text:
exercise bicycle

Noun

 * 1) A stationary exercise machine with pedals, saddle, handlebars arranged like a bicycle.

Translations

 * Arabic: دَرَّاجَة ثَابِتَة
 * Catalan: bicicleta estàtica
 * Czech:
 * Danish: motionscykel,, ergometercykel
 * Dutch: kamerfiets,
 * Esperanto: ergometro
 * Faroese: venjingarskúkkla
 * Finnish:
 * French:, , bicyclette stationnaire
 * Galician:
 * German:, ,
 * Icelandic: þrekhjól
 * Italian:, bicicletta statica, cicletta
 * Lithuanian: dviratis treniruoklis, stacionarus dviratis
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: ergometersykkel
 * Nynorsk: ergometersykkel
 * Polish: ergometr rowerowy, rower stacjonarny,
 * Portuguese: bicicleta ergométrica
 * Russian:, велостано́к
 * Slovak: rotopéd
 * Spanish: ,
 * Swedish:, testcykel, ergometercykel

title: exercise bicycle


text: exercise bike

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

title: exercise bike


text:
iichʼąhii

Etymology
+ : "fire-faller".

Noun

 * 1) moth

title: iichʼąhii


text:
motricité

Noun

 * 1) motivity, motive power

title: motricité


text: 分类广告

title: 分类广告


text:
分類廣告

Noun

 * 1) classifieds; classified advertisement

title: 分類廣告


text: Category:Syriac script

title: Category:Syriac script


text:
Talk:unconfident

Not a word
'Unconfident' is not a word, this page needs to be removed or changed so it states that one should use 'Lacking in confidence' or 'not confident'. --Benpaul12 01:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 * It is indeed a word; finds hundreds of hits. —Ruakh TALK 01:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 * It's just very very rare but is attestable. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, upon posting this comment I looked it up. Possibly would we say on the page that the term is rarely used because of how bad it sounds? I understand that Wiktionary is not a grammar guide. --Benpaul12 01:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 * We can mark it as rare, but we can't state that it sounds bad unless we have evidence to support the claim. —Ruakh TALK 01:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:unconfident


text:
Talk:adsorption

How can you give a definition by using the word you are trying to define several times?

 * Heh, you can't — and this entry doesn't. It defines using various closely related words. I do see that it's not optimal, though, since someone who already knows all those words would probably have little need to look up this one. —Ruakh TALK 01:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with unsigned. You can't use variants of the word you are defining in its own definition.

I've tried to make an improvement. -- A LGRIF  talk 17:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:adsorption


text:
meppi

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) MEP, a member of the European Parliament

title: meppi


text: bówùguǎn

title: bówùguǎn


text:
luokiteltu

Participle

 * luokiteltu ilmoitus
 * classified advertisement
 * classified advertisement

title: luokiteltu


text: dàshǐguǎn

title: dàshǐguǎn


text:
משוגע

Etymology
The adjective follows from the verb. Both are ultimately from the root.

Adjective

 * 1) mad, crazy, insane

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) crazy

Adverb

 * 1) insanely, ridiculously, absurdly

title: משוגע


text: zhǎnlǎnguǎn

title: zhǎnlǎnguǎn


text: to whom this may concern

title: to whom this may concern


text:
Talk:to whom this may concern

I've moved the translations to this entry, as opposed to to whom it may concern, as to whom this may concern has over a million more Google hits. Tooironic 02:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, I'd never heard of the "this" form, and today Google gives 10.5m results for "it" and only 240K for "this"; I am undoing the move. Equinox ◑ 15:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:to whom this may concern


text:
défoncer

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to deep-plough
 * 2) to smash in, smash up, break, break open destroy violently
 * 3) to rip, rip apart, tear apart
 * 4)  to fuck up, make high, screw up intoxicate
 * 5)  to get high, get pissed
 * 6)  to fuck

title: défoncer


text:
auka-

Etymology
Compare the verb.

Prefix

 * 1) an additional, an extra

Derived terms

 * (a by-product)
 * (a by-product)
 * (a by-product)

title: auka-


text:
theeblad

Etymology
From.

title: theeblad


text: theebladen

title: theebladen


text: theeblaadje

title: theeblaadje


text:
forniquer

Etymology
From, from.

Verb

 * 1) to fornicate

title: forniquer


text:
tringler

Etymology
From .

Verb

 * 1)  to shaft, shag, hump have sex with

title: tringler


text:
déglinguer

Etymology
, perhaps an alteration of.

Verb

 * 1)  to knacker, screw up
 * 2)  to fuck, screw
 * 1)  to fuck, screw
 * 1)  to fuck, screw

title: déglinguer


text:
poutrer

Verb

 * 1)  to fuck, screw

title: poutrer


text:
Citations:effemimania

Whipping Girl:A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity, by Julia Serano, 2007, Seal Press, pg 129

title: Citations:effemimania


text:
skrieme

Etymology
Compare 🇨🇬.

Verb

 * 1) to weep

title: skrieme


text:
Talk:obviate

Derivation
from the Latin obviātus, prevented or obviare (via = way) reference here 1911 Concise Oxford —This.

The British and American IPA seem swapped
The British and American IPA seem swapped 2A0A:A545:9AE3:0:49BE:E36D:84E5:9724 23:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:obviate


text:
Talk:iichʼąh

Moth
Is this related to the word iichʼąhii (moth)? 71.66.97.228 04:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is the basis for iichʼąhii. —Stephen 14:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fire
What is the "fire" part of the etymology? It's not kǫʼ? 71.66.97.228 19:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

 * No, it is part of a hypothetical verb *Øchʼąh. —Stephen 19:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe you could add that to the etymology section, which just has an English description rather than that hypothetical Navajo word. 71.66.97.228 19:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

 * But the hypothetical word is not a real word. And it has no meaning. Hypothetically it contains the sense of fire and it’s a verb, but it is not "to fire". The smallest unit is iichʼąh, in which iiʼ has a relevant meaning. Possibly chʼ is in some way related to kǫʼ, but how is not known. —Stephen 03:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Culture-specific syndrome
I don't know to what extent this is a separate sense of the word, but there's this:. Equinox ◑ 19:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:iichʼąh


text:
iiʼ

Postposition

 * 1) within, inside of

title: iiʼ


text:
Talk:iichʼąhii

iichʼąh
Is this word related to iichʼąh? 71.66.97.228 04:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes. —Stephen 04:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:iichʼąhii


text:
schouwspel

Noun

 * 1) show, spectacle

title: schouwspel


text: schouwspelen

title: schouwspelen


text: schouwspelletje

title: schouwspelletje


text:
biiʼ

Etymology
+

Postposition

 * 1) in it/him/her/them, within it/him/her/them, inside of it/him/her/them

title: biiʼ


text:
biyiʼ

Etymology
+

Postposition

 * 1) in it/him/her/them, within it/him/her/them, inside it/him/her/them

title: biyiʼ


text:
vertoning

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) show, spectacle, performance
 * 2) display (contains negative connotations)
 * Het debat was een genante vertoning.: The debate was an embarrassment (literally: embarrassing display).

title: vertoning


text: vertoningen

title: vertoningen


text: vertoninkje

title: vertoninkje


text:
watersnood

Etymology
From. Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) a flood

title: watersnood


text: watersnoodje

title: watersnoodje


text: watersnoden

title: watersnoden


text:
inundatie

Etymology
From ; from (French ), from, form of  (English ).

title: inundatie


text: inundaties

title: inundaties


text:
inunderen

Verb

 * 1) to inundate

title: inunderen


text: noodje

title: noodje


text: noden

title: noden


text:
rivi-ilmoitus

Noun

 * 1) classified advertisement

title: rivi-ilmoitus


text: plutos

title: plutos


text: plutoed

title: plutoed


text: plutoing

title: plutoing


text:
HNE

Proper noun

 * : EST

title: HNE


text:
roudoudou

Etymology
Possibly from. The original sense (end of 19th century) was 'sex'; compare ternary construction with, , ,.

Noun

 * 1) candy consisting of hard caramel set in a small container, usually a plastic or real seashell

title: roudoudou


text: roudoudous

title: roudoudous


text: rikiki

title: rikiki


text:
heure normale de l'est

Proper noun

 * 1) Eastern Standard Time, the Eastern Timezone in non-daylight savings time

title: heure normale de l'est


text:
vastaanottajalle

Noun

 * 1) to whom it may concern, to whom this may concern
 * 1) to whom it may concern, to whom this may concern

title: vastaanottajalle


text:
Wiktionary:Greek templates

This article describes briefly the Greek-specific templates available in Wiktionary. These are the templates starting with the prefix el- such as. Templates are an easy way of accomplishing a standardised appearance for Wiktionary entries, they allow global changes to this format to be made without editing individual entries. Greek templates are grouped below according to the article sections where they are used. Index to templates describes templates more generally and About Greek gives help with creating Greek entries.

Headword line templates

 * fully described at: Greek headword-line templates, and listed at: Category:Greek headword-line templates

The headword or inflection line is immediately below the part of speech heading. At its simplest it is just the Headword in bold type, but in most cases a more complicated line is appropriate, this is most easily produced using a template. For example the Greek word for husband (παντρεμένος) has this headword line:

The headword in bold is followed by its transliteration, gender, and its plural and feminine forms.

Inflection table templates
All Greek words which undergo inflection will eventually have, immediately below their definitions, a Declension or Conjugation heading and a table of inflection. These are produced using a template with output such as that below for παντρεμένος:

declension of παντρεμένος

Care must be take to ensure that all the forms displayed by the template are correct. Irregular, alternative inflections can be shown separately below the table. The templates are listed in:
 * Greek noun inflection-table templates and Category:Greek noun inflection-table templates
 * Greek adjective inflection-table templates and Category:Greek adjective inflection-table templates
 * Greek verb inflection-table templates and Category:Greek_verb_inflection-table_templates_(new)
 * The verb conjugation templates contained in Category:Greek verb inflection-table templates are deprecated and are mentioned here for reference.

title: Wiktionary:Greek templates


text:
touffe

Etymology
Of origin, from. Akin to and modern 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) tuft, clump, bunch of feathers, grass or hair, etc., held together at the base
 * 2)  female mons pubis
 * 1)  female mons pubis

title: touffe


text: touffes

title: touffes


text: Category:Finnish terms suffixed with -liitti


text: karajn

title: karajn


text:
karaj

Etymology 1
Borrowed from.

