text:
Talk:con intenzione

Literally with intention and without intention. We do the same thing in French to avoid really long, awkward sounding adverbs (avec intention, sans intention). Not idiomatic whatsoever, AFAICT. Mglovesfun 07:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I think these are set phrases, unlike "with intention". Keep. —Stephen 11:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 * They were created by, who's a native Italian speaker and a prolific contributor here, and I'd be wary of deleting them just because they seem SOP to us. I'd consider the corresponding Hebrew בכוונה: to be idiomatic (and in fact, I created an entry for it a while back) for reasons that wouldn't necessarily be obvious to a non–Hebrew speaker. (This is canceled out by the fact that it's also not necessarily obvious to a non–Hebrew speaker that it's a two-word phrase, ב־: + כוונה:, so it's not likely to get RFD'd.) At the very least, we should ask Barmar for her thoughts. —Ruakh TALK 00:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No opinion about Italian. In French, I feel that we don't use avec intention (we rather use intentionnellement or volontairement). We don't use sans intention either (we rather use sans le vouloir or involontairement), except in sans intention de ... (especially in legal terminology). Lmaltier 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In French, both terms are actually used, especially -but not exclusively- in the legal domain. The meaning may then differ from the synonyms you give. For example, "aider sans intention" (= with no particular purpose) has not the same meaning as "aider involontairement" (= involuntarily). OTOH, "avec intention" is indeed similar to intentionnellement, but it exists on its own. I'd ask a native Italian speaker before deleting this entry. — Xavier, 23:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I found them here and here  and there  and thought they were fine, but it is not a problem for me that they would be deleted because considered as sum of parts. --Barmar 21:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those look like sum of parts to me, maybe Appendix:List of Italian colocations of con, Mglovesfun (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As much as I dislike it, kept as no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:con intenzione


text:
Talk:US American

RFD
This and some alternative spellings (hyphen, periods) doesn't seem like a single unit to me. It just seems like attributive use of US with American. If we keep it, it needs usage notes.
 * It's the demonym associated to USA, isn't it? It's a good reason to keep it. Lmaltier 16:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

 * It might be a demonym, but is not used by residents or citizens of the US in reference to themselves. Such folks refer to themselves as "Americans", as in: "I'm proud to be an American." I don't believe that any other country has "America" as part of its name, so the fact that citizens of the US have appropriated this term as preferred demonym doesn't put them in dispute with citizens of another country. But, because there are other uses for the term "American", "American" is modified by "US" to contrast citizens of the US (Or is that non-Latin citizens of the US?) with others who use "American", ie "Latin Americans". "Latin American" seems to have more of a claim as an entry because Latin America is a proper noun for which "Latin American" is a derived noun and adjective. "US America" is not a term that I have heard or read and is not plausibly an etymon of "US American".
 * To me an analogous case is "Northern Italian". "Northern" is just a contrastive adjective modifying Italian. DCDuring TALK 17:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete if DCDuring is right about the use cases, which I think is likely. To me it's "an American from the US" (contrasting with a [North or South] American from elsewhere). Equinox ◑ 23:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason this came up was a heated argument on Wikipedia that "US American" is not a legitimate English term. That in of itself demonstrates that it is not a simple phrase like "northern Italian", which no-one would even think to take issue with. Also, the argument from ignorance above is hardly convincing: that's what all the citations are for, to show the breadth of usage, though, granted, it is certainly an uncommon term. Equinox at least finds the phrase intuitive, as I do. However, several editors on Wikipedia (at the w:names for U.S. citizens article) said that it is grammatically incorrect, because "US" cannot be used attributively. They even cited the use of the phrase by that Miss America contestant to claim that only someone who was incoherent would use it. If it were not for their insistence that "US Americans" is not proper English, when it's something I use myself, I would not have bothered to create these pages. —kwami 14:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

 * It is obviously perfectly acceptable English. It clearly has good use in the contrastive situation. It is also likely to annoy some people who view themselves as and prefer to be called Americans. Sometimes it might even be used for the purpose of annoying them. There may be an argument that I can't see at the moment that it should be included. See [[WT:IDIOM. Controversy alone is not sufficient reason for inclusion, though it is good reason to carefully consider whether the term should be included and to make sure the usage note is well crafted.
 * If the Northern Italian analogy doesn't speak to you, what about "GDR German"/"DDR German" and "FRG German"/"BRD German? All are prima facie attestable collocations. I don't think we'd include them. DCDuring TALK 15:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

 * US can't be used attributively? what about or ? Anyway, delete as it's either sum of parts or not used, quite possibly both. Mglovesfun (t) 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Even if this is deleted, I think we might consider:
 * Organizing and formatting the citations in their proper location (exact spelling) in Citation space.
 * Having an Appendix on approximately the same subject as the above-mentioned WP article, w:Names for U.S. citizens.
 * I have no idea how the WP article will turn out, but the NOR policy as applied there seems very limiting with respect to the use of terms as quoted terms. The limited type of OR that we do here is almost certainly essential for us to avoid copyright violations while having a comprehensive resource. The descriptivist lexicographic stance seems a great fit with NPOV. The combination seems to put us at an advantage relative to WP in accommodating certain language subject matter. Should we Transwiki the article? I would favor getting the version most inclusive of terms and do so now. Should we? Or should we wait until the article is more complete? DCDuring TALK 17:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

 * "It is obviously perfectly acceptable English." Well, it is to me, which is why I was at a loss when people argued that it was ungrammatical. (I expect they would argue that "DDR German" is also not a legitimate term, and for the same reasons.) As for "US Army", that came up, and the answer was that it's valid because it's an abbreviation of "United States Army", whereas "US American" is not an abbreviation of *"United States American". The impassioned debate there shows that, as obviously acceptable as this is to you and me, it is just as obviously unacceptable to others. That's why I think it needs a place in Wiktionary. As for Mglovesfun saying it should be deleted because it's not used, again, that's what the citations are for! kwami 07:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Acceptability as English is one thing. Suitability for any specific purpose is another. I remain uncertain that the term is includable as an entry at Wiktionary. I really have no opinion about what role, if any, the term would have at WP.
 * But I was much more impressed with the vehemence with which the term "US American" was opposed at WP than with the logic. I was also surprised that they actually believe that they have special insight into linguistic correctness, so that they knew what was correct without any need to justify their position or indeed recognition (or acknowledgment, anyway) that it was a position. It isn't that we don't have conflicts. See WT:RFD for an example. DCDuring TALK 00:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Acceptability as English is one thing. Suitability for any specific purpose is another.

And neither has anything to do with whether it should be in an English dictionary. No one here is/should be setting themselves as some authority to decide what is acceptable, what is suitable. Wiktionary should only be concerned with what is and is not used. If you want to decide what is acceptable or suitable use, or "Linguisitically Correct" you should go join the French Academy (or similar). The role of Wiktionary is not to decide any such thing. Is it used? Is there reasonable evidence of its use? There is. End of argument. Your request to delete is misguided, at best. Keep. --Richardb 09:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We routinely keep many things that are not acceptable in any major form of English, that are erroneous, obscene, offensive, inflammatory, and reminders of bad times for humanity. If this item is to be deleted, it will be because it is a sum-of-the-parts use of "US" and "American". We don't have an entry for "maroon red" though we have entries for maroon and red. "It wasn't a vermillion red. It was more a maroon red." is good English, but would not justify creating the entry. In my opinion, "US American" is closely analogous to "maroon red". DCDuring TALK 11:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The term US American is used outside the USA clearly to distinguish the group of Americans from USA from the more general group of Americans. Whilst looked at simply the term may be viewed as only Sum-of-Parts, it's use, instead of the more common American, is often a case of implied objection to the presumption that American applies only to those citizens of the USA who have presumed to take for themselves the term American. In this way US American is more than SoP, to some extent, intended or not, carrying this implicit objection, and thus should not be deleted. No doubt we will have many US Americans who really don't understand or accept this implied meaning, and will try to reject it on the SoP grounds. But that only continues and compounds the presumption that they own the word American. Unlike Wikipedia, we should be able to happily and easily accommodate this idiom. --Richardb 15:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC), UK & Australia. It's used, it's attested. KEEP.

