text:
Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ This page is for entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script. For English entries, see Requests for deletion/English. For entries in other non-English languages, see Requests for deletion/Non-English.

= July 2019 =

鎖具足
Term added by, who either is, or is somehow related to, our long-term UK anon who adds lots of problematic Japanese terms.

I think this is SOP, as simply +, but I'd like to get input from others. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Perhaps we should create before deleting this. Also, is the usual English term not ?  --Lambiam 07:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 * 🇨🇬 created. This is an old term cited first all the way back to 722, but despite its age and Chinese-derived reading, I can't find evidence of a borrowing from 🇨🇬.  My resources for Chinese are limited, so I'd appreciate it if any more-Chinese-savvy editors could have a look at the etymology.
 * Re: 🇨🇬,, were you commenting on the use of alt spelling at the 鎖具足 entry?  If instead you were suggesting non-SOP-ness on the basis of the English term  not corresponding exactly to , I would counter by suggesting that someone fluent in English would understand that  in the context of the armaments of centuries past is broadly equivalent to  on the one hand, and on the other, that someone fluent in Japanese and familiar with the same contexts would choose the term  instead, as indeed we see at the JA WP article ja:w:鎖帷子.  In terms of raw Google hits (granted, only a very rough measure, but still),  (adding the "は" to filter for Japanese) gets us 4.8M hits, while  gets only 4.3K.  At best, this would be an uncommon synonym, but I argue that it's not an integral enough term to even warrant an entry.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Eiríkr— I was commenting on the senses listed for, which do not include any of the synonyms “mail”, “chain mail” or ”chainmail”. In English, just “chain” does not have the sense of “chain mail”; for someone not familiar with the meaning (and possibly also not with medieval armour), trying to figure it out from the literal translation 鎖+具足 = “chain”+“armour” might not work too well. I do not know if 鎖 by itself can have the sense of “mail”, or that this requires the combination 鎖具足. If the former, that sense should be added. If the latter, I am not convinced we have an SOP here. --Lambiam 01:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm curious about your reasoning. You state, "the senses listed for, which do not include any of the synonyms “mail”, “chain mail” or ”chainmail”" -- no, they do not.  For that matter, neither does 🇨🇬?
 * 🇨🇬 generally just means . Indeed, so far as I know, any "armor" sense for 🇨🇬 on its own only comes about from use of this term as a shortening of, so I'm a bit confused why you think 🇨🇬 needs to have some kind of "armor" sense for 🇨🇬 to not be an SOP?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Eiríkr— My reasoning is very simplistic. If I see that the meaning of compound noun X+Y, where X modifies Y, is rendered in English as A+B, then I expect that one of the meanings of X is A and one of the meanings of Y is B. So when there is a claim that this is a sum of parts (which I can see is the case for A+B), then I expect that an astute language learner can understand from the context which combination of meanings applies. Application of this simplistic formula in the hope of getting from 鎖+具足 to “chainmail”+“armour” requires 鎖 → “chainmail” and 具足 → “armour”. Chainmail armour, to me, is armour fashioned of chainmail. The notion of “mail” as a quasi-fabric used to fashion armour is absent from either of the components 鎖 and 具足, but paramount in their compound 鎖具足. So, apparently, 鎖具足 ≠ 鎖+具足. --Lambiam 10:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now where we have our disjuncture. I perceive 🇨🇬 in this context as synonymous with  (technically, a hyponym).  Thus, 🇨🇬 =  +  =  +, which I view as analogous to  + .  The usage of 🇨🇬 in armor contexts is very limited, with (I think) only three such collocations allowed: , , .  The more common senses of 🇨🇬 could also arguably make the armor-related collocations more distinct lexically: we're not talking about sending these things via post, for instance.  The usage of 🇨🇬 is not limited in this way, and I think this makes the collocation of kusari ("chain") + gusoku ("armor") less of an integral lexical item, and more of an SOP.
 * I'd also like to draw your attention back to the fact that 🇨🇬 is not glossed as 🇨🇬 in any reference I've encountered -- the term is used instead.  In fact, there is no page at ja:w:鎖具足 (Kusari gusoku), and the article at ja:w:鎖帷子 (Kusari katabira) contains zero instances of the term .  In addition, the JA WP article links through to the EN WP article at w:Chain_mail and vice versa.  See also bilingual entries for "chain mail" at Eijiro and Weblio, glossing this in Japanese as .  See also the lack of any entries for  at Eijiro, Weblio, and monolingual dictionary and encyclopedia aggregator Kotobank.  For that matter, Weblio's page amusingly suggests that kusari gusoku might equate instead to "chain furniture".  :)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How chain mail is glossed in Japanese texts is (IMO) not relevant to the present issue. (This might have some limited relevance if the issue is whether the term can be verified.) I am not a native English speaker; I have always understood mail to refer primarily to the material, like one can say that early armour was “made from mail ”. Note that, whereas armour has a countable sense, chain mail is uncountable. A medieval knight may have been “wearing an armour”, but not *“a chain mail”. In French, the term maille from which the English term is derived, is just a single link; you can combine a lot to make a cotte de mailles. Two centuries ago the term chain armour would have been readily understood,, but today this is less obviously so. On Wikipedia, the article states: “Kusari gusoku (chain armour)(鎖具足) is the Japanese term for . Kusari is a type of armour used by the  class and their retainers in feudal Japan. When the word kusari is used in conjunction with an armoured item it usually means that the kusari makes up the majority of the armour defence.” This is supported by a citation to a book entitled A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor: In All Countries and in All Times that mentions kusari gama, kusari gote, kusari kabuto, kusari katabira, kusari-kiahan, kusari sode, kusari tachi, kusari toji, kusari wakabiki, kusari-zukin. It seems reasonable (to me) to include a definition of the kind “ chain mail”.  --Lambiam 21:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia's articles related to Japan are, far too often, a cesspit of pop-culture misunderstandings and imaginings about Japan. I generally avoid wading in on Wikipedia, as I simply don't have the time to simultaneously manage the morons while also assiduously citing every minor detail.
