text: classicizzata

title: classicizzata


text: classicizzo

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

title: classicizzo


text: classicizzi

title: classicizzi


text: classicizza

title: classicizza


text: classicizziamo

title: classicizziamo


text: classicizzate

title: classicizzate


text: classicizzano

title: classicizzano


text: classicizzavo

title: classicizzavo


text: classicizzavi

title: classicizzavi


text: classicizzava

title: classicizzava


text: classicizzavamo

title: classicizzavamo


text: classicizzavate

title: classicizzavate


text: classicizzavano

title: classicizzavano


text: Citations:roial

title: Citations:roial


text: classicizzai

title: classicizzai


text: classicizzasti

title: classicizzasti


text: classicizzò

title: classicizzò


text: classicizzammo

title: classicizzammo


text: classicizzaste

title: classicizzaste


text: classicizzarono

title: classicizzarono


text: classicizzerò

title: classicizzerò


text: classicizzerai

title: classicizzerai


text: classicizzerà

title: classicizzerà


text: classicizzeremo

title: classicizzeremo


text: classicizzerete

title: classicizzerete


text: classicizzeranno

title: classicizzeranno


text: classicizzerei

title: classicizzerei


text: classicizzeresti

title: classicizzeresti


text: classicizzerebbe

title: classicizzerebbe


text: classicizzeremmo

title: classicizzeremmo


text: classicizzereste

title: classicizzereste


text: classicizzerebbero

title: classicizzerebbero


text: classicizziate

title: classicizziate


text: classicizzino

title: classicizzino


text: classicizzassi

title: classicizzassi


text: classicizzasse

title: classicizzasse


text: classicizzassimo

title: classicizzassimo


text: classicizzassero

title: classicizzassero


text:
classificatorio

Adjective

 * 1) classifying, classificatory

title: classificatorio


text:
claustrofilia

Etymology
🇨🇬

Noun

 * 1) claustrophilia

title: claustrofilia


text:
vinctor

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) binder

title: vinctor


text:
schans

Etymology
From ; cognate with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) A sconce or a similar type of fortification.
 * 2) A ramp.
 * 3) A platform or ramp used for ski jumpers (or any similar sport) to gain elevation during their jumps.

title: schans


text: schansje

title: schansje


text: schansen

title: schansen


text:
claustrofobo

Adjective

 * 1) claustrophobic

title: claustrofobo


text:
-ouze

Etymology
Apparently representing an old form of the feminine suffix, preserved in slang.

title: -ouze


text:
springschans

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) a  or  used for  to gain height during their jumps

title: springschans


text: springschansje

title: springschansje


text: springschansen

title: springschansen


text:
vinctio

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) The act of binding together; binding, ligature.

title: vinctio


text:
clavaria

Noun

 * 1) a type of mushroom, of the genus  that is poisonous to cattle

title: clavaria


text:
vinctura

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) A bandage, ligature, vincture.

title: vinctura


text: loialty

title: loialty


text:
clavicembalista

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) harpsichordist

title: clavicembalista


text: loialties

title: loialties


text: Citations:loialty

title: Citations:loialty


text:
clavicembalistico

Adjective

 * 1)  harpsichord

title: clavicembalistico


text:
Talk:sledgehammer

slang note
Can anybody explain me what means "bounce a sledgehammer off"? I think it's an idiomatic phrase, but I don't know its meaning.
 * Can you use it in context for us? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Yeah; I found that phrase in an internet article about a movie (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, 2003) where the writer, describing hilariously the body of an actress, said: "Jessica Biel ... with a derriere you could bounce a sledgehammer off, ahem!".
 * Well it's not an idiom... it just means she has a derriere that's very firm. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Arabic translations
Hi. إِرْزَبَّة is searchable even in Google books. Are you sure it doesn't exist or it has a different meaning? The Wikipedia article was created by User:Ahmed1251985, a native speaker. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Hey, is somewhat archaic compared to its variant . I don't know if it is a good idea adding archaic terms to the translation section. — Fenakhay ( حيطي · مساهماتي ) 11:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

 * It can be a good idea, in particular considering how historical the item itself is, for instance a  for clothes (it had many names in English now all barely recognized by native speakers), and additionally in as much as we link extinct terms for extinct languages seekers of Standard Arabic terms may also seek them for its being a literary more than living language, but in this case it isn’t a good idea anyhow since it is listed by us as an alternative form of a variant we already link. From the web and Google Books, which both I checked specifically for this removal, all use reflected was medieval and maybe until the 20th century in some dialects in some areas—though not even the older editions of Wehr know it anymore—, and I also knew from that it is dialectologically not present and even  is of limited distribution though there mapped for the specific sense of “hoe”. Fay Freak (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we can add it with a label . It's also included in Almaany (ar-ar). Defined as "المِطْرَقةُ الكبيرةُ تكسر بها الحجارة". Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn’t mean anyone who added and kept it ever saw it in current use. Almaany like ourselves includes forolded words. But as unidimensional dictionary they don’t have any other place than directly in the translations. In such a fashion it is carried on in any place on the internet. As said, it suffices if someone can click  from the translation table and find the variant on this way. Fay Freak (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to you, you can remove if you insist. In some cases I include archaic terms in translation, in some I don't, it depends how important is the alt form, I guess. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:sledgehammer


text: diseconomie

title: diseconomie


text:
claustrofilie

Etymology
. Equivalent to.

Noun

 * 1) claustrophilia

title: claustrofilie


text: clavarie

title: clavarie


text: clavicembalisti

title: clavicembalisti


text: clavicembaliste

title: clavicembaliste


text: inoffensibili

title: inoffensibili


text: inquisibili

title: inquisibili


text: inseducibili

title: inseducibili


text: seducibili

title: seducibili


text: inseribili

title: inseribili


text: insoffribili

title: insoffribili


text: soffribili

title: soffribili


text: insommergibili

title: insommergibili


text: interrompibili

title: interrompibili


text: volgibili

title: volgibili


text: diseconomica

title: diseconomica


text: diseconomici

title: diseconomici


text: diseconomiche

title: diseconomiche


text: intrasgredibili

title: intrasgredibili


text: invedibili

title: invedibili


text: investibili

title: investibili


text: irredimibili

title: irredimibili


text: redimibili

title: redimibili


text: irregressibili

title: irregressibili


text: classicistica

title: classicistica


text: classicistici

title: classicistici


text: classicistiche

title: classicistiche


text: classificatoria

title: classificatoria


text: classificatorie

title: classificatorie


text: claustrofoba

title: claustrofoba


text: claustrofobi

title: claustrofobi


text: claustrofobe

title: claustrofobe


text: clavicembalistica

title: clavicembalistica


text: clavicembalistici

title: clavicembalistici


text: clavicembalistiche

title: clavicembalistiche


text: loyautés

title: loyautés


text:
barbouze

Etymology
From, because of the fake beard supposedly worn to hide the face.

Noun

 * 1)  secret agent; agent of a paramilitary force

title: barbouze


text: barbouzes

title: barbouzes


text:
loiauté

Etymology
From, via the masculine plural form , possibly corresponding to Medieval Latin , from Latin.

Noun

 * 1) loyalty (state or act of being loyal)

title: loiauté


text: loiaus

title: loiaus


text:
природни логаритам

Noun

 * 1)  natural logarithm

title: природни логаритам


text:
lucubratio

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) The act of working by night, candlelight or lamplight; lucubration, nocturnal study, night work.
 * 2) Anything made, produced or composed at night, candlelight or lamplight; lucubration, night work.

title: lucubratio


text:
-iatra

Etymology
From.

Suffix

 * 1) a doctor: -iatrician, -iatrist

Etymology
From.

Suffix

 * 1) a doctor

title: -iatra


text:
sociétaire

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) related to corporations (société commerciale)
 * Quand nous parlons de la forme sociétaire de la propriété industrielle, il s'agit d'une société de personnes (ouvriers, techniciens, bailleurs de fonds), entièrement différente des sociétés de capitaux. (Maritain, Human. intégr., 1936)
 * 1) related to an association

Noun

 * 1) fellow, member of an association or society

title: sociétaire


text: 满语

title: 满语


text:
fisiatra

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) physiatrist

Noun

 * 1) physiatrist

title: fisiatra


text:
滿語

Noun

 * 1) Manchu language
 * 2)  Chinese language

title: 滿語


text:
lucubratiuncula

Etymology
Diminutive of, from.

Noun

 * 1) The act of working by night; lucubration, nocturnal study, night work.

title: lucubratiuncula


text: sociétaires

title: sociétaires


text:
lucubratorius

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * Of, pertaining to, or suitable for nighttime work or a night student.

title: lucubratorius


text: 人员

title: 人员


text:
ذقن

Etymology 1
From, from. Compare 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) chin
 * 2)  beard on the chin; goatee
 * 3)  beard
 * 1)  beard

title: ذقن


text: πηγούνι

title: πηγούνι


text:
bizonytalan

Adjective

 * 1) uncertain, unsure, dubious
 * 2) irresolute
 * 1) irresolute
 * 1) irresolute

title: bizonytalan


text:
antifermion

Noun

 * 1)  The antiparticle of a (specified) fermion

Translations

 * Portuguese:
 * Brazilian: antiférmion
 * European: antifermião

title: antifermion


text: bizonytalanabb

title: bizonytalanabb


text: legbizonytalanabb

title: legbizonytalanabb


text:
antisoliton

Etymology
(By analogy with antiparticles)

Noun

 * 1)  A soliton with the negative amplitude of a given soliton

title: antisoliton


text: schematiche

title: schematiche


text: 奇异

title: 奇异


text:
antisymmetrized

Adjective

 * 1)  Made antisymmetric.
 * 2)  Modified by an antisymmetrizer.

Translations

 * Portuguese: antissimetrizado

title: antisymmetrized


text:
smig

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) chin

title: smig


text:
ចង្កា

Etymology
From. Cognate with 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬 [of Kompong Som] ckaː ("mouth").

