text:
Talk:Stryker

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
Two senses. Suspect both would fail WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 22:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

All Stryker stretchers even the generic ones are called Strykers by medics, they are the full featured fancy ones basicallyLucifer 22:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And are you kidding me about the second sense? Do you not watch the news, Strykers are not really a brand, they're the current generation of armored war machine used in Iraq and Afghanistan, like abrams tank or osprey.Lucifer 22:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Maybe. But "someone on the Internet says that medics say it" is not verification. Three citations meeting CFI are needed. Equinox ◑ 22:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I think SemperBlotto did in fact find several, I had originally titled this stryker since it's how we tend to spell it but semper contested that as all the cites he found had it capitalized, we went through the same pattern with Ferno, the Stryker's cheaper cousin used in public health whereas the Stryker is expensive and used in private health.Lucifer 22:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 * You know they were really really easy to find, what did you put in the search box when you decided to nominate here? I was able to find dozens of citations for both senses.Lucifer 22:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying the word didn't exist. I was saying it needs to pass WT:BRAND. Please read that page. Equinox ◑ 23:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it really a brand name though? It's used for different products from unrelated companies, and with direct reference to the stretcher or vehicle and not the unrelated companies. Both have entered the lexicon anyways so they should pass. This is shown in novels or memoirs of the war the mention the vehicle and educational materials that mention the stretcher.Lucifer 23:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This term is verified 6 times over and I move for it to be stricken.Lucifer 08:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Possibly relevant: Citations:stryker. - -sche (discuss) 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Meh, kept. Raise this at RFD if you dispute that the citations meet BRAND. - -sche (discuss) 23:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Stryker


text:
Talk:pussygirl

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
Both of the given citations use quotation marks around the term. —  [Ric Laurent] — 01:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

 * What's wrong with that?Lucifer 09:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Got three without quotation marks now. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Not even going to bother trying to explain it to you, Troy. Thanks Martin. —  [Ric Laurent] — 11:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't believe this citations match the sense given. They are capitalised and appear to refer to a particular hostess in a brand of club, like Playboy Bunny. (Note the one that mentions Pussyman and his Pussygirls.) Equinox ◑ 12:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a LOT of Usenet hits. Admittedly, a lot of these would be deemed invalid (such as a user name, or part of a URL) but I think this could pass based on Usenet alone. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Passed. Thanks for citing it, Mg and Lucifer! :) - -sche (discuss) 04:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:pussygirl


text:
Talk:vacuo

RFV discussion: November 2011
Need citations for the Spanish entry. --Pilcrow 23:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)--Pilcrow 23:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

 * It’s a good Spanish word, though somewhat antiquated. What makes you question it? —Stephen (Talk) 13:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My friend from Venezuela says that they do not utilize this term. They use vacío instead. --Pilcrow 19:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

 * vacío and vacuo are synonyms, but vacío is the common term in modern use. Vacuo is a good Spanish word, but, as I said, it is an antiquated word and not often used in modern Spanish texts. But it is still a good Spanish word. In Google Spanish Books it gets over 59,000 hits. —Stephen (Talk) 21:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. Although I do not exactly know what ye mean by ‘good Spanish word’.--Pilcrow 03:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think 'valid'. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:vacuo


text:
Talk:podunk

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
Speedy deleted by SemperBlotto, deletion disputed by User:Purplebackpack89. The only cite given in the entry is for the capitalized form. --Yair rand 17:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is OK, then "Of or pertaining to being" needs to be removed from the definition (which them needs to be wikified). SemperBlotto 17:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You could've removed it yourself in the time it took to delete it (with a wholly inappropriate QD rationale, I might add) and then post the comment saying it should be deleted. And podunk is different than Podunk...the former is a common adjective, the latter a common adjective.  True, the former evolved from the latter; but they're different parts of speech.  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

 * The three necessary mentions have been added. Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The OED marks the word as US and colloquial. Should we do the same?  (I don't think it would be understood on this side of the pond.)  Is the derivation from the Podunk river, or from the Native American tribe?    D b f  i  r  s   20:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read it came from the Podunk region in rural Massachusetts, which in turn is named for one of the two things you mentioned. If you have access to the OED definition, would you be so kind as to add it under quoted?  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The OED has "Of or designating an obscure or insignificant town; out-of-the-way, small-town, provincial; insignificant" for the uncapitalised word. It also has some cites, but we already have some of our own.    D b f  i  r  s   22:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been cited now (not by me) and looks all right. Equinox ◑ 22:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is verified so keep it here.Lucifer 22:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Struck. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:podunk


text:
Talk:悲観主義

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
I doubt that 主義 is a suffix as it's listed here and in a couple of other entries. What does everyone else think? Haplology 16:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't speak for Japanese, but it is a suffix in Chinese. The word in Mandarin is 悲觀主義. ---> Tooironic 00:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we verifying the existence of this term? --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually the existence of 主義 as a suffix instead of just as a noun. Haplology 13:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya, shows up as a suffix for lots of things that are -isms in English, such as, , , , , , , , etc. etc.  I believe this suffix is still productive in linguistic terms, meaning you can coin new words with it, such as , which I just pulled out of a hat and which currently generates over 1,300 hits at "青空主義"+の, or  with 0 hits at "アイスクリーム食主義"+の but which is still wholly understandable by Japanese readers, albeit ridiculous.  (NB: replace "ice cream" with other foods to generate some Google hits, such as "果実食主義"+の ("fruit eating-ism", maybe "fruitarianism"?) or "菜食主義"+の for "vegetarianism".)  -- HTH, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. In the dictionaries I have with POS listed, it is listed only as a noun, but if it meets the definition of a suffix, then a suffix it must be.  Haplology 04:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Wiktionary editors might be being influenced by the fact that -ism: is a suffix in English. We've established above that it behaves like a suffix but I don't think we've proved your dictionaries wrong - not everything that quacks is a duck. Fugyoo 00:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oo, sorry if I gave the impression that I don't think is a noun -- I do agree with Hap's dictionaries (and my own) that list it as a noun.  I just wanted to point out that it's also a suffix.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

 * That's right, is also a suffix, even if it's derived from a noun. The term exists and the etymology is right. It's used in all CJKV languages (Korean:, only in Vietnamese (chủ nghĩa) it's a prefix, not suffix. --Anatoli 00:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, 主義 is definitely a suffix, as it is a translation of -ism. It has also become a noun just like ism, though. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Resolved...? As kept...? Strike headers and close discussions, or make some note like "right then, we're keeping this", when you remove tags, please! Thank you! - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:悲観主義


text:
Talk:billy

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
"(UK) shortened form of silly billy. Why did you eat my bacon, you billy?" Added by Top Cat 14, known for adding supposedly UK-specific terms that nobody has heard of. Equinox ◑ 21:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Well I've never heard it used here in the UK. (I suppose someone, somewhere, probably uses the shortened form as a family joke, but that wouldn't make it dictionary material.)   D b f  i  r  s   08:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Never heard of it. Delete. SemperBlotto 08:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 07:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March–April 2019
Rfv-sense "(slang) A billionaire." I added the slang tag. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 09:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:billy


text:
Talk:cuntbucket

RFV discussion: November 2011–February 2012
We lack the full complement of attestations for this form, ie, citations of cunt bucket don't count as attestation. DCDuring TALK 12:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They should.Lucifer 00:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No they shouldn't, or I could create a new entry app le and ap-ple and say they existed because of apple, when they clearly don't exist! Equinox ◑ 00:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See WT:COALMINE. DCDuring TALK 00:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Coalmine works only in one direction. It says that if a spelling with no space is attested, then it counts towards the version with a space. But it doesn't mean that anything that is attested with a space counts towards a form without it. —CodeCat 01:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cited via Usenet. Equinox ◑ 12:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

 * What is Usenet and how does that count as a citation?Lucifer 23:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They are on-line newsgroup e-mail postings that are deemed to be durably archived at multiple sites, in contrast to proprietary groups such as Yahoo and Google have. They are a subset of what is available at Google groups. It is a very good source for many types of current slang. DCDuring TALK 00:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, how do you access it?Lucifer 01:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Try here. DCDuring TALK 02:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Passed. Thanks, Equinox! - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:cuntbucket


text:
Talk:bled

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
As preceding. —msh210℠ (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

