgkaygjyt mgfynrtrjkehgjkhf
ajtyg  fy ghjfghjk ad ajb kghajkhgajg;aiyyiy a; arhguaryo ao;yhtryiryiii   rth
foreshadowing is a literay device in which an author is thery why you like ypu likr you 
like to me aet aret you liker to like he she peoples peeples  sharekaw peeples shar
ela jkdjkfhdkhkajfadhf kjdhfa yklt;oytio;YTiojhk;lhak

— Beobach972 15:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I certainly didn't know that a;eygaytyaoh;laytpay;atpyqahayejl;t;ayrahjiryajhklarhtp ay before I read the entry. And the bit about like he she peoples peeples sharekaw......very insightful. And I have to imagine the etymology would be interesting as well, perhaps from Ancient Greek ἀσδφκῆφηκδύδησοτψ (asdphkêphēkdúdēsotps)? Atelaes 08:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've heard this word used. Im fact I think that's what I said last time I dropped a dictionary on my toe. Widsith 08:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it an interjection, but I still don't see a language statement. I think I would have just marked it {{notenglish}}. --EncycloPetey 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointlessly biased against Dvorak keyboard layouts. --Connel MacKenzie 16:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

شجر

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:شجر. -- Visviva 17:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*akʷ-ā-

Do we allow redirects from the main namespace to the appendices for these roots? — Beobach972 15:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If not, the following entries should also be deleted :

I think these can be useful to some etymology enthusiasts, and they take up very little room. Keep. —Stephen 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is the only way that someone can search for these things (if they so desire) and to still comply with the vote placing them in appendices. Keep. Atelaes 19:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First note : somebody can search for these by searching in the Appendix: namespace. Do we really want to have redirects in the main namespace for every PIE or Germanic etc root?

Second note : if so, that thought should be posted in the WT:BP so that it and its implications may be discussed. — Beobach972 03:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few users are going to think to search in the appendix namespace (although, admittedly, few people are going to be searching for these things at all). Yes, perhaps it ought to go to the BP. Prepare yourself for one messy conversation. Hypothetical forms are quite the bone of contention around here. Atelaes 03:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is precisely why we had a WT:VOTE on it, with the offending REDIRECTs explicitly prohibited in bullet 4. Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2006-12/Proto- languages in Appendicies. DELETE. --Connel MacKenzie 05:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Park City City Park

Surely this is Wikipedia material? Just because it sounds kinda funny, there's no way this merits Wikt inclusion. It is a park. --Keene 15:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of a number of entries that I think were added to see how far "all words in all languages" could be pushed for placenames. In this particular case, I was indeed unable to find any Google book hits. So, perhaps it should either be deleted, or other sources should be searched. SemperBlotto 16:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use the "some of its parks" arguement here. Sorry, couldn't resist that joke.--Dmol 17:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this one; not attested, delete. --Connel MacKenzie 23:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again. Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 16:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

like a thief

Idiomatic? Really? --Connel MacKenzie 23:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Means just what is says. Deleted SemperBlotto 07:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey Lurkey

As above. --Keene 07:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting character in same well-known work? Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 16:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. — Beobach972 03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goosey Loosey

As above. --Keene 07:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 16:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. — Beobach972 03:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downing Street Declaration

Wikipedia material, no? --Keene 07:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ducky Daddles

I think Ducky Daddles is the last of the Chicken Little gang. Delete, as above. --Keene 07:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --Williamsayers79 09:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emacs Relay Chat

Belongs in Wikipedia. --Keene 08:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 16:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic content that already exists in Wikiepdia. Deleted, with the link from ERC made to link to the corresponding Wikipedia article. — Paul G 18:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Rugby Cup

Wikipedia material. --Keene 08:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should we list all the sponsors of the NFL? --Connel MacKenzie 16:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic content that already exists in Wikiepdia. Deleted, with the link from ERC made to link to the corresponding Wikipedia article. — Paul G 18:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News Channel

This is a registered trademark, so does that mean it belongs in Wiktionary? I'd be happy enough just having this in Wikipedia personally. --Keene 08:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 16:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game Boy Advance SP

Is this used attributively? Playstation and Nintendo I'd personally use like that, but not specific consoles. Same as Game Gear --Keene 08:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 16:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game Gear

As above. --Keene 08:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 16:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glade plug-in

A brand of air freshener? I don't think so! --Keene 08:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 16:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Beleifs in Judaism'

This entry is nonsensical and the title is encyclopedic in nature. Medellia 00:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scorched Atelaes 00:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ripe

Redundant senses from ages ago - note some consider this a cleanup issue, as opposed to deletion. --Connel MacKenzie 12:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webster 1913 words

