text:
Talk:ISO 4217

ISO 216
Can these be considered 'words', 'idioms' 'expressions' or whatever in any language, never mind translingual? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. IMHO, they are covered by WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The passage that literally nobody understands. This is not good news. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They're undoubtedly specific and entries, but my point remains, are they 'words', 'idioms' 'expressions' or whatever. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They are names of specific entities, ie, proper nouns. The only basis for excluding them is that they don't meet the applicable section of WT:CFI. That it is difficult to meet the requirements is the point. ISO 639 has not attestably entered the lexicon, not can we claim widespread colloquial use.
 * CFI seems to have been written At a time when folks thought that WP had that part of the world covered and ignored the possibility that transliterations/translations, pronunciations, and the rest might be deemed to justify such entries. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it ironic that we delete stuff saying 'Not dictionary material: see WT:CFI, but CFI doesn't really have any information relevant to that. Why speedy delete Tiger Woods or Bill Clinton but allow these ISO entries an RFV? That's not purely rhetorical, any serious answer would be extremely helpful. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The CFI include the one of idiomaticity. If someone's sure an entry will fail it, he deletes it speedily. Perhaps someone might have speedily deleted ISO 216. It's up to the admin to decide what to do, and another can always call him on it. There have been many speedily deleted entries, or those marked with, that were undeleted and brought to RFD or RFV; some of them were kept in the end. —msh210℠ 18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right (what DCD said), they're covered by the CFI for specific entities' names. Technically, we should RFV them, but it'll fail, so I'll just say delete. (If they're kept, please move to WT:RFV.) —msh210℠ 15:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WT:NOBODYHASTHESLIGHTESTCLUEWHATTODOWITHTHESETHINGS (aka WT:Unresolved issues/Names of specific entities). --Yair rand 03:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. These are names of documents, like The Bridge over the River Kwai and Charter of the United Nations. —msh210℠ 15:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Terms from technical standards are inherently prescriptive. If someone wants to keep these, at least take two minutes to add a single frippin' good citation to each one before we spend hours debating this. Delete. —Michael Z. 2010-05-15 06:42 z

Delete All names of technical standards, especially ones with abbreviations and numbers, belong in Wikipedia and not Wiktionary. If someone types in ISO 639 and Wiktionary doesn't have an entry, Wiktionary will offer Wikipedia's entry. Although I certainly would never type ISO 639 into Wiktionary, I'd go straight to 'pedia. We're looking for words and expressions in the English language, not in the technical jargon of international standards. If we include ISO 639 we go down a very slippery slope. If we absolutely must have an entry for it, it can go in an appendix with a redirect in the main dictionary. Facts707 07:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Unless and until of course, someone uses it in a way that makes it part of the English language, such as "Wow, Jeff, you really got ISO 639'd at the meeting!" Facts707 07:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This RFD is about the Translingual term, not the English. And I'm pretty sure cross-namespace redirects are generally considered a bad idea. --Yair rand 17:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. Then, "unless and until someone uses it in a way that makes it part of any human language." C'est dommage! Vous avez un ISO 639 sur votre tete! Facts707 08:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete all standard names as useless and being against common sense, keep ISO, DIN, SFS, SAE and other names of standardizing systems. Common sense isn't exactly a CFI criterion, but I think it should be. If we include names of standards, the next thing to include would be the official names of laws, decrees, government decisions or whatever - they are usually numbered. There are lots of other things to which numbers are given. In Helsinki and most other places of the world, for example, people refer to bus lines by their number. For many of them, it would be no problem to find loads of permanently archived quotes. --Hekaheka 10:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Hekaheka's excellent reasoning. ---> Tooironic 23:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fail, all three. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:ISO 4217


text:
Talk:ISO 216

ISO 216
Can these be considered 'words', 'idioms' 'expressions' or whatever in any language, never mind translingual? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. IMHO, they are covered by WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The passage that literally nobody understands. This is not good news. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They're undoubtedly specific and entries, but my point remains, are they 'words', 'idioms' 'expressions' or whatever. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They are names of specific entities, ie, proper nouns. The only basis for excluding them is that they don't meet the applicable section of WT:CFI. That it is difficult to meet the requirements is the point. ISO 639 has not attestably entered the lexicon, not can we claim widespread colloquial use.
 * CFI seems to have been written At a time when folks thought that WP had that part of the world covered and ignored the possibility that transliterations/translations, pronunciations, and the rest might be deemed to justify such entries. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it ironic that we delete stuff saying 'Not dictionary material: see WT:CFI, but CFI doesn't really have any information relevant to that. Why speedy delete Tiger Woods or Bill Clinton but allow these ISO entries an RFV? That's not purely rhetorical, any serious answer would be extremely helpful. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The CFI include the one of idiomaticity. If someone's sure an entry will fail it, he deletes it speedily. Perhaps someone might have speedily deleted ISO 216. It's up to the admin to decide what to do, and another can always call him on it. There have been many speedily deleted entries, or those marked with, that were undeleted and brought to RFD or RFV; some of them were kept in the end. —msh210℠ 18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right (what DCD said), they're covered by the CFI for specific entities' names. Technically, we should RFV them, but it'll fail, so I'll just say delete. (If they're kept, please move to WT:RFV.) —msh210℠ 15:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WT:NOBODYHASTHESLIGHTESTCLUEWHATTODOWITHTHESETHINGS (aka WT:Unresolved issues/Names of specific entities). --Yair rand 03:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. These are names of documents, like The Bridge over the River Kwai and Charter of the United Nations. —msh210℠ 15:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Terms from technical standards are inherently prescriptive. If someone wants to keep these, at least take two minutes to add a single frippin' good citation to each one before we spend hours debating this. Delete. —Michael Z. 2010-05-15 06:42 z

Delete All names of technical standards, especially ones with abbreviations and numbers, belong in Wikipedia and not Wiktionary. If someone types in ISO 639 and Wiktionary doesn't have an entry, Wiktionary will offer Wikipedia's entry. Although I certainly would never type ISO 639 into Wiktionary, I'd go straight to 'pedia. We're looking for words and expressions in the English language, not in the technical jargon of international standards. If we include ISO 639 we go down a very slippery slope. If we absolutely must have an entry for it, it can go in an appendix with a redirect in the main dictionary. Facts707 07:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Unless and until of course, someone uses it in a way that makes it part of the English language, such as "Wow, Jeff, you really got ISO 639'd at the meeting!" Facts707 07:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This RFD is about the Translingual term, not the English. And I'm pretty sure cross-namespace redirects are generally considered a bad idea. --Yair rand 17:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. Then, "unless and until someone uses it in a way that makes it part of any human language." C'est dommage! Vous avez un ISO 639 sur votre tete! Facts707 08:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete all standard names as useless and being against common sense, keep ISO, DIN, SFS, SAE and other names of standardizing systems. Common sense isn't exactly a CFI criterion, but I think it should be. If we include names of standards, the next thing to include would be the official names of laws, decrees, government decisions or whatever - they are usually numbered. There are lots of other things to which numbers are given. In Helsinki and most other places of the world, for example, people refer to bus lines by their number. For many of them, it would be no problem to find loads of permanently archived quotes. --Hekaheka 10:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Hekaheka's excellent reasoning. ---> Tooironic 23:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fail, all three. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:ISO 216


text: 人质

title: 人质


text: 场所

title: 场所


text:
Talk:802.11

NMEA 0183
A specific standards document, like RS232 or RFC 2550. There are thousands of these, and I don't think they are dictionary words. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like ISO 639. Shouldn't we eat our own dog food? DCDuring TALK 23:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Should be translingual, but I can't think of a single good reason to delete it. How would another few thousand translingual entries make Wiktionary worse? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we have to delete ISO 639 as well to prevent the zillion abbreviations of various national and international standards from entering Wiktionary, then just do it. Currently it is the only individual ISO standard that has an entry of its own in Wiktionary. --Hekaheka 11:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't these the "names of specific entities"?
 * OTOH, if we can have toponyms, why not have gnormonyms/normonyms and titles of other published works? They have etymologies, pronunciations, transliterations (at least), translations, etymologies, semantic relations, nicknames, etc. All nyms in all languages. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Equinox, no I suppose they aren't 'words' although a lot of our translingual entries aren't 'words' or 'idioms' either. This is why we need a comprehensive entry at WT:AMUL which right now, we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. These belong in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, we should delete ISO 639 as well, although we can link to its Wikipedia page from our Glossary or other locations not in the main dictionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11
Added together with 802. entries below. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11n
Delete these all (NMEA 0183 included) per my comments at [[]] (eventually, I suppose, at [[talk:ISO 639]]). —msh210℠ 16:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. —Michael Z. 2010-05-15 06:50 z
 * Delete, I don't think these are 'words' in any 'language'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 * You know, this is a tough one. We have USB, and rightly so, even though it's really the same kind of animal.  USB is a part of the English lexicon, understood by a very sizeable chunk of the English-speaking world.  Of the preceding, I suspect that your average, reasonably tech-savvy person knows a, b, g, and n.  They could use them in sentences and be understood by many listeners.  NMEA 0183 and ISO 639 don't really share this luxury....except within a fairly narrow range of the population.  However, the same could be said of gluon and phospholipid.  I think that this is an area where CFI fails to distinguish between terms which have genuinely entered the lexicon, and those which are used in a bunch of technical documents.  I think that these should be deleted, but only because of the aforementioned failing in our CFI, not because of something intrinsic to the terms themselves.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. They are encyclopedic, and not saved by being in common usage like USB.--Dmol 07:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am thinking b and g might warrant adjectival entries, they are used very often in sentences like "...you can throw out all of your 802.11b gear as 802.11g has arrived...". Those two at least are not hard at all to attest.  Also please consider that the lexicon is not one simple list of words from which we can determine whether something is "in" or "out", everyone has their own lexicon and what we are trying to do is determine if there is a large enough set of people who share a particular term with a particular meaning in their respective lexicons for it to be included here.  There are certainly enough IT people out there for many of these 802.11 terms to be known and defined similarly as adjectives meaning "adhering to the 802.11* standard"; there are also hundreds of books out there which use them in this manner.  I guess mine is a keep opinion for adjectival usage, include a brief noun sense which points at Wikipedia for the protocol definitions. -  13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These haven't been shown to meet the basic tests for being a true adjective rather than nouns often used attributively. See English adjectives. Any proper noun can be used in the same way.
 * I believe that this falls under WT:CFI. The attributive use of the proper noun would constitute evidence for its inclusion and would certainly provide evidence to support a replacement of the embarrassingly poor definition we have now.
 * Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me, I have a feeling they will fail there but at RFV there is more a of a chance some searching for proper cites will take place. - 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It all depends on what class of attributive use we view as not explicitly referring solely to the standard itself. I would expect that "an 802.11g slowpoke" is clearly referring to something other than the standard. I would also expect that "802.116 specification/standard/wireless standard protocol/extension/variation" are all clearly referring to the specification itself. All the other collocations seem ambiguous to me (radio, chipset, device, and more than a dozen others) DCDuring TALK 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Opiaterein. DCDuring, as you know, the attributive use rule has been rescinded so we can't RFV them or not in the same way. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:802.11


