text:
Appendix:Gikun Usage in Meiji Version of Japanese Bible/禽鳥

Etymology
Gikun word derived by applying Chinese-derived spelling, a term which decomposes into + , to native Japanese verb.

Noun
(tori) → (tori),  (kinchō)

 * 1) fowl, birds


text: backscreens

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

title: backscreens


text:
antigramatical

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  ungrammatical in violation of a language’s grammar

title: antigramatical


text:
ingramatical

Adjective

 * 1)  ungrammatical in violation of a language’s grammar

title: ingramatical


text: jednej

title: jednej


text: jednemu

title: jednemu


text: metaprocesses

title: metaprocesses


text: like fuck

title: like fuck


text:
User:Equinox/EditCounterOptIn.js

/* the existence of this page enables the full "X!'s Tools" statistics, in case I want them in future */

title: User:Equinox/EditCounterOptIn.js


text: jednym

title: jednym


text:
Appendix:Gikun Usage in Meiji Version of Japanese Bible/昆虫

Etymology
Gikun word derived by applying Chinese-derived spelling, a term which decomposes into + , to native Japanese words  +.

Noun
／ (haumono) → 、、  (ha.u-mono),

 * 1) creeping things (insects)


text:
Talk:Mango

RFD discussion: December 2014
This is no more capitalised than any other bird name; which is to say, ornithologists capitalise bird names all the time, but we as a dictionary generally don't (see BP for background). Keith the Koala (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * An RFD is hardly needed here. I found that all infomation given under English for "Mango" was already included in the entry "mango", and deleted the English section of "Mango". --Hekaheka (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mango