Etymology 2
From.

Noun

 * 1) cutlet

title: karaj


text: oficiron

title: oficiron


text: oficirojn

title: oficirojn


text: oficiroj

title: oficiroj


text: 写法

title: 写法


text:
寫法

Noun

 * 1) way of writing
 * 2) penmanship
 * 3) style of writing Chinese characters
 * 4) spelling
 * 5) wording
 * 6) orthography

title: 寫法


text: 笔法

title: 笔法


text:
筆法

Noun

 * 1) style of writing or drawing; penmanship
 * 2)  stroke order in which Chinese characters are written

title: 筆法


text: 逐渐

title: 逐渐


text:
逐漸

Adverb

 * 1) gradually; little by little; step by step; progressively

title: 逐漸


text: 频道

title: 频道


text:
頻道

Noun

 * 1)  channel

title: 頻道


text:
Appendix:Esperanto pronunciation

The creator of Esperanto, L. L. Zamenhof, illustrated Esperanto pronunciation by comparing its letters with their equivalents in several major European languages and declaring a principle of "one letter, one sound". Given that the comparison languages were not completely identical, he later advised that the pronunciation of Italian could be considered a model for Esperanto.

With over a century of use, Esperanto has developed a phonological norm, including accepted details of phonetics, phonotactics, and intonation, so that it is now possible to speak of proper Esperanto pronunciation and properly formed words independently of the languages originally used to describe Esperanto. This norm diverges only minimally from the ideal of "one letter, one sound", specifically in sequences of consonants with mixed voicing such as kz and bs.

Before Esperanto phonotactics became fixed, foreign words were adopted with spellings that violated the apparent intentions of Zamenhof and the norms that would develop later, such as, , and. Many of these coinages have proven to be unstable, and have either fallen out of use or been replaced with pronunciations more in keeping with the developing norms, such as for,  for , and  for. On the other hand, the word, which was also sometimes criticized on phonotactical grounds but had been used by Zamenhof, is well established.

Stress
Within a word, stress is on the penultimate syllable, with each vowel defining a syllabic nucleus: [fa.mi.ˈli.o] "family". An exception is when the final -o of a nominative singular noun is elided, usually for poetic reasons, as this does not affect the placement of the stress: famili' [fa.mi.ˈli].

br:Stagadenn:Distagadur/esperanteg ca:Viccionari:Pronúncia/eo cs:Wikislovník:Výslovnost/esperanto el:Παράρτημα:Προφορά/εσπεράντο fr:Annexe:Prononciation/espéranto

title: Appendix:Esperanto pronunciation


text:
Talk:vernacular

Hello, in french

 * "vernaculaire" is a word used only by philologists
 * "how do you say vernacular in everydays's language ? ("comment dis-tu vernaculaire en langage courant") . It depends...
 * lawyers and MD have their "jargon professionnel"
 * in France many countrymen use their local "patois" even nowadays. A lot of young and old people meet in "sociétés patoisantes" to exercise and enjoy their patois, and even have yarns & plays in patois, along with local dances and attires. For them here around (south-east of France) "vernaculaire" would refer to a wet meadow planted with "Alnus glutinosa" trees (" vergne ou verne en langage courant")
 * I dont remember the exact date when roman catholic priests gave up latin & began to say mass "en langue vulgaire" : somewhere about the '60s ?
 * mill-workers, sailors, soldiers, local citizens use their own "argot"

 * and would you say Mellors (when using broad with Mrs Chatterley) spoke in "patois" or in "argot" ?. I've wondered for half a century now : he was rather some sort of a countryman, had not worked in the coal-mines, but had been in the army ... T.y. Arapaima 08:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * vernacular doesn't just refer to language e.g. vernacular architecture. This should be included as a meaning. 78.120.218.95 16:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

vernacular
The challenged sense: "(Roman Catholicism) The indigenous language of a people, into which the words of the Mass are translated." Vatican II allowed the celebration of the mass in the vernacular.
 * seems virtually the same as the immediately preceding sense:
 * "Language unique to a particular group of people; jargon, argot." For those of a certain age, hiphop vernacular might just as well be a foreign language.

Am I missing something? DCDuring TALK 01:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. The first sense is referring to a language in the context of all the languages of the world, with Latin being considered the high, sacred language and any other language being considered a common, ordinary everyday language by comparison. The second refers to lower-prestige and/or less-formal varieties within a language, The best way to highlight the difference is to imagine an archbishop saying Mass at the national cathedral, with senators and foreign dignitaries in attendance, and asking whether the language used could be described as "jargon, argot". Chuck Entz (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Another clue is the way Roman Catholic usage tends to refer to "the vernacular", rather than "a vernacular language". Speaking of "the vernacular" in reference to slang is rarely used anymore, except as a humorous way to sound incongruously elegant and proper when describing obscenity. More common is to speak of a specific type of vernacular, such as the hip-hop vernacular in the example sentence. We might end up actually adding a sense, leaving us with three senses: the Roman Catholic sense, a general "speech of the common people" sense, and a "specific speech variety" sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't see evidence to that effect and I don't believe it.
 * What makes that peculiar to the RCs? I could understand vernacular referring to standard language; spoken language; or non-standard dialects, argot, slang etc., not that our definitions make that clear. I could understand that religious texts might be translated into the first and second, but not the third. But lots of groups might not consider "argot" and worthwhile translation target.
 * And is a "particular group of people" is meant not to include, say, the speakers of a local language not officially recognized.
 * I also not that, unsurprisingly, we manage to exclude "vernacular" as it might apply to aspects of culture other than language, eg, architecture. DCDuring TALK 02:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) After looking through the entry, I would say that the real overlap is between the first sense:
 * The language of a people, a national language.
 * The vernacular of the United States is English.
 * or the second sense:
 * Everyday speech, including colloquialisms, as opposed to literary or liturgical language.
 * Street vernacular can be quite different from what is heard elsewhere.
 * and the Roman Catholic sense. The "jargon, argot" sense is the least similar to the Roman Catholic sense of the three. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Keep, but change. The Roman Catholic sense is "not Latin", used pejoratively. --80.114.178.7 23:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's certainly not pejorative. Lmaltier (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not pejorative, but the definition leaves much to be desired. The vernacular is the vernacular regardless of whether the words of the Mass have been translated into it or not. Something like "the everyday spoken language of the people in a particular place, as opposed to Latin" comes closer to it; it does seem to be quite close to the current wording of sense 2. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Keep: Case has not been made for redundancy. Pur ple back pack 89  18:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Angr. —msh210℠ (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Kept. If the definition merely needs improvement, that is beyond the scope of RfD. bd2412 T 22:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:vernacular


text: rivi-ilmoitukset

title: rivi-ilmoitukset


text: coibenze

title: coibenze


text: cocker spaniel inglesi

title: cocker spaniel inglesi


text: cocker spaniel americani

title: cocker spaniel americani


text: coitali

title: coitali


text:
-teca

Etymology
From, from.

Etymology
From, from. Equivalent of.

Etymology
, from.

Etymology 1
From, from.

Etymology 2
.

title: -teca


text:
diateca

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) slide library

title: diateca


text: Rhymes:Icelandic/ɛːpa

title: Rhymes:Icelandic/ɛːpa


text:
emeroteca

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) newspaper or periodical library

title: emeroteca


text:
gipsoteca

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) plaster cast gallery

title: gipsoteca


text: manteche

title: manteche


text:
mediateca

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) library of tapes, videos and similar media

Etymology
From. Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) library of tapes, videos and similar media; media library,

title: mediateca


text: Category:Finnish terms suffixed with -maton


text: pourcachier

title: pourcachier


text:
abbatizo

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to be an abbot

title: abbatizo


text: abbatizare

title: abbatizare


text:
Talk:take a shot

To try. It doesn't seem to be a non-SoP idiom. Certainly not a set phrase. One can "give it", "have" a shot:. One can take: a "run", "stab", etc. And there are more meaningful combinations of [[take]] and [[shot]] than there are meanings of either constituent word alone, none with any less claim to be idiomatic, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 00:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards 'keep and adding additional senses. One can "take a shot" (to the body) in boxing, or "take a shot" (of tequila). This seems highly idiomatic to me. --EncycloPetey 05:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Once we go that way we can easily have as many attestable senses at take a shot as at take or even more. If we were trying to show our independence of conventional lexicographic thinking it would be a bold way to do so. I also believe that every single sense would violate WT:CFI. For example: boxing: take: a shot: (previously missing, not in many dictionaries!, common in sports etc.) (Does "take" also mean "receive", "suffer"?) Also: for drinking: take: could be senses 1-4; 7-10; 12, 21; 15, 23-4 (in groups of decreasing likelihood) with shot:. Though I cannot imagine these collocations being rapidly attested, I think that most of them are attestable. I don't know who would be helped by such a cumbersome presentation. Further, I find it impossible to believe that we should depend solely on the subjective opinions of the few editors and fewer native speakers who are welcome to participate in these discussions to determine which of the various collocations are to be included and which not. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Needs more input, please comment! Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing more than take a shot, whether that shot be firing a rifle, generically making an attempt, consuming a small portion of a potent alcohol, or receiving a punch. bd2412 T 21:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:take a shot


text:
Talk:sjagerijnig

Deletion debate
moved to sacherijnig. See official spelling Jcwf 16:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the reason for this RfD? The project is not limited to words listed in official lists. Lmaltier 16:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For the nth time, I don't know what you're proposing for deletion, or why. Since I don't know any Dutch, I can't comment, but someone has to clean this mess up. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