Kept Mglovesfun (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)}}

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

title: Talk:US American


text:
Talk:on the air

Separated from the propositions above. My argument is:

On the air can only be figurative. The only plausible SoP use for on the air I can find is "the ozone layer is on the air", and I think in reality you'd say on top of to avoid confusion. Also, you can't replace on the with anything and still have it mean "in the act of broadcasting", so in other words, strong keep as idiomatic and figurative. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment. Re: "you can't replace on the with anything": That's not true. If nothing else, "on air" alone is quite well attested; has many relevant hits. Likewise "off (the) air", which is the opposite of "on (the) air". Nonetheless, you can probably make a case that "on the air" is the primary use of this sense of the noun "air", and that the other uses are derived from it, in which case it might make sense to include it. (Most monolingual dictionaries cover phrases inside the entry for their most salient word, e.g. defining undefined: inside the entry for air:, so they don't have to worry too much about how idiomatic it is and how rigid its phrasing is. Perhaps the proposed "collocations" header will help address this issue somewhat.) —Ruakh TALK 23:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

 * That the sense of air is figurative is not relevant to whether the term meets WT:CFI. If we don't have the sense of "air" that goes with "over the air", "on the air", "off the air", that is a weakness of air. Interestingly though, I'm not sure that that sense of "air" appears as a subject, though it may be used attributively ("air time"). DCDuring TALK 02:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Kept as no consensus. It was never actually tagged for deletion, it just got mentioned above (now archived) as a candidate to be tagged. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:on the air


text:
Talk:this morning

These seem to be instances of the form [determiner] + [temporal noun] = adverbial phrase. Why have it? Can't translators live with black links? DCDuring TALK 16:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...or links like "this morning"? —  msh210  ℠  16:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's what I should have said. DCDuring TALK 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete ; I think the "sum of parts" argument is overused, but in this case it's about right. Putting "this" in front of any old noun, even a temporal one, does not make a new "adverb". Mglovesfun (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Imo we can't delete this without adding the relevant sense s.v. [[this]]. I'm not sure what that would be: "of the present day"? —  msh210  ℠  16:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't we have a sense like "near"? Whether the meaning is "the preceding morning" "the morning about to or now occurring", it is a proximate one. The transfer from space to time seems to work for lots of words (like prepositions). Alternatively, how many of "this + [time word]" expressions would you like to include: this epoch? this Brumaire? I could understand a phrasebook inclusion rationale, though I have never understood the limits of this nor that there was much indication that it is used. DCDuring TALK 17:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (If that was addressed to me specifically, then please note that I never said I think this should be kept, and I don't. I merely think we should add to [[this]].) True, this evening can I think mean "the preceding evening": "He helped me fix my car this evening", spoken in the morning, I think is fine in some dialects, though not in mine. (Do those BYU corpora allow for searching by presence in a clause containing a verb in a specific tense?) To me, it means "this coming or present evening". Certainly we have a "near" sense: "The (thing) here (used in indicating something or someone nearby)". But I think we should have a separate sense for this, as it's temporal rather than spatial: I was even looking for it there and didn't find it! (Of course, I may be dumber than the average reader.) —  msh210  ℠  17:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure what you were suggesting. Yes, I agree. At first I thought that it was always "the next", then I thought "nearest", but it defines something more like what you say. The contrastive phrases like "this coming month" and "this past month" indicate some of the ambiguity in how "this month" is used around the "turn of the month".

 * Keep, idiomatic and potentially difficult to translate. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 16:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On reflection recategorize as phrasebook only, while it's not idiomatic, it's a very common English construction, plus nobody really says this night they just say tonight, but never tomorning or toevening. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Any comments? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Seems reasonable. -- Visviva 15:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good resolution for now. DCDuring TALK 17:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Phrasebookified Mglovesfun (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:this morning


text:
Talk:this evening

These seem to be instances of the form [determiner] + [temporal noun] = adverbial phrase. Why have it? Can't translators live with black links? DCDuring TALK 16:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...or links like "this morning"? —  msh210  ℠  16:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's what I should have said. DCDuring TALK 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete ; I think the "sum of parts" argument is overused, but in this case it's about right. Putting "this" in front of any old noun, even a temporal one, does not make a new "adverb". Mglovesfun (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Imo we can't delete this without adding the relevant sense s.v. [[this]]. I'm not sure what that would be: "of the present day"? —  msh210  ℠  16:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't we have a sense like "near"? Whether the meaning is "the preceding morning" "the morning about to or now occurring", it is a proximate one. The transfer from space to time seems to work for lots of words (like prepositions). Alternatively, how many of "this + [time word]" expressions would you like to include: this epoch? this Brumaire? I could understand a phrasebook inclusion rationale, though I have never understood the limits of this nor that there was much indication that it is used. DCDuring TALK 17:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (If that was addressed to me specifically, then please note that I never said I think this should be kept, and I don't. I merely think we should add to [[this]].) True, this evening can I think mean "the preceding evening": "He helped me fix my car this evening", spoken in the morning, I think is fine in some dialects, though not in mine. (Do those BYU corpora allow for searching by presence in a clause containing a verb in a specific tense?) To me, it means "this coming or present evening". Certainly we have a "near" sense: "The (thing) here (used in indicating something or someone nearby)". But I think we should have a separate sense for this, as it's temporal rather than spatial: I was even looking for it there and didn't find it! (Of course, I may be dumber than the average reader.) —  msh210  ℠  17:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure what you were suggesting. Yes, I agree. At first I thought that it was always "the next", then I thought "nearest", but it defines something more like what you say. The contrastive phrases like "this coming month" and "this past month" indicate some of the ambiguity in how "this month" is used around the "turn of the month".

 * Keep, idiomatic and potentially difficult to translate. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 16:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On reflection recategorize as phrasebook only, while it's not idiomatic, it's a very common English construction, plus nobody really says this night they just say tonight, but never tomorning or toevening. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Any comments? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Seems reasonable. -- Visviva 15:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good resolution for now. DCDuring TALK 17:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Phrasebookified Mglovesfun (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:this evening


text:
Talk:in order to

This is in order (thanks, Ruakh) + to. I propose that it be replaced with a redirect to in order, which already contains a corresponding usage example. If search worked better the redirect would not be necessary. Please note the numerous translations. (I am also doing the same thing for in order for, which does require any deletion.) DCDuring TALK 01:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 * The writers of other dictionaries seem to see some lexical merit in in order to. It is normally listed and explained as a separate line under order. As we do not have that practice, but favor separate entries where other dictionaries have these "sub-entries", we should keep this. Keeping would also be a favor to translators, as the translations are normally not as easy as in+order+to. If not convinced, check the translations-table of in order to.--Hekaheka 09:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 * The following OneLook dictonaries have a line for "in order to" at their entry for "order", where it appears next to "in order" or "in order that": Websters 1913, RHU, AHD, MWOnline, The ones that apparently do not are Collins, Compact Oxford, Cambridge, WNW. Longmans DCE also has in order to.
 * If this were deleted, the redirect would seem essential to make sure that users found the right entry. The section redirect would take them to the correct part of the right entry. At that entry a translator could consider that the collocation "in order for" was related to "in order to", based on the usage examples. If this were deleted, I would think it highly desirable to move the translations at "in order to" to the correct sense of "in order (adverb)", but as TTBCs.
 * The entry at "in order to" now has various links to other terms like "in order that", which also provide some reference to translators. DCDuring TALK 12:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 * One of the odd things about the term is that the "in order" is inessential. It emphasizes an idea to purpose that is already in "to". It also has some value in reducing ambiguity in connection with phrasal verbs with "for" and "to". DCDuring TALK 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Why make it so complicated, when we can simply keep in order to? We have entries for all kinds of terms derived from the word order, like just what the doctor ordered, get one's affairs in order, put one's affairs in order, which are much more easily both understood and translated by their parts! --Hekaheka 12:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)`

 * It is a question of of which complication influenced by consideration of change vs no change. We put idioms in because there are aspects of the meaning that might be unexpected. Why have a monolingual dictionary at all? It's usually easier to figure out the meaning from context. The point is that, once someone has stumbled over some odd term, we need to give them good help. It is important that the user find an entry that gives help so we should support that need. If search were better we wouldn't even need a redirect, the reader would find "in order to" in related or derived terms at "order" and/or "in order" as well as in idioms using it and even quotations using it.
 * I think that it is somewhat misleading to translators and others to have a full entry at in order to because it is to easy for them to miss the underlying grammar. I don't know how many languages have:
 * a particle just like "to" used in many infinitive constructions including those indicating purpose
 * a particle only used for infinitives, no particle for purpose
 * a particle for purpose, no particle for infinitives
 * two different particles
 * Of course, there are more basic questions of whether the language has something like an infinitive used for this purpose.
 * Is it important for the translator to realize that "in order" is inessential to the meaning but useful to reduce ambiguity? Should that be part of one of the translations the translators offer?
 * This gets to the question of how many different purposes Wiktionary can serve well. One person's nuance is another person's complication. DCDuring TALK 13:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 * One more point of view to consider, and then I give up: given the thousands of SoP's we have - what harm does it do, if we keep this damn thing? --Hekaheka 17:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Only that it might be misleading. DCDuring TALK 18:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 * It might be equally as misleading to delete it, because the grammatical analysis isn't as simple as it seems to the modern eye. See the tea room.  Uncle G 14:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Keep In many languages it's translated as a single word. Anatoli 23:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