 * That particular article is one such example: the very first sentence in that article is plainly, patently wrong. What's more, the referenced work never uses the combined term kusari gusoku.  Monolingual sources never mention armor or arms in definitions of the term, and given my own subjective understanding of the term and its uses, I'm not sure it makes sense to add any such sense to our entry.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But what about the terms kusari gama, ..., kusari-zukin listed in the cited glossary. Are these not romanizations of attestable Japanese terms of art, such as ? --Lambiam 21:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. Here's a brief breakdown to provide a bit more detail and context.
 * is literally + .  Strictly speaking,  refers to a single layer of chain mail used as a shirt-like or robe-like garment covering the upper body.  This is arguably the single most common application of the material called  in English, which I suspect is why bilingual sources tend to relate these two terms.  The material itself, as a sheet of linked metal loops, is often referred to using the English-derived term .  Some dictionary entries will clarify that the item of armor is kusari katabira, and the material is chēn mēru, as indeed we see in the two sense lines at the Eijiro entry for "chain mail".
 * is literally + .  This is a weapon consisting of a short-bladed sickle with a long chain extending from the base of the handle.  See the image at ja:w:鎖鎌, and more content in English at w:Kusarigama.
 * is literally + .  See also the images at .  Lemmings-wise, monolingual JA sources do not treat this as a single term.
 * Looking further at the other kusari items in that index view:
 * Kusari Gote:
 * Kusari Kiahan: not a Japanese term, presumably a mistake for kusari kyahan →, referring to something like chain-mail greaves, only presumably also covering the back of the lower leg, not just the shin.
 * Kusari Sode . Lemmings-wise, monolingual Japanese sources do not treat this as a single lexical term.
 * Kusari Toji: I'm really not sure what this is supposed to refer to. The toji element is presumably ? If so, this doesn't seem to be any specific item of armor.
 * Kusari Wakibiki:, from the way the material is pulled or drawn across the gap between the other parts of the armor: a piece of gousset. Lemmings-wise, monolingual Japanese sources do not treat this as a single lexical term.
 * I note a few other items listed in that index view, things like Krug, Kurdaitcha, and Kurtani, that cannot be Japanese terms. Given the instance of Kusari Kiahan, I am left uncertain if these are misspellings, or simply non-Japanese terms.
 * Anyway, HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The book is supposed to be a glossary for all countries, so it should not be a surprise to find Romanizations of Japanese terms in an alphabetical list in the company of non-Japanese terms. Case in point. Imagine someone with a beginner’s level of Japanese who comes across the term 「鎖頭巾」 in a context where the meaning is not at all clear (such as an ad offering an antique 鎖頭巾 for sale). Since she cannot find the term in Wiktionary, she assumes it is a sum of parts, and looks up its components: 鎖 = “chain”; 頭巾 = “wimple, hood, gorget”. In her understanding of the term “chain”, it is a linear sequence of links. Neither ”chain wimple” nor “chain hood” make any sense to her, but after looking up the unfamiliar term “gorget” and seeing the image, she guesses that “chain gorget” could be a gorget worn on a chain, just like a “chain watch” is a watch on a chain. Is there a plausible way she could have discovered that in this combination 「鎖」implied an item made from mail? --Lambiam 22:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict)
 * ... Where do you get the or  senses for ?  Those aren't in our entries.  I can kinda see where  might come from, as the core meaning of the JA term is literally "head + cloth", and that's at least the right ballpark.  But  is just wrong as a translation for .  The expected Japanese term is.
 * If you got kusari zukin and its mistranslation of "gorget" from the linked glossary by George Cameron Stone, I'm mystified -- I can't find any instances of zukin at all in that book, kusari or otherwise.
 * For the expected senses of +, I wouldn't expect as much potential for confusion as you suggest.  For example,  comes right up with pictures of the expected hood made of chain.  Similarly,  and  come right up with relevant armor-related images, and even the more unusual  and  find armor-related hits within the first page.  :)
 * Some collocation-specific senses must be understood from context, even though the collocations themselves might not be lexical. Consider .  This could be a large white bird that inhabits wetlands, or it might be a white piece of construction equipment used to lift things.  The term  here is polysemic, but that doesn't necessitate that collocations using different senses of  are necessarily lexical items unto themselves.  So it is with  -- though arguably even to a lesser extent than, since the armor and non-armor senses for  are still about "loops of metal chained together".  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, re: the erroneous gorget sense at ずきん, that is a mistake apparently entered when that page was created, which has not been replicated at the lemma entry at 頭巾. I'm about to correct the ずきん entry.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 * If chain hood can legitimately mean “hood fashioned of mail” (as an instance of, more generally, chain  meaning “ fashioned of mail”, then a sense is missing at . --Lambiam 09:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