After properly moving a page to the proper spelling and cleaning up the mess. I am proposing to delete a page that has a wrong miss-spelled title.... Dutch has a regulated spelling agreed upon by law by three democratically elected governments. It is time for you to start respecting our language and stop screwing around with it by creating misleading wrong spellings in it. That is exceedingly offensive and undemocratic. Jcwf 02:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh FFS you do know this is an online dictionary, not a soapbox? Keep the politics off the page and stick to the dictionary stuff. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with deleting this page. It's nothing more than a misspelling which isn't even very common. If the English Wiktionary would like to include this sort of entrees in Dutch, they could also tag =English= on every Chinese character page or include entrees like "raynbow" for rainbow and "offishel" for official. It makes as much sense as keeping this page.. --Ooswesthoesbes 05:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The project is not limited to regulated spellings, nor to current spellings (old spellings not used any more should be included too). The important thing is current and past use. Please, compare statistics between sjagerijnig and sacherijnig, they seem to suggest that it could be kept. In such cases, you should add an explanatory note explaining that this is not the regulated spelling, or that this spelling was used during a limited period, or whatever appropriate, but not delete. Lmaltier 05:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a common misspelling (or rather, a non-standard spelling): see, for example, http://www.songteksten.nl/songteksten/37236/Kinderen-Voor-Kinderen/Wakker-met-een-wijsje.htm . Look up "wakker met een wijsje songtekst" on Google, and wherever you find the lyrics, you find the word "sjagerijnig" in it.  So the article should be kept at least as a redirect.  Besides, the spelling "sjagerijnig" matches the pronunciation /ʃa.ɤə.ˈɾɛɪ.nɪx/ in the song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8-Ru1GBbiY (0:29), whereas "sacherijnig" would be pronounced /sa.xə.ˈɾɛi.nɪx/, which doesn't match the song.   AugPi 06:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * However, KvK 's official website does use the standard spelling "chagrijnig": http://kvk.vara.nl/Song-single.408.0.html?&cHash=cf705f019d&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=466 . On Google, "chagrijnig" gets 43,000 hits, "sjagerijnig" gets 17,200 hits, and "sacherijnig" gets 13,500 hits.  "sjacherijnig" gets 13,400 hits.   AugPi 06:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. w/ Safesearch on.
 * "Chagrijnig" doesn't really quite match the pronunciation in the song either: "chagrijnig" suggests /ʃa.ˈɤɾɛɪ.nɪx/, but in the song there is a schwa between the 'g' and the 'r': /ʃa.ɤə.ˈɾɛɪ.nɪx/  AugPi 07:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This last argument is beside the point, since spelling doesn't have to match pronunciation exactly. "sjagerijnig" gets only 5 hits on YouTube, whereas "chagrijnig" gets 70, including from KvK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3wlD-YXjWs .  By the way, in this last link the pronunciation for "chagrijnig" matches "sacherijnig" exactly.    AugPi 07:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(I'm writing this a little bit hasty, so if something could be considered offensive - it is well meant) You are actually saying it should be kept also because it is pronounced so? Then we could at least add a different entree too for sjachereinig, sjaachereinig, schaachereinig, schachereinig, sjachereineg, sjaggereineg, sjaggareinig, sjaggerijnig, sjaggereinich or sjachereinech. Not only because people in Limburg would more likely pronounce it as /ʃ(x)ɑxɐˈrɛɪnɪx/. If "non-regulated spellings" are good to be kept you could also split up every compound word found in Dutch (it's a common spelling mistake), so instead of appelboom appel boom and for schapenvlees we could use schapen vlees, schape vlees (the "n" is not pronounced) or - for the immigrant communities - sjchappefleesj. Another thing to raise the amount of articles would be to include entrees like ap-pelboom or appel-boom (when breaking a word at the end of the line people might make a mistake in the spelling) - just an idea of course ;) --Ooswesthoesbes 13:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well delete assuming you're all right (which seems very likely) I just wanted to know what we were discussing. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I find different figures for Google hits (www.google.fr site): 23000 for sacherijnig, 27900 for sjagerijnig, and 76800 for chagrijnig. I still don't understand why it would be offensive to keep sjagerijnig (with a comment about its non-standard status): the standard word seems to be the less usual one. Lmaltier 19:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

cos ppl i/&fromlow cuntrys brainwashd bout that stup.list[iwont evn use it as wc-paper--mao-zegreen boekje,so democratic-beurkk] that arbitrarly incl.1variant[i'v neva seen'n'dnt evn gues wotitmeans,unles from context]butnot the other1i prsnly kno as holl-ic[from tv,livin there]~2som purist french w/AF bs praps:(--史凡 >voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 01:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

@: Number of Google hits (with Safesearch ON): "chagrijnig" = 44000, "sjagerijnig" = 17200, "sacherijnig" = 13600, "sjaggerijnig" = 10500, "sjachereinig" = 755, "sjaggerijnig" = 577, "sjaachereinig" = 0, "schaachereinig" = 0, "schachereinig" = 0, "sjachereineg" = 0, "sjaggereinich" = 0, "sjachereinech" = 0. Since "sjagerijnig" gets more hits than one of the two standard spellings, one can argue that it is a common misspelling. AugPi 02:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I get different results: sacherijnig: 2.750, sjacherijnig: 1.950, chagrijnig: 76.000, sjagerijnig: 28.000, sjaggerijnig: 1.7000. --Ooswesthoesbes 04:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

me w/twG~lmalt.[70vs20+gran]funy..:/--史凡 >voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 07:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Kept, feel free to RFV if necessary. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * It is attestable in Google Books.
 * A usage note can make it clear that this spelling is considered non-standard by a particular authority. Whether it is a misspelling or a non-standard spelling can be clarified. The request for deletion has given as a justification for deletion the existence of another, official spelling; this is an invalid justification per Wiktionary's WT:CFI. Wiktionary's inclusion criteria focuses on actual attestability (description of what actually is the case) rather than on external authorities (prescription of what someone, even if a democratically elected body, considers should be the case). Nevertheless, the views of authorities can be mentioned in a usage note.
 * Some searches:
 * and
 * and.
 * --Dan Polansky 09:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:sjagerijnig


text: tringlant

title: tringlant


text: tringlé

title: tringlé


text: tringlons

title: tringlons


text: tringlez

title: tringlez


text: tringlent

title: tringlent


text: tringlais

title: tringlais


text: tringlait

title: tringlait


text: tringlions

title: tringlions


text: tringliez

title: tringliez


text: tringlaient

title: tringlaient


text: tringlai

title: tringlai


text: tringlas

title: tringlas


text: tringla

title: tringla


text: tringlâmes

title: tringlâmes


text: tringlâtes

title: tringlâtes


text: tringlèrent

title: tringlèrent


text: tringlerai

title: tringlerai


text: tringleras

title: tringleras


text: tringlera

title: tringlera


text: tringlerons

title: tringlerons


text: tringlerez

title: tringlerez


text: tringleront

title: tringleront


text: tringlerais

title: tringlerais


text: tringlerait

title: tringlerait


text: tringlerions

title: tringlerions


text: tringleriez

title: tringleriez


text: tringleraient

title: tringleraient


text: tringlasse

title: tringlasse


text: tringlasses

title: tringlasses


text: tringlât

title: tringlât


text: tringlassions

title: tringlassions


text: tringlassiez

title: tringlassiez


text: tringlassent

title: tringlassent


text: déglinguant

title: déglinguant


text:
déglingué

Adjective

 * 1)  wrecked, busted

title: déglingué


text: déglingue

title: déglingue


text: déglingues

title: déglingues


text: déglinguons

title: déglinguons


text: déglinguez

title: déglinguez


text: déglinguent

title: déglinguent


text: déglinguais

title: déglinguais


text: déglinguait

title: déglinguait


text: neo-paganism

title: neo-paganism


text: déglinguions

title: déglinguions


text: déglinguiez

title: déglinguiez


text: déglinguaient

title: déglinguaient


text: déglinguai

title: déglinguai


text: déglinguas

title: déglinguas


text: déglingua

title: déglingua


text: déglinguâmes

title: déglinguâmes


text: déglinguâtes

title: déglinguâtes


text: déglinguèrent

title: déglinguèrent


text: déglinguerai

title: déglinguerai


text: déglingueras

title: déglingueras


text: déglinguera

title: déglinguera


text: déglinguerons

title: déglinguerons


text: déglinguerez

title: déglinguerez


text: déglingueront

title: déglingueront


text: déglinguerais

title: déglinguerais


text: déglinguerait

title: déglinguerait


text: déglinguerions

title: déglinguerions


text: déglingueriez

title: déglingueriez


text: déglingueraient

title: déglingueraient


text: déglinguasse

title: déglinguasse


text: déglinguasses

title: déglinguasses


text: déglinguât

title: déglinguât


text: déglinguassions

title: déglinguassions


text: déglinguassiez

title: déglinguassiez


text: déglinguassent

title: déglinguassent


text:
Talk:sjagerijn

Deletion debate
same as sjagerijnig
 * keep as/ogpi+lmalt just abuv[we rdescritiv;)--史凡 >voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if yoo wood olsow elou payges written yoozing fonettik (or fonettique, wee need toô bee deskriptiv ofkorz) Inglish. :) --Ooswesthoesbes 15:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This shouldn't have been deleted, but since it was renamed and the redirect deleted, I can't just restore it directly. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:sjagerijn


