text: rommelde

title: rommelde


text: turkisernes

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

title: turkisernes


text: rommelt

title: rommelt


text:
solkenaan

Etymology
From, by confusion with , which is a variant of.

Adverb

 * 1) continuously and in large quantity

title: solkenaan


text:
that'll do

Translations

 * Bashkir: етәр
 * French:
 * Maori: kātirawhe
 * Mari:
 * Eastern Mari: сита
 * Navajo: kʼadí
 * Polish: wystarczy

title: that'll do


text:
plenzen

Verb

 * 1) to bucket, to rain cats and dogs (to rain heavily)

title: plenzen


text:
plens

Etymology
Present participle of

Participle

 * 1) filling

title: plens


text: plenze

title: plenze


text: geplensd

title: geplensd


text:
Talk:dative of purpose

Request for deletion
The definition is wrong; this is just use of the dative to show purpose. I don't think it merits lexical coverage. --EncycloPetey 02:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Keep — this and the other forms of the dative, ablative, genitive, &c. are useful to learners of Latin (like me); moreover, this phrase is idiomatic (e.g., this cannot mean, in Scots law, a “decree dative of purpose”). †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is always some context in which an utterance is interpreted. To start there is the context of what language is being spoken. Then there are culture, realm of discourse, conversation-specific context, and audience-specific context. If one is in a group of English-speaking students of linguistics who know what "dative" means, is this not obvious? Isn't it just the details of how one author of school of thought specify this that may vary in encyclopedic detail, not the one- or two-line definition? DCDuring TALK 18:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or improve, it's not claiming to be idiomatic or context-specific, the article says it's a dative used to indicate purpose. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Is there a sense of "of" that means "used to show"? It's a phrasing that has always seemed very odd to me; the Latin dativus finalis seems significantly more SOP than its English calque. -- Visviva 12:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I had always understood these "X of Y" constructions to be fixed terms of art in classical studies. Certainly "dative of service" and "dative of (the) end" also exist, but looking at the very few b.g.c. hits for "dative of intent" and "dative of intention" is instructive -- all are more or less one-off references to constructs in modern languages (Malayalam in one case, Lithuanian in another, English in a third).
 * Also, if this is SOP, how is it that the "dative of goal" (or "terminal dative") is apparently not identical with the "dative of purpose"?  I'm not seeing the SOPness, so I have to go with keep for now. -- Visviva 12:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I've taken a quick look through one of the little Latin handbooks I own (one from Oxford Univ. Press) to see which "datives" it lists. It includes: "dative of advantage and disadvantage", "dative of separation", "'ethic' dative", "'polite' dative" (both with the single quotes), "dative of the agent", but not "dative of purpose" (although an entire section is devoted to expression of purpose).  Another of my little reference books has "dative of advantage and disadvantage", "dative of reference", "ethic dative", "dative of possessiion", "dative of agent", "dative of purpose", "predicative dative".  As you can see, only two of these match between the two references, one of them even adds a "the" or single quotes, thus showing that "X of Y" is not a fixed term.  There are certain collocations that are more commonly encountered, but their form and nomenclature are not fixed. --EncycloPetey 13:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kept for no consensus.--Jusjih 02:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

dative of purpose
SOP. This is no dictionary material. --Fsojic (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is part of a set of correlative terms: the types of dative cases. DCDuring TALK 22:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are also dative of benefit, ethic dative, etc. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

 * RFD kept per consensus; on the most pesimistic reading, no consensus for deletion after months elapsed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:dative of purpose


text: plensden

title: plensden


text: plenzend

title: plenzend


text: plensde

title: plensde


text: plenst

title: plenst


text:
Talk:soil pollution

Request for deletion
You can pollute a lot of things; soil, air, water. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep We already have air pollution: and water pollution:. But other stuff exists isn't a valid argument, so here's a better one:  lead pollution is the the pollution of something by lead, mercury pollution is the pollution of something by mercury, but soil pollution is not the pollution of something by soil.  In general the phrase  pollution has two possible senses, only one of which will be valid for a given noun. — Carolina wren discussió  21:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the argument in WT:CFI terms.
 * On its own terms, "special-interest legislation" and "pollution legislation" similarly use have the attributive nouns in different relations to the head noun of the phrase.
 * "Air", "water", and "noise pollution" are terms that other dictionaries seem to find worthwhile, while "soil pollution" is not. I suspect that it has something to do with the legal recognition afforded the first three. It may also be that the notion of making dirt "dirty" or soling soil didn't take. Soil contamination isn't in other dictionaries either though. DCDuring TALK 21:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The cites on b.g.c for air and water each number in the tens of thousands, while for soil it numbers only in the thousands. There's also the slight problem that the synonyms ground pollution and land pollution exist for soil pollution, tho of the three soil is the most common.  Attestation clearly is not a problem, and idiomaticity clearly is a common issue for all of these save perhaps light pollution where clarifying that it doesn't refer to a low level of pollution is a second issue.  However, that reasoning also applies to soil pollution, as the combination could refer to pollution by undefined: unless one realized it has a particular idiomatic meaning of pollution of the undefined:.
 * I did a closer look at the b.g.c. cite before committing the above as an edit and you know what? It seems that back at the start of the 20th century, soil pollution was not concerned with chemical pollution, but biological. I'll work some on the entry to have it reflect the change in meaning. — Carolina wren discussió  23:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The Rosenau quotation might simply refer to ordinary soil pollution, specifically by manure or sewage. From the Google snippet views, the book appears to use pollution in the conventional modern sense elsewhere. —Michael Z. 2009-09-16 01:28 z
 * Doesn't change the fact that the quotes there for soil pollution and from other sources of the era, the only concern about soil pollution that was mentioned was biological, and nothing about chemical pollution. In contrast, in this page from a 2004 book about poultry management,     it bothers to mention specific types of chemical contamination that might result, but only mentions in passing biological concerns, and it by far is an exception among modern quotes in considering biological problems.  Show me any quotes from the pre-1923 (i.e copyright-expired) era mentioning "soil pollution" in a context other than concerns about biological contaminants such as hookworm and I might change my opinion.
 * There's also this snippet from a 1965 source that suggests that this term would pass the "ground beef" test, though frankly I'm not a fan of that test as I feel that regulatory definitions are encyclopedic in nature.
 * Finally, I've also come across one 1887 two 1898     and one 1921  cites of the form "soil-pollution", so the hyphenated form can be cited as a rare word, in which case not including the unhyphenated form would be silly. — Carolina wren discussió  04:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I suspect that by the mid-20th century people and public agencies had become more aware of sewage controls, but Love Canal and Rachel Carson's Silent Spring were yet to make the papers. But whether we're dealing with shit or PCBs, soil pollution usually refers to “pollution of soil.  There are lots of recent examples of organic soil pollution. —Michael Z. 2009-09-16 04:50 z

 * Yup. This and other editions by Rosenau include quotations related to hookworm disease:
 * “The soil can take care of a large amount of pollution and will often yield ground water free of undesirable substances and bacteria.”
 * “Prevention mainly depends upon the avoidance of soil pollution near homes. This usually involves the introduction of appropriate latrines combined with discouragement of the habit of promiscuous defecation...”
 * “Human Habits. Hookworm infection is sharply correlated with those human habits which concentrate feces in moist, shaded places (places that are repeatedly visited). Only nominal attention to proper fecal disposal may be sufficient to prevent the spread of infection.” [p 1189, listed under “soil pollution” in the index]
 * —Michael Z. 2009-09-16 04:37 z  04:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

 * There is also "soil contamination", somewhat less common. These entries certainly have some value as translation hooks, and constitute "set phrases" without much doubt, but I am agnostic as to whether they are really a good idea overall.  Incidentally, if anyone is still thinking about quantitative metrics for set-phraseness, the mutual information score for "soil" and "pollution" in COCA is 3.67.  "Water pollution" is 5.9, "air pollution" is 8.35, "ozone pollution" is 8.75, and "transboundary pollution" is a whopping 10.98.  "Soil contamination" is 6.00.  (...if we were to ever adopt a certain MI score as a basis for inclusion, it would have some very interesting effects...) Haven't checked other measures or corpora.  -- Visviva 17:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kept for no consensus.--Jusjih 02:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:soil pollution


text:
Talk:grenader

Request for deletion
I was thinking grenadier. I don't think this is correct--Volants 10:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to rfd-sense. Dunno. Seems like an rfv issue to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * deleted English - not attestable--Rising Sun talk? contributions 13:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:grenader


text:
Talk:give back

buy back
"give" / "buy" + "back". --Hekaheka 19:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't see any redeeming features. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Both seem idiomatic to be. --Dan Polansky 08:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why? For me these seem to be no different to give again and buy again. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why they seem idiomatic to me, and hope someone else will take an articulated position on the issue.
 * Turning the question around, however, can you explain why they are merely sum of parts?
 * As a check, see also and . --Dan Polansky 08:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added the somewhat cliched karmic feel-good sense to give back:. My McGraw-Hill's Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs, edited by Richard Spears, 2004 contains both, as do some other OneLook sources. Mostly the includers rely on Wordnet, generally the most inclusive of references there. They both seem like phrasal verbs to me, but I have previously relied on Algrif's informed and experienced judgment for hard cases. DCDuring TALK 11:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 * What possibly gives me the impression of idiomacity is that the direct Czech analogue of "give back" - "dát zpět" - is much less common than "vrátit" - an analogue of "return". So when I come to English from the Czech background, the construction to "give back" in the sense "to return a borrowed item" seems peculiar to English, hence idiomatic. But I admit that the term may seem sum-of-parts from the native point of view.
 * Another term that I would like to see included in Wiktionary - strike back - is also included only in non-mainstream dictionaries: ; also hold back in the sense "to prevent" - "What holds you back from doing it?" - "What prevents you from doing it?".
 * What I am saying with these in part digressive remarks is that, from my point of view, the "* back" verb constructions look usually like phrasal verbs rather than mere sums of parts that require no explanation and example sentences for the full grasp of their native-sounding use. --Dan Polansky 09:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Not sure about buy back, but definitely keep give back, which is a set phrase. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 11:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As to buy back:, if there were context tags, finance for the especially clause of the first sense, in line with the 4 OneLook business glossaries that have it, and bartending for the other (unattested) sense, would we challenge it? DCDuring TALK 11:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, which seems to be supported by most dictionaries, the "back" phrasal verbs need to be treated with caution. If you cannot find another meaning other than "return", then it should not be treated as a phrasal verb, which is the case we have here with buy back. I cannot find any dictionary that includes this entry, but let's see if anyone cares to differ. -- A LGRIF  talk 13:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While mainstream dictionaries such as M-W don't include "give back", there are online dictionaries that do so:, including Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition and WordNet 1.7 Vocabulary Helper. --Dan Polansky 09:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 * easily kept give back.