Noun

 * 1)  chin

title: ចង្កា


text:
determinated

Adjective

 * 1)  determined
 * 2)  determinate

title: determinated


text:
zods

Etymology
Ultimately from,. Compare the root *ǵonh₂dʰos. Compare also 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) chin

title: zods


text:
Махараштра

Proper noun

 * 1) Maharashtra

title: Махараштра


text:
gateable

Adjective

 * 1)  Having a gate that may be externally controlled

Related terms

 * adjective

title: gateable


text:
smakras

Etymology
From, from , thematicized from an original neuter noun , as continued by 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) chin

title: smakras


text: ilħit

title: ilħit


text:
Западная Бенгалия

Proper noun

 * 1) West Bengal

title: Западная Бенгалия


text:
gravitoelectric

Adjective

 * 1)  Describing the component of a gravitational field analogous to the electric component of an electromagnetic field

title: gravitoelectric


text:
get one's skates on

Verb

 * 1)  To start doing something quickly; to stop procrastinating; to hurry up.
 * If I don't get my skates on now I'm going to be late!

title: get one's skates on


text:
kauwae

Noun

 * 1) chin

title: kauwae


text:
interqubit

Adjective

 * 1) Between qubits

title: interqubit


text:
גאָמבע

Etymology
Probably (pronounced /ˈɡɛm.ba/), whence also, and most likely a dialectal variant.

Noun

 * 1) chin

title: גאָמבע


text:
multinucleon

Adjective

 * 1) Involving, or composed of multiple nucleons

title: multinucleon


text: nanofilms

title: nanofilms


text:
nanofilm

Noun

 * 1) A film of nanoscale thickness

title: nanofilm


text: nanojunctions

title: nanojunctions


text:
nanojunction

Noun

 * 1) A junction involving nanoscale components

title: nanojunction


text:
nematically

Adverb

 * 1) In a nematic manner

title: nematically


text:
oscillon

Noun

 * 1)  A form of soliton observed in a granular environment.

title: oscillon


text:
overionization

Noun

 * 1) Excessive ionization

title: overionization


text:
recollimation

Noun

 * 1)  collimation subsequent to broadening

title: recollimation


text: ingender

title: ingender


text:
in for the kill

Adjective

 * 1)  Intending to kill or destroy someone or something.
 * If you go hunting and want to bring something back to eat, you have to be in for the kill.
 * After bashing up his victim, the murderer went in for the kill.

Translations

 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: 意欲殺害
 * Finnish: tappamisen tarkoitus
 * Spanish:

title: in for the kill


text: superclouds

title: superclouds


text: ingenders

title: ingenders


text: ingendering

title: ingendering


text: ingendered

title: ingendered


text:
supercloud

Noun

 * 1)  A very large cloud of stellar material

title: supercloud


text: recollimations

title: recollimations


text:
Citations:supercloud

 * 2005 Yu.N.Efremov, "Complexes of clusters and complexes of stars" arXiv
 * Some difference in the physical conditions (turbulence parameters ?) within the initial gas supercloud might be a reason for the high or low stars/clusters number ratio in a complex.
 * 2010 Yuri N.Efremov, "On the chains of star complexes and superclouds in spiral arms" arXiv
 * The relation is studied between occurrence of a regular chain of star complexes and superclouds in a spiral arm, and other properties of the latter.

title: Citations:supercloud


text:
superdeformation

Noun

 * 1)  The deformation of an atomic nucleus to such an extent that it becomes far from spherical

title: superdeformation


text:
undistinguishability

Noun

 * 1) indistinguishability

title: undistinguishability


text:
the rest is history

Phrase

 * 1)  An indication that one does not need to continue narrating a story as the subsequent events are assumed to be well-known.

Translations

 * Chinese:
 * Cantonese: 淨低嘅都係歷史
 * Mandarin: 餘下的都是歷史
 * Danish:
 * Dutch: de rest is geschiedenis
 * Estonian: ülejäänut te juba teate
 * Finnish: loppu on historiaa
 * French: le reste est de l'histoire, on connaît la suite
 * German: der Rest ist Geschichte
 * Italian: il resto è storia
 * Japanese:
 * Korean:
 * Polish: reszta jest historią
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian:
 * Spanish: lo demás es historia
 * Swedish: resten är historia

title: the rest is history


text:
implex

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) Intricate, involved, entangled, complicated, complex.
 * 2) * c. 1711, Joseph Addison, essay in The Spectator, 9 February 1711/12:
 * The fable of every poem is, according to Aristotle’s division, either simple or implex. It is called simple when there is no change of fortune in it; implex, when the fortune of the chief actor changes from bad to good, or from good to bad. The implex fable is thought most perfect: I suppose, because it is more proper to stir up the passion of the reader, and to surprise him with a greater variety of accidents.

Noun

 * 1) A genealogical coefficient of a given genealogical tree; defined as the difference between the number of theoretical ancestors of a person and the number of his/her real ones in a given generation (the degree of ).

title: implex


text:
waveless

Adjective

 * 1) Free from waves.

title: waveless


text:
Orsamål

Proper noun

 * 1) An unofficial language or dialect of the Dalecarlian language in Sweden, where it is spoken in the Orsa municipality in the northern part of Dalarna.

title: Orsamål


text: Citations:Snoopy

title: Citations:Snoopy


text: 汤锅

title: 汤锅


text:
湯鍋

Noun

 * 1) stockpot; butcher's cauldron in a slaughterhouse
 * 2)  slaughterhouse

title: 湯鍋


text:
User talk:Bamsejon

Welcome
Welcome!

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

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

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

Again, welcome! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

ossmol
This can't be an English proper noun, as it starts with a lower case letter. Isn't this really Swedish? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Its the name of a dialect or language, its only me that is not use to use capital letters on names on languages, sorry...--Bamsejon 11:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bamsejon


text:
Dalecarlian

Adjective

 * 1) Pertaining to Dalecarlia or Dalecarlians.

Translations

 * Finnish: taalainmaalainen
 * French: ,
 * Latin: dalecarliensis
 * Swedish:

Proper noun

 * 1) Any of a group of dialects spoken in Dalecarlia, Sweden
 * 2) Dialect group spoken in Dalecarlia, Sweden

Translations

 * Finnish: Taalainmaan murre
 * French:
 * Swedish:

Noun

 * 1) An inhabitant of Dalecarlia.

Translations

 * Finnish: taalainmaalainen
 * French: Dalécarlien, Dalécarlienne
 * Swedish:, ,

title: Dalecarlian


text:
Dalecarlia

Etymology
From.

Translations

 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * Georgian: დალეკარლია, დალარნა
 * Latin: Dalecarlia
 * Swedish:

Etymology
New Latin, Latinized from.

Proper noun

 * 1) Dalarna, province of Sweden

title: Dalecarlia


text: stationary phases

title: stationary phases


text:
hosto

Noun

 * 1)  leaf

Etymology
Borrowed from a regional language of France, ultimately from. .

First documented as soldiers' slang in 1915. The army provided an environment ripe for this sort of borrowing, as it had brought together conscripts from across the country.

The spelling with ⟨eau⟩ is original. Modern speakers prefer ⟨o⟩ as the word has effectively been 'adopted' as the of.

Noun

 * 1) hospital
 * 2)  lodging
 * 3)  abode
 * 1)  abode

title: hosto


text:
do someone's head in

Verb

 * 1)  To frustrate, infuriate, irritate or disturb someone.
 * Please stop reading the name of every sign we come across; it's doing my head in!
 * 1) * 2006, Claire Taylor, quoting “Donnie”, Young People in Care and Criminal Behaviour, |does|doing|did+his|her|my+head+in%22+-intitle:%22%22+-inauthor:%22%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aadAT5eEKKXdmAW1wYmvBw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22do|does|doing|did%20his|her|my%20head%20in%22%20-intitle%3A%22%22%20-inauthor%3A%22%22&f=false page 121,
 * I just want to get out there to me bird really...′cos she don′t want me in here all the time, it′s doing her head in. It′s doing my head in. It didn′t used to do my head in, it used to be like care, if you know what I mean, when I first started coming to jail. It used to be like ‘yeah, I′m back in care’ kind of thing.
 * I just want to get out there to me bird really...′cos she don′t want me in here all the time, it′s doing her head in. It′s doing my head in. It didn′t used to do my head in, it used to be like care, if you know what I mean, when I first started coming to jail. It used to be like ‘yeah, I′m back in care’ kind of thing.

Translations

 * French:
 * German: wahnsinnig machen, kirre machen, gaga machen
 * Russian:

title: do someone's head in


text: bonjours

title: bonjours


text: boudins noirs

title: boudins noirs


text: redisant

title: redisant


text: prédisant

title: prédisant


text: revoulant

title: revoulant


text: brochettes

title: brochettes


text:
Matsumoto

Etymology
.

Translations

 * Arabic: مَاتْسُومُوتُو
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: 松本
 * Japanese: 松本
 * Korean: ^마츠모토
 * Marathi: मात्सुमोतो
 * Russian:

Statistics

 * According to the 2010 United States Census, Matsumoto is the 7421th most common surname in the United States, belonging to 4486 individuals. Matsumoto is most common among Asian/Pacific Islander (79.22%) and Multi-racial (10.32%) individuals.

Etymology
.

