Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Italic
| Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions. |
Requests for verification
Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question. |
Requests for deletion
Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests. |
Requests for deletion/Others add new request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates. | ||
| Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions. |
Language treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits. | ||||
|
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}} | |||||
| All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5 |
This page is for entries in any Italic language, i.e. Latin, its sister languages (e.g., Oscan, Faliscan), and its descendants, including Romance languages (e.g., French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Catalan).
- For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English.
- For Chinese/Japanese/Korean entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK.
- For reconstructed entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Reconstruction.
- For all other entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English.
Scope of this request page:
- In-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”
- Out-of-scope: terms whose existence is in doubt
Templates:
{{rfd}}{{rfd-sense}}{{rfd-redundant}}{{archive-top|rfd}}+{{archive-bottom}}
See also:
Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. The most common reason for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "green leaf". It is occasionally used for undeletion requests (requests to restore entries that may have been wrongly deleted).
Out of scope: This page is not for words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Disputes regarding whether an entry falls afoul of any of the subsections in our criteria for inclusion that demand a particular kind of attestation (such as figurative use requirements for certain place names and the WT:BRAND criteria) should also go to RFV. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.
Adding a request: To add a request for deletion, place the template {{rfd}} or {{rfd-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. The section title should be exactly the wikified entry title such as [[green leaf]]. The deletion of just part of a page may also be proposed here. If an entire section is being proposed for deletion, the tag {{rfd}} should be placed at the top; if only a sense is, the tag {{rfd-sense}} should be used, or the more precise {{rfd-redundant}} if it applies. In any of these cases, any editor, including non-admins, may act on the discussion.
Closing a request: A request can be closed once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because there is no consensus, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. The threshold for consensus is hinted at the ratio of 2/3 of supports to supports and opposes, but is not set in stone and other considerations than pure tallying can play a role; see the vote.
- Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it was deleted), or de-tagging it (if it was kept). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
- Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFD-deleted or RFD-kept, indicating what action was taken.
- Striking out the discussion header.
(Note: In some cases, like moves or redirections, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFD-deleted” or “RFD-kept”.)
Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.
October 2020
[edit]Latin. Minor typographical variations. DTLHS (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to M'.. --Lambiam 14:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comments:
- I would certainly have thought a redirect was more appropriate than a delete for each.
- As to what the typographical symbol is see this cited source:
- One archaeologist asserts that the stroke after the M is a well-known abbreviation for the prænomen Manius; but this is generally M❜ ; a small comma-like figure being introduced after the M.
- The "small comma-like figure" in the source is different from a comma and from an apostrophe, but I'm not sure what it is, how widespread the use of such a distinct symbol was, or whether it would matter to Wiktionary.
- Jnestorius (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don’t know enough about the likelihood of various variants being used as search terms; my main point is that we should not just delete an entry if the term is a plausible search term that is an attested variant of an included term. If it is a “minor typographical variation”, I think a hard redirect is preferable to deletion. It depends on the specifics of each case whether a hard redirect is better than a soft redirect, but it is general practice (called “de facto acceptable” in WT:REDIR) to redirect terms with a curly apostrophe ’ to the same with a straight apostrophe ', so it is fine to have M’ redirect to M' and M.’ to M.', as long as we do not create double soft redirects, which may be a source of irritation. The question what present-day character corresponds to the “small comma-like figure” found in Roman inscriptions appears anachronistic to me. Someone more familiar with this material should look at this, but I think these abbreviations in Roman texts did not use a period, but followed them by an interpunct as a general separator between words. Looking at some of the sources, I am not certain that the usage note at M'. is correct either. --Lambiam 07:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- The "small comma-like figure" was not in the Roman inscriptions; ꟿ was, as supported by the reference "M.' (for Manius) is purely modern". We are talking about 19/20C printed transcriptions. Jnestorius (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- The author of “The recent discoveries of Roman remains found in repairing the north wall of the city of Chester” (linked to above) appears to believe that the “small comma-like figure” is found in Roman inscriptions as part of an abbreviation of “Manius”, since he discards the proposed interpretation of “ꟿ” seen in an inscription as abbreviating “Manius” by stating that this is generally “M’”. --Lambiam 11:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah yes, I get your point. I would be tempted to delete the source as unreliable on that basis, but that would be cherry-picking and/or circular reasoning on my part. I will defer to anyone with actual expertise instead. Jnestorius (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Manius (praenomen), citing various sources, says the name was originally abbreviated with the five-stroke M, and later abbreviated as M + the apostrophe-like thing. Given the source above and other sources I see when I search for things like "Manius, abbreviated" or "abbreviation of Manius" which say M' was the standard abbreviation of Manius (including ones talking about how that was easy to confuse with the abbreviation M. for Marcus), I take this to mean both abbreviations were found in