text:
Talk:outside the box

RFD discussion: December 2014–January 2015
This term attests, in an idiomatical mannner to mean what is "beyond the bounds of convention", i.e. what is thought of conventionally yet it is at least thought of by a person running across it for the first time. Once they share their thought others are bound to question it and want to know what it means and if someone says it at a convention it may be thought of by a great deal of people. Some of them may be publishers who will then bind this thought into a cliche. If an editor shares this "outside the box" on the internet it may rapidly... become a meme? At this point I think it fair to conclude that it defines something "restricted by convention", or inside the box e.g. saying it's complete rubbish yet isn't this increasingly becoming meaningless to everyone? --Riverstogo (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what your point is, but assuming you're saying that outside the box is SOP, it seems to me that it passes the "jiffy test" of idiomaticity: "think outside the box" is the original term, and there's no way to tell from the elements of that phrase what the phrase means. Since then, people have reverse-engineered terms from it such as "think inside the box" and "outside-the box thinking" that use "the box" as a metaphor- but "the box" wasn't independent within the original term. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My point derives from a number of points. Like a story. You have to connect the dots... one at a time, like you read words one at a time, or understand paragraphs one at a time. You keep going and you gradually build up a picture. I you lift your pen so to speak, you may be thinking outside the box and the picture may take on more di-mentions. But if you insist on arbitrary rules, like the jiffy test, or the complete rubbish test which I am now performing, the task becomes harder as nearly everyone can agree when you are thinking outside the box but not whether you should be. --Riverstogo (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if I agreed with you... what possible relevance to the deletion of the Wiktionary entry outside the box? What you or I consider to be conventional is irrelevant. As long as people use it (they do) and it's idiomatic (it is). Would you want to delete conventional for the same reasons? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a number of points I would like to make on this, but I feel they can wait. What I want to note right now is that someone has edited the section title. Please do not edit section titles as this breaks links on talk pages and in other discussion fora. --Riverstogo (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WT:DELETE currently lists as the basis for "the deletion of [a] Wiktionary entry"; 1. Complete Rubbish: The contents don’t make sense [...]
 * To make sense of something we need to agree on something. That is why convention is important. Otherwise like you say even conventinal words would be currently under discussion.
 * 2. Title misspelled: Move the article to the correct title [...]
 * Spelling is an important convention, moving "the box" of a meaning around is like.. moving a box around.... you don't know what is in the box anymore or where the box is. You have lost context.
 * 3. Contents have been moved to another project: Depending on the reason for the move, an article for the term may still be warranted [...]
 * What is inside the box may have changed the meaning of what it means to be outside the box. I'm not saying there's a bomb inside the box, I just want to know if I should keep standing next to the box? or metaphorically call for volunteers to go inside the box before we delete safely distant from the box?
 * 4. Protologisms (i.e. words that have been made up by the poster) have their place in Appendix:List of protologisms [...]
 * I just discovered these @busive terms [...] --Riverstogo (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Keep: The "box" is metaphorical, so "outside" and "inside" it are metaphorical. I'm also confused.  Yesterday, it seemed as though you wanted inside the box created.  Now you want them deleted. Pur ple back pack 89   02:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you use metaphor to excuse any meaning or lack thereof, even a complete rubbish one? Yesterday I did want the inside of the box created, but earlier today I discovered an inconvenient truth... it is complete rubbish. Unfortunately, no one can be told what "the box" is [...]? --Riverstogo (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Saying that nobody can define what "the box is" is exactly why inside the box and outside the box should exist. Pur ple back pack 89  04:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It just doesn't matter. We don't all have to agree on the interpretation of a term for a term semantically related to that term to not be deleted. By this logic, we should delete convention, conventions and conventionally also? Because no all speakers agree on the interpretation of the meaning? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you casting such doubt conventionally? The current discussion is about a metaphorical box that supposedly has some meaning (MBTSHSM). You say we don't have to agree on that meaning, because we can see it being used with terms semantically related to being inside or outside of this MBTSHSM. It is not that we don't agree that the use of MBTSHSMs is widespread, or that its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components, it's that the meaning is becoming meaningless, which I understand to be a form of rubbish and grounds for deletion, not to mention the kind of thing you don't want circulating at a convention you're attending. If you want to say that it may still retain some meaning while not all speakers have fully understood this meaning, I would agree with you. Still I would say metaphorically I hear an odd ticking sound from where I'm standing. --Riverstogo (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Any chance you could answer the question? Why not delete the word conventional, it fits your deletion rationale significantly better than outside the box does. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Keep: Precisely what Purplebackpack89 said. In addition, the box is used SO metaphorically today, that practically anyone could be presumed to understand what is meant when it is used in such a fashion. Tharthan (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is precisely what I am saying. Since everyone knows what the box means it now means practically the opposite, additionally it is in fashion SO many people presume to understand it. This leads to an ambiguity over what they really mean or understand, which can lead to spontaneous self-contradiction. Don't say I didn't warn you. --Riverstogo (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as no deletion rationale is given by Riverstogo, and I cannot think of any deletion rationale myself. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Chuck Entz and Renard. Equinox ◑ 21:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's complete rubbish, it's self-contradictory, it's meaningless! gish. --Riverstogo (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What I think you're arguing is that "outside the box", instead of defying convention, is now itself a convention. The terminology may have been overused to absurdity/meaninglessness, but if there was a point in the history of its usage when it still held meaning (and that meaning happens to have been the definition provided), the entry can be kept on the basis of that. Pur ple back pack 89   01:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Purplebackpack89's understanding of you argument may be correct, but I thought you were trying to make this argument.
 * An idea which is outside the box (unconventional) may become inside the box (conventional) through publication or dissemination and therefore the two idioms are synonymous.
 * If so, your argument fails to recognize the diachronicity of the idea, which is to say, that even if an unconventional idea may become conventional, those happen at separate times and thus are not the same. It would be  like saying we should not call a caterpillar a caterpillar because it will later be called a  butterfly.  If, instead, you are merely railing against a cliché that has lost its meaning because of overuse, then we should probably remove phrases like expect the unexpected.  If we have yet to summarize your argument yet, could you please clarify it very carefully?  The term is by no means self-contradictory nor meaningless.  Also, your use of the word rubbish is neither informative nor helpful to your argument.  —JohnC5 (Talk 02:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Keep. Definitely idiomatic. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If someone comes up with some deletion rationale, I'd love to hear it. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And god dammit, there's still five days left on this one. I've been tempted to close this one early, but it violates too many rule to do so. Pur ple back pack 89   22:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it's definitely going to be kept, so you can ignore it for five days. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I can't think of a single rule it would break. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Think positively in 2015. Happy New Year! Donnanz (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Kept, basically a snow close. bd2412 T 02:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:outside the box


text:
Talk:spontaneous

RFD discussion: November–December 2014
The sense  seems to me to be covering the same ground as the preceding sense , and to whatever extent they differ in meaning, I reckon they probably ought to be merged. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently, there is a recurring rediscovery among definition writers that 'things are not always what they appear', leading to an effort to make the dictionary cover both the use of a word to convey the truth and its use to deceive. (Why not another sense for sincere error?) It is reminiscent of the similar recurring effort to have distinct definitions for ironic, sarcastic, or humorous uses of terms. Not to say that these tags are never appropriate.
 * Delete. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sense deleted. bd2412 T 14:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

unrestrained
naturally unrestrained or uninhibited Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:spontaneous