 * "Preceding", for the record (when this is archived), was "blud". - -sche (discuss) 03:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:bled


text:
Talk:crawk

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
Rfv-sense "A radio announcer who imitates animals". Seeing it in interesting-word books but no uses. But that's based on searching for. Other searches may turn something up. —msh210℠ (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Definitely wrong definition because "crawk +radio +announcer" has zero ghits. I can find some evidence for a definition of "animal imitator", but not sufficient to justify an entry.  Perhaps someone knows where the idea came from?    D b f  i  r  s   09:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:crawk


text:
Talk:verlegen

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
Rfv-sense: spoiled (food), deteriorated (from standing too long), stale. Tagged but not listed. As a note, I haven't ever heard of this sense either. -- Liliana • 20:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I found a mention of a verb verliegen in an old dictionary: http://www.kruenitz1.uni-trier.de/xxx/v/kv04108.htm —CodeCat 21:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Yeah, doesn't ring any bells with me, either. I've deleted it. - -sche (discuss) 03:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: July 2018–March 2019
Rfv-sense "coy" (Dutch). Not meaning "shy, timid", but the intended sense is unclear. Senses 2-5 of all seem unlikely though. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * RFV failed — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:verlegen


text:
αγκαθωτό σύρμα

Noun

 * 1) barbed wire, razor wire

title: αγκαθωτό σύρμα


text:
Talk:angiograph

RFV discussion: October 2011–March 2012
I have commented out the previous definition - which said that it was a sphygmograph, which I feel sure is wrong. An "angiograph" shows blood vessels whereas a "sphygmograph" shows blood pressure & pulse. —Saltmarshtalk-συζήτηση 09:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Resolved, AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:angiograph


text:
Talk:fasque

RFV
Rfv of the adjective section; one of the senses was tagged years ago but not listed. The noun is only fas + -que, which means it should be deleted, according to the usage note in [[-que]]. - -sche (discuss) 04:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not in my dictionary, nor in Lewis & Short. Noun sense should be deleted according to our norms. SemperBlotto 07:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW I oppose deleting such compounds. Has there been some consensus on this? —msh210℠ (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They aren't really compounds, they are words with a clitic particle attached to them. The Romans themselves considered -que to be a separate word, because they abbreviated Senatus Populusque Romanus as . —CodeCat 20:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As with German "Nouncompounds" and Hebrew words with clitics, I think we should have these because an English speaker (English Wiktionary's audience) will not know where to break up the word so will look up the whole thing. (I know that view's unpopular here, but I thought I'd state it again in the context of these Latin words, since they've come up and I haven't mentioned it in their context before.) —msh210℠ (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that point of view, but suffixes like this could be added to almost any word, which means there is an almost infinite amount of possibilities. Latin is not the only language with sentence clitics, they also exist in Finnish, Gothic and many other languages. And what about words in scripts that don't use spaces, like Chinese? If the combination fas+que is idiomatic in Latin then it should of course be kept. But we have a policy of judging the idiomaticity of a phrase in its own language rather than in English, and unfortunately it is the case that in some languages, some compound words may not be idiomatic. Many polysynthetic languages can form compounds almost without restriction, but I doubt we can have an entry for every single combination of verb, subject and object in those languages, even if they would all be single words. —CodeCat 21:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Re "which means there is an almost infinite amount of possibilities" and "an entry for every single combination": Well, we'd only include attested ones. Re Chinese: No, my view as stated above applies only to languages which have spaces between words (for some value of "words"). —msh210℠ (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefixes like un- can be added to almost any English word. Were Latin a polysynthetic language, I might be more sympathetic to your argument, but it's not.--Prosfilaes 00:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