 * And grammatically this is a particle, like to, emphasized ? DCDuring TALK 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I see now. I missed the in order entry. I will abstain for the moment. Anatoli 00:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to in order but this smells like a no consensus to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No consensus, kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Preposition
From the 16c. to the 19c. used as a complex preposition meaning ‘with a view to the bringing about of, for the purpose of (some prospective end)’: e.g. A meeting ought… to be called… in order to a regular opposition in parliament —Burke, 1773 --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:in order to


text:
Talk:tell the truth

tell lies and tell a lie both got deleted. I can only see [[tell]] [[the]] [[truth]] to mean "tell the truth". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 * At OneLook, we are the only dictionary with an entry. DCDuring TALK 11:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 * To tell you the truth, I can't make up my mind. I'm not sure there isn't an idiom here, though I don't think as a fully conjugating form. If it is an idiom, it would be like to make a long story short/long story short. We have entries that are conversational directives. I'm just not sure that this one needs an entry. DCDuring TALK 12:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "To tell you the truth" seems less in need of an entry than tell you the truth (like long story short) DCDuring TALK 12:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To tell the truth, I know this phrase from Czech and it strikes me as a non-SOP, meaning "to be frank", "to be honest", or "frankly", being placed at the first position in the sentence like last but not least. But the headword should possibly better be "to tell the truth", as "to " here means "in order to", rather than just showing an infinitive, or that is at least how I read it. Czech translation: "Popravdě řečeno", "Abych řekl pravdu".--Dan Polansky 17:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think the English usage is very similar. As entered, the phrase is a verb, which seems wrong. I can't quite hear any form except infinitive and, possibly, gerund. I believe that it is more like a synonym of the adverb frankly:, but only used appositively, bracketed by punctuation. It is some kind of comment on the following statement or the entire following conversation. At COCA, there are 990 uses of to tell the truth. Most of them seemed very literal SoP. But of that group, 206 were bracketed by punctuation. They seem to represent the widespread usage in question. Even more common is to tell you the truth (416). Bracketed by punctuation, tell the truth gets 97 hits, tell you the truth gets 28, tell ya the truth gets 2.
 * I am not at all sure that these terms all meet WT:CFI. The forms with "to" seem SoP to me. Moreover, there are numerous other forms of equivalent conversational use: "to be frank", "speaking frankly", "to be honest", etc. All seem SoP, non-idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Forms without the "to", they seem more likely to be non-SoP.
 * I am going to convert the RfD to rfd-sense at the verb. I think I will enter under the idiom PoS, a non-gloss definition. Getting similar treatment will be tell you the truth. I think the presence or absence of "you" makes a difference, though I'm not sure exactly what. In both cases I will include the form with "to" in the sense line as a non-wikilinked defining term. DCDuring TALK 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, provided "to be frank", "to tell you to truth", "to be honest", "speaking frankly", "frankly speaking" are all only set phrases rather than idioms and thus not kept, is there a place at Wiktionary, say an appendix, to which they could be filed? Thus, when I (or any other user) want to know what set phrases are synonymous to "to tell you the truth", I look into that appendix instead of in the main Wiktionary space. What if I create an appendix "Appendix:English set phrases"? --Dan Polansky 10:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to that, but I'd like to hear from others about which of these should be in principal namespace. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to to tell you the truth, this seems (somewhat) idiomatic, whereas tell the truth is a verb. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * After the renaming I would add tell the truth and tell you the truth because each appear as standalone terms. The are readily attestable and are not quite SoP, IMO. In this idiomatic use they are not inflecting verbs. DCDuring TALK 15:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think people might not have realised that I was only nominating the verb sense, not the "phrase" sense. I've gone ahead and cleaned it up. Take a look, feel free to modify, but kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:tell the truth


text:
Talk:to be honest

I have inserted this phrase here out of sequence because many of the same arguments apply as with tell the truth. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 *  Weak keep, be honest and to be honest aren't interchangeable. Be honest is an imperative and to be honest is used to give emphasis. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 * In this case, "be honest" is not used in the same bracketed way as to be honest. "To be honest" just seems to be a standard phrasal construction to me. As a native speaker, I am less naturally sensitive to what is or is not idiomatic in the case of some common collocations. DCDuring TALK 15:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Keep, sentence adverb is a speech act. DAVilla 06:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, I like the speech-act argument. But, in all honesty, even if sentence adverbs are truly speech acts, many do not seem worth inclusion. Not to put too fine a point on it, it seems possible to construct an enormous variety of sentence adverbs (or structures of similar force as speech acts) in the form of prepositional phrases as well as infinitives and gerunds. Digging more deeply, I wonder whether it is not true that any English collocation could not be put into a context where it is a speech act. To be brutally honest, sentence adverbs seem like the least meritorious of the speech acts for inclusion, if, indeed, they are best consdiered as speech acts. Quite possibly, there needs to be a line drawn. To add another related point, we are quickly demonstrating that WT:CFI and WT:IDIOM may need a bit more work, at least in this regard. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * to be frank seems okay to me too, and to be (perfectly/totally) honest is just to be honest + adverb, so that is sum of parts. I still think we should keep these. Might as well close this with a keep (more than 30 days without a vote) but I'll close it tomorrow morning as the consensus is a weak one. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:to be honest


text:
Talk:freedom of religion

Perhaps an "only in" template for this encyclopedic content. DCDuring TALK 06:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weakish delete, quite sum of parts but a good list of translations would make the article useful. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think if you were to simply guess what it meant you could reasonably guess wrong; so it's not simply sum of parts. For example is it about the freedom of a religion to do something or the freedom of somebody to hold a religion, clearly the latter, but you wouldn't necessarily know that.Wolfkeeper 13:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, unless we're going to delete freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. --EncycloPetey 03:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to meet the suggested condition. Adding more freedoms that have no place here. They all seem like WP material. An only-in entry would help reduce the likelihood that we would keep getting entries from well-meaning contributors. I would be happy to see translations on only-ins if that would make translators happy. DCDuring TALK 04:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how such translations could work, since there is always the possibility of multiple senses (though perhaps not in the cases currently under discussion). I could see linking these to an Appendix on freedoms where the Translations would be given. --EncycloPetey 04:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All the cases so far have been to single articles at WP, not dab pages, AFAICT, but, you are correct: that need not always be true. DCDuring TALK 04:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as specialist terms, idiomatic, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kept all, consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:freedom of religion


text:
Talk:freedom of movement

Perhaps an "only in" template for this encyclopedic content. DCDuring TALK 06:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weakish delete, quite sum of parts but a good list of translations would make the article useful. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think if you were to simply guess what it meant you could reasonably guess wrong; so it's not simply sum of parts. For example is it about the freedom of a religion to do something or the freedom of somebody to hold a religion, clearly the latter, but you wouldn't necessarily know that.Wolfkeeper 13:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, unless we're going to delete freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. --EncycloPetey 03:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to meet the suggested condition. Adding more freedoms that have no place here. They all seem like WP material. An only-in entry would help reduce the likelihood that we would keep getting entries from well-meaning contributors. I would be happy to see translations on only-ins if that would make translators happy. DCDuring TALK 04:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how such translations could work, since there is always the possibility of multiple senses (though perhaps not in the cases currently under discussion). I could see linking these to an Appendix on freedoms where the Translations would be given. --EncycloPetey 04:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All the cases so far have been to single articles at WP, not dab pages, AFAICT, but, you are correct: that need not always be true. DCDuring TALK 04:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as specialist terms, idiomatic, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kept all, consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:freedom of movement


text:
Talk:freedom of contract

Perhaps an "only in" template for this encyclopedic content. DCDuring TALK 06:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weakish delete, quite sum of parts but a good list of translations would make the article useful. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think if you were to simply guess what it meant you could reasonably guess wrong; so it's not simply sum of parts. For example is it about the freedom of a religion to do something or the freedom of somebody to hold a religion, clearly the latter, but you wouldn't necessarily know that.Wolfkeeper 13:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, unless we're going to delete freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. --EncycloPetey 03:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to meet the suggested condition. Adding more freedoms that have no place here. They all seem like WP material. An only-in entry would help reduce the likelihood that we would keep getting entries from well-meaning contributors. I would be happy to see translations on only-ins if that would make translators happy. DCDuring TALK 04:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how such translations could work, since there is always the possibility of multiple senses (though perhaps not in the cases currently under discussion). I could see linking these to an Appendix on freedoms where the Translations would be given. --EncycloPetey 04:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All the cases so far have been to single articles at WP, not dab pages, AFAICT, but, you are correct: that need not always be true. DCDuring TALK 04:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as specialist terms, idiomatic, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kept all, consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:freedom of contract