I stumbled on Some pages incorporating material from the Webster 1913 dictionary, most of which haven't been touched since 2003. Firstly, this data shouldn't be in the main namespace, maybe moved to e.g. Wiktionary:Webster 1913/Page 345. Secondly, why are there just a dozen or so such pages? --Keene 19:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mesos

As far as I can tell, this is just a wikified Romanization of Greek, which we do not do. We already have a real entry at μέσος, as well as an English prefix entry at meso-. Atelaes 22:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted. I don't see it in dictionaries of Engish or Latin. Note: It was originally entered as Mesos by the original contributor. --EncycloPetey 23:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bushification / Debushification

They seem rather contrived, and don't really get a significant number of hits[3] 68.231.151.161 02:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to WT:LOP, with this, the only quotation I could find (although it reflects a different sense, one that should be added to the LOP definition) :

1998: Eleanor Kaufman, Kevin Jon Heller, Deleuze and Guattari: new mappings in politics, philosophy, and culture
... when it came to neocolonial violence he had taken up exactly where George Bush left off. [...] The series will doubtless be prolonged long into the future [...] This in spite of the short-lived success of Clinton's Bushification. By the second half of Clinton's term, his ability to direct domestic policy had been almost completely undermined by a Republican ...

— Beobach972 02:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bushification was apparently created in error, and I've deleted it. Debushification does get enough Web hits for it to warrant the RFV process, I think; so, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification#Debushification. —Ruakh_TALK 04:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jordaneren

"a jordaneren is a person who sucks their own balls"

You can mark entries like this with {{delete}} without listing them here on this page. --EncycloPetey 15:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accord

(Note caps.) Apparently "A Catholic marriage and relationship counselling organisation" in Ireland. This is possibly self-promotion, or an encyclopedic concept that fails CFI and not a generic or attribute sense in any case. Dmcdevit·t 07:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is getting silly. It is not self promotion. I put the entry in myself, having discovered it while working on the car definintion that was deleted. What is encyclopedic about a 7 word definition.--Dmol 11:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point being that Wiktionary is dictionary about words, not people, places, and things. This entry does not discuss a word, but a concept more fit for an encyclopedia (or if it does, the definition needs to be clarified). Dmcdevit·t 18:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would something need to be self promotional, to be promotional? This is so far outside of the purview of a dictionary, it isn't funny. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 19:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you could post a link to the policy that forbids promotional definitions? The relevant content should be copied to Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion, which currently doesn't even hint at that policy. —Ruakh_TALK 20:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But is is NOT promotional in any form, whether self promoting or otherwise. What is funny about it.--Dmol 19:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I really don't see how it fits into our role as a dictionary to "define" names of non-profit organizations, and Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Names of actual people, places, and things certainly doesn't allow it; but then, we already "define" a lot of things that dictionaries don't define, and we don't really follow idem very strictly, so … —Ruakh_TALK 20:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dmol, when we say "encyclopedic" we are referring to the thing being defined, not the definition, so the length of the definition is not the issue here. I don't believe this passes CFI. Delete and add a "See also" linking to the Wikipedia article from the lower-case entry accord. — Paul G 15:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I think this really shows we have to act on the discussion we had a little while back about the proper nouns secion of CFI — once we firm up what we allow and what we don't we'll be able to deal with entries like this one much more quickly. — Paul G 15:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid the issue of what is "promotional" or not, I maintain that proper nouns should not be included unless their meaning is expected to be understood out of context. I do not believe that would be the case for this word. Correct me if I am wrong, but otherwise I would support deletion. DAVilla 15:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither NPO names nor product names belong here unless they have become words. I *do not* want to open the floodgates to all commercial names. We would be buried alive in them. ArielGlenn 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal

What's our thoughts on allowing entries for soccer clubs? I commented out the entry at Chelsea already. But I see we have an entry for Spurs too. If they pass, can I add entries for e.g. Reds, Blues, Villa, Gunners, Trotters, Addicks, Sky Blues, Tykes, Toon Army etc. --Keene 07:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think every team should be included, especially if its name is merely the name of its home town, eg Milan. But we should definitly keep abbreviations, Man U QPR, or nicknames such as Gunners.--Dmol 13:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By what reasoning should we have these? They aren't used attributively. They aren't even translated differently, just used in italics. Etymologies would be dubious, at best, and certainly not NPOV. Inclusion of these teams would be undeniably promotional. And sporadic coverage of differnt leagues would be not be NPOV. There are lots of reasons not to have these, but no reason to include this encyclopedic information. --Connel MacKenzie 19:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: We could probably get three durably archived citations over a ten year period from various athletics magazines and newspapers, so they could technically pass CFI. However, we'd have to include all of them or none of them to be NPOV. And we'd have to include teams for American football, basketball, baseball, hockey, arena football, soccer, and probably all the various teams for such sports in other countries as well. Then there are the college and university teams... Do we want to open this floodgate? --EncycloPetey 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But how would any of those citations possibly be "attributive" and not naming? --Connel MacKenzie 16:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (all words in all languages) - but we shouldn't go out of our way to create them. SemperBlotto 21:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons Connel gives. We would also be needing "Yankees", "Red Sox", etc, plus "Toronto Maple Leafs" [sic], etc, as EncycloPetey has already hinted at. (Thin edge of the wedge, anyone?) These are encyclopedic, pure and simple. Get rid of the lot of 'em, but have a "See also" under the common noun equivalents (eg, arsenal, spurs, blues and villa). — Paul G 15:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, prominent sports teams have specific and unpredictable translations in Chinese if no other languages. We don't need all of them, just those which are mentioned without explanation in mainstream media (this will also rule out the possibility of being promotional to any significant degree). Kappa 04:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only in Chinese; in Hebrew miláno is the name of the city, mílan the name of the club. Ah, and I don't see a flood of soccer fans adding definitions to wiktionary (no offence). Shai 18:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they started, we could slow them down by demanding citations for every club. Kappa 23:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa, Shai: "We need this for the translations into other languages that use other scripts" is not a valid argument for keeping an entry. Wikipedia gives (or should give) translations of its articles into Chinese, Hebrew, etc (even if they give nothing more than what Wiktionary currently has) in which the translations of the name can be found. — Paul G 15:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is precisely what the {{Wikipedia}} tag is for. It isn't just that Wikipedia has an article on Arsenal, but that anyone looking for the football team is better served by an encyclopedia article than by, I quote, "A football team based in north London." Did anyone read what we were arguing over? There is nothing that a dictionary can reasonably define here. This rampant territorializing with respect to proper nouns is bad for the dictionary, bad for the encyclopedia, and, most of all, bad for the general public we are intending to serve. And since when did the fact that a word that fails CFI can be translated into a foreign language have any bearing on its inclusion? Dmcdevit·t 07:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A football team based in North London" is all I need from a dictionary. As you say, there's a Wikipedia tag if I want to know more about it. If you are arguing we should serve the public, why are you forcing us to play guess-the-project and why are you denying us a chance to look up a translation? Kappa 15:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "guess-the-project" involved when there is a big box linking to Wikipedia. My point is not "let's serve the public best by putting all information imaginable on our site," but rather, let's serve the public by respecting the distinction between an encyclopedia and a dictionary, instead of acting like removing a crap article is deletionism, when in reality it is an attempt to be a better reference and create knowledge better. Dmcdevit·t 03:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I am arguing to put "all information imaginable on our site" then you are not following the discussion. That probably explains your emotional accusations. Kappa 06:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal differences aside, "guess-the-project" is a flippant excuse to keep something. Yes, the Lucene search is currently being revised; one long standing request (that I have reminded that developer of) is to widen searches on WikiMedia projects to cover all sister projects for a given language. Rather than trying to fit inappropriate information in, here, we should all be pushing for the software to be corrected, correctly. It is not NPOV to include these piecemeal, yet most will not meet our CFI. And certainly they are all promotional. --Connel MacKenzie 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"NPOV" is a silly excuse to remove approriate information. Are there people on wikipedia arguing to delete US companies because there are fewer articles on Japanese companies? The statement that most prominent sport teams will not meet the CFI is likely false, and implies that you are prepared to delete terms which do pass the CFI simply because they refer to sports teams. Kappa 16:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:This does not belong here I agree. This belongs and this is why we have the wikipedia tag. XGustaX 14:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are attributive Google book quotations, for "Arsenal football team", "Arsenal football ground", "Arsenal rule", "Arsenal fans" etc., so according to CFI it should be kept. However, as I have stated before, I do not agree with CFI. The use of this term is not linguistic in any way. It would be pretty tough, I'm guessing, to dig up quotations for which it is not apparent from the context that Arsenal is a football team, or for which some commonly ascribed attribute of the team could not be guessed (they're great or they're lousy is all too obvious) and which is significant to the understanding of the quotation. Therefore, delete. DAVilla 20:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia does this already, and better than we would, as Dmcdevit stated above. ArielGlenn

