text:
Talk:rediculous

rediculous
An alternative spelling of ridiculous. Though it may be in some idiolects, it seems like a low-frequency (ie, not "common") misspelling, occurring a a frequency less than 0.5% of the frequency of the generally accepted and used spelling. DCDuring TALK 11:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This should be at RFV. 11:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of attestation. It's a gum-flapper. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * gum-flapper? In any case, if this is attested, and there is no idiomaticity issue, then I don't see a reason not to have it. So keep. 12:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but change to misspelling. Not sure where your frequency figures come from but I see this all the time online. Equinox ◑ 12:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Keep but classify appropriately - I think we need a new categorization scheme for intentionally ironic Internet-age nonstandard spellings (wrong spellings that are nevertheless not an oversight by the writer). On a side note, I have heard this word in spoken English (where the speaker clearly intentionally pronounced the first syllable as "reh"); although the correctly spelled form uses a schwa and could theoretically take this pronunciation, it is far more likely to naturally take a "ri-" or "ree-" pronunciation. I therefore think that the use of the spelling, "rediculous", implies the specific pronunciation "reh-diculous". bd2412 T 13:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the misspelling implies anything about the pronunciation. For example, the way I always type "ridiculous" as R-E-D- - - -R-E- -I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S. It seems my fingers are just itching to put an "e" in there. --WikiTiki89 13:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see the data and methodology from which we could make a determination as to what might be ironic. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose one could tell from the context, in Usenet posts and Twitter posts and the like. For example, this forum post looks like intentional misspelling. bd2412 T 19:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I should have made it clear that I don't doubt that enough good-quality citations could be found for attestation especially on Usenet. I am very skeptical how one could document that such usage predominated. DCDuring TALK 21:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If enough citations exist to attest that the intentional usage exists independent of spelling errors, what difference does it make whether that usage predominates among all usage? bd2412 T 04:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Because if it will mislead normal users if we do not treat some minor deviant usage as a minor deviant usage. If it is attestable as an intended usage by an author writing in his own voice, it is includable aa such. But we would be downgrading normal use in favor of the precious to treat this as an alternative spelling, any more than we should treat boyz as an alternative mainstream spelling of boys. DCDuring TALK 05:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All of that can be solved with context tags and usage notes. We have plenty of words in the dictionary with multiple definitions, some of which are rare or obscure. We don't leave them out just because including them might seem to overstate their importance. I'm sure we can arrive at some solution that describes this word both as a misspelling, and sometimes as an occasional intentional usage. bd2412 T 17:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but change to misspelling. I completely agree with Equinox. --WikiTiki89 13:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I only checked Google Books, BNC, and COCA. For misspellings GloWBE is a better source of both absolute and relative frequency. It is hard to trust Google counts. But after several years of the question coming up we still don't have any consensus of what combination of absolute and relative frequency on any corpus makes something "common". A formula like (log(misspelling_rate_per_billion))*(misspelling_ percentage ratio) for a specified corpus should yield a good ordering. If there were agreement on the adequacy of the ordering, we would need to determine which corpus and where we would set the threshold. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * At GloWBE rediculous occurs about 2.0% as often as ridiculous, 560 occurrences per billion words. For comparison occurence occurs 300 times per billion and 3.9% as often as occurrence. Applying the formula gives a score of 0.127 for rediculous and 0.222 for occurence, ie, same order of magnitude. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: This may or may not be relevant, according to Google Ngrams, the relative frequency (ignoring what seems to be noise) has stayed rather constant throughout history (at a ration of about 1:1000, or around 0.1%). --WikiTiki89 15:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Edited works may not be good for finding out about the tendency to misspell among ordinary folks. OTOH the GloWBE corpus would over-represent typos. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly as a common misspelling, per . For a calibration that I used, see User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2013. If this is intentional, then I don't really know how to mark it. Common misspellings are kept per long-standing practice, and there is now even better evidence of consensus or lack of it at Votes/pl-2014-04/Keeping_common_misspellings. what are 7 examples of common misspellings that you would keep, and why would you keep them? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dan P., re "If this is intentional, then I don't really know how to mark it", see template:deliberate misspelling of. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no reason we can't have two senses, one for a "misspelling of" and the other for a rare "deliberate misspelling of". bd2412 T 16:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a reason: the sense is the same sense in both cases. But a note can explain this point. Lmaltier (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just my opinion, but I think an intentional misspelling, whether for irony or emphasis, is a different "sense" from a mere lack of care in spelling or typing. bd2412 T 22:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Kept. The question of whether an intentional misspelling is something different from a common accidental misspelling is beyond the scope of RfD. bd2412 T 15:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So where does such a discussion belong? If it can't be decided - one way or the other - here, is it a matter of policy? Does it need a vote, too? If the discussion needs to continue to resolve this, so be it. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Can we call this both a "common misspelling", possibly in the online context AND an intentional misspelling. The latter could be RfVed if someone were so inclined. DCDuring TALK 17:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Intentional misspelling" is misleading. It gives the impression that people are aware of their use being "wrong" and intentionally making a mistake. At least when I use it, I'm not intentionally making a mistake, I'm intentionally using a rarer spelling that many people disagree with. —CodeCat 17:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want us just to trust your eccentric idea on this! It's too controversial. How do we know that anybody else in the world would stick to this spelling as "correct but rare", even after being shown that it is not in any standard English dictionary? I find it hard to imagine there can be many such people. Equinox ◑ 18:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: "I'm intentionally using a rarer spelling that many people disagree with." That's rubiš. Pjúr rabiš. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is that we shouldn't be making assumptions on the intentions of the people that use such spellings. "Intentional misspelling" sounds to me like saying "they know the true path, yet choose in their folly to stray from it". "Misspelling" is not suited to a descriptive dictionary, as there is no way it can avoid implying that there is some kind of authority applying judgement. It also strongly implies that Wiktionary is that authority, which is wholly inappropriate for our descriptive point of view. To then add more wording to that which implies that someone had the audacity not just to make a mistake, but to do it on purpose, is even worse. —CodeCat 18:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If a dictionary can describe what people generally accept words to mean, it can describe how people generally accept them spelled. That most people would consider a spelling wrong is no less descriptive then saying that most people would consider calling a dog a cat wrong. There are a lot of spellings out there that no one would really defend as correct.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I support BD2412's closure above; is good, just the usage note is on wrong level. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The usage notes was not based on fact, just speculation, much more so than our normal assertions that something is a misspelling. (BTW, when did we decide to weasel out of asserting that a misspelling was "common"? Can't we stand up on our hind legs about anything?) DCDuring TALK 18:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your is good. Would you agree that this RFD is now being closed with the outcome that (a) the entry for the spelling is kept, and (b) the definition line should say "misspelling" rather than "alternative spelling"? I propose to put the usage note out of scope of this particular RFD. If you are still disturbed by the fact that the usage note is not based on any evidence, another RFD on the usage note could be in order (or an uncustomary RFV on the usage note?), but to keep things managable, I think it should be a separate RFD. So again, would you agree with (a) and (b)? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's an example in the wild: May 28, 2013, The Official Justin Timberlake Thread, page 13: "I love Britney but, That's rediculous, not ridiculous but, rediculous!" bd2412 T 19:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Closure challenged by DCDuring in . (Just for the record, so we know what the heck is going on here.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 * How is this really any different from teh? It's very hard to type "rediculous" as a pure typo because the "e" is not that close to the "i" on the standard keyboard. When you look at Google Books results for the word, you get two kinds of results - pre-20th century uses like:
 * 1852, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Volume 1, page 188: "O, stranger! that's rediculous, altogether," said the man.
 * and modern usages that seem very likely to be intentional, like:
 * 2013, Carolyn Costin, Your Dieting Daughter...Is She Dying for Attention?, page 44: "Jackie's schedule sounds too rediculous to be true, but it was confirmed by her family and friends".
 * 2012, Tom and Julie Nowak, Say What?, page ix: "A collection of preposterous and common proverbs and sayings, rediculous expressions, senseless, slang, colloqialisms and familiar folk wisdom..."
 * 2012, Winston Groom, Forrest Gump, Ch. 7: "Him bein a tank officer an all, he say it rediculous for us to be wagin a war in a place where we can't hardly use our tanks on account of the land is mostly swamp or mountains.
 * bd2412 T 19:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 * What makes you think any of those "very likely to be intentional"? (I mean, as CodeCat says, a deliberate choice to use a spelling that isn't in dictionaries, rather than simply not knowing what the standard spelling is. I am not suggesting anybody hit the wrong key on a keyboard.) Equinox ◑ 19:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the closure was that this was kept, which is abundantly clear from the discussion. The nuances of the definition should be worked out on the entry's talk page. bd2412 T 19:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Pure typos are not only caused by proximity on the keyboard. They are also caused by muscle memory, Freudian slips, dyslexia, etc. --WikiTiki89 19:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is no dissension from the entry existing, can we move this discussion to the entry talk page, or to the Tea Room, if it requires a broader forum? My master plan of cleaning house on the RfD page after this weekend is in jeopardy! bd2412 T 19:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll settle for the closure, but I think once an item is open here, it deserves to get the attention of participants until it is a decent entry, if it is to be kept. I had the feeling that we were closing things for the sake of clearing out the page. (tail, dog) I will undertake to do what I can to move RfDs in which I participate toward a conclusion.
 * As to the source of error in those cases that it is a true mistake, it seems likely that the writers have misconstructed the word as derived using the prefix re- and/or in accordance with a common emphatic pronunciation, which I have used myself. I suppose those who enjoy violating spelling norms deserve their space in this dictionary if no other. Getting a free attestation ride on pure mistaken spellings seems an easy way to gain an entry. DCDuring TALK 20:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be an easy way, but it's within the rules. See, Category:English misspellings. This (rediculous) is by no means unique. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 * RFD kept as misspelling per discussion above. (Second attemp at closure.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I opened #rediculous (usage note) specifically for the usage note. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

rediculous (usage note)
The following usage note is herewith proposed for deletion: "This spelling may sometimes be used intentionally for effect."