text: sjagerijn

title: sjagerijn


text: forniquant

title: forniquant


text: forniqué

title: forniqué


text: fornique

title: fornique


text: forniques

title: forniques


text: forniquons

title: forniquons


text: forniquez

title: forniquez


text: forniquent

title: forniquent


text: forniquais

title: forniquais


text: forniquait

title: forniquait


text: forniquions

title: forniquions


text: forniquiez

title: forniquiez


text: forniquaient

title: forniquaient


text: forniquai

title: forniquai


text: forniquas

title: forniquas


text: forniqua

title: forniqua


text: forniquâmes

title: forniquâmes


text: forniquâtes

title: forniquâtes


text: forniquèrent

title: forniquèrent


text: forniquerai

title: forniquerai


text: forniqueras

title: forniqueras


text: forniquera

title: forniquera


text: forniquerons

title: forniquerons


text: forniquerez

title: forniquerez


text: forniqueront

title: forniqueront


text: forniquerais

title: forniquerais


text: forniquerait

title: forniquerait


text: forniquerions

title: forniquerions


text: forniqueriez

title: forniqueriez


text: forniqueraient

title: forniqueraient


text: forniquasse

title: forniquasse


text: forniquasses

title: forniquasses


text: forniquât

title: forniquât


text: forniquassions

title: forniquassions


text: forniquassiez

title: forniquassiez


text: forniquassent

title: forniquassent


text: poutrant

title: poutrant


text: poutré

title: poutré


text: poutrons

title: poutrons


text: poutrez

title: poutrez


text: poutrent

title: poutrent


text: poutrais

title: poutrais


text: poutrait

title: poutrait


text: poutrions

title: poutrions


text: poutriez

title: poutriez


text: poutraient

title: poutraient


text: poutrai

title: poutrai


text: poutras

title: poutras


text: poutra

title: poutra


text: poutrâmes

title: poutrâmes


text: poutrâtes

title: poutrâtes


text: poutrèrent

title: poutrèrent


text: poutrerai

title: poutrerai


text: poutreras

title: poutreras


text: poutrera

title: poutrera


text: poutrerons

title: poutrerons


text: poutrerez

title: poutrerez


text: poutreront

title: poutreront


text: poutrerais

title: poutrerais


text: poutrerait

title: poutrerait


text: poutrerions

title: poutrerions


text: poutreriez

title: poutreriez


text: poutreraient

title: poutreraient


text: poutrasse

title: poutrasse


text: poutrasses

title: poutrasses


text: poutrât

title: poutrât


text: poutrassions

title: poutrassions


text: poutrassiez

title: poutrassiez


text: poutrassent

title: poutrassent


text: défonçant

title: défonçant


text: défonce

title: défonce


text: défonces

title: défonces


text: défonçons

title: défonçons


text: défoncez

title: défoncez


text: défoncent

title: défoncent


text: défonçais

title: défonçais


text: défonçait

title: défonçait


text: défoncions

title: défoncions


text: défonciez

title: défonciez


text: défonçaient

title: défonçaient


text: défonçai

title: défonçai


text: défonças

title: défonças


text: défonça

title: défonça


text: défonçâmes

title: défonçâmes


text: défonçâtes

title: défonçâtes


text: défoncèrent

title: défoncèrent


text: défoncerai

title: défoncerai


text: défonceras

title: défonceras


text: défoncera

title: défoncera


text: défoncerons

title: défoncerons


text: défoncerez

title: défoncerez


text: défonceront

title: défonceront


text: défoncerais

title: défoncerais


text: défoncerait

title: défoncerait


text: défoncerions

title: défoncerions


text: défonceriez

title: défonceriez


text: défonceraient

title: défonceraient


text: défonçasse

title: défonçasse


text: défonçasses

title: défonçasses


text: défonçât

title: défonçât


text: défonçassions

title: défonçassions


text: défonçassiez

title: défonçassiez


text: défonçassent

title: défonçassent


text:
Talk:accutje

Deletion debate
The correct spelling is accuutje. As written it evokes a strong association with kutje (little cunt) and would lead to the wrong pronunciation. I think this entry is probably a result of the fact that if "accuutje" is broken off at the end of a line it is written as accu- tje. Jcwf 15:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you considered (cf. rijstaffel)? Circeus 18:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Kept as a misspelling. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:accutje


text:
Talk:accutjes

Deletion debate
The correct spelling is accuutje. As written it evokes a strong association with kutje (little cunt) and would lead to the wrong pronunciation. I think this entry is probably a result of the fact that if "accuutje" is broken off at the end of a line it is written as accu- tje. Jcwf 15:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you considered (cf. rijstaffel)? Circeus 18:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Kept as a misspelling. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:accutjes


text: dépucelant

title: dépucelant


text: dépucelé

title: dépucelé


text: dépucèle

title: dépucèle


text: dépucèles

title: dépucèles


text: dépucelons

title: dépucelons


text: dépucelez

title: dépucelez


text: dépucèlent

title: dépucèlent


text: dépucelais

title: dépucelais


text: dépucelait

title: dépucelait


text: dépucelions

title: dépucelions


text: dépuceliez

title: dépuceliez


text: dépucelaient

title: dépucelaient


text: dépucelai

title: dépucelai


text: dépucelas

title: dépucelas


text: dépucela

title: dépucela


text: dépucelâmes

title: dépucelâmes


text: dépucelâtes

title: dépucelâtes


text: dépucelèrent

title: dépucelèrent


text: dépucèlerai

title: dépucèlerai


text: dépucèleras

title: dépucèleras


text: dépucèlera

title: dépucèlera


text: dépucèlerons

title: dépucèlerons


text: dépucèlerez

title: dépucèlerez


text: dépucèleront

title: dépucèleront


text: dépucèlerais

title: dépucèlerais


text: dépucèlerait

title: dépucèlerait


text: dépucèlerions

title: dépucèlerions


text: dépucèleriez

title: dépucèleriez


text: dépucèleraient

title: dépucèleraient


text: dépucelasse

title: dépucelasse


text: dépucelasses

title: dépucelasses


text: dépucelât

title: dépucelât


text: dépucelassions

title: dépucelassions


text: dépucelassiez

title: dépucelassiez


text: dépucelassent

title: dépucelassent


text: pervertissant

title: pervertissant


text: pervertis

title: pervertis


text:
pervertit

Etymology
Past participle of.

Adjective

 * 1) perverted

title: pervertit


text: pervertissons

title: pervertissons


text: pervertissez

title: pervertissez


text: pervertissent

title: pervertissent


text: pervertissais

title: pervertissais


text: pervertissait

title: pervertissait


text: pervertissions

title: pervertissions


text: pervertissiez

title: pervertissiez


text: pervertissaient

title: pervertissaient


text: pervertîmes

title: pervertîmes


text: pervertîtes

title: pervertîtes


text: pervertirent

title: pervertirent


text: pervertiras

title: pervertiras


text: pervertira

title: pervertira


text: pervertirons

title: pervertirons


text: pervertirez

title: pervertirez


text: pervertiront

title: pervertiront


text: pervertirais

title: pervertirais


text: pervertirait

title: pervertirait


text: pervertirions

title: pervertirions


text: pervertiriez

title: pervertiriez


text: pervertiraient

title: pervertiraient


text:
Talk:witness panel

Deletion debate
Any idiomatic meaning that anyone can think of? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes in fact but I couldn't track it down. I was watching a Discovery Channel show on demolitions where they set up a detonation wrapped in a material designed to contain the exploding fragments. To show how well it worked they set up nearby a large panel of flimsy material, perhaps polystyrene foam. The idea is that if anything escaped the containment it would easily damage this panel. This was described as a "witness panel".
 * Searching the Internet I could find hits but not enough to come up with a definition. And of course there were lots more hits that illustrated a courtroom sense also exists, which is probably more sum-of-parts than the demolition sense. — hippietrail 11:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that ht mentions it I have heard this sense of "witness" in some technical contexts, I think. A physical thing, like a board, that is used to record a chalk-line impact, a high-water level, a pencil or scribe mark, etc. It corresponds to sense 4 of witness. That sense would benefit from some usage examples or citations.
 * But a "witness panel" as defined in the entry is just a panel consisting of witnesses, entirely analogous to a truck convoy. delete. DCDuring TALK 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A third opinion would be nice. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:witness panel


text: pervertisses

title: pervertisses


text: apoastron

title: apoastron


text: pervertît

title: pervertît


text: présupposant

title: présupposant


text:
présupposé

Adjective

 * 1) presupposed

title: présupposé


text: présuppose

title: présuppose


text: présupposes

title: présupposes


text: présupposons

title: présupposons


text: présupposez

title: présupposez


text: présupposent

title: présupposent


text: présupposais

title: présupposais


text: présupposait

title: présupposait


text: présupposions

title: présupposions


text: présupposiez

title: présupposiez


text: présupposaient

title: présupposaient


text: présupposai

title: présupposai


text: présupposas

title: présupposas


text: présupposa

title: présupposa


text: présupposâmes

title: présupposâmes


text: présupposâtes

title: présupposâtes


text: présupposèrent

title: présupposèrent


text: présupposerai

title: présupposerai


text: présupposeras

title: présupposeras


text: présupposera

title: présupposera


text: présupposerons

title: présupposerons


text: présupposerez

title: présupposerez


text: présupposeront

title: présupposeront


text: présupposerais

title: présupposerais


text: présupposerait

title: présupposerait


text: présupposerions

title: présupposerions


text: présupposeriez

title: présupposeriez


text: présupposeraient

title: présupposeraient


text: présupposasse

title: présupposasse


text: présupposasses

title: présupposasses


text: présupposât

title: présupposât


text: présupposassions

title: présupposassions


text: présupposassiez

title: présupposassiez


text: présupposassent

title: présupposassent


text:
axiomatizability

Noun

 * 1) The condition of being axiomatizable.

title: axiomatizability


text:
toda brincadeira tem um fundo de verdade

Etymology
lit. 'every joke has a basis of truth'.

Phrase

 * 1) there's a grain of truth in every joke


text:
Talk:lelietje van dalen

Deletion debate
This is a vrongly Zpelt wort zat nieds to be diletet

I tried a delete before and was denied that so don't tell me I did is wrong again.

I am GETTING SO TIRED OF THIS.

PLEASE RESPECT OUR SPELLING.

Jcwf 05:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

 * As I said on my user page:
 * We're a descriptive not a prescriptive dictionary. If it's not an approved spelling, there are several ways to indicate that such as using, , or  depending on how strong the official disapproval is.
 * I declined to speedy because a quick google showed some usage on Dutch pages. I only went as far as using  because I was uncertain of how strong to word the disapproval of this spelling. — Carolina wren discussió  06:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a misspelling than it needs to be completely stubbed to a soft redirect to the proper spelling (which means no etymology, no synonyms section, and not categorised inside Category:Dutch nouns). --Ivan Štambuk 06:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a misspelling: http://woordenlijst.org/zoek/?q=lelietje+van+dalen&w=w, so I stubbified the article.  AugPi 04:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As pointed out, the Wiktionary is not limited to official spellings or official word lists. Keep or much better move to the Beer Parlour and look for a consensus. I was just thinking last night about the French spelling reform - I wonder how many, if any of the reformed spellings have never actually been used, therefore would not meet CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wonder whether this is really a misspelling, and per what definition of misspelling. Consider, which, apart from finding many instances with hyphens, also finds many instances without a hyphen. This looks much more like a variant spelling to me or an archaic spelling. The high rate of instances without hyphens makes it unlikely that this was a misspelling at the point at which it was written. The instances without hyphens found at Google Books seem to be of older date, such as of nineteenth century and the beginning of twenteeth century. Could it be that meanwhile the official prescriptive Dutch orthography has changed?
 * A usage note can be added that says that the particular spelling is procribed (discouraged) by a national orthographic body. But Wiktionary's inclusion criteria are not concerned with prescriptive orthographic bodies, as they should not.
 * Jcwf, please avoid using all-caps; it gives the impression of shouting. Also, while editing Wiktionary, you have to abide by agreed inclusion criteria, even if you disagree with them. If you keep adding requests for deletions to terms that clearly meet inclusion criteria by being plentifully attestable at Google books, you will only create unnecessary additional work. --Dan Polansky 09:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, but when there's a spelling reform, the former spellings don' just "disappear" from books and whatnot. How about (recently created). Mglovesfun (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:lelietje van dalen


text:
cementation

Noun

 * 1) The act of cementing
 * 2)  The impregnation of the surface of a metal with another material; the manufacture of steel by carburizing iron
 * 3)  The precipitation of mineral matter in the pores of a sediment
 * 4)  The use of a cement join the parts of a broken bone to aid in the healing process
 * 5)  The use of a cement or adhesive to fasten orthodontics or to restore chipped or broken teeth

title: cementation


text:
Talk:three hundred

Deletion debate
I’m nominating this for deletion because it is not idiomatic and its presence herein offers no guiding principle for excluding herefrom the rest of the infinite set of cardinal numbers expressed in the English language. The phrase’s meaning is entirely predictable as, it seems, are its translations (which often isn’t the case for numbers like twenty and twelve): This entry was drawn to my attention by DAVilla’s post (timestamped: 05:32, 6 November 2009) in WT:RFD which used the existence of as an argument in favour of the retention of the equally unidiomatic and problematic. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Catalan: =  +
 * Crimean Tatar: =  +
 * Finnish: =  +
 * Icelandic: =  +
 * Latin: =  +
 * Portuguese: =  +
 * Russian: =  +
 * Taos: =  +
 * And so on…