text:
Talk:802.1X

NMEA 0183
A specific standards document, like RS232 or RFC 2550. There are thousands of these, and I don't think they are dictionary words. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like ISO 639. Shouldn't we eat our own dog food? DCDuring TALK 23:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Should be translingual, but I can't think of a single good reason to delete it. How would another few thousand translingual entries make Wiktionary worse? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we have to delete ISO 639 as well to prevent the zillion abbreviations of various national and international standards from entering Wiktionary, then just do it. Currently it is the only individual ISO standard that has an entry of its own in Wiktionary. --Hekaheka 11:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't these the "names of specific entities"?
 * OTOH, if we can have toponyms, why not have gnormonyms/normonyms and titles of other published works? They have etymologies, pronunciations, transliterations (at least), translations, etymologies, semantic relations, nicknames, etc. All nyms in all languages. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Equinox, no I suppose they aren't 'words' although a lot of our translingual entries aren't 'words' or 'idioms' either. This is why we need a comprehensive entry at WT:AMUL which right now, we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. These belong in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, we should delete ISO 639 as well, although we can link to its Wikipedia page from our Glossary or other locations not in the main dictionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11
Added together with 802. entries below. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11n
Delete these all (NMEA 0183 included) per my comments at [[]] (eventually, I suppose, at [[talk:ISO 639]]). —msh210℠ 16:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. —Michael Z. 2010-05-15 06:50 z
 * Delete, I don't think these are 'words' in any 'language'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 * You know, this is a tough one. We have USB, and rightly so, even though it's really the same kind of animal.  USB is a part of the English lexicon, understood by a very sizeable chunk of the English-speaking world.  Of the preceding, I suspect that your average, reasonably tech-savvy person knows a, b, g, and n.  They could use them in sentences and be understood by many listeners.  NMEA 0183 and ISO 639 don't really share this luxury....except within a fairly narrow range of the population.  However, the same could be said of gluon and phospholipid.  I think that this is an area where CFI fails to distinguish between terms which have genuinely entered the lexicon, and those which are used in a bunch of technical documents.  I think that these should be deleted, but only because of the aforementioned failing in our CFI, not because of something intrinsic to the terms themselves.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. They are encyclopedic, and not saved by being in common usage like USB.--Dmol 07:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am thinking b and g might warrant adjectival entries, they are used very often in sentences like "...you can throw out all of your 802.11b gear as 802.11g has arrived...". Those two at least are not hard at all to attest.  Also please consider that the lexicon is not one simple list of words from which we can determine whether something is "in" or "out", everyone has their own lexicon and what we are trying to do is determine if there is a large enough set of people who share a particular term with a particular meaning in their respective lexicons for it to be included here.  There are certainly enough IT people out there for many of these 802.11 terms to be known and defined similarly as adjectives meaning "adhering to the 802.11* standard"; there are also hundreds of books out there which use them in this manner.  I guess mine is a keep opinion for adjectival usage, include a brief noun sense which points at Wikipedia for the protocol definitions. -  13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These haven't been shown to meet the basic tests for being a true adjective rather than nouns often used attributively. See English adjectives. Any proper noun can be used in the same way.
 * I believe that this falls under WT:CFI. The attributive use of the proper noun would constitute evidence for its inclusion and would certainly provide evidence to support a replacement of the embarrassingly poor definition we have now.
 * Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me, I have a feeling they will fail there but at RFV there is more a of a chance some searching for proper cites will take place. - 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It all depends on what class of attributive use we view as not explicitly referring solely to the standard itself. I would expect that "an 802.11g slowpoke" is clearly referring to something other than the standard. I would also expect that "802.116 specification/standard/wireless standard protocol/extension/variation" are all clearly referring to the specification itself. All the other collocations seem ambiguous to me (radio, chipset, device, and more than a dozen others) DCDuring TALK 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Opiaterein. DCDuring, as you know, the attributive use rule has been rescinded so we can't RFV them or not in the same way. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:802.1X


text:
Talk:802.11X

NMEA 0183
A specific standards document, like RS232 or RFC 2550. There are thousands of these, and I don't think they are dictionary words. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like ISO 639. Shouldn't we eat our own dog food? DCDuring TALK 23:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Should be translingual, but I can't think of a single good reason to delete it. How would another few thousand translingual entries make Wiktionary worse? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we have to delete ISO 639 as well to prevent the zillion abbreviations of various national and international standards from entering Wiktionary, then just do it. Currently it is the only individual ISO standard that has an entry of its own in Wiktionary. --Hekaheka 11:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't these the "names of specific entities"?
 * OTOH, if we can have toponyms, why not have gnormonyms/normonyms and titles of other published works? They have etymologies, pronunciations, transliterations (at least), translations, etymologies, semantic relations, nicknames, etc. All nyms in all languages. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Equinox, no I suppose they aren't 'words' although a lot of our translingual entries aren't 'words' or 'idioms' either. This is why we need a comprehensive entry at WT:AMUL which right now, we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. These belong in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, we should delete ISO 639 as well, although we can link to its Wikipedia page from our Glossary or other locations not in the main dictionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11
Added together with 802. entries below. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11n
Delete these all (NMEA 0183 included) per my comments at [[]] (eventually, I suppose, at [[talk:ISO 639]]). —msh210℠ 16:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. —Michael Z. 2010-05-15 06:50 z
 * Delete, I don't think these are 'words' in any 'language'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 * You know, this is a tough one. We have USB, and rightly so, even though it's really the same kind of animal.  USB is a part of the English lexicon, understood by a very sizeable chunk of the English-speaking world.  Of the preceding, I suspect that your average, reasonably tech-savvy person knows a, b, g, and n.  They could use them in sentences and be understood by many listeners.  NMEA 0183 and ISO 639 don't really share this luxury....except within a fairly narrow range of the population.  However, the same could be said of gluon and phospholipid.  I think that this is an area where CFI fails to distinguish between terms which have genuinely entered the lexicon, and those which are used in a bunch of technical documents.  I think that these should be deleted, but only because of the aforementioned failing in our CFI, not because of something intrinsic to the terms themselves.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. They are encyclopedic, and not saved by being in common usage like USB.--Dmol 07:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am thinking b and g might warrant adjectival entries, they are used very often in sentences like "...you can throw out all of your 802.11b gear as 802.11g has arrived...". Those two at least are not hard at all to attest.  Also please consider that the lexicon is not one simple list of words from which we can determine whether something is "in" or "out", everyone has their own lexicon and what we are trying to do is determine if there is a large enough set of people who share a particular term with a particular meaning in their respective lexicons for it to be included here.  There are certainly enough IT people out there for many of these 802.11 terms to be known and defined similarly as adjectives meaning "adhering to the 802.11* standard"; there are also hundreds of books out there which use them in this manner.  I guess mine is a keep opinion for adjectival usage, include a brief noun sense which points at Wikipedia for the protocol definitions. -  13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These haven't been shown to meet the basic tests for being a true adjective rather than nouns often used attributively. See English adjectives. Any proper noun can be used in the same way.
 * I believe that this falls under WT:CFI. The attributive use of the proper noun would constitute evidence for its inclusion and would certainly provide evidence to support a replacement of the embarrassingly poor definition we have now.
 * Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me, I have a feeling they will fail there but at RFV there is more a of a chance some searching for proper cites will take place. - 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It all depends on what class of attributive use we view as not explicitly referring solely to the standard itself. I would expect that "an 802.11g slowpoke" is clearly referring to something other than the standard. I would also expect that "802.116 specification/standard/wireless standard protocol/extension/variation" are all clearly referring to the specification itself. All the other collocations seem ambiguous to me (radio, chipset, device, and more than a dozen others) DCDuring TALK 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Opiaterein. DCDuring, as you know, the attributive use rule has been rescinded so we can't RFV them or not in the same way. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:802.11X