= June 2020 =

死人#Adverb
Chinese. I believe this is best analyzed as VERB-死]-人], and 人 "someone" can be replaced freely with "I", "you", etc. The usage examples should be moved to [[死. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: if we do keep this, I think it should be merge with the Gan sense under pronunciation 2. While it's analyzable as above, it seems to be fossilized as a kind of intensifier (at least in certain varieties). It's in some dictionaries, such as 南昌方言詞典 and 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典. I'm leaning on the keep side, but I'm not sure. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 06:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, after some thought, the two meanings seem to be different depending on the verb/adjective. 南昌方言詞典 defines it as "用在動詞或形容詞後，表示令人非常（高興、生氣、難受等）" and lists 熱～, 笑～, 氣～, 煩～, 急～ and 冷～ as examples. To me, these belong to the definition that is being rfd-ed. who added the Gan sense recently. 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典 defines it as "置於動詞之後，用來表示「非常……」、「很……」的意思" and lists 驚死人 and 貴死人 as examples. 驚死人 could be interpreted as the rfd-ed definition, but 貴死人 is harder to interpret as such. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 06:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

= July 2020 =

手裏剣術
Japanese. Sum of parts, 苦無 "kunai" / 手裏剣 "shuriken" + 術 "technique". —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Agreed for .  finds precious few hits, and most appear to be in Chinese-language texts at that.  Delete.
 * Less certain for . I note the existence of entries at Kotobank, though notably those are only encyclopedia entries.  No dictionary to hand includes this as a term.  I'm also uncertain how much to view  as a standalone noun, or as a suffixing element.  If the latter, presumably this suffix would form a new word, as opposed to two discrete nouns that happen to be next to each other.
 * In addition, finds ample hits of this in running Japanese text.  I think I'm still undecided on this one, possibly leaning towards weak keep.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