 * The adjective (the section which was RFVed) has now been deleted, RFV-failed as uncited. The noun is a separate matter. - -sche (discuss) 05:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion debate
We do not include Latin entries suffixed with -que: by consensus of Latin editors and longstanding practice. I believe that this is the only outstanding offender. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 * See the RFV discussion on Talk:fasque, and especially the discussion at WT:T:ALA. There is not consensus that -que words should be deleted, it is merely the practice of some editors — a practice which several others oppose. We should try to establish a consensus one way or the other now, though. - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I'd support deleting, since -que, as far as I know, can be attached to any word at all. --WikiTiki89 21:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 * On the other hand, so can un-. (You might give examples of words that un- isn't attested as being attached to, but then I'd give examples of words that -que isn't attested as being attached to.)
 * Romans did not put spaces between their words, but when modern compositions and modern editions of old texts do use spaces, they (and even we, e.g. in quotations) leave -que attached to the preceding bit, as if it formed a single word. I quote msh210's comment on WT:T:ALA that "As with German "Nouncompounds" and Hebrew words with clitics, I think we should have these because an English speaker (English Wiktionary's audience) will not know where to break up the word so will look up the whole thing." I even designed an -like template,, to format the definitions. (Although we give un- words full definitions... hmm...)
 * Back on the first hand, though, we do (as EP pointed out) exclude words suffixed unidiomatically with -'s (cat's, etc). - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think un- is more limited than -que: You can't generally attach the former to prepositions (unabout, unbecause, ununder), for example. Furius (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * can have meaning of negation, reversal, or removal, but in different combinations with different words, not following any rule AFAIK. This each English word using un- needs to have an explicit definition, thought not necessarily a separate entry as the definition(s) of, say, undo could appear at [[do]]. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Delete. If this is kept then there will have to be a separate entry with -que appended for every single Latin word (and every conjugated form). In every singe case it will mean "and (definition of the word in question)." Instead, however, this seems to be the only case on wiktionary where a non-idiomatic compound of -que is given an entry. This isn't really analogous to un- which changes the meaning of the word in question (usually, but not always predictably).
 * There are some few cases of words with -que on the end which have a unique meaning, and they should of course be kept (quisque: anyone/everyone comes to mind). Otherwise, though, it is just a conjunctive clitic (exactly analogous to τε, for example, which (note) has only been written with a space between it and the preceeding word since Medieval times). Furius (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You dismiss the comparison to un- because it's "usually, but not always" predictable, then say -que is usually, but not always predictable? lol. But I admit there are better examples than un-. What about he English plural suffix -s? Words formed with it are included, although they mean "plural of (word in question)". - -sche (discuss) 21:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is really no analogous example in English. We do have languages that have better analogous examples: Hebrew, Arabic . And the consensus by far in those languages is not to keep words with these clitics. --WikiTiki89 22:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that didn't come out logically on my part. My point was more that un- changes the meaning of the word, whereas -que (with a few exceptions which I said should be included) doesn't change the meaning - it helps to co-ordinate its relation to other parts of the sentence. Furius (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete SOP. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * More SOP than acessórios, less SOP than acessórios, or approximately as SOP as acessórios? - -sche (discuss) 21:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * More. — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you can more easily tell that fasque is fas+-que than that acessórios is acessório+-s, or what? - -sche (discuss) 22:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because acessórios is an inflected form of acessório formed by the addition of the suffix -s to the noun acessório (actually a loanword from Latin accusative masculine plural accessorios, but it can be analysed as such anyway), while fasque is a (non-idiomatic) sum of noun fas with conjunction que, which happens to be written without a space. — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Delete for the same reason we don't have father's, aunt's, cat's, etc. —Angr 21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We do have fathers, aunts and cats, though. - -sche (discuss) 21:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Which have inflectional morphology that is unique to countable nouns on them, not a clitic that can be added to absolutely anything. (And 's can be added to other things than just nouns: consider "the boy I was talking to's mother" or "the dog I bought's fur".) —Angr 22:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point! - -sche (discuss) 22:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Presuming we delete -que words generally, should we make exceptions and have soft redirects/ entries when a sequence of letters is a word in an unrelated language, e.g. masque and bisque? Does any language like Guarani, Hawaiian, etc have word that just happens to end in -'s, which we can look to for precedent? (I'm guessing the answer to both is "no". I'm not going to lose sleep if we decide to exclude all the -que words, and I'll bin if we do, but I want to see what our parameters are.) - -sche (discuss) 22:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding, albeit only based on others' comments, is that this is not a word so not protected by 'all words in all languages', it just superficially appears to be one because there's no space between fas and que. It's somewhat similar to in Spanish which is also not a word, but hablar and nos not separated by anything. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 * @-sche: Luckily, there is precedent. The structure of Hawaiian (and I believe Guaraní as well) precludes such a possibility, but certain plurals are formed with -'s in Dutch. I would bin straightaway because the entry  does not have an English section. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. -que is not really a suffix in the sense that it forms words. It is rather an unstressed particle that attaches to the preceding word, but it has a syntactic function rather than a morphological function. It doesn't modify the meaning of the preceding word, instead it provides a syntactic "glue" like any other conjunction would. It differs from normal conjunctions in that it is not a separate word, but there is an analogue of that in many Slavic languages, which have prepositions like v, s and z that form part of the following word but are not written together with it. Also consider the case of Finnish, which has possessive suffixes -ni, -nsa which attach to the preceding word. We don't include word forms with those suffixes currently, because they would multiply the amount of attestable forms of every noun sixfold at least; and there are are already 34 (!) case forms without it. 04:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I do not want to include fasque, there ARE Latin words in which -que is a suffix, and those words should be kept. Examples include namque, atque, neque, ubique, quoque, etc. Just to make this clear. —Angr 15:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Keep in the absence of a plausible reason for deletion. The analogy to English un-, non-, -ness and the like has not been refuted. The assertion that "-que" can be attached to any word at all has no bearing to CFI, and I wonder whether it is strictly correct anyway: is there really not a single Latin word to which "-que" cannot be attached? The assertion that the term is a semantic sum-of-parts is wrong as long as "headache" is not a semantic sum of part for its being written solid, without a space or a hyphen. Predictable morphology is not a reason for excluding word forms, whether it is derivational morphology ("whiteness") or inflectional morphology ("marked"). --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically it doesn't attach to any word at all. Rather, it is placed after the first word of a clause, whatever word that is. This is an inherited Indo-European behaviour that applies to all sentence clitics. As has been pointed out already, the difference between un- and -que is that un- forms new lexical items with distinct meaning, whereas -que does not add any new lexical information. A word like unmovable has a part of speech, but fasque has no part of speech as it is not a lexical unit anymore than and religion is a lexical unit. Prefixes and suffixes like un- and -ness operate at the lexical or word-level, while clitics like -que or English -'s operate at the syntactic or phrase/sentence level. 18:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that -que is like a conjunction attached to a word that results in a thing that has no part of speech makes an interesting difference to un- and -ness. However, proverbs such as a picture is worth a thousand words also do not have a part of speech. Per what regulation of CFI do you want to delete fasque? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the same regulation that forbids and religion, whichever it is. Probably the idiomaticity requirement. Proverbs are generally idiomatic by nature, as they carry an implication that is not obvious from the literal meaning. I've changed fasque from "noun" to "phrase". 18:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Gee! and religion is not written together. "headache" is written together; if it were always written as "head ache", it would be excluded as a semantic sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know next to nothing about Czech, but skimming through the articles at Wikipedia turned up what looks to me like an analogous construction:
 * Budeš-li se pilně učit … - If you learn (study) hard …
 * Now, I realize that this has a hyphen, but what if it just happened that it was all written together- do you think we should have entries for "words" like "budešli"? Chuck Entz (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem including "budeš-li", although hyphen does make a difference. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comment about proverbs has no bearing to my comment about them: via proverbs, I pointed out that a thing does not need to have a part of speech in order to be included in Wiktionary, whereas you implied that not having a part of speech was a bad thing for inclusion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but we generally require phrases to be idiomatic if we want to include them. fasque is not idiomatic. 20:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) About attachment to any word at all: I looked at Category:Latin adjectives and checked. I cannot find, , and , for starters. You will easily find others by combining the members of the category with "que". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That really doesn't prove anything. Language is flexible and productive and there are many possible combinations of words, many more than anyone has ever uttered. It's not hard at all for any speaker to produce a phrase that nobody has ever said before. So a gap in the attestation of combinations like "aconitifoliusque" doesn't imply that "fasque" is idiomatic. 18:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That merely refutes the claim--made by one of the supporters of deletion--that "... -que, as far as I know, can be attached to any word at all". --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By “others” I assume you mean the ones which are vastly more common than acceleratrix, acridentatis and aconitifolius. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See my post above: the claim that -que can be attached to any word at all has thereby been refuted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All you refuted was that -que has been attached to every word, not that it can be attached to any word. — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What sort of observable occurence or occurrences would refute that "-que can be attached to any word"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Analysis by Latin grammarians. — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems you have misunderstood my question. What sort of observable occurence or occurrences could correctly convince Latin grammarians that it is not true that "-que can be attached to any word"? What are the observations that endanger your hypothesis? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dunno. What would convince you that English -'s cannot be attached to any word? — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I will tell you what would convince me that someone is an extremely sloppy thinker: it would suffice that he repeatedly makes utterly implausible claims and invents implausible excuses when presented with a refutation.
 * Second, English -'s cannot be attached to any word, as *"does's", *"blue's", *"called's", and "before's" are not attested word forms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "I don't know who will come to my home, but the person who does's dog will get a nice treat." 20:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You know what convinces me of someone being a sloppy thinker? Excessive use of strawman arguments. By the way: “... become the year before’s sneakers”, The guy who called’s name is Brian. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I admit I was not very careful with my choice of counterexamples to the 's hypothesis. But you get the idea: I do not hold the hypothesis that -'s can be attached to any word irrefutable; I consider the following to be a refutation: "monitored's", "outperforming's", "underwhelming's", "tripled's", "quadrupled's", "reverberate's", "bluest's", and "greenest's". However, my attempt at refutation yields a confirmation of the statement that "'s" is readily attached to a large variety of word forms, whether as a possessive thing or as an ellipsis of "is". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What's your point? Who cares about the difference between "any word at all" and "an unmanageably large number of words." You seem to be spending a lot of time trying to refute side points that aren't necessary for the main arguments to be true. I guess if you can't refute the main points, you're stuck with indiscriminately refuting anything else that moves. I would suggest you stay away from mirrors- you might end up refuting yourself by accident. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 * “... in the queue of the printer being monitored's properties being changed ” . — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because lithium apple is unattestable doesn't make tasty apple or lithium cell SOP. --WikiTiki89 19:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you mean it doesn't make them idiomatic. But even if -que isn't attachable to absolutely anything in Latin, it's attachable to anything whose semantics allow it to be preceded by the concept 'and'; and if 's is not attachable to as many things as -que is, that's all the more reason not to include words with the -que clitic. We have already decided that 's is far too productive in English for us to want to list every attestable word that takes it. A fortiori, therefore, we should not include every Latin word that takes -que, which is even more productive in Latin than 's is in English. —Angr 22:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Delete, because it's not considered as a word in Latin, unlike birdlike in English. Unless we add a criterion When words are separated by spaces in the language, anything which is attested and might be mistaken for a word because it's written without spaces may be included, because some readers are likely to look for the meaning. If this criterion is added, a new POS should be chosen. Note that I think that this case does not happen in English, except maybe the case of -'s and other such cases using '. Lmaltier (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dan Polansky, I think you haven't refuted what you think you've refuted. You've refuted that -que is added to any Latin word, not that it can be. For example, you can't prove that I can't poke myself in the eye with a toothpick just because I never have done it. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Delete I'm not particularly a fan of excluding words matched by the regex [a-zA-Z]*, but I think it's pretty clear -que is unbounded in the set of words it can be added to. I'm concerned about the number of times Latin shows up outside Latin, but Latin readers even at the weakest level should not be confused by -que, no?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's at the level of Latin 101. English speakers will likely only regularly see it in SPQR:. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My main concern is that this deletion is not driven by CFI, and the supporters of the deletion do not acknowledge that. There is no way in which "fasque" is a sum of parts while "redness" is not. Yes, "que" can be attachated to word forms regardless of their part of speech, unlike "ness", but I do not see how that has any bearing to sum-of-partness, nor do I see any other way in which it relates to CFI. This deletion seems to be driven by a wish to exclude a huge number of attested forms for their perfect predictability, and for their having no part of speech. That may be okay, but, again, is not driven by CFI or a tentative universal principle of deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One more note. CFI says this about idiomaticify AKA non-sum-of-parts-hood: 'An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components.'. The key word is separate. I do not see that "fas" and "que" are more separate in "fasque" than "red" and "ness" are in "redness". --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to demonstrate this "separateness" in my post on BP. The two parts of "redness" are more closely bound together as they form a single lexical unit (a single thing with "meaning") while "fasque" is not a single unit and can't be understood as having one meaning, but rather the syntactic composition of two meanings: "religion" and the conjunction "and". I'm not sure how to make this clearer to you but the way I see it, "fasque" is very different from "redness". So I don't see a problem at all in treating it with different rules. 17:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think I understand what you are saying. You seem to be saying that "fasque" is not a "single lexical unit" (whatever that is intended to mean), and therefore "fas" and "que" are separate components despite appearances. As regards my understanding of separateness, "black hole" is a term composed of two separate components, whose meaning cannot be derived from the meanings of the components. I estimate that "black hole" has to be a single lexical unit; does the being lexical unit make "black" and "hole" less separate? By contrast, "headache" is a term consisting of two components that are not separate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. However, I don't see it as sharply as that. "black hole" is more separate than "headache", but they aren't absolutes. I suppose I could describe it as an "idea", but that is also quite vague. Still you would probably agree that in "and religion" there is not a single "idea". Rather there is the idea "religion" and another (grammatical) meaning that connects "religion" to the rest of the phrase. Think of it this way: You can easily ask "what is a black hole?" or "what is redness?" or "what is religion?" or "what is quickly?" or even "what is to walk?" or "what is and?" but I can't think of any way to answer "what is and religion?"... Not without making reference to its parts individually, anyway. Can you? 18:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is a proverb a "single lexical item"? Furthermore, is "I'm" a "single lexical item"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is they're composed of separate components? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider a proverb a single lexical item, really, but it does have a meaning that isn't derivable from its parts. Proverbs are normally more idiomatic than something like "fasque". I think a better analogy would be a catchphrase or meme... its meaning is obvious and there is no extra "hidden" meaning like there might be in a proverb. We don't include catchphrases or memes for that reason, as far as I know. I'm not sure why you are asking these questions though. Does my argument no longer hold any value to you if I don't have answers to every problem? 18:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * About a proverb, I wanted to know whether you deem it as "single lexical unit", and now I know it.
 * But let me ask again about the other guys: Q1: is "they're" a "single lexical unit"? Q2: Is they're composed of separate components? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To me, the only "single" aspect of they're is the pronunciation. Lexically and semantically, it's just they + 're. Same goes for most other English contractions. --WikiTiki89 18:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would agree. But as I said there is not just two extremes, separate and not separate. Some combinations may be more separate than one combination, but less separate than another. I think they're is not so different from fasque in that respect, since both are bound at the syntactic or phrase-level rather than the lexical or constituent word/unit level. Think of it this way then... the clitic forms 're and 's (the singular form of 're) can be attached to any noun or nominal phrase, especiall if it ends in a vowel: "the window's open", "the tea's ready" but also "the houses're being built". Is this a reason for including window's as a separate term? I think window's is no different from fasque in this respect, the only difference is in the spelling. Perhaps if the Romans had written fas'que..? 18:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Even more poignant: Q3: does German fürs (für + das) consist of separate components? Q4: does German sowas (so etwas, such a thing) consist of separate components? For more, see Category:German contractions or Category:Dutch contractions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We seem to include contractions involving articles, pronouns, and other particle-like things, but not nouns. I believe this is because the former are small, closed sets with restricted semantic content, but nouns make up a significant proportion of the vocabulary of those languages. Practical considerations do have their place. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I think that the criterion is: is it considered as a word by the language? Contractions such as du or au are considered as words in French, compound nouns are considered as words in German, but fasque is not considered as a word in Latin. If there is a page (or red links) in the wiktionary of the language, it's very probably considered as a word by the language. But I agree with you nonetheless: in some languages, it's possible that they are considered as words or not considered as words for the reasons you mention. Or for the reason that they have no meaning, the meaning being in each part. We should not decide, the tradition of each language must decide. Lmaltier (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Similar or related discussions
Talk:satisne (no consensus and hence retention of a term with -ne), Talk:antse (deletion of words with a phrase-final clitic -e that attaches to anything). - -sche (discuss) 15:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:fasque