 * Keep. This is a noun doesn't have to be idiomatic. "Expressions" have to be idiomatic, this is just a noun made up of two words. Someone explain to me how this doesn't meet CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Keep, otherwise we have to delete all the cardinal numbers which do not have a secondary reason for keeping. seventeen anyone? The limit is only set by any one editor's patience and reason. -- A LGRIF  talk 14:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

 * That is not so. We’d keep because it’s a single word (it’s also one of a set of only seven or so entries of that class), and we keep all single words, however semantically transparent. We ought to delete undefined:, just like we’d delete undefined:. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

 * If we keep this, why not [[seventeen thousand]] and [[forty billion]]? — msh210 ℠ 17:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I would like to see this deleted but I know it won't be. In its favour, though, I would add that keeping it doesn't imply we must add an infinite set of other numbers: only those that are attestable. (That's still a little absurd.) Equinox ◑ 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Precisely, msh210. Equinox, they are both easily attested. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Keep if only for the translations (please add German). But this does not mean that I am advocating that we add all the rest - we have better things to do with our time. SemperBlotto 09:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I hope you wouldn’t advocate having an entry for just so we can have a Translations section containing its German equivalent,  … †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Only if you could be bothered - I couldn't, especially without the German first. SemperBlotto 18:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, now we have both; do you really think there’s any use in having them, especially the English one? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Badly formatted or broken entries bother me (and I fix them) even when I care nothing about the word itself. Allowing inclusion merely for translative purposes dramatically increases the amount of maintenance that needs to take place around here and I am therefore firmly against it. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 04:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

delete this and its buddies one hundred, two hundred, four hundred, five hundred, six hundred, seven hundred, eight hundred and nine hundred. Include the rule for creating them in the entry for "hundred". --Hekaheka 11:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete per Hekaheka. — msh210 ℠ 18:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep as one of the more basic numeric units. The numerals are a small set of words, so there's little harm in having the 9 entries Hekaheka would see deleted. We're not opening the doors for a flood of entries with these nine. --EncycloPetey 18:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Are we worried that we will have too many number-based entries? What harm will they do? Explain to use the positive side of deleting this. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * People shouldn't think this is somehow some kind of weird idiomatic construction in English: it's simply three + hundred, and people should realize that. If I look up þrjú hundruð in a dictionary and see it means "300", I will then wonder whether there's something special about that number: whether the word for 200 is not similarly constructed. If there's no entry for þrjú hundruð, I'll just look up the parts, and know (especially if there's a usage note at hundruð) what the whole means. — msh210 ℠ 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the difference, EP, between three hundred on the one hand and three thousand, one million, one billion, one milliard, one trillion, one quadrillion, . . . one vigintillion, . . . on the other? — msh210 ℠ 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can see the grammatical difference between terms like hundred: and one hundred: in the usage notes for those terms. We had a prior discussion in which it was well-established that these words exhibit different grammatical behavior when combined with one:.  Alone, hundred: is a noun, but when preceded by another cardinal the combination functions grammatically as a numeral.  Thus, the combination has a different part of speech from the principal element. --EncycloPetey 20:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete per msh210. This is exactly the same as three thousand, three million, and so on. It's all well and good to point out that "vigintillion" is a noun whereas "several vigintillion" is a numeral ("several vigintillion reasons", but not *"vigintillion reasons" alone), but why would we address that with an entry at [[several vigintillion]], rather than with useful information at [[vigintillion]]? —Ruakh TALK 21:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * How do you feel about attributive uses, such as in the "Three Hundred Years War"? It's not a sequence of three descriptives modifying "war", since three hundred: acts as a single unit word.  That would not be true of "several vigintillion reasons", in which several is a determiner rather than part of a numeral.  Likewise, there is no conflict known as the Several Hundred Years War, because "several hundred" does not have the same grammatical attributes as "[numeral] hundred".  Change of part of speech, remember? --EncycloPetey 21:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Couldn’t the same be said of a conflict called the “Six Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty-Nine Years War”? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * If such a name were attestable, yes, but it isn't. The "Three Hundred Years War" is attestable in published literature. --EncycloPetey 21:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete per CFI. If CFI doesn't support it, let's find a general principle for excluding these compound and phrasal numbers not otherwise meaningful, eg, 69, 666, 2012 (?), etc. (And please don't make the encyclopedic entry for "Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War".) DCDuring TALK 22:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Re: " 'several hundred' does not have the same grammatical attributes as '[numeral] hundred'. Change of part of speech, remember?": I remember that you said it, but I don't remember agreeing. What is your basis for this statement? —Ruakh TALK 22:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Botht he examples I've presented as well as all the evidence accumulated in the aforementioned previous discussion from a year ago. --EncycloPetey 22:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I see nothing in that discussion to support a distinction between and any other . I agree with your statement there that "we could call these words [hundred, thousand, etc.] both numerals and nouns, with Usage notes included to explain their limited functioning as numerals." —Ruakh TALK 23:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've now added a second definition of three hundred: that is idiomatic. --EncycloPetey 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I disagree. —Ruakh TALK 22:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On what basis? The quote (and title) state "three hundred" but the figure is not exactly 300. --EncycloPetey 22:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The same sense exists for any X hundred, so it's a property of, not of . —Ruakh TALK 23:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's not a property of hundred; it's only a property of X hundred where X is a cardinal numeral. It's also not a property of three hundred two.  It's a property of only certain constructions including hundred, and not others. --EncycloPetey 23:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me. It's a property of the word hundred that the phrase X hundred, where X is a numeral or other determiner, can be used approximately. Unless you mean to tell me that "several hundred" means an exact integer multiple of 100? (Actually, I'm not even sure that it's a linguistic property of the word hundred per se, as opposed to a general property of our culture's use of numbers. We also use "3.1416" when we really mean some value between exactly 3.14155 and exactly 3.14165, and "a dozen" when we mean anywhere from ten to fifteen. But I'd be quite fine with mentioning it at [[hundred]].) —Ruakh TALK 23:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a more general property, but in a much more complicated way than you've indicated. For continuous decimal values, yes, we mean a margin of error plus or minus half the value of the final place value.  But, for rounded values 100 or greater, that is no longer true.  As an approximation, 300 could mean "between 250 and 349" or "between 295 and 304" or "between  299.5 and 300.4".  There are several possible ranges of estimation at this scale, which is not true of the decimal values you mention. --EncycloPetey 23:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But I don't think that that variability makes, specifically, idiomatic. —Ruakh TALK 23:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) Then let me ask a general question: If you don't think this is a case of being idiomatic, then when or how can a numeral be idiomatic? I maintain that numerals cannot be idiomatic in precisely the same way as nouns or verbs by virute of belonging to a different part of speech that exhibits different grammar. They are idiomatic in somewhat different ways. --EncycloPetey 23:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Aside from the one-word numerals, I think a numeral is only idiomatic if (1) its construction can't be inferred just from an understanding of the rest of the numeral system (for example, French "quatre-vingts" is idiomatic, because even though it really does mean 4×20, you'd never guess that it's the term for "eighty" in much of francophonia, as is "quatre-vingt" for much the same reason; but "quatre-vingt trois" is not), or (2) it has a meaning that can't be inferred just from an understanding of the numeral system and the way numerals are used (for example, "sixty-nine" is idiomatic). More generally, I don't think a word-sequence is "idiomatic" if it belongs to a huge set of parallelly-constructed word-sequences with parallel semantics. —Ruakh TALK 03:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Re: "huge set of parallelly-constructed word-sequences with parallel semantics". You mean like the scientific names of plant families, which are all regularly constructed by exactly the same predictable rules.  I'd disagree about three hundred belonging to a "huge" set though, since the way it which the range at which the second definition works is limited to a very few cardinal numerals.  And most compounded cardinal numerals have no secondary range meaning beyond to normal truncation or rounding of decimal components.

 * The construction of a composite numeral also does not follow the normal rules of English grammar for the use of multipliers. Compare "three rabbits", "three children", "three lemmata" with "three hundred".  When three precedes hundred the grammar is different.