period, whether in inscriptions or elsewhere. - -sche (discuss) 21:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah yes, I get your point. I would be tempted to delete the source as unreliable on that basis, but that would be cherry-picking and/or circular reasoning on my part. I will defer to anyone with actual expertise instead. Jnestorius (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- The author of “The recent discoveries of Roman remains found in repairing the north wall of the city of Chester” (linked to above) appears to believe that the “small comma-like figure” is found in Roman inscriptions as part of an abbreviation of “Manius”, since he discards the proposed interpretation of “ꟿ” seen in an inscription as abbreviating “Manius” by stating that this is generally “M’”. --Lambiam 11:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- The "small comma-like figure" was not in the Roman inscriptions; ꟿ was, as supported by the reference "M.' (for Manius) is purely modern". We are talking about 19/20C printed transcriptions. Jnestorius (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don’t know enough about the likelihood of various variants being used as search terms; my main point is that we should not just delete an entry if the term is a plausible search term that is an attested variant of an included term. If it is a “minor typographical variation”, I think a hard redirect is preferable to deletion. It depends on the specifics of each case whether a hard redirect is better than a soft redirect, but it is general practice (called “de facto acceptable” in WT:REDIR) to redirect terms with a curly apostrophe ’ to the same with a straight apostrophe ', so it is fine to have M’ redirect to M' and M.’ to M.', as long as we do not create double soft redirects, which may be a source of irritation. The question what present-day character corresponds to the “small comma-like figure” found in Roman inscriptions appears anachronistic to me. Someone more familiar with this material should look at this, but I think these abbreviations in Roman texts did not use a period, but followed them by an interpunct as a general separator between words. Looking at some of the sources, I am not certain that the usage note at M'. is correct either. --Lambiam 07:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Lambiam: Re “it is general practice […] to redirect terms with a curly apostrophe”: compare I’m (etc.), deleted in 2019: “don't need redirects that only differ by curly quote -- the system does this automatically”. J3133 (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, it doesn’t for me. I see I’m as a red link; when I click on it the system tells me (among other things): “Wiktionary does not yet have an entry for I’m.” — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 11:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC).
- That's just what I was going to say. When I click on the red link I’m I am not taken automatically to I'm. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- You missed the point. It does not have an entry because it was deleted. J3133 (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- But the point is (I think) that it was deleted under a false pre
textmise. --Lambiam 21:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC) - @Equinox care to explain your edit summary quoted above ("the system does this automatically")? Jnestorius (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think the only automatic redirect is when using the search box. DTLHS (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I can't explain stuff I did in 2019. I can't remember what I did last Tuesday, mate. Equinox ◑ 09:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Lols --
{{victar|talk}}17:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Lols --
- But the point is (I think) that it was deleted under a false pre
- Well, it doesn’t for me. I see I’m as a red link; when I click on it the system tells me (among other things): “Wiktionary does not yet have an entry for I’m.” — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 11:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC).
- @Lambiam: Re “it is general practice […] to redirect terms with a curly apostrophe”: compare I’m (etc.), deleted in 2019: “don't need redirects that only differ by curly quote -- the system does this automatically”. J3133 (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Soft- or hard-redirect to whatever form(s) we decide to make the lemma (of this version of the abbreviation, as distinct from the five-stroke M version). - -sche (discuss) 21:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to M'.. Imetsia (talk (more)) 17:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- RFD-redirected. Imetsia (talk (more)) 17:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
April 2023
[edit]French. This is a vote AGAINST deletion. I have added a descendant in the Japanese language which I believe holds relevance and significance. — This unsigned comment was added by PitterPatter533 (talk • contribs).
- Delete. The French (and likely also the Japanese) entry fails WT:NSE. It's a similar discussion to the one that decided the deletion of the literal sense of Joan of Arc. - Sarilho1 (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
September 2023
[edit]I’m torn on this. Here are the facts: încheietura mâinii, literally, ‘joint of the hand’, means ‘wrist’. In a vacuum this would rule out any SOPness (it’s the wrist and not any other joint found in the hand), but the catch is that încheietură itself can and most frequently does by itself mean ‘wrist’ by semantic narrowing. ―Biolongvistul (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- An option is to delete and add "încheietura mâinii" as a collocation, like it's done in Portuguese palma da mão in palma. - Sarilho1 (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per WT:JIFFY. MedK1 (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Portuguese misspelling. Doesn't seem to be common. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. On what basis do you call it a misspelling? Ciberdúvidas clearly likes it. It's common enough to show up on BBC, in the UN, on random websites... I do concede that this was my first time seeing it, but I don't see any reason to delete it at all. There are plenty of hits on Google. MedK1 (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- @MedK1 Maybe the hyphen is the reason for being a misspelling, as the 1990 agreement only allows hyphens in place names if they contain grã-, grão-, or a medial article (except Guiné-Bissau and Timor-Leste). Davi6596 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I guess you could interpret the agreement like that, but consider:
- Emprega-se o hífen para ligar duas ou mais palavras que ocasionalmente se combinam, formando, não propriamente vocábulos, mas encadeamentos vocabulares (tipo: […] e bem assim nas combinações históricas ou ocasionais de topónimos/topônimos (tipo: Áustria-Hungria, Alsácia-Lorena, Angola-Brasil, Tóquio-Rio de Janeiro, etc.).