text:
Talk:host country

RFD discussion: December 2014
As per Tea room, some people seem to think that this entry created by User:Tooironic is sum of parts, and should be deleted. I am creating this nomination for them. Tea room is not a proper venue for deleting entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, it means a country that is a host. Most readers can put two words together, we don't need to do it for them every time. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to keep but will wait for the discussion to unfold. Present in Collins. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I imagine that there could be a meaning in international law, which would probably be idiomatic were it attested. DCDuring TALK 20:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at several books with "law" in the title and host country in the text, I found none that felt the need to define the term, no matter what they were hosting. But someone else may find such cases. DCDuring TALK 20:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Undecided at the moment. "host family" merits an entry as a translation target, IMO. A Japanese derivation of "host family": . + Korean . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, my copy of Daijirin clearly indicates that their editors parsed this as two words, ホスト + ファミリー. I'm happy to agree that  is a single idiomatic Japanese term, but as English, it isn't idiomatic, and even Japanese learners of English are likely to guess that this comes from  + .  I can't speak for Korean learners of English, but I suspect the same holds true for them.  I.e., there's not much need or even value in having  as an English term, even as a translation target.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Most readers can put two words together" isn't in and of itself an argument, if for no other reason than it leaves the ones who can't out in the cold. Pur ple back pack 89  05:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously? I nearly fell over when I read your comment earlier this morning.  If someone is so clueless about English that they cannot string together words, then a dictionary is not the resource they need.
 * Comments like this make me wonder if you're trolling. That's not hyperbole -- I'm honestly beginning to wonder if you're WF.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to request for CU me versus WF, go ahead. You'll just be wasting your time.  But the argument Renard is making is that words that everybody supposedly knows or can easily be figured out should be deleted.  That argument can be reduced to absurdity PDQ: the logical next step after deleting every two-word entry everybody supposedly knows the meaning of is deleting every one-word entry everybody supposedly knows.  While Renard is not arguing this, it is a not entirely illogical next step from the "everybody knows it"/"everybody can figure it out" argument. Pur ple back pack 89   23:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that logic isn't your strong suit. I don't say that to be mean, or snarky.  Just a simple observation.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

 * As the creator of this entry, I don't mind it being deleted - as long as the relevant senses are included at host. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO, Sorry, but you should protect entries you create or not create them at all. You seem to focus on compound words a lot lately, which may potentially be RFD'ed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: For the reasons I outlined in the Tea Room, namely that "host" is ambiguous. Pur ple back pack 89  05:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a CFI argument. So is red car. After all it could be a or a railroad car or . DCDuring TALK  14:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it should be in CFI, dammit. And CFI shouldn't be the be-all, end-all that you're making it. Pur ple back pack 89   18:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought we're ditch CFI. Also, a blue car would them meet CFI because it doesn't mean a depressed or melancholy car. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

 *  Delete 1 & 3, Keep 2 . 1 and 3 are clearly just host + country, but the immigration sense is a little odder. An immigrant may be wanted or unwanted, and they may be planning a temporary stay or a permanent move. "host" in its usual senses implies that the host is actively looking after the guest, and that the guest is staying temporarily. You can't (outside the biological world of hosts and parasites, which is not very applicable to humans) host someone inadvertently, and you can't host a permanent resident. Yet and  shows quite a few results where even naturalized, long-term immigrants are described as living in a "host country". Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Ungoliant (below) has persuaded me that what we really need is a new definition of host as "One who provides accommodation for another". Delete all Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then do we need an entry for unwelcome guest because of the contradiction between (one sense of) guest and unwlecome? DCDuring TALK 18:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

 * (To try to bring this back on topic) I wouldn't actually be opposed to an entry for unwelcome guest (it has some unusual metaphorical meanings), although the addition of the adjective "unwelcome" makes its meaning fairly transparent. Here, there's no adjective which can disambiguate. I also have to say, DCDuring's question was perfectly fair, and I don't really need people trying to stick up for me. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. All senses are + . Even if the use of host with regards to migration is found to be special (which I don’t think it is, because you can find usage of human hosts who have perpetual or unwanted guests), we’d need to add a new definition of host as it is possible to use it with a multitude of nouns (hоst nation, hоst state, hоst republic, hоst province, hоst city, etc.). In addition, host country is not even a set phrase because host can be used outside the phrase, as in “the country is host to about 800,000 legal and at least 300,000 illegal foreign workers”. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all senses per RM and Ungoliant. --WikiTiki89 01:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Keep per Lemming test. I prefer users to come to Wiktionary, rather than Collins and if we make the Lemming test part of our CFI, we'll stop reduce significantly wasting time on RFD discussions. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We could just as well say delete per lemming test: Merriam-Webster doesn't have an entry for “host country”.
 * How many lemmings do we need to bake a pie? And does it matter what kind of lemmings they are?  I'm not familiar with this recipe.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never tasted lemming pie, but, just to add to the recipe, my Millennium Collins dictionary doesn't have it (though the on-line edition does), and the OED has an entry under compounds of host, but not a separate definition. (OTOH, the OED includes host computer and we consider that sum of parts.)   D b f  i  r  s   23:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For the trolls, see Beer_parlour/2014/January. IMO, no need to check ALL dictionaries (OED, Merriam-Webster) but Collins is a reputable dictionary. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Trolls? What trolls? Where? Pur ple back pack 89   23:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a joke, I meant the "recipes" and "pies" mentioned above. We could make at least a list of approved English dictionaries for the Lemming test, OED, Collins, MW would be a good start. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As it stands, the lemming test is just another of the many possible markers of potential idiomaticity. The most inclusive list (Pawley's) of such markers did not suggest that any one marker was sufficient. We incorporated into CFI the attestably-spelled-solid test (aka WT:COALMINE) as one sufficient to justify including more common open-spelled forms. We rejected making the lemming test another sufficient test as part of WT:CFI, partially because we could not get toward agreement on specifics, even for a test.
 * There are many academic discussions of idiomaticity, but it is difficult to find any likely to lead to a sufficient consensus to amend CFI. In addition, since having CFI provides little defense against blathering advocacy of unadopted and even rejected rules, there is little incentive to try to improve CFI. DCDuring TALK 00:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: "we rejected". I don't think this discussion is over and I don't think enough editors voted or seriously considered that discussion. A Lemming test rule in CFI would be a lot of help in reducing lengthy and useless discussion and reduce anxiety of editing entries, which might be targeted by RFD's. The list of dictionaries can be voted on. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: "we rejected": where is this allegged rejection? In Beer parlour/2014/January, I see about 9 posts in support direction and about 3 posts in oppose direction (but please check my counting). There is no unequivocal rejection that I can detect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The devil is in the details. I detected clear evidence of lack of consensus. You have the option of proposing a vote to demonstrate that there is no specific proposal that will be accepted. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If in doubt, keep. No need for all the argy-bargy. Donnanz (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 15:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:host country