 * You do agree, though, that the second definition I've added is distinct from the first one, yes? --EncycloPetey 05:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't know anything about the scientific names of plant families, so can't comment on that. (I had actually assumed that they had one-word names, even.) But personally, I do consider {X hundred}, where X is any integer in [1, 99], or any of various other determiners ("a", "a few", "several", etc.), to be a large set, even taken alone; but to it, we also need to add {X thousand}, where X is any integer in [1, 999], or any of the aforementioned determiners, and {X million}, and so on. The construction of a composite numeral does follow the normal rules of English grammar for the use of multipliers in forming composite numerals . Compare "forty million", "sixteen hundred", "twenty bajillion". I'm not sure whether the second definition is really distinct — as I said, I'm not sure this is strictly linguistic — but I'm quite fine with treating it as distinct. —Ruakh TALK 14:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete per Ruakh (it's SoP). EncycloPetey, I disagree that your second sense is distinct. Any number can be an approximate. There is no qualitative difference when rounding whole or decimal numbers. The decimal .5 can be the approximation of .503 at various "scales", both to the nearest tenth (.45-.55) and hundredth (.495-.505). (Some notations for noting numerical precision would use .50 as distinct from .5 for rounding to the hundredth but not not all do.) --Bequw → ¢ • τ 03:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Butting in: what seems worth considering is that the term "three hundred" has a one-word translation in languages that do not usually form long multisyllabic words such as Russian, unlike German and Finnish. By considering only these languages, we avoid including long sum-of-parts numerals that would follow from the existence of their translations in German and Finnish. Yes, this is an extra-CFI consideration, going in the direction of "translation targets" proposal, the proposal that has gone nowhere so far. It seems to me that the inclusion of German and Finnish within "translation targets" proposal makes it unworkable, for then the proposal would lead to the inclusion of a large number of sum-of-parts terms. I wonder how German dictionaries proceed anyway, as German-one-wordness is in practice quite a different concept from English-one-wordness, so long as one-wordness is defined as freedom-from-spaces.
 * What we could do is at least postpone or suspend the deletion, acknowledging that, while the not-yet-deleted terms fail to meet CFI, they seem to promise to meet CFI in future. --Dan Polansky 08:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Current entries should meet the current CFI. If the CFI changes the undelete feature will still be around. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 04:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is true that the undelete feature is going to be still around. But, as the motivation for the inclusion of this entry stems from the "translation target" proposal, you will have to update all the translations linking to "three hundred" upon its deletion, and also upon its undeletion. This, to me, seems enough motivation to keep the entry extra-CFI at least temporarily. This rationale applies only to entries that would be included per the "translation targets" proposal; it does not apply to sum-of-parts multi-word phrases that are merely deemed useful. OTOH updating pages that link to "three hundred" is doable; it is just more work.
 * In any event, "three hundred" seem to me a pivot case for "translation targets" proposal, justifiable within that proposal without invoking German and Finnish translations. The inclusion would enable the navigation from, say, Czech "třista" to Russian "триста" and Portuguese "trezentos". Once the term "three hundred" is deleted, there is no way to navigate in this way, as "třista" is not allowed to list non-English terms as its translations. --Dan Polansky 10:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not much work at all, just comment the links out (they don't have to be removed completely). This ensures that the CFI is met while proposals are debated as they can and do languish for a loooong time. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong delete. Don't see how this could ever be non-SoP or idiomatic. Almost any number can be used to imply approxmiation ("She deducted me three thousand points for running over that pedestrian."; "For the six hundredth time, turn off that damn computer!"; "I must have dropped my shopping ten times on the way home", etc.) Thus numbers that are not singular words in English should only have entries if they really can be used to create entirely new meanings (e.g. sixty-nine, ninety-nine, etc). Tooironic 12:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite the confusion, that isn't in CFI. It just says expressions have to be idiomatic. Surely three hundred is just a noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "three hundred" is not a noun but a numeral referring to a number. --Dan Polansky 08:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * @Tooironic. Well technically, three hundred: is never "sum of parts"... it's product of parts.  Think about it:  three hundred and hundred three are interpreted in entirely different ways in English.  In the first instance, the value is obtained by multiplication.  However in the latter instance, the value is obtained by addition. --EncycloPetey 23:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For the sake of academic discussion :): the sum operator in CFI's "sum of parts" is a semantic sum, not an arithmetic sum. Both arithmetic sum and arithmetic product commute (a * b = b * a), unlike semantic sum. Thus, "34" is a sum of parts in the sense that the meaning of "34" can be derived from the meaning of "3", the meaning of "4", and the meaning of the non-commuting concatenation operator for numerals; and yet, "34" refers to a different number than "43" does, and neither one refers to the number seven. Admittedly, the term "sum of parts" as applied to multi-word terms may be a bit misleading, also because the alleged semantic analogue of arithmetic sum does not commute, but we have to live with it, instead of trying to read the term "sum of parts" literally, as if it were a semantic sum of parts ;). --Dan Polansky 08:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not accepting all numbers (even when constructed regularly, they are words nonetheless), but only when inserting in the page (e.g.) 3 independent actual citations with the word written in letters and used in sentences? The same rule might be adopted for all infinite sets of words with little or no interest. In most cases, definitions would not be really useful, but pages may be useful for some other purposes (e.g. anagrams or translations). If somebody wants to create such a page and finds it useful, why not? Lmaltier 23:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be a useful entry. --Yair rand 01:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I accept that it is more than the Sum of its Parts. And yet, by that logic, shouldn't we also include five million two hundred and twenty-two thousand three hundred and ninety-two? Tooironic 13:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lmaltier, why do you consider "three hundred" a word in English and not several? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 04:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I take word in its linguistic sense (not the sense used by typographers). In this sense, three hundred is as much a word as three. Lmaltier 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you, Lmaltier, think three cats or several hundred is also a word? — msh210 ℠ 16:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete because the full meaning can be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components. What is lacking in the definitions of its components is a usage note (or reference to an appendix on Numbers) about how components combine and about approximate or nonspecific uses. ~ Ningauble 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete because lexical treatment of compound numbers is a waste of resources and ineffectively conveys number-name-formation information to language learners. Search should allow users to find component words (decoding). An appendix should enable users to form number words (encoding). The grammar of numbers in different languages is important, well worth some thought. An initial approach that describes in an appendix the formation of numbers in each language would be a help. The exact boundary between lexical and grammatical treatment could be decided based on a fact base. Obviously the one-word, hyphenless number names in English should be lexical. If WT:CFI cannot be made to give the right result, then it needs emendment by amendment or by replacement by appropriately revised Editable CFI. DCDuring TALK 16:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Dictionaries are useless without entries for numbers. Razorflame 15:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you actually find any professionally edited dictionary with an entry for three hundred? Equinox ◑ 13:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "three hundred." WordNet® 3.0. Princeton University. 22 Jan. 2010, one example. Razorflame 13:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course Wordnet (also through their redistributors) is also the only OneLook reference that includes the term. Wordnet often includes many non-idiomatic compound terms, but not every one. Perhaps we should adopt the rule that effectively allowed us to include all that they include. That would be a large, but not unbounded, step in the direction of translation targets. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But oddly they stop at five hundred (no six/seven/eight/nine hundred) so I'm not sure if their inclusion would have any bearing on our general inclusion of these types of numbers. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize now that I never voiced my opinion on the "number approximating 300" sense. It, too, is SoP: delete. — msh210 ℠ 16:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Ruakh et al. I think:
 * the attributive-use-as-part-of-proper-noun argument has repeatedly been rejected in all cases in which it has been advanced.
 * the translation-target argument has not been accepted
 * we waste time/space/maintenance on lexical treatment of a quintessentially grammatical matter such as the formation of numbers.
 * OTOH, there may be some class of contributors that finds adding such entries therapeutic in some way. Adding them and their translations may be good training for newbies to be ultimately applied to more important entries, allowing contributors to learn formatting, etc. And even if the entry is done completely wrong there is very little risk of harm as no real user is likely to see it. But we might wonder if the training is useful for the rest of the work that needs to be done here. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW the 'vote' seems to be 6 keeps vs. 10 deletes, so that's 10/16 = 62.5% for deletion, is that a keep or a delete then? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, only just tho. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion
“A number approximating 300.” An example sentence is given: “There were three hundred people at the conference.” Believable, but let’s have some cites. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Nah - I think you say "about three hundred" or "three hundred or so". SemperBlotto 22:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Not always. I've added one cite already.  This kind of imprecision due to rounding is more common than most folks realize.  One notable example occurs in The Charge of the Light Brigade, where the 673 riders (or 661, or possibly 607) become "the six hundred".  "Into the valley of death rode the six hundred seventy-three" just isn't as poetic. --EncycloPetey 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I’m with SB when it comes to how most people state approximations. Regarding your citation, who is this John Henry King (Wikipedia has no article)? It is conceivable that he was sentenced to a term of exactly three hundred days, so I’d like verification to the contrary before that quotation can be accepted as a citation of the approximate-as-literal use. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 * If you care to do the math, his complete biography is available in Full View on Google Books. And while you may be correct that people today more often explicitly express the fact that a number has been rounded, that does not mean that other approches are not widespread. --EncycloPetey 02:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I don’t see it; please post the link. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 08:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 * "I bought a house for 160 grand". Actually it was $158,892 -- that doesn't mean 160,000 has a special idiomatic sense. "The CD was eight dollars". No, it was $7.99.  This is just a function of all numbers -- in fact generalisation is actually a function of all language. We don't need to legislate for it, and we probably shouldn't. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ</> 16:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree. I'd say this is "clearly widespread use", but even so I think we should delete it (and the rest of the entry). —Ruakh TALK 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Widsith. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 * But this isn't a function of all numbers. There are numbers with specific and precise values, and there are numbers with some variation covered, and other number with a wider variation in possible value.  The ordinal first: does not mean "first or second".  The numbers pi: and e: both have a very precise value, with no room for deviation.  And the variability in meaning of three hundred, like other cardinals, is context specific.  If someone says "The cost was two dollars", then, yes, there is the possibility that the actual cost was $1.99.  But, if someone says "I have two children", then you have a precise measure with no possibility of 1.99 children.  If we're going to define cardinals properly, then this aspect of their meaning deserves to be treated. --EncycloPetey 18:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your examples are the byproduct of two features of rounding and not of them numbers themselves.
 * When your value is integral (ordinals such as "1st" or count numbers such as "two children") and you round to the ones place you will always to get exactly that amount back. By rounding to the nearest power of 10 you could never round "first" to "second" so that's not a possibility with rounding. If you were rounding to the a power of 2 (common in computing) then you could:)
 * It is uncommon to round to higher place values than your original quantity because generally rounding is used to "simplify" data. If your value is 2 you normally wouldn't round to the nearest tens value, though you could (resulting in 0). An example is in demographic data where "2 children" in a province might get rounded to the nearest hundreds/thousands to become 0.
 * Amounts such as "504th" and "302 children" could be round to the nearest hundreds easily. Your examples about π and e are a bit spurious because they aren't defined as specific numbers (which is what we're discussing here) and instead by digitless mathematical relationships. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Note that it is common usage to employ round numbers in an imprecise sense to indicate approximate cardinality, and it is less common but still ordinary usage to employ large round numbers in a nonspecific sense to indicate any large cardinality; and note well that the qualities of roundness and largeness are subjective and context dependent. Identifying and enumerating those numbers that have been used in these senses is a fruitless pursuit. It would be better to include a usage note with the definitions of such words as "hundred" and "thousand" or, better yet, by reference to an appendix on Numbers. ~ Ningauble 15:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