title: Talk:give back


text:
Talk:buy back

buy back
"give" / "buy" + "back". --Hekaheka 19:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't see any redeeming features. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Both seem idiomatic to be. --Dan Polansky 08:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why? For me these seem to be no different to give again and buy again. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why they seem idiomatic to me, and hope someone else will take an articulated position on the issue.
 * Turning the question around, however, can you explain why they are merely sum of parts?
 * As a check, see also and . --Dan Polansky 08:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added the somewhat cliched karmic feel-good sense to give back:. My McGraw-Hill's Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs, edited by Richard Spears, 2004 contains both, as do some other OneLook sources. Mostly the includers rely on Wordnet, generally the most inclusive of references there. They both seem like phrasal verbs to me, but I have previously relied on Algrif's informed and experienced judgment for hard cases. DCDuring TALK 11:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 * What possibly gives me the impression of idiomacity is that the direct Czech analogue of "give back" - "dát zpět" - is much less common than "vrátit" - an analogue of "return". So when I come to English from the Czech background, the construction to "give back" in the sense "to return a borrowed item" seems peculiar to English, hence idiomatic. But I admit that the term may seem sum-of-parts from the native point of view.
 * Another term that I would like to see included in Wiktionary - strike back - is also included only in non-mainstream dictionaries: ; also hold back in the sense "to prevent" - "What holds you back from doing it?" - "What prevents you from doing it?".
 * What I am saying with these in part digressive remarks is that, from my point of view, the "* back" verb constructions look usually like phrasal verbs rather than mere sums of parts that require no explanation and example sentences for the full grasp of their native-sounding use. --Dan Polansky 09:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Not sure about buy back, but definitely keep give back, which is a set phrase. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 11:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As to buy back:, if there were context tags, finance for the especially clause of the first sense, in line with the 4 OneLook business glossaries that have it, and bartending for the other (unattested) sense, would we challenge it? DCDuring TALK 11:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, which seems to be supported by most dictionaries, the "back" phrasal verbs need to be treated with caution. If you cannot find another meaning other than "return", then it should not be treated as a phrasal verb, which is the case we have here with buy back. I cannot find any dictionary that includes this entry, but let's see if anyone cares to differ. -- A LGRIF  talk 13:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While mainstream dictionaries such as M-W don't include "give back", there are online dictionaries that do so:, including Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition and WordNet 1.7 Vocabulary Helper. --Dan Polansky 09:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 * easily kept give back.

title: Talk:buy back


text:
leeglopen

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to lose its contents gradually, to empty out, to drain

title: leeglopen


text:
Talk:watch like a hawk

Request for deletion
It has been against our policy to have similes (according to reliable sources). This is one of the 143 headwords in Category:English similes. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 22:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Similes are helpful in the encoding direction, helpful in sentence composition. Similes can be translated as similes, and the translation is non-trivial, not a word-for-word one.
 * Some similes seem not wholly sum-of-partish: in "grin like a Cheshire Cat", the modifying effect of the term "like a Cheshire Cat" cannot be derived from what the term says. Still, finds almost no dictionaries.
 * The [[Cheshire cat]] example illustrates how we ought to handle the truly piecewise untintelligible, except that it lacks a usage example with the simile. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 11:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now to the specific entry: how does the hawk watch? The definition in watch like a hawk tells me: "to observe (someone or something) closely and keenly". Is it part of the concept of "hawk" that is watches closely and keenly? Simile-extensions such as "like a hawk" do not always strengthen the meaning of the modified adjective or verb but sometimes weaken it. In Czech, "servírujete jak babička", when applied to "servírujete" in the game of tennis, means that you do it poorly.
 * What does "(according to reliable sources)" mean? In a wiki, sources can be hyperlinked to, the policy is public, and its clauses can be quoted :p.
 * Should not this be better discussed in Beer Parlour?
 * For completeness, if it happens that similes get voted out of Wiktionary, their definitions should better be copied to Appendix:English similes. --Dan Polansky 10:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "It has been against our policy to have similes" err really? Never seen it, and since we have 143 entries just in English (and ). Keep unless someone can give a reason to delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The observation came up rhetorically in an application of paromologia to a recent (RfD) discussion about including metaphors.
 * As is always the case, there is a question of whether there are any actual limits on inclusion of examples of the class. It is handy to have rules that allow for accelerated handling of matters, but we don't seem to respect the one's we have, so every issue of inclusion now apparently needs to considered from first principles and slogans. It is hard to determine what the difference is between BP and RFD. We are well on the way to eliminating any boundaries between cases and policies, between votes and rational discussion, between whim and reasoned position. Lastly, if rules aren't to be respected, why would one devote any effort to crafting and enforcing them?
 * "Hawk" is an element of cultural knowledge. The word "like" is clearly an indication that one should look up hawk or hawk. "As" serves a similar function. The potentially salient features of "hawk" in the simile is narrowed down dramatically by the verb "watch" which suggests visual characteristics. I suppose there is ambiguity as to whether one is mimicking the hawk's observational capability or watching the hawk because it might be dangerous. But a search on Google books shows that there are other similes in the form of "be watched like", eg a thief, the grammar thus narrowing the range of interpretations.
 * In any event, this kind of interpretive effort is characteristic of all efforts to gain meaning from sentences. Grammar and general knowledge are part of understanding. A lexicon has an important role, but cannot substitute for interpretive effort. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 11:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Keep The first principle I would apply here is that it's a set phrase. Yes, it's a simile, but not one that could be used with replacement of the key noun hawk.  No one says that they're going to "watch you like an owl", or "watch you like a fish".  It's almost always "watch like a hawk".  It is thus a set phrase and idiom that should be included.  I feel the same way about drink like a fish and eat like a bird.  They are fixed idioms in English. --EncycloPetey 22:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In order to keep these discussions from constantly repeating themselves, we would do well if we had operational definition of "set phrase". Accepting that this is a good example of a set phrase, it provides a chance to calibrate some quantitative measures of what "set phrase"-itude might be. At COCA there are 66 instances of a form of "watch Y like a(n) X". About 11 are not relevant (punctuation, X not the watcher, etc), leaving 55. "Hawk" is in 32 instances, only one of which had a modification ("chicken hawk"). All but 2 of the other nouns were embedded in noun phrases for a more elaborate, nuanced simile. The exceptions were one instance each of "cat" and "tigress", which also occurred with modifiers, though not more than twice each.
 * Some kind of no-modifier test would seem to be a good one to identify true set phrases as opposed to merely common collocations. In this case "hawk" seems to occur in more than 90% of the instances where an unmodified noun was used and was used unmodified more than 90% of the time. Might this be reasonable evidence that something was a set phrase?
 * I'm not so sure what would be good evidence that something was not a set phrase. Perhaps we can find another test case.
 * Keep based on strong corpus evidence that "watch like a hawk" is a set phrase rarely admitting modification of "hawk". DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 23:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

 * When discussion of this particular entry concludes, we might move this discussion to a subpage of CFI where "tests" can be hashed out. I agree that having a battery of checks for set phrases, with examples, would help simplify CFI-related discussions here.  All too often we don't follow up on these, so at least having a separate "tests" page would provide a central point where these can accumulate until an idea reaches the point of maturity.  --EncycloPetey 23:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. I can only hope that there will some other ideas about this kind of thing so that it can reach some kind of maturity and use. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 01:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like where this proposition is going, and agree wholeheartedly. One small point though, re modified nouns in similies. There are in fact many examples, such as thick as two short planks. -- A LGRIF  talk 14:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, pure set phrases are easier than snowclones. I would be happy to settle the "easy" cases first. We could well stand some success in explicitly resolving issues that we actually are likely to have consensus on. Several runs have been made at the most general formulation of snowclones. The result has been a pile of broken lances. But we have some partial solutions to presentation (use of "someone/somebody", "one", or "something"; redirects; or usage examples) and not too much disagreement on inclusion of some kind of entry that should help many users searching for it.

 * kept common simile --Rising Sun talk? contributions 00:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:watch like a hawk


text: lope leeg

title: lope leeg


text: leeglopend

title: leeglopend


text: leegliepe

title: leegliepe


text: leegliep

title: leegliep


text: liepen leeg

title: liepen leeg


text: loopt leeg

title: loopt leeg


text: loop leeg

title: loop leeg


text: leegliept

title: leegliept


text: liept leeg

title: liept leeg


text: liep leeg

title: liep leeg


text: lopen leeg

title: lopen leeg


text: liepe leeg

title: liepe leeg


text: leegloopt

title: leegloopt


text: leeggelopen

title: leeggelopen


text: leeglope

title: leeglope


text: leegliepen

title: leegliepen


text:
leegloop

Etymology 1
.