Rationale: weak or non-existence evidence supporting the usage note.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Wouldn't this be an WT:RFV thing? --WikiTiki89 20:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Even if quotations are provided, their assessment as to their support for the usage note may turn very controversial. I propose to leave it here in RFD, and let those who want to keep this collect as much supporting evidence as they can. In the end, the closure will be a RFD-one, based on vote counting. (Yes, in the ideal world, it would be based on the strength of arguments, but no one has yet come up with an algorithm assessing strength of arguments.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * One citation that I provided makes exactly this distinction: May 28, 2013, The Official Justin Timberlake Thread, page 13: "I love Britney but, That's rediculous, not ridiculous but, rediculous!" Here the writer is basically indicating that they know the word is spelled "ridiculous" but that the situation is so extreme as to be "rediculous". I would also point again to 1986, Winston Groom, Forrest Gump, Ch. 7: "Him bein a tank officer an all, he say it rediculous for us to be wagin a war in a place where we can't hardly use our tanks on account of the land is mostly swamp or mountains". Here the misspelling is obviously being used as eye dialect representing the character's accent. 2013, Tracey Hollings, The Curious Musings of Sally Columbous, page 108, has a chapter heading titled "Rediculous". While we are on the subject, by the way, the number of hits for 18th and 19th century uses suggests that at one point this was a legitimate alternate spelling. bd2412 T 20:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Eye dialect is yet another separate sense line, presumably, since it's neither (accidental) misspelling nor eccentric personal choice à la CodeCat. Equinox ◑ 20:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Four senses, then? Common misspelling, intentional misspelling, eye dialect, archaic alternative use? bd2412 T 20:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I thinking we're overdoing it. I think "misspelling" covers all those cases. But I'm going to vote keep on the usage note based on BD's evidence. --WikiTiki89 20:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 * The way I've handled other things that were acceptable in the past but are now restricted in some way is along the lines of this: . I recognize that "nonstandard or eye dialect" is a bit clunky, so perhaps "eye dialect of" could be a separate sense, but saying "now nonstandard: alternative spelling of" rather than having separate "archaic spelling of" and "misspelling of" senses seems useful. - -sche (discuss) 21:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On further investigation, this Ngram suggests that it has been hovering around 500-1000 times less common than ridiculous (except for a bizarre spike around 1817-1818) for the last 200 years. It does, however, go back a ways before that. Here is a slightly earlier quote: 1598, William Shakespeare, Loves Labors Lost: the first quarto, page 57: "Their shallow showes, and Prologue vildly pende, And their rough carriage so rediculous, Should be presented at our Tent to vs". bd2412 T 22:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * With Shakespeare, one can always blame the typesetters. DCDuring TALK 23:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really a matter of blame – spelling was rather fluid then. I would just say ‘obsolete or non-standard spelling of’. Ƿidsiþ 11:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think one citation from Shakespeare is enough to call it obsolete. --WikiTiki89 11:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are some more citations contemporaneous to Shakespeare:
 * 1592, Thomas Nash, Pierce Penilesse, His Supplication to the Divell, page 28:
 * Dalliance in the sagest and highest causes is an absurdity, and like a rediculous Vice in a tragedy, or a poisonous serpent in Paradise.
 * 1594, Robert Parsons, A Conference about the Next Succession of the Crown of Ingland, page 14:
 * ...but if it be ment as though any Prince had his particuler gouermenr or interest to succeed by institutió of nature, it is rediculous, for that nature giueth it not as hath bin declared, but the particular constitution of euery comon wealth with-in it selfe...
 * 1603, George Gifford, Thomas Wright, A Dialogue Concerning Witches & Witchcrafts, page 60:
 * God hath given naturall helps, and those we may use, as from his hande against naturall diseases, but things besides nature he hath not appointed, especiallie they bee rediculous to drive away devilles and diseases.
 * 1609, Jean François Le Petit, A Generall Historie of the Netherlands, page 1288:
 * It were a rediculous spectacle, that after they had stript our wives and children of all their clothes, and made them forfeit to your highnesse, they should afterward condemne them to depart out of your territories Within three dayes.
 * 1610, St. Augustine, Citie of God, page 327:
 * O lamentable necessity! nay rediculous detestable vanitie, to keepe vanity from diuinitie.
 * Cheers! bd2412 T 13:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, excellent! --WikiTiki89 14:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Was it the same typesetting shop? ;-) DCDuring TALK 15:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But seriously, folks, EME is almost as bad as Middle English in terms of lack of standardized spelling. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That would certainly explain this. bd2412 T 16:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have hypothesized proliferation from the very beginning. Maybe editing/proofreading was better initially, but rapid growth (and lower prices?) reduced such effort. I wonder if anyone has studied this? DCDuring TALK 16:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Excellent citations from bd showing old usage. And I like the <tt>context + alt form</tt> solution which has been implemented. I question only whether it should say "archaic" rather than "obsolete". According to our glossary, obsolete is for things "no longer in use, no longer likely to be understood" while archaic is for things "no longer in general use, but ... generally understood by educated people, but rarely used in current texts or speech"; the latter seems to apply here. PS, I find a few citations of "radiculous" as an archaic or obsolete spelling of "rediculous", plus a few citations of it as something related to "radicular" (but one book says "radicular pain" emanates from radicles, while "radiculous pain is pain without anatomic basis"). - -sche (discuss) 16:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

 * For the record, keep the usage note. bd2412 T 18:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

 * RFD kept per either consensus for keeping or in any case no consensus for deletion (2 boldface keeps for the usage note, one non-boldface possible keep (-sche), one non-boldface possibly opposing argumentation (DCDuring)). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:rediculous


text: manuscriptjes

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

title: manuscriptjes


text:
Talk:eŭska lingvo

Deletion discussion
See Talk:sveda lingvo. bd2412 T 15:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:eŭska lingvo


text:
Talk:vaska lingvo

Deletion discussion
See Talk:sveda lingvo. bd2412 T 15:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:vaska lingvo


text:
Talk:itala lingvo

Deletion discussion
See Talk:sveda lingvo. bd2412 T 15:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:itala lingvo


text:
Talk:irlanda lingvo

Deletion discussion
See Talk:sveda lingvo. bd2412 T 15:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:irlanda lingvo


text:
Talk:klingona lingvo

Deletion discussion
See Talk:sveda lingvo. bd2412 T 15:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:klingona lingvo


text: maoïstje

title: maoïstje


text: maoïstjes

title: maoïstjes


text:
kemper

Etymology
From. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬. Compare also 🇨🇬, from 🇨🇬, from 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) One who kemps, or strives, for superiority; a champion or knight-errant.