text:
Talk:freedom of the press

Perhaps an "only in" template for this encyclopedic content. DCDuring TALK 06:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weakish delete, quite sum of parts but a good list of translations would make the article useful. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think if you were to simply guess what it meant you could reasonably guess wrong; so it's not simply sum of parts. For example is it about the freedom of a religion to do something or the freedom of somebody to hold a religion, clearly the latter, but you wouldn't necessarily know that.Wolfkeeper 13:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, unless we're going to delete freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. --EncycloPetey 03:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to meet the suggested condition. Adding more freedoms that have no place here. They all seem like WP material. An only-in entry would help reduce the likelihood that we would keep getting entries from well-meaning contributors. I would be happy to see translations on only-ins if that would make translators happy. DCDuring TALK 04:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how such translations could work, since there is always the possibility of multiple senses (though perhaps not in the cases currently under discussion). I could see linking these to an Appendix on freedoms where the Translations would be given. --EncycloPetey 04:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All the cases so far have been to single articles at WP, not dab pages, AFAICT, but, you are correct: that need not always be true. DCDuring TALK 04:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as specialist terms, idiomatic, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kept all, consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:freedom of the press


text: opdagelses

title: opdagelses


text: opdagelsens

title: opdagelsens


text: opdagelsers

title: opdagelsers


text: opdagelsernes

title: opdagelsernes


text: mobbede

title: mobbede


text: mobbet

title: mobbet


text: mobberen

title: mobberen


text: mobbere

title: mobbere


text: mobberne

title: mobberne


text: mobberens

title: mobberens


text: mobberes

title: mobberes


text: mobbernes

title: mobbernes


text: SVZ

title: SVZ


text:
per què

Adverb

 * 1)  why

title: per què


text:
baratxuri

Noun

 * 1) garlic

title: baratxuri


text:
რატომ

Adverb

 * 1) why

title: რატომ


text:
რისთვის

Adverb

 * 1) why, for what purpose

title: რისთვის


text:
på grund af

Etymology
From 🇰🇲.

Preposition

 * 1) because of, on account of, owing to

Usage notes

 * Abbreviated or.

title: på grund af


text:
பூண்டு

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) garlic
 * 2) trace, vestige

title: பூண்டு


text: 海湾

title: 海湾


text:
పర్వతము

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) mountain

title: పర్వతము


text:
週刊

Noun

 * 1) weekly publication

Noun

 * 1) weekly (publication that is published once a week)

Related terms

 * : daily publication
 * : monthly publication
 * : quarterly publication
 * : annual publication

title: 週刊


text:
Talk:deaf and dumb

Either needs some sort of figurative use, or just throwing in the dustbin. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is idiomatic, as those people are virtually always physically capable of speaking, they just don't know how. Dumbness is when one is physically incapable of speaking. Boobie 12:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 * You're saying that one who is deaf and physically incapable of speaking is not called deaf and dumb? —Michael Z. 2009-08-13 13:59 z

 * This collocation may be worth keeping in order to note that it was once widely used but is now considered offensive because of the pejorative sense of dumb:. —Rod (A. Smith) 15:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Several current dictionaries have it, some to suggest that it is not current or is offensive. Also Cockney rhyming slang for bum:, according to Partridge's. Keep. DCDuring TALK 17:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Restored to allow for a debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Kept, needs some cleanup. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:deaf and dumb


text:
పిండి

Noun

 * 1) flour

Noun

 * 1) A multitude.

title: పిండి


text:
kaubamärk

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) trademark

title: kaubamärk


text:
kaubandus

Noun

 * 1) trade
 * 2) commerce

title: kaubandus


text:
Talk:paper flower

RFV discussion
Fried egg test. It seems self-explanatory, and it was created by an anon. Ultimateria 03:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 * This looks like an issue for WT:RFD. -- Visviva 18:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, rfd please. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh, sorry. It's taken care of. I don't really do this kind of thing a lot. Ultimateria 22:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:paper flower


text:
isolationnisme

Noun

 * 1) isolationism (a national (or group) policy of non-interaction with other nations (or groups))

title: isolationnisme


text:
нюанс

Noun

 * 1) nuance

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) nuance, shade

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) nuance

title: нюанс


text:
бесконечность

Noun

 * 1) infinity, endlessness
 * 2) eternity

title: бесконечность


text:
radyan

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) radian (unit)

title: radyan


text:
Talk:aggrandizable

RFV discussion — passed
Found in an impressive number of dictionaries. Cannot find any actual use. -- Visviva 11:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Cited, IMHO, but I think I'd file this word under "don't try this at home". —Ruakh TALK 04:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Indeed. Well done. -- Visviva 04:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:aggrandizable


text:
вулканолог

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) volcanologist, vulcanologist

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) volcanologist, vulcanologist

title: вулканолог


text:
утрировать

Etymology
From +.

Verb

 * 1) to exaggerate

Conjugation
imperfective

perfective

title: утрировать


text:
одежда

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  representative clothing, garment, suit
 * 2)  clerk's attire, vestment
 * 1)  clerk's attire, vestment

Usage notes
In the meaning vestment, the noun is typically used in the plural.

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  clergy's attire, vestment, chasuble
 * 2) robe, gown, mantle

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) clothing

Etymology
Borrowed from Old Church Slavonic, from. , the inherited East Slavic form.

Noun

 * 1) clothes, clothing, garments
 * 2) surfacing, top dressing

title: одежда


text:
семестр

Noun

 * 1) semester, term (half of school year)

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1)  semester, term

title: семестр


text:
кузнечик

Noun

 * 1) grasshopper

title: кузнечик


text: metanizzando

title: metanizzando


text: metanizzante

title: metanizzante


text: metanizzato

title: metanizzato


text: metanizzati

title: metanizzati


text:
metanizzare

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to supply with methane
 * 2)  to convert to use methane

title: metanizzare


text: metanizzata

title: metanizzata


text: metanizzo

title: metanizzo


text: metanizzi

title: metanizzi


text: metanizza

title: metanizza


text: metanizziamo

title: metanizziamo


text: metanizzate

title: metanizzate


text: metanizzano

title: metanizzano


text: metanizzavo

title: metanizzavo


text: metanizzavi

title: metanizzavi


text: metanizzava

title: metanizzava


text: metanizzavamo

title: metanizzavamo


text: metanizzavate

title: metanizzavate


text: metanizzavano

title: metanizzavano


text: metanizzai

title: metanizzai


text: metanizzasti

title: metanizzasti


text: metanizzò

title: metanizzò


text: metanizzammo

title: metanizzammo


text: metanizzaste

title: metanizzaste


text: metanizzarono

title: metanizzarono


text: metanizzerò

title: metanizzerò


text: metanizzerai

title: metanizzerai


text: metanizzerà

title: metanizzerà


text: metanizzeremo

title: metanizzeremo


text: metanizzerete

title: metanizzerete


text: metanizzeranno

title: metanizzeranno


text: metanizzerei

title: metanizzerei


text: metanizzeresti

title: metanizzeresti


text: metanizzerebbe

title: metanizzerebbe


text: metanizzeremmo

title: metanizzeremmo


text: metanizzereste

title: metanizzereste


text: metanizzerebbero

title: metanizzerebbero


text: metanizziate

title: metanizziate


text: metanizzino

title: metanizzino


text: metanizzassi

title: metanizzassi


text: metanizzasse

title: metanizzasse


text: metanizzassimo

title: metanizzassimo


text: metanizzassero

title: metanizzassero


text:
metanizzazione

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) supply of methane
 * 2) conversion to use methane

title: metanizzazione


text:
инкуб

Noun

 * 1) incubus

title: инкуб


text:
metanodotto

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) methane (or natural gas) pipeline

title: metanodotto


text:
-dotto

Etymology
Cf. , from.