text:
Talk:a la minute

RFV discussion: October 2011–March 2012
What language is this term in? French, English, or both? --Lo Ximiendo 23:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * À la minute this is a copyright violation of so your question is moot. Fugyoo 03:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the copyvio, but the two senses still need to be verified. - -sche (discuss) 04:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Kept. Both senses are clearly in widespread use (look in Google Books). - -sche (discuss) 02:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:a la minute


text:
Talk:wing

RFV discussion: October 2011–March 2012
Rfv-sense: Part of a huge room. Tagged but not listed. -- Liliana • 13:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with this sense, but it seems to have been subsumed into a broader sense, which is also OK by me. Striking this as resolved. - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:wing


text:
Talk:aluminum shower

RFV discussion: October 2011–March 2012
Only cite given is a mention and not a use. -- Liliana • 23:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like a live metaphor to me, but cites might correct that impression. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can find cites for rain aluminum. Also, consider the following:
 * I found usages of aluminium shower, although only one was actually visible, from somewhat earlier. — Pingkudimmi 06:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I found usages of aluminium shower, although only one was actually visible, from somewhat earlier. — Pingkudimmi 06:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Is it satisfactorily cited now? The entry now contains 6 quotations (2 mentions and 4 uses) spanning the period from 1978 to 2009. · 16:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any amount of citation of a live metaphor that can make it includable? DCDuring TALK 17:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, DCDuring, I admire your work and love you like a brother, but I'm pretty sure that WT:CFI trumps your musings about the includability of live and dead metaphors (and, in any case, I would find it unreasonable to exclude "live" metaphors from lexicons--The whole contemporary English language is "live".) · 05:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ... but in that case we would end up with every possible sentence eventually, just because someone used it somewhere in a metaphorical way.   D b f  i  r  s   23:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

 * RFV-passed, in that it is cited. Moving to RFD. - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

RFD
It's cited; the question is whether or not we want it. See the RFV discussion. - -sche (discuss) 02:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All but one (1999) of the citations have serious defects for attestation IMO:
 * 2001 It is just a title "teaser";
 * 2009 not durably archived;
 * 1981, 1999, 2007 Headword appears in quotes with an definition.
 * -- DCDuring TALK 21:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as both attested and idiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Attested? Not really. 2009 isn't durably archived, 2007 and 1981 are mentions and 2001 doesn't actually use the term, or so it seems. -- Liliana • 13:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Using speech marks isn't only for foreign terms, it's often used for perfectly real terms. And the reason some of the citation explain the term after using it is because it's a little-known term. And it's going to be even more little known if we delete it from Wiktionary. Deleting things that are rare and difficult to understand is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @MG: Should we keep every live metaphor that occurs three times in print or Usenet? This certainly seems to refer to a shower of aluminum. DCDuring TALK 16:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Specifically, how about rain aluminum? How about rain of trouble/rain of troubles, rain of plastic, meteorite shower, comet shower, beer shower, champagne shower, all of which are more attestable than the phrase in question? DCDuring TALK 16:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope I never get caught in a baby shower. Equinox ◑ 17:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd answer, but I have no idea what a live metaphor is. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * HTH. DCDuring TALK 23:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Only the first cite uses aluminum shower as a metaphor to describe the appearance of a mid-air collision. All the others use aluminum shower as a synonym for mid-air collision. When people go from saying "like XYZ" to just "XYZ," that, to me, is a pretty good indicator that it has gone from an individual metaphor to a general idiomatic expression. Astral (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a simile: that uses "as", "like", or similar explicit indications of comparison. A metaphor dispenses with these. Metaphors can be either "dead" or "live". "Dead metaphors" would include, for example, almost all the senses of head:. For multi-word terms, house of cards: is now almost exclusively a dead metaphor. A house of glass (and glass house, too, I think) is still live. DCDuring TALK 18:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * With the "like XYZ" vs. "XYZ" argument, I wished to succinctly illustrate the difference between aluminum shower used as a description of a mid-air collision (e.g., "the twisted fuselage rained down in an aluminum shower," "the wreckage scattered all around like an aluminum shower," etc.) and aluminum shower used as a synonym for the term mid-air collision itself (e.g., "air-traffic controllers do everything in their power to prevent aluminum showers").
 * The live metaphor-dead metaphor distinction is interesting from a linguistic standpoint, but isn't part of CFI. Attestability and idiomaticity are, and this meets both. Astral (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The live metaphor-dead metaphor distinction is interesting from a linguistic standpoint, but isn't part of CFI. Attestability and idiomaticity are, and this meets both. Astral (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep: Because it's unclear if it means "raining aluminum" or "a water fixture made of aluminum" Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a citation where the choice between those possibilities was not clear. DCDuring TALK 19:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is unclear when you just hear "aluminum shower" with zero context. Also, "oh please" is an inappropriate edit summary  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the meaning of head: with zero context? It has only its default meaning, rather than the dozens of other possibilities. What is the meaning of executive chair with zero context? DCDuring TALK 19:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Without context, a purple backpack could be something used by royalty or someone of ambiguous political identification for wearing a paraitchute. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For general amusement I have added two senses of aluminum shower: at least as entry-worthy as the pre-existing one under discussion:
 * A party or similar event at which aluminum is given, as for a wedding.
 * An event at which people give household items made of aluminum to the war effort.
 * I hope you get as much out of inspecting them as I did from creating them. DCDuring TALK 20:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't find it funny. I find it POINTy  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's arguable that the two aluminum-giving event senses, however POINT-y the reason for their addition, are worthy of inclusion on historical grounds, but the shower stall sense that was also added is pure SOP. If one thinks a term isn't worthy of inclusion, such POINT-y demonstrations aren't the ideal way to go about illustrating it. Astral (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see some reasoned argument supported by evidence. So far, I've been producing the only evidence. If it is the case that producing evidence is "POINTY", then Wiktionary is doomed as a serious project. DCDuring TALK 21:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As the most literal sense of shower is probably the "rain shower" sense, I suppose there is no truly literal sense of aluminum shower possible, so may be uncitable. If we decide that the second sense is the literal sense, its citations should remain to illustrate usage.
 * To me it seems that someone was captivated by a bright shiny object, a metaphor they had not heard before, because it comes from a specialized usage context, as we show it. In that specialized context, aluminum in various combinations is not uncommonly used to refer to aircraft. For example:
 * Thus the term is a quite SoP in the context that the citations show it is limited to. The quotations marks and definitions given are clear indications of this limitation. DCDuring TALK 22:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thus the term is a quite SoP in the context that the citations show it is limited to. The quotations marks and definitions given are clear indications of this limitation. DCDuring TALK 22:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I consider it POINT-y for someone to add an indisputably SOP sense to entry when disputing the idiomaticity of another sense. "This proves a point I'm trying to make" is not a valid basis for inclusion. The appropriate way to try to make a case for or against something is through discussion. Making POINT-y edits to an entry isn't constructive; it doesn't serve to improve the entry itself, and it's liable to precipitate counterproductive back-and-forth editing. Astral (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have loved to have seen some back-and-forth of a productive variety, such as fact- and reason-supported argument and content. Resorting to lawyering hardly helps. The underlying problem is that there is little consensus on what constitutes an idiom and on what should be included. The possibility of a combinatorial explosion of entries of very low value and legitimacy will undermine Wiktionary's linguistic and lexicographic credibility. It needs that credibility at least as much as it needs a large count of entries.
 * I would suggest that it is helpful to evaluate the adequacy of one's own intuition as a guide and motivator to working on and assessing marginal entries. It is all too common for bright shiny objects to get all sorts of support and attention and the more prosaic ones, often more entry-worthy on objective grounds, to be neglected, as the added senses exemplify. I think all of the senses are SoP, the "gift shower" senses for anyone familiar with the contexts in which they were offered (advertisments, and prewar aluminum shortages), the aviation sense in its context. Could you suggest some fact-based way of supporting or opposing my assertions? Or some error or gap in my logic? Or a different argument in support of the term, based on new evidence or reinterpretation of the old evidence. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say that if any non-admin had added a definition they knew full well not to be inclusion-worthy strictly to prove a point, they would've been given a block. Given Wiktionary's very low tolerance for newbies and the bumpiness involved in their learning the ropes, the last person one should expect to do something out of the newbie playbook is a veteran editor who should know better. There aren't two standards of conduct on this site. Everyone should be held to the same standard. Astral (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are wrong about this. A newbie who produced citation-supported entries or senses would not likely be blocked and certainly not for long, no matter how POINTy the entry or senses. If I noticed such a block I would likely unblock and I doubt that I am the only admin who would do so.
 * In addition, I believe that the question of what is and is not SoP is not as straightforward as you seem to think it is. I'd bet that we would find most of the showers called aluminum showers (for cleaning humans) are not predominantly made of aluminum, but rather that the fixtures and the frame of the stall (glass or other material) were the only aluminum parts.
 * I continue to await fact- and reason-based arguments in defense of any of the senses of this entry. DCDuring TALK 01:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The breath sounds incident comes to mind. It was cited, as I remember it, but because it had previously been deleted on SOP grounds, its recreation was deemed a block-worthy act of disruption.
 * I'm uncertain what would constitute "fact- and reason-based arguments" in your judgment. The mid-air collision sense has already been attested. I've already laid out my rationale for why I think that particular sense is inclusion-worthy, as have others. I count four keep votes and no deletes. Astral (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Chuck Entz (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