Noun

 * 1) confluence

Noun

 * 1) one who strives to complete the greatest amount of work

title: kemper


text:
Talk:European dragon

Chinese dragon
A dragon from Europe? A dragon from China? We've had a lot of crazy entries fall to SOP; I'm surprised that these stayed. Pur ple back pack 89    20:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 * It's a little more complicated than that: these are two completely different mythological "species". The European dragon is a malevolent, fire-breathing devourer and destroyer, while the Chinese dragon is an ebullient symbol of strength and vitality. The question is whether the two concepts are present in the language as discrete entities independent of their parts. I'm inclined to think they aren't, though there's a small amount of usage set in fantasy universes/alternate realities where they're treated as actual species- sometimes even with taxonomic names. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the nuances between European and Chinese dragons, those nuances a) are kinda encyclopedic, and b) don't exist in the definitions RfDed at the moment. Pur ple back pack 89    21:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the nuances are present in the Chinese entry, at least, in as much as I think its sense 2 (which details the appearance of the dragon) is the same as its sense 1. (I've added a RFD tag to sense 2.) I agree with Chuck on all his points, and am inclined to delete these. Frankly, I think it would make more sense to have two senses at [[dragon]], as we already do. - -sche (discuss) 22:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Delete European dragon, but keep Chinese dragon. A European dragon is basically just the generic idea of a dragon; the Chinese dragon imports additional qualities. Also, the definition as written suggests that Asian dragons generally are called "Chinese". If a dragon from Vietnam or Mongolia is therefore "Chinese", then this would seem to be idiomatic. bd2412 T 00:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Both look rather encyclopaedic to me, i.e. I'd lean toward deletion. Equinox ◑ 12:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Delete While it's true that Chinese dragons are different to western dragons, they're not consistently called Chinese dragons. "Asian dragons", "Eastern dragons", "Oriental dragons", "Japanese dragons", "Korean dragons" are all citable, as is simply "dragon" used to refer to Chinese-style dragons (for example, this description of a scene in Spirited Away simply says "The first time is when Haku, in his dragon form, has been attacked by paper planes, and he's bleeding profusely", without ever mentioning that his "dragon form" is based on an Asian dragon.) These entries should definitely go, although I would support keeping the current subsenses at dragon (which explain the distinction quite nicely without getting too encyclopaedic). Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Delete. The differences are encyclopedic, not lexical. --WikiTiki89 16:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Chinese dragon. It's a different creature from normal dragons, e.g. it can't fly. It's a single word in CJKV languages (single character and single syllable). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is a single-character word in Chinese is completely irrelevant. --WikiTiki89 11:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Chinese dragon, because I think it belongs to the vocabulary of the English language. The fact that there are synonyms is not a reason to delete. I don't understand The differences are encyclopedic, not lexical: the lexicographical importance relates to the term, not to characteristics. Note that, according to Bernard Heuvelmans, this dragon was inspired by observations of a species of marine mammal. However I think that this marine mammal is never called Chinese dragon. I know that there was such an observation by soldiers from a French military vessel in the Hạ Long Bay, and note that this name Hạ Long Bay refers to a legend stating that the bay was created by a dragon. Lmaltier (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's some slight controversy about whether this type of dragon is Chinese from Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese point of view but from the Western perspective, it's probably Chinese but there may be some variations in Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese mythologies. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete both ( accidentally voted twice ). It does not "belong to the vocabulary of the English language". When people talk about Chinese dragons, they usually call them "dragons". The fact that they are Chinese is just an occasional clarification. Even though dragons are different in European and Chinese mythologies, the word "Chinese" does not create a lexical difference. --WikiTiki89 11:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, they usually call them "dragons". Just like they usually call red foxes foxes. Lmaltier (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you would never call a "red fox" a "fox that is red" or a "maroon fox", because "red fox" is a set term that refers to a type of fox. But with "Chinese dragons", you could just as easily say "dragons in China", "dragons in Chinese mythology", "Asian dragons", or even "dragons in the Far East" to mean the exact same thing. --WikiTiki89 19:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Chinese dragon is a further clarification, just like "brown bear", which is also a bear, you don't have to call them "brown bears" every time you talk about them. A Chinese lantern is also a type of lantern. Brown bears and red foxes can also be called bears and foxes but they are brown bears and red foxes, not simply bears and foxes. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, you can't call a "brown bear" using any other synonym for "brown". You can't call a "Chinese lantern" using any other synonym for "Chinese". But you can call a "Chinese dragon" using any synonym for "Chinese". --WikiTiki89 02:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I've cast my vote and let the RFD take its course. "Chinese dragon" is not just the name of the creature but has some symbolism, as in Zodiac, hence "Year of the Dragon", which is not using a common dragon in the European sense. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Notice how it's the "Year of the Dragon" and not the "Year of the Chinese Dragon". I am not denying the existence or separate identity of the dragons of Chinese folklore; I am only denying that they are idiomatically named "Chinese dragon". --WikiTiki89 02:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The same can be said about Chinese lanterns. You don't need to use "Chinese" all the time, e.g. in "lantern festival". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The first part of the above can be said about "Chinese lanterns", the second part (the part about not being idiomatically named) cannot. "Chinese lantern" is idiomatic because "lanterns in China" are not necessarily "Chinese lanterns", but "dragons in China" are the same thing as "Chinese dragons". --WikiTiki89 02:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, dragons in the Chinese fashion are the same thing as "Chinese dragons". A translation that put Middle Earth in the Middle Kingdom would not turn Smaug into a Chinese dragon; TMZ's Dargon the Dragon, originally a mislabeled Chinese stuffed animal, was always a European dragon made in China.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Chinese dragon; the use of panda alone does not make red panda and giant panda not words; likewise with Chinese dragon. I'm less sure with European dragon, as it seems to be the default for dragon to mean the European dragon in English, with European just being a geographic clarifier.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, "European dragon" seems to be used only in comparison with other types of dragons, such as Chinese dragons. Noteably, for East Asians, 龍 and its Sino-Xenic descendants is the default and European and other dragons would need clarifications. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

At present, the balance of the discussion is as follows: On these numbers, I would close this as a clear delete for European dragon, and no consensus for Chinese dragon. Does anyone object to this reading of the outcome? bd2412 T 16:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * European dragon: 0 keep, 6 delete (Purplebackpack, BD2412, Equinox, Smurrayinchester, WikiTiki89, -sche)
 * Chinese dragon: 4 keep (BD2412, Anatoli, Lmaltier, Prosfilaes), 5 delete (Purplebackpack, Equinox, Smurrayinchester, WikiTiki89, -sche)

...

Deleted European, No consensus on Chinese, per the above. bd2412 T 14:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:European dragon


text: marimba's

title: marimba's


text: marimbaatje

title: marimbaatje


text: marimbaatjes

title: marimbaatjes


text:
Talk:Chinese dragon

Deletion discussion
See Talk:European dragon. bd2412 T 15:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Trad, simpl
Traditional and simplified forms apply to all lects. Please supply both forms in translations, just like Mandarin.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chinese dragon


text: markeerstiftjes

title: markeerstiftjes


text: kempers

title: kempers


text:
dialektikko

Etymology
(see 🇨🇬), ultimately from. Has the derivational suffix.

Noun

 * 1) dialectician one versed in dialectics

title: dialektikko


text:
Talk:animalike

animalike
A misspelling of "animallike". It seems attested:. But this is not a common misspelling by any stretch (not found by Google Ngram Viewer at all), and should be deleted as a rare misspelling. . For regulation, see WT:CFI; for consensus, see Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-04/Keeping_common_misspellings; for previous practice of deleting rare misspellings, see talk:himand. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

 * anima-like seems to barely exist in Jungian writing, meaning "like an anima", but animalike doesn't seem to be used. Delete Not sure if it's worth having an article for "anima-like" - the hyphen makes it a totally transparent compound. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Delete. Should be created if this spelling of anima-like is found. My Pocket Oxford Dictionary considers that the -like suffix may be added to any noun, and that all these adjectives should be considered as English words. But I think that this theoretical existence is not sufficient, and that at least one attestation is required before creating the page. Lmaltier (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even animallike looks weird to Kiwi eyes. As for anima-like, well, if it exists it should be spelt that way, and not animalike. Donnanz (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 19:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:animalike