= September 2020 =

악성비루스
This just means "the malign virus" in Korean. In this article we can see that North Korea has also called Ebola and MERS the "malign virus". Delete as sum of parts.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And since Korean has no definite article, it may just as well mean “ a malign virus”, which these viruses certainly are in the medical sense of “harmful, potentially lethal”. --Lambiam 21:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If the gloss is correct, though, 악성비루스 refers not to the virus SARS-CoV-2 but to the disease COVID-19, which would technically make it not SOP anymore. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no actual evidence that the gloss is correct. The creator is not a native speaker, and the actual NK statement in late July (quoted here) that presumably prompted this creation was about "a defector to South Korea suspected to have been infected by the 'malign virus'" ("악성 비루스에 감염된 것으로 의심되는 월남도주자"). The word used here,, is usually for viruses and not diseases.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. — LoutK (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: Could the use of this term be considered a euphemism? MSG17 (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Agree with Mahagaja. If the provided definition is correct, it is obviously not a SOP. This seems more like a verification issue to me. Fytcha (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Delete. It is a SOP. KCNA (in June 18, 2015 ) was also called "MERS", "SARS" and "Ebola virus" as "악성비루스" in 2015. And Choson Sinbo (in October 19, 2017) and Rodong Sinmun (in December 26. 2018) were also called "스툭스네트" (stuxnet) as "악성비루스" during 2017–18. Dubukimchi (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding correctly, it's just a descriptor for Covid (most recently), and not a name for it. In that case it would be SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

= January 2021 =

ポケットモンスター
Continuing discussion from RFV to RFD per “WT:BRAND is for RFD, not RFV, take it there.” — Mnemosientje. J3133 (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WT:BRAND states: "A brand name for a product or service should be included if it has entered the lexicon." So the question is, can it be verified that 「ポケットモンスター」 has entered the Japanese lexicon. (For English Pokémon it appears that is has.) Should verification that there are uses attesting that a term has entered the lexicon not be handled at RfV?  --Lambiam 00:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WT:BRAND is for WT:RFV and not for WT:RFD. (As per WT:BRAND 3 special cites are needed and not just any cites; WT:RFV is about finding and adding cites.) The closure of the RFV obviously was done in error. --2003:DE:372F:4522:88A8:41EC:CDF6:D857 20:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging who closed the RFV. J3133 (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WT:RFV states that the RFV pages are for "disputing the existence of terms or senses", and to test whether something meets the attestation criterion at the WT:ATTEST header of WT:CFI. So I tend to heap everything that's not disputing the existence of a word into RFD. I can see how the wording of WT:BRAND can make it seem like a "verification" matter and thus be put under RFV, it's honestly open to interpretation and I don't have very strong feelings on the matter. The closure, though, was not in error: people had not been responding for two years (which seemed a bit ridiculous) and I could've just closed it as unresolved (as nobody seemed to care enough to solve it), which would've circumvented this whole discussion. If someone wants to solve the issue of this word meeting WT:BRAND (be it here or at RFD), go ahead, as long as it actually gets taken care of and doesn't sit unanswered for another 2 years. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would very much argue that WT:BRAND is an RFV matter, since it is about finding attestation of uses that meet WT:BRAND. As far as I can tell, that is also the current practice. — surjection ⟨ ⟩ 19:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, move to WT:RFVN. --幽霊四 (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

CIA
Not a Korean word.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, move to WT:RFVN. --幽霊四 (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Binarystep (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

CIA
Not a Japanese word. Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think in general, English abbreviations (or other in the Latin script) are often/generally used in all languages, including languages, which don't use the Latin alphabet. If there is no change in the sense and is not a local invention, we don't need to include them as words in those languages. The pronunciation (if someone seems a value in just providing the pronunciation, such "shī-ai-ē") can be derived from individual letter pronunciations - CIA. I suggest CFI (or language-specific CFI) to include this. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, move to WT:RFVN.
 * have different gender/inflection than . --幽霊四 (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So, how does the German genders of these unrelated terms affect the Japanese term, which has no grammatical genders? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * must be confused -- this RFD is for the Japanese term CIA, so anything about the German language, or about the terms USA or NASA in any language, are wholly irrelevant here.
 * Weak delete, in line with Anatoli's reasoning above. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 11:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * : I'm not confused -- there was a comment above (quote) "all languages" and I gave examples regarding it. The German examples show that (quote) "English abbreviations .. are often used in .. languages .. If there is no change in the sense .., we don't need to include them .. pronunciation .." lacks a consideration of number, gender, inflection. Gender isn't a matter regarding English/Japanese, but other things can be. And even if it's pretty much similar in this case (English not having genders and treating CIA as a thing, CIA being singular - Japanese not having genders, CIA being singular or unmarked): If there's German because it is different from the English, why exclude  if it exists? Having, ,  etc., but not having  (no gender) gives the false impression it's only used in English, French, German etc. but not in Japanese. --幽霊四 (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for laying out your reasoning in greater detail. Your position now makes more sense.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, as CIA in Japanese does not refer to every possible "CIA". —Suzukaze-c (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think having entries like this are useful in telling readers what can be used in Japanese, if there is a way to verify they have "entered the lexicon". General Vicinity (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Would DNA be deleted with the same reasoning? General Vicinity (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reason we have, , , , , , and . Not every English acronym is used in Japanese, so it makes sense to document the ones that are. Binarystep (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, mainly because CIA is fairly common in Japanese almost exclusively for the meaning of the US institution. I searched in a balanced corpus. The numbers of hits were: DNAの - 246 hits, PTAの - 111 hits, CIAの - 95 hits, UFOの - 38 hits, USAの - 21 hits. (I didn't check each entry's context to exclude possible homonyms, but I feel like they would be rare.) Whym (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