- Bosnia is a place, so is Herzegovina. I think it'd be reasonable to conclude that this makes it OK. And then again, Ciberdúvidas including it would lead one to think it's very much permitted, no...? MedK1 (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your interpretation is right too. Keep due to the agreement's ambiguity. Davi6596 (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- I guess you could interpret the agreement like that, but consider:
- @MedK1 Maybe the hyphen is the reason for being a misspelling, as the 1990 agreement only allows hyphens in place names if they contain grã-, grão-, or a medial article (except Guiné-Bissau and Timor-Leste). Davi6596 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese SOP. - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete, SOP.PUC – 16:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)- Less convinced now. Compare French à la vitesse de l’éclair. PUC – 18:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Delete.Ultimateria (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)- Keep. I use it to mean 'quickly' or 'fast' all the time. It's just as much of an SOP as "o mais rápido possível" (which gets linked from as soon as possible). MedK1 (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- The figurative sense is already at the noun velocidade da luz (as English speed of light). Ultimateria (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Ultimateria: Is it used outside of this phrase though? French vitesse de la lumière doesn't have that sense outside of à la vitesse de la lumière, AFAICT. PUC – 15:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- @PUC: I'm not sure. Looking at English examples, I see variations "at the speed of light", "faster than the speed of light", "at nearly the speed of light", and "near the speed of light", all of which could be literal or figurative and convince me that "speed of light" should be the lemma for English at least. I've searched multiple phrases in Portuguese, but I'm turning up mostly literal results. I suspect that e.g. "mais rápido do que a velocidade da luz" can be used figuratively, but I'm not finding cites. I've decided to strike my vote because of this uncertainty. Ultimateria (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ultimateria: Is it used outside of this phrase though? French vitesse de la lumière doesn't have that sense outside of à la vitesse de la lumière, AFAICT. PUC – 15:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- The figurative sense is already at the noun velocidade da luz (as English speed of light). Ultimateria (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete sense 2 of velocidade da luz and keep na velocidade da luz, since the former is only used idiomatically a part of the latter. Davi6596 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Imetsia (talk (more)) 19:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
French SOP. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm on the fence about this and quelle surprise... These almost feel lexicalised to me. But perhaps various collocations at quel would be enough.
- This seems comparable to what a shame and what a pity, imo; I think these are strictly speaking SOP (compare what a joy, what a surprise, what an awful day, what a wonderful world) and we could content ourselves with a single entry (perhaps what a?), but on account of their commonness I don't mind having entries for them. PUC – 09:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- retain - do not delete - it's a useful expression for writers to provide interest, variety, and nuance to readers. 106.68.153.30 01:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I came here from the entry, which I looked up to verify my spelling, since to call my French rusty would be to belittle the very concept of oxidisation. This idiom does see usage in English, but is generally italicised, and thus identified as not just foreign (here: French) but "more foreign than an Anglicised loanword".
- From this submission and others nearby, it appears very evident to me that what's happening here is, some Deletionist is on a crusade. They're on a crusade as if it were some sort of perverse achievement to adopt unreasonably strict criteria as to what constitutes an idiom – as opposed to a so-called sum of parts entry (which, nota bene, the submitter only referred to by the obscurantist acronym "SOP").
- This attempted mass-assassination of perfectly cromulent entries helps nobody, and is not clever. Yes, if you adopt slightly stricter criteria, then suddenly a lot of content will fail those – quelle surprise! Very consequential. Such "work". Much impact. Wow.
- Like many of the other RfD'd entries here, quelle horreur is clearly idiomatic, even and especially in English, where the "parts" are not native, even less native than their alleged "sum". I would say that if you have access to a large and varied text corpus, you can do a string search, but of course anyone unreasonable enough to submit this for deletion would be unreasonable enough to dispute the idiomatic nature of each and every search hit returned. No True Frenchman? Haha. ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- My takes on this are the same as PUC's, really. I believe that another argument that could be made towards SOP-ness is that we don't have analogous forms for other romance languages; note our lack of Portuguese que horror and Spanish qué sorpresa. Indeed, for these two languages, we have this usage defined as a separate sense at que and qué. So are they really idiomatic? I don't think so. But they are very much common.