Noun

 * 1) A large decrease, drain or outflux, an exodus or bloodletting.
 * 2) Underutilisation.

Etymology 2
Probably a.

Noun

 * 1) The operation of machines without a load; running in place.

title: leegloop


text: acheteuse

title: acheteuse


text: acheteuses

title: acheteuses


text:
Talk:marshal

Federal lawman
In the US, a marshal is a federal lawman NOT a sheriff's assistant ... that would be a deputy. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for deletion
Highest ranking piece on the board game Stratego. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, too encyclopedic. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You probably mean too specialized? It's exactly the same case as the chess sense of king, except that it's a specialized term used only for Stratego, and Stratego is a trademark. Is there a rule about such cases? Lmaltier 19:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The most relevant precedent I can think of is house, referring to the Monopoly token. I labored mightily to find citations in which the word was used to refer to the token not being used in the game itself or in a fanzine. I don't know whether fanzine citations should count (or whether there are such for Stratego. Chess pieces are more likely to have appeared in usage like the "house" usage. DCDuring TALK 00:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that house in Monopoly is the usual sense of house, only applied to the Monopoly rules and, therefore, does not deserve a definition line more than the word bill applied to Monopoly, unless there are allusions to the Monopoly context which might be difficult to understand without this definition line? Is this the rule?
 * I think that finding marshal in its Stratego sense used outside the Stratego context is likely to be impossible, it's like looking for uses of Mammalia outside the context of zoology... Lmaltier 07:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See discussion of January 2008. It was a vote after a full discussion, from the days when CFI was not a dead letter. The Monopoly house sense was deleted. Note the citations. DCDuring TALK 11:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't WT:CFI apply here? (That's the same argument I gave back then for removing the Monopoly sense of house, incidentally.) — msh210 ℠ 17:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that does apply, should we move to RFV? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Kept and sent to RFV. —msh210℠ 16:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion
Highest ranking piece on the board game Stratego. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, too encyclopedic. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You probably mean too specialized? It's exactly the same case as the chess sense of king, except that it's a specialized term used only for Stratego, and Stratego is a trademark. Is there a rule about such cases? Lmaltier 19:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The most relevant precedent I can think of is house, referring to the Monopoly token. I labored mightily to find citations in which the word was used to refer to the token not being used in the game itself or in a fanzine. I don't know whether fanzine citations should count (or whether there are such for Stratego. Chess pieces are more likely to have appeared in usage like the "house" usage. DCDuring TALK 00:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that house in Monopoly is the usual sense of house, only applied to the Monopoly rules and, therefore, does not deserve a definition line more than the word bill applied to Monopoly, unless there are allusions to the Monopoly context which might be difficult to understand without this definition line? Is this the rule?
 * I think that finding marshal in its Stratego sense used outside the Stratego context is likely to be impossible, it's like looking for uses of Mammalia outside the context of zoology... Lmaltier 07:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See discussion of January 2008. It was a vote after a full discussion, from the days when CFI was not a dead letter. The Monopoly house sense was deleted. Note the citations. DCDuring TALK 11:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't WT:CFI apply here? (That's the same argument I gave back then for removing the Monopoly sense of house, incidentally.) — msh210 ℠ 17:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that does apply, should we move to RFV? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

'''Moved from RFD. Please continue discussion here.''' —msh210℠ 16:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If anyone disagrees with the contention that the fictional-universes criterion applies, please speak up. The thirty-day clock is ticking. —msh210℠ 23:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 * RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 15:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:marshal


text:
Talk:in tears

Request for deletion
Only under the humanity-abandoning, machine-serving "component polysemy" argument does this warrant inclusion. DCDuring TALK 17:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not better than in agony, in pain, in distress. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes the lemming test. And FWIW, I'd consider creating entries for in agony, in pain, and in distress (but not to be annoying, out of genuine interest) --Rising Sun talk? 21:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the lemming test? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Other dictionaries have it" (as lemmings are said to follow one another even over a cliff edge). Not Wiktionary policy. Equinox ◑ 17:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately my spleen may have gotten the better of me. Three OneLook references have it. What is probably idiomatic about this on is that it uses the concrete term "tears" metonomously instead of the emotional/experiential terms "anger", "agony", "pain" and their ilk. keep DCDuring TALK 17:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't think of another noun used in this way. "Dissolved in giggles" is different, I think, though I can't put my finger on how it is. Weak keep. —msh210℠ 19:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, there's no definition under in that fits this expression. If one were to exist to explain the abovementioned phrases, they'd be a stronger delete argument. --Rising Sun talk? 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 * kept per consensus - and also because one can't be sure which "tears" is referred to - rips or the tear gland tears. Maybe we can get a pronunciation section here. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 00:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:in tears


text:
Talk:cat and mouse game

Request for deletion
I think this is not idiomatic. Move to cat and mouse (keep redirect?), which as an ellipsis is idiomatic. That should handle most searches. Forms with "play" and "game" (including "game of cat and mouse") are all SoP, non-idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 16:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. — msh210 ℠ 17:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe keep the redirect(s) and use usage notes to avoid confusion. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, bgc shows "cat and mouse" without "game" to occur ~2100 times; "cat and mouse game" 1142 times; and "game of cat and mouse" 875 times. DCDuring TALK 00:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved; kept redirect. —msh210℠ 17:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:cat and mouse game


text:
Talk:lack bottom

Request for deletion
To lack:. Redirect to bottom. DCDuring TALK 12:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I often say to redirect a particularly common collocation to its hard-to-understand or meaningful component. In this case, though, it's so very SoP (and there's no part that's more hard to understand or meaningful than the other) that I say to delete (unless bottom is used in this phrase much more than otherwise, which could be: it's a Briticism I've not heard much). — msh210 ℠ 17:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Converted to a redirect. —msh210℠ 17:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:lack bottom


text:
Talk:se protéger

Request for deletion
Sum of parts +. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I created some of these in my noob-hood. WT:AFR tells us not to make them anyway. —Internoob (Disc.•Cont.) 23:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. —msh210℠ 17:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:se protéger


text:
Talk:circumbinary planet

Request for deletion
A planet that is circumbinary. DCDuring TALK 10:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)`

 * delete More properly, it is the orbit of the planet that is circumbinary. "Circumbinary disk" also gets many hits. Pingku 17:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. —msh210℠ 17:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:circumbinary planet


text:
Talk:organizational breakdown structure

Request for deletion
Sum of parts. Tooironic 12:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Could you point to which sense of which parts? DCDuring TALK 12:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Widespread use in project management. Standardized term used in PM certification. DCDuring TALK 17:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No matter how much I look, I can't guess the meaning, so probably keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's such a standardised term, why doesn't it have a Wikipedia page? Tooironic 01:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hard to speculate on the operations of WP. In general, WP is not all that strong on business, finance, and management, probably because there aren't enough business and management people involved. The ones that are involved have too much self-confidence to bother looking such a thing up. The term doesn't appear in two older (1983 and 1995) books I own on project management. WP has it as a redirect to organization chart, which suggests carelessness, at least. The have it on the OBS dab page.
 * BTW, which senses of the parts enable us to decode the sum? DCDuring TALK 01:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, OK, I give up. :) Maybe you're right. I just wish we had cites for it, is all. Tooironic 23:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Kept. —msh210℠ 17:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:organizational breakdown structure


text:
adhérence

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) adhesion
 * 2) adherence
 * 1) adherence

title: adhérence


text:
Talk:tous les deux

Request for deletion
Sum of parts. Basically "all two them", you can replace deux with any number, clearly smaller numbers are going to be more common, but it's not idiomatic or a set phrase. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Weak keep. I think it's sum of parts for a French speaker, but for an English speaker it's not so obvious, since English and  are mutually exclusive, and French  nearly always means the former. (And note that neither *“all two” nor *“both two” works in English, the former being contradictory and the latter redundant. This locution only works in a language that uses a single word for both senses.) For that matter, even French-internally, I vaguely feel that “Jean et Jacques sont tous (les deux) venus” sounds better with the “les deux”, whereas “Jean, Jacques et James sont tous (les trois) venus” sounds better without the “les trois”. I could well be wrong about that — it could well be just my anglophony leaking through and affecting my judgment — but if I'm right about it, then it suggests that even in French, bare  implies three-or-more. (Any native French speakers, or at least, better speakers than I, care to comment on that?) —Ruakh TALK 01:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We say "Jean et Jacques sont venus tous les deux”, never "Jean et Jacques sont tous venus”. For more than 2: both “Jean, Jacques et James sont venus tous les trois” and “Jean, Jacques et James sont tous venus” are possible. Lmaltier 17:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! In that case, strong keep. —Ruakh TALK 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reason, suggesting to do the same for other languages. I think it's also worth considering keeping words that are sum of parts in English but are not so in many other languages like it was the case with roof tile. That way, our dictionary will work better in both directions as an English-FL and as a FL-English. --Anatoli 02:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm leaning to delete, as long as we deal with this properly at tous (which is what English speakers who don't understand the construction are likely to look up). < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 15:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per Widsith. — msh210 ℠ 15:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Idiomatic, common, keep. —Stephen 18:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 * not so sure. If we keep it, a note at tous would be needed. Note that one can also sasy "tous nous deux", "tous vous deux", "tous leurs trois" etc. --Rising Sun talk? 12:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no, you cannot say "tous nous deux", "tous vous deux", "tous leurs trois" etc. Lmaltier 18:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? I didn't know that. I've been saying it wrong then all these years! How would one say "us two", "us four", "you five", "them six" in French? Just nous deux, nous quatre, vous cinq, eux six? And how about "all of us four" - this would be tous nous quatre, right? --Rising Sun talk? 16:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, nous deux, nous quatre, vous cinq, eux six are OK. But you cannot say tous nous quatre, just say tous les quatre. Lmaltier 17:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Kept due to no consensus. —msh210℠ 17:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:tous les deux


text: adhérences

title: adhérences


text:
hypercholesterolemic

Adjective

 * 1)  Of, pertaining to, or having hypercholesterolemia.