KCIA
Not a Korean word. The actual Korean abbreviation is .--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Keep, move to WT:RFVN. --幽霊四 (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

今日実子
Probably part of the Talk:真実和 series of nonsense. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Same page author,, same time-frame, in mid-2008. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 * After puzzling over another highly suspicious set of Japanese "female names" with other people, I've come to the conclusion that these websites make up kanji spellings by combining known names and kanji readings for the less imaginative. Reading 李 as い is only explainable as the Korean surname, and surely would not appear in someone's given name. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 * https://web.archive.org/web/20070516205541/http://www.dd.iij4u.or.jp/~ume20/f_name/index.html
 * The source of all evil? —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 * I've deleted as bogus.   finds all of one hit, which is just a list of potential feminine given names -- of what provenance, I have no idea.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

吾実理
—Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/4RM0
this is stupid. can we just delete all of these female given names? —Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 * No particular opposition from me. I might go so far as to suggest a quick Google search, and immediately deleting anything that doesn't return hits.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I just searched as follows for one such spelling:
 * That still returns hits, but only 4 of them, and all of these four are mentions and not actual cases of people with this name. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That still returns hits, but only 4 of them, and all of these four are mentions and not actual cases of people with this name. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/72.82.45.69, Special:Contributions/72.82.47.169
Blindly believing in red links. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Apparently deleted. —Fish bowl (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Shāntián Tàiláng
====: 麗娜 莉娜 美津代 美鶴代 満代 みつよ 千郷 千紗都 千智 ちさと 理帆 りほ 莉穂 ののか 希々加 希々夏 希々香 愛加 亜唯華 亜唯香 亜衣可 合加 愛風 愛香 合郁 会賀 愛楓 愛叶 愛圭 愛心香 愛日 唯央 意須寿 意寿々 威涼 伊緒 伊鈴 幾鈴 以緒 依桜 依雄 伊音 依央 伊央 依涼 乙涼 衣鈴 伊砂 遥子 瑶子 都美子 和恵 一枝 一恵 徳巳 温子 徳真 優花 梨沙子 右子 吉絵 善絵 佳絵 克江 克恵 克絵 克枝====

====: 百樹 権兵衛 裕三 次郞 禮次郞 礼次郎 礼次 禮次郎 是清 敬馬 杏果 彰展 菜摘 奈津美 奈津実 夏生 夏実 凖一 利三郎 草太 明恒 あきつね 三保子 視穂子 きへい 義稙 祥胤 義胤 よしたね 義美 とらぞう 虎三 はるいち 晴一 桃亜 沙月 響子 郷子 匡子 龍之助 竜之介 隆之介 伸枝 信恵 伸恵 のぶえ ただあきら なおあきら 忠存 直朗 忠彰 むつひと 美娜====

—Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 * The "edit summary search" is apparently broken, not returning more than one page of results. —Fish bowl (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Page creations: みずやま 端山 坦山 丹山 探山 たんざん 湛山 のの 暖々 安於生 暖穂生 愛生 愛生子 あおいこ 珠水 花珠葉 花珠水 花観 花珠 花海 埴原
—Suzukaze-c (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Tim Euler
—Fish bowl (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Any objections if I go ahead and mass delete + mass revert Tim Euler? His German edits were as clueless as always (I actually already suspected it was him on the 13th: ) so I have little faith in his edits in other languages. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no objection. —Fish bowl (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, by all means go ahead. — S URJECTION / T / C / L / 05:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. I spared 悼齔, 卵巢炎, תיקון because other editors have edited them in the meantime. FYI . — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

기 때문이다
, I think it's a sum of parts: +  +  > "it is because..."--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

기 때문에
As above.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I will add that I think both should be redirected to .--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Karaeng Matoaya: Honestly, I thought redirects might be more appropriate, but I was not sure. Thank you for letting me know.-—Wise Bridges Fools Walls (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

= April 2021 =

Japanese ブルータス、お前もか
We have a very prolific anon from Vietnam, likely Baka Fumiko. This is one entry created by that anon.