text: marktleidertje

title: marktleidertje


text: marktleidertjes

title: marktleidertjes


text:
Talk:Odie

Odie
Fictional dog in Garfield. Again, the citations are very weak. Someone saying "my dog looks like Odie" does not suggest dictionary-worthiness, any more than someone saying "TV Show X is a lot like TV Show Y". Equinox ◑ 06:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Winnie the Pooh. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no let-us-remove-Winnie the Pooh policy. Winnie the Pooh was deleted via RFV since no one provided quotations. Now, Winnie the Pooh is back with quotations that appear to meet WT:FICTION. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Keep, despite the citation being weak. This can host useful lexicographical content such as pronunciation. No added value in deleting the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't see much justification in this. Any writeable word or phrase can be pronounced. Equinox ◑ 01:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The pronunciation of a multi-word proper name is largely sum of parts. As for attested single-word proper names, they should IMHO be included as far as possible, unless we have a very good reason to exclude them; I have never heard such a reason. Even Winnie the Pooh should be included, for the translations. If we want to exclude valid lexicographical information (pronunciation, etymology, translation), we need a reason. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Equinox once said that if someone uploaded a load of pictures of cats, there would be no value in deleting them. So what? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are making a serious attempt at an argument. Of course there is value in deleting excess cat images that we do not need to support our cat entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What I'm really saying is the 'no value in deleting' argument is a bad one. There's value in deleting anything that shouldn't be here. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Delete. The cites are awful.  I have not been able to find a single cite that even comes close to WT:FICTION.  Choor monster (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. bd2412 T 15:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you perhaps point me to a page where I can read a rationale for WT:FICTION and Votes/pl-2008-01/Appendices for fictional terms? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The vote was presented to the community and passed with overwhelming support. I'm not sure what further rationale is needed. It didn't just come out of the blue, but required some discussion to reach the point of feeling like a vote was needed. I wish I could point you to that discussion - I see some of it here. bd2412 T 16:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So would you agree that the vote fails the elementary standard of rationality, namely that the proposal it makes is not supported by arguments? A support, even an overwhelming one, is not a rationale. To the contrary, each editor needs to have a reason for supporting the vote, and that reason should ideally be disclosed. In a vote having a rationale where the votes are bare, they can be guessed to support the rationale, but even that is uncertain. When the voter provides a rationale, the poor reasoning is sometimes disclosed; one supporter wrote this in the vote: "I do not believe words should have different criteria just because they are fictional or because they are company names instead of brand names." This flies contrary to their supporting vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to any policy that requires rationality? Even if there were it would be a counsel of perfection without impact for practical people. DCDuring TALK 19:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I know of no such policy. Some people here claimed (Lmaltier, CodeCat, Angr I think) that proper consensus-building exercise requires arguments and not just bare votes. I am quite sympathetic to this view. I wanted to be certain that I have not overlooked the rationale for the vote. There is now a considerable chance that the vote is based on poor thought which, when articulated, would get harshly bleached in the direct sunlight of critical inspection. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a rational man will not expend time on arguments, rational or otherwise, when they are not necessary or productive, as when a vote's outcome seems not likely influenced by such arguments. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe not a rational man but a man supporting the consensus-building exercise as envisioned by some. And the rational man might simply say "as per User XYZ", since User XYZ already did the articulation for them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Dan Polansky, I would not agree that "the vote fails the elementary standard of rationality"; discussions were conducted that lead up to the vote, and the rationality of having this rule came out of those discussions. bd2412 T 19:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I cannot find the rationale in these discussions. But differently, the discussions do not provide to me the answer to the following question: What is it that makes the proposer and the supporters think that the proposal of the vote is a good one, worthy their support? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Suppose I write a story about an alien wizard named Sklerzblerzer. That's a new word - should it go in the dictionary? Suppose my story gets published in a magazine? In a book? It seems fairly obvious that there's a large swath of activities which fall short of having that word merit inclusion in a dictionary. A line has to be drawn, and the community just did some line-drawing. bd2412 T 21:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For "Sklerzblerzer", you will need three independent quotations. Independent is defined in WT:CFI, and requires that the quotations are from different authors. Why we need a stronger drawing line than presented by this is left unexplained. Is it the digital storage? Or the editing cost? Is it comparable in volume to every attested species name? --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue for Odie is that the citations are very poor. The first one specifically refers to Odie in "Garfield", which is not very independent. bd2412 T 23:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My subject is, is WT:FICTION supported by a meaningful rationale; since if it is not, then justification via that policy is a justification that leads nowhere as a justification. That was the subject of at least two previous posts. The subject of your post is, are quotations for Odie good enough for WT:FICTION. That is a different subject. You discuss whether the quotations are independent; they are absolutely WT:CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The third citation is of a different dog. The chatter writes about his/her former dog Odie. In the text from which fourth citation is taken, a reference is made to Garfield cartoon before discussing Odie. Does not look very independent. Do web chats really count as citations? They did not count when superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen was deleted. Not that I would miss it so much, but it would be reassuring to see some logic in judgments. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: "Does not look very independent.": It is WT:CFI. It is quite possibly not independent for the purpose of WT:FICTION and its phrase "independent of reference to that universe".
 * Re: "Do web chats really count as citations": Let me remind you of our long-standing practice of accepting Usenet quotations as durably archived and thus suitable for WT:ATTEST. The four quotations that I see at Citations:Odie are all from Usenet.
 * As for "superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen": when it was sent to RFV, you provided exactly zero attesting quotations meeting WT:ATTEST; actually, Citations:superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen could even host quotations that do not meet WT:ATTEST when properly so marked, for interest, but even there you placed no quotations at all. Here is a search for attesting quotations, which finds nothing at all: . --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your objection with respect to whether WT:FICTION is supported by a meaningful rationale. I think we agree that we can't have entries for every proper name given to a fictional character, and some line must be drawn as a cutoff for including such names. I gather that your disagreement is not with the existence of such a line, but with where it has been drawn. I would suggest that if a citation refers to "Glorfindel from the Lord of the Rings", that qualifier by itself indicates that the name has not acquired linguistic significance justifying inclusion in a dictionary. Odie may be closer to the line, but I have yet to see the evidence that it crosses it. bd2412 T 14:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that some line needs to be drawn beyong the general CFI. The general CFI already excludes non-attested items. Attestation requires three independent quotations, where independence requires different authors. WT:FICTION introduced addition to the general CFI, one whose very existence lacks rationale. I have offered the directions in which the rationale could be sought, such as disk space, maintenance, overflood (beware of species names), but no one confirmed I am looking at the right direction. I still do not know the rationale. I only know that people feel additional line has to be drawn beyond the general CFI, but do not explain why it needs to be drawn. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Why have Odie when we don't have the corresponding sense for Garfield? If we keep Odie, shouldn't we have Jon Arbuckle and every other more or less famous cartoon character as well? Sometimes I have serious doubts about this project. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously nobody created the corresponding sense for Garfield. We have Popeye, and there's no reason we shouldn't add the few cartoon characters that people actually refer to this way (which I'm not sure includes Jon Arbuckle.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And what about Lyman? And Nermal?  And Pooky?  And Herman Vermin?  Especially the last one, there are at least three!
 * And what is the purpose of Citations:Garfield as it is now? 90% of it should be deleted, right? Choor monster (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, not really. There is no rule requiring that citations be attached to an entry. We have a number of citations pages for unattached terms to explain why they don't merit an entry. What needs to be done here is to subdivide Citations:Garfield into its applicable senses. bd2412 T 02:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of this non-attachment policy, and have used it several times myself. What I meant is that most of the citations are not attesting anything according to our WT:FICTION guidelines.  That is, Odie is the fictional dog, but we don't consider "Odie" to have entered the language until we get citations like Come on, Fido, stop playing Odie with me!  And yes, our policy may change, but I find it distracting to have non-policy-now citations mixed in.  And certainly in the case of Odie, the character is so well-known I doubt anyone would insist on citations.  (Unlike, say, Herman Vermin.) Choor monster (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are other reasons why it makes sense to keep them. For example, if "Odie" (as a comic character still in use) does come to meet the CFI in the future, we won't need to reinvent the wheel in collecting earlier citations. We can also keep a note on the Citations page to show that we know these uses exist, but the community has determined that they don't justify inclusion of the word in the corpus. bd2412 T 16:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

 * As someone who has come late to the game here, with policies like WT:BRAND and WT:FICTION already in place, I thought they simply made good sense, and that was that. Start a WT:BP discussion, but here it is very distracting clutter.  I have been happy to find WT:FICTION attestation for numerous fictional characters. Choor monster (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 02:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Odie


text:
Talk:fag marriage

fag marriage
lacking any etymology, there is no usage outside of a few quotes from people of negligible importance.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The etymology is transparent. The importance of the people whom the cites come from is irrelevant. The only real question is whether this is sum of parts or idiomatic. Since gay marriage and same-sex marriage have both already survived RFDs, we've already decided that they are idiomatic. If they are, this is. So keep. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have gay marriage and same-sex marriage as Angr pointed out. This is arguably more idiomatic, since the citations suggest it's used broadly to refer to all same-sex marriages, not just male-male marriages, as a literal interpretation of the term's components would suggest. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@both of ^^^, I agree GM and SSM are idiomatic. The terms are in the vernacular. But unlike the puerile suggestions of mine (that became definitions!), FM is anything but, now nor ever in the past. Seems a low bar to merit a definition, akin to Wikipedia's notability principle. It's usage is practically non existent. But I'm new here so I acknowledge I might not have considered other reasons.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is not SoP, then the rules of WT:CFI are applied. If it meets those criteria, it is kept. In a nutshell, if the term is used in durably archived media such as printed books, and three citations can be found that span at least a one year, then it is kept. You feel that it should not be included because it is too rare, but it only needs to be used three times. We do not limit ourselves to common terms, but we also include rare terms, antiquated terms, and obsolete terms. —Stephen (Talk) 06:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I consider this (and gay marriage, which I think already passed a discussion) to be SoP. I would like this entry gone, but I don't agree with the deletion rationale since, as Stephen says, there are sufficient citations available. Equinox ◑ 16:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would delete as not meeting WT:CFI. Gay marriage and same-sex marriage don't meet WT:CFI either but majority decisions count more here than WT:CFI. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 02:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:fag marriage


text:
Talk:cheese on toast

cheese on toast
SOP. --WikiTiki89 20:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Keep (possibly); I have amended it to uncountable (always), in case the entry survives. Donnanz (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by possibly? If you're unsure, you shouldn't vote. --WikiTiki89 22:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth keeping, but let's see what others think. Should also be categorised under "Foods". Donnanz (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Delete. Just another goofy creation by Wonderfool, trying to play us for fools. --- · (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