[Making room] I had taken a look at the various terms used synonymously: breath sounds, lung sounds, breathing sounds, respiratory sounds and couldn't disagree with the conclusion. The real point is that an entry that has been rejected on RfD grounds should not be reentered. We occasionally revisit these things after some time (more than a year) and come to a different conclusion, but we don't want to reopen closed matters. It is sad but the contributor seemed to believe that anything wording like a definition from a textbook is therefore per se dictionary material.

Attestation shows first that a combination of terms is in use. Secondly, the citations can be used to infer the meaning and the usage context of the term. I do not dispute the existence of the term and believe that four separate meanings have been attested, though not necessarily in every detail of the definition. Further I believe that the attestation of the midair collision sense shows that the term is not used outside the context of aviation, ie those who work in and/or study aviation, without the need for a definition of the term or quotation marks to cause the reader to look for meaning clues if it is not defined. In the context of aviation the practice of referring to aircraft with demystifying metaphors is not uncommon. See this search for the "parts flying in formation" metaphor and this for a discussion of it. What is wrong with this argument? Where is the logic weak? Where is the evidence dubiously interpreted? With all the steps and unstated premises, it shouldn't be too hard. DCDuring TALK 03:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

As to the attestation:
 * 1) 1978 cite has the term used in a quotation of an air-traffic controller (ie, an industry insider) reacting to the mid-air collision just referred to in the preceding sentence.
 * 2) 1981 cite has the term in quotes and defined.
 * 3) 1999 is arguably OK as the review reader is presumed to understand what the industry insider is quoted as saying.
 * 4) 2001 is not longer available (ie, not durably archived AFAICT) and in any event was used merely as a "teaser" in the title.
 * 5) 2007 cite has the term in quotes and defined.
 * 6) 2009 cite is from a blog for industry insiders.

Thus only one cite could be considered as showing that the term would be understood outside the aviation industry. The other five show the opposite. Thus, the intuitions (and votes) of those not in the industry are not reliable indicators of what is or is not SoP in the industry context in which the terms are used. The evidence of the existence of other demystifying metaphors for aircraft suggest that this is a live metaphor, a grim joke among the insiders. DCDuring TALK 03:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Several meanings, none of them immediately obvious to someone who knows only the words "aluminum" and "shower". Probably "shower stall and associated hardware made partially of aluminum" is the most literal meaning in there, so I don't see why it's labeled . —Angr 07:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 23:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

RFD-sense
Rfd-sense: (figuratively) A shower stall and associated hardware made partially of aluminum. Obvious SoP -- Liliana • 01:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Replace with . Oops! Delete. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Delete per nom; this is a literal use based on sense 2 of shower, and is therefore already covered by sense 1 of aluminum shower. bd2412 T 01:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Covered by the &lit definition. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are in the right frame of mind, or actually usage context, each sense of the four supposedly non-SoP senses of this would be SoP. We are just more accustomed to thinking of aluminum as a construction material than as a gift, a contribution to the war effort, or the result of a mid-air collision. If I ask the question "What is an 'aluminum shower'?" of the proverbial man in the street, without providing any context, I suppose the defined sense is the most likely. If I asked a someone in the US in the 1915-40, I would probably get the gift-giving party sense. If I asked a couple of years later it might be the war material sense. If I asked someone in air traffic control, I'd get the aviation sense. But I will leave this to the professionals. DCDuring TALK 03:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In its defense, it's quite funny. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:aluminum shower


text:
Talk:stur

RFV discussion: October 2011–March 2012
Rfv-sense English - to motivate. Looks like stir: to me. SemperBlotto 07:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, I've deleted the specific sense and made it a general, per Google Books. - -sche (discuss) 20:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:stur


text:
అగ్రహారము

Noun

 * 1) A street or village inhabited by brahmins.
 * 2) A village of which the old and hereditary cultivators are brahmins.
 * 3) A village granted to brahmins by government for charitable or religious purposes; either rent free, or at a favourable assessment.

title: అగ్రహారము


text:
Talk:freash

RFV discussion: October 2011–March 2012
Rfv-sense: "Refreshing or cool but freaky". the "dated for of fresh" definition is unchallenged. Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 20:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:freash


text:
Talk:accorporate

I seems awkward to have an English non-entry above a Latin [actual] entry. Not awkward enough that I'll remove the non-entry (I suppose it serves its purpose of prompting people to look for quotations that would make it meet CFI), but odd. - -sche (discuss) 05:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: October 2011–March 2012
Listed in Appendix:English dictionary-only terms, should not occur in main namespace -- Liliana • 03:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 07:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:accorporate


text:
Talk:hare-brained

RFV discussion: October 2011–March 2012
Rfv-sense "thoughtless or inconsiderate". Senses with verification not requested are at [[harebrained]]. —msh210℠ (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed, made into an alt form entry. - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:hare-brained


text:
Talk:pestre

RFV discussion: October 2011–March 2012
pestring and pestred are slightly easier to find, but pestres and pestre are extremely rare. I can not access an Oxford dictionary so I do not know if this truly existed or not. --Pilcrow 18:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added one citation of "pestres" to the one you already found of "pestre". - -sche (discuss) 19:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to pass this, based on the "pestre" cite, the "pestres" cite, and the many "pestred" cites that are available. - -sche (discuss) 22:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:pestre


text:
Talk:dog's bollocks

RFV discussion: October 2011–February 2012
Rfv-sense " A colon followed by a dash (:—). " Fugyoo 23:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Was added by usually reliable contributor, who is Canadian, and the definition is marked 'British', and I've never heard of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

 * OED only has 1949 citation of Partridge's dictionary, and calls it “rare.” Apparently Partridge thought the phrase originated in typographer's slang. Can't find any real citations. Sorry. —Michael Z. 2011-12-14 17:43 z

 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Pinging, who re-added it in 2015. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, I don't recall what made me re-add this.... I don't care one way or another. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 04:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:dog's bollocks


text:
Talk:exagramme

RFV discussion: October 2011–February 2012
Rare form of rare exagram. British? Any takers? Equinox ◑ 02:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the hits on Google books are French. --Pilcrow 02:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect all of these to Appendix:SI units as below. bd2412 T 20:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. - -sche (discuss) 02:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:exagramme


text:
Talk:zeptogramme

RFV discussion: October 2011–February 2012
British, rare, blahblahblah... the fact is that nobody has used it in writing. Equinox ◑ 02:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Only one English hit on Google Books and no English hits on Google Groups. This is liable for speedy deletion, I’m afraid. --Pilcrow 02:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect all of these to Appendix:SI units, and add some content there about prefixes and suffixes commonly used in other languages. bd2412 T 19:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. - -sche (discuss) 02:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:zeptogramme


text:
Talk:zettagramme

RFV discussion: October 2011–February 2012
British, rare, blahblahblah... the fact is that nobody has used it in writing. Equinox ◑ 02:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No hits on either Google Groups of Google Books. I will be disappointed to see these spellings deleted. --Pilcrow 02:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a spelling issue: even zettagram is probably not attestable. We've had previous discussions about these "theoretically acceptable but not actually used" units. Equinox ◑ 02:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've found two and only two cites for zettagram, if you want to have at it.--Prosfilaes 19:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Soft redirect all of these to Appendix:SI units, and add some content there about prefixes and suffixes commonly used in other languages. bd2412 T 19:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. - -sche (discuss) 02:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:zettagramme


text:
Talk:Tasmanian devil

RFV discussion: October 2011–February 2012

 * See Talk:Tasmanian Devil.