Suffix

 * 1) -duct

title: -dotto


text:
metaplasma

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  metaplasm

title: metaplasma


text:
metapopolazione

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) metapopulation

title: metapopolazione


text:
metapsichico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) metapsychic

title: metapsichico


text:
царевич

Noun

 * 1) tsarevich (son of a tsar, a prince in Russia or Bulgaria)

title: царевич


text:
metapsichica

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) metapsychics

title: metapsichica


text: metapsichici

title: metapsichici


text: metapsichiche

title: metapsichiche


text: styrerne

title: styrerne


text: gulvs

title: gulvs


text: gulvets

title: gulvets


text: gulves

title: gulves


text: gulvenes

title: gulvenes


text:
фильтр

Noun

 * 1) filter (device for separating impurities from a fluid or other substance)

title: фильтр


text: metastatizzando

title: metastatizzando


text: Category:eu:Foods

title: Category:eu:Foods


text: metastatizzante

title: metastatizzante


text: metastatizzato

title: metastatizzato


text: metastatizzati

title: metastatizzati


text:
metastatizzare

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to metastasize

title: metastatizzare


text: metastatizzata

title: metastatizzata


text: metastatizzo

title: metastatizzo


text: metastatizzi

title: metastatizzi


text: metastatizza

title: metastatizza


text: metastatizziamo

title: metastatizziamo


text: metastatizzate

title: metastatizzate


text: metastatizzano

title: metastatizzano


text: metastatizzavo

title: metastatizzavo


text: metastatizzavi

title: metastatizzavi


text: metastatizzava

title: metastatizzava


text: metastatizzavamo

title: metastatizzavamo


text: metastatizzavate

title: metastatizzavate


text: metastatizzavano

title: metastatizzavano


text: metastatizzai

title: metastatizzai


text: metastatizzasti

title: metastatizzasti


text: metastatizzò

title: metastatizzò


text: metastatizzammo

title: metastatizzammo


text: metastatizzaste

title: metastatizzaste


text: metastatizzarono

title: metastatizzarono


text: metastatizzerò

title: metastatizzerò


text: metastatizzerai

title: metastatizzerai


text: metastatizzerà

title: metastatizzerà


text: metastatizzeremo

title: metastatizzeremo


text: metastatizzerete

title: metastatizzerete


text: metastatizzeranno

title: metastatizzeranno


text: Category:eu:Food and drink

title: Category:eu:Food and drink


text: metastatizzerei

title: metastatizzerei


text: metastatizzeresti

title: metastatizzeresti


text: metastatizzerebbe

title: metastatizzerebbe


text: metastatizzeremmo

title: metastatizzeremmo


text: metastatizzereste

title: metastatizzereste


text: metastatizzerebbero

title: metastatizzerebbero


text: metastatizziate

title: metastatizziate


text: metastatizzino

title: metastatizzino


text: metastatizzassi

title: metastatizzassi


text: metastatizzasse

title: metastatizzasse


text: metastatizzassimo

title: metastatizzassimo


text: metastatizzassero

title: metastatizzassero


text:
meteoro-

Prefix

 * 1) related to weather

Prefix

 * 1) weather

title: meteoro-


text:
meteorografia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) meteorography

title: meteorografia


text: Category:Italian terms prefixed with meteoro-


text:
மஞ்சள்

Etymology
Cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) turmeric
 * 2) yellow

title: மஞ்சள்


text:
meteorografo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) meteorograph

title: meteorografo


text:
meteorogramma

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) meteogram

title: meteorogramma


text:
meteoropatico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  meteoropathic

title: meteoropatico


text: Category:Italian terms prefixed with metro-


text:
metrotram

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) a tram that connects surrounding areas with a city centre

title: metrotram


text:
drall

Etymology
Via from. Pertains to and.

Adjective

 * 1) tight (of a ball, sack: very full)
 * 2) buxom (of a woman: having a full, voluptuous figure)

title: drall


text: islændingen

title: islændingen


text: islændinge

title: islændinge


text: islændingene

title: islændingene


text: islændings

title: islændings


text: islændingens

title: islændingens


text: islændinges

title: islændinges


text: islændingenes

title: islændingenes


text:
курильщик

Noun

 * 1) smoker

title: курильщик


text:
mezzo-

Prefix

 * 1) half; semi-
 * 2) middle; meso-

title: mezzo-


text: Category:Italian terms prefixed with mezzo-


text:
mezzocontralto

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  mezzo-contralto

Noun

 * 1)  mezzo-contralto

title: mezzocontralto


text:
mezzoguanto

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) mitten

title: mezzoguanto


text:
mezzomarinaro

Noun

 * 1)  boat hook

title: mezzomarinaro


text:
mezzorilievo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  half-relief

title: mezzorilievo


text:
ηθολογία

Noun

 * 1)  ethology
 * 2)  ethics

title: ηθολογία


text:
εθολογία

Noun

 * 1)  ethology

title: εθολογία


text:
mezzoservizio

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) part-time domestic service

title: mezzoservizio


text:
mezzotondo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) tondo (sculpture)

title: mezzotondo


text:
táid

Etymology
From, from a participial derivative of an extension of. Cognate to 🇨🇬. The nominative singular is irregular, as *tádae would be expected. It is likely that the nominative singular was originally a related abstract/agentive i-stem (derived with ) that was conflated with the nt-stem and incorporated in its paradigm.

Noun

 * 1) thief

title: táid


text:
táir

Usage notes
The analytic form  is standard.

title: táir


text: skalerbarheden

title: skalerbarheden


text: skalerbarheder

title: skalerbarheder


text: skalerbarhederne

title: skalerbarhederne


text: skalerbarheds

title: skalerbarheds


text: skalerbarhedens

title: skalerbarhedens


text: skalerbarheders

title: skalerbarheders


text: skalerbarhedernes

title: skalerbarhedernes


text:
волонтёр

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) volunteer

title: волонтёр


text:
taoi

Usage notes

 * Formerly used primarily in Munster though still very common in Kerry as ; the synthetic form is now even rarer than older taoi, while the less historical analytic form   as promulgated in the controversial Caighdeán Oifigiúil ("Official Standard") is non-existent in Western Munster, where the even less historical form  (and  after particles) is used before the 2nd person singular  and plural.

title: taoi


text:
skalerbar

Etymology
From. .

Adjective

 * 1) scalable

title: skalerbar


text:
knús

Noun

 * 1)  a hug, an affectionate embrace

title: knús


text:
обниматься

Verb

 * 1)  to hug, to embrace one another

Usage notes

 * This verb is reciprocal, meaning a shared hug (мы обнимались = we hugged (each other)) and performing the action in general. For the transitive verb, see .

title: обниматься


text:
обнимать

Verb

 * 1) to hug, to embrace
 * 2) to engulf, to envelop

Usage notes

 * In high-style and literary usage, this verb has a defective conjugation with a missing infinitive and a different present tense and imperative, the forms being from . The corresponding perfective in this style is.
 * This is more of a transitive verb in the sense of one person hugging another, and not necessarily a shared or mutual hug implied in the plural conjugations of the English verb (we hugged (each other), you hugged (each other), they hugged (each other), etc.). For implication of mutual hugging, see .

Conjugation
neutral-style:

high-style/literary:

title: обнимать


text:
hypocondriaque

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) hypochondriac (affected by hypochondria)

title: hypocondriaque


text:
իւղ

Etymology
The earlier form is, borrowed from an unidentified Mediterranean language, which is also the source of 🇨🇬, , 🇨🇬,.

Noun

 * 1) oil
 * 2) olive oil
 * 3) butter
 * 4) ointment, salve, unguent; pomatum; essence, essential oil, perfume

title: իւղ


text:
вероятно

Adverb

 * 1) possibly, perhaps

Adverb

 * 1)  possibly, perhaps

title: вероятно


text:
утешать

Verb

 * 1) to console, to comfort

title: утешать


text: escaleras mecánicas

title: escaleras mecánicas


text: metagalassie

title: metagalassie


text: metaldeidi

title: metaldeidi


text: metalinguaggi

title: metalinguaggi


text:
metalline

Etymology
From, from and. .

Noun

 * 1)  A substance of variable composition, but resembling a soft, dark-coloured metal, used in the bearings of machines to reduce friction, and as a substitute for lubricants.

Adjective

 * 1)  Relating to, or resembling, a metal; metallic.
 * metalline properties
 * 1) Impregnated with metallic salts; chalybeate.
 * metalline water

title: metalline


text: metallismi

title: metallismi


text: metallizzazioni

title: metallizzazioni


text: metallochimiche

title: metallochimiche


text: metallografi

title: metallografi


text: metallurgisti

title: metallurgisti


text: metallurgiste

title: metallurgiste


text: metamorfismi

title: metamorfismi


text: metanizzazioni

title: metanizzazioni


text: metagenetica

title: metagenetica


text: metanodotti

title: metanodotti


text: metagenetici

title: metagenetici


text: metaplasmi

title: metaplasmi


text: metagenetiche

title: metagenetiche


text: metapopolazioni

title: metapopolazioni


text:
meteorografie

Etymology
. Equivalent to.