three hundred
Keep. This is the only correct, non-circumlocuted, way of expressing 300: for instance, three hundreds wouldn't work, neither would hundred three nor hundred threes even though $$ 100 \times 3 = 300 $$. Even if it were not idiomatic, it would still definitely be useful as  a Phrasebook entry, and as   an anchor for a whole bunch of Translations. AugPi 15:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, purely because another entry (what was it? two thousand I think) failed RFD a few months ago. Actually against my personal feelings, as I voted keep for that one. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum, clearly wasn't two thousands that was deleted, as it's a blue link! Mglovesfun (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * keep and add Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets. Quite useful for many languages including Russian. -- Prince Kassad 15:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This class of rule-driven entry seems to be a good fit with the kind of contributions we actually get. The language-specific appendices on number phrases that would be more useful IMHO seem to be beyond the interest or capability of our contributors. We can provide countless hours of semi-gainful translation practice for contributors by having these entries, however unlikely it may be that anyone would look up any individual entry. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as SOP, replace with if we have one. Re nominator's phrasebook argument: no: this is not a touristy phrase, it's just a numeral. (Wow, Firefox's spellchecker doesn't mind touristy.) —msh210℠ (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, yeah... I'll take back the "Phrasebook" part...  AugPi 17:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Though note that it wasn't me who posted an RFD tag on the three hundred article: that happened about a year ago, but apparently no discussion about it was opened on this page: so I would be the "discussion opener," not the "nominator."  AugPi 17:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was already a RFD discussion (now archived at Talk:three hundred), closed as deleted by Mglovesfun on 1 March 2010 (UTC). But the voting resulted at 6 keeps vs. 10 deletes = 10/16 = 62.5% for deletion. The RFD was added on 23 November 2009 by Doremítzwr.--Dan Polansky 17:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep outside CFI per translation target: there are several languages that do not tend to form long closed compounds and yet have this term as a solid-written word. --Dan Polansky 17:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * If it is decided to delete this, I propose we create 300 and simply move the translations there. As it is, our entries (for eg 10) list ====Alternative forms==== (eg X, the Roman numeral); we could easily also list "translations of the English word ten" / "translations of the English phrase" (or "term") "three hundred". Example. Alternatively, we could have a ====Translations==== header, and beneath it have a link to the Appendix: "For translations of the English term "three hundred", see Wiktionary:Appendix Such-and-such". If "three hundred" is deleted, these options could supplement msh210's idea about putting a soft redirect at "three hundred"; if it is kept, we could link to "three hundred" from "300". — Beobach 18:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I lean keep, by the way. — Beobach 18:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: this entry already failed rfd: Talk:three hundred. -- Prince Kassad 18:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, it was this entry which failed RFD. Who restored it would be the best question. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was (Wonderfool) who restored it with no explanation. Though, I nearly didn't delete this for no consensus the first time round. On reflection, 10 for deletion, 6 against does seem a big enough majority to merit deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So delete it speedily. —msh210℠ (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It should have never been deleted in the first place. 62.5% is not consensus, or certainly not in WT:Votes. --Dan Polansky 21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we'll have serious problems if we start applying WT:VOTE standards to every discussion we ever have. —Ruakh TALK 21:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any serious problems. In RFD, it simply means that there is a pro-keeping bias, in that a term is deleted only if there is consensus for its deletion. An alternative policy would be that a term is kept in RFD only if there is consensus for keeping, but I have not seen this policy stated or actually used. There is no quorum, so the consensus can still consist in three people voting delete. --Dan Polansky 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't simply mean a pro-keeping bias; it means a pro-keeping bias that is as strong as WT:VOTE's bias toward the status quo. I know that you are a strong inclusivist, so that sort of barrier to deletion may not seem like a big deal to you, but you have to keep in mind the Law of Unintended Consequences. As it gets harder to delete things via WT:RFD, people become more likely to use other approaches, such as speedy-deleting, or such as listing at WT:RFV, waiting a month, then declaring the word failed and deleting it. (Very few words get cited within a month, and an already-RFV-failed term has the extra burden that you have to present valid citations upfront, and do so knowing that the term is likely to be RFD'd as soon as you're done.) We already see some behavior of this sort, where a sense gets listed at RFV with the claim that it needs three citations to support its specific wording, or to support some specific distinction from another sense. (This claim is nonsense, or at least, it combines nonsensically with RFV's presumption of deletion; but more than one editor has tried it. Usually in good faith, I think, but the result is pernicious all the same.) —Ruakh TALK 00:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I admit that the pro-keeping bias of RFD suits my tendency to support inclusion in RFD. Nonetheless, I should not single-handedly decide the policy that governs RFD anyway. One alternative to 2/3-majoritarian voting in RFD would be to lower the percentage threshold for consensus for deletion in RFD to something else above 50%. I do not think Mglovesfun should be introducing such a lowering through a new precedent in RFD. This would require a 70%-vote, I think, given it would be a meta-vote or vote about voting. Even the threshold 2/3 is hanging in the air, sort of, with people sometimes mentioning 70%.
 * The adverse effects of the current practice in RFD such as people sending more things to RFV seem fairly harmless: in RFV, one can say "widespread use" for widespread terms or do the attesting job for less clear terms. And I am not sure these RFV-happy behaviors are the consequence of the 2/3 threshold as opposed to, say, 60%; some deletionists keep saying "we don't do names of specific entities" long after a vote has shown otherwise. I am far from sure that lowering the threshold would in any way modify these RFV-happy behaviors.
 * Speedy deletions would not really do the intended deleting work for entries that at least one admin has eager interest in keeping: the admin can undelete the entry, and then send for regular RFD. --Dan Polansky 09:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * RFD is not a vote, and although, in closing RFDs, I try to do so in accordance with a consensus of commenters, I would not refrain from going against even a majority where I think that the commenters on one side are basing their comments on policy/BCP and the commenters on the other side are not, especially if I don't feel care the issue (or am closing against my own opinion). —msh210℠ (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree. RFD should be based on consensus rather than a judgment call of the closing admin. Current policy should not override votes given in RFD, or else policy application turns inflexible. I especially wholly disagree with an admin closing a nomination as "RFD failed" when a plain majority of voters voted for "keep", regardless how unreasonable their arguments have sounded to the closing admin. --Dan Polansky 17:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is, there's such as thing as bad consensus. I onced joked I'd send more stuff to RFD, but you guys keep getting it wrong. Regarding a need for a majority in order to delete, I support that, as I think it limits the 'tyrany of the majority' tendencies we sometimes experiences. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a problem with a solution: there is such a thing as a bad unilateral decision and a bad judgment call. Any decision can be bad, regadless of the mechanism that is used to make the decision. I prefer to give the arbitrary power to a group of voters than to a closing admin, especially given that any of the admins can be the closing one.--Dan Polansky 22:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

NB I have copied the translations to 300. Some are bluelinks, and if we delete three hundred, we may wish to delete eg þrjú hundruð as well (but surely not eg триста, as it is one-word). — Beobach 22:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So if three hundred is deleted, what about four hundred, five hundred, six hundred,... two thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand, etc.? AugPi 22:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the problem (well, a problem) with this sort of 'voting' system we have at RFD. Three hundred and four hundred could pass an RFD, while five hundred and six hundred might fail. Not that I have a solution, or even a hint of one, but it is a sort of problem. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it not-so-clever to discuss each cardinal number separately. We should either keep or delete all entries titled X hundred, X thousand and so on. Somebody suggested an appendix as a solution. I wrote as a draft this appendix. If you like the approach, additional appendices could be written for other sets of numbers. Obviously many languages are missing at this stage. If this is a bad idea, it's easy to get rid of. --Hekaheka 17:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Yair rand (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Surely, the only question that we should ask is - "Is the entry of any use to our users?". I think that it might be - so should probably be kept. SemperBlotto 22:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I propose a solution to Mglovesfun about numbers without any special linguistic interest: requiring three independent citations (with the number written in full) when creating the page, and requiring a manual creation for such pages. This would prevent the automatic creation of billions of entries. Lmaltier 08:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? Unauthorized automatic creation of billions of entries is already disallowed by the bot policy. --Yair rand (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But authorized creation of billions of entries is encouraged by the bot policy. -- Prince Kassad 15:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lmaltier sure, but why propose it to me? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a decision a long time ago to go ahead and keep certain large round figures like this for purpose of example and translation. I think that attitude is better than trying to decide each on grounds of attestation or some other rule that may not be applied as uniformly e.g. to 600 as to 300 and 900 or what have you. Of course attestation is still useful for certain numbers like 720. DAVilla 07:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

closed as kept per consensus -- Prince Kassad 22:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

RFD discussion: January 2019
Moved to Requests for deletion/English. --Lambiam 07:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

RFD discussion: January–September 2019

 * See Talk:two hundred.

title: Talk:three hundred


text:
decompactification

Noun

 * 1)  The reverse of a compactification

title: decompactification


text:
dendrodendritic

Adjective

 * 1) Between dendrites.

title: dendrodendritic


text: sailli

title: sailli


text: saille

title: saille


text: saillent

title: saillent


text: saillait

title: saillait


text: saillaient

title: saillaient


text: saillit

title: saillit


text:
bièvre

Etymology
, from, from , of or  origin, both from. Akin to 🇨🇬 (🇨🇬), 🇨🇬 (🇨🇬), 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬. More at beaver.