Noun

 * 1) A person who has hypercholesterolemia.

title: hypercholesterolemic


text:
hypocholesterolemic

Adjective

 * 1)  Of, pertaining to, or having hypocholesterolemia

Noun

 * 1)  Any drug that lowers the amount of cholesterol in the blood

title: hypocholesterolemic


text: adhérentes

title: adhérentes


text: adhérente

title: adhérente


text:
hyperinsulinaemic

Adjective

 * 1)  Of, pertaining to, or having hyperinsulinaemia

title: hyperinsulinaemic


text: entworfen

title: entworfen


text:
hyperinsulinaemia

Noun

 * 1)  The presence of an unusually high level of insulin in the bloodstream

title: hyperinsulinaemia


text: admiratrice

title: admiratrice


text:
inburgeren

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to integrate into a (foreign) society
 * 2)  to become an accepted part of culture or language

title: inburgeren


text: admiratrices

title: admiratrices


text: burgeren in

title: burgeren in


text: inburgerde

title: inburgerde


text: inburger

title: inburger


text: inburgerden

title: inburgerden


text: inburgere

title: inburgere


text: ingeburgerd

title: ingeburgerd


text: burgert in

title: burgert in


text: burger in

title: burger in


text: inburgert

title: inburgert


text: burgerde in

title: burgerde in


text: inburgerend

title: inburgerend


text: burgerden in

title: burgerden in


text: burgere in

title: burgere in


text:
admiratif

Etymology
..

Adjective

 * 1) admiring; impressed

title: admiratif


text:
mjod

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) honey

title: mjod


text:
Talk:old

Request for deletion
Rfd-redundant "Of a living being, having lived for relatively many years" redundant to "Of an object, concept, relationship, etc., having existed for a relatively long period of time". Or am I missing something? — msh210 ℠ 18:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of languages have different translations for these two senses, that might be why they are split. Polarpanda 20:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not a consideration under WT:CFI. Having senses that are redundant in English will be one of the many ways in which polylingual considerations will prevent en.wikt from being a successful monolingual English dictionary and will leave it without enough contributors to bring "Century 1912(?)" and "Webster 1913" English definitions up to date.
 * Delete. DCDuring TALK 23:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete by all means, but remember to merge the translation tables. --Hekaheka 07:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I do think it's worth keeping them separate – not just because of the translations, although that is one clue that these are slightly different concepts. To say that a person is old is not quite the same as saying that the idea of freedom is old, and although "advanced in years" and "long practised or experienced" can both be reduced to "having existed for a relatively long time", it's not necessarily useful to do that. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 12:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes, there is a difference. The first applies to people and things with a sell-by date, and the second is for things that simply cannot be called new, but do not necessarily have a life expectancy -- A LGRIF  talk 14:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite per Algrif. — msh210 ℠ 17:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * So, thinking about it, how about something like Nearing the end of it's expected life time for the first? It needs to cover "old bread" as much as "old person". -- A LGRIF  talk 18:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The senses can be refined even further. Check other dictionaries including modern ones such as Merriam-Webster online and Encarta to see how many useful nuances of meaning can be found. --Dan Polansky 10:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done some work on the entry. Please check and, if in agreement, remove the RfD-sense. Cheers. -- A LGRIF  talk 16:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Very nice. Thanks. Detagging and striking. —msh210℠ 16:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion: November 2012–August 2017
In the sense "having existed or lived for the specified time", the translation format is absolutely awful. Aside from the highly invalid red links, the amount of information and how it's presented makes it hard to read. I know it's a bit of a toughie to translate, but surely we can do better than this. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a separate sense from the main sense. How is "three years old" different from "three feet tall" or "three gallons full"? --WikiTiki89 10:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

 * The format is nonstandard, yes, but works pretty well for the languages I know, at least. I'll leave the RFC tag for now. --WF on Holiday (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Emphasis use
Hi, I'm a French speaker and not completely fluent in English, but I think we could add one meaning for this word. It's used - in colloquial and casual speach - to give emphasis to an expression, as in : "anywhere" - - > "any old where" Here's the link to a wordreference forum thread that deals with it : https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/any-old-where.1691835/ And also the excerpt from the book I found it in in the first place : "I was getting a meaning for that lizard thing, but you talked to me, Farder Coram, and I lost it. See, it's just floating any old where." (Northern Lights, Philip Pullman, 1995, p. 153 Scholastic edition) Perhaps a native speaker could come up with a proper definition? Anne.Maias (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Possible missing sense
Chambers 1908 has an adjective sense "sober, wise". Equinox ◑ 10:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:old


text:
insulinotropic

Adjective

 * 1) That stimulates the production, release and/or activity of insulin

Related terms

 * insulinotropism

title: insulinotropic


text:
Talk:acres of column inches

Request for deletion

 * Moved from WT:RFV

Is this sum of parts, or wrong, or what? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's real - quite a few hits for the phrase on Google books search. It doesn't seem like sum of parts to me as the term acres: is being used figuratively for lots:. SemperBlotto 10:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes, acres of = lots of. Should probably be at RFD then, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or move to RfD. I don't see how "acres of" is any more idiomatic than "gobs of". I suppose one could argue that the collocations that result from any adjective/preposition or noun/preposition combination could be entries. That would seem to be a revolutionary approach to grammar, far beyond what has gained consensus among grammarians. It would certainly distinguish en.wikt from other dictionaries. We also wouldn't have to worry about invidious quality comparisons with other dictionaries for such entries. DCDuring TALK 12:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * at RFD now
 * Delete. We have this sense of acre already, by the way. Column inch we don't have, but that's as it should be IMO. We also lack square foot inch, kilowatt hour, and others, and should lack kilowatt-hour, watt-hour, and others. (A list is (currently) at [[User:Msh210/sums of parts]].) — msh210 ℠ 17:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, the number of X of collocations is a lot, and I think they're better listed under acres, tons than acres of and tons of. Also masses of, loads of, bags of, tonnes of. There's perhaps an argument for an appendix to list the attestable ones, what part of speech is this? Quantifiers? I dunno. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just "acres" (noun, "lots of") + "column" (adjectival use, "in a column") + "inch" (noun, "a unit of length" [here, width]). In general, I think Wiktionary should limit itself to the minimum necessary to clearly understand English text/speech, not try to cover combinations that can be understood individually (sum of parts). Facts707 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not column (adjectival use, "in a column") + inch. That would imply that it's in one column: but if you have something three inches long spanning two columns, it's said to take up six column inches. Column inch is, rather, a phrase formed by multiplying units, like kilowatt hour. If you want to break it up, I suppose it's column (attributive (or adjectival) use, "multiplied by the unit of measure called column") + inch (unit of measure). See my comments above. (Going now to check whether we have a "unit of measure" sense of column....) — msh210 ℠ 17:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think column as an adjective here implies "in one column". For example, if we say 8 board feet, we are not saying whether it is all in one long board 8 feet long (x 1 foot wide x 1 inch thick) or two or more boards (eg. 6 feet long and 2 feet long), and perhaps we don't know, we don't care, it's not relevant, or we'll get to that later. Having said that, I realize we need to define the term column inch, since it clearly means a newspaper or magazine (or website) column, and that meaning cannot be determined from its two component parts. Incidentally, I should have said "height", not "width" in my first post above. Cheers, Facts707 22:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I added column inch (can't be determined as sum of parts). I think it's safe to delete acres of column inches now. Facts707 11:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Argh, my point (one of them) was that column inch is SoP. (Sigh.) — msh210 ℠ 16:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Technically it is, but only if we know the context. I like the conciseness of the OED's definition: “one inch of a newspaper column.” —Michael Z. 2010-03-08 23:38 z

 * By the way, Msh210, you were right that "column" in "column inch" is not just adjectival, there is the implied meaning of "newspaper" (or magazine, etc.) column. Also, OED doesn't mention magazines or web pages... Facts707 08:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. —msh210℠ 17:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:acres of column inches


text: admiratifs

title: admiratifs


text: admiratives

title: admiratives


text: intraperitonial

title: intraperitonial


text:
Talk:fighting game

Request for deletion
Tagged (about three minutes ago by an IP) but not listed. I favour a delete, but adventure game which I nominated passed last year. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say keep. Fighting games are a specific genre, and there are lots of video games (almost all video games, in fact) that contain fighting or are even based around fighting, but are not fighting games. --Yair rand 22:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - game involving fighting. If kept, obviously needs trimming, removing the encyclopediac "Characters fight until their HP is depleted or the round timer expires. Typically 2 out of 3 wins advances to the next round." --Rising Sun talk? contributions 22:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that if you called anything in the Metroid, Halo, Super Mario, Mega Man, Kirby, Pokemon, Sonic, Star Fox, Advance Wars, Legend of Zelda, or Fire Emblem series (all of which are games entirely based on fighting) a fighting game, you'd be completely wrong. --Yair rand 23:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The only games I know on your list - Super Mario, Zelda, and Sonic - are far from entirely based on fighting, but a variety of running about, jumping on boxes, squashing stuff, catching magical stuff, trying no to jump into bad stuff, and a little bit of fighting. What's your point YR?--Rising Sun talk? contributions 23:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, those weren't the best examples, (actually most were very bad examples, but those are the first that came to mind when thinking of games with fighting that aren't fighting games) but the point is that a fighting game is not just a game based on fighting and there are lots of games that are based on fighting but aren't fighting games. --Yair rand 23:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks for clearing that one up, YR . --Rising Sun talk? contributions 23:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - as a gamer, I can you tell you this a discrete genre, not just a game with fighting in it. That HP depletion you speak of is an essential part of any game in the fighting game genre. You can still have fighting in a video game which is not labelled a fighting game, e.g., in beat 'em ups or first-person shooters. It's the same as rhythm and blues and gospel music, which is not just blues with rhythm or music with gospel in it. ---> Tooironic 23:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for this sort of reason (and compare Talk:adventure_game). Equinox ◑ 09:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep this, there's certainly enough 'reasonable doubt'