Etymology
Borrowed from Hepburn romaji of.

title: Matsumoto


text: revoulu

title: revoulu


text: brunoises

title: brunoises


text: revoulus

title: revoulus


text: revoulues

title: revoulues


text: revoulue

title: revoulue


text: carbometallations

title: carbometallations


text: cajeputs

title: cajeputs


text:
carboskeletal

Adjective

 * 1)  Of or pertaining to a carboskeleton

title: carboskeletal


text:
carboskeleton

Noun

 * 1)  The arrangement of connected carbon atoms in an organic compound

title: carboskeleton


text:
casoar

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) cassowary

title: casoar


text: casoars

title: casoars


text:
clinostat

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) A rotating device that is used to investigate gravitropism in plants

Related terms

 * clinostatic

title: clinostat


text:
cocculolidine

Noun

 * 1)  A polycyclic alkaloid, isolated from plants of the genus, that has insecticidal activity.

title: cocculolidine


text:
calcin

Noun

 * 1)  Any of a group of polypeptides that have an affinity for calcium

Noun

 * 1) cullet

title: calcin


text: calcins

title: calcins


text:
codeformational

Adjective

 * 1) Causing mutual deformation

title: codeformational


text:
cancaner

Verb

 * 1) to gossip
 * 2) to quack

title: cancaner


text:
meslee

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) battle; fight; confrontation (medieval confrontation)

title: meslee


text:
copolymerize

Verb

 * 1) (chemistry) To polymerize so as to form a copolymer

title: copolymerize


text: meslees

title: meslees


text: copolymerizes

title: copolymerizes


text: cantaloups

title: cantaloups


text: meslés

title: meslés


text: meslé

title: meslé


text: caramboles

title: caramboles


text:
cupration

Noun

 * 1)  The formation of an organic cuprate

title: cupration


text: reïne

title: reïne


text: 连读

title: 连读


text: casquettes

title: casquettes


text:
連讀

Verb

 * 1)  to read two or more words or syllables together, especially as a contraction
 * 2)  to study multiple programs

Noun

 * 1)  liaison

title: 連讀


text: roy Artur

title: roy Artur


text:
roi Artur

Proper noun

 * 1) King Arthur

title: roi Artur


text: centièmes

title: centièmes


text:
candlemaker

Noun

 * 1) Someone who makes candles; chandler.

title: candlemaker


text: candlemakers

title: candlemakers


text: salamandres

title: salamandres


text: 战斗

title: 战斗


text:
戰鬥

Noun

 * 1) battle; fight; combat

Verb

 * 1) to engage in combat; to fight; to wage war
 * 2) to take action

title: 戰鬥


text:
有限

Adjective

 * 1) limited ; finite

Adjective

 * 1)  very little

Noun

 * 1)  a little bit

Adjective

 * 1) limited; having a limit
 * 2) finite

Noun

 * 1) limitedness
 * 2) finity

title: 有限


text: loghyn

title: loghyn


text: 家乡

title: 家乡


text:
-aghyn

Etymology
Cognate to 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

title: -aghyn


text: 当做

title: 当做


text:
當做

Verb

 * 1) to treat as; to regard as; to take for; to think of as; to be considered as; to be regarded as

title: 當做


text:
buriner

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to chisel

title: buriner


text: Ysbel

title: Ysbel


text:
發達

Adjective

 * 1)  developed; flourishing

Verb

 * 1) to develop
 * 2) to strike it rich; to rise to power and position

Noun

 * : development

title: 發達


text:
做夢

Verb

 * 1) to dream
 * 2) to have a pipe dream

Synonyms

title: 做夢


text:
真實

Adjective

 * 1) real; true; genuine

Noun

 * : truth; reality

title: 真實


text:
天真

Adjective

 * 1) naive; innocent; artless

Adjective

 * 1) naive; innocent; artless

Noun

 * 1) innocence

title: 天真


text:
美元

Noun

 * 1) US dollar

title: 美元


text:
教會

Noun

 * 1)  church

Descendants
Others:

Verb

 * 1) to teach until someone succeeds in learning

Noun

 * : church

authors: True Immortal Buddhist Monastery (Chùa Chân Tiên)

title: 教會


text: -jyn

title: -jyn


text: 尸体

title: 尸体


text:
屍體

Noun

 * 1) corpse; cadaver; dead body

title: 屍體


text:
dépister

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to track an animal using its tracks
 * 2) to derail
 * 3)  to screen
 * 4)  to shake off, throw off

title: dépister


text: prédîtes

title: prédîtes


text:
csecs

Etymology
Probably an onomatopoeia.

Noun

 * 1)  breast (of a woman)
 * 2)  nipple
 * 1)  nipple

title: csecs


text: 刚刚

title: 刚刚


text:
剛剛

Adverb

 * 1) just; just now; a moment ago
 * 2) barely
 * 1) barely
 * 1) barely

Synonyms

title: 剛剛


text:
emik

Etymology
From +. Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Verb

 * 1)  to suck

title: emik


text:
撕裂

Verb

 * 1) to rip; to tear

title: 撕裂


text: 剥削

title: 剥削


text:
剝削

Verb

 * 1)  to exploit

title: 剝削


text: 'droid

title: 'droid


text:
-íonn

Etymology
From.

Usage notes

 * This form is attached to second-conjugation verbs with stem ending in a broad consonant;
 * Used with the second person singular and plural, and third person singular and plural, followed by the pronouns, , , , and :

title: -íonn


text:
Benedeit

Etymology
From.

title: Benedeit


text:
digt

Etymology 1
From, from , , from , itself from.

Noun

 * 1) poem
 * 2) fiction invention

Etymology 2
See.

title: digt


text: digtet

title: digtet


text:
digte

Etymology 1
See.

Etymology 2
From, borrowed from , itself from.

Verb

 * 1) write poetry
 * 2) compose or write a song or a story
 * 3) invent, fabricate

title: digte


text: digtene

title: digtene


text: digts

title: digts


text: digtets

title: digtets


text: digtes

title: digtes


text:
bréagadóir

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) liar, deceiver
 * 2) cajoler, wheedler

title: bréagadóir


text: digtenes

title: digtenes


text:
barbier

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1)  barber (hairdresser)
 * 2)  surgeon

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) barber
 * C'est alors qu'un Sicilien à voix forte entra dans la boutique, crevant cette tranquillité ; que le barbier, tout causant aussitôt, ne rasa plus que d'une main distraite et, d'un franc coup de lame, vlan ! écornifla le bouton. (Gide, Les Caves du Vatican, 1914)

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  barber

title: barbier


text:
barbiers

Noun

 * 1)  A paralysis, peculiar to India and the Malabar coast, thought to be a chronic form of beriberi.

title: barbiers


text: 实行

title: 实行


text:
實行

Verb

 * 1) to implement; to put into practice; to carry out

Noun

 * 1) actual deeds; practice

Adverb

 * 1)  definitely
 * 2)  bound to; have got to

title: 實行


text:
dresseuse

Noun

 * 1) tamer,

title: dresseuse


text:
User talk:LlywelynII

Archived talk pages
1 2 3

Template:Cognomen
This template is used to list cognomens in Latin entries, automatically adding the entry to Category:Latin cognomina. Its first three fields can be used to display examples of Roman gentes that used the cognomen, linking each to their Wikipedia entries.

Further examples will produce the end text.

The template can also automatically provide a single example name to show the use. This should be a name where the cognomen is the last part of the name.

To use an example of a medial cognomen instead, use the ux template as normal as normal. To avoid needing to add an English "translation" of the name, use a non-breaking space in the last field. — LlywelynII  07:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Weird question about "Mitre"
Do you by chance remember the source of this piece of information about this specific debased coin?

> A 13th-century coin minted in Europe which circulated in Ireland as a debased counterfeit sterling penny, outlawed under Edward I.

I got "nerd-sniped" and tried to find more information about it, but I can't seem to find any references that aren't just quoting exactly this line from Wiktionary. Omni5cience (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, not off the top of my head. It seems your nerdsniping was justified though, if you really weren't able to use the list of synonyms in that edit to find more information. Inter alia, it's in the OED and the Wiki article on History of the English penny (1154–1485). Can you link to the "sniping" or explain what the other person was specifically taking issue with? It might've just been an American who wanted you to spell it miter in English. — LlywelynII  20:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:LlywelynII


text:
digter

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) poet

Etymology 1
From.

Noun

 * 1) poet
 * 2) author, writer

Etymology 2
See.

title: digter


text: digteren

title: digteren


text: digtere

title: digtere


text: digterne

title: digterne


text: digters

title: digters


text: digterens

title: digterens


text: digteres

title: digteres


text: digternes

title: digternes


text: sangliers

title: sangliers


text:
barbelé

Etymology
, from +, or by analogy with.

Adjective

 * 1) barbed (wire)

Noun

 * 1) barbed wire

title: barbelé


text:
Citations:wiggery

 * 1843, Thomas Carlyle, Past and Present, book 2, ch. XVII, The Brginnings
 * It is because there is yet in venerable wigged justice some wisdom, amid such mountains of wiggeries and folly, that men have not cast her into the River; that she still sits there, like Dryden’s Head in the Battle of the Books […]

title: Citations:wiggery


text: santés

title: santés


text: sapins de Noël

title: sapins de Noël


text:
fil de fer barbelé

Noun

 * 1) barbed wire

title: fil de fer barbelé


text:
laqueary

Adjective

 * 1)  Of a gladiator: using a noose as a weapon.

title: laqueary


text: saucissons

title: saucissons


text: digtede

title: digtede


text: seiners

title: seiners


text: Jinn

title: Jinn


text: septembres

title: septembres


text:
Jinnag

Proper noun

 * , used as a Manx equivalent of or

title: Jinnag


text:
Jinnee

Proper noun

 * , a Manx diminutive of Jane

title: Jinnee


text: slovaques

title: slovaques


text: slovènes

title: slovènes


text: smashs

title: smashs


text:
autotermiitti

Noun

 * 1) A person who steals parts from abandoned cars.

title: autotermiitti


text:
nylky

Noun

 * 1) skinning

title: nylky


text: coontyssyn

title: coontyssyn


text: Category:Irish terms suffixed with -ann

title: Category:Irish terms suffixed with -ann


text: somnolences

title: somnolences


text:
జ్ఞ

Ligature

 * 1) A Telugu ligature from  and.

title: జ్ఞ


text: ఞ్ఛ

title: ఞ్ఛ


text: ఘ్ర

title: ఘ్ర


text:
ఛ్ణ

Proper noun
(çNa)

 * 1) A Telugu ligature from ఛ and ణ.

title: ఛ్ణ


text:
കേരളം

Etymology
From. A folk etymology derives the word from 🇰🇲.

title: കേരളം


text:
heimfærður

Etymology
From the past participle of  and, literally meaning "brought home".

Adjective

 * 1) applied

Derived terms

 * (applied mathematics)

title: heimfærður


text:
pull-focus

Etymology
From +.

Noun

 * 1)  A filming technique whereby the focal point is drawn towards the viewer; also a shot (as part of an edit) in which such a technique is used. Also used attributively.