text:
Saimiri sciureus

Hypernyms

 * - order; - family;  - subfamily;  - genus

Hyponyms

 * ,, , - subspecies

title: Saimiri sciureus


text:
proletarianisation

Etymology
From.

title: proletarianisation


text: proletarianisations

title: proletarianisations


text: MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-phobia

title: MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-phobia


text:
common squirrel monkey

Noun

 * 1) An arboreal monkey of the species, native to tropical South America.

title: common squirrel monkey


text:
uncorporeal

Adjective

 * 1)  Not corporeal.

Synonyms

 * incorporeal

title: uncorporeal


text:
noncorpus

Adjective

 * 1) Not of or relating to a corpus.

title: noncorpus


text: tie pin

title: tie pin


text:
South American squirrel monkey

Noun

 * 1) An arboreal monkey of the species, native to tropical South America.

title: South American squirrel monkey


text: Category:Proto-Slavic terms suffixed with *-ьka


text: Category:Slovincian term requests

title: Category:Slovincian term requests


text: Category:Slovincian entry maintenance

title: Category:Slovincian entry maintenance


text:
Bufo bufo

Hypernyms

 * Anura - order; - family;  - genus

Hyponyms

 * ,, - subspecies

title: Bufo bufo


text:
Thread:User talk:Kephir/Transliteration modules for some Indic and African languages/reply

It does look interesting, but I am not sure if I can afford the time. And right now I see no good way to approach it. If you could add some more material, please do. I will take a look… eventually.


text:
Appendix:Gikun Usage in Meiji Version of Japanese Bible/元始

Etymology
Gikun word derived by applying Chinese-derived spelling, a term which decomposes into + , to native Japanese word.

Noun
(hajime) →, (haji.me)

 * 1) beginning


text: programvaren

title: programvaren


text:
Appendix:Gikun Usage in Meiji Version of Japanese Bible/首

Etymology
Gikun word derived by applying Chinese-derived spelling, to native Japanese word.

Adjective
(hajime) → ,

 * 1) The First
 * ※ A fitting gikun for the first and beginning of days, or "Lord of days".
 * ※ Throughout this translation, gikun readings are assigned to kanji designating special days.


text:
Talk:get your fill

RFM discussion: June 2014
User:Kephir added the to this entry but seems to forgotten to open a discussion here. So I'll open it. In spite of a couple good-faith edits by Kephir to make this entry half-way presentable, it's really just a lot of anon-created junk and should be deleted. Would an admin please put this entry permanently out of its misery? · (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedily deleted. Turns out it was an attack page with some content as camouflage. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Smartly done! · (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah. It completely went over my head. I recreated it as a redirect to get one's fill, which I think is obvious by this point. — Keφr 13:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that any of the various verbs commonly used with one's fill make an idiom. The verbs include have, get, drink, eat, all quite common; and do, breathe, consume, fork, gulp, hear, look, rage, nurse, see, shoot, slurp, suck, laugh, learn, less common but found at COCA. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OTOH, Oxford and Collins have entries or near entries for one's fill. (See ). One's fill seems entry-worthy with redirects from the common '[have|get|eat|drink] + one's fill' forms and usage examples from those and some more. DCDuring TALK  17:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:get your fill