title: gin1


text:
Talk:802.11n

NMEA 0183
A specific standards document, like RS232 or RFC 2550. There are thousands of these, and I don't think they are dictionary words. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like ISO 639. Shouldn't we eat our own dog food? DCDuring TALK 23:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Should be translingual, but I can't think of a single good reason to delete it. How would another few thousand translingual entries make Wiktionary worse? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we have to delete ISO 639 as well to prevent the zillion abbreviations of various national and international standards from entering Wiktionary, then just do it. Currently it is the only individual ISO standard that has an entry of its own in Wiktionary. --Hekaheka 11:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't these the "names of specific entities"?
 * OTOH, if we can have toponyms, why not have gnormonyms/normonyms and titles of other published works? They have etymologies, pronunciations, transliterations (at least), translations, etymologies, semantic relations, nicknames, etc. All nyms in all languages. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Equinox, no I suppose they aren't 'words' although a lot of our translingual entries aren't 'words' or 'idioms' either. This is why we need a comprehensive entry at WT:AMUL which right now, we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. These belong in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, we should delete ISO 639 as well, although we can link to its Wikipedia page from our Glossary or other locations not in the main dictionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11
Added together with 802. entries below. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11n
Delete these all (NMEA 0183 included) per my comments at [[]] (eventually, I suppose, at [[talk:ISO 639]]). —msh210℠ 16:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. —Michael Z. 2010-05-15 06:50 z
 * Delete, I don't think these are 'words' in any 'language'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 * You know, this is a tough one. We have USB, and rightly so, even though it's really the same kind of animal.  USB is a part of the English lexicon, understood by a very sizeable chunk of the English-speaking world.  Of the preceding, I suspect that your average, reasonably tech-savvy person knows a, b, g, and n.  They could use them in sentences and be understood by many listeners.  NMEA 0183 and ISO 639 don't really share this luxury....except within a fairly narrow range of the population.  However, the same could be said of gluon and phospholipid.  I think that this is an area where CFI fails to distinguish between terms which have genuinely entered the lexicon, and those which are used in a bunch of technical documents.  I think that these should be deleted, but only because of the aforementioned failing in our CFI, not because of something intrinsic to the terms themselves.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. They are encyclopedic, and not saved by being in common usage like USB.--Dmol 07:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am thinking b and g might warrant adjectival entries, they are used very often in sentences like "...you can throw out all of your 802.11b gear as 802.11g has arrived...". Those two at least are not hard at all to attest.  Also please consider that the lexicon is not one simple list of words from which we can determine whether something is "in" or "out", everyone has their own lexicon and what we are trying to do is determine if there is a large enough set of people who share a particular term with a particular meaning in their respective lexicons for it to be included here.  There are certainly enough IT people out there for many of these 802.11 terms to be known and defined similarly as adjectives meaning "adhering to the 802.11* standard"; there are also hundreds of books out there which use them in this manner.  I guess mine is a keep opinion for adjectival usage, include a brief noun sense which points at Wikipedia for the protocol definitions. -  13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These haven't been shown to meet the basic tests for being a true adjective rather than nouns often used attributively. See English adjectives. Any proper noun can be used in the same way.
 * I believe that this falls under WT:CFI. The attributive use of the proper noun would constitute evidence for its inclusion and would certainly provide evidence to support a replacement of the embarrassingly poor definition we have now.
 * Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me, I have a feeling they will fail there but at RFV there is more a of a chance some searching for proper cites will take place. - 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It all depends on what class of attributive use we view as not explicitly referring solely to the standard itself. I would expect that "an 802.11g slowpoke" is clearly referring to something other than the standard. I would also expect that "802.116 specification/standard/wireless standard protocol/extension/variation" are all clearly referring to the specification itself. All the other collocations seem ambiguous to me (radio, chipset, device, and more than a dozen others) DCDuring TALK 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Opiaterein. DCDuring, as you know, the attributive use rule has been rescinded so we can't RFV them or not in the same way. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:802.11n


text:
Talk:802.11a

NMEA 0183
A specific standards document, like RS232 or RFC 2550. There are thousands of these, and I don't think they are dictionary words. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like ISO 639. Shouldn't we eat our own dog food? DCDuring TALK 23:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Should be translingual, but I can't think of a single good reason to delete it. How would another few thousand translingual entries make Wiktionary worse? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we have to delete ISO 639 as well to prevent the zillion abbreviations of various national and international standards from entering Wiktionary, then just do it. Currently it is the only individual ISO standard that has an entry of its own in Wiktionary. --Hekaheka 11:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't these the "names of specific entities"?
 * OTOH, if we can have toponyms, why not have gnormonyms/normonyms and titles of other published works? They have etymologies, pronunciations, transliterations (at least), translations, etymologies, semantic relations, nicknames, etc. All nyms in all languages. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Equinox, no I suppose they aren't 'words' although a lot of our translingual entries aren't 'words' or 'idioms' either. This is why we need a comprehensive entry at WT:AMUL which right now, we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. These belong in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, we should delete ISO 639 as well, although we can link to its Wikipedia page from our Glossary or other locations not in the main dictionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11
Added together with 802. entries below. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11n
Delete these all (NMEA 0183 included) per my comments at [[]] (eventually, I suppose, at [[talk:ISO 639]]). —msh210℠ 16:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. —Michael Z. 2010-05-15 06:50 z
 * Delete, I don't think these are 'words' in any 'language'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 * You know, this is a tough one. We have USB, and rightly so, even though it's really the same kind of animal.  USB is a part of the English lexicon, understood by a very sizeable chunk of the English-speaking world.  Of the preceding, I suspect that your average, reasonably tech-savvy person knows a, b, g, and n.  They could use them in sentences and be understood by many listeners.  NMEA 0183 and ISO 639 don't really share this luxury....except within a fairly narrow range of the population.  However, the same could be said of gluon and phospholipid.  I think that this is an area where CFI fails to distinguish between terms which have genuinely entered the lexicon, and those which are used in a bunch of technical documents.  I think that these should be deleted, but only because of the aforementioned failing in our CFI, not because of something intrinsic to the terms themselves.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. They are encyclopedic, and not saved by being in common usage like USB.--Dmol 07:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am thinking b and g might warrant adjectival entries, they are used very often in sentences like "...you can throw out all of your 802.11b gear as 802.11g has arrived...". Those two at least are not hard at all to attest.  Also please consider that the lexicon is not one simple list of words from which we can determine whether something is "in" or "out", everyone has their own lexicon and what we are trying to do is determine if there is a large enough set of people who share a particular term with a particular meaning in their respective lexicons for it to be included here.  There are certainly enough IT people out there for many of these 802.11 terms to be known and defined similarly as adjectives meaning "adhering to the 802.11* standard"; there are also hundreds of books out there which use them in this manner.  I guess mine is a keep opinion for adjectival usage, include a brief noun sense which points at Wikipedia for the protocol definitions. -  13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These haven't been shown to meet the basic tests for being a true adjective rather than nouns often used attributively. See English adjectives. Any proper noun can be used in the same way.
 * I believe that this falls under WT:CFI. The attributive use of the proper noun would constitute evidence for its inclusion and would certainly provide evidence to support a replacement of the embarrassingly poor definition we have now.
 * Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me, I have a feeling they will fail there but at RFV there is more a of a chance some searching for proper cites will take place. - 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It all depends on what class of attributive use we view as not explicitly referring solely to the standard itself. I would expect that "an 802.11g slowpoke" is clearly referring to something other than the standard. I would also expect that "802.116 specification/standard/wireless standard protocol/extension/variation" are all clearly referring to the specification itself. All the other collocations seem ambiguous to me (radio, chipset, device, and more than a dozen others) DCDuring TALK 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Opiaterein. DCDuring, as you know, the attributive use rule has been rescinded so we can't RFV them or not in the same way. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:802.11a


text:
Talk:802.11b

NMEA 0183
A specific standards document, like RS232 or RFC 2550. There are thousands of these, and I don't think they are dictionary words. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like ISO 639. Shouldn't we eat our own dog food? DCDuring TALK 23:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Should be translingual, but I can't think of a single good reason to delete it. How would another few thousand translingual entries make Wiktionary worse? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we have to delete ISO 639 as well to prevent the zillion abbreviations of various national and international standards from entering Wiktionary, then just do it. Currently it is the only individual ISO standard that has an entry of its own in Wiktionary. --Hekaheka 11:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't these the "names of specific entities"?
 * OTOH, if we can have toponyms, why not have gnormonyms/normonyms and titles of other published works? They have etymologies, pronunciations, transliterations (at least), translations, etymologies, semantic relations, nicknames, etc. All nyms in all languages. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Equinox, no I suppose they aren't 'words' although a lot of our translingual entries aren't 'words' or 'idioms' either. This is why we need a comprehensive entry at WT:AMUL which right now, we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. These belong in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, we should delete ISO 639 as well, although we can link to its Wikipedia page from our Glossary or other locations not in the main dictionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11
Added together with 802. entries below. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11n
Delete these all (NMEA 0183 included) per my comments at [[]] (eventually, I suppose, at [[talk:ISO 639]]). —msh210℠ 16:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. —Michael Z. 2010-05-15 06:50 z
 * Delete, I don't think these are 'words' in any 'language'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 * You know, this is a tough one. We have USB, and rightly so, even though it's really the same kind of animal.  USB is a part of the English lexicon, understood by a very sizeable chunk of the English-speaking world.  Of the preceding, I suspect that your average, reasonably tech-savvy person knows a, b, g, and n.  They could use them in sentences and be understood by many listeners.  NMEA 0183 and ISO 639 don't really share this luxury....except within a fairly narrow range of the population.  However, the same could be said of gluon and phospholipid.  I think that this is an area where CFI fails to distinguish between terms which have genuinely entered the lexicon, and those which are used in a bunch of technical documents.  I think that these should be deleted, but only because of the aforementioned failing in our CFI, not because of something intrinsic to the terms themselves.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. They are encyclopedic, and not saved by being in common usage like USB.--Dmol 07:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am thinking b and g might warrant adjectival entries, they are used very often in sentences like "...you can throw out all of your 802.11b gear as 802.11g has arrived...". Those two at least are not hard at all to attest.  Also please consider that the lexicon is not one simple list of words from which we can determine whether something is "in" or "out", everyone has their own lexicon and what we are trying to do is determine if there is a large enough set of people who share a particular term with a particular meaning in their respective lexicons for it to be included here.  There are certainly enough IT people out there for many of these 802.11 terms to be known and defined similarly as adjectives meaning "adhering to the 802.11* standard"; there are also hundreds of books out there which use them in this manner.  I guess mine is a keep opinion for adjectival usage, include a brief noun sense which points at Wikipedia for the protocol definitions. -  13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These haven't been shown to meet the basic tests for being a true adjective rather than nouns often used attributively. See English adjectives. Any proper noun can be used in the same way.
 * I believe that this falls under WT:CFI. The attributive use of the proper noun would constitute evidence for its inclusion and would certainly provide evidence to support a replacement of the embarrassingly poor definition we have now.
 * Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me, I have a feeling they will fail there but at RFV there is more a of a chance some searching for proper cites will take place. - 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It all depends on what class of attributive use we view as not explicitly referring solely to the standard itself. I would expect that "an 802.11g slowpoke" is clearly referring to something other than the standard. I would also expect that "802.116 specification/standard/wireless standard protocol/extension/variation" are all clearly referring to the specification itself. All the other collocations seem ambiguous to me (radio, chipset, device, and more than a dozen others) DCDuring TALK 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Opiaterein. DCDuring, as you know, the attributive use rule has been rescinded so we can't RFV them or not in the same way. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:802.11b