Kept; striking. Ultimateria. —msh210℠ 16:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:fighting game


text:
Talk:DOS操作系统

Request for deletion
Easy sum of parts. DOS + operating + system. Delete. ---> Tooironic 22:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 21:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, delete this...thing, and the other three similar entries listed below here. 50 Xylophone Players talk 16:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted. ---> Tooironic 22:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:DOS操作系统


text:
Talk:CD-ROM扩展结构

Request for deletion
Obvious sum of parts. CD-ROM + extended + architecture. Delete. ---> Tooironic 22:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 21:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted. ---> Tooironic 22:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Central archive of RFD/RFV/RFC discussion of this and related terms
Please see Talk:Ampere定律. — Beobach 02:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:CD-ROM扩展结构


text:
Talk:CD-i数字图像

Request for deletion
Sum of parts. CD-i + digital + image. Delete. ---> Tooironic 22:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 21:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted. ---> Tooironic 22:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Central archive of RFD/RFV/RFC discussion of this and related terms
Please see Talk:Ampere定律. — Beobach 02:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:CD-i数字图像


text:
Talk:CD-i数字音频

Request for deletion
Again, sum of parts. CD-i + digital + audio. Delete. ---> Tooironic 22:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 21:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted. ---> Tooironic 22:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Central archive of RFD/RFV/RFC discussion of this and related terms
Please see Talk:Ampere定律. — Beobach 02:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:CD-i数字音频


text:
Talk:Movember

Request for deletion
"A charity event held during November each year where men grow moustaches  to raise funds and awareness for men's health issues." Who requested this, anyway? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 * This should go in RfV. In Australia this is a common event. It is indeed a word, but I'm not sure if Wiktionary's inclusion criteria allows for event names/neologisms. There are plenty of hits on Google Books but bizarrely many of them seem to be typos of November. ---> Tooironic 22:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Perhaps comparable to Red Nose Day:, also a charity event. Equinox ◑ 18:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Count New Zealand in too. It's an unmissable event in NZ. However, I think this should be a wikipedia entry, not wiktionary. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's already a wikipedia entry. But "all words in all languages" should apply still. Keep.--Dmol 11:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Kept. —msh210℠ 16:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Movember


text:
Talk:redd up

Request for deletion
Tagged by an IP but not listed. I have no opinion. Also, article is unformatted. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Keep. From : Ready, to, in the sense of setting to rights, is an old English term surviving in our speech. Grose quotes: "Ready, to ready the hair, to comb it," and speaks of a " Readying comb, a widetoothed comb." The word is often heard in America, but more generally assumes the equally old form, to redd, of which Grose says: " Redd, to untangle or separate. South." •' To redd up a room " is a marked provincialism in Pennsylvania, from whence it has passed into Ohio. It originated with the Scotch immigrants, who settled those districts, and brought the word with them from the borders.... DCDuring TALK 00:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The entry for redd seems to have a redundant etymology/PoS/sense, but supports, yea repeats, this sense. DCDuring TALK 00:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I remember this from Jane Eyre: "There, sir, you are redd up and made decent. Now I'll leave you." Equinox ◑ 00:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking keep too. Since the nominator has never said why he/she nominated, we will never know. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Kept. Needs an inflection line, especially as it does (per Brontë via Equinox) not use -ed. —msh210℠ 16:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Chiefly Pennsylvania?
Weird to say this is a US usage and then have Jane Eyre as the only example. Thmazing (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:redd up


text:
Talk:CD-i光盘

CD-i播放机
These are all combinations of CD-i + a generic noun. Sum of parts. Strong delete. ---> Tooironic 23:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Deleted. ---> Tooironic 00:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Central archive of RFD/RFV/RFC discussion of this and related terms
Please see Talk:Ampere定律. — Beobach 02:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:CD-i光盘


text:
Talk:CD-i扇区

CD-i播放机
These are all combinations of CD-i + a generic noun. Sum of parts. Strong delete. ---> Tooironic 23:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Deleted. ---> Tooironic 00:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Central archive of RFD/RFV/RFC discussion of this and related terms
Please see Talk:Ampere定律. — Beobach 02:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:CD-i扇区


text:
Talk:CD-i播放器

CD-i播放机
These are all combinations of CD-i + a generic noun. Sum of parts. Strong delete. ---> Tooironic 23:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Deleted. ---> Tooironic 00:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Central archive of RFD/RFV/RFC discussion of this and related terms
Please see Talk:Ampere定律. — Beobach 02:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:CD-i播放器


text:
Talk:CD-i播放机

CD-i播放机
These are all combinations of CD-i + a generic noun. Sum of parts. Strong delete. ---> Tooironic 23:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Deleted. ---> Tooironic 00:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Central archive of RFD/RFV/RFC discussion of this and related terms
Please see Talk:Ampere定律. — Beobach 02:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:CD-i播放机


text:
uitpluizen

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to investigate, to explore, to get to the bottom of

title: uitpluizen


text: uitgeplozen

title: uitgeplozen


text: ploost uit

title: ploost uit


text: uitploze

title: uitploze


text: pluis uit

title: pluis uit


text:
isoquercitrin

Noun

 * 1)  A flavonoid glycoside, isolated from mangoes or from the giant rhubarb, that has anti-inflammatory activity

title: isoquercitrin


text: pluist uit

title: pluist uit


text: pluizen uit

title: pluizen uit


text: plozen uit

title: plozen uit


text: uitpluist

title: uitpluist


text: uitplozen

title: uitplozen


text: pluize uit

title: pluize uit


text: ploos uit

title: ploos uit


text: uitpluis

title: uitpluis


text: uitploost

title: uitploost


text: ploze uit

title: ploze uit


text: uitpluize

title: uitpluize


text: uitpluizend

title: uitpluizend


text: uitploos

title: uitploos


text: uitgepluisd

title: uitgepluisd


text: uitpluisden

title: uitpluisden


text: uitpluisde

title: uitpluisde


text: pluisden uit

title: pluisden uit


text: pluisde uit

title: pluisde uit


text:
brigadni general

Noun

 * 1) brigadier general

title: brigadni general


text:
agneler

Etymology
, from, from.

Verb

 * 1)  to lamb, to yean

title: agneler


text:
User talk:ColoradoBob

1) New threads go at the bottom of talk pages - use the + tab. 2) It does not seem to be a neologism yet - more a protologism. However, see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion, and if you can make it satisfy those criteria it can be added. SemperBlotto 21:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
I just received this User talk page and am eager to begin work on a word that may be accepted, not sure yet. The word is Republan. If you Google it you will see some of its uses and history. Neo or proto is the question. Funny though protologism though an active link is not even in Wiktionary! Maybe I'll work on that one too.

title: User talk:ColoradoBob


text: citronen

title: citronen


text: citroner

title: citroner


text:
juxtaglomerular

Adjective

 * 1)  Near, or adjoining a renal glomerulus.

title: juxtaglomerular


text: citronerne

title: citronerne


text: citronens

title: citronens


text: citroners

title: citroners


text:
aimanter

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to magnetize cause to be magnetic

title: aimanter


text: citronernes

title: citronernes


text: aimanté

title: aimanté


text: aimantée

title: aimantée


text:
kaempferol

Etymology
From. .

Noun

 * 1)  A flavonoid, isolated from tea and other plants, that may reduce the risk of heart disease

title: kaempferol


text: aimantées

title: aimantées


text: aimantés

title: aimantés


text:
alexie

Etymology
From ; see 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) alexia

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) alexia

title: alexie


text:
viperă

Etymology
. Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) viper

title: viperă


text:
Ajaccien

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) resident or native of Ajaccio, Corsica

title: Ajaccien


text:
Ajacéen

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) resident or native of Ajaccio, Corsica

title: Ajacéen


text: Ajacciens

title: Ajacciens


text: Ajaccienne

title: Ajaccienne


text: Ajacciennes

title: Ajacciennes


text: Ajacéens

title: Ajacéens


text: Ajacéenne

title: Ajacéenne


text: Ajacéennes

title: Ajacéennes


text:
ajacéen

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  of Ajaccio, Corsica

title: ajacéen


text:
ajaccien

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  of Ajaccio, Corsica

title: ajaccien


text: ajacéenne

title: ajacéenne


text: ajacéens

title: ajacéens


text: ajaccienne

title: ajaccienne


text: ajacciens

title: ajacciens


text: ajacéennes

title: ajacéennes


text: ajacciennes

title: ajacciennes


text:
mișel

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) cowardly, sneaking
 * 2) knavish, dastardly, rascally

Noun

 * 1) rascal, scoundrel, knave, villain

title: mișel


text:
misellus

Etymology
From.

title: misellus


text:
ihjäl

Etymology
From Late, from Early , from (see , from ), cognate with 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Adverb