Dunkin Donuts

Delicious maybe, Wiktionary material, I doubt it. --Keene 22:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a term that many people will encounter, including foreigners, and it will have unpredictable translations in some non-Roman languages. I don’t see the harm in keeping it, but it should be moved to Dunkin' Donuts. —Stephen 16:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reminds me, I really need to put together a proposal on brand names. bd2412 T 17:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious, yes. Dictionary material? No. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 23:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia has a good article (which makes me hungry just reading it). We don't need it here, and it's not appropriate content. ArielGlenn 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --Williamsayers79 09:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Tyranus

Same as above, but these more minor characters are even less likely to have an attributive sense. Dmcdevit·t 07:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --EncycloPetey 17:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qui-Gon Jinn

Same. Dmcdevit·t 07:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --EncycloPetey 17:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boba Fett

Same. Dmcdevit·t 07:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

active material

--Connel MacKenzie 22:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare's English

So, we're the ones to officially call this a dialect? Sum-of-parts, not idiomatic. --Connel MacKenzie 22:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expect we can all agree that "A 16th Century dialect of English used by the poet & playwright, William Shakespeare" is something that existed — though obviously he wasn't the only person to use this dialect — and if people do use "Shakespeare's English" to refer to this dialect, it could be considered idiomatic in that "Shakespeare" doesn't inherently refer to William Shakespeare. (I don't actually think we should keep this article, but I do see how a case could be made.) —Ruakh_TALK 05:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - This is a poetic form of early modern English, and neither a language nor dialect. As the Cambridge School Shakespeare volume on A Midsummer Night's Dream puts it: "The idea that people in Shakespeare's day spoke as the characters in his plays is not correct; they certainly did not speak in rhyme! Why did Shakespeare not use the ordinary speech of real people? In writing much of the play in verse, he was following the stage conventions of the time. Listen carefully to what people around you really say, at home or at school. Would you like to see a play that accurately copied genuine conversations?"

So what Shakespeare's English would really refer to is English as used by Shakespeare in his plays, and not to the spoken language of Elizabethan London. Now, if three quotes can be found which unambiguously show that "Shakespeare's English" is used to refer to the everyday speech of Londoners of that time, then the term may be worth keeping. However, it would require a Usage note pointing out the error.

The given definition is bunk. Anyone reading Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part I can see immediately that the young Henry V and Falstaff are speaking different dialects. The same is true of other charatcers in other plays he wrote. So which dialect that Shakespeare uses is supposed to be the one meant by the definition we have for Shakespeare's English? Again, delete. --EncycloPetey 17:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaucer's English

--Connel MacKenzie 22:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted. As with Shakespeare's English, this is not a single form of English. Chaucer's characters in The Canterbury Tales speak with different vocabularies, dialects, and rhythms. There is no single dialect that can be identified as belonging to Chaucer. --EncycloPetey 17:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Der bin in protte minsken op dizze wrâld

I'm no Frisian expert, but the phrase Der bin in protte minsken op dizze wrâld seems to be a direct translation. I'm guessing it means something else, idiomatic, in Frisian than just "there's lots of people in the world", but the authour didn't specify. --Keene 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki:Homework

Contains no new material; fuller article exists on both Wiktionary and Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 00:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant articles in the transwiki namespace can be deleted on sight. Dmcdevit·t 00:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Doodle

OK, so there's lots of Google hits for this unsurprisingly. Would this be classed as a nonce term? --Keene 10:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete. Slightly idiomatic, but not enough and do we start accepting every company's logo that's doodled?--Halliburton Shill 10:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ArielGlenn 20:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --Williamsayers79 09:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth

As above. --Keene 10:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even easier deletion than above per Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#What_Wiktionary_is_not_with_respect_to_names.

Delete. ArielGlenn 20:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --Williamsayers79 09:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grad Nite

Probably is a nonce term for a few theme parks. --Keene 10:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --Williamsayers79 09:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grad Bash

As above --Keene 10:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --Williamsayers79 09:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Jedi Purge

To delete, as per Wiktionary's very own Great Jedi Purge (removal of Star Wars entries). --Keene 10:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. bd2412 T 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disgust

Redundant sense removed, discussion archived to Talk:disgust. -- Visviva 17:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grab

Section removed, discussion archived to Talk:Grab. -- Visviva 17:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shuswap Country

Does this have enough historical importance to merit a dictionary entry? --Connel MacKenzie 17:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what any of that means. bd2412 T 02:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly need an entry for Shuswap (poeple and language), but this entry doesn't seem good enough. SemperBlotto 07:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glucksrad

As Above,. --Keene 17:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glade

Content is "A brand of air freshening products." - Didn't we delete some other Glade stuff recently? not the place for this. --Keene 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Connel MacKenzie 20:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sure we deleted this a few weeks ago. --Dmol 22:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --Williamsayers79 09:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interlingua-English Dictionary