Translations

 * French: rattrapage de point

title: pull-focus


text:
iurgium

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) a quarrel, strife, dispute, altercation, contention; abuse, invective
 * 2)  a legal dispute, a separation between husband and wife
 * 1)  a legal dispute, a separation between husband and wife

title: iurgium


text:
unprosperous

Adjective

 * 1) Not prosperous.

title: unprosperous


text:
heimfærð stærðfræði

Noun

 * 1)  applied mathematics

title: heimfærð stærðfræði


text:
cisatracurium

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  A, one of the ten isomers of atracurium.

title: cisatracurium


text:
transfini

Adjective

 * 1)  transfinite (beyond finite)

title: transfini


text:
sugammadex

Noun

 * 1) A drug for reversal of neuromuscular blockade by the agent rocuronium in general anesthesia.

title: sugammadex


text:
methohexital

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  A derivative of barbituric acid, used, as the sodium salt (more fully sodium methohexital), as a short-acting intravenous anesthetic; (1-methyl-5-allyl-5-[1-methyl-2-pentynyl])barbituric acid, C14H18N2O3.

title: methohexital


text:
methohexitone

Noun

 * 1) methohexital

title: methohexitone


text:
cleptoparassitismo

Noun

 * 1)  kleptoparasitism

title: cleptoparassitismo


text:
boucaner

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to smoke meat

title: boucaner


text:
βενζίνη

Etymology
Borrowed from.

title: βενζίνη


text:
clericaleggiante

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) favouring/favoring clericalism

title: clericaleggiante


text:
cleristorio

Noun

 * 1)  clerestory

title: cleristorio


text:
boucanier

Etymology
From ; the original sense of the word is "adventurer hunting game to smoke its meat and sell its fur".

Noun

 * 1) buccaneer

title: boucanier


text: boucaniers

title: boucaniers


text: amethocaine

title: amethocaine


text:
clientelistico

Adjective

 * 1) clientelist

title: clientelistico


text:
ropivacaine

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  A local anesthetic drug belonging to the amino amide group.

title: ropivacaine


text:
climaterico

Etymology
, from, from , from. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) climacteric
 * 2) critical, dangerous

title: climaterico


text: barbelés

title: barbelés


text:
ropily

Adverb

 * 1) In a ropy manner.

title: ropily


text:
clinto

Noun

 * 1) a red wine from Veneto

title: clinto


text: clinton

title: clinton


text:
clipeato

Adjective

 * 1) clypeate

title: clipeato


text:
clitico

Adjective

 * 1) clitic

Noun

 * 1) clitic

title: clitico


text:
kansel

Etymology
From, from , from , from , from , diminutive of.

Verb

 * 1) to cancel

Etymology
Borrowed from, from , , from , plural of.

Noun

 * 1) pulpit (raised platform in church)

Etymology
From, from , from , from , from , diminutive of.

title: kansel


text:
clivo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) slope
 * 2) hillock
 * 3)  clivus
 * 1)  clivus
 * 1)  clivus

title: clivo


text:
nalbuphine

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  A synthetic opioid antagonist which is very similar to morphine in chemical structure and is given by injection (usually in the form of its hydrochloride) as an analgesic; (−)-(5R,6S,14S)-9a-cyclobutylmethyl-4,5-epoxymorphinan-3,6,14-triol, C21H27NO4.

title: nalbuphine


text:
cloacale

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) cloacal

title: cloacale


text:
clonaggio

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) cloning

title: clonaggio


text:
barbeler

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to surround with barbed wire
 * …il [le Français] barbèle au besoin son jardin, et sa première débauche d'imagination est pour la clôture. (Colette, Gigi, 1944)

title: barbeler


text:
cloroformizzazione

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) chloroforming
 * 2) chloroformization

title: cloroformizzazione


text:
tabharthach

Etymology
From (from ) +, a.

Adjective

 * 1)  dative

Noun

 * 1)  dative

title: tabharthach


text:
clorurazione

Noun

 * 1) chlorination

title: clorurazione


text:
дательный

Etymology
From. .

Adjective

 * 1)  dative denoting the case of noun which expresses indirect object

title: дательный


text:
clostridio

Noun

 * 1) clostridium

Noun

 * 1)  clostridium

title: clostridio


text:
cluniacense

Adjective

 * 1) Cluniac

Adjective

 * 1) Cluniac

title: cluniacense


text: fisiatre

title: fisiatre


text: cleptoparassitismi

title: cleptoparassitismi


text: cleristori

title: cleristori


text:
clinti

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1)  to budge

title: clinti


text: clitici

title: clitici


text: clivi

title: clivi


text: clonaggi

title: clonaggi


text: cloroformizzazioni

title: cloroformizzazioni


text: clorurazioni

title: clorurazioni


text: clostridi

title: clostridi


text: clericaleggianti

title: clericaleggianti


text:
desflurane

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  The compound perfluoro methyl ethyl ether, which is used for maintenance of general anesthesia.

title: desflurane


text: clientelistica

title: clientelistica


text: clientelistici

title: clientelistici


text: clientelistiche

title: clientelistiche


text: climaterica

title: climaterica


text: climaterici

title: climaterici


text: climateriche

title: climateriche


text: clipeata

title: clipeata


text: clipeati

title: clipeati


text: clipeate

title: clipeate


text: clitica

title: clitica


text: clitiche

title: clitiche


text: cloacali

title: cloacali


text: cluniacensi

title: cluniacensi


text:
παρομοίωση

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) simile

title: παρομοίωση


text:
raseur

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) boring, dull

Noun

 * 1) a bore, someone dull

title: raseur


text: raseurs

title: raseurs


text:
levobupivacaine

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  A particular local anesthetic drug.

title: levobupivacaine


text:
pipecuronium

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  A muscle relaxant that acts as a  antagonist.

title: pipecuronium


text:
Cortes

Etymology 1
From.

Etymology
From, descriptive surname from. Compare, from a variant spelling, by analogy with surnames ending with (patronymic suffix).

For the municipality (formerly named Pamingwitan), multiple theories exist:
 * Named after, a village in Navarre, Spain
 * Named in honor of, conqueror of the Aztec Empire.
 * From

Etymology
A proper noun usage of from, plural of , a short form via syncope of  from  from  from.

Proper noun

 * 1) any of several legislative assemblies of Spain and Portugal; parliamentary chambers which exercise the power to craft legislation and control the actions of government as elected representatives of the public or, historically, in an advisory role to a reigning monarch

title: Cortes


text:
-tropia

English
From, from.

Suffix

 * 1)  turning, movement;.

Etymology
From.

Suffix

 * 1) -tropy

Etymology
From.

title: -tropia


text:
prilocaine

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  A local anesthetic related to lidocaine and used in the form of its hydrochloride C13H20N2O·HCl as a  for pain especially in surgery and dentistry.

title: prilocaine


text: Category:Italian terms suffixed with -tropia


text:
hagur

Etymology 1
From, from.

Adjective

 * 1) dexterous, handy

Noun

 * 1) an advantage
 * 2) economy
 * 3) circumstances
 * 1) circumstances
 * 1) circumstances
 * 1) circumstances

title: hagur


text:
allotropie

Noun

 * 1) allotropy

title: allotropie


text:
metocurine

Noun

 * 1) A particular muscle relaxant.

title: metocurine


text:
nondepolarizing

Adjective

 * 1) Not depolarizing

title: nondepolarizing


text:
gallamine

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) A substituted ammonium salt C24H45N3O3 that is used to produce muscle relaxation especially during anesthesia.

title: gallamine


text:
oxandrolone

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  A androgenic anabolic steroid C19H30O3 administered orally especially to promote weight gain (as after extensive surgery or a chronic infection) and to relieve  in osteoporosis.

title: oxandrolone


text:
doxacurium

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  A muscle relaxant that acts as a  antagonist.

title: doxacurium


text:
alcuronium

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  A semisynthetic muscle relaxant derived from toxiferine.

Translations

 * Finnish: alkuronium
 * German: Alcuroniumchlorid
 * Portuguese: alcurônio

title: alcuronium


text:
toxiferine

Noun

 * 1) A curare toxin and nicotinic acetylcholine receptor antagonist.

title: toxiferine


text: toxiferines

title: toxiferines


text: flumazepil

title: flumazepil


text:
flumazenil

Etymology
Probably from.

Noun

 * 1)  A benzodiazepine antagonist used to counter drowsiness caused by benzodiazepines.

Translations

 * Finnish: flumatseniili
 * Russian: флумазени́л
 * Turkish: flumazenil

title: flumazenil


text:
ametropie

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) ametropia

title: ametropie


text:
slappa af

Etymology
From, compare the adjective and. Compare Swedish verbs and.