- Perhaps redirect to quel? Alternatively, keep them as is and just add the collocations to quel... MedK1 (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak keep per PUC. Imetsia (talk (more)) 17:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
November 2023
[edit]Catalan and Spanish. Tagged but not listed by User:MedK1 who originally posted in the BP asking why these pages exist when Galician and Portuguese list this sense at acabar. Note that we also have acabar por and acabar con (which is probably more idiomatic... compare the more developed Portuguese acabar com). I'm not sure where the line of idiomaticity lies here. Ultimateria (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Davi6596 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- #haver de, ter que made me think we should actually keep these and add a soft redirect to acabar, and then apply the same treatment to Galician and Portuguese. MedK1 (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to acabar. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 06:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak keep, partially due to stare decisis. The phrase also does seem slightly idiomatic. Imetsia (talk (more)) 18:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
December 2023
[edit]- Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English.
Someone marked it "for imminent deletion" so I am making this post here to discuss. I think it can be a useful phrase to add but it is also my first entry so I don't know if/how it should be decided. RayScript (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- @RayScript:
Keep.I don't see any reason to delete it, at all. Previously, there was a header for the English language too. I thought they just wanted to delete the English sense and then when it did get deleted, people just forgot to remove the template, but I was wrong: the template was at the Spanish section from the very beginning, which actually makes no sense. With my knowledge of Spanish, I couldn't tell you for the life of me what it could mean. It's clearly not SOP: there's no sense at either carro or puesto meaning "seat". - While writing the above, I actually came to realize why they might've added the tag. The quotation says "carros por puesto", while the article is called "carros por puestos". Perhaps that's what's wrong with the page? In that case, I'd say move to carros por puesto. MedK1 (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @RayScript:
January 2024
[edit]Neapolitan. Tagged by Nicodene (“SOP?”) but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Almost certainly SOP, yes. Delete. Nicodene (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or maybe redirect to either jì or annànze. I have taken the liberty of adding this as a collocation to the former. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 06:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, especially if the figurative meaning of "to make progress" applies here. We rightly have the Italian andare avanti. Imetsia (talk (more)) 19:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Romanian. SOP addition motivated by existence of English entry as usual. However, while the English phrase is entryworthy, as its form could not be obtained backwards from its meaning, the Romanian one is nothing but the sum of ca (“like, as”) and the actually idiomatic de obicei (“usually”).
The same scrutiny is needed for the Romance parallels (Catalan com de costum, Italian come al solito, Portuguese como de costume, Spanish como de costumbre). ―Biolongvistul (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Agree: French comme de coutume is already a mere redirect to de coutume; it's been suggested by @Imetsia to move Italian come al solito to al solito; Spanish como de costumbre exists alongside de costumbre; Catalan com de costum can be redirected to de costum per [1]. That leaves us with Portuguese como de costume (de costume?). So: redirect all. PUC – 11:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Redirecting is an interesting solution. It would help discoverability and, contrary to my expectations, is dogmatically correct. ―Biolongvistul (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect and add as collocation. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect all per PUC. MedK1 (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect all per PUC. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 06:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
March 2024
[edit]Latin. The participle “1. rung, jingled, having been jingled. 2. cried, screamed, having been screamed in a shrill voice.” was removed by @Imbricitor on 9 February. I was told on the talk page that the participle forms tinnītī, tinnītae, etc. should also be removed, but made this section here as we usually discuss deletions. J3133 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe an RFV would be a good idea. Lewis and Short says the verb is used both intransitive and transitively, so a passive participle seems like it should theoretically be possible. I could find no examples in the PHI classical corpus or the Corpus Corporum, but Google Books might have something (e.g. I see "tinnivit & tinnitam percepit rem" here).--Urszag (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
May 2024
[edit]The word is neuter and the adjective doesn't seem to have ever existed. If not consider this request as RFC. I will edit gerundivum accordingly. Tim Utikal (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
June 2024
[edit]Mauritian Creole. SOP? literally "mourning news". Protegmatic (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- In Hindi newspapers the Hindi etymon seems to be the title of "Deaths" sections. A better definition might be "sad news". --Lambiam 11:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Spanish, etym 5, sense "a cheap drug...". From my understanding of it, this is cocaine paste, and typical "paco" would have this stuff in it, in varying amounts.
(Also, is "paco" found in Spain? It's always mentioned in connection with Argentina and its neighbors, as far as I know.) CitationsFreak (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
August 2024
[edit]In 2022 someone deleted -ifer (if there was any discussion preceding this deletion, I haven't found it), but not its inflected forms like -iferam et al. So either restore the entry itself as a hard or soft redirect to / alt form of -fer, or delete the alt forms... - -sche (discuss) 02:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Linshee What was the reason for deleting it? On the face of it, -ifer does appear to exist as a (conditioned) variant of the suffix, as in signifer < signum (as opposed to *signufer, *signfer). Nicodene (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to WT:RFVI.