Noun

 * 1) meteorography

title: meteorografie


text: meteorografi

title: meteorografi


text: metallescenti

title: metallescenti


text: meteorogrammi

title: meteorogrammi


text: metallifera

title: metallifera


text: metalliferi

title: metalliferi


text: mezzocontralti

title: mezzocontralti


text: metallifere

title: metallifere


text: mezzoguanti

title: mezzoguanti


text: metamerica

title: metamerica


text: mezzomarinari

title: mezzomarinari


text: metamerici

title: metamerici


text: mezzorilievi

title: mezzorilievi


text: mezzoservizi

title: mezzoservizi


text: metameriche

title: metameriche


text: mezzotondi

title: mezzotondi


text: metanica

title: metanica


text: metanici

title: metanici


text: metaniche

title: metaniche


text: metanifera

title: metanifera


text: metaniferi

title: metaniferi


text: metanifere

title: metanifere


text: meteoropatica

title: meteoropatica


text: meteoropatici

title: meteoropatici


text: meteoropatiche

title: meteoropatiche


text:
mico-

Prefix

 * 1) myco-

Prefix

 * 1) myco-

title: mico-


text:
micobatterio

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) mycobacterium

title: micobatterio


text: Category:Italian terms prefixed with mico-


text:
microamperometro

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) microammeter

title: microamperometro


text:
microanalitico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) microanalytic

title: microanalitico


text:
microbar

Noun

 * 1) A unit of pressure equal to one millionth of a bar

Translations

 * Thai: ไมโครบาร์

Etymology
From.

Etymology
.

title: microbar


text:
microbicida

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) microbicidal

Noun

 * 1) microbicide

Adjective

 * 1) microbicidal

Noun

 * 1) microbicide

title: microbicida


text:
Talk:Liberal Democrats

I'm nominating all of these for deletion as "not dictionary material" - Obviously Republican and Liberal and whatnot are, I'm just talking about specific entries (see WT:CFI). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to show attestation per 'Names of specific entities', not idiomaticity. So keep all official names of parties and send to RFV; but Conservative party, which I assume is not its official name, is SoP, so delete that one. —  msh210  ℠  00:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I sent Liberal Democrats to RFV before I discovered the others, and nobody looked so I moved them all here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Labour Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Republican Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Conservative party

 * Delete Mglovesfun (talk). Also inconsistent capital letters, compared to the rest. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Parties of other countries
What should we do with the names of parties of other than English-speaking countries? They do not necessarily have the word Party (or its equivalent in other languages) in their name, and they are certainly stuff that somebody might want to look up in a dictionary. The possible inclusion of Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU) might be discussed as an example. --Hekaheka 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose almost anything can be translated, including proper nouns that don't meet our criteria. I think the current WT:BP discussion (of which I forget the name) is on a similar sort of topic. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding two Canadian parties. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z

New Democratic Party
Cf. New Democrat, New Democratic, NDP. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Progressive Conservative Party
Cf. Progressive Conservative, PC.. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bloc Québécois
And the accentless form Bloc Quebecois
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Also abbreviated BQ, but I suppose we keep abbreviations because of their potentially cryptic nature? Cf. Bloquiste, bloquiste. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z
 * I'd just put instead of Bloc Québécois Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Parti Québécois
And Parti Quebecois. Cf. PQ, péquiste. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z

Keep them all, I think. WT:CFI allows for the inclusion of names which are "used attributively, with a widely understood meaning." Political party names have widely understood meanings and connotations, and I think abundant attributive usages of any political party name can be found. Wiktionary is supposed to be comprehensive and these names seem to me to fall on the "include" side of the line. The definitions, of course, should be brief and unencyclopedic. -- WikiPedant 04:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Kept all, no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Liberal Democrats


text:
Talk:Labour Party

I'm nominating all of these for deletion as "not dictionary material" - Obviously Republican and Liberal and whatnot are, I'm just talking about specific entries (see WT:CFI). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to show attestation per 'Names of specific entities', not idiomaticity. So keep all official names of parties and send to RFV; but Conservative party, which I assume is not its official name, is SoP, so delete that one. —  msh210  ℠  00:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I sent Liberal Democrats to RFV before I discovered the others, and nobody looked so I moved them all here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Labour Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Republican Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Conservative party

 * Delete Mglovesfun (talk). Also inconsistent capital letters, compared to the rest. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Parties of other countries
What should we do with the names of parties of other than English-speaking countries? They do not necessarily have the word Party (or its equivalent in other languages) in their name, and they are certainly stuff that somebody might want to look up in a dictionary. The possible inclusion of Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU) might be discussed as an example. --Hekaheka 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose almost anything can be translated, including proper nouns that don't meet our criteria. I think the current WT:BP discussion (of which I forget the name) is on a similar sort of topic. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding two Canadian parties. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z

New Democratic Party
Cf. New Democrat, New Democratic, NDP. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Progressive Conservative Party
Cf. Progressive Conservative, PC.. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bloc Québécois
And the accentless form Bloc Quebecois
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Also abbreviated BQ, but I suppose we keep abbreviations because of their potentially cryptic nature? Cf. Bloquiste, bloquiste. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z
 * I'd just put instead of Bloc Québécois Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Parti Québécois
And Parti Quebecois. Cf. PQ, péquiste. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z

Keep them all, I think. WT:CFI allows for the inclusion of names which are "used attributively, with a widely understood meaning." Political party names have widely understood meanings and connotations, and I think abundant attributive usages of any political party name can be found. Wiktionary is supposed to be comprehensive and these names seem to me to fall on the "include" side of the line. The definitions, of course, should be brief and unencyclopedic. -- WikiPedant 04:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Kept all, no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Labour Party


text:
Talk:Republican Party

RFD 2009
I'm nominating all of these for deletion as "not dictionary material" - Obviously Republican and Liberal and whatnot are, I'm just talking about specific entries (see WT:CFI). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to show attestation per 'Names of specific entities', not idiomaticity. So keep all official names of parties and send to RFV; but Conservative party, which I assume is not its official name, is SoP, so delete that one. —  msh210  ℠  00:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I sent Liberal Democrats to RFV before I discovered the others, and nobody looked so I moved them all here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Labour Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Republican Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Conservative party

 * Delete Mglovesfun (talk). Also inconsistent capital letters, compared to the rest. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Parties of other countries
What should we do with the names of parties of other than English-speaking countries? They do not necessarily have the word Party (or its equivalent in other languages) in their name, and they are certainly stuff that somebody might want to look up in a dictionary. The possible inclusion of Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU) might be discussed as an example. --Hekaheka 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose almost anything can be translated, including proper nouns that don't meet our criteria. I think the current WT:BP discussion (of which I forget the name) is on a similar sort of topic. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding two Canadian parties. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z

New Democratic Party
Cf. New Democrat, New Democratic, NDP. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Progressive Conservative Party
Cf. Progressive Conservative, PC.. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bloc Québécois
And the accentless form Bloc Quebecois
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Also abbreviated BQ, but I suppose we keep abbreviations because of their potentially cryptic nature? Cf. Bloquiste, bloquiste. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z
 * I'd just put instead of Bloc Québécois Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Parti Québécois
And Parti Quebecois. Cf. PQ, péquiste. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z

Keep them all, I think. WT:CFI allows for the inclusion of names which are "used attributively, with a widely understood meaning." Political party names have widely understood meanings and connotations, and I think abundant attributive usages of any political party name can be found. Wiktionary is supposed to be comprehensive and these names seem to me to fall on the "include" side of the line. The definitions, of course, should be brief and unencyclopedic. -- WikiPedant 04:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Kept all, no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

RFD 2011
Not going to seek out any other adj+party entries right now, but they're SOP... god knows how many parties there have been throughout the world. Some of them might not be SOP, I can see how a Labour party could potentially warrant inclusion... but these two in particular are pretty obvious to me at least. —  [Ric Laurent] — 11:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: These were previously kept due to no consensus. —msh210℠ (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WT:CFI. —msh210℠ (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good spot, delete. --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, including all that don't meet WT:CFI; though maybe consider adding one of those templates which link to the entry on Wikipedia as a sister project, ? Caladon 22:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Redirect Democratic Party and Republican Party to Wikipedia using, like Caladon suggests. - -sche (discuss) 20:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds good. —msh210℠ (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * democratic party, would seem to merit inclusion.Gtroy 20:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Based on what? And why democratic but not republican? —  [Ric Laurent] — 23:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * This is not mentioned in CFI, but these two are among the World's most powerful organisations due to one of them always holding U.S. presidency. They also appear in numerous texts, which assume that they are known to the reader. They also have a standard translation to all major languages of the World. keep --Hekaheka 22:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * (Missed this discussion, reposting my opinion) Nominated but not listed. Do the political parties always live up to their names? Is Democratic Party a party, which is democratic and can all democratic parties have a name Democratic Party?. They are just proper names, IMO and we should keep them. --Anatoli 01:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 * delete, fails the CFI on company names -- Liliana • 01:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If these are company names (and I think they are) then yes, they'd fail an RFV anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Comment: A political party is not a company, at least not in my mental taxonomy. Furthermore, WT:CFI#Company names has never been voted on, and a poll showed that a slight majority of editors wants some company names included. Moreover, "Democratic Party" and "Republican Party" are names of specific entities, and thus are not semantic sums of parts; in particular, "Republican Party" is presumably a democratic party in that it supports democracy as a method of government, and is internally run by party elections rather than having a dictatorial structure. --Dan Polansky 08:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 07:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Republican Party


text:
microbilancia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) microbalance

title: microbilancia


text:
Talk:Democratic Party

RFD 1
I'm nominating all of these for deletion as "not dictionary material" - Obviously Republican and Liberal and whatnot are, I'm just talking about specific entries (see WT:CFI). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to show attestation per 'Names of specific entities', not idiomaticity. So keep all official names of parties and send to RFV; but Conservative party, which I assume is not its official name, is SoP, so delete that one. —  msh210  ℠  00:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I sent Liberal Democrats to RFV before I discovered the others, and nobody looked so I moved them all here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Labour Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Republican Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Conservative party