Verb

 * 1) to relax

title: slappa af


text: emmetropie

title: emmetropie


text:
licantropia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) lycanthropy

Noun

 * 1)  lycanthropy ability to shapeshift into a wolf

title: licantropia


text:
tixotropia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) thixotropy

title: tixotropia


text:
nonbroadcasting

Adjective

 * 1) That does not broadcast.
 * a nonbroadcasting computer network
 * 1) Not of or pertaining to broadcasting.
 * nonbroadcasting revenues

title: nonbroadcasting


text: get inside someone's pants

title: get inside someone's pants


text: you and what army

title: you and what army


text: Peter Pans

title: Peter Pans


text:
Talk:Jefferson

Verification debate
Does not belong in Wiktionary. --Yair rand 18:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Most good dictionaries have them (at least, American dictionaries have them). Why don’t they belong, do you think? —Stephen 18:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * See WT:CFI: "...George Walker Bush thus should not be included. ...and Jeffersonian (an adjective) should be included, Thomas Jefferson (which isn’t used attributively) should not." --Yair rand 19:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Jefferson and Thomas Jefferson are two different things. Which one are you talking about? —Stephen 19:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about Jefferson definition #2:

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826); the third President of the United States (1801–1809), principal author of the US Declaration of Independence (1776), and one of the most influential founders of the United States. Major events during his presidency include the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Embargo Act of 1807, and the Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804–1806). --Yair rand 19:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * move the actual people to the etymology where there are other sense. Conrad.Irwin 19:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The examples in CFI, ELE and elsewhere are not authoritative. For example "information" is claimed to be the exemplar of an uncountable noun in Appendix:Glossary, when it actually has a sense that forms a plural.
 * Our standard for the proper nouns senses is actual attestation of attributive use of the word, which is an RfV matter. The cat Garfield seems more likely to have such attestable use than the president. DCDuring TALK 19:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Strong Keep (all). They are used, singly, in very many texts to mean the US president with that surname. People need to know that meaning. SemperBlotto 07:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete sense. As surnames, they should be kept; of course. But the meaning a specific person with that surname is something common to all surnames and to everybody (including you and me), and would be best addressed through a link to the Wikipedia page dealing with this surname. Otherwise, notability criteria would be necessary, and they should not be required here (all words are accepted). Lmaltier 14:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * There's no need for notability criteria. The only criterion needed is that the surname alone is used to refer to the person, without the referent being explained or obvious from context.  Most US presidents, Canadian and modern British prime ministers, etc., meet this test without much question; not because they meet any standard of encyclopedic notability, but simply because their surnames have demonstrably entered the lexicon.  Similarly Foucault, Kant, Hegel, Bach, Beethoven, et al. -- Visviva 16:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your own surname used alone has probably entered the lexicon, at least for some people that know you. But I don't think you would like to enter yourself as a sense of this word. This is what I mean by notability criterion, and this is why I don't think it's a good idea. As a word, it's a surname, nothing else. However, if the translation of this word in a language (e.g. Russian) is different depending on the person, all possible translations should be given, with appropriate comments. Lmaltier 21:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, supposing that my surname -- let's call it "Smith" -- had indeed entered my friends' lexicon. And suppose that at least three of my friends had published independent works which referred to me as "Smith", without any further explanation, because they assumed that the reader would immediately understand the Smith to whom they referred.  In such a case -- and only in such a case -- I would certainly merit my own sense in the Smith entry.  -- Visviva 09:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I think that what you explain is a typical example of a notability criterion. Lmaltier 05:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Move to RfV for attributive use citations. All accept "Garfield" have a reasonable to excellent chance of being attestable in attributive use. I enjoy demonstrating errors in our own documentation, so "Jefferson" will get my immediate attention. DCDuring TALK 16:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Strong keep per SemperBlotto. There should be no need for attributive use (as there would be for "James Garfield" or "Thomas Jefferson") because these are not proper names in the first place.  If policy says otherwise -- and I don't think it actually does -- then the policy is wrong.  -- Visviva 16:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for all, as per SemperBlotto. Usage is effectivly attributive, as it means the president without other mention being included. Should also accept most major world leaders. --Dmol 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * You missed the part where the guideline says “attributive,” and not “eddectively attributive.”

 * Everyone, please don't waste your and my valuable time by voting—this is not about self-gratification.  Either get on with citing these “words” according to the guideline, or propose a change to the guideline. —Michael Z. 2009-09-19 23:56 z
 * Why cite if someone decides it's not such a matter? If it were kept, it might not be RfV'd. Once it is here it has to play out. I'm not sure that the process can be simplified when both matters are potentially at issue. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * AFAICR we have always treated RFD as a vote. Not saying it's particularly wise, but it is what we've done. As for the guideline, it says clearly that surnames should be included.  And if we're going to include them, it should be rather obvious that we should include all senses that a person might encounter and need to look up. -- Visviva 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * No ... it was never a "vote", and never intended to be; the idea is that there is, or should be, a right answer. The bolded "keep" or "delete" is just a way of highlighting the summary of an opinion. See, for example, at the top of WT:RFV: Verification is accomplished by the gathering of information, not of votes. Robert Ullmann 09:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * But this is RFD, not RFV. I could have been more precise and said that we always treated votes as indicators of consensus (or the lack thereof).  It has generally been considered highly improper to delete an RFD'd entry that has a majority of editors (or even a large minority of editors) opposing deletion. If that really doesn't sound familiar, I can only conclude that we have been contributing to different projects. ;-) -- Visviva 09:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I think in that case, surnames like Jackson and Johnson are missing a lot of senses. However I'd like to see these deleted as POV and just generally that surely a lot of people called Adams, Jackson etc. I wonder if George Washington could be cited attributively, would it meet CFI? I say yes, it's a proper noun, widely known and used attributively, right? There's nothing that prohibits it in our rules. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes WT:CFI confirms it. Therefore I added Michael Jackson to Jackson and RFD'ed it at the same time. Genius! Mglovesfun (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I've already got two attributive uses of Michael Jackson. This is an excellent example of of why this proper noun policy makes no sense. Why is attributive use so important? As far as I can see, we never refuse proper nouns as long as they are used attributively. I'd be pretty surprised if more than three cites for George Washington weren't available. WT:CFI actually says "...George Walker Bush thus should not be included unless used attributively . Again, George Walker Bush has a legitimate chance to get an entry here. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Attributive use is important because it gives us something useful to say about them, as a dictionary. If a proper name is used only to refer to its literal referent, a Wiktionary entry for that name serves no purpose to anyone.  If it used as a byword to suggest some particular quality, that is a fact that even Wikipedia is unlikely to include, but which might nonetheless be of great significance to someone puzzled by a name's appearance in a particular context.  Likewise for surnames; going to Jackson (disambiguation) is not going to give the user much insight as to which of the people listed there is likely to be the "Jackson" mentioned without any context whatsoever in some work. Thus again, there is something useful for us to say about such usage. -- Visviva 09:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm not at all convinced there are even three cases where "Jackson" is used to refer to the singer without "Michael Jackson" being specified somewhere nearby (particularly since he isn't exactly the only pop singer by that surname). I'm sure there are some Jacksons besides Andrew who would meet this test, but I doubt if there are very many.  -- Visviva 09:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I could get three attributive uses for Michael Jackson though. It took me about 2 minutes to get 2. Anyway, I'd better bring this up on WT:BP. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so may I add the senses of specific US presidents to RFV right now, or am I prohibited until this RFD is closed? —Michael Z. 2009-09-20 23:09 z
 * There's no rule, but some knuckles have been rapped for opening an RfV while the RfD was active. If the conversation seems over and this is deemed kept and closed, then the RfV can be opened with a link to the archived discussion.
 * BTW, If anyone would like to challenge some two-part human names, the following are available for consideration: Arnold Schwartzenegger, Britney Spears, Brigitte Bardot, and Marilyn Monroe. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * As long as you'll accept any three works that refer to the president as "Garfield" without identifying him elsewhere, I think RFV would be fine. But if that's not the case, it would kind of seem to me like you were trying to use RFV as cover for a policy agenda, which would be somewhat uncool. -- Visviva 11:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(from a wrongly created sub-section, Mglovesfun (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)) If you delete the George Washington meaning, you will only have to inlcude it in the etymology anyway to explain why the city and state are called Washington. Keep. --Richardb 09:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

 * We do that kind of thing routinely, with a link to the Wikipedia article on the person. I believe that the community considers it a the best way to handle such things. Marilyn Monroe for an example. That entry is also an example of the kinds of usage that might justify keeping a full personal name. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete, see WT:CFI. This sort of entry could go very far, how about Tony Blair in Blair, or John Major in Major. Sports stars and singers and very well known, how about Michael Jordan in Jordan or Britney Spears in Spears. I'd love to RFV these, but since CFI is so vague on the names of specific entries, nobody would know if they had passed or not, so I think a pure vote like this is best. What do SemperBlotto et al. think of that?

Moving to RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I don't like these entries I believe there is a distinction. An essay on American history might very well mention "Jefferson" throughout and never use the word "Thomas". An essay on pop culture would not mention "Spears" without "Britney", at least the first time she was named — right? Equinox ◑ 13:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So there you go, our voters overturn WT:CFI to keep these. They all now need three attributive citations, not that anyone knows what that means. Get ready for disagreement, folks. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fail, senses removed. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am restoring the sense of the specific American president.

In RFD above: For keeping: Stephen, SemperBlotto, Visviva, Dmol, Richardb; for deletion: Yair rand, Conrad Irwin, DCDuring (estimated), Michael Z (estimated), Mglovesfun, Lmaltier; result: no consensus for deletion, 6 for deletion vs 5 for keeping.

In RFV: Attestation can be requested but not per attributive-use rule, which has been rejected in Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities; attestation should be fairly trivial.

If someone wants to restart the RFD debate, count also my vote as keep. --Dan Polansky 10:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This archival is from a batch of requests, one that involved Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Jackson, and Garfield. See the past revision of RFV. --Dan Polansky 11:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I'd rather you didn't, I don't think you're wrong to do so. Hitler passed, but the risk is almost any individual could have a Wiktionary entry. If all you need is three citations where Jefferson refers to (somebody) Jefferson, this could end up being more like a Wikipedia disambiguation page. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jefferson


text:
Talk:Lincoln

Verification debate
Does not belong in Wiktionary. --Yair rand 18:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Most good dictionaries have them (at least, American dictionaries have them). Why don’t they belong, do you think? —Stephen 18:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * See WT:CFI: "...George Walker Bush thus should not be included. ...and Jeffersonian (an adjective) should be included, Thomas Jefferson (which isn’t used attributively) should not." --Yair rand 19:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Jefferson and Thomas Jefferson are two different things. Which one are you talking about? —Stephen 19:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about Jefferson definition #2:

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826); the third President of the United States (1801–1809), principal author of the US Declaration of Independence (1776), and one of the most influential founders of the United States. Major events during his presidency include the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Embargo Act of 1807, and the Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804–1806). --Yair rand 19:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * move the actual people to the etymology where there are other sense. Conrad.Irwin 19:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The examples in CFI, ELE and elsewhere are not authoritative. For example "information" is claimed to be the exemplar of an uncountable noun in Appendix:Glossary, when it actually has a sense that forms a plural.
 * Our standard for the proper nouns senses is actual attestation of attributive use of the word, which is an RfV matter. The cat Garfield seems more likely to have such attestable use than the president. DCDuring TALK 19:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Strong Keep (all). They are used, singly, in very many texts to mean the US president with that surname. People need to know that meaning. SemperBlotto 07:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete sense. As surnames, they should be kept; of course. But the meaning a specific person with that surname is something common to all surnames and to everybody (including you and me), and would be best addressed through a link to the Wikipedia page dealing with this surname. Otherwise, notability criteria would be necessary, and they should not be required here (all words are accepted). Lmaltier 14:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * There's no need for notability criteria. The only criterion needed is that the surname alone is used to refer to the person, without the referent being explained or obvious from context.  Most US presidents, Canadian and modern British prime ministers, etc., meet this test without much question; not because they meet any standard of encyclopedic notability, but simply because their surnames have demonstrably entered the lexicon.  Similarly Foucault, Kant, Hegel, Bach, Beethoven, et al. -- Visviva 16:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your own surname used alone has probably entered the lexicon, at least for some people that know you. But I don't think you would like to enter yourself as a sense of this word. This is what I mean by notability criterion, and this is why I don't think it's a good idea. As a word, it's a surname, nothing else. However, if the translation of this word in a language (e.g. Russian) is different depending on the person, all possible translations should be given, with appropriate comments. Lmaltier 21:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, supposing that my surname -- let's call it "Smith" -- had indeed entered my friends' lexicon. And suppose that at least three of my friends had published independent works which referred to me as "Smith", without any further explanation, because they assumed that the reader would immediately understand the Smith to whom they referred.  In such a case -- and only in such a case -- I would certainly merit my own sense in the Smith entry.  -- Visviva 09:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I think that what you explain is a typical example of a notability criterion. Lmaltier 05:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Move to RfV for attributive use citations. All accept "Garfield" have a reasonable to excellent chance of being attestable in attributive use. I enjoy demonstrating errors in our own documentation, so "Jefferson" will get my immediate attention. DCDuring TALK 16:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Strong keep per SemperBlotto. There should be no need for attributive use (as there would be for "James Garfield" or "Thomas Jefferson") because these are not proper names in the first place.  If policy says otherwise -- and I don't think it actually does -- then the policy is wrong.  -- Visviva 16:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for all, as per SemperBlotto. Usage is effectivly attributive, as it means the president without other mention being included. Should also accept most major world leaders. --Dmol 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * You missed the part where the guideline says “attributive,” and not “eddectively attributive.”

 * Everyone, please don't waste your and my valuable time by voting—this is not about self-gratification.  Either get on with citing these “words” according to the guideline, or propose a change to the guideline. —Michael Z. 2009-09-19 23:56 z
 * Why cite if someone decides it's not such a matter? If it were kept, it might not be RfV'd. Once it is here it has to play out. I'm not sure that the process can be simplified when both matters are potentially at issue. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * AFAICR we have always treated RFD as a vote. Not saying it's particularly wise, but it is what we've done. As for the guideline, it says clearly that surnames should be included.  And if we're going to include them, it should be rather obvious that we should include all senses that a person might encounter and need to look up. -- Visviva 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * No ... it was never a "vote", and never intended to be; the idea is that there is, or should be, a right answer. The bolded "keep" or "delete" is just a way of highlighting the summary of an opinion. See, for example, at the top of WT:RFV: Verification is accomplished by the gathering of information, not of votes. Robert Ullmann 09:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * But this is RFD, not RFV. I could have been more precise and said that we always treated votes as indicators of consensus (or the lack thereof).  It has generally been considered highly improper to delete an RFD'd entry that has a majority of editors (or even a large minority of editors) opposing deletion. If that really doesn't sound familiar, I can only conclude that we have been contributing to different projects. ;-) -- Visviva 09:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I think in that case, surnames like Jackson and Johnson are missing a lot of senses. However I'd like to see these deleted as POV and just generally that surely a lot of people called Adams, Jackson etc. I wonder if George Washington could be cited attributively, would it meet CFI? I say yes, it's a proper noun, widely known and used attributively, right? There's nothing that prohibits it in our rules. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes WT:CFI confirms it. Therefore I added Michael Jackson to Jackson and RFD'ed it at the same time. Genius! Mglovesfun (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I've already got two attributive uses of Michael Jackson. This is an excellent example of of why this proper noun policy makes no sense. Why is attributive use so important? As far as I can see, we never refuse proper nouns as long as they are used attributively. I'd be pretty surprised if more than three cites for George Washington weren't available. WT:CFI actually says "...George Walker Bush thus should not be included unless used attributively . Again, George Walker Bush has a legitimate chance to get an entry here. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Attributive use is important because it gives us something useful to say about them, as a dictionary. If a proper name is used only to refer to its literal referent, a Wiktionary entry for that name serves no purpose to anyone.  If it used as a byword to suggest some particular quality, that is a fact that even Wikipedia is unlikely to include, but which might nonetheless be of great significance to someone puzzled by a name's appearance in a particular context.  Likewise for surnames; going to Jackson (disambiguation) is not going to give the user much insight as to which of the people listed there is likely to be the "Jackson" mentioned without any context whatsoever in some work. Thus again, there is something useful for us to say about such usage. -- Visviva 09:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm not at all convinced there are even three cases where "Jackson" is used to refer to the singer without "Michael Jackson" being specified somewhere nearby (particularly since he isn't exactly the only pop singer by that surname). I'm sure there are some Jacksons besides Andrew who would meet this test, but I doubt if there are very many.  -- Visviva 09:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I could get three attributive uses for Michael Jackson though. It took me about 2 minutes to get 2. Anyway, I'd better bring this up on WT:BP. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so may I add the senses of specific US presidents to RFV right now, or am I prohibited until this RFD is closed? —Michael Z. 2009-09-20 23:09 z
 * There's no rule, but some knuckles have been rapped for opening an RfV while the RfD was active. If the conversation seems over and this is deemed kept and closed, then the RfV can be opened with a link to the archived discussion.
 * BTW, If anyone would like to challenge some two-part human names, the following are available for consideration: Arnold Schwartzenegger, Britney Spears, Brigitte Bardot, and Marilyn Monroe. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * As long as you'll accept any three works that refer to the president as "Garfield" without identifying him elsewhere, I think RFV would be fine. But if that's not the case, it would kind of seem to me like you were trying to use RFV as cover for a policy agenda, which would be somewhat uncool. -- Visviva 11:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(from a wrongly created sub-section, Mglovesfun (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)) If you delete the George Washington meaning, you will only have to inlcude it in the etymology anyway to explain why the city and state are called Washington. Keep. --Richardb 09:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

 * We do that kind of thing routinely, with a link to the Wikipedia article on the person. I believe that the community considers it a the best way to handle such things. Marilyn Monroe for an example. That entry is also an example of the kinds of usage that might justify keeping a full personal name. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete, see WT:CFI. This sort of entry could go very far, how about Tony Blair in Blair, or John Major in Major. Sports stars and singers and very well known, how about Michael Jordan in Jordan or Britney Spears in Spears. I'd love to RFV these, but since CFI is so vague on the names of specific entries, nobody would know if they had passed or not, so I think a pure vote like this is best. What do SemperBlotto et al. think of that?

Moving to RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I don't like these entries I believe there is a distinction. An essay on American history might very well mention "Jefferson" throughout and never use the word "Thomas". An essay on pop culture would not mention "Spears" without "Britney", at least the first time she was named — right? Equinox ◑ 13:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So there you go, our voters overturn WT:CFI to keep these. They all now need three attributive citations, not that anyone knows what that means. Get ready for disagreement, folks. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fail, senses removed. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the sense for the U.S. president: the sense has not failed RFD (5 for keeping, 6 for deletion). As regards RFV, it should be fairly easy to attest; the attributive-use rule has been removed from CFI in this vote: Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities. --Dan Polansky 10:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This archival is from a batch of requests, one that involved Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Jackson, and Garfield. See the past revision of RFV. --Dan Polansky 11:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lincoln


text:
Talk:Jackson

Verification debate
Does not belong in Wiktionary. --Yair rand 18:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Most good dictionaries have them (at least, American dictionaries have them). Why don’t they belong, do you think? —Stephen 18:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * See WT:CFI: "...George Walker Bush thus should not be included. ...and Jeffersonian (an adjective) should be included, Thomas Jefferson (which isn’t used attributively) should not." --Yair rand 19:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Jefferson and Thomas Jefferson are two different things. Which one are you talking about? —Stephen 19:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about Jefferson definition #2:

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826); the third President of the United States (1801–1809), principal author of the US Declaration of Independence (1776), and one of the most influential founders of the United States. Major events during his presidency include the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Embargo Act of 1807, and the Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804–1806). --Yair rand 19:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * move the actual people to the etymology where there are other sense. Conrad.Irwin 19:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The examples in CFI, ELE and elsewhere are not authoritative. For example "information" is claimed to be the exemplar of an uncountable noun in Appendix:Glossary, when it actually has a sense that forms a plural.
 * Our standard for the proper nouns senses is actual attestation of attributive use of the word, which is an RfV matter. The cat Garfield seems more likely to have such attestable use than the president. DCDuring TALK 19:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Strong Keep (all). They are used, singly, in very many texts to mean the US president with that surname. People need to know that meaning. SemperBlotto 07:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete sense. As surnames, they should be kept; of course. But the meaning a specific person with that surname is something common to all surnames and to everybody (including you and me), and would be best addressed through a link to the Wikipedia page dealing with this surname. Otherwise, notability criteria would be necessary, and they should not be required here (all words are accepted). Lmaltier 14:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * There's no need for notability criteria. The only criterion needed is that the surname alone is used to refer to the person, without the referent being explained or obvious from context.  Most US presidents, Canadian and modern British prime ministers, etc., meet this test without much question; not because they meet any standard of encyclopedic notability, but simply because their surnames have demonstrably entered the lexicon.  Similarly Foucault, Kant, Hegel, Bach, Beethoven, et al. -- Visviva 16:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your own surname used alone has probably entered the lexicon, at least for some people that know you. But I don't think you would like to enter yourself as a sense of this word. This is what I mean by notability criterion, and this is why I don't think it's a good idea. As a word, it's a surname, nothing else. However, if the translation of this word in a language (e.g. Russian) is different depending on the person, all possible translations should be given, with appropriate comments. Lmaltier 21:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, supposing that my surname -- let's call it "Smith" -- had indeed entered my friends' lexicon. And suppose that at least three of my friends had published independent works which referred to me as "Smith", without any further explanation, because they assumed that the reader would immediately understand the Smith to whom they referred.  In such a case -- and only in such a case -- I would certainly merit my own sense in the Smith entry.  -- Visviva 09:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I think that what you explain is a typical example of a notability criterion. Lmaltier 05:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Move to RfV for attributive use citations. All accept "Garfield" have a reasonable to excellent chance of being attestable in attributive use. I enjoy demonstrating errors in our own documentation, so "Jefferson" will get my immediate attention. DCDuring TALK 16:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Strong keep per SemperBlotto. There should be no need for attributive use (as there would be for "James Garfield" or "Thomas Jefferson") because these are not proper names in the first place.  If policy says otherwise -- and I don't think it actually does -- then the policy is wrong.  -- Visviva 16:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for all, as per SemperBlotto. Usage is effectivly attributive, as it means the president without other mention being included. Should also accept most major world leaders. --Dmol 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * You missed the part where the guideline says “attributive,” and not “eddectively attributive.”