text:
Talk:802.11d

NMEA 0183
A specific standards document, like RS232 or RFC 2550. There are thousands of these, and I don't think they are dictionary words. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like ISO 639. Shouldn't we eat our own dog food? DCDuring TALK 23:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Should be translingual, but I can't think of a single good reason to delete it. How would another few thousand translingual entries make Wiktionary worse? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we have to delete ISO 639 as well to prevent the zillion abbreviations of various national and international standards from entering Wiktionary, then just do it. Currently it is the only individual ISO standard that has an entry of its own in Wiktionary. --Hekaheka 11:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't these the "names of specific entities"?
 * OTOH, if we can have toponyms, why not have gnormonyms/normonyms and titles of other published works? They have etymologies, pronunciations, transliterations (at least), translations, etymologies, semantic relations, nicknames, etc. All nyms in all languages. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Equinox, no I suppose they aren't 'words' although a lot of our translingual entries aren't 'words' or 'idioms' either. This is why we need a comprehensive entry at WT:AMUL which right now, we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. These belong in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, we should delete ISO 639 as well, although we can link to its Wikipedia page from our Glossary or other locations not in the main dictionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11
Added together with 802. entries below. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11n
Delete these all (NMEA 0183 included) per my comments at [[]] (eventually, I suppose, at [[talk:ISO 639]]). —msh210℠ 16:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. —Michael Z. 2010-05-15 06:50 z
 * Delete, I don't think these are 'words' in any 'language'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 * You know, this is a tough one. We have USB, and rightly so, even though it's really the same kind of animal.  USB is a part of the English lexicon, understood by a very sizeable chunk of the English-speaking world.  Of the preceding, I suspect that your average, reasonably tech-savvy person knows a, b, g, and n.  They could use them in sentences and be understood by many listeners.  NMEA 0183 and ISO 639 don't really share this luxury....except within a fairly narrow range of the population.  However, the same could be said of gluon and phospholipid.  I think that this is an area where CFI fails to distinguish between terms which have genuinely entered the lexicon, and those which are used in a bunch of technical documents.  I think that these should be deleted, but only because of the aforementioned failing in our CFI, not because of something intrinsic to the terms themselves.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. They are encyclopedic, and not saved by being in common usage like USB.--Dmol 07:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am thinking b and g might warrant adjectival entries, they are used very often in sentences like "...you can throw out all of your 802.11b gear as 802.11g has arrived...". Those two at least are not hard at all to attest.  Also please consider that the lexicon is not one simple list of words from which we can determine whether something is "in" or "out", everyone has their own lexicon and what we are trying to do is determine if there is a large enough set of people who share a particular term with a particular meaning in their respective lexicons for it to be included here.  There are certainly enough IT people out there for many of these 802.11 terms to be known and defined similarly as adjectives meaning "adhering to the 802.11* standard"; there are also hundreds of books out there which use them in this manner.  I guess mine is a keep opinion for adjectival usage, include a brief noun sense which points at Wikipedia for the protocol definitions. -  13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These haven't been shown to meet the basic tests for being a true adjective rather than nouns often used attributively. See English adjectives. Any proper noun can be used in the same way.
 * I believe that this falls under WT:CFI. The attributive use of the proper noun would constitute evidence for its inclusion and would certainly provide evidence to support a replacement of the embarrassingly poor definition we have now.
 * Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me, I have a feeling they will fail there but at RFV there is more a of a chance some searching for proper cites will take place. - 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It all depends on what class of attributive use we view as not explicitly referring solely to the standard itself. I would expect that "an 802.11g slowpoke" is clearly referring to something other than the standard. I would also expect that "802.116 specification/standard/wireless standard protocol/extension/variation" are all clearly referring to the specification itself. All the other collocations seem ambiguous to me (radio, chipset, device, and more than a dozen others) DCDuring TALK 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Opiaterein. DCDuring, as you know, the attributive use rule has been rescinded so we can't RFV them or not in the same way. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:802.11d


text:
Talk:802.11h

NMEA 0183
A specific standards document, like RS232 or RFC 2550. There are thousands of these, and I don't think they are dictionary words. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like ISO 639. Shouldn't we eat our own dog food? DCDuring TALK 23:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Should be translingual, but I can't think of a single good reason to delete it. How would another few thousand translingual entries make Wiktionary worse? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we have to delete ISO 639 as well to prevent the zillion abbreviations of various national and international standards from entering Wiktionary, then just do it. Currently it is the only individual ISO standard that has an entry of its own in Wiktionary. --Hekaheka 11:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't these the "names of specific entities"?
 * OTOH, if we can have toponyms, why not have gnormonyms/normonyms and titles of other published works? They have etymologies, pronunciations, transliterations (at least), translations, etymologies, semantic relations, nicknames, etc. All nyms in all languages. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Equinox, no I suppose they aren't 'words' although a lot of our translingual entries aren't 'words' or 'idioms' either. This is why we need a comprehensive entry at WT:AMUL which right now, we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. These belong in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, we should delete ISO 639 as well, although we can link to its Wikipedia page from our Glossary or other locations not in the main dictionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11
Added together with 802. entries below. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11n
Delete these all (NMEA 0183 included) per my comments at [[]] (eventually, I suppose, at [[talk:ISO 639]]). —msh210℠ 16:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. —Michael Z. 2010-05-15 06:50 z
 * Delete, I don't think these are 'words' in any 'language'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 * You know, this is a tough one. We have USB, and rightly so, even though it's really the same kind of animal.  USB is a part of the English lexicon, understood by a very sizeable chunk of the English-speaking world.  Of the preceding, I suspect that your average, reasonably tech-savvy person knows a, b, g, and n.  They could use them in sentences and be understood by many listeners.  NMEA 0183 and ISO 639 don't really share this luxury....except within a fairly narrow range of the population.  However, the same could be said of gluon and phospholipid.  I think that this is an area where CFI fails to distinguish between terms which have genuinely entered the lexicon, and those which are used in a bunch of technical documents.  I think that these should be deleted, but only because of the aforementioned failing in our CFI, not because of something intrinsic to the terms themselves.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. They are encyclopedic, and not saved by being in common usage like USB.--Dmol 07:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am thinking b and g might warrant adjectival entries, they are used very often in sentences like "...you can throw out all of your 802.11b gear as 802.11g has arrived...". Those two at least are not hard at all to attest.  Also please consider that the lexicon is not one simple list of words from which we can determine whether something is "in" or "out", everyone has their own lexicon and what we are trying to do is determine if there is a large enough set of people who share a particular term with a particular meaning in their respective lexicons for it to be included here.  There are certainly enough IT people out there for many of these 802.11 terms to be known and defined similarly as adjectives meaning "adhering to the 802.11* standard"; there are also hundreds of books out there which use them in this manner.  I guess mine is a keep opinion for adjectival usage, include a brief noun sense which points at Wikipedia for the protocol definitions. -  13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These haven't been shown to meet the basic tests for being a true adjective rather than nouns often used attributively. See English adjectives. Any proper noun can be used in the same way.
 * I believe that this falls under WT:CFI. The attributive use of the proper noun would constitute evidence for its inclusion and would certainly provide evidence to support a replacement of the embarrassingly poor definition we have now.
 * Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me, I have a feeling they will fail there but at RFV there is more a of a chance some searching for proper cites will take place. - 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It all depends on what class of attributive use we view as not explicitly referring solely to the standard itself. I would expect that "an 802.11g slowpoke" is clearly referring to something other than the standard. I would also expect that "802.116 specification/standard/wireless standard protocol/extension/variation" are all clearly referring to the specification itself. All the other collocations seem ambiguous to me (radio, chipset, device, and more than a dozen others) DCDuring TALK 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Opiaterein. DCDuring, as you know, the attributive use rule has been rescinded so we can't RFV them or not in the same way. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:802.11h