 * 1) to death

title: ihjäl


text:
hinterlassen

Verb

 * 1)  to leave behind (after leaving a location)
 * 2) to bequeath
 * 1) to bequeath
 * 1) to bequeath

title: hinterlassen


text:
Talk:apple tart

Request for deletion
Sum of parts. You can put anything in a tart and it become X tart. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  fart --Rising Sun talk? contributions 13:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with rhyming slang is verification. This one may or may not be as per the entry. I always thought that this was horse and cart or raspberry tart (hence the derived meaning of raspberry) But I suppose any kind of tart would do. Propose this should be moved to RFV. -- A LGRIF  talk 14:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support moving to RFV. If the idiomatic meaning passes, replace our current definition with Mglovesfun (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Kept and sent to RFV with a note that the literal sense should be deleted if the other is. —msh210℠ 16:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion
Rfv-sense: "fart". (RFDed, but consensus was to keep and send here.) If this sense is deleted, the consensus at WT:RFD was to delete the other sense, "a form of dessert tart flavored with apple". —msh210℠ 16:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 * RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 11:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:apple tart


text:
Talk:Arms

Request for deletion
"Used as part of the name of a public house or hotel". This just seems like arm: capitalized when part of a proper noun, which you can do to any word (not just nouns). A bit like Winter Olympics, that doesn't seem to justify an addition English entry for Winter:. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or including Lion because Red Lion is a popular pub name. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 13:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or [[England]] National]] Football]] Team]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, delete. See also User:Msh210/Sandbox. —msh210℠ 18:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I believe it's (heraldic) arms (etym. 2, n., 2), “coat of arms”. I guess that the hotel's name describes the sign hung in front. Delete. —Michael Z. 2010-03-29 04:43 z

English section deleted. —msh210℠ 16:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Arms


text:
Talk:BASIC语言

Request for deletion
Obvious sum of parts. This is not a fixed expression. Can also be expressed as BASIC程式語言 or 培基語言. Strong delete. ---> Tooironic 05:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BASIC + yǔyán:. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete SoP--达伟 00:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Deleted. ---> Tooironic 00:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Central archive of RFD/RFV/RFC discussion of this and related terms
Please see Talk:Ampere定律. — Beobach 02:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:BASIC语言


text:
Talk:B超检查

Request for deletion
Sum of parts - literally - diagnosis of an ultrasound. Delete. ---> Tooironic 05:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you add the individual components, such as chāojiǎnchá? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The components are B超 and 检查. Polarpanda 13:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * strong delete Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Deleted. ---> Tooironic 00:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:B超检查


text:
Talk:A/D转换器

Request for deletion
Sum of parts. Literally, A/D convertor. Strong delete. ---> Tooironic 06:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, but add zhuǎnhuànqì which we lack. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Added with -qì. 91.104.23.129 14:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Deleted. ---> Tooironic 00:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Central archive of RFD/RFV/RFC discussion of this and related terms
Please see Talk:Ampere定律. — Beobach 02:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:A/D转换器


text:
Talk:attack ad

attack site
Sum of parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Keep Not all "ads" that contain an "attack" are properly termed "attack ads". The term is limited (at least in the US) to public policy/political ads, AFAICT. I expect that the "blog" and "site" terms are similar. DCDuring TALK 13:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment. While most uses of the term "attack ad" do seem to refer to political attack ads, it is definitely not restricted to that. Check out and  for some examples of non-political uses; and conversely, check out  for evidence that at least some speakers don't find "attack ad" alone unambiguous. —Ruakh TALK 00:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I sit corrected. DCDuring TALK 01:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ruakh. Thanks for the research. —msh210℠ 16:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

All deleted. —msh210℠ 16:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:attack ad


text:
Talk:attack blog

attack site
Sum of parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Keep Not all "ads" that contain an "attack" are properly termed "attack ads". The term is limited (at least in the US) to public policy/political ads, AFAICT. I expect that the "blog" and "site" terms are similar. DCDuring TALK 13:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment. While most uses of the term "attack ad" do seem to refer to political attack ads, it is definitely not restricted to that. Check out and  for some examples of non-political uses; and conversely, check out  for evidence that at least some speakers don't find "attack ad" alone unambiguous. —Ruakh TALK 00:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I sit corrected. DCDuring TALK 01:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ruakh. Thanks for the research. —msh210℠ 16:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

All deleted. —msh210℠ 16:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:attack blog


text:
Talk:attack site

attack site
Sum of parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Keep Not all "ads" that contain an "attack" are properly termed "attack ads". The term is limited (at least in the US) to public policy/political ads, AFAICT. I expect that the "blog" and "site" terms are similar. DCDuring TALK 13:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment. While most uses of the term "attack ad" do seem to refer to political attack ads, it is definitely not restricted to that. Check out and  for some examples of non-political uses; and conversely, check out  for evidence that at least some speakers don't find "attack ad" alone unambiguous. —Ruakh TALK 00:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I sit corrected. DCDuring TALK 01:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ruakh. Thanks for the research. —msh210℠ 16:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

All deleted. —msh210℠ 16:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:attack site


text:
Talk:transitive verb with animate object

Request for deletion
Can't wait to here how this one's supposed to be "idiomatic". --Yair rand 07:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. DCDuring TALK 10:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I might have just deleted on sight. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Move to [[transitive animate]]. —Ruakh TALK 17:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * [[transitive animate]] is idiomatic? --Yair rand 19:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes. You don't think so? I could never have guessed its meaning from its parts; could you have? —Ruakh TALK 20:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether it's SoP. There's a decent chance we're missing the sense from animate. --Yair rand 20:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 * What sense could have that would make  SOP? “ Taking an animate direct object”? Except then, wouldn't we say “animate transitive verb”? I think our sense-4 of  is exactly the relevant one (though IMHO we should split it into two senses, one for words/phrases that have referents and one for words/phrases that merely agree with words/phrases that have referents), but it's still not enough to make it clear what  means. Or, for that matter, what  means. —Ruakh TALK 21:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose the thing is, we don't normally move a page to an unrelated page name. If it's bad caps or a missing apostrophe, sure. If I moved i.e. to id est that would seem like a really sneaky move to me. Just start a page for intransitive animate: and delete this. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually sounds like we need the noun . Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. —msh210℠ 16:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


text:
Talk:f*der

Request for deletion
We're certainly not short on things in Portuguese (or any language) that actually need doing. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 03:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How is this any different than f**k? Nadando 03:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 * If it were up to me, we wouldn't have that either. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm struggling to find a reason to delete it. If you see you're unlikely to know what it means, so that's a reason to look it up. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Do you often read Portuguese? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 * No, do you? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Keep, it it can be cited to meet WT:CFI. I've found that in some older English texts, items like this sometimes appear that leave me initially baffled when I read them.  If you came across "br—h" (which I can cite), would you have the slightest clue what it meant?  Ideas about what words are obscene change over time, and so do the euphemistic forms.  --EncycloPetey 04:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as with f**k and per EP. What's br—h, by the way, EP? (Guess: breech.) —msh210℠ 23:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. You can see the quote in question on the entry for . --EncycloPetey 23:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Kept. —msh210℠ 16:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:f*der


text:
Talk:animate

Noun
Per a recently closed deletion debate, is there a noun an animate? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:animate


text:
Talk:United States of North America

Request for deletion
Preposterous. Encyclopedic material about a notional entity including US and Canada? DCDuring TALK 15:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, obsolete name for a country, it already has two citations (including one from John Adams). We have a entry for Persia which also isn't called Persia anymore. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of collocations are attestable. This is RfD. It is a consequence of including encyclopedic material that we will have such tripe.

Delete Sum-of-parts phrase or an obsolete proper name? Neither meets our CFI. —Michael Z. 2010-04-01 22:51 z

 * Keep if citable. --Dan Polansky 10:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark as historical.

Kept. —msh210℠ 16:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:United States of North America


text:
Talk:alt werden

Request for deletion
sum of parts -- Prince Kassad 10:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, early Tbot entry and a bad one. Someone should nominate the Italian entry it:alt werden as well, but i don't know the Italian templates. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly SoP--达伟 17:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Keep. IMO, we could keep some common words that translate from one into another languages with a different number of words. If the entry age (v) is translated as alt werden, then there should be an entry for the reverse translation. Russian: стареть, состариться, English: to age, German: no entry exists? Perhaps, the German sum of parts translation is too obvious and easy to figure out but not every user is "smart" to know this. The Japanese 年を取る is also sum of parts but more idiomatic from a Western language speaker's point of view. My point is, the entry is helpful to a German learner.--Anatoli 02:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is altern which translates precisely to the verb "to age". -- Prince Kassad 10:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, thanks, Prince Kassad, I forgot about that one. I guess, I'll change my vote to delete. --Anatoli 10:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

 * deleted --Volants 12:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:alt werden


text:
Talk:älter werden

Request for deletion
sum of parts -- Prince Kassad 19:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete SoP--达伟 07:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, another bad tbot entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 * deleted --Volants 12:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:älter werden


text:
Talk:monkies

Request for deletion
Purportedly a "common" misspelling of monkeys. It has about 1-2% of the frequency of "monkeys" on the Web and less than 1% at Google Books. DCDuring TALK 00:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that "less than 1%" amounts to several hundred uses, at least. Are you questioning its existence, or merely its "common"-ness? bd2412 T 03:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If we count web hits and schoolchildren mistakes, the number is in the millions or more. The question is what we choose to include. We have no explicit criteria. I pose this case as yet another instance to help start a consensus on what explicit quantitative criteria we should use. Qualitatively, it is a plausible phonetically based spelling that nonetheless violates a general rule about plural formation. It is relatively uncommon, but much more common than many attested terms.
 * The singular {{{term|monkie}} does not appear commonly in bgc even before 1700 (2%), but monkies: is somewhat more common (15%), suggesting that the "rule" for pluralization of terms ending in "-ey" was not well established. To call it an archaically common misspelling of monkey: might be right, but would certainly be confusing. Perhaps we could say that it is an archaic alternative plural of monkey: or an archaic alternative spelling of monkeys:. DCDuring TALK 11:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