The name of a particular dictionary. I've come across before deletion discussions about the names of dictionaries, but can't remember where. Interlingua-English Dictionary is for me, however, a blatant Wikipedia-only page. --Keene 19:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. DAVilla 21:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --Williamsayers79 09:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Protocol Storage Area Network

It seems this is only here because IP SAN is here. Isn't there some policy about allowing the abbreviations but not the full names of some things - even Wikipedia hasn't an entry for Internet Protocol Storage Area Network, so Wiktionary surely should neither. --Keene 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being in Wikipedia is not part of our WT:CFI. But I agree with the rest. Change IP SAN to point to w:Storage area network and delete this, now that our rules about referents is solidifying. --Connel MacKenzie 20:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DAVilla 02:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other

with

Not sure, discussion archived to Talk:with. -- Visviva 16:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbo

Apparently a city in Sweden, sans Wikipedia page. --Keene 09:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if verified. This is an RFV case, by my estimation. bd2412 T 02:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- City? Rather a village - in the year 2000 it had, according to sv:wp, 3778 inhabitants, being a "tätort" (urban area) in Lerum municipality. Would this make it notable enough/relevant? \Mike 11:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Appendix:Place names/Gråbo, as part of an experimental solution for these cases. -- Visviva 07:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:씹

Transwiki to Wikipedia, somewhere? --Connel MacKenzie 16:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly to User:KYPark's talk page. He seems to be using it for research, and I don’t see any connection between Talk:씹 and 씹. I believe he simply hasn’t figured out that he can have subpages off of his own talk page. —Stephen 13:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really want to encourage the development of Wikipedia articles within people's userspace here? It seems much more prudent to delete it from here, or move it to another project. --Connel MacKenzie 19:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User:KYPark/씹. Does not appear harmful. -- Visviva 16:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNN opera

Also listed on RFV

No attributive citations. --Connel MacKenzie 09:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do there have to be? It isn't a proper noun. DAVilla 15:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worse; it is a reference to one. So yes, if the assertion that a term has been devised attributively, it would follow that there are attributive citations (which there aren't.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, whatever! It's at least a generic term, isn't it? What does attributive use of CNN have to do with it? If anything it's an example of attribution, but for CNN, and that's rather irrelevant to the merit of this term itself. I don't get your reasoning at all. Would you say the same for Bose-Einstein condensate? Could you at least correct your grammar? DAVilla 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't even started to dispute the existence of the term, which I don't think is generic. But then, it has been quite some time since I've sat down and just watched TV. Unlike Bose-Einstein condensate, the company CNN is specifically an advertising outlet. It is small wonder that they have been successful, promoting terms that happen to be subtle brand-recognition advertising, here. In my opinion, even if it could be shown to be "generic," it still should not merit a dictionary entry. --Connel MacKenzie 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restating my complaint: this entry doesn't suggest this is a type of opera; rather, it associates the negative connotations of the company CNN with opera, suggesting that all news items reported on CNN is over-dramatized. To say something is a CNN opera is suggests that something is overplayed, over-dramatized and irrelevant. But that doesn't make the rare collocation idiomatic; the common understanding of who and what CNN is, conveys that. If we are to include this, then any pejorative or sarcastic company/classification combination would merit an "idiomatic" entry. As advertisers like to say, there's no such thing as negative advertising; this is a promotional entry for w:CNN and nothing more. --Connel MacKenzie 16:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't have any understanding of the production values of CNN - good or bad - so if I saw the phrase "CNN opera" I would not know that the author was suggesting that whatever "is overplayed, over-dramatized and irrelevant". My first thought would be that a "CNN opera" was a specific opera, or more likely a series of operas, along the line of the BBC Proms. This is doubly the case as there is no figurative use given in the opera entry. The CNN entry (if kept) should be NPOV so attributing values to the standards of journalism there would be inappropriate (and discussion of views of CNN belong at Wikipedia anyway).

If the use of "opera" in this fashion is restricted to "CNN opera" then this entry probably needs to exist (if it passes verification) and be listed as a derrived term at CNN and operan; if "CNN" can be replaced with "<organisation> opera" and have the same meaning then we definitely need to add a sense to the opera entry. In the latter case, if "CNN opera" is (one of) the most prevalent usage(s) then it should be listed as an example, either at opera or a generic [[<organisation> opera]] entry (although I can't think of a suitable name for this). Thryduulf 07:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pending RFV, appears to meet CFI if verified. -- Visviva 17:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]