text:
Talk:802.11j

NMEA 0183
A specific standards document, like RS232 or RFC 2550. There are thousands of these, and I don't think they are dictionary words. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like ISO 639. Shouldn't we eat our own dog food? DCDuring TALK 23:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Should be translingual, but I can't think of a single good reason to delete it. How would another few thousand translingual entries make Wiktionary worse? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we have to delete ISO 639 as well to prevent the zillion abbreviations of various national and international standards from entering Wiktionary, then just do it. Currently it is the only individual ISO standard that has an entry of its own in Wiktionary. --Hekaheka 11:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't these the "names of specific entities"?
 * OTOH, if we can have toponyms, why not have gnormonyms/normonyms and titles of other published works? They have etymologies, pronunciations, transliterations (at least), translations, etymologies, semantic relations, nicknames, etc. All nyms in all languages. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Equinox, no I suppose they aren't 'words' although a lot of our translingual entries aren't 'words' or 'idioms' either. This is why we need a comprehensive entry at WT:AMUL which right now, we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. These belong in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, we should delete ISO 639 as well, although we can link to its Wikipedia page from our Glossary or other locations not in the main dictionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11
Added together with 802. entries below. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11n
Delete these all (NMEA 0183 included) per my comments at [[]] (eventually, I suppose, at [[talk:ISO 639]]). —msh210℠ 16:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. —Michael Z. 2010-05-15 06:50 z
 * Delete, I don't think these are 'words' in any 'language'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 * You know, this is a tough one. We have USB, and rightly so, even though it's really the same kind of animal.  USB is a part of the English lexicon, understood by a very sizeable chunk of the English-speaking world.  Of the preceding, I suspect that your average, reasonably tech-savvy person knows a, b, g, and n.  They could use them in sentences and be understood by many listeners.  NMEA 0183 and ISO 639 don't really share this luxury....except within a fairly narrow range of the population.  However, the same could be said of gluon and phospholipid.  I think that this is an area where CFI fails to distinguish between terms which have genuinely entered the lexicon, and those which are used in a bunch of technical documents.  I think that these should be deleted, but only because of the aforementioned failing in our CFI, not because of something intrinsic to the terms themselves.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. They are encyclopedic, and not saved by being in common usage like USB.--Dmol 07:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am thinking b and g might warrant adjectival entries, they are used very often in sentences like "...you can throw out all of your 802.11b gear as 802.11g has arrived...". Those two at least are not hard at all to attest.  Also please consider that the lexicon is not one simple list of words from which we can determine whether something is "in" or "out", everyone has their own lexicon and what we are trying to do is determine if there is a large enough set of people who share a particular term with a particular meaning in their respective lexicons for it to be included here.  There are certainly enough IT people out there for many of these 802.11 terms to be known and defined similarly as adjectives meaning "adhering to the 802.11* standard"; there are also hundreds of books out there which use them in this manner.  I guess mine is a keep opinion for adjectival usage, include a brief noun sense which points at Wikipedia for the protocol definitions. -  13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These haven't been shown to meet the basic tests for being a true adjective rather than nouns often used attributively. See English adjectives. Any proper noun can be used in the same way.
 * I believe that this falls under WT:CFI. The attributive use of the proper noun would constitute evidence for its inclusion and would certainly provide evidence to support a replacement of the embarrassingly poor definition we have now.
 * Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me, I have a feeling they will fail there but at RFV there is more a of a chance some searching for proper cites will take place. - 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It all depends on what class of attributive use we view as not explicitly referring solely to the standard itself. I would expect that "an 802.11g slowpoke" is clearly referring to something other than the standard. I would also expect that "802.116 specification/standard/wireless standard protocol/extension/variation" are all clearly referring to the specification itself. All the other collocations seem ambiguous to me (radio, chipset, device, and more than a dozen others) DCDuring TALK 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Opiaterein. DCDuring, as you know, the attributive use rule has been rescinded so we can't RFV them or not in the same way. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:802.11j


text:
Talk:802.11g

NMEA 0183
A specific standards document, like RS232 or RFC 2550. There are thousands of these, and I don't think they are dictionary words. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like ISO 639. Shouldn't we eat our own dog food? DCDuring TALK 23:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Should be translingual, but I can't think of a single good reason to delete it. How would another few thousand translingual entries make Wiktionary worse? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we have to delete ISO 639 as well to prevent the zillion abbreviations of various national and international standards from entering Wiktionary, then just do it. Currently it is the only individual ISO standard that has an entry of its own in Wiktionary. --Hekaheka 11:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't these the "names of specific entities"?
 * OTOH, if we can have toponyms, why not have gnormonyms/normonyms and titles of other published works? They have etymologies, pronunciations, transliterations (at least), translations, etymologies, semantic relations, nicknames, etc. All nyms in all languages. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Equinox, no I suppose they aren't 'words' although a lot of our translingual entries aren't 'words' or 'idioms' either. This is why we need a comprehensive entry at WT:AMUL which right now, we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. These belong in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, we should delete ISO 639 as well, although we can link to its Wikipedia page from our Glossary or other locations not in the main dictionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11
Added together with 802. entries below. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11n
Delete these all (NMEA 0183 included) per my comments at [[]] (eventually, I suppose, at [[talk:ISO 639]]). —msh210℠ 16:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. —Michael Z. 2010-05-15 06:50 z
 * Delete, I don't think these are 'words' in any 'language'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 * You know, this is a tough one. We have USB, and rightly so, even though it's really the same kind of animal.  USB is a part of the English lexicon, understood by a very sizeable chunk of the English-speaking world.  Of the preceding, I suspect that your average, reasonably tech-savvy person knows a, b, g, and n.  They could use them in sentences and be understood by many listeners.  NMEA 0183 and ISO 639 don't really share this luxury....except within a fairly narrow range of the population.  However, the same could be said of gluon and phospholipid.  I think that this is an area where CFI fails to distinguish between terms which have genuinely entered the lexicon, and those which are used in a bunch of technical documents.  I think that these should be deleted, but only because of the aforementioned failing in our CFI, not because of something intrinsic to the terms themselves.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. They are encyclopedic, and not saved by being in common usage like USB.--Dmol 07:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am thinking b and g might warrant adjectival entries, they are used very often in sentences like "...you can throw out all of your 802.11b gear as 802.11g has arrived...". Those two at least are not hard at all to attest.  Also please consider that the lexicon is not one simple list of words from which we can determine whether something is "in" or "out", everyone has their own lexicon and what we are trying to do is determine if there is a large enough set of people who share a particular term with a particular meaning in their respective lexicons for it to be included here.  There are certainly enough IT people out there for many of these 802.11 terms to be known and defined similarly as adjectives meaning "adhering to the 802.11* standard"; there are also hundreds of books out there which use them in this manner.  I guess mine is a keep opinion for adjectival usage, include a brief noun sense which points at Wikipedia for the protocol definitions. -  13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These haven't been shown to meet the basic tests for being a true adjective rather than nouns often used attributively. See English adjectives. Any proper noun can be used in the same way.
 * I believe that this falls under WT:CFI. The attributive use of the proper noun would constitute evidence for its inclusion and would certainly provide evidence to support a replacement of the embarrassingly poor definition we have now.
 * Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me, I have a feeling they will fail there but at RFV there is more a of a chance some searching for proper cites will take place. - 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It all depends on what class of attributive use we view as not explicitly referring solely to the standard itself. I would expect that "an 802.11g slowpoke" is clearly referring to something other than the standard. I would also expect that "802.116 specification/standard/wireless standard protocol/extension/variation" are all clearly referring to the specification itself. All the other collocations seem ambiguous to me (radio, chipset, device, and more than a dozen others) DCDuring TALK 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Opiaterein. DCDuring, as you know, the attributive use rule has been rescinded so we can't RFV them or not in the same way. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:802.11g


title: gin6


text: 意识

title: 意识


text: 活跃

title: 活跃


text:
mandarin collar

Etymology
The style originated from Western interpretation of dresses worn by mandarins in Imperial China.

Noun

 * 1) A short unfolded stand-up collar on a shirt or jacket.

Translations

 * Finnish: kiinalaiskaulus
 * French: col mandarin, ,
 * Irish: bóna mandairín
 * Italian: colletto alla coreana
 * Japanese: 立襟
 * Korean: 만다린 칼라
 * Polish:
 * Thai: คอจีน

title: mandarin collar


text:
manway

Noun

 * 1) A hole or duct giving access to a utility area for maintenance purposes.

title: manway


text: manways

title: manways


text:
dressable

Etymology
From, equivalent to.

Adjective

 * 1) Capable of being dressed in clothes.
 * a dressable doll
 * 1) Capable of being dressed (having its surface prepared).
 * a dressable wheel

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  trainable

title: dressable


text:
Michaelmas daisy

Noun

 * 1)  Any of several species and hybrids of flowering plants in the family, particularly in the genera Aster or ; a flower of any such plant.

Translations

 * Latin: amellus

title: Michaelmas daisy


text: 算术

title: 算术


text: 贵族

title: 贵族


text:
millrind

Noun

 * 1) An iron support, usually four-armed or cross-shaped, for the turning ("runner") stone in a pair of millstones.
 * 2)  A heraldic charge resembling a stylized millstone support of this kind.

Translations

 * Catalan: nadilla
 * German: Mühleisen
 * Swedish: kvarnjärn, möllejärn

title: millrind


text: millrinds

title: millrinds


text:
muscle Mary

Noun

 * 1)  A homosexual man who works to maintain a muscular physique.

title: muscle Mary


text: muscle Marys

title: muscle Marys


text: mitospores

title: mitospores


text: cullies

title: cullies


text:
stand on ceremony

Verb

 * 1)  To act in a formal, ceremonious, or overly polite manner.

Translations

 * Arabic:
 * Burmese:
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: 拘於禮節, 講客套,, ,
 * Danish:
 * Finnish: pönöttää,, ,
 * French:, ,
 * Italian: fare complimenti
 * Japanese: 形式張る, 遠慮する
 * Polish: ceregielić się, certolić się, certować się
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian:
 * Serbo-Croatian: понашати се формално
 * Spanish: cumplir con las formalidades

title: stand on ceremony


text: microconidia

title: microconidia


text: macroconidia

title: macroconidia


text:
Naugahyde

Etymology
Marketing coinage of the 1930s, from, Connecticut, where it was first produced, and ; it was humorously marketed as being the skin of an animal called a "Nauga".