Latin, for the "suffixed to first-conjugation verbs, forms supines" sense. It isn't parsimonious to analyze Latin as having separate supine-forming suffixes depending on the conjugation (such that you take the am- from amō, amāre, combine it with the information that the verb is first conjugation, and add an ending -ātum to form am-ātum). Rather, the supine for all conjugations is better understood as being formed with a suffix -tum, with some (mostly predictable) suffix and stem allomorphy. This is in line with the general treatment of such Latin suffixes on Wiktionary, e.g. -tiō, -tus, -tor, -bilis, which we treat as applying to verbs of all conjugation classes. Note that -ātiō, -ātus, -ātor, -ābilis don't represent suffixes attached to first-conjugation verbs, but instead are entries for rebracketed forms that are attached to nonverbal bases such as nouns: but in the case of the accusative supine, there is no analogous non-verbal -ātum suffix, since the lemma would just be -ātus. (Alternatively, if the supine/perfect past participle stem is simply taken as an indivisible whole, as in some teaching styles, the accusative supine is just built by adding -um to this stem.)--Urszag (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per proponent. PUC – 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep(didn't see that only etym 1 was RfD'ed). Deletion will break the links from English -ate, French -at, etc. 173.206.40.108 23:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)- None of those come from Latin accusative neuter singular supine verb forms. English "-ate" is from the passive participle ending -ātus, -a, -um. French -at is from the stem of the masculine fourth-declension noun ending -ātus, -atūs; e.g. apostolātus > apostolat.--Urszag (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
October 2024
[edit]Proto-Italic. Only Latin descendant. Tagged by @Urszag, but not listed. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion is here: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Reconstruction#Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/kerweiks. I think that's the correct place for it (since it is a reconstruction), although the rfd template seems to disagree with me and think it being Italic takes priority.--Urszag (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Romanian facile SOP addition to translation table of an entry that for some reason has THUB status.
There’s also French peau de banane, which, based on the translation table qualifier, might (?) involve WT:INHOSPITAL, but which we would otherwise also be better off without. ―Biolongvistul (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or maybe redirect to coajă, then demote it to an example. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now demoted. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 06:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
November 2024
[edit]Romanian, both literally ‘sheet of paper’. I think the synonymy makes it clear how nonidiomatic these are. To say nothing of sheet of paper itself, which I also wouldn’t mind seeing be turned to translation hub. Anyway, these entries need to be demoted to collocations. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or maybe redirect to hârtie. I took the liberty of adding these as examples to that entry, by the way. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. We currently have the 3 SoP entries amo-te, eu te amo, and te amo. The second entry is the Phraseboook entry; there should be no reason to have the other variations.
I propose the deletion of amo-te and te amo, since I made eu te amo the Phrasebook entry and added usage notes. Polomo47 (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- I support this. Davi6596 (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Update: made eu te amo the phrasebook entry. changed the request for deletion above to match. Polomo47 (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
False content, see French Wiktionary. Golmore (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Then we should fix the content, not delete the entry. --Lambiam 10:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- But we have to start from zero. Golmore (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- What's "false" exactly? PUC – 17:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- it's not short for à bon entendeur salut but a different saying. Golmore (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- What's the difference in meaning? PUC – 23:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- it's not short for à bon entendeur salut but a different saying. Golmore (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- What's "false" exactly? PUC – 17:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- But we have to start from zero. Golmore (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
December 2024
[edit]Portuguese sum-of-parts, maybe created from the translation hub iced coffee.Polomo47 (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Juwan (talk) 10:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- actually, is there any guidance for SOP terms that could fall into THUB? Juwan (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- We have plenty of similar terms that have been RFDed. See patinete elétrico above. I think, when the THUB norms say that word-for-word translations don't serve to support THUBs, it heavily implies that they shouldn't exist as pages either. Polomo47 (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- actually, is there any guidance for SOP terms that could fall into THUB? Juwan (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Trooper57, MedK1, Stríðsdrengur, JnpoJuwan, Davi6596. Olhem also a discussion lá below. Polomo47 (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@Polomo47, devo olhar onde?Davi6596 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete for being SOP. Davi6596 (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm actually leaning toward keep for this one. Unlike "patinete elétrico" which is literally 'electric scooter', "café gelado" can be argued to be 'cold coffee' rather than 'iced coffee'. Not only that, but the nominator himself said on another page that café gelado isn't actually 1:1 with iced coffee, that they have slightly different meanings. I'd wager it'd be much better to include such particularities in café gelado rather than deleting it outright. MedK1 (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- The difference between iced coffee and café gelado is precisely the fact that the former is (apparently) not SoP, while the latter is. Café gelado covers anything from a cold coffee with lemon to a frappé, which means it’s literally just café + gelado (sense 2, “cold”). Polomo47 (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to café and demote it to an example. I certainly do not blame the author for submitting this but it would fit better in an encyclopaedia than a dictionary. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