 * Delete Mglovesfun (talk). Also inconsistent capital letters, compared to the rest. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Parties of other countries
What should we do with the names of parties of other than English-speaking countries? They do not necessarily have the word Party (or its equivalent in other languages) in their name, and they are certainly stuff that somebody might want to look up in a dictionary. The possible inclusion of Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU) might be discussed as an example. --Hekaheka 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose almost anything can be translated, including proper nouns that don't meet our criteria. I think the current WT:BP discussion (of which I forget the name) is on a similar sort of topic. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding two Canadian parties. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z

New Democratic Party
Cf. New Democrat, New Democratic, NDP. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Progressive Conservative Party
Cf. Progressive Conservative, PC.. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bloc Québécois
And the accentless form Bloc Quebecois
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Also abbreviated BQ, but I suppose we keep abbreviations because of their potentially cryptic nature? Cf. Bloquiste, bloquiste. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z
 * I'd just put instead of Bloc Québécois Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Parti Québécois
And Parti Quebecois. Cf. PQ, péquiste. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z

Keep them all, I think. WT:CFI allows for the inclusion of names which are "used attributively, with a widely understood meaning." Political party names have widely understood meanings and connotations, and I think abundant attributive usages of any political party name can be found. Wiktionary is supposed to be comprehensive and these names seem to me to fall on the "include" side of the line. The definitions, of course, should be brief and unencyclopedic. -- WikiPedant 04:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Kept all, no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

RFD 2
Not going to seek out any other adj+party entries right now, but they're SOP... god knows how many parties there have been throughout the world. Some of them might not be SOP, I can see how a Labour party could potentially warrant inclusion... but these two in particular are pretty obvious to me at least. —  [Ric Laurent] — 11:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: These were previously kept due to no consensus. —msh210℠ (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WT:CFI. —msh210℠ (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good spot, delete. --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, including all that don't meet WT:CFI; though maybe consider adding one of those templates which link to the entry on Wikipedia as a sister project, ? Caladon 22:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Redirect Democratic Party and Republican Party to Wikipedia using, like Caladon suggests. - -sche (discuss) 20:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds good. —msh210℠ (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * democratic party, would seem to merit inclusion.Gtroy 20:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Based on what? And why democratic but not republican? —  [Ric Laurent] — 23:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * This is not mentioned in CFI, but these two are among the World's most powerful organisations due to one of them always holding U.S. presidency. They also appear in numerous texts, which assume that they are known to the reader. They also have a standard translation to all major languages of the World. keep --Hekaheka 22:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * (Missed this discussion, reposting my opinion) Nominated but not listed. Do the political parties always live up to their names? Is Democratic Party a party, which is democratic and can all democratic parties have a name Democratic Party?. They are just proper names, IMO and we should keep them. --Anatoli 01:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 * delete, fails the CFI on company names -- Liliana • 01:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If these are company names (and I think they are) then yes, they'd fail an RFV anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Comment: A political party is not a company, at least not in my mental taxonomy. Furthermore, WT:CFI#Company names has never been voted on, and a poll showed that a slight majority of editors wants some company names included. Moreover, "Democratic Party" and "Republican Party" are names of specific entities, and thus are not semantic sums of parts; in particular, "Republican Party" is presumably a democratic party in that it supports democracy as a method of government, and is internally run by party elections rather than having a dictatorial structure. --Dan Polansky 08:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 07:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Democratic Party


text:
Talk:New Democratic Party

I'm nominating all of these for deletion as "not dictionary material" - Obviously Republican and Liberal and whatnot are, I'm just talking about specific entries (see WT:CFI). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to show attestation per 'Names of specific entities', not idiomaticity. So keep all official names of parties and send to RFV; but Conservative party, which I assume is not its official name, is SoP, so delete that one. —  msh210  ℠  00:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I sent Liberal Democrats to RFV before I discovered the others, and nobody looked so I moved them all here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Labour Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Republican Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Conservative party

 * Delete Mglovesfun (talk). Also inconsistent capital letters, compared to the rest. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Parties of other countries
What should we do with the names of parties of other than English-speaking countries? They do not necessarily have the word Party (or its equivalent in other languages) in their name, and they are certainly stuff that somebody might want to look up in a dictionary. The possible inclusion of Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU) might be discussed as an example. --Hekaheka 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose almost anything can be translated, including proper nouns that don't meet our criteria. I think the current WT:BP discussion (of which I forget the name) is on a similar sort of topic. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding two Canadian parties. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z

New Democratic Party
Cf. New Democrat, New Democratic, NDP. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Progressive Conservative Party
Cf. Progressive Conservative, PC.. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bloc Québécois
And the accentless form Bloc Quebecois
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Also abbreviated BQ, but I suppose we keep abbreviations because of their potentially cryptic nature? Cf. Bloquiste, bloquiste. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z
 * I'd just put instead of Bloc Québécois Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Parti Québécois
And Parti Quebecois. Cf. PQ, péquiste. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z

Keep them all, I think. WT:CFI allows for the inclusion of names which are "used attributively, with a widely understood meaning." Political party names have widely understood meanings and connotations, and I think abundant attributive usages of any political party name can be found. Wiktionary is supposed to be comprehensive and these names seem to me to fall on the "include" side of the line. The definitions, of course, should be brief and unencyclopedic. -- WikiPedant 04:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Kept all, no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:New Democratic Party


text:
Talk:Bloc Québécois

I'm nominating all of these for deletion as "not dictionary material" - Obviously Republican and Liberal and whatnot are, I'm just talking about specific entries (see WT:CFI). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to show attestation per 'Names of specific entities', not idiomaticity. So keep all official names of parties and send to RFV; but Conservative party, which I assume is not its official name, is SoP, so delete that one. —  msh210  ℠  00:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I sent Liberal Democrats to RFV before I discovered the others, and nobody looked so I moved them all here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Labour Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Republican Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Conservative party

 * Delete Mglovesfun (talk). Also inconsistent capital letters, compared to the rest. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Parties of other countries
What should we do with the names of parties of other than English-speaking countries? They do not necessarily have the word Party (or its equivalent in other languages) in their name, and they are certainly stuff that somebody might want to look up in a dictionary. The possible inclusion of Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU) might be discussed as an example. --Hekaheka 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose almost anything can be translated, including proper nouns that don't meet our criteria. I think the current WT:BP discussion (of which I forget the name) is on a similar sort of topic. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding two Canadian parties. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z

New Democratic Party
Cf. New Democrat, New Democratic, NDP. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Progressive Conservative Party
Cf. Progressive Conservative, PC.. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bloc Québécois
And the accentless form Bloc Quebecois
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Also abbreviated BQ, but I suppose we keep abbreviations because of their potentially cryptic nature? Cf. Bloquiste, bloquiste. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z
 * I'd just put instead of Bloc Québécois Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Parti Québécois
And Parti Quebecois. Cf. PQ, péquiste. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z

Keep them all, I think. WT:CFI allows for the inclusion of names which are "used attributively, with a widely understood meaning." Political party names have widely understood meanings and connotations, and I think abundant attributive usages of any political party name can be found. Wiktionary is supposed to be comprehensive and these names seem to me to fall on the "include" side of the line. The definitions, of course, should be brief and unencyclopedic. -- WikiPedant 04:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Kept all, no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bloc Québécois


text:
Talk:Parti Québécois

I'm nominating all of these for deletion as "not dictionary material" - Obviously Republican and Liberal and whatnot are, I'm just talking about specific entries (see WT:CFI). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to show attestation per 'Names of specific entities', not idiomaticity. So keep all official names of parties and send to RFV; but Conservative party, which I assume is not its official name, is SoP, so delete that one. —  msh210  ℠  00:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I sent Liberal Democrats to RFV before I discovered the others, and nobody looked so I moved them all here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Labour Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Republican Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Conservative party

 * Delete Mglovesfun (talk). Also inconsistent capital letters, compared to the rest. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Parties of other countries
What should we do with the names of parties of other than English-speaking countries? They do not necessarily have the word Party (or its equivalent in other languages) in their name, and they are certainly stuff that somebody might want to look up in a dictionary. The possible inclusion of Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU) might be discussed as an example. --Hekaheka 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose almost anything can be translated, including proper nouns that don't meet our criteria. I think the current WT:BP discussion (of which I forget the name) is on a similar sort of topic. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding two Canadian parties. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z