Noun

 * 1) An artificial leather made with a knit fabric backing and PVC coating.

title: Naugahyde


text: dressables

title: dressables


text: noice

title: noice


text: noils

title: noils


text:
officialisation

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) officialization

title: officialisation


text:
officialization

Noun

 * 1) The process or result of officializing.

title: officialization


text:
officialize

Verb

 * 1)  To make official.

title: officialize


text: officializes

title: officializes


text: officializing

title: officializing


text: officialized

title: officialized


text:
mescroire

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1) to disbelieve
 * 2) to mistrust; to doubt
 * 1) to mistrust; to doubt
 * 1) to mistrust; to doubt

title: mescroire


text: Category:Old French terms prefixed with mes-


text:
Talk:aplomb

From 'Range of Motion' by Elizabeth Berg: "[My neighbors] have a seven-year-old son named Timothy, never callded Timmy or Tim; a little scrawny guy who wears thick glasses already, and who tucks his striped T-shirts into his pants with the aplomb of a silver-templed CEO."

63.76.209.14 12:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reader, Bath, ME

 * In it goes. Equinox ◑ 12:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:aplomb


text:
mesfaire

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1) to do wrong; to do evil

title: mesfaire


text:
consentaneously

Adverb

 * 1) In a consentaneous manner

Translations

 * Italian: consentaneamente

title: consentaneously


text:
mesfait

Etymology
From the verb.

Noun

 * 1) sin; wrongdoing

title: mesfait


text:
papier collé

Etymology
, meaning "pasted paper".

Noun

 * 1) An art technique in which pieces of flat material (paper, oilcloth, etc.) are pasted into a painting in much in the same way as a collage, except that the pasted pieces represent objects in the painting.

Etymology
.

title: papier collé


text:
xerophile

Noun

 * 1) Any xerophilic organism.

title: xerophile


text: xerophiles

title: xerophiles


text:
xerophilic

Adjective

 * 1) Capable of growing and reproducing in conditions with a low availability of water.

title: xerophilic


text:
penicylinder

Noun

 * 1) A small cylinder that can be coated with bacteria as part of scientific experiments with antibiotics.

title: penicylinder


text: penicylinders

title: penicylinders


text:
semicritical

Adjective

 * 1) Very important, but ranked below critical.
 * 2)  Related to a differential equation and its criticoids.

title: semicritical


text: guineapig

title: guineapig


text: guineapigs

title: guineapigs


text:
popcorning

Etymology
, from the jumping movements of kernels of popcorn as they are cooked.

Noun

 * 1) A sporadic pronking behaviour in guinea pigs.
 * 2) An accidental chain reaction in which one explosion sets off others
 * 3)  Vocal fry.

title: popcorning


text:
モニターTV

Noun

 * 1) a screen-based television

title: モニターTV


text:
竹富

Proper noun

 * 1)  Taketomi (island in the Yaeyama region)

Proper noun

 * 1)  Taketomi (island in the Yaeyama region)

title: 竹富


text:
ἀκμή

Etymology
From, from. Cognates include and.

Noun

 * 1) point, edge
 * 2) the highest or culminating point of something, bloom, flower, prime, zenith, especially of a person's age
 * 3) time, the best or most fitting time

title: ἀκμή


text: 列车

title: 列车


text:
テイスト

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) taste, flavor, especially of food
 * 2) interest, hobby
 * 1) interest, hobby

title: テイスト


text: テースト

title: テースト


text:
忠告

Noun

 * 1) advice; recommendation; counsel

Verb

 * 1) to advise

Noun

 * 1) advice

Verb

 * 1) advise

title: 忠告


text:
御老

Noun

 * 1) an old person

title: 御老


text:
ご老人

Noun

 * 1) an old person

title: ご老人


text:
御老人

Noun

 * 1) an old person

title: 御老人


text:
イマジネーション

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) imagination

title: イマジネーション


text:
ケース

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) a case, as a container for something
 * 2) a case, as an instance, event, situation
 * 1) a case, as an instance, event, situation

title: ケース


text: improper integrals

title: improper integrals


text: おしり

title: おしり


text:
お尻

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  buttocks

title: お尻


text: 跳跃

title: 跳跃


text: definite integrals

title: definite integrals


text:
げっ

Interjection

 * 1) yuck

title: げっ


text: ゲッ

title: ゲッ


text:
シンフォニエッタ

Etymology

 * see 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) sinfonietta

title: シンフォニエッタ


text: indefinite integrals

title: indefinite integrals


text: Template:mt-għand

title: Template:mt-għand


text: 苦难

title: 苦难


text:
għand

Etymology
From.

Preposition

 * 1) at, to

Usage notes

 * This preposition expresses possession equivalent to "have" in English
 * The negative forms are formed with ma + -x:
 * The negative forms are formed with ma + -x:

title: għand


text:
underinsurance

Noun

 * 1) Inadequate insurance.

title: underinsurance


text:
eallach

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) cattle

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) burden, armful, load
 * 2) trick
 * 3) battle, charge
 * 4) bracket
 * 5) herd
 * 6) cattle given as tocher or dot

Usage notes
Always masculine in the west of Ross-shire.

title: eallach


text:
Erzdiözese

Noun

 * 1) archdiocese

title: Erzdiözese


text: Erzdiözesen

title: Erzdiözesen


text:
scrambly

Adjective

 * 1)  Involving a certain amount of climbing.
 * 2)  scrambled, mixed-up, unclear, garbled
 * 1)  scrambled, mixed-up, unclear, garbled
 * 1)  scrambled, mixed-up, unclear, garbled
 * 1)  scrambled, mixed-up, unclear, garbled

title: scrambly


text: 改编

title: 改编


text:
waymarked

Adjective

 * 1) Marked with a waymark.

title: waymarked


text:
Bistum

Etymology
From, a contraction of , from , from +. Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) bishopric

Etymology
, from, from.

Noun

 * 1) bishopric

title: Bistum


text: Bistums

title: Bistums


text: Bistümer

title: Bistümer


text:
borża

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) purse, bag
 * 2) stock market
 * 3)  money
 * 4)  scrotum

title: borża


text:
muswaf

Adjective

 * 1) hairy

title: muswaf


text:
coursemate

Noun

 * 1) One who is taking the same academic course.
 * I went drinking with some of my coursemates after the last lecture of the term.

Translations

 * Belarusian: аднаку́рснік, аднаку́рсніца, саку́рснік, саку́рсніца
 * Russian:, , ,
 * Ukrainian: одноку́рсник, одноку́рсниця, співку́рсник, співку́рсниця

title: coursemate


text: coursemates

title: coursemates


text:
cineál

Etymology
From (compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬), from.

Noun

 * 1) sort, kind, type
 * 2) sex, gender
 * 3)  variety
 * 4)  variety, strain
 * 5) nature
 * 6) form
 * 1) nature
 * 2) form
 * 1) form
 * 1) form

Adverb

 * 1) kind of, sort of

title: cineál


text: thankyouverymuch

title: thankyouverymuch


text:
testingly

Adverb

 * 1) In a tentative and experimental manner.
 * 2) In a challenging manner; so as to test the stamina, patience, etc.
 * 1) In a challenging manner; so as to test the stamina, patience, etc.
 * 1) In a challenging manner; so as to test the stamina, patience, etc.

title: testingly


text:
μπάντα

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) side all location senses
 * 2)  band part of the radio spectrum
 * 3)  marching band group of instrumental musicians in woodwind and brass families who generally perform outdoors
 * 1)  band part of the radio spectrum
 * 2)  marching band group of instrumental musicians in woodwind and brass families who generally perform outdoors
 * 1)  marching band group of instrumental musicians in woodwind and brass families who generally perform outdoors

title: μπάντα


text:
toqba tas-sorm

Etymology
lit. 'hole of the butt'.

Noun

 * 1)  anus

title: toqba tas-sorm


text:
sepulcro

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) grave, tomb

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) sepulchre burial chamber

Etymology
, borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) sepulchre
 * 2) grave, tomb

title: sepulcro


text: sepulcros

title: sepulcros


text:
warwood

Etymology
. Perhaps at least partly an allusion to koa, a tree endemic to Hawaii with wood similar in quality to , black walnut, and whose name in Hawaiian can also mean warrior, or to beefwood which also has deep-colored, hard wood and in some Polynesian languages shares the same association between the name and words for warriors (both cognate with the Hawaiian term).

Noun

 * 1) Wood used for military materiel, especially in the context of historical warfare
 * 2) * 1880, Gerald Manley Hopkins, "Spring and fall to a young child" in T.M. Flormata-Ballesteros, Speech and Oral Communication, page 144, ISBN 9715740693.
 * By and by, nor spare a sigh
 * Though worlds of warwood leafmeal lie
 * By and by, nor spare a sigh
 * Though worlds of warwood leafmeal lie

title: warwood


text: wartier

title: wartier


text: wartiest

title: wartiest


text:
prescriptible

Adjective

 * 1) Subject to prescription.

Etymology
From.

title: prescriptible


text:
seraq

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to steal
 * 2) to kidnap

title: seraq


text: tomboj

title: tomboj


text:
Hallenbad

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) indoor public swimming pool

title: Hallenbad


text: Hallenbads

title: Hallenbads


text: Hallenbades

title: Hallenbades


text: Hallenbäder

title: Hallenbäder


text: renderest

title: renderest


text: Category:de:Swimming

title: Category:de:Swimming


text: Category:de:Water sports

title: Category:de:Water sports


text:
sbuħija

Noun

 * 1) beauty

title: sbuħija


text: tombon

title: tombon


text: κοπριάς

title: κοπριάς


text: tombojn

title: tombojn


text: κοπριές

title: κοπριές


text: tombi

title: tombi


text: κοπριών

title: κοπριών


text:
yrneh

Etymology
reversed; compare,.

Noun

 * 1)  A reciprocal unit of measurement for electrical inductance.

title: yrneh


text: yrnehs

title: yrnehs


text:
motorisation

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) motorization

title: motorisation


text:
motorless

Adjective

 * 1) Without a motor.
 * 2)  Without a motor car.