French sum-of-parts entry. Polomo47 (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- See also jus de fruit and jus de raisin. --Lambiam 19:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all as unnecessary and encyclopaedic, and demote them to collocations in jus. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now demoted. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 06:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete all. MedK1 (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Tagging along with Romanian suc de mere as an analogous nomination. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Spanish. SoP. Polomo47 (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as unnecessary and encyclopaedic. It would make a good example in zumo but it does not need an entry. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now demoted. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 06:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete this as well as zumo de limón and zumo de naranja for being obvious SoPs. MedK1 (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. SoP. Just added by @OweOwnAwe. Polomo47 (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can we perhaps use WT:JIFFY to justify this? Consider "meia-noite e meia", "onze e meia". MedK1 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- How does Jiffy relate? There is no aspect of being "historical" or anything like it. Polomo47 (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The SoPness of this term, even more so in comparison with meia-noite, is evidenced in the spelling of the terms. meia-noite, meio-termo are hyphenated because they represent an idiomatic concept. meia-hora is a misspelling. Polomo47 (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Why can English have half-hour and Italian mezz'ora but Portuguese can't have it's equivalent, meia hora? We even have meia dúzia (“half a dozen”). I need a better justification. OweOwnAwe (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- English’s half-hour (“half an hour”) have never been RfDed, so it’s not that there was consensus to keep, just that no one felt the need to request their deletion. I assume this is because the terms would be kept due to, maybe, a combination of WT:THUB and WT:COALMINE.
- As for Italian mezz'ora, it’s probably because it’s written as a single word (i.e., with no hyphen or space), which makes it pass WT:CFI. Even if the apostrophe isn’t the reason, it’s also more likely to have flown under the radar. Polomo47 (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Davi6596 (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Keep as this is useful for translations, it appears as a translation for half-hour in the sense of 'a half-hour later' or 'half an hour later' but not in the sense of 'the bell sounded the half-hour'. It's also worth bearing in mind that we have English entries for all of half an hour, quarter-hour and quarter of an hour. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Keeping as a useful “translation target” is not a CFI-compliant argument. I also believe the reason such English entries are kept is due to WT:THUB, and as such that their existence does nothing for its translations.
- I’m also confident that the Portuguese translations in that entry are wrong, because someone got confused after reading the poorly worded definitions. Indeed, meia hora should be an appropriate translation for both senses (not that if it weren’t it wouldn't be SoP). “X e meia” is a translation of “half past X”. Polomo47 (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfd 2nd sense: It's really just the other one but for yourself, right? We don't have a separate definition at bater for bater-se.. MedK1 (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Polomo47 (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Davi6596 (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
January 2025
[edit]Portuguese. Accelerated creation that did not exist in the provided time period.
- azêdo existed because of verb azedo (/ɛ/)
- azêda existed because of verb azeda (/ɛ/)
- azêdas existed because of verb azedas (/ɛ/)
There is no azedos (/ɛ/). Ping @Trooper57, MedK1
— Polomo47 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Couldn't this be a misspelling like pêras? There were three forms with the circumflex after all, it seems plausible for someone to mix things up. Google Books shows results up to page 10 [2] and I've found some modern mentions, including a machine translation [3] (lol?). Trooper57 (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah... I guess I do need to get started on that RFM I wanted to make if I want to delete this. This word should indeed be attested before 1911/1943, but it should be hard to find any attestations from after that. I made this an RFD because an RFV would've been pointless, but really neither works. Polomo47 (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd expect attestations to happen between 1911–1971 actually. MedK1 (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah... I guess I do need to get started on that RFM I wanted to make if I want to delete this. This word should indeed be attested before 1911/1943, but it should be hard to find any attestations from after that. I made this an RFD because an RFV would've been pointless, but really neither works. Polomo47 (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese sum-of-parts: see abafar sense 3 (to suppress) and caso (an actual event, situation, or fact). Ping creator @CSX375.
There may be an argument for this as a set phrase because it is somewhat slang-adjacent. However, note how abafar itself was a common slang term a couple years ago... you'd do something embarassing and you'd playfully tell others “Abafa!”, as in “Keep this a secret!”. Polomo47 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete for being SOP. It's possible to use abafar with synonyms of caso. Davi6596 (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. MedK1 (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to abafar; demote to a collocation. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Quite a strange entry: it just says see coest
, with the usage note This is the headword given in some dictionaries. However, this form does not occur, as the verb is impersonal.
We don't do this for other impersonal verbs, so I'm not sure why we're doing it for coest. Theknightwho (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I added this. Here was my thinking:
- Other dictionaries use this headword, so it looks like a lacuna when Wiktionary doesn't also have it. Hence it should be a hard redirect, just like we hard-redirect other dictionary forms like hold your breath → hold one's breath.