I don't dispute that this is attestable. I question whether this is dictionary material. , any other JA editors, what is your sense? Is this more widely used than I'm aware, with any overtones or nuances that might point to this meriting a dictionary entry? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. It’s not a fixed phrase but rather a reference. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. It or the variant ブルータスよ is in Daijisen, Daijirin, Kōjien, and various kotowaza references. The first two even say 用いられる. BRPXQZME (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

= October 2021 =

にちべい 日ロ 日鮮 日華 日仏 日米 日ソ 日蘭 日朝 日韓 日伊 日独 日印 日豪 日台 日清 日満 日英 日中 独伊 日独伊 日支
Special:Search/incategory:"Japanese collective nouns" incategory:"Japanese proper nouns" "chiefly attributive"

Sum of parts. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 * As abbreviations, I'm not sure that these are so transparent as to make them non-lexical. Some in particular have multiple senses, or even multiple readings, such as  and.
 * I note that other dictionaries include most of these: 日米, 日華, 日仏, 日ソ, 日蘭, 日朝, 日韓, 日伊, 日独, 日印, 日豪, 日台, 日清, 日満 (in my hard-copy Daijirin), 日英, 日中, 日支.
 * I'm leaning towards keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to note that 日 comes first because Japanese is spoken in an monolingual ethnostate; 日中 Japano-Chinese becomes 中日 Sino-Japanese in the name of the PRC-founded 中日友好. 日韓両国 is used by Japanese, and 韓日両国 is used by Koreans and in quotes of Koreans. It is obviously arbitrary. —Fish bowl (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd keep these because the pronunciation is not entirely predictable re sandhi (renjō, rendaku) and accent placement. Also most of these morphemes are bound. Then there can be more lexicalization than the combination alone would suggest, e.g. 日独伊 specifically refers to the Axis powers during the Second World War. Nardog (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

独仏
—Fish bowl (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

内鮮, 内台
self-nomination, and if deleted, please move the content to 内 —Fish bowl (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

= December 2021 =

唐宋音
rfd-sense "the pronunciation of Chinese characters used in the Tang and Song dynasties of China, mainly limited to Zen vocabulary, and has less influence on general expressions". Tagged but not listed by. --Fytcha (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Nihon Kokugo Daijiten reads: One of kanji readings [used] in Japan[ese language]. Transmitted by Zen monks, merchant class, etc. from the Kamakura/Muromachi to the Edo period, these are based on sounds since the Song dynasty. Digital Daijisen redirects to, with two definitions: (1) One of kanji readings [used] in Japan[ese language]. In a narrow sense, it is based on initial Chinese pronunciations during the Ming and Qing dynasties, transmitted by Zen monks, interpreters, and traders to Nagasaki during the Edo period. In a broader sense, it also includes which was already widespred before the Edo period as tōsōon. (2) In general, term for a Chinese language or sound.
 * Borderline, but any thoughts? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 12:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why we are deleting it. This is definitely a Japanese word and the meaning seems correct. Kiril kovachev (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with . The term exists, and the sense appears to be broadly confirmed by references.  See also the Daijisen entry for 宋音, for instance.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

= January 2022 =

正八胞体
Merely 5 results total at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22正八胞体%22, accompanied in 4/5 results with similar constructions like 正多胞体 正五胞体 正十六胞体 正六百胞体, which seems to make this an unremarkable sum of parts.