title: Talk:Tasmanian devil


text:
Talk:pumping lemma

RFV discussion: September 2011–March 2012
This needs citations so the definition can be confirmed or improved. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a class about this a while ago, so it definitely exists. :) —CodeCat 00:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I propose the nomination is withdrawn: the term's existence is easily attestable in Google books. The definition needs some work, but appears at least in part correct. --Dan Polansky 14:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose that the definition (which is available at WP) be withdrawn and replaced by so that a descriptive definition supported by citations is added. Or else we could abandon the strictures we have in practice on prescriptive definitions. The opportunities this would afford for contributors to provide helpful advice on how to use words would be endless. DCDuring TALK  19:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cited. Equinox ◑ 19:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish I could infer the meaning from the citations. DCDuring TALK 19:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You've looked at, right? I'm not sure that this is something we can easily convey in a general-purpose dictionary because it requires some basic knowledge of formal languages. The same goes for various esoteric mathematical concepts that are best defined in terms of symbols and equations (we have some entries whose definitions contain more of those than of English text). Equinox ◑ 20:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is often difficult or impossible to extract a definition of a mathematical term from mere uses of the term that do not define the term. The quotations of use make the definition plausible at best. Non-mathematical words seem to be in a similar position, though: the quotations provided for them often make the definitions plausible rather than providing information sufficient for a full confirmation of the definitions. Mathematical definitions are not so much prescriptive as stipulative: a mathematical article typically first defines a term specific to it and then uses it as defined; the uses do not make definition extraction possible, as they rely on the definition provided before. Such an article does not tell people how they should use the term; instead, it declares how the authors intend to use the term in the article. When a term is used consistently by several authors, it is dictionary-worthy, I think, and the attestation of the term consists in providing three uses from articles or books such that the article or the book also defines the term, albeit in a different sentence. --Dan Polansky 07:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If terms are stipulative in their most common and serious use, what value do we add? Otherwise, you have summarized why such entries might not really fit in a reference that purports to be descriptive. Perhaps we can work from multiple authors' definitions and preserve a figleaf of descriptiveness. In any other use, how can anyone be sure what is meant? Is it one particular definition, some kind of transferred meaning, usage as an example or metaphor? The normal methods of inferring meaning from usage seem particularly hard to apply. I would argue that such "stipulative" definitions simply do not belong in Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 11:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The added value of having mathematical definitions in Wiktionary: It is true that the definitions of mathematical terms are already available in many articles that use the terms. Nonetheless, it is nice to have one repository of all the definitions. Furthermore, some articles leave some specialist terms undefined (such as "set union" or "partial order"), assuming they are part of the background knowledge of the readers of the article.
 * Descriptive vs prescriptive: A stipulated term is actually used with its stipulated meaning in the sentences that do not define the term. By defining the stipulated term in align with the definitions provided in the articles that both define and use the term, Wiktionary provides a definition that fits the way the term is actually used. Thus, Wiktionary does not tell how the term should be used. By paying attention to the actual use rather than the use that someone would like to see, Wiktionary is descriptivist rather than prescriptivist. Put differently, even if the definition of a term is not extracted from quotations of use but rather from definitions of the term, it can still be a definition that matches the actual use of the term. --Dan Polansky 08:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Meh, kept. Re-open discussion here or at WT:RFC or RFD if you feel you must. - -sche (discuss) 03:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:pumping lemma


text:
Talk:Piet

RFV discussion: September 2011–March 2012
Rfv-sense: (programming languages) an esoteric programming language whose programs are bitmaps that look like abstract art. Needs independent cites, I think. -- Liliana • 21:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 * LOL. RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

 * I've now managed to cite this. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Piet


text:
Talk:Unsupported titles/`period``period`

RFV discussion: September 2011–March 2012
Rfv-sense: (Internet) punctuation to end a sentence or phrase, similar to ., except that it often connotates an unfinished or incomplete thought, something that someone wants to say but can't, or a gloomy or resigned feeling. -- Liliana • 22:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 * It is an illiterate version of "...". I suppose it exists. I am not inclined to try to attest it. I can't believe it has the subtle connotations given above. Equinox ◑ 18:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

..
"The concatenation operator in Lua." Not part of a human language; not used in running text, only in source code. Remember how the APL symbol entries were deleted. We don't include keywords like endif either unless they have entered English grammatically. Equinox ◑ 12:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

 * BTW, here is a list of the operators in just one language (Perl): . Equinox ◑ 12:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO, we should keep some symbols of programming languages like this. Other examples: = (assignment operator) and == (comparison operator). See also the multiple meanings of $. The full list of existing entries for programming/computing symbols should be at Category:mul:Programming and Category:mul:Computing.
 * Related discussions created by Equinox recently: User talk:Daniel Carrero and User talk:Octahedron80. In the latter, asked: "why the mathematical symbols and emojis can be included here if they are not the human language?" (but, to be fair, emojis do feel like human language to me, as in, they're used in human text :) :p :/) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

 * Delete or at least move to an Appendix. It's not a word and not in a language. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the "parent directory" sense also be deleted? --WikiTiki89 21:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep because operators are the symbols that have been used for decades like other deciplines' ones (such as mathematics, thermodynamics, engineering, linguistics, medicine, etc) and have been used in many textbooks. You might think that they are not read by human? No, they are actually read by human so we can write the codes meaningfully. (That is we call the high-level programming language.) Machines do not directly read codes; the codes must be compiled to binary values so they will understand in background. You should not just want to delete them because you do not know. In the contrast, there are many symbols out there that are generally not used in human languages (and sometimes we do not understand their specialities) still exist in this project. Additionally, there is also other meaning of .. as a range either, for example 1..5 mean from 1 to 5. I must admit that most of programming languages are from English but symbols are translingual. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not understand the part "You should not just want to delete them because you do not know." Were you assuming something about the nominator's knowledge of programming languages? That aside, I agree with most of what you said. I added the "range operator" sense now in .. per your comment. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologise if my message bothered you. My point is that we want to expand reader's knowledge who never know them before. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your message didn't actually bother me, I just found it a little odd at first, but that's OK. Thanks for the clarification. That's a good point, too, IMO. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A question to keepers: Shall we include JOptionPane (Java), std::cin (C++), equ (Win Batch), foreach (Perl) as quasi-attested in source code? All keywords and all APIs in computing languages, quasi-attested in source code? Why is the Equinox rationale "not used in running text" not good enough for deletion? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The very basic keywords like int, integer, short, long, double, real, bool, boolean, string, begin, end, if, else, elseif, endif, while, do, loop, for, foreach, try, catch, class, object, array, table, function, return, etc. and programming operators (might be symbolic or mnemonic) should be include because they reflect the basic concept of computer science. Note that same keywords and operators are usually used in many languages. (And I know many languages.) Other advanced classes and libraries (JOptionPane & std::cin) should not be included because they are language-specific. The string concatenation is an essential concept or we could not see wanted messages. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have any strong opinion concerning terms like int, integer, begin, end, etc. Currently, endif is defined as English for "(computing) A directive, in several programming languages, that marks the end of an if statement, especially one containing multiple if .. then .. else statements". I don't particularly like when I see those defined as English entries, but that's just a gut feeling that I don't feel able to translate in rational thinking yet. I wonder if one could make the argument that, if the plural is attestable ("endifs"), then maybe it really counts as an English word, but then again, "There are 5 thes in that sentence." would not make "thes" attestable.
 * I just wanted to create entries for some programming symbols because some already existed and they seemed a good idea to understand the syntax of programming languages. If anything, I don't think removing all computing senses from, say, + would turn out to be very helpful. Since there are math, genetics, electricity, chess and whatever other senses in that entry, it would feel incomplete (at least IMHO) if it does not have some computing senses too. (unless someone proposes a wider project of removing many Translingual symbols from various contexts) This discussion feels more about general policies for the inclusion of programming language terms rather than a request for the deletion of a sense of specifically so I wonder if there are any computing symbols that everybody would want to see in our entries, like perhaps @ (in e-mails) and logical symbols like &&. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Consideration of the form "X should not be included because they are language-specific" is not related in any way to WT:CFI, AFAICT. Furthermore, in relation to that consideration, Perl ".." and Lua ".." are language-specific: multiple widely used programming languages do not have the operator. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see why one sense is nominated and not the other two. Are any of the three used in human language? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: "Not part of a human language; not used in running text, only in source code." In my words, this does not seem attested in use to convey meaning; "use" in the middle of computer code is not use in English. This could thus go to RFV, but there, a discussion could arise about whether various quotations count as attesting, so let us have it in RFD and handle it here. As for the other two senses, these should be deleted as well; the third one was added after this RFD nomination in . --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. --WikiTiki89 14:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No compelling keep argument. DCDuring TALK 17:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove the Lua sense. —Enosh (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why keep the Perl/Swift sense and remove the Lua sense? Is it because the sense "range operator" occurs in at least two programming languages and the sense "concatenation operator" occurs in just one (Lua)? By this logic, if we find a couple of other programming languages that use ".." as a concatenation operator, I assume the sense could stay, or be restored? Where to draw the line? For example, I support keeping both senses of "..", and keeping a bunch of entries for regex symbols: $, ^,, etc. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The RFD rationale is that it's not part of a human language and not used in running text. Even if every single programming language has a certain operator, that doesn't validate it in Wiktionary. Equinox ◑ 12:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Should we delete all programming language symbols, including some of the "main" ones such as == and ++? If yes, then that would be a consistent decision to have only human languages as argued. But if not, then the problem with ".." meaning "concatenation operator" is that only 1 language uses it, and the decision might be revised eventually if that specific meaning catches on and becomes a part of many programming languages. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should delete all programming language symbols. Your examples of == and ++ would be kept because they are used occasionally in human languages, but the programming language senses should be deleted (but can be mentioned in the etymology). --WikiTiki89 13:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of creating a BP discussion + vote eventually, with the proposal "Deleting and disallowing all programming language symbols." (I would vote oppose) to see if people agree with this rule concerning all entries. Of course, we might simply have a big RFD discussion for all the entries, but it wouldn't be the same as having that explicit rule to prevent future entry creations. WT:CFI says nothing about allowing or disallowing them, but I'm aware that even if such a vote failed, it does not mean that all programming language symbols are accepted by default. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've changed my mind I weakly support, but I still think we should allow basic keywords like Octahedron mentioned above (seems like they would also be citable in running text). And yes occurring in more than one programming language (and not a very popular one at that) is important IMO. —Enosh (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Delete. Way too context-specific. It is misleading to have such symbols ascribed any very specific meaning if the meanings differ among computer languages, possibly even in different versions of the same language. Can we tell in what languages and with what meaning the symbol is most used? The computer-language specific senses would seem to me to be excellent candidates for inclusion in an Appendix with a sortable table (or tables).
 * Why would anyone rely on Wiktionary as a good source of the meaning of such symbols when we are not even a reliable dictionary of English? DCDuring TALK 12:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You voted twice. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Sense deleted. bd2412 T 19:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