Noun

 * 1)  beaver (mammal)

title: bièvre


text: saillirent

title: saillirent


text: bièvres

title: bièvres


text: saillera

title: saillera


text: sailleront

title: sailleront


text: saillirait

title: saillirait


text: sailliraient

title: sailliraient


text: saillît

title: saillît


text: saillissent

title: saillissent


text:
Citations:hypermagnetic

 * 2007 Kazuharu Bamba et al, "Hypermagnetic Baryogenesis" arXiv
 * We study a new scenario for baryogenesis due to the spontaneous breaking of the CPT invariance through the interaction between a baryon current and a hypermagnetic helicity.
 * 2009 V. B. Semikoz at al, "Is the baryon asymmetry of the Universe related to galactic magnetic fields?" arXiv
 * A tiny hypermagnetic field generated before the electroweak phase transition (EWPT) associated to the generation of elementary particle masses can polarize the early Universe hot plasma at huge redshifts z > 10^15.
 * 2010 P.M. Akhmet'ev et al, "Flow of hypermagnetic helicity in the embryo of a new phase in the electroweak phase transition" arXiv
 * Assuming the total linking number of knots of hypermagnetic field is negative, it is proved that the helicity rising in the Maxwellian phase is left-handed.

title: Citations:hypermagnetic


text: hypermonopoles

title: hypermonopoles


text:
egle

Etymology
From. Cognates include 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Adverb

 * 1) yesterday

Etymology
From. Cognates include 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) spruce; fir

Etymology
From, considered by Pokorny to be from ; however, this is rejected by Genaust. It could instead be a borrowing from a European. Cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) spruce
 * 2) fir

Etymology
, from, from. Displaced native.

Noun

 * 1) eagle

Etymology
From, from ,.

Adjective

 * 1) hideous; loathsome; hateful; horrid; troublesome; grievous; painful

Etymology
From, with a change of gender from feminine to masculine.

Noun

 * 1)  eagle bird
 * 1)  eagle bird

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1) yesterday

title: egle


text:
Citations:hypermonopole

 * 2008 Antonio De Felice, Christophe Ringeval, "Massive gravitons trapped inside a hypermonopole" arXiv
 * We propose a regular classical field theory realisation of the Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati mechanism by considering our universe to be the four-dimensional core of a seven dimensional 't Hooft-Polyakov hypermonopole.
 * 2010 Sean Murray et al, "Graviton confinement inside higher-dimensional hypermonopoles" arXiv
 * We show the generic existence of metastable massive gravitons in the four-dimensional core of self-gravitating hypermonopoles in any number of infinite-volume extra-dimensions.

title: Citations:hypermonopole


text:
micromotional

Adjective

 * 1) Of or pertaining to micromotion.

title: micromotional


text: deboneire

title: deboneire


text:
abiecto

Etymology
From, perfect passive participle of , from.

Verb

 * 1) to abandon
 * 2) to debase
 * 3) to humble
 * 4) to sell too cheaply
 * 5) to slight
 * 6) to throw, cast away, cast down, cast aside

title: abiecto


text:
misspecified

Adjective

 * 1) Incorrectly specified

title: misspecified


text: abiectare

title: abiectare


text:
ymage

Etymology
and, from , from.

Noun

 * 1) image, depiction visual representation:
 * 2) idol, icon an image as a religious focus
 * 3)  A sculpture or effigy used in occult arts.
 * 4) Likeness, closeness; the state of being similar.
 * 5) A likeness; something that is similar or akin.
 * 6) The real or mental appearance or form of something.
 * 7)  A scarecrow effigy for scaring animals away
 * 8)  A deceptive form; an apparition.

title: ymage


text:
monocytogenes

Adjective

 * 1) -producing

title: monocytogenes


text:
desservant

Noun

 * 1) a vicar, curate

title: desservant


text: desservi

title: desservi


text: dessers

title: dessers


text:
multispectra

Adjective

 * 1) multispectral

title: multispectra


text: desservons

title: desservons


text: desservez

title: desservez


text: desservent

title: desservent


text: desservais

title: desservais


text: desservait

title: desservait


text: desservions

title: desservions


text: desserviez

title: desserviez


text: desservis

title: desservis


text: desservit

title: desservit


text: desservîmes

title: desservîmes


text: desservîtes

title: desservîtes


text: desservirent

title: desservirent


text: desservaient

title: desservaient


text: desservirai

title: desservirai


text: desserviras

title: desserviras


text: desservira

title: desservira


text: desservirons

title: desservirons


text: desservirez

title: desservirez


text: desserviront

title: desserviront


text: desservirais

title: desservirais


text: desservirait

title: desservirait


text: desservirions

title: desservirions


text: desserviriez

title: desserviriez


text: desserviraient

title: desserviraient


text: desservisse

title: desservisse


text: desservisses

title: desservisses


text: desservît

title: desservît


text: desserve

title: desserve


text: desserves

title: desserves


text: desservissions

title: desservissions


text: desservissiez

title: desservissiez


text: desservissent

title: desservissent


text:
nanotransport

Noun

 * 1) nanoscale transport (movement)

title: nanotransport


text:
nonsuperfluid

Adjective

 * 1) Not superfluid

title: nonsuperfluid


text:
photoevaporative

Adjective

 * 1) That causes photoevaporation

title: photoevaporative


text:
rotochemical

Adjective

 * 1)  Describing the heating produced by various affects of the reduction in angular momentum of a rotating neutron star (especially a pulsar)

title: rotochemical


text:
nastroteca

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) tape library

title: nastroteca


text:
tecoteca

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) tea house

title: tecoteca


text:
weblioteca

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  web guide, portal

title: weblioteca


text:
coltivabilità

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) cultivability, arability

title: coltivabilità


text:
colaggio

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) leakage, ullage (loss of material)

title: colaggio


text:
pelo menos

Adverb

 * 1) at a lower limit, at least

title: pelo menos


text:
colagogo

Adjective

 * 1)  cholagogic

Noun

 * 1)  cholagogue

title: colagogo


text:
colascione

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) An early form of lute with a long neck; the mandora.

title: colascione


text:
colaticcio

Etymology
From, from. .

Adjective

 * 1)  dripping, running

Noun

 * 1) dross, dregs
 * 2) slurry

title: colaticcio


text:
colatore

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) drain, ditch

title: colatore


text:
Category:Pages using deprecated templates

This category contains entries, reconstruction pages, appendixes, sign glosses and citations pages using deprecated templates—templates that have failed our deletion process, and/or that have been replaced by superior templates.

This category is populated by deprecated code and deprecated lang param usage. The former is wrapped around templates that have been completely deprecated and remove from mainspace (particularly those in Category:Successfully deprecated templates). The latter is wrapped around non-deprecated templates that accept the deprecated lang parameter; any use of that parameter will place the page in Category:Pages using deprecated templates. Ideally this category will be empty.

Any pages in this category, particularly those in the mainspace, need to have their deprecated template usages corrected. __HIDDENCAT__ __EXPECTUNUSEDCATEGORY__


text:
accubo

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to lie or recline by, with, on or near something; relax
 * 2)  to recline at a table
 * 1)  to recline at a table

title: accubo


text: accubare

title: accubare


text:
Talk:tosser

More generic meaning pointed to by HP movie
At the beginning of the 6th Harry Potter movie (the Half Blood Prince) Harry Potter refers to himself as a "tosser". I can hardly believe either of the two meanings mentioned here apply.

Perhaps a native speaker (from London?) can eleborate.

Nb. I have no recollection of this word being used in the book.

✅. Possibly they need to be extended slightly into the figurative, but I actually think the definitions kinda fit it. It's implied he's supposed to be an uninteresting, not-doing-anything-good-or-notable, loser kinda guy; probably originationg from the masturbating part. It's quite common for words to expand into new territoty and get used like this.

❌. Personally I think we should include the Harry Potter quote on this page. I don't remember it from the book either, but I'm not sure, but that doesn't matter anyway. I first heard it in the HBP movie, and haven't heard it in many other places either, but I think it may be one of those quite versatile words that don't necessarily mean much by itself or have the same meaning in every context, such as perhaps words like "prat", "prick", "turn", "shit", "thing", "boy", "cool", "gay" and "loser".''

Oh, and I'm not even a native speaker, let alone a Londoner, but I still think my points are valid. Your request for a Londoner is still valid. Someone should take a look into this, expand a little and clean up and clarify, nothing much, but just to make sure it's up to snuff. - Bjørnar Munkerud, the 4. of January 2013, HP fan
 * Generic definition found and entered. No quote added because the originator of the comment should research (source) and supply this. 71.239.87.100 05:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Muggle girl: Harry Potter. Who's Harry Potter?
 * Harry Potter: No one, bit of a tosser really. (Wikiquote)
 * Several "answers" websites have question about the meaning of this quote. (Just Google it.)
 * I'm not immersed in British English. Looking only at the word, I could parse "tosser" thus: "Toss" basically means "throw" - or "throw away" or "throw out". A "tosser" could be "someone you would throw away" - or "get rid of" or "discard" (v) or maybe "cast out" or "reject" (v). A "reject" (n) can be "something that is rejected" and, in American slang for sure, "an unpopular person" - someone you don't want to hang around with; an "outcast" (someone who was thrown out/pushed out/kicked out). So I am tempted to translate "tosser" to American English as "reject". ("Outcast" is a synonym but too formal. "Loser" is close, but has other connotations.)
 * Or, maybe he meant "wanker" less like "jerk-off" and more like "jerk" (where it's implicit but less out-there), in the sense of "idiot". Then I'd translate it "jerk" or "idiot". -A876 (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:tosser


text:
tasse à thé

Noun

 * 1) teacup

title: tasse à thé


text: tasses à thé

title: tasses à thé


text:
Citations:janglement

 * 1843, Thomas Carlyle, Past and Present, book 3, ch. VI, Two Centuries
 * And coldly see the all-conquering valiant Sons of Toil sit enchanted, by the million, in their Poor-Law Bastille, as if this were Nature’s Law; — mumbling to ourselves some vague janglement of Laissez-faire, Supply-and-demand, Cash-payment the one nexus of man to man: Free-trade, Competition, and Devil take the hindmost, our latest Gospel yet preached!

title: Citations:janglement


text:
Talk:same old story

Looks like someone changed the definition without changing the translation table gloss. Now it's all out of whack. Should we recheck the existing translations or simply rewrite the gloss? Tooironic 11:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:same old story


text:
pittig

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  piquant, spicy
 * 2)  energetic and having a strong character
 * 3) serious and difficult
 * 4) pithy, terse

title: pittig


text: pittigst

title: pittigst


text: pittiger

title: pittiger


text: nutje

title: nutje


text:
nutten

Etymology 1
From, from. Equivalent to.

Verb

 * 1)  to use, to enjoy use of
 * 2)  to consume, to eat

title: nutten


text:
nutteloos

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) useless, pointless
 * 2) meaningless, purposeless

title: nutteloos


text: nuttelozer

title: nuttelozer


text: nutteloost

title: nutteloost