 * The current definition is definitely SOP, but the Wikipedia article seems to indicate that a slice of cheese placed on a piece of cold toast would not qualify. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct. Make the toast first, put the cheese on top, then grill it until the cheese melts. Donnanz (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's a feature of toast, though. If you order a "toast" for breakfast, you can expect it to be fresh out of the toaster. --WikiTiki89 12:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I have had a go at improving the definition. I would class it as a hot snack rather than a dish (part of a main meal). Donnanz (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * delete. Just think which other things you can put on toast. "Bacon on toast" gets about 1.5 times as many Google hits as "cheese on toast". "Ham on toast", "ham and cheese on toast" and "bacon, egg and cheese on toast" are quite popular as well. Wonderfool! --Hekaheka (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fried egg test? As far as I know cheese on toast always refers to melted cheese on toast. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See WT:FRIED for the fried egg test. --WikiTiki89 16:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a specific thing and has to be prepared properly. Cold cheese on a slice of toast is not ‘cheese on toast’. Ƿidsiþ 07:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to have cold cheese on a hot piece of toast. And as I've already mentioned, "toast" by itself implies a hot piece of toast. --WikiTiki89 11:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)--WikiTiki89 11:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well the point is that the cheese has to be grilled and melted over the toast. You can't just make toast and put some slices of cheese on it; that's not cheese on toast. Ƿidsiþ 11:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting somewhere. Can you find citations of this definition? Would you say it is the equivalent of the American term grilled cheese? --WikiTiki89 11:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a grilled cheese is a sandwich though, isn't it? In the UK that's what we'd call a (cheese) toastie. But cheese on toast is open. Just do a Google Images search and you'll exactly what it is. Ƿidsiþ 11:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See also . Ƿidsiþ 11:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * An open-face sandwich is still a sandwich, though, isn't it? Anyway, in my idiolect, I sometimes use "grilled cheese" to refer to refer to exactly what is pictured at, but I can't speak for anyone else. --WikiTiki89 11:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I do make cheese on toast by toasting bread and then putting processed cheese on it and allowing the heat from the toast to melt the cheese. But maybe others would say that isn't "real" cheese on toast. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We're in another fried egg situation where some people say that any fried egg is a fried egg, while others add specific restrictions to it. --WikiTiki89 12:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As the nominator of the entry, I have been convinced and am voting keep. --WikiTiki89 11:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 02:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:cheese on toast


text:
Talk:forest fruits

forest fruits
SOP. Definition 2 of, before anyone says it’s impossible to know that they are edible. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

 * But how will the readers know that it doesn't refer to homosexual or effeminate men dwelling in the royal hunting grounds? Delete . --WikiTiki89 19:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

 * At least over here, forest fruits refers to specific fruitved=0CFwQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepages like berries and not just any fruit growing in a forest. keep. -- Liliana • 19:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

 * That's because berries happen to be the kinds of fruit that grow in forests. --WikiTiki89 19:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

 * They can also grow outside of a forest though. And of course, fruits that you wouldn't call forest fruits can grow in a forest, like apples. -- Liliana • 19:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

 * It's not about what can grow in a forest; it's about what typically does. Anyway if this is kept, it should be moved to the singular. --WikiTiki89 19:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I must say I didn't know this expression was ever used in English. I've heard here in Germany often enough to mean mixed berries, but growing up in the States I don't remember ever hearing "forest fruits". The German word at least is practically a plurale tantum, but I'm not familiar enough with the English word to make that call. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In British English, you come across it as a flavour of yoghurt and of squash (as in the drink), though it's normally "fruit(s) of the forest". The easiest version to attest though is "fruits of the forest pie", which seems to usually be made of raspberries, blackberries, blueberries and apples (some recipes also use rhubarb - not technically a biological fruit, but a culinary fruit as listed under sense 2 at fruit). It doesn't look like there's a fixed recipe though, which doesn't help in proving it means anything other than "fruits that come from a forest". On the other hand, quite a few languages have cognates - Italian has frutti di bosco, Portuguese has frutos silvestres and Dutch has bosvrucht. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we know that this term is not attestably used to refer to inedible fruit? Do any of the putative restrictions on the meaning have any empirical support?
 * Also, almost all fruit of any kind is edible by something, if only by fungi with the assistance of sun, water, oxygen, and the passage of time.
 * I don't think edibility makes a difference really (although "toxic forest fruits" and "forest fruits are poisonous" get Google hits). Sense 2 at fruit is "Any sweet, edible part of a plant..." and that would cover everything that's come up in this discussion so far (including rhubarb, which is not a true fruit). Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, I would absolutely consider this idiomatic. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Probable keep - but should be an alternative form of SemperBlotto (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's . --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to keep, but move to the singular. Also, see, showing that even though the singular may not be quite as common, it still makes up a good percentage of the uses. --WikiTiki89 12:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, per SemperBlotto et al. Leasnam (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Kept. Any moving of the lemma is outside the scope of RfD. bd2412 T 02:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:forest fruits


text:
Talk:-kunst

-kunst
This page has a huge list of derived terms, many of which I'm not familiar with. However, all of those I do know are simply very transparent compounds of the noun Kunst (Popkunst is very clearly pop art). German forms compounds readily, and it would be daft to list every compounding form as a suffix (the only comparable examples we have are -kunde, which honestly seems pretty borderline to me as well, and -wesen, which has taken on an abstract meaning well beyond the meanings of Wesen). Unless there are examples where X-kunst doesn't mean "art that is X" or "art of X", this should probably go. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Ƿidsiþ 11:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Me too. Delete. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and move the derived terms -list to "Kunst". --Hekaheka (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That part I just did. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed and delete per nomination. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not directly related to this nomination, but perhaps as a prefix meaning "artificial" would be acceptable (see the current sense 2 of the noun). There's also, which seems to be based on the original meaning of "ability" rather than the current meaning of "art". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Delete. Equinox ◑ 19:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 20:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted; the derived terms have already been moved over by Aɴɢʀ. bd2412 T 21:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC discussion: August 2014
I don't want to RFD this, but it doesn't look great. I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as a "quasi-suffix", and I'm pretty sure that this is, in fact, just the noun Kunst. The vast majority of entries on the incredibly lengthy list of "Derived terms" are clearly just compounds of X + Kunst (eg. Avantgardekunst (avant-garde art), Popkunst (pop art), Straßenkunst (street art)). The definition also mixes up etymology, definition, usage notes and translation. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But shouldn't it be RfDed (possibly converted to a redirect) as is a noun in a language that forms compounds from nouns readily? DCDuring TALK  22:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it should be deleted via RFD. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to check whether there were any examples on that page that weren't simply compounds of the noun Kunst before taking it to RFD. But you're right, that's probably a better place to ask. I'll close this RFC. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:-kunst


text:
Talk:Krypto

Krypto
Superman's dog. The citations are incredibly weak, not suggesting any particular generic usage. Equinox ◑ 06:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, despite the citation being weak. This can host useful lexicographical content such as pronunciation. No added value in deleting the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 01:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The citations do not show sufficient use of this term apart from the fictional universe from which it arises. bd2412 T 21:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the rationale for WT:FICTION and Votes/pl-2008-01/Appendices for fictional terms? Where can I find it? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To avoid Wiktionary becoming a detailed wiki for every fictional universe out there. --WikiTiki89 12:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How can a wiki dictionary that only defines terms and does not provide descriptive encyclopedic information beyond that become a "detailed wiki"? Furthermore, should Frodo Baggins be deleted from Wikipedia, so that Wikipedia does not become "a detailed wiki for every fictional universe out there"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. They have coverage of the content of notable works of fiction, which includes information about some of the characters. We're a dictionary. We don't. Notice also the word "notable". Wikipedia's notability criterion excludes huge quantities of information that our CFI don't. I don't think we want to have entries for every minor character in every comic book, cartoon show, etc. that has occurred in durable media three times in independent sources over more than a year. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do we want to exclude entries for [single-word terms denoting] every minor character in every comic book, cartoon show, etc. that has occurred in durable media three times in independent sources over more than a year? Italics mine; square brackets mine. Do we fear to run out of digital storage space? Do we fear the management overhead more than we fear the management overhead of all the names of all the species or all the names of chemicals? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the effect of WT:FICTION ensures "true" independence. I'm dubious whether any direct reference to Superboy's pet dog should be counted as independent.  It's somehow just a highly non-authorized "sequel", no matter how brief.  But something attributive, like Fido was always fearless, diving in to danger and loyal to his unit, a real-world Krypto strikes me as independent.  Scooby-Doo and Mighty Mouse and Mary Worth and Winnie the Pooh have all entered the language to that depth.  Has Krypto? Choor monster (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't require species names or names of chemicals to "enter the language" and gain "true independence" by referring to something else but the species and the chemicals. Ditto for Perun. Ditto for place names. (Note that my questions are so far unanswered.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I presume this is our version of w:WP:SNOW, really a SNOWKEEP. You have not received answers in the form you asked, true.
 * Meanwhile, why are you questioning policy here? We have a policy regarding fictional characters, and the question here is whether Krypto meets this policy, not whether this is a good policy.  In the past two weeks I've added citations for a half-dozen or so such, including a recreation of Winnie the Pooh, awaiting a Czech translation.  If there was something about Krypto that shows there's something funny or borderline about policy, that's one thing, but you're saying nothing specific regarding Krypto. Choor monster (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have the habit of voting contrary to written policy if I deem it good for the dictionary; when I do, I present my reasoning. This is especially true when I use "translation target" as an argument. I am not alone in this; in Talk:olinguito, editors decided to keep the entry despite its failing WT:ATTEST; the keeping was not policy-based. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And there the pretty much unanimous consensus was that policy was obviously incorrect in that kind of instance. Like I said, it was kept as a SNOWKEEP.  The only thing missing is no one bothered to propose an official rewrite of policy. Choor monster (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Krypto


text:
dianamarakatti

Etymology
🇰🇲

Noun

 * 1) Diana monkey,

title: dianamarakatti


text:
Talk:sự hy sinh

Non-idiomatic Vietnamese words
The following pages contain classifiers, which serve the same grammatical function as English articles (though more descriptive). I think they should be deleted because they are non-idiomatic (the forms given in parentheses should not be deleted):