RFD discussion: October 2016–June 2017
Unsupported_titles/Double_period stands for "..", obviously. Deletion rationale: Not in use to convey meaning in natural language; not used in running text, only in source code. One example in the entry is this: ''Type "cd PhotosWallpapers" to go to the Wallpapers folder. Then you can type "cd .." to go to back to the Photos folder.'' That is not use in natural language. A similar deletion rationale was used in a previous RFD now archived at Talk:Unsupported titles/Double period. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * rfd-sense: (computing) The parent directory.
 * rfd-sense: (programming) A range operator in some programming languages, including Perl and Swift.

 * Delete per previous discussion. Equinox ◑ 18:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 * P.S. Plenty more of these to be found elsewhere, e.g. is "the ID selector in CSS". Equinox ◑ 18:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Keep and add more programming language symbols. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think your keep in based on CFI? Do you intend the Translingual in the entry to mean trans-programming language? Shall we include JOptionPane (Java), std::cin (C++), equ (Win Batch), foreach (Perl) as quasi-attested in source code? All keywords and all APIs in computing languages, quasi-attested in source code? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a direly needed thing, for the world in general, you must admit. Especially for users of this project who have the questionable pleasure of acquainting Lua... Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Some people also need to know how to change a tire, but that doesn't make it dictionary material. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Let's add JOptionPane (Java), std::cin (C++), equ (Win Batch), foreach (Perl). Above all, let's add all symbols such as $, &&, ==. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is an insane thing to say. Are you saying we should include every class name in the Java standard library? DTLHS (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 * That's no less than insane (I chose the same word before the edit conflict with DTLHS above). JOptionPane isn't even a keyword but an API/framework class. Extending this to .NET, to take one lone example, we would be creating (undefinable!) entries for many thousands of classes such as XmlSerializer, ToolStripSeparatorRenderEventArgs and AsymmetricSignatureDeformatter. And that's before we get onto the property, method and constant names within each of those thousands of classes — just in .NET, not C++, Java or any of hundreds of other frameworks! Equinox ◑ 22:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 * There's endless variation between programming languages in exactly what a given token "means", with a lot of it coming from the architectures of the different languages. Even details of the implementation of languages on different operating systems and of different versions/builds on the same system can make significant differences. This is a massive can of worms that should be avoided at all costs. Besides, this looks like a matter of operating systems rather than programming languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Delete. DCDuring TALK 03:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments. 1. I suspect use as a range operator is attested in running English on Usenet and the like (derived from Perl or somewhere). If so, the definition can be broadened and the sense kept. 2. This is not only a range operator but also a flip-flop operator, and, if kept for its computing senses, is missing that sense. —msh210℠ (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Senses deleted. bd2412 T 20:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


text:
Talk:motted

RFV discussion: September 2011–March 2012
Not in any dictionary. Doesn't look much like a noun. Any takers?
 * 841 raw google hits for "motted skin" but I think the pertinent question is "Did you mean "mottled skin?" Fugyoo 23:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Another entry. If this is valid, then it's very very regional. Maybe Gtroy would care to tag it as such? Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many pages on the Internet where mottled and motted coexist (eg. "Ice blue motted background with brown mottled dots", or "For sale - Mottled Japanese bantam hatching eggs (...) Here for Auction is 6 Pure Black Motted Japanese bantam"). Seems like a typo to me, but a rather current one and it may deserve a . As for the "emergency medicine" tag, I'm rather doubtful. — Xavier, 00:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a bunch of citations
 * Yes there are 3 non-scanno citations now for the "mottled" sense so seems best to me. Fugyoo 06:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Let's just assume that all usages are scannos and typos except for W H Auden's usage in 1947 where he deliberately made up the word "motted" to mean "having a motte".  Since no-one else picked up his new coinage, it doesn't deserve an entry does it?  We could add a note to the mis-spelling entry.    D b f  i  r  s   21:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * made some big changesAcdcrocks 01:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for identifying the scanno, but, in view of the obvious scanno (8kin) in one of your chosen cites, what makes you think that "mottled" was not intended in all of them?   D b f  i  r  s   08:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Any objection if we follow Fugyoo's advice and make it ?   D b f  i  r  s   22:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any cites that make sense, may I go ahead and treat this as a ?   D b f  i  r  s   23:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Done. - -sche (discuss) 03:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

motted
An old Gtroy entry for a [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%28motted*5000%29%2Cmottled&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=6&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%28motted%20*%205000%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cmottled%3B%2Cc0 rare] typo (or perhaps in some cases a misspelling). Of the four citations Gtroy had found, three all used the spelling "mottled" more (suggesting "motted" was a mere typo), and [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Citations%3Amotted&type=revision&diff=33765356&oldid=16333366 the fourth seems to have been typoing "mooted" instead]. - -sche (discuss) 23:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Delete. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Keep as common misspelling; the frequency ratio after 1950 is 2500:, which is good enough for a common misspelling; compare e.g. ). The above mentioned fact that 'three [...] used the spelling "mottled" more' does not suggest to me that this is a typo rather than a misspelling; I'd hazard a guess that many works containing the misspelling beleive also contain believe. Moreover, WT:CFI only excludes rare "misspellings"; it does not have any statement excluding "typos". Thus, CFI excludes rare typos to the extent they are considered rare misspellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The statistics given don't convince me, specially as the "misspellings" seem to be mere typos. In English confusions based on someone attempting to spell based on pronunciation or a parallel to another word (again usually pronunciation-related) seem to me to be the kind of error worth offering assistance with. I don't think we are providing any useful help with scannos, typos, and thinkos. DCDuring TALK 17:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @DCDuring: Can you please list some 7 items that you think are "common misspellings", to be kept per WT:CFI? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * from Category:English misspellings, page 1