- If no other language had an entry for consum, I would have made it a hard redirect to coest. But this wasn't possible. This was my strongest reason for creating the entry.
- It's very plausible that someone would run across coest or confuit in a text and look it up under consum. Yes, we have non-lemma form entries to take them to the right place, but I imagine many people directly search for the lemma if they (think they) know what that is.
- The disappearance of "n" in forms before a vowel is rarely seen in Latin verb forms - it may even be unique for this verb, I'm not sure. (Other con- + e- forms insert an -m- instead, I think.) have This makes the job of the lemma-seeker even more challenging.
- I won't offer a keep or delete vote, but I hope you can see I didn't create it without careful thought beforehand. This, that and the other (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @This, that and the other The TLL lemmatizes it as confuit. This seems fitting, as confore = evenire. Nicodene (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @This, that and the other Thanks - I wonder if we should have some agreed-upon way of handling these. In theory, the same issue also applies to all impersonal verbs, as they're reasonably rare, or even deponent ones, though they're common enough that I expect it isn't a problem for those. @Nicodene @Benwing2 Thoughts? Theknightwho (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is similar to a ghost word, a word found in dictionaries that doesn't actually exist. The most famous ghost word is dord, which we don't have an entry for (our entry dord is for an unrelated term). One possibility is to delete it but put a usage note mentioning that the word is sometimes lemmatized under "consum" or confuit. That way someone searching for it might (conceivably) come across it (although the other consum words in other languages will be an issue), especially if they search for it in conjunction with another principal part that actually exists. Benwing2 (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another possibility is the keep it but put the usage note in the definition as a non-gloss defn, something like sometimes used as the lemma of coest, but not attested. @Theknightwho I don't think there's a general practice to be found here; this is a sui generis case and we only need to do the same for other impersonal verbs if they're also lemmatized at a made-up first person singular. Benwing2 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is similar to a ghost word, a word found in dictionaries that doesn't actually exist. The most famous ghost word is dord, which we don't have an entry for (our entry dord is for an unrelated term). One possibility is to delete it but put a usage note mentioning that the word is sometimes lemmatized under "consum" or confuit. That way someone searching for it might (conceivably) come across it (although the other consum words in other languages will be an issue), especially if they search for it in conjunction with another principal part that actually exists. Benwing2 (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Just another famous Latin quote. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see the grounds for deletion here. MedK1 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Simple: because putting these words together does not result in an unexpected meaning, like nōn omne quod nitet aurum est, which is more a phrase meaning that value can be superficial rather than simply reminding us that silver, water, ice crystals, and other reflective materials are not, in fact, heavy yellow elemental metals. In contrast, cogito, ergo sum means exactly what it says on the tin: I think, so I exist. It is a famous quote, but fame per se is an inadequate criterion for an entry. (It is perfectly adequate for an example sentence, though.) See also: wt:RFD/English#I think, therefore I am. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 05:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per proponent. PUC – 19:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Strong keep. It's not only a famous quote, but conveys a distinct philosophical meaning. It's been widely used in philosophical and general discourse as a standalone concept. Imetsia (talk (more)) 22:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per Imetsia. The phrase means much more than just its sum of parts. Ca (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Polomo47 (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from WT:RFVI#sciêntífico.
- Misspelling from post-1911–era texts, like page 16 article 13 here. What use is there in listing misspellings from >100 years ago? The answer: no use. Polomo47 (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. MedK1 (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Davi6596 (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Latin. This is a duplicate of onomatopoeia, where the trema is included in the headword.
It doesn't make sense to treat tremas in Latin titles any differently from macrons: the form exists as a pronunciation aid. Yes, it can be attested in real Latin works, but so can the macron, and we don't include that either. We already strip the trema from Latin links anyway for precisely this reason, and this is currently the only Latin entry with a trema in the title anyway.
It was kept after an RFD discussion back in 2015, with only two votes (one keep, one abstain), but the sole vote for keep was by a user who doesn't actually edit Latin. Theknightwho (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- We do include Latin terms containing macra (though admittedly not the sort that indicate long vowels), and making entries for attested typographic variants is not against our policy. Personally I would have no problem with somebody submitting Latin words attested with diaereses, but I would not feel deeply hurt if we decided to officially ban them either. Abstain. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Usage notes literally say "never occurs"? What is this about? Polomo47 (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to -ificar. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep it, but edit the usage notes and label it as non-productive. Houaiss (a Portuguese dictionary) registers estupeficar, madeficar, tartuficar, and tumeficar as verbs suffixed with -ficar. (Arguably, veneficar is another.)