—Fish bowl (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We document English equivalents like 5-cell, 8-cell, 16-cell, 24-cell, 120-cell, 600-cell, and so on without considering them sum of parts, I don't see why the Japanese terms should be treated differently. Binarystep (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think they're all also SOP by sense 19 of cell. WT:SOP: "Idiomaticity rules apply to hyphenated compounds in the same way as to spaced phrases." — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that 8-cell isn't SOP due to the fact that most people wouldn't automatically picture a tesseract when they hear the word, even if they knew the relevant definition of cell. Besides, where do we draw the line between SOP and common formulas used to construct new terms? You could easily make a convincing argument that common prefixes like anti- and non- should fall under SOP, along with chemical formulas like trichloromethane (if anything, chemical formulas are quite literally "sum of parts").
 * Point is, I think we should at least consider the context of how words are used. All of the "X-cell" entries (and any translations thereof) are legitimate mathematical terms, and I think removing them would do more harm than good. There's a difference between a generic term like "wooden door" and technical jargon that has zero meaning outside a specific context. Binarystep (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Another way to argue would be to point out that, since pentachoron etc. are obviously inclusion-worthy, it would be ridiculous to exclude their much more commonly used n-cell synonyms, especially since deletion of 5-cell entails the removal thereof in the article pentachoron. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Without the articles for 正八胞体 and its siblings, I would have no way to find out what it means, because the individual article for 胞 doesn’t have the meaning “cell (in 4-dimensional geometry)”, only “cell (in biology)”. The articles also provide translation entries for the English articles for “8-cell” and its siblings, as well as “tesseract”. If these are to be deleted, at the very least there should be a redirect added to 多胞体 “polytope (in 4D geometry)”.
 * 122.213.236.124 02:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

= March 2022 =

聯邦儲備局
Chinese. Following the RFD-deletion of Federal Reserve System as being encyclopedic. My nomination is not to be counted as a vote cast for deletion. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This one is tough. We do, after all have entries for the names of high-profile organisations. The dog2 (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

実行に移す
Japanese. Perhaps sum of parts? —Fish bowl (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Possibly. I note that various other things (both physical and abstract) can come before the :
 * Definitely worth a usex and / or usage note at . ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

電話をかける
Japanese. Perhaps sum of parts? Not in monolingual dictionaries. —Fish bowl (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

電話を切る
Perhaps sum of parts? Not in monolingual dictionaries. —Fish bowl (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Both of these might count as SOP, but the idiomatic (or at least non-obvious) use of the verbs makes me unsure.
 * If these entries are removed, the collocations should definitely be included as usexes on the relevant entries (at least the verbs, possibly the noun as well). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 * To me, both terms seem idiomatic, so I vote keep. Compare analogous 🇨🇬 and (just created by me) 🇨🇬.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

会計実務
Japanese.

"maybe SoP" —Fish bowl (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Also definitely SOP. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. No more idiomatic than similar phrases like 人事実務 and 不動産実務. Whym (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

ワープロソフト
Japanese. Sum of parts, ワープロ "word processor" + the explanatory qualifier ソフト "software". —Fish bowl (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 * SOP. Delete.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Binarystep (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

= May 2022 =

ミル
Japanese.

Game-specific official jargon, WT:FICTION? —Fish bowl (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Is it official jargon? From the info provided on the page, I assumed it was a fandom term. Binarystep (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Crikey, what a dog's breakfast. The entry misses the perfectly cromulent senses of English surname, or the  that is one thousandth of an inch, or the  that is the common name for , a kind of edible seaweed, or the borrowing of 🇨🇬 that appears in various borrowed compounds, such as.
 * No time at the moment to dive in and fix the entry. Suffice it to say that Etym 1 as it currently stands must likely be deleted due to WT:FICTION.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

= July 2022 =

nihon
Japanese. The correct transcription is Nihon. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it looks like our entry at is deficient.  Certainly the country name should be capitalized, but there are also common nouns with this romanization, specifically  and .  Actually, I'm unclear if the  one might be a title, in which case capitalization might be more appropriate there too, but  at least doesn't have any such connotations.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

アラビアンナイト
Japanese.  (a novel). Encyclopaedic. Theknightwho (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

 * It's odd / an idiomatic translation of the title, as we'd expect something more like . Rendering "thousand and one nights" as  is weird.
 * That said, it is only the title of a book, and thus is not something to include here, so far as I understand WT:CFI.
 * The creator of all three entries has struggled with various Wiktionary norms and standards. I suspect this might be a similar case.  They have ceased editing from their named account, but still occasionally edit from IP addresses geolocating to Vietnam.
 * Delete as "not dictionary material", for all of these:
 * ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something akin to Chinese 一千零一夜? It's a very emphatic "one thousand and one", so maybe they're just both going for the English emphasis on the starting one. The repetition of 夜 doesn't make sense to me either, but I don't know any Japanese and I have no idea what the translator was trying to get at. I suppose there's a bit of interesting lexical background to it, but the same goes for the titles of loads of other books too. At best, it should go in an appendix. Theknightwho (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Should アラビアンナイト also be deleted? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, that is also just another iteration of the book title, and thus that also fails CFI. Same entry creator, FWIW.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I've gone ahead and tagged アラビアンナイト and 千一夜物語 for deletion as well. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 23:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Should アラビアンナイト also be deleted? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, that is also just another iteration of the book title, and thus that also fails CFI. Same entry creator, FWIW.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I've gone ahead and tagged アラビアンナイト and 千一夜物語 for deletion as well. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 23:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