 * cái võng (=võng)
 * cây điều (=điều)
 * cây keo (=keo)
 * cây sa kê (=sa kê)
 * cây thông rụng lá (=thông rụng lá)
 * cây xương rồng (=xương rồng)
 * con cóc (=cóc)
 * con ếch (=ếch)
 * con giòi (=giòi)
 * con muỗi (=muỗi)
 * con nhím (=nhím)
 * con rận (=rận)
 * đàn ghi-ta (=ghi-ta)
 * quả sa kê (=sa kê)
 * quả sầu riêng (=sầu riêng)
 * quả táo (=táo)
 * sự hy sinh (=hy sinh)
 * sự giải quyết (=giải quyết)
 * trái chà là (=chà là)
 * trái mít (=mít)
 * trái sa kê (=sa kê)
 * trái vú sữa (=vú sữa)

I don't think Wiktionary should have articles like "cái võng", which means "a hammock" (as opposed to "võng", which means "hammock"). Also, "sự giải quyết" is considered a word with a classifier in front, not a word per se. (This means there will never be a Vietnamese entry with the definition "decision".) I'm less sure about deleting the tree (cây) and fruit (quả, trái) entries, because we do have entries like "apple tree". Note that not all entries named with classifiers are problematic: "quả đất" would be perfectly fine, because it means "Earth", not "ball of dirt".

See also Requests for moves, mergers and splits.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 10:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Delete those that seem problematic. I'm curious about nouns with the nominaliser "sự", though, such as sự hy sinh, sự giải quyết. Do you always treat them as non-lemma forms? What about sự kiện vs kiện? Is that a different case? We could use giải quyết as a lemma for "to decide" but [[sự giải quyết]] is a translation for "decision". So a valid translation for "decision" would be where "sự giải quyết" is displayed but linked to the verb "[[giải quyết]]". Perhaps an approach for Japanese -suru verbs can be taken, e.g. 勉強 has both noun and verb sections. Thus, nouns with "sự" could all be linked to verbs/adjectives without them. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 13:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 * What helps in determining whether or not a word fits the idiomaticity requirement of CFI is the prevalence of the expression in general use as well as the semantic weight each individual expression can carry. "frog" has as much semantic equivalence as "the frog" for example, and even when the latter is more grammatically correct and more commonly used, most people are apt to understand just the former by itself as well. Does the classifier carry any semantic weight with it? Your example quả đất is a good starting point, as it indicates that when the literal translation "ball of dirt" is extended to its logical conclusion, it becomes "Earth" in its totality. The initial classifier quả changes the meaning slightly yet significantly. I think we would have to make similar considerations, such as sự giải quyết ("the act of deciding" = "decision") for example. Does "decision" have anything semantically new that is not provided by "the act of deciding"? As for precedent, I think it's great in discouraging future redundancies such as "muỗi" and "con muỗi"; I don't think there should be equivalent entries at "mosquito" and "the mosquito" for example. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't know if you like the idea but I suggest to have sự-nouns in the entries without them. E.g. see of  where I added a noun section (and other things) -  . To an English speaker "sự hy sinh" is a noun meaning "sacrifice", even if the lemma form is "hy sinh". "sự hy sinh" could be formatted as an "Alternative form of hy sinh" or a "sự-noun form (or similar) of hy sinh" if a template is created. I have created Category:Vietnamese sự-nouns, which now contains just one entry - "hy sinh" but perhaps "sự hy sinh" should be there instead? Not sure if redirect is the best option, users might want to know what this "sự" means and why we have two forms - "hy sinh" and "sự hy sinh".
 * With the living creatures too, a Vietnamese translation of "toad" is "con cóc". It seems both "cóc" and "con cóc" mean the same thing - "a toad". Many dictionaries use "con cóc" to translate "toad" even if "con" can be dropped. Not sure if "toad" and "the toad" is a good analogy here or even Mandarin or Japanese measure words (counters or classifiers). E.g. Mandarin is never used in dictionaries as  (classifier + noun). Vietnamese "con" must have a much wider usage. Perhaps another category for "con-" nouns should be created. Sorry, my knowledge of the Vietnamese grammar is very basic but I'm thinking from the users' point of view. Using "cls=con" in Vietnamese noun entries is not a bad idea but perhaps con-nouns should also exist? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have never used the word sự in regular Vietnamese I cannot speak to that, but what I can say is that the word con and the like are really semantically empty categories, save for a few specific situations. Why do we omit particles a/an/the from our entries even though they are so commonly and widely used? We have seen and heard many ESL learners even omit these words when they try to speak English, and their utterances remain perfectly understandable. It is because these particles are semantically empty categories, they are only used as specifiers in number and specificity. If you were to omit the word the from your paragraph above, it is still semantically parsable even as it is grammatically incorrect. Similarly, a Vietnamese speaker would simply tell you that omitting the classifiers is grammatically incorrect, but they'd still be able to understand what you were trying to say (save for a few ambiguous homonyms where classifiers are expected, but again homonyms exist in English too, and besides those may warrant separate entries). The majority of these are rather silly and redundant entries for a dictionary to have, like nhím and con nhím, duplicating the entire contents of one onto the other. This extra maintenance, we do not need, it provides more work for us should something change, and it takes up empty space. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 * I cannot fully agree with you at the moment. See my section about sách below. nhím is used with con but not all nouns seem to behave the same way. Could you explain, e.g. why dictionaries list living creatures with "con"? Why do they show "con nhím", not simply "nhím" for porcupine?
 * With nouns with classifiers I may agree to delete the terms but the corresponding lemmas should have a "cls=" parameter. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

 * I certainly agree that we want to help readers find out how to turn "hy sinh" into a noun, but calling "hy sinh" a noun is misleading. It really is a verb. The "sự" is understood if you try to use "hy sinh" like a noun; indeed, "sự" is very rare in spoken Vietnamese, only used to disambiguate e.g. "sự chết" (death) from "cái chết" (a death). Why not simply treat "sự hy sinh" as a usage example? We can definitely have Category:Vietnamese con nouns and the like for actual nouns, but I would expect Category:Vietnamese verbs classified by sự rather than Category:Vietnamese sự-nouns. If necessary, I can add a  parameter to  that doesn't display the classifier but instead adds the entry to a "classified by" category.

 * "Con cóc" can be the Vietnamese translation of "toad" just as "hy sinh" would be translated as "to sacrifice" rather than just "sacrifice". That is, I have no problem with mentioning the classifiers in translation sections, but they don't usually warrant separate entries. And I think the classifier should be linked separately, if at all.

 * We should make an exception for Sino-Vietnamese terms like "sự kiện" (事件). As far as Vietnamese is concerned, "sự" and "kiện" are just syllables.

 * One point I neglected to make is that "cây táo" (apple tree) would probably be acceptable, because "táo" on its own refers to the fruit, as in English. "Cây" can still be omitted (e.g., "trồng táo" to grow apple trees, not just the apples). In contrast, "bạch dương" (poplar) on its own refers to the tree, so "cây bạch dương" is redundant.

 * – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Well, you yourself suggested to delete the "sự" nouns. I was just thinking of a way to allow such entries.
 * I want you to consider the Japanese analogy again, where the situation is the same but verbs and nouns swap their placec with Vitenamese. 勉強 (benkyō, "studying, studies") is a noun and a verbal noun. To form a verb, you need to add する (suru, "to do") to the end. Rather than having a separate entry for "勉強する", which means "to study". The entry for 勉強 contains a verb section, which displays 勉強する in the header. I've done the same thing for "sự hy sinh" (only it's a noun made from a verb, the reverse from Japanese), which is in the verb entry "hy sinh" but now has a noun section and displays "sự hy sinh" in the header. This resolves the lemma problem, IMO. It remains to be discussed whether "sự hy sinh" gets a special entry or a hard/soft redirect to the lemma form "hy sinh". Re: but calling "hy sinh" a noun is misleading. If you examine the "hy sinh" entry carefully, you will see that it's not "hy sinh" but "sự hy sinh", which is a noun. If they don't warrant a separate entry, they can be turned to redirects but the information should be saved into separate sections in the lemma entries. Cases like "sự kiện" may get separate entries, no problem with that. Other words like "con cóc" can be treated similarly but there shouldn't be any information loss for users.
 * I have renamed the category as suggested -Category:Vietnamese verbs classified by sự. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think an entire section is necessary for "sự hy sinh" in hy sinh; a usage example is enough. See "cạnh tranh", which gives both "sự cạnh tranh" and "tính cạnh tranh" as examples. I don't think there would be any information loss this way. (There would be two noun sections under your proposal.) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Delete. sự kiện is fundamentally different from "sự hy sinh". Wyang (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Keep, since I find the stated reason for deletion implausible: "The following pages contain classifiers, which serve the same grammatical function as English articles ...". The claim that the leading syllables serve the same grammatical function as English articles is hard to believe: "cây" is also a noun meaning tree, "quả" is also a noun meaning fruit and "trái" is also a noun meaning fruit. Admittedly, these are also entered in Wiktionary with the part of speech of "classifier". Vietnamese_grammar contains no inline references, so its accuracy is hard to verify. On another note, the spaces seem to indicate separation of syllables rather than words; thus, to delete sự hy sinh ("sacrifice", noun) as sum of parts (sự "nominaliser particle" + hy sinh "to sacrifice") may be a bit like deleting "crucifying" as a sum of parts (crucify + ing). --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Vietnamese classifiers can carry as much meaning as "set" in "a set of underwear" but grammatically function the same way as "a" in "a shoe". That is, you can usually delete "sự" when "hy sinh" is used where a noun would go, and you can delete "cây" where there is no possibility of mistaking the tree for the fruit. I purposely left alone any "cây" entry for fruit trees, where there would be such an ambiguity ("apple tree" meets CFI and so would "cây táo"). Vietnamese is an analytical languge, unlike English, so not all analogies work. Spaces do separate all syllables, but those syllables are each words in their own right, except in onomatopoeia, reduplication, or Sino-Vietnamese borrowings. "Sự hy sinh" can be viewed as two words: whereas "ing" has no meaning on its own in English, "sự" is a noun in isolation. ("Hy sinh" is a Sino-Vietnamese borrowing, so "hy" has no meaning on its own.)  I'll improve Wikipedia's discussion of classifiers shortly, but in the meantime, there's a wealth of academic research online about them, for example: .  starts out with a good overview. For something more accessible, see [//books.google.com/books?id=TK5aMW3HYU0C&pg=PA60 this grammar chapter] and this one by Laurence Thompson. Finally, it may be helpful to see how reputable [//books.google.com/books?id=pyOzf86iZNUC&pg=PA11 translationaries] deal with this issue.  – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * These things called Vietnamese classifiers do not seem to be very similar to English articles. You say they serve the same grammatical function, but I am rather unclear about what you mean by that. I can add "a" or "the" to almost any English noun; from what I have understood, you cannot freely combine any classifier with any noun or verb; furthermore, an addition of "a" vs. "the" indicates definiteness or determinacy, while that is not what the classifiers do. The classifiers seem to be similar to -ing, -ion, -ness, -ize, -er, -or suffixes and to "tree" and "fruit" in "apple tree" and "apple fruit". An almost perfect regularity in application of classifiers--if there is one--may make it customary for Vietnamese-English dictionaries to omit combinations that include the classifiers, but it is less clear that this fits the overall approach of English Wiktionary, which even includes inflected forms as separate entries, and which has "coolness" as a separate entry, unlike Merriam-Webster online, which only has a dedicated entry for "cool". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that a large part of this problem is that you are too fixated on interpreting these to be like prefixes or suffixes when the comparison to English "-ing", "-ness", etc is pretty inadequate on its own. And besides, muỗi is redundant to con muỗi and this duality would only create more maintenance work in the future should something change. This seems to be a problem dictionaries have with Sinitic languages in general, when classical classifications of PoS like "noun", "verb", "adjective" are inadequate at fully capturing the meaning of a lemma. But I'll let Mxn speak more about these entries. TeleComNasSprVen (talk 10:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You have not explained why the comparison of "sự" to -ing and -ion and the like is inadequate; I have explained what makes a comparison to English definite and indefinite articles implausible to me, or at least not useful in deciding whether the Vietnamese combinations should be kept. A reasoning along the lines of '"sự hy sinh" should not be kept, since we do not keep a car' is entirely implausible to me.
 * As for maintenance, I do not see any maintenance problem with "con muỗi" vs. "muỗi" that is absent in "blueness" vs. "blue" or "plowing" vs. "plow"; indeed, MWO avoids "blueness", while en:wikt does not. However, since both con muỗi and muỗi mean "mosquito", the former could have a definition line reading like "classifier-extended form of muỗi", or the like; the same approach is not so useful for sự hy sinh (sacrifice, noun), which is not synonymous with hy sinh (sacrifice, verb). But even there, sự hy sinh could read like "Nominal form of hy sinh; sacrifice". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already given my explanation further up the page and I'd have expected you to fully read all the arguments presented here before coming up with a rebuttal of your own. You might have done so, but nevertheless, I believe Mxn is more qualified to comment on the classifier-as-PoS-issue (he's even given you links to the literature on them which I was not previously aware existed), so rather than risk having the appearance of talking out of my ass I will leave it to him. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your does not explain why the comparison of "sự" to -ing and -ion and the like is inadequate. The only part of the diff that pertains to "sự" is this: "As I have never used the word sự in regular Vietnamese I cannot speak to that [...]". --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was certainly simplifying things by comparing classifiers to English articles. My point was only that they often introduce the noun in usage but aren't considered part of the word. As you suggest, you can't arbitrarily combine just any classifier with any noun, but you can't say "stick of cattle" or "head of butter", either. Now, "butter" and "cattle" are collective or mass nouns, so what about count nouns? Well, Vietnamese has no such thing: "mít" refers to the concept of jackfruit, so "quả" is required to refer to an individual jackfruit. If that's enough to warrant a separate entry, why not include "stick of butter" and "head of cattle" as well?  Even though "sự" may be used in many of the situations in which English uses the suffix "-tion", they are not equivalent grammatical features. I'm a fan of inflection entries, but Vietnamese has no inflection, as the most basic description of the language will attest. Chinese, another analytical, non-inflected language, has a similar system of classifiers (including a nominalizer), yet Wiktionary doesn't use them in entry titles. Inflection entries help me master Spanish conjugations because I can find poder if all I have is pudieron, without needing to remember that poder is a stem-changing verb. But if you know no Vietnamese and encounter sự cạnh tranh in a sentence, does that need still arise?  – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 12:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

 * @Minh Nguyễn. Could you answer my question I asked above: why dictionaries list living creatures with "con"? Why do they show "con nhím", not simply "nhím" for porcupine? I am familiar with Mandarin and Japanese, Mandarin and Japanese dictionaries don't list nouns with their classifiers. So, a Chinese porcupine is simply in dictionaries, not 头豪猪 (classifier "tóu" + háozhū). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict) I can't speak for the other languages, but English-Vietnamese dictionaries show "con nhím" as a translation of "a porcupine" as opposed to the general concept of "porcupine". (Hence my original rationale, which in hindsight was a distraction.) Plus, you may very well want to say "three porcupines", at which point you need to know "con". That's why I've been putting classifiers in translation sections and in Vietnamese entries here. But I just don't think they need to be so prominent. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 13:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

 * (after an edit conflict) Since Vitnamese has no inflection, it can easily afford entries like sự cạnh tranh (competition) in addition to cạnh tranh (compete) and still take fewer pages in English Wiktionary than all the inflected entries in a highly inflected language. You point to the pair of pudieron and poder as worthwhile for its surface intransparency, but "plowing" (plow + -ing) and "plowed" (plow + -ed) seem rather surface transparent and yet we include them. I admit that the sự-combinations seem extremely transparent, also for the inclusion of a space after "sự", but I am still not sure this should lead us to have no entries for transparent sự-combinations, not even soft-redirect entries. I think the representation of Vietnamese in English Wiktionary should be accurate while still convening to the needs and expectations of English speakers. Thus, some English speakers ask that we include long German compounds such as Bindungsdissoziationsenergie, since they do not feel comfortable finding the locations of split into component words, while many German speakers may feel this is a transparent sum of parts not worth having; this is an accomodation of representation of German in English Wiktionary to the needs of English speakers. As for maintenance, I have addressed the issue above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

 * The generic classifiers "cái" and "con" don't even translate into English. Look at all the examples at Vietnamese grammar. (I just like to think of them as meaning "a", ignoring English's definite/indefinite distinction, because both languages put something in that slot before the noun.) "Sự" is a bit special in that it appears mostly in dictionaries (to be pedantic) and very formal writing (like the thank you letter the Foundation sends donors). In "normal Vietnamese" it barely even exists, so I'm not sure that it would help people much. When I was just starting to learn Vietnamese, "sự" was just one more individual word I had to look up when trying to parse a formal sentence. If a total newbie encounters "Cảm ơn sự thông cảm của bạn" ("Thank you for your understanding") and doesn't know what "sự" is for, they won't immediately know to start a search with it anyways. More likely, they'll look up "cảm" (huh?), "cảm ơn" (ah: thanks), "sự" (turns things into nouns), "sự thông" (nothing, so "sự" goes by itself), "thông" (huh?), "thông cảm" (ah: sympathize), "của" (belonging to), "bạn" (you). You don't start out by knowing that "thông" and "cảm" go together, or that "sự" starts anything in particular. Spaces in Western languages are boundaries for search terms. Vietnamese is not so convenient, and I'm not convinced that soft redirects are worth it for "sự". – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 13:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