 * The OED lists both spellings without comment, implying that it's fairly valid. Shakespeare always seems to spell it this way, and they include citations right up to 1977. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 11:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I think any Shakespeare work is a well-known one, if this can be cited, it should be kept. However, that's for the archaic spelling, not the misspelling. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

 * The 1977 citation is quoting a 1756 document; the most recent original quotation is from 1928. monkie is an alternate spelling dated “pre-17 17[00s]”. It looks like monkies was much more common up to the 1800s, and I suspect that a large proportion of the “misspellings” are from old books. —Michael Z. 2010-04-04 22:48 z

 * Oops, slight correction: “15–17 [...]; Sc.(ottish) pre-17 17”. —Michael Z. 2010-04-05 20:10 z

 * In accordance with this apparent consensus, I am striking the RfD and altering the entry to be an archaic alternative spelling. DCDuring TALK 23:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:monkies


text:
Beileid

Noun

 * 1) condolence, sympathy (especially over death)

title: Beileid


text:
Talk:domestic animal

Request for deletion
Alternative form of domesticated animal... which just got deleted. Surely this is not an "English idiom". Mglovesfun (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Deleted. —msh210℠ 16:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, delete. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 07:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:domestic animal


text:
Talk:-sky

-skij
“a Romanization of Russian adjectival suffix -ский.”—This is not English. Any Russian text can be transliterated, but we don't call it English unless it is attested and used as such. —Michael Z. 2010-04-06 19:40 z

 * Keep. The common suffix -sky of many American surnames descending from various Slavic peoples has several alternative spellings that are frequently encountered, such as -ski. The spelling -skij is the rarest alternative, but it is still found. Likewise, a Romanization of Russian adjectival suffix -ский is how Russian names are represented in English texts and documents. Путин is Russian, but its Romanization Putin is English. —Stephen 05:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Stephen, parts of transliterated Slavic names are not English: they are not used to form words in English, they don't have their Slavic meaning in English, they don't enter English as components, only as organic parts of whole names. If we apply this logic then we should create a duplicate, transliterated etymology of the components of every Slavic name. Even though a name Kovalsky were transliterated and used in English, we shouldn't add entries for its Slavic components: koval – “romanization of Slavic коваль, ‘smith’ ”; -sky – “romanization of Slavic -ский or -ський, ‘adjectival suffix.’ ” —Michael Z. 2010-04-07 15:45 z

 * AFAICT definition one is actually the etymology for definition two, so move that to the etymology (ergo, delete). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. —msh210℠ 15:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:-sky


text:
Talk:-skii

-skij
“a Romanization of Russian adjectival suffix -ский.”—This is not English. Any Russian text can be transliterated, but we don't call it English unless it is attested and used as such. —Michael Z. 2010-04-06 19:40 z

 * Keep. The common suffix -sky of many American surnames descending from various Slavic peoples has several alternative spellings that are frequently encountered, such as -ski. The spelling -skij is the rarest alternative, but it is still found. Likewise, a Romanization of Russian adjectival suffix -ский is how Russian names are represented in English texts and documents. Путин is Russian, but its Romanization Putin is English. —Stephen 05:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Stephen, parts of transliterated Slavic names are not English: they are not used to form words in English, they don't have their Slavic meaning in English, they don't enter English as components, only as organic parts of whole names. If we apply this logic then we should create a duplicate, transliterated etymology of the components of every Slavic name. Even though a name Kovalsky were transliterated and used in English, we shouldn't add entries for its Slavic components: koval – “romanization of Slavic коваль, ‘smith’ ”; -sky – “romanization of Slavic -ский or -ський, ‘adjectival suffix.’ ” —Michael Z. 2010-04-07 15:45 z

 * AFAICT definition one is actually the etymology for definition two, so move that to the etymology (ergo, delete). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. —msh210℠ 15:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:-skii


text:
Talk:-skij

-skij
“a Romanization of Russian adjectival suffix -ский.”—This is not English. Any Russian text can be transliterated, but we don't call it English unless it is attested and used as such. —Michael Z. 2010-04-06 19:40 z

 * Keep. The common suffix -sky of many American surnames descending from various Slavic peoples has several alternative spellings that are frequently encountered, such as -ski. The spelling -skij is the rarest alternative, but it is still found. Likewise, a Romanization of Russian adjectival suffix -ский is how Russian names are represented in English texts and documents. Путин is Russian, but its Romanization Putin is English. —Stephen 05:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Stephen, parts of transliterated Slavic names are not English: they are not used to form words in English, they don't have their Slavic meaning in English, they don't enter English as components, only as organic parts of whole names. If we apply this logic then we should create a duplicate, transliterated etymology of the components of every Slavic name. Even though a name Kovalsky were transliterated and used in English, we shouldn't add entries for its Slavic components: koval – “romanization of Slavic коваль, ‘smith’ ”; -sky – “romanization of Slavic -ский or -ський, ‘adjectival suffix.’ ” —Michael Z. 2010-04-07 15:45 z

 * AFAICT definition one is actually the etymology for definition two, so move that to the etymology (ergo, delete). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. —msh210℠ 15:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:-skij


text:
User talk:98.203.113.24

beileid
But those aren't verbs, what does the verb mean? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

minimum format
Please note that all entries must identify the part of speech in a section header. Please see WT:CFI for format guidelines. --EncycloPetey 02:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

magistrate
When you add information, please do not delete other content, such as audio file links. Also, the primary stress in IPA is not an apostrophe, but a special character. --EncycloPetey 18:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:98.203.113.24


text:
ázsiai

Adjective

 * 1) Asian of or pertaining to Asia

Noun

 * 1) Asian person

title: ázsiai


text: Category:Alphabet appendices

title: Category:Alphabet appendices


text:
User talk:Deleet

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) 22:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Deleet


text: writing pads

title: writing pads


text:
Talk:Asteroids

Request for deletion
A specific video game. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete. —Michael Z. 2010-04-06 20:16 z
 * Oh oh.. let's start including the Assassin Creed and Baldur's Gate series!!! No.. delete Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 * And yet Tetris: passed. Equinox ◑ 19:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Feh. talk:Tetris shows one editor obsessed with encyclopedic importance of the game, a mystery man playing his cards close to his chest, a citer who doesn't know what attributive nouns are, and one who implies that WT:BRAND doesn't count if he doesn't recognize a brand. I'll relist it shortly. —Michael Z. 2010-04-07 22:10 z

 * Hm, perhaps this falls under WT:BRAND? --Yair rand 20:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WT:BRAND sounds right. I found this in google books: "I twirl back toward the rear wall, where there's the jukebox and some guy playing Asteroids. " Polarpanda 21:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, WT:BRAND applies. Asteroids is a trademark of Atari Inc. —Michael Z. 2010-04-07 22:10 z
 * WT:BRAND seems to talk about "a Mazda", "a Ford" (etc.). Pretty sure you can't say "some Asteroids", so it looks like a certain fail. Just delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean like "I went into the living room and got out the Atari to play some Asteroids"? Polarpanda 19:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough the rules on brand names seems very lax. But since this is a specific entry, I guess it needs attributive citations. Looks like a very high percentage of brand names would pass under this. Including every make of car ever. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "I watched some (any TV show). I drank some (any brand of drink)." We can't include things purely on that basis! Equinox ◑ 11:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. Mglovesfun was saying if you can't say that, it would be a certain fail. Polarpanda 19:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Kept and sent to RFV. —msh210℠ 15:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion
RFDed, but the consensus was to apply WT:BRAND, so I'm bringing it here hereby. —msh210℠ 15:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 17:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Asteroids


text:
Talk:variant spelling

variant spellings
Looks S o’ P variant (“showing deviation or disagreement”) + spelling. —Michael Z. 2010-04-07 00:55 z
 * Plus the content is garbage. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, though the content seems helpful. Perhaps turn it into an Appendix? ---> Tooironic 21:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. —msh210℠ 15:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:variant spelling


text:
Talk:variant spellings

variant spellings
Looks S o’ P variant (“showing deviation or disagreement”) + spelling. —Michael Z. 2010-04-07 00:55 z
 * Plus the content is garbage. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, though the content seems helpful. Perhaps turn it into an Appendix? ---> Tooironic 21:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. —msh210℠ 15:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:variant spellings


text:
Talk:shameless plug

Request for deletion
A plug that's shameless? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

 * keep. I think this would be citable as an interjection, shameless plug, it's certainly a set phrase. Conrad.Irwin 00:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * delete --Rising Sun talk? contributions 01:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unsure. This is a hard one. The definition is horribly inaccurate/inadequate, though obviously that's not the point. I'm not convinced it's a set phrase - looks more like a common collocation to me - though I could be wrong. I've been racking my brain trying to think of a replacement for "shameless" but it's not coming right now. As for whether it can be defined as an "interjection", I'm fairly certain there are certain admins here who would object to that. ---> Tooironic 06:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would interpret this as a "rubber object with no shame". It's pretty obvious which definitions of shameless and plug we're referring to. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's a noun, and it's the SoP (sum of its parts). Delete. Not perhaps strictly relevant, but Google Web search gives a first-page estimate of 151,000 hits for "blatant plug". —msh210℠ 22:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You've convinced me. Delete, then. ---> Tooironic 21:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. —msh210℠ 15:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:shameless plug


text:
Talk:cola shake

Request for deletion
Delete. Sum of Parts. If we include this we have to include lime shake, chocolate shake, Fanta shake, etc. ---> Tooironic 07:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Agree, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Agree, delete. Missing sense now added to .  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. —msh210℠ 15:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:cola shake


text:
Talk:Tetris-like

Request for deletion
Delete. Sum of Parts. Any noun can be suffixed with -like. We should only include real "-like" words such as cherrylike, glasslike, etc, which do not have to be hyphenated in the first place.