 * abacot - ?
 * abbreuvoir - ?
 * abhored - misspelling
 * abhoring - misspelling
 * abietadenic - ?
 * abit - misspelling
 * abitrary - ?
 * abnoxious - misspelling
 * aboricultural - misspelling
 * aboriculturist - misspelling
 * aboriculturists - misspelling
 * aboriginie - misspelling
 * abortation - ?
 * abration - misspelling
 * absail - ?
 * absailing - ?
 * absolvitur - ?
 * absteinous - scanno for abstemious?
 * abstenance - misspelling
 * abstenious - misspelling
 * accessability - misspelling
 * accessable - misspelling
 * accessive - misspelling
 * accessively - misspelling
 * acclamate - misspelling
 * accomodate - misspelling
 * accomodating - misspelling
 * accomodation - misspelling
 * accomodator - misspelling
 * accordian - misspelling
 * acetominophen - misspelling
 * acknowelege - misspelling
 * acount - misspelling
 * acousticly - misspelling
 * acquifiers - ?
 * acrue - misspelling
 * ad hominum - misspelling
 * ad nauseum - misspelling
 * adament - misspelling
 * adamently - misspelling
 * adducable - misspelling
 * ademona - ?
 * adhesine - misspelling
 * administeration - misspelling
 * adolase - ?
 * adryamicin - ?
 * adultry - misspelling
 * advancable - misspelling
 * aerobreaking - misspelling
 * æroplanes - alt form
 * Aferdita - thinko
 * affadavit - misspelling
 * affadavits - misspelling
 * affectionado - ?
 * afformation - misspelling
 * aformentioned - misspelling
 * afterall - misspelling
 * aggregrate - misspelling
 * aglomerate - misspelling
 * agnoletti
 * agrandize - misspelling
 * agress - thinko
 * aint - misspelling

I have no idea of the relative or absolute frequency of these, which has to do with whether it is "common". In some cases I have no idea what the misspelling is supposed to be a misspelling of and don't really want to expend the effort to resolve it. I'd like to see your assessment of the same list. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @DCDuring: Thank you for listing misspellings. Can you please list some 7 items that you think are "common misspellings", with the emphasis on "common"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As for your request, I won't be assessing the list--that is too long--but I will assess 7 items:
 * abstenance - - common misspelling
 * abstenious - - common misspelling
 * accessability - - common misspelling
 * accessable - - common misspelling
 * accessive - - rare misspelling - the confounding with other senses does not hinder the "rare" judgment
 * accessively - - rare misspelling - the confounding with other senses does not hinder the "rare" judgment
 * acclamate - - hard to tell since the misspelling sense is confounded with other senses
 * --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like a broader range of opinions on this. The cutoff for inclusion of misspellings is an area that bedevils us. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Delete. I agree with DCDuring—it's not helpful for us to include typos. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 05:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:motted


text:
συρματόπλεγμα

Noun

 * 1) wire netting, wire mesh
 * 2) barbed wire

title: συρματόπλεγμα


text:
Talk:ACME

RFV discussion: June 2011–February 2012
The etymology given is "". Can we provide some evidence of this? Also, if there is evidence, is that the source of just the Looney Toons incarnation or of the term as a generic company name in general. This is a term with a lot of folk-etymology baggage. - 10:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Etymology removed, sense broadened, tags removed. Re-nominate here or on RFC if problems remain. - -sche (discuss) 03:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: October 2011–February 2012
I imagine a general sense (which we do not have at the moment) meets CFI, but the sense currently in the entry needs to meet BRAND and/or FICTION. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The general sense might also belong at Acme. 109.155.174.230 18:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Resolved. - -sche (discuss) 23:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:ACME


text:
అఘము

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) sin, guilt.

title: అఘము


text:
Talk:prosopopesis

RFV discussion: October 2011–March 2012
Any takers? (Wikipedia article did not exist) SemperBlotto 07:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Appears to be very rare indeed, but it is now cited. It appears that this word never gained wide acceptance even among parapsychologists. Ordinary folks would probably call the phenomenon "personality change". --Hekaheka 09:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Passed. - -sche (discuss) 22:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

etymology
I suspect this word originated as a borrowing from, which would have had a derived form something like. The change of οίη to e in English would be etymologically unsound, as it was two syllables in the original Greek, not the same as the diphthong οι which is commonly represented by oe in Latin and as oe ~ e in French and English. — Soap — 14:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:prosopopesis


text:
Talk:pelvic lines

RFV discussion: October 2011–February 2012
It means something, but I'm not sure it means "The visible indentations made by the ilium marking the threshold between the navel and the thighs on fit people." - -sche (discuss) 08:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * More rubbish from Gtroy sockpuppet - I would delete it. SemperBlotto 08:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, maybe we can figure out what it (really) means. - -sche (discuss) 08:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Delete. I assume he means the "illiac furrows", colloquially known as Apollo's belt.  I've never heard "pelvic lines" used for these as a formal term, although it does make an adequate informal description. --EncycloPetey 18:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Meh, I'll close this RFV (now that I know the meaning) because it can easily be cited. If you think it's SOP, well, take it to RFD. - -sche (discuss) 01:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:pelvic lines


text:
Talk:𐌾𐌿𐍄

RFV discussion: October 2011–February 2012
If this term is "not attested", why do we have it? -- Liliana • 18:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost every grammar of Gothic lists the form, so even if it's not attested in Gothic corpus as such it's still mentioned a lot. And if we don't have it, what should its inflected forms have as their definitions? 'Accusative of...'? —CodeCat 18:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's unattested, let's deal with it the way we would any unattested form, in an appendix. This one wouldn't be too tough to handle. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @CodeCat: Comment. Personal pronouns are so irregular and oddly-behaved in so many languages that it often doesn't make sense to treat any of them as "inflected forms". With nouns and verbs, we postulate an abstract lexeme and choose a lemma form (e.g., there exists an English noun whose singular is human and whose plural is humans, and we choose human as the lemma form), but with pronouns I'm not sure how useful that is. You are apparently postulating an abstract "second-person dual pronoun" lexeme and choosing its unattested nominative as the lemma; but one could just as well postulate, say, an abstract "second-person pronoun" lexeme and choose its singular nominative as the lemma. I don't know Gothic, but it seems like it makes just as much sense to just treat each pronoun as a separate word;, for example, could be something like ": of you two." (And that's already more or less how it is currently defined.) —Ruakh TALK 15:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a bit dangerous to use the possessive forms as examples in this case. Possessives in the Germanic languages (as in Latin) are special and don't behave the way other genitives do. They inflect for gender and number based on the noun they modify, like adjectives do. So, the genitive of a personal pronoun is arguably more an independent lemma than the genitive of any other word. —CodeCat 17:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Meh. Kept. Ausnahmsweise (as an exception to our usual policy). If you disagree... well, we'll have the problem CodeCat describes. - -sche (discuss) 02:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Postscript: this arguably passes regularly, because its inflected forms are attested, and inflected forms count (AFAICT) towards attestation of other forms, and we only require one citation for extinct languages. - -sche (discuss) 02:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:𐌾𐌿𐍄


text:
Talk:Meta

RFV discussion: September 2011–March 2012
Can this be cited to meet our brand name criteria? -- Liliana • 13:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Meta


text:
Talk:albo

RFV discussion: September 2011–March 2012
I believe this is a misspelling of alvo, but I'm no expert in Portuguese orthogrphy. Matthias Buchmeier 12:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. Please re-add with citations. - -sche (discuss) 03:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Albo" ... ethnic slur?
"ALBO" isn't used as an "ethnic slur" - but just a short version of "ALB-anian". Like "ITAL-O" for "ITAL-ian".

That's it. LAGTON (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:albo


text:
Talk:versionitis

RFV discussion: September 2011–March 2012
Protologism? Caps? SemperBlotto 06:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Fixed caps and cited. Equinox ◑ 13:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 * The word 'versionitis' appears 37 times in Google Books. A regular Google search returns about 6,560 results. W4X7R4 04:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Passed. Thanks for citing it, Equinox! - -sche (discuss) 03:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:versionitis


text:
Talk:shitly

RFV discussion: September 2011–March 2012
rfv entry. Note the usage notes: Shitly is almost never used. I giggled when I saw that. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've found two in Google Books:
 * Sadly and shitly [sic] as it sounds, Lieutenant Perkins was killed more by accident than anything else.
 * Told how many he had killed, he had commented: 'I must have been shooting shitly.'
 * Fugyoo 07:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not promising when you can only find two and one of them needs a [sic]! Equinox ◑ 20:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Another example is this: 1 see no good that comes of standing shitly shatty, and letting the girl nurse herself with hopes of what must not be. - It seems to be something that the author just made up (along with shatty), presumably meaning not standing properly. I have heard of people using shittily, but never shitly. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 20:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely that's a scanno for "standing shilly-shally"! Equinox ◑ 20:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I've checked all the Google Books candidates, also Google News Archives. I've heard it used myself, and I'm fairly sure it could be cited from Usenet by someone who knew how. Fugyoo 21:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is indeed a scanno -- have a look at the actual scan here on Google Books, and it's clearly shilly shally:, with no mention at all of shitly:. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is another one that is not a scanno : ("I don't think he visualised a shitly spurt of divine anger"). FWIW, there are many citations on Google Groups. For example, search for "shitly designed", "shitly managed" or "shitly run". — Xavier, 00:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cited, using the the Usenet searches Xavier suggested. - -sche (discuss) 01:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is moot now since the citations added are all adverbs, but regarding that cite in Google Books, are we sure that's not a typo or printer's error? It's the wrong part of speech, for one -- shitly: would seem to be an adverb, but "a shitly spurt" would require an adjective, which would be shitty: instead in this context.  -- Ta, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Passed. Cites are on the cites page. - -sche (discuss) 07:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:shitly