- But the suffix is non-productive because those verbs were formed centuries ago. Nowadays only -ificar is used. Davi6596 (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- "Was 'centuries ago' still in Portuguese L2 territory" is the important question here, I think. If the answer is no (or if they're borrowings from Latin), then it should be deleted, otherwise, I support keeping it. MedK1 (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MedK1: Having looked them up on online dictionaries, I conclude that their etymologies are obscure or uncertain. They affirm either possibility:
- They came directly from Latin (and some of them are doublets of verbs that end in -fazer, e.g. estupefazer and tumefazer).
- They're hybrids of Latin stems and a -ficar suffix.
- Michaelis says tumeficar was borrowed from French, and madeficar from English. tartuficar may have been formed from tartufo + -ficar (with haplology) or tartufico + -ar (most likely). Finally, veneficar is mostly labeled as an alternative form of veneficiar.
- Now I'm unsure if -ficar was ever a suffix. Davi6596 (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MedK1: Having looked them up on online dictionaries, I conclude that their etymologies are obscure or uncertain. They affirm either possibility:
- "Was 'centuries ago' still in Portuguese L2 territory" is the important question here, I think. If the answer is no (or if they're borrowings from Latin), then it should be deleted, otherwise, I support keeping it. MedK1 (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Spanish. Sum-of-parts. Polomo47 (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to agua; demote to a collocation. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now demoted. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 06:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Imetsia (talk (more)) 22:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Italian. Sum-of-parts. Polomo47 (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to acqua; demote to a collocation. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now demoted. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 06:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Imetsia (talk (more)) 19:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Romanian. Sum-of parts. Polomo47 (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to apă; demote to a collocation. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now demoted. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 06:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Imetsia (talk (more)) 22:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Romanian, meaning ‘political party’. Now, I believe every entry consisting of the words for ‘political’ and ‘party’ should be reconsidered, but this here case is more unambiguously inexcusable: the characteristically European polysemy of the word ‘party’ is not an issue in Romanian, and the word partid has no other meaning than ‘political formation’. In consequence, the ‘political’ designation is redundant and optional, with the term being even less than the sum of its parts, and the entry should be demoted to a collocation. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Just the official name of a website; banned per WT:COMPANY. Ping creator @Kauã Girão. Polomo47 (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. MedK1 (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Davi6596 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Misspelling. Uncommon. Polomo47 (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong keep. It's not a misspelling, it's a European form included in the dictionaries I checked: Dicio, Priberam and Infopédia. MedK1 (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong keep. It's an European spelling that meets the attestation criteria. Davi6596 (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
French SOP PUC – 11:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t see how this is SOP. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 12:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Ktom: Compare mot fétiche, expression fétiche, numéro fétiche, chemise fétiche, etc. PUC – 19:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- In that case a new sense needs to be added to fétiche#Adjective; my reaction owed itself to the impression that this sense of the word is exclusive to this expression. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- So we could compare it to the adjective form of "pet" like in pet peeve, pet name, or pet phrase?
- Pvanp7 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Pvanp7: Yes. PUC – 10:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Then why delete the page? This term seems distinct enough. Pvanp7 (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Pvanp7: Yes. PUC – 10:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- In that case a new sense needs to be added to fétiche#Adjective; my reaction owed itself to the impression that this sense of the word is exclusive to this expression. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Ktom: Compare mot fétiche, expression fétiche, numéro fétiche, chemise fétiche, etc. PUC – 19:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Why should this be deleted? Pvanp7 (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese SOP of -ável and -idade. Read this topic for the rationale. Davi6596 (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as not a real suffix. Polomo47 (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. MedK1 (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging some editors for more participation: @Faviola7, @Jberkel, @JnpoJuwan, @Mati, with a t, @Ortsacordep, @Rodrigo5260, @Stríðsdrengur, @Trooper57, @Ultimateria, @Benwing2, @AG202, @OweOwnAwe, and @Sarilho1
- (Y'all can read the linked topic above too. Also, this ping is also for the topic below.) Davi6596 (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese SOP of -ível and -idade. Read this topic for the rationale. Davi6596 (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as not a real suffix. Polomo47 (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. MedK1 (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- We should probably do something about Spanish -bilidad and Galician -bilidade, too. MedK1 (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese SOP of responsável ("having responsibility for something" and "being the primary cause of something", senses attested by Portuguese dictionaries) and por, besides not being an actual preposition. Davi6596 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Easy SOP. MedK1 (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per proponent. PUC – 19:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Hooray, SoP. Polomo47 (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Imetsia (talk (more)) 22:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- RFD-failed; not a snowball's chance. MedK1 (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Italian SOP: "horse for races" or "horse for racing." Other Italian dictionaries leave it only as a usage example, and we should do the same (a sort of "reverse Lemming test"). There are also other combinations with da corsa like "bicicletta da corsa" (racing bike), "automobile da corsa" (race car), etc. Imetsia (talk (more)) 16:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)