Translations

 * Polish: bezmotorowy

title: motorless


text:
motorbiker

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) A motorcyclist.

title: motorbiker


text: motorbikers

title: motorbikers


text:
salinidad

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) salinity

title: salinidad


text: salinidades

title: salinidades


text: motorisations

title: motorisations


text:
Wollemi pine

Etymology
From the region in New South Wales.

Noun

 * 1) An Australian coniferous tree  in the family Araucariaceae, not a true pine.

title: Wollemi pine


text:
versional

Adjective

 * 1) Of or pertaining to versions.

title: versional


text: legioj

title: legioj


text: legiojn

title: legiojn


text:
vertiginousness

Noun

 * 1) The quality of being vertiginous.

title: vertiginousness


text: paradizoj

title: paradizoj


text: paradizon

title: paradizon


text: paradizojn

title: paradizojn


text: Category:Luxembourgish interjections

title: Category:Luxembourgish interjections


text:
untouchedness

Noun

 * 1) The quality of not having been touched.

title: untouchedness


text: paradizi

title: paradizi


text:
sigriet

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) secret
 * 2)  penis

title: sigriet


text: krusti

title: krusti


text:
Citations:swoose

Noun: "an animal born to a swan and goose"

 * 1) * 1920 13 July, Daily Mail
 * A bird prodigy of evil and hybrid character is the despair of a Norfolk farmer. It rejoices in the name of the “swoose”, a portmanteau word indicating its origin, for its father was a swan and its mother a goose. This ill-assorted pair had three children — three “sweese”.
 * 1) * 1928 John C. Phillips, "Another "Swoose" or Swan × Goose Hybrid," The Auk, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Jan., 1928), pp. 39-40
 * Mr. Peirce had already promised the bird to me, and so, during the summer, hearing that a more or less fabulous fowl had arrived from nowhere in particular, I visited the Park and Mr. Peirce’s long lost “Swoose.”
 * 1) * 1929 Popular Science (March, 1929), p35
 * What is it? It's a "swoose" - the only one in the world - a cross between a Canadian goose and an Australian swan.
 * 1) * 1941 Ben Forrest, Glenn Burrs & Franklin Furlett, song: "Alexander the Swoose," originally performed by Kay Kyser and His Band, published by A-1 Music
 * Swoose, swoose, Alexander is a swoose. Half a swan, half a goose, Alexander is a swoose.
 * 1) * 1948 Grace de la Croix Daigre, "'Swoose' and Boy Get Around," The Rotarian, September 1948, p.1
 * It was definitely exciting to see Isiah, the colored boy, and our "Swoose" (a true cross between a swan and a goose) in our magazine.
 * 1) * 1957 John William Blythe, A modern introduction to logic, Houghton Mifflin, 1957, p147
 * If the term "swoose" is defined as formally equivalent to the term "half swan and half goose," it follows that these terms are materially equivalent and that it is true that all sweese and only sweese are half swans and half geese. But it doesn't follow that there are any sweese.
 * 1) * 1968 Samuel J. Sackett, "Another Cross-Fertilization Joke," Western Folklore, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Jan., 1968), pp. 50-51
 * And this one's a cross between a swan and a goose, and we call him a swoose.
 * 1) * 1970 James J. Zigerell, "The Community College in Search of an Identity," The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 41, No. 9 (Dec., 1970), pp. 701-712
 * A nonsense song of my youth was about a "swoose," who was half swan and half goose.
 * 1) * 2000 Grace Marmor Spruch, Squirrels at My Window: Life With a Remarkable Gang of Urban Squirrels, Big Earth Publishing, p22
 * I had been the mistress of fourteen turtles over a number of years, and I could boast having been bitten by, along with the standard animals, a horse, a swoose, and a camel.
 * 1) * 2006 John Ayto, Movers and shakers: a chronology of words that shaped our age, Oxford University Press, p59
 * Such items are meat and drink to journalists and headline writers, and if you can combine them with (more or less) cuddly animals, you have neologisms to die for – hence the extensive press coverage given to swooses (a swan crossed with a goose), tigons (the offspring of a tiger and a lion), and (later) ligers (1938).

Noun: "a hybrid"

 * 1) * 1936 The Unitarian Register, p167
 * In their political careers they are "swooses," swimming with any tide, representatives of "swoosery" in the popular state of mind.
 * 1) * 1970 James J. Zigerell, "The Community College in Search of an Identity," The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 41, No. 9 (Dec., 1970), pp. 701-712
 * The associate in arts or A.A. degree, another "swoose," has quickly established itself as the community college degree in a degree-obsessed nation.
 * 1) * 1977 "Customs procedural reform act of 1977: hearings before the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Ninety-fifth Congress, first session, on H.R. 8149," p229
 * Let's not have a "swoose." We have a goose and a swan. We have a swoose. That is what we have in customs right now.
 * 1) * 1979 "A History of Cancer Control in the United States, 1946-1971: Appendixes," U.S. National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Rehabilitation, p98
 * Well by the time all the cooks in that broth got through with it, by the time it emerged from the Congress, it was a "swoose." It was not swan and it was not goose, it was a "swoose." It was a "swoose" to its dying day, which hasn't quite arrived yet, but its [sic] imminent.
 * 1) * 2000 Claire Cloninger, Karla Worley, When the Glass Slipper Doesn't Fit, New Hope Publishers
 * But Mom describes my life that year pretty accurately when she says that I had become a “swoose”- that is to say, not a swan and not a goose.
 * 1) * 2007 Susan Kelly, Now You Know, Pegasus Books, p229
 * "John calls teenagers 'sweese.'" "What?" "Neither swans nor geese."

Noun: "a stupid person"

 * 1) * 1920 5 September, Wisconsin State Journal
 * Much public interest is evinced in these queer birds and nowadays when an ill-tempered husband rouses his wife to the point of retaliation, she gives vent to her feelings in the culminating insult: “You swoose!”
 * 1) * 1948 27 March, Sid Sidenberg, "A Pitchman's Individualism Works Against Organization," The Billboard, p144.
 * There would be but one result and that is the passers-by would regard him as just another one of those “swooses” standing on a box making nothingness noises they had been so accustomed to seeing and hearing.

title: Citations:swoose


text:
overcalculation

Noun

 * 1) Calculation producing too large a result.

title: overcalculation


text: overcalculations

title: overcalculations


text:
undercalculation

Noun

 * 1) Calculation producing too small a result.

title: undercalculation


text: undercalculations

title: undercalculations


text:
kukejo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) confectionery, confectioner's shop

title: kukejo


text: kukejoj

title: kukejoj


text: underbrushes

title: underbrushes


text:
undercalculate

Verb

 * 1) To calculate as being smaller than is actually the case.

title: undercalculate


text: undercalculates

title: undercalculates


text: undercalculating

title: undercalculating


text: undercalculated

title: undercalculated


text: kukejon

title: kukejon


text: kukejojn

title: kukejojn


text: overbuying

title: overbuying


text: overbuys

title: overbuys


text:
underbuy

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  To buy at less than the value of.
 * 2)  To buy at less than the price of another.
 * 3)  To buy too little.

title: underbuy


text: sigrieti

title: sigrieti


text: underbuys

title: underbuys


text: underbuying

title: underbuying


text: underbought

title: underbought


text:
droughtless

Adjective

 * 1) Without drought.

title: droughtless


text:
délégiférer

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to delegislate (repeal legislation)

title: délégiférer


text: febras

title: febras


text: febros

title: febros


text: febrez

title: febrez


text: februs

title: februs


text: febrabez

title: febrabez


text: saobh-chràbhaidh

title: saobh-chràbhaidh


text: saobh-chràbhaidhean

title: saobh-chràbhaidhean


text: febrabis

title: febrabis


text: luchda

title: luchda


text: febrabos

title: febrabos


text: febrir

title: febrir


text: febror

title: febror


text: febrabus

title: febrabus


text: luchdan

title: luchdan


text: febranta

title: febranta


text: febrinta

title: febrinta


text: febronta

title: febronta


text:
User talk:Person12

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) 14:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

porno
Hi. You might be right about the adjectival use in Australia. However, the uncountability doesn't preclude its use for a singular item like a video. Example: "that book is nonsense" (that countable is uncountable); likewise "that video is pornography". Equinox ◑ 11:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

--Person12 11:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The four dictionary citations (only one of which is Australian; one is from New Zealand and 2 are American) listing it as an adjective which I posted on the porno talk page illustrate the fact that it is (or has been) used adjectivally, and not only in Australia.
 * Sounds like you should be able to pretty easily make up a quote to illustrate sense 2, which I strongly encourage you to do. The term's actual usage (internationally) is obviously a bit more complicated than reflected by the previous state of the entry and given this fact, any uncountable usage really needs that type of clarification.