 * Everyone, please don't waste your and my valuable time by voting—this is not about self-gratification.  Either get on with citing these “words” according to the guideline, or propose a change to the guideline. —Michael Z. 2009-09-19 23:56 z
 * Why cite if someone decides it's not such a matter? If it were kept, it might not be RfV'd. Once it is here it has to play out. I'm not sure that the process can be simplified when both matters are potentially at issue. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * AFAICR we have always treated RFD as a vote. Not saying it's particularly wise, but it is what we've done. As for the guideline, it says clearly that surnames should be included.  And if we're going to include them, it should be rather obvious that we should include all senses that a person might encounter and need to look up. -- Visviva 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * No ... it was never a "vote", and never intended to be; the idea is that there is, or should be, a right answer. The bolded "keep" or "delete" is just a way of highlighting the summary of an opinion. See, for example, at the top of WT:RFV: Verification is accomplished by the gathering of information, not of votes. Robert Ullmann 09:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * But this is RFD, not RFV. I could have been more precise and said that we always treated votes as indicators of consensus (or the lack thereof).  It has generally been considered highly improper to delete an RFD'd entry that has a majority of editors (or even a large minority of editors) opposing deletion. If that really doesn't sound familiar, I can only conclude that we have been contributing to different projects. ;-) -- Visviva 09:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I think in that case, surnames like Jackson and Johnson are missing a lot of senses. However I'd like to see these deleted as POV and just generally that surely a lot of people called Adams, Jackson etc. I wonder if George Washington could be cited attributively, would it meet CFI? I say yes, it's a proper noun, widely known and used attributively, right? There's nothing that prohibits it in our rules. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes WT:CFI confirms it. Therefore I added Michael Jackson to Jackson and RFD'ed it at the same time. Genius! Mglovesfun (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I've already got two attributive uses of Michael Jackson. This is an excellent example of of why this proper noun policy makes no sense. Why is attributive use so important? As far as I can see, we never refuse proper nouns as long as they are used attributively. I'd be pretty surprised if more than three cites for George Washington weren't available. WT:CFI actually says "...George Walker Bush thus should not be included unless used attributively . Again, George Walker Bush has a legitimate chance to get an entry here. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Attributive use is important because it gives us something useful to say about them, as a dictionary. If a proper name is used only to refer to its literal referent, a Wiktionary entry for that name serves no purpose to anyone.  If it used as a byword to suggest some particular quality, that is a fact that even Wikipedia is unlikely to include, but which might nonetheless be of great significance to someone puzzled by a name's appearance in a particular context.  Likewise for surnames; going to Jackson (disambiguation) is not going to give the user much insight as to which of the people listed there is likely to be the "Jackson" mentioned without any context whatsoever in some work. Thus again, there is something useful for us to say about such usage. -- Visviva 09:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm not at all convinced there are even three cases where "Jackson" is used to refer to the singer without "Michael Jackson" being specified somewhere nearby (particularly since he isn't exactly the only pop singer by that surname). I'm sure there are some Jacksons besides Andrew who would meet this test, but I doubt if there are very many.  -- Visviva 09:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I could get three attributive uses for Michael Jackson though. It took me about 2 minutes to get 2. Anyway, I'd better bring this up on WT:BP. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so may I add the senses of specific US presidents to RFV right now, or am I prohibited until this RFD is closed? —Michael Z. 2009-09-20 23:09 z
 * There's no rule, but some knuckles have been rapped for opening an RfV while the RfD was active. If the conversation seems over and this is deemed kept and closed, then the RfV can be opened with a link to the archived discussion.
 * BTW, If anyone would like to challenge some two-part human names, the following are available for consideration: Arnold Schwartzenegger, Britney Spears, Brigitte Bardot, and Marilyn Monroe. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * As long as you'll accept any three works that refer to the president as "Garfield" without identifying him elsewhere, I think RFV would be fine. But if that's not the case, it would kind of seem to me like you were trying to use RFV as cover for a policy agenda, which would be somewhat uncool. -- Visviva 11:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(from a wrongly created sub-section, Mglovesfun (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)) If you delete the George Washington meaning, you will only have to inlcude it in the etymology anyway to explain why the city and state are called Washington. Keep. --Richardb 09:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

 * We do that kind of thing routinely, with a link to the Wikipedia article on the person. I believe that the community considers it a the best way to handle such things. Marilyn Monroe for an example. That entry is also an example of the kinds of usage that might justify keeping a full personal name. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete, see WT:CFI. This sort of entry could go very far, how about Tony Blair in Blair, or John Major in Major. Sports stars and singers and very well known, how about Michael Jordan in Jordan or Britney Spears in Spears. I'd love to RFV these, but since CFI is so vague on the names of specific entries, nobody would know if they had passed or not, so I think a pure vote like this is best. What do SemperBlotto et al. think of that?

Moving to RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I don't like these entries I believe there is a distinction. An essay on American history might very well mention "Jefferson" throughout and never use the word "Thomas". An essay on pop culture would not mention "Spears" without "Britney", at least the first time she was named — right? Equinox ◑ 13:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So there you go, our voters overturn WT:CFI to keep these. They all now need three attributive citations, not that anyone knows what that means. Get ready for disagreement, folks. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fail, senses removed. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the two senses, one for the U.S. president, another one for the singer: the senses have not failed RFD (5 for keeping, 6 for deletion). As regards RFV, it should be fairly easy to attest; the attributive-use rule has been removed from CFI in this vote: Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities.

This archival is from a batch of requests, one that involved Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Jackson, and Garfield. See the past revision of RFV. --Dan Polansky 11:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jackson


text:
Talk:Garfield

RFV discussion (2)
Does not belong in Wiktionary. --Yair rand 18:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Most good dictionaries have them (at least, American dictionaries have them). Why don’t they belong, do you think? —Stephen 18:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * See WT:CFI: "...George Walker Bush thus should not be included. ...and Jeffersonian (an adjective) should be included, Thomas Jefferson (which isn’t used attributively) should not." --Yair rand 19:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Jefferson and Thomas Jefferson are two different things. Which one are you talking about? —Stephen 19:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about Jefferson definition #2:

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826); the third President of the United States (1801–1809), principal author of the US Declaration of Independence (1776), and one of the most influential founders of the United States. Major events during his presidency include the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Embargo Act of 1807, and the Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804–1806). --Yair rand 19:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * move the actual people to the etymology where there are other sense. Conrad.Irwin 19:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The examples in CFI, ELE and elsewhere are not authoritative. For example "information" is claimed to be the exemplar of an uncountable noun in Appendix:Glossary, when it actually has a sense that forms a plural.
 * Our standard for the proper nouns senses is actual attestation of attributive use of the word, which is an RfV matter. The cat Garfield seems more likely to have such attestable use than the president. DCDuring TALK 19:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Strong Keep (all). They are used, singly, in very many texts to mean the US president with that surname. People need to know that meaning. SemperBlotto 07:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete sense. As surnames, they should be kept; of course. But the meaning a specific person with that surname is something common to all surnames and to everybody (including you and me), and would be best addressed through a link to the Wikipedia page dealing with this surname. Otherwise, notability criteria would be necessary, and they should not be required here (all words are accepted). Lmaltier 14:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * There's no need for notability criteria. The only criterion needed is that the surname alone is used to refer to the person, without the referent being explained or obvious from context.  Most US presidents, Canadian and modern British prime ministers, etc., meet this test without much question; not because they meet any standard of encyclopedic notability, but simply because their surnames have demonstrably entered the lexicon.  Similarly Foucault, Kant, Hegel, Bach, Beethoven, et al. -- Visviva 16:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your own surname used alone has probably entered the lexicon, at least for some people that know you. But I don't think you would like to enter yourself as a sense of this word. This is what I mean by notability criterion, and this is why I don't think it's a good idea. As a word, it's a surname, nothing else. However, if the translation of this word in a language (e.g. Russian) is different depending on the person, all possible translations should be given, with appropriate comments. Lmaltier 21:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, supposing that my surname -- let's call it "Smith" -- had indeed entered my friends' lexicon. And suppose that at least three of my friends had published independent works which referred to me as "Smith", without any further explanation, because they assumed that the reader would immediately understand the Smith to whom they referred.  In such a case -- and only in such a case -- I would certainly merit my own sense in the Smith entry.  -- Visviva 09:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I think that what you explain is a typical example of a notability criterion. Lmaltier 05:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Move to RfV for attributive use citations. All accept "Garfield" have a reasonable to excellent chance of being attestable in attributive use. I enjoy demonstrating errors in our own documentation, so "Jefferson" will get my immediate attention. DCDuring TALK 16:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Strong keep per SemperBlotto. There should be no need for attributive use (as there would be for "James Garfield" or "Thomas Jefferson") because these are not proper names in the first place.  If policy says otherwise -- and I don't think it actually does -- then the policy is wrong.  -- Visviva 16:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for all, as per SemperBlotto. Usage is effectivly attributive, as it means the president without other mention being included. Should also accept most major world leaders. --Dmol 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * You missed the part where the guideline says “attributive,” and not “eddectively attributive.”