 * I think Dan Polansky is not far off saying that certain additional words/syllables serve the same purpose in Vietnamese as they -ing, -ion, -ness, -ize, -er, -or, etc. suffixes do in English. "sự" is certainly a nominaliser that turns verbs like "hy sinh" (to sacrifice) into nouns, e.g. "sự hy sinh" (sacrifice). It's not an "instance of sacrificing" or "a sacrifice" but simply a noun meaning "sacrifice". See sacrifice@vdict.com, which gives "sự hy sinh" as a noun translation for "sacrifice". So does my pocket Berlitz English-Vietnamese dictionary. Admittedly, "hy sinh" is the lemma here, that's why a noun section can be added here. A usage example is not sufficient, IMO.
 * Let's take some more examples. con cóc appears in dictionaries in this longer form, even if "con" is a classifier but "cóc" is the lemma. Why words such as hotel are not used with classifiers but simply as "khách sạn". Why is "book" simply sách, not "cuốn sách" - classifier "cuốn" + sách (book). Are cóc and con cóc synonymic? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 11:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict) As I just mentioned at Vietnamese grammar (with sources), classifiers aren't used for Sino-Vietnamese compound words like "khách sạn". Your dictionary is inconsistent: given the "con nhím" example you gave above, I would expect "cuốn sách" for "book", even though it means "a book". ("Sách" by itself could just as well mean "books" in general.) There's more than one nominalizer in Vietnamese, which is why "cạnh tranh" mentions both "sự cạnh tranh" and "tính cạnh tranh". But "sự hy sinh" does also mean "an instance of sacrificing" if you append a demonstrative: "sự hy sinh này" (this sacrifice) or "sự hy sinh đó" (that sacrifice). Please don't tell me we need to add sections for those too! "Cóc" and "con cóc" are synonymous, yes. The difference between a noun section and a usage example is to me one of emphasis. I believe these extra sections would just clutter up entries for words like "bay" that already have both verb and noun senses. If we must include a grammar lesson (nominalization) at each and every verb entry, how about usage notes, like the ones at "cattle"? Templates could help. (Wiktionary should have more such usage notes: "corn" fails to mention "ear of corn" anywhere.)  – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 13:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I'm now convinced about Vietnamese classifiers. It's not just one dictionary, which is misleading learners to believe that "con cóc" is a word. I can quote at least two, plus some textbooks (plus Google Translate for some reason). No other dictionary for a language, which features classifiers, AFAIK, confuses users providing "classifier + noun" in translations of English nouns. It's also to do with the way specifically Vietnamese classifiers work, compared to other languages. In Vietnamese, a sentence can start with a classifier, without a numeral or determiner, it's not the case with some other languages. Anyway, I'm OK to delete such cases - "classifier + noun".
 * I'm not convinced about "nominaliser + verb" cases, though, even if some Vietnamese grammarians don't consider them true nouns and there could be more than one nominaliser. Some grammarians don't considers Japanese suru-verbs true verbs either. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Request for move discussion is here Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits. Only applies to entries with "classifier + noun" entries from the above list. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Reviving the discussion, which mainly moved to Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits and that part is complete - entries moved to terms without the classifier. Further comments are sought for "sự" nouns, a few of the above. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I am inclined to close the above discussion as no consensus. There does not seem to be much certain momentum for deletion, and there is some thoughtful argumentation that the words in question are the equivalent of prefixed and suffixed English words. If anyone else has anything to add to alter the balance of this discussion, speak now. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We had agreement on words prefixed with classifiers. They have been fixed and converted to redirects to proper terms. The "sự" nouns are waiting for further comments. Even if there are various nominalisers in Vietnamese, IMO it's safe to keep them. A reference to how grammarians treat these words would be appreciated. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, closed as resolved. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 * A small correction: sự hy sinh and sự giải quyết are kept as no consensus to delete (or any sự-noun). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:sự hy sinh


text:
Talk:chà là

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:chà là


text:
Talk:con cóc

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:con cóc


text:
Talk:con giòi

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:con giòi


text:
Talk:con muỗi

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:con muỗi


text:
Talk:con nhím

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:con nhím


text:
Talk:con rận

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:con rận


text:
Talk:con ếch

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:con ếch


text:
Talk:cái võng

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:cái võng


text:
Talk:cây keo

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:cây keo


text:
Talk:cây sa kê

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:cây sa kê


text:
Talk:cây thông rụng lá

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:cây thông rụng lá


text:
Talk:cây xương rồng

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:cây xương rồng


text:
Talk:cây điều

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:cây điều


text:
Talk:cóc

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:cóc


text:
Talk:ghi-ta

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:ghi-ta


text:
Talk:giòi

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:giòi


text:
Talk:giải quyết

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:giải quyết


text:
Talk:hy sinh

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:hy sinh


text:
Talk:keo

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:keo


text:
Talk:muỗi

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:muỗi


text:
Talk:mít

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:mít


text:
Talk:nhím

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:nhím


text:
Talk:quả sa kê

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:quả sa kê


text:
Talk:quả sầu riêng

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:quả sầu riêng


text:
Talk:quả táo

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:quả táo


text:
Talk:sa kê

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:sa kê


text:
Talk:sầu riêng

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:sầu riêng


text:
Talk:sự giải quyết

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:sự giải quyết


text:
Talk:thông rụng lá

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:thông rụng lá


text:
Talk:trái chà là

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:trái chà là


text:
Talk:trái mít

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:trái mít


text:
Talk:trái sa kê

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:trái sa kê


text:
Talk:trái vú sữa

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:trái vú sữa


text:
Talk:táo

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:táo


text: Template:cite-web

title: Template:cite-web


text:
Talk:vú sữa

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:vú sữa


text:
Talk:xương rồng

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:xương rồng


text:
Talk:điều

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:điều


text:
Talk:đàn ghi-ta

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:đàn ghi-ta


text:
Talk:ếch

Related deletion discussion
See Talk:sự hy sinh. bd2412 T 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:ếch


text:
Talk:evening prayer

noon prayer
Delete as sum of parts. It could be argued that they are not sum of parts since they refer specifically to Islamic prayers, but I do not believe they do so refer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Evening prayer at least is also used in Anglicanism. Not sure about either the Muslim or the Anglican meaning being SOP though, since I think both are more specific than "any prayer uttered in the evening". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If the meaning is more specific, what are their specific defining qualities or characteristics beyond "prayer taking place in the evening"? How do you know that these specific additional qualities are really picked by the term "evening prayer"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See . The Anglican Evening Prayer service has a specific form, with certain elements that belong to it and certain elements that don't. However, on consideration, the name of the Anglican service is usually capitalized, so maybe Evening Prayer would be a better entry for it. I don't know about the Muslim service (or the Jewish one ). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Defining qualities for evening prayer includes 4 rak'as. A specific amount of sunnah prayers afterwards. As well as vocal utterance as opposed to the quiet ones during dhuhr and asr. Similar defining characteristics exist for the other entries. Pass a Method (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't we need a different definition for the specification of the prayers evoked by the use of this term for each religion and sect thereof by the inclusion logic suggested to far? Is each such definition a reflection of a name of a specific entity? DCDuring TALK 18:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They are probably not SOP's since they're not any prayers uttered in the evening, but a specific one which is typically done in congregation with various doctrines attached. As for different definitions, thats up for other editors to add since i'm not knowledgeable about that. Pass a Method (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, "evening prayer" refers to the prayer that you say in the evening (not any prayer you say in the evening, but the prayer you say in the evening). The specific content of such a prayer in various religions is encyclopedic and not part of the definition of the word. --WikiTiki89 21:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 * would have led to inclusion of the Anglican sense, which might have led to inclusion by analogy of the Islamic sense. DCDuring TALK 03:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I think they all should be kept. They can all be expressed as single words (abbreviated) in Arabic and some other languages. They are like "breakfast", "lunch" and "supper" as opposed to "meal". See, , , and  (some definitions are incomplete, they also stand for the short names of the five daily prayers). English synonyms for all these prayers: "fajr", "zuhr"/"dhuhr", "asr", "maghrib" and "isha" (English definitions are also incomplete or missing). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The existence of breakfast, lunch, dinner, supper, etc. does not mean that we need to include morning meal, evening meal, etc. --WikiTiki89 05:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * morning meal is synonymous with "a meal in the morning". thus not the best example.Pass a Method (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge: I think many people know breakfast, lunch, dinner, but a few (at least I) don't know what the Arabic name of the prayers are. If I want to know what the prayers are called in Arabic, deleting them would make this impossible. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I've updated entries "fajr", "dhuhr"/"zuhr", "asr", "maghrib" and "isha" - the synonyms, which are much less known to English speakers but in case the community decides to delete the above entries, we'll have at least something. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Kept; no consensus for deletion. bd2412 T 00:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:evening prayer