 * Agreed, delete. I'm going to go ahead and take all the SoP requests out of Wanted entries.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 * has been deleted --Volants 13:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

RFD discussion: January–March 2023
Undelete Tetris-like per WT:COALMINE: Tetris-like is much more common than the attested Tetrislike. This should not need a RFD but since an administrator deleted Tetris-like on 1 November 2022 with the rationale "Previously deleted/failed RFD or RFV", we need to use a formal process to undelete the entry. WT:COALMINE is rather controversial yet Votes/2019-08/Rescinding the "Coalmine" policy resulted in 3-21-3 fail for rescinding it and there is no newer data as far as I know. If someone wants to challenge COALMINE one more time via a vote, that is surely an option. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Undelete, although it now (since November) requires an admin to do it. It passes COALMINE, and the notion that you can't use a hyphen in entries with -like is completely barmy. DonnanZ (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Undelete per WT:COALMINE. J3133 (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Undelete per all above. Thanks, Facts707 (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Undelete. WT:COALMINE. Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Undelete per all above. Binarystep (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * RFD-undeleted. Binarystep (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Binarystep It has not actually been undeleted, though...? — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 23:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tetris-like


text:
Talk:good-natured

Request for deletion
The OED has both good-natured and ill-natured, a., but I'm unconvinced that they aren't SoP (being or  + natured, adj. ("Having a nature or disposition (of a specified kind)."). What do others think?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I'd hesitantly say keep because it's rather strongly idiomatic, and it only refers to people (or their behaviour). The nature of food could be good (I suppose?), but you'd never talk about good-natured food. Update: goodnatured: means it passes per WT:COALMINE, right? Equinox ◑ 20:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, it's a single word so keep. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 12:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Fairy snuff.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

 * keep then, COALMINE wins --Rising Sun talk? contributions 08:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:good-natured


text:
Talk:ἕν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

Request for deletion
Often attributed to Socrates, but Wiktionary is not Wikiquote or Wikisource. So it's sum of parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete per nom unless someone gives a good argument for keeping. —msh210℠ 22:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete While I sure hope el:wikiquote has it, we should not.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Agreed. I've mentioned it at wikiquote:Talk:Socrates.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. —msh210℠ 15:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:ἕν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα


text:
Talk:solar neon

Request for deletion
SOP. Any element could be added to solar in this way. Nadando 00:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Our definition reads "neon that was generated in the Sun and carried to Earth by the solar wind", which is arguably not SOP, but is wrong. Restricting the bgc search to books for which preview is available, the first twenty hits seem — as well as I can undertand them — to include at least four in which solar neon means either neon from the sun or neon in the sun, not specifically neon carried to Earth by solar wind. SOP: delete. —msh210℠ 15:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Msh. DCDuring TALK 20:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per msh210. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. —msh210℠ 15:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:solar neon


text:
Talk:reuse

Mutual "alternative spelling"
Re-use  is listed under Alternative spellings. However at re-use this word, reuse, is listed under Alternative spellings. Shouldn't only one of the words be listed as Alternative spellings?

--Mortense 22:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, done it. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Diff (at "re-use") --Mortense 10:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:reuse


text:
szerető

Adjective

 * 1) loving, affectionate, fond

Noun

 * 1) lover, mistress

title: szerető


text: kadına

title: kadına


text: kadında

title: kadında


text: kadından

title: kadından


text: kadının

title: kadının


text: Category:kw:Nuts

title: Category:kw:Nuts


text: kadınları

title: kadınları


text: kadınlara

title: kadınlara


text: kadınlarda

title: kadınlarda


text: kadınlardan

title: kadınlardan


text: kadınların

title: kadınların


text: szeretők

title: szeretők


text:
idóneo

Etymology
.

Etymology
. Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) suitable, fitting
 * 2) ideal
 * 1) ideal

title: idóneo


text:
тхэквондо

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) taekwondo

title: тхэквондо


text: idónea

title: idónea


text:
чучхе

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) Juche

title: чучхе


text: idóneos

title: idóneos


text: idóneas

title: idóneas


text: altísima

title: altísima


text: altísimos

title: altísimos


text: altísimas

title: altísimas


text: grandísima

title: grandísima


text: 发言

title: 发言


text: grandísimos

title: grandísimos


text: grandísimas

title: grandísimas


text:
發言

Verb

 * 1) to speak; to state one's opinion; to make a statement
 * 2) to make a speech; to address a group of people
 * 1) to make a speech; to address a group of people

Noun

 * 1) statement; utterance
 * 2) speech; address

title: 發言


text: hermosísima

title: hermosísima


text: hermosísimos

title: hermosísimos


text: hermosísimas

title: hermosísimas


text: yellow presses

title: yellow presses


text: 海关

title: 海关


text:
海關

Noun

 * 1) customs
 * 2) customhouse
 * 1) customhouse

title: 海關


text: malísima

title: malísima


text: malísimos

title: malísimos


text: malísimas

title: malísimas


text: Template:list:elementary particles/es

title: Template:list:elementary particles/es


text: paupérrima

title: paupérrima


text: paupérrimos

title: paupérrimos


text: loses count

title: loses count


text: paupérrimas

title: paupérrimas


text: losing count

title: losing count


text: Template:list:fermions/es

title: Template:list:fermions/es


text: 好听

title: 好听


text: lost count

title: lost count


text:
好聽

Adjective

 * 1) pleasant-sounding; nice to the ears; euphonious
 * 2) honorable; decent
 * 1) honorable; decent
 * 1) honorable; decent
 * 1) honorable; decent
 * 1) honorable; decent

Synonyms

title: 好聽


text:
User talk:216.165.26.205

damnit:
Lol...do you even know what politically incorrect means? It means offensive or unacceptable e.g. nigger: is considered to be politically incorrect. 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn was considered highly offensive at the time of the proliferation of literacy, and therefore the words "Damn it" were changed to "Dammit" so as to avoid using religious language, therefore making it acceptable. At the time, politically incorrect, offensive.
 * Sure, maybe it was, but doesn't mean it is. Besides the acceptability of it is noted at damn it:. 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:216.165.26.205


text: Template:list:quarks/es

title: Template:list:quarks/es


text: Category:Icelandic terms suffixed with -sla


text: Category:ga:Africa

title: Category:ga:Africa


text: Template:list:leptons/es

title: Template:list:leptons/es


text: Category:ga:Continents

title: Category:ga:Continents


text:
noaten

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  hogget, yearling

title: noaten


text: Template:list:bosons/es

title: Template:list:bosons/es


text:
克服

Verb

 * 1) to overcome; to conquer; to surmount
 * 2) to put up with
 * 1) to put up with
 * 1) to put up with

Synonyms

Noun

 * 1) conquest, overcoming

Verb

 * 1) to overcome

title: 克服


text:
példány

Noun

 * 1)  copy
 * 2) specimen
 * 3)  ideal, example

title: példány


text: példányok

title: példányok


text:
Talk:surmount

I think this might also mean "to mount" (e.g. a horse) but I'm not so sure... ---> Tooironic 23:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:surmount


text:
annotinus

Etymology
From, by analogy to.

Adjective

 * 1) of last year, of the preceding or previous year

title: annotinus


text:
relijyon

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) religion

title: relijyon


text:
edikasyon

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) education

title: edikasyon


text:
sosyete

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) society

Etymology
From, from in the 1890s.

Noun

 * 1) society
 * 2) high society; the upper classes

title: sosyete


text:
quark arriba

Noun

 * 1) up quark

title: quark arriba


text:
chosèt

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) sock

title: chosèt


text:
quark abajo

Noun

 * 1) down quark

title: quark abajo


text:
nucet

Etymology
, equivalent to. Compare Italian noceto, Spanish nocedal.

Noun

 * 1) walnut orchard or grove

title: nucet


text:
quark encantado

Noun

 * 1) charm quark

title: quark encantado


text:
quark extraño

Noun

 * 1) strange quark

title: quark extraño


text:
quark cima

Noun

 * 1) top quark

title: quark cima


text:
quark fondo

Noun

 * 1) bottom quark

title: quark fondo


text:
soulye

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) shoe

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) shoe

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) shoe

title: soulye


text:
celatone

Noun

 * 1)  A device invented by Galileo Galilei to observe Jupiter's moons with the purpose of finding longitude on Earth. It took the form of a piece of headgear with a telescope taking the place of an eyehole.

title: celatone


text: Category:ht:Clothing

title: Category:ht:Clothing


text: Category:ht:Anatomy

title: Category:ht:Anatomy


text:
τρίπους

Etymology
From grc. Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) measuring three feet
 * 2) walking on three feet
 * 3)  having three feet

Noun

 * 1) tripod, three-legged cauldron
 * 2) three legged table
 * 1) three legged table

title: τρίπους


text:
neutrino electrónico

Noun

 * 1) electron neutrino

title: neutrino electrónico


text:
neutrino muónico

Noun

 * 1) muon neutrino

title: neutrino muónico


text:
neutrino tauónico

Noun

 * 1) tauon neutrino

title: neutrino tauónico


text:
bosón de gauge

Noun

 * 1) gauge boson

title: bosón de gauge


text:
bosón W

Noun

 * 1) W-boson

title: bosón W


text:
bosón Z

Noun

 * 1) Z-boson

title: bosón Z


text:
bosón de Higgs

Noun

 * 1) Higgs boson

title: bosón de Higgs


text:
Wikinewsie

Noun

 * 1)  A reporter or user at.

title: Wikinewsie


text: Wikinewsies

title: Wikinewsies