New Democratic Party
Cf. New Democrat, New Democratic, NDP. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Progressive Conservative Party
Cf. Progressive Conservative, PC.. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bloc Québécois
And the accentless form Bloc Quebecois
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Also abbreviated BQ, but I suppose we keep abbreviations because of their potentially cryptic nature? Cf. Bloquiste, bloquiste. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z
 * I'd just put instead of Bloc Québécois Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Parti Québécois
And Parti Quebecois. Cf. PQ, péquiste. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z

Keep them all, I think. WT:CFI allows for the inclusion of names which are "used attributively, with a widely understood meaning." Political party names have widely understood meanings and connotations, and I think abundant attributive usages of any political party name can be found. Wiktionary is supposed to be comprehensive and these names seem to me to fall on the "include" side of the line. The definitions, of course, should be brief and unencyclopedic. -- WikiPedant 04:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Kept all, no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Parti Québécois


text:
Talk:Progressive Conservative Party

I'm nominating all of these for deletion as "not dictionary material" - Obviously Republican and Liberal and whatnot are, I'm just talking about specific entries (see WT:CFI). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to show attestation per 'Names of specific entities', not idiomaticity. So keep all official names of parties and send to RFV; but Conservative party, which I assume is not its official name, is SoP, so delete that one. —  msh210  ℠  00:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I sent Liberal Democrats to RFV before I discovered the others, and nobody looked so I moved them all here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Labour Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Republican Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Party

 * Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Conservative party

 * Delete Mglovesfun (talk). Also inconsistent capital letters, compared to the rest. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Parties of other countries
What should we do with the names of parties of other than English-speaking countries? They do not necessarily have the word Party (or its equivalent in other languages) in their name, and they are certainly stuff that somebody might want to look up in a dictionary. The possible inclusion of Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU) might be discussed as an example. --Hekaheka 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose almost anything can be translated, including proper nouns that don't meet our criteria. I think the current WT:BP discussion (of which I forget the name) is on a similar sort of topic. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding two Canadian parties. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z

New Democratic Party
Cf. New Democrat, New Democratic, NDP. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Progressive Conservative Party
Cf. Progressive Conservative, PC.. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bloc Québécois
And the accentless form Bloc Quebecois
 * Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Also abbreviated BQ, but I suppose we keep abbreviations because of their potentially cryptic nature? Cf. Bloquiste, bloquiste. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z
 * I'd just put instead of Bloc Québécois Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Parti Québécois
And Parti Quebecois. Cf. PQ, péquiste. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z

Keep them all, I think. WT:CFI allows for the inclusion of names which are "used attributively, with a widely understood meaning." Political party names have widely understood meanings and connotations, and I think abundant attributive usages of any political party name can be found. Wiktionary is supposed to be comprehensive and these names seem to me to fall on the "include" side of the line. The definitions, of course, should be brief and unencyclopedic. -- WikiPedant 04:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Kept all, no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Progressive Conservative Party


text:
рогоносец

Noun

 * 1) cuckold (man married to an unfaithful wife)

Noun

 * 1) cuckold (man married to an unfaithful wife)

title: рогоносец


text:
renommiert

Adjective

 * 1) renowned

title: renommiert


text:
berömd

Etymology 2
From.

Adjective

 * 1) renowned, famous

title: berömd


text:
microbiologo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) microbiologist

title: microbiologo


text:
Talk:grandaddy purp

RFV discussion — failed
Cannabis variety. DCDuring TALK 19:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Definitely can be cited from Usenet. I might dig something up later. Equinox ◑ 22:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Doesn't look citable today! I suppose I must have been looking at Google Groups generally and not Usenet, which has one (and it's embarrassing to cite because it seems to be a personally-identifying abuse thread). Equinox ◑ 09:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Perhaps it's granddaddy purp.
 * Perhaps purp is citable as a marijuana variety with more ease? DCDuring TALK 10:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I couldn't verify it either - deleted SemperBlotto 16:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:grandaddy purp


text:
microcalcolatore

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  microcomputer

title: microcalcolatore


text:
kwas askorbinowy

Noun

 * 1) ascorbic acid

title: kwas askorbinowy


text: falsificadora

title: falsificadora


text:
аскорбиновая кислота

Noun

 * 1) ascorbic acid

title: аскорбиновая кислота


text:
User talk:Conorobradaigh

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
 * Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
 * Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
 * The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
 * We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! L☺g☺maniac chat? 17:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Conorobradaigh


text: falsificadores

title: falsificadores


text:
microcamera

Noun

 * 1)  A very small camera

Etymology
From.

title: microcamera


text: falsificadoras

title: falsificadoras


text:
microcassetta

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) microcassette

title: microcassetta


text:
microcefalia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) microcephaly, microcephalia

Noun

 * 1) microcephalia

title: microcefalia


text:
шорты

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) shorts (pants worn primarily in the summer that do not go lower than the knees)

title: шорты


text:
microcefalico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) microcephalic

title: microcefalico


text:
microcefalo

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) microcephalic
 * 2) idiot

title: microcefalo


text:
microchimica

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  microchemistry

title: microchimica


text:
microchirurgia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  microsurgery

title: microchirurgia


text:
microcircuito

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) microcircuit

Noun

 * 1) microcircuit

title: microcircuito


text:
microcitemia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) microcythemia

title: microcitemia


text:
microcito

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) microcyte

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  microcyte

title: microcito


text:
microclimatico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) microclimatic

title: microclimatico


text:
micrococco

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  micrococcus

title: micrococco


text:
microcomponente

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) microcomponent

title: microcomponente


text: ahuevonada

title: ahuevonada


text: ahuevonados

title: ahuevonados


text: frecencies

title: frecencies


text: ahuevonadas

title: ahuevonadas


text: Лихтенштајн

title: Лихтенштајн


text:
Talk:Cheaster

RFV discussion for Transwiki:Cheaster
The source is Urban dictionary. Protologism ? It would be nice to sort it out by Easter. Goldenrowley 02:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Not a protologism, been around for a few years at least.  All uses seem very mention-y, though. -- Visviva 16:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * You're right it seems legitimate so I moved it to mainspaces for Easter. Goldenrowley 21:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Striking. Equinox ◑ 00:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cheaster


text:
moyen néerlandais

Noun

 * 1) the Middle Dutch language

title: moyen néerlandais


text:
tresaur

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) treasure

title: tresaur


text:
User talk:Ando-kun

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
 * Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
 * Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
 * The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
 * We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! --EncycloPetey 18:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Homolinian
On ja you created a section for “Homolinian”. This is obviously either an extremely obscure term for a language or dialect or a nonexistent one, as Google shows zero hits. Can you clarify what this is supposed to mean? – Krun 17:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

 * And this one "Homolinsh" Equinox ◑ 15:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ando-kun


text: kasbahs

title: kasbahs


text:
User talk:Jonund

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
 * Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
 * Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
 * The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
 * We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jonund


text:
chikane

Etymology
From, verbal noun to.

Noun

 * 1) harassment (persistent attacks and criticism causing worry and distress)
 * 2) malice, spite
 * 3) chicane (a temporary barrier or serpentine curve)

title: chikane


text:
bitum

Noun

 * 1) bitumen (mineral pitch)

Etymology
, from. .

Noun

 * 1) bitumen, blacktop

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) bitumen

title: bitum


text:
becado

Noun

 * 1) one who has been granted a scholarship

title: becado


text: bons vivants

title: bons vivants


text:
impédance

Noun

 * 1)  impedance (physics, measure of opposition to flow of current)

title: impédance


text:
User talk:Wordnerd

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
 * Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
 * Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
 * The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
 * We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wordnerd


text:
термосфера

Etymology
, from +.

Noun

 * 1) thermosphere

Noun

 * 1) thermosphere

Noun

 * 1) thermosphere

title: термосфера


text:
becar

Etymology 1
From.

Verb

 * 1) to grant a scholarship

Verb

 * 1) to snooze, to nap
 * 2) to get distracted, to make a mistake

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  natural

Verb

 * 1) to grant a stipend or scholarship for studying

Etymology
Compare 🇨🇬.

Verb

 * 1)  to prick
 * 2)  to sting, bite
 * 3)  to prickle, scratch
 * 4)  to peck

title: becar


text:
becada

Etymology 1
From.

Noun

 * 1) beakful

Noun

 * 1) longspine snipefish
 * 2) woodcock
 * 1) woodcock
 * 1) woodcock

Etymology 3
.

Noun

 * 1) nod ; a nap, a doze

title: becada


text: becados

title: becados


text: becadas

title: becadas