 * Everyone, please don't waste your and my valuable time by voting—this is not about self-gratification.  Either get on with citing these “words” according to the guideline, or propose a change to the guideline. —Michael Z. 2009-09-19 23:56 z
 * Why cite if someone decides it's not such a matter? If it were kept, it might not be RfV'd. Once it is here it has to play out. I'm not sure that the process can be simplified when both matters are potentially at issue. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * AFAICR we have always treated RFD as a vote. Not saying it's particularly wise, but it is what we've done. As for the guideline, it says clearly that surnames should be included.  And if we're going to include them, it should be rather obvious that we should include all senses that a person might encounter and need to look up. -- Visviva 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * No ... it was never a "vote", and never intended to be; the idea is that there is, or should be, a right answer. The bolded "keep" or "delete" is just a way of highlighting the summary of an opinion. See, for example, at the top of WT:RFV: Verification is accomplished by the gathering of information, not of votes. Robert Ullmann 09:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * But this is RFD, not RFV. I could have been more precise and said that we always treated votes as indicators of consensus (or the lack thereof).  It has generally been considered highly improper to delete an RFD'd entry that has a majority of editors (or even a large minority of editors) opposing deletion. If that really doesn't sound familiar, I can only conclude that we have been contributing to different projects. ;-) -- Visviva 09:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I think in that case, surnames like Jackson and Johnson are missing a lot of senses. However I'd like to see these deleted as POV and just generally that surely a lot of people called Adams, Jackson etc. I wonder if George Washington could be cited attributively, would it meet CFI? I say yes, it's a proper noun, widely known and used attributively, right? There's nothing that prohibits it in our rules. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes WT:CFI confirms it. Therefore I added Michael Jackson to Jackson and RFD'ed it at the same time. Genius! Mglovesfun (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I've already got two attributive uses of Michael Jackson. This is an excellent example of of why this proper noun policy makes no sense. Why is attributive use so important? As far as I can see, we never refuse proper nouns as long as they are used attributively. I'd be pretty surprised if more than three cites for George Washington weren't available. WT:CFI actually says "...George Walker Bush thus should not be included unless used attributively . Again, George Walker Bush has a legitimate chance to get an entry here. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Attributive use is important because it gives us something useful to say about them, as a dictionary. If a proper name is used only to refer to its literal referent, a Wiktionary entry for that name serves no purpose to anyone.  If it used as a byword to suggest some particular quality, that is a fact that even Wikipedia is unlikely to include, but which might nonetheless be of great significance to someone puzzled by a name's appearance in a particular context.  Likewise for surnames; going to Jackson (disambiguation) is not going to give the user much insight as to which of the people listed there is likely to be the "Jackson" mentioned without any context whatsoever in some work. Thus again, there is something useful for us to say about such usage. -- Visviva 09:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm not at all convinced there are even three cases where "Jackson" is used to refer to the singer without "Michael Jackson" being specified somewhere nearby (particularly since he isn't exactly the only pop singer by that surname). I'm sure there are some Jacksons besides Andrew who would meet this test, but I doubt if there are very many.  -- Visviva 09:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I could get three attributive uses for Michael Jackson though. It took me about 2 minutes to get 2. Anyway, I'd better bring this up on WT:BP. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so may I add the senses of specific US presidents to RFV right now, or am I prohibited until this RFD is closed? —Michael Z. 2009-09-20 23:09 z
 * There's no rule, but some knuckles have been rapped for opening an RfV while the RfD was active. If the conversation seems over and this is deemed kept and closed, then the RfV can be opened with a link to the archived discussion.
 * BTW, If anyone would like to challenge some two-part human names, the following are available for consideration: Arnold Schwartzenegger, Britney Spears, Brigitte Bardot, and Marilyn Monroe. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * As long as you'll accept any three works that refer to the president as "Garfield" without identifying him elsewhere, I think RFV would be fine. But if that's not the case, it would kind of seem to me like you were trying to use RFV as cover for a policy agenda, which would be somewhat uncool. -- Visviva 11:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(from a wrongly created sub-section, Mglovesfun (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)) If you delete the George Washington meaning, you will only have to inlcude it in the etymology anyway to explain why the city and state are called Washington. Keep. --Richardb 09:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

 * We do that kind of thing routinely, with a link to the Wikipedia article on the person. I believe that the community considers it a the best way to handle such things. Marilyn Monroe for an example. That entry is also an example of the kinds of usage that might justify keeping a full personal name. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete, see WT:CFI. This sort of entry could go very far, how about Tony Blair in Blair, or John Major in Major. Sports stars and singers and very well known, how about Michael Jordan in Jordan or Britney Spears in Spears. I'd love to RFV these, but since CFI is so vague on the names of specific entries, nobody would know if they had passed or not, so I think a pure vote like this is best. What do SemperBlotto et al. think of that?

Moving to RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I don't like these entries I believe there is a distinction. An essay on American history might very well mention "Jefferson" throughout and never use the word "Thomas". An essay on pop culture would not mention "Spears" without "Britney", at least the first time she was named — right? Equinox ◑ 13:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So there you go, our voters overturn WT:CFI to keep these. They all now need three attributive citations, not that anyone knows what that means. Get ready for disagreement, folks. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fail, senses removed. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the sense for the U.S. president: the sense has not failed RFD (5 for keeping, 6 for deletion). As regards RFV, it should be fairly easy to attest; the attributive-use rule has been removed from CFI in this vote: Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities.

This archival is from a batch of requests, one that involved Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Jackson, and Garfield. See the past revision of RFV. --Dan Polansky 11:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion (2)
Rfv-sense: A comic strip character. This would also seem to need to meet both WT:FICTION and WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 22:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sense has been (improperly?) deleted. DCDuring TALK 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been replaced with: "The fictional, orange, overweight, selfish, lazy and anthropomorphic cat who is the protagonist of the comic strip Garfield" This would seem much harder to attest as few of the usages are likely to cover even one specific attribute of the character. This definition has about nine attributes. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I disagree. The new def is subjective, encyclopedic, and inappropriate, but it's denotationally equivalent to the correct definition ("A certain comic strip character", or "The protagonist of the comic strip Garfield", or whatnot). I don't see why it matters, for RFV purposes, whether a given usage relates to all (or any) of the details mentioned in the def. (Analogously: if our definition of "cat" mentions that cats are quadrupeds — which it currently doesn't, but easily could — we wouldn't RFV that to determine if cats are attestably quadrupedal or something. And conversely, just because a given attribute is relevant three times, that doesn't suddenly mean we have to include it. I mean, I bet I could find three cites that mention cats in the context of furballs, but I really don't think furballs should make it into our def.) —Ruakh TALK 02:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion is another example of the lack of logic that doesn't cease annoying me. We have deleted Winnie the Pooh and Christopher Robin. Why even discuss Garfield? Perhaps because we have Eeyore and Tigger, and we don't know whether Garfield is a main character in the strip (in which case the entry should be deleted) or not (in which case the entry should be kept)! --Hekaheka 11:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was too quick. Eeyore and Tigger seem to have a meaning that goes beyond them being fictional characters. Garfield looks doomed, unless someone provides a new sense to the word. --Hekaheka 11:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The possible definition ""A certain comic strip character" for Garfield would not be very helpful, mainly due to the enormous quantity of comic book characters in the world. It would be like defining cat as "A certain animal." --Daniel. 01:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean "A member of a certain species of animal", but yes, I agree. I wasn't suggesting we use that definition, specifically; I was just giving it as an example of a correct def (and an improvement over the current one). In fact, I'd rather we just deleted this sense. I think it's much more helpful to our readers to let them find a resource that answers their non-lexicographic question, than to try to pretend that we are such a resource ourselves. —Ruakh TALK 02:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't think "Garfield" is really a "brand name for a physical product", so I don't see how this falls under WT:BRAND. --Yair rand (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because as a matter of fact it is a trademark. All trademarks are brand names, though not all brand names are trademarks. Merchandise bearing the likeness of the character Garfield cannot be legally sold in many jurisdictions (eg, US) without the consent of the trademark holder, which consent can usually be gained by enforceable promise of payment. Almost all animated characters originating in the US since the 1920s are in this condition. OTOH, we could decide not to apply WT:BRAND to cuddly commercial brands such as this and to, say, not for profit organization names. A vote, perhaps? DCDuring TALK 12:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting it isn't a brand name, I'm suggesting that it isn't a physical product. --Yair rand (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Garfield" in the meaning cluster involved in this discussion and its citation page refers to at least:
 * a fictional character (covered by brand name)
 * a title of a comic strip (covered by the brand name)
 * a brand name, sometimes used in titles of other works involving the character and in merchandise (physical products) bearing the image of the character etc.
 * This is not unusual for animated characters. Sometimes there is no specific work that has the bare name as title. "Harry Potter", not principally thought of as an animated character, would be similar, as might be the pirate character played by Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean.
 * Also, are service marks (not necessarily associated with physical products, eg, "Google") not covered by WT:BRAND? DCDuring TALK 12:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Apparently not, plus there's some overlap. I don't have any objection to changing this, but I want to see it passed in a vote before trying to apply it. See WT:BP for other tangentially related opinions. DAVilla 10:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 * How do our current rules apply to Garfield the character; the eponymous cartoon strip, movie, and TV animation; and the brand? If we exclude the brand as a sense, does WT:BRAND not apply to the other senses? Would Michelin Man (almost certainly attestable, especially if similes are allowed) be similarly exempt from WT:BRAND? DCDuring TALK 12:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 * There are definitely some holes to plug. The brand name criteria are not well liked, but the only other workable solution we have is abstinence. DAVilla 04:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Someone has added some cites. I'd appreciate people's input about whether they feel these cites satisfy WT:FICTION and WT:BRAND. —Ruakh TALK 16:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * None of them meets WT:FICTION, except maybe the last. (I therefore didn't investigate which meet WT:BRAND.) —msh210℠ (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Failed, deleted. —msh210℠ (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Garfield