nanny state
Hi. I replied at User_talk:Equinox. Equinox ◑ 11:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Entries with no language header
You are creating entries with no language headers and the formatting is slightly messed up as well. Are you following WT:ELE? I am compelled to ask to stop introducing new terms until you fully understand how headings work here. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Goodness, what a brusque little post. You realize, of course, that this is a wiki, and I, like many on here, am learning as I go, as well as referring back & forth between various dictionaries in order to get the senses & etymologies clear & accurate while not being word-for-word (I'm trying to fix the fact our etymology for picayune's has been copied & pasted directly from etymonline by someone who didn't know any better) as I can. I don't think that entries temporarily not having a language heading is the end of the world and at least these words are being added. It's hardly as if I'm maliciously vandalizing this site. A simple pointer (like your one below about genders) is much more helpful & constructive, so thanks for that one.--Person12 (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the concern is that these entries may never be found and fixed by any of our other editors. There are far more entries compared to how many editors there are to check them. So it's very important to get it right first time, to avoid problems later. 23:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Whatever the concern is, there's a constructive way to go about addressing it and there's an uptight, off-putting way.
 * I'm in the process of trying to fix something that someone else didn't get right the first time. We can't all know everything about this wiki and it's no wonder there are so few editors when people are so immediately stroppy about small errors.--Person12 (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are not sure about gender or any auxilliary information related to a term
Add an flag to the entry with the first parameter being the language you are editing (oc for example). See change to picalhon. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Thank you for this helpful pointer.--Person12 (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

title: User talk:Person12


text:
grandanmeso

Noun

 * 1) magnanimity

title: grandanmeso


text: grandanmesi

title: grandanmesi


text: identifikabez

title: identifikabez


text: identifikabis

title: identifikabis


text: identifikabos

title: identifikabos


text: identifikabus

title: identifikabus


text: identifikanta

title: identifikanta


text: identifikas

title: identifikas


text: identifikata

title: identifikata


text: identifikez

title: identifikez


text: identifikinta

title: identifikinta


text: identifikir

title: identifikir


text: identifikis

title: identifikis


text: identifikita

title: identifikita


text: identifikonta

title: identifikonta


text: identifikor

title: identifikor


text: identifikos

title: identifikos


text: identifikota

title: identifikota


text: identifikus

title: identifikus


text: kargabez

title: kargabez


text: kargabis

title: kargabis


text: kargabos

title: kargabos


text: kargabus

title: kargabus


text: karganta

title: karganta


text: kargas

title: kargas


text: kargata

title: kargata


text: kargez

title: kargez


text: karginta

title: karginta


text: kargir

title: kargir


text: kargis

title: kargis


text: kargita

title: kargita


text: kargonta

title: kargonta


text: kargor

title: kargor


text: kargos

title: kargos


text: kargota

title: kargota


text: kargus

title: kargus


text: deskargata

title: deskargata


text: deskargez

title: deskargez


text: deskarginta

title: deskarginta


text: deskargir

title: deskargir


text: deskargis

title: deskargis


text: deskargita

title: deskargita


text: deskargonta

title: deskargonta


text: deskargor

title: deskargor


text: deskargos

title: deskargos


text: deskargota

title: deskargota


text: deskargus

title: deskargus


text: plesir

title: plesir


text: deskargas

title: deskargas


text: deskargabis

title: deskargabis


text: deskargabos

title: deskargabos


text: deskarganta

title: deskarganta


text: deskargabez

title: deskargabez


text: deskargabus

title: deskargabus


text: adpozabez

title: adpozabez


text: adpozabis

title: adpozabis


text: adpozabos

title: adpozabos


text: adpozabus

title: adpozabus


text: adpozanta

title: adpozanta


text: adpozas

title: adpozas


text: adpozata

title: adpozata


text: adpozez

title: adpozez


text: adpozinta

title: adpozinta


text: adpozir

title: adpozir


text: adpozis

title: adpozis


text: adpozita

title: adpozita


text: adpozonta

title: adpozonta


text: adpozor

title: adpozor


text: adpozos

title: adpozos


text: adpozota

title: adpozota


text: adpozus

title: adpozus


text: transpozabez

title: transpozabez


text: transpozabis

title: transpozabis


text: transpozabos

title: transpozabos


text: transpozabus

title: transpozabus


text: transpozanta

title: transpozanta


text: transpozas

title: transpozas


text: transpozata

title: transpozata


text: transpozez

title: transpozez


text: transpozinta

title: transpozinta


text: transpozir

title: transpozir


text: transpozis

title: transpozis


text: transpozita

title: transpozita


text: transpozonta

title: transpozonta


text: transpozor

title: transpozor


text: transpozos

title: transpozos


text: transpozota

title: transpozota


text: transpozus

title: transpozus


text: surpozabez

title: surpozabez


text: surpozabis

title: surpozabis


text: surpozabos

title: surpozabos


text: surpozabus

title: surpozabus


text: surpozanta

title: surpozanta


text: surpozas

title: surpozas


text: surpozata

title: surpozata


text: surpozez

title: surpozez


text: surpozinta

title: surpozinta


text: surpozir

title: surpozir


text: surpozis

title: surpozis


text: surpozita

title: surpozita


text: surpozonta

title: surpozonta


text: surpozor

title: surpozor


text: surpozos

title: surpozos


text: surpozota

title: surpozota


text: surpozus

title: surpozus


text: remplasigabez

title: remplasigabez


text: remplasigabis

title: remplasigabis


text: remplasigabos

title: remplasigabos


text: remplasigabus

title: remplasigabus


text: remplasiganta

title: remplasiganta


text: remplasigas

title: remplasigas


text: remplasigata

title: remplasigata


text: remplasigez

title: remplasigez


text: remplasiginta

title: remplasiginta


text: remplasigir

title: remplasigir


text: remplasigis

title: remplasigis


text: remplasigita

title: remplasigita


text: remplasigonta

title: remplasigonta


text: remplasigor

title: remplasigor


text: remplasigos

title: remplasigos


text: remplasigota

title: remplasigota


text: remplasigus

title: remplasigus


text: asemblabez

title: asemblabez


text: asemblabis

title: asemblabis


text: asemblabos

title: asemblabos


text: asemblabus

title: asemblabus


text: asemblanta

title: asemblanta


text: asemblas

title: asemblas


text: asemblata

title: asemblata


text: asemblez

title: asemblez


text: asemblinta

title: asemblinta


text: asemblir

title: asemblir


text: asemblis

title: asemblis


text: asemblita

title: asemblita


text: asemblonta

title: asemblonta


text: asemblor

title: asemblor


text: asemblos

title: asemblos


text: asemblota

title: asemblota


text: asemblus

title: asemblus


text: venenagabez

title: venenagabez


text: venenagabis

title: venenagabis


text: venenagabos

title: venenagabos


text: venenagabus

title: venenagabus


text: venenaganta

title: venenaganta


text: venenagas

title: venenagas


text: venenagata

title: venenagata


text: venenagez

title: venenagez


text: venenaginta

title: venenaginta


text: venenagir

title: venenagir


text: venenagis

title: venenagis


text: venenagita

title: venenagita


text: venenagonta

title: venenagonta


text: venenagor

title: venenagor


text: venenagos

title: venenagos


text: venenagota

title: venenagota


text: venenagus

title: venenagus


text: venenizabez

title: venenizabez


text: venenizabis

title: venenizabis


text: venenizabos

title: venenizabos


text: venenizabus

title: venenizabus


text: venenizanta

title: venenizanta


text: venenizas

title: venenizas


text: venenizata

title: venenizata


text: venenizez

title: venenizez


text: venenizinta

title: venenizinta


text: venenizir

title: venenizir


text: venenizis

title: venenizis


text: venenizita

title: venenizita


text: venenizonta

title: venenizonta


text: venenizor

title: venenizor


text: venenizos

title: venenizos


text: venenizota

title: venenizota


text: venenizus

title: venenizus


text: adiabaticities

title: adiabaticities


text: liberigabis

title: liberigabis


text: liberigabos

title: liberigabos


text: liberigir

title: liberigir


text: liberigor

title: liberigor


text: liberigez

title: liberigez


text: liberigabez

title: liberigabez


text: liberigabus

title: liberigabus


text:
benzenediamine

Noun

 * 1) diaminobenzene

title: benzenediamine


text:
legiono

Noun

 * 1)  a
 * 1)  a
 * 1)  a

title: legiono


text: diversificated

title: diversificated


text:
nontopological

Adjective

 * 1) Not topological

title: nontopological


text:
semileptonically

Adverb

 * 1) In a semileptonic manner

title: semileptonically


text:
allosaur

Noun

 * 1) Any of several huge carnivorous dinosaurs, of the superfamily, from the late Jurassic and early Cretaceous periods

Translations

 * Portuguese: alossauro

title: allosaur


text:
nondiverse

Adjective

 * 1) Not diverse.

title: nondiverse


text:
allowedly

Adverb

 * 1) admittedly

title: allowedly


text:
nondiving

Adjective

 * 1) Not pertaining to, or taking part in, diving.
 * a nondiving medical emergency
 * a nondiving vertebrate

title: nondiving


text: allosaurs

title: allosaurs


text:
scathingness

Noun

 * 1) The quality of being scathing.

title: scathingness


text:
aggiuntatore

Noun

 * 1) vamper

title: aggiuntatore


text: aggiuntatori

title: aggiuntatori


text: benzenediamines

title: benzenediamines


text:
changeout

Noun

 * 1) The replacement of a part for a better one, especially during maintenance

title: changeout


text:
mutevolezza

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) flightiness, fickleness, inconstancy
 * 2) changeableness, mutability

title: mutevolezza


text: mutevolezze

title: mutevolezze


text:
divulgence

Noun

 * 1) The act of divulging.
 * 2) Something that is divulged.

Translations

 * Maori: puakanga

title: divulgence


text:
icinglike

Adjective

 * 1)  Resembling or characteristic of icing.

title: icinglike


text: divulgences

title: divulgences


text: changeouts

title: changeouts


text: frivoloj

title: frivoloj


text: frivolon

title: frivolon


text: frivolojn

title: frivolojn


text:
endgate

Noun

 * 1)  tailboard

title: endgate


text:
nonmaturity

Noun

 * 1) The quality of being nonmature; absence of maturity.

title: nonmaturity


text:
nonpaging

Adjective

 * 1)  Not paging.

title: nonpaging


text: endgates

title: endgates


text:
everblooming

Adjective

 * 1) Describes a plant that blooms throughout the growing season.

title: everblooming


text:
undared

Adjective

 * 1) Not dared.

title: undared


text:
everbloomer

Noun

 * 1) A plant that blooms throughout the growing season.

title: everbloomer


text: everbloomers

title: everbloomers


text:
hesitater

Noun

 * 1) One who hesitates.

title: hesitater


text:
abbozzaticcio

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) sketchy

title: abbozzaticcio


text: hatings

title: hatings


text: haltings

title: haltings


text: legimus

title: legimus


text: legitis

title: legitis


text: legunt

title: legunt


text: hesitaters

title: hesitaters