禮拜儀式
Chinese. SoP: 禮拜 "religious service" + 儀式 "ritual". — justin(r)leung { (t...) 03:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Is this limited to Christianity in Chinese? Theknightwho (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it could also be used for Islam, for example. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it probably does pass WT:PRIOR, though. The Christian liturgy is a well-defined concept. Theknightwho (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it would have any more specific meaning than the sum of its parts. Liturgy can look very different across different branches of Christianity. Also, 禮拜的儀式 is also commonly attested, which suggests that the "compound" isn't that tight. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 14:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging as the entry creator. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 05:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the reason why I added this is because it can be said as the equivalent of the English word "liturgy" which itself can be used for Islam and Buddhism (Islamic liturgy and Buddhist liturgy). I think the meaning of 禮儀 is broad enough (it could mean etiquette? ceremony?) that it would be useful and reasonable to have this entry remain to provide people the technical term in Chinese for "liturgy". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

= August 2022 =

幫幫忙
Chinese. Repetition of the verb, similar to 鼓鼓掌, 加加油, 打打氣, 努努力, etc.
 * I think keep for the interjection sense if it can't be incorporated into 幫忙. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Delete —Fish bowl (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Keep since AAB reduplication only implies the diminutive sense. Most AAB reduplications are not commonly used sarcastically. -- 12.124.183.210 21:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Keep at least for the interjection sense. — Musetta6729 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 * RFD kept only the interjection sense. RFD deleted the verb sense "to help a little; to give a hand". — justin(r)leung { (t...) 05:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Japanese entries by User:Japanfreak0
I've gone through some of their contributions. Most (all?) of this appears to be copy-paste from some other bilingual JA→EN dictionary, which includes lots of things that we would treat as SOP. There's the occasional nugget of validity in there, but most of the entries they've created are problematic. I've flat-out deleted a small handful of them as patently obvious phrasal SOP, and I've listed a few others below. I don't have time to fully vet the rest of their contributions, however, so I'd like to ask the rest of us to pitch in. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

一時会計監査人
SOP:

Pinging entry creator. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

一時休業
SOP.

Pinging entry creator. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

一時帰休
SOP.

Pinging entry creator. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

一時帰休制
SOP.

Pinging entry creator. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

一時預かり
SOP.

Pinging entry creator. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 * States that this term is especially used with baggage. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

一時預け
Also SOP, just using the related verb stem to express the other side of the action (putting into care, as opposed to taking into care). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 * States that this term is especially used with baggage. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

一時預かり証
Meh, might be valid, looks borderline SOP to me.

→ "claim check"

If this is deemed not SOP, the entry needs cleanup -- Japanfreak0 goofed on the reading, etc.

 * No special usage this time Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

一時預所
SOP.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 * The English translation is "cloakroom" not "temporary depository" Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

一時解雇
SOP.

Pinging entry creator. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Usage contrasts with 一時帰休. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

一言も無い
SOP.

Pinging entry creator.

 * Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

There might be some value to this, as the first term could also have the pronunciation hitokoto or ichigen, and in this particular turn of phrase, it seems like ichigon is more common / traditional. I would argue that this would be better as a usex at though, as I don't think this is enough to merit a full independent entry. There's also the problem that this might be shifted to more polite forms such as or. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Undelete 丿部, 支部, and 辵部
These names for Kangxi radicals were all deleted for supposedly being SOP, despite the fact that they reference the characters' shapes rather than their meanings. They're no more "sum-of-parts" than 十字 or H-shaped. Binarystep (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

 * I'd also like to note that was deleted after four months by an RFD with zero votes (not counting the nomination), and no discussion other than my initial objection. There are entries at the top of this page (such as ) that have managed to survive for over a year under similar circumstances. Binarystep (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support undeletion it doesn't make sense to do so, since there are useful non-encyclopedic information about these radicals, such as their names and pronunciation in each languages, which sometimes can be different from the normal pronunciation. Also it is absurd that we have entries like 單人旁 and 走之底 which are the descriptive names of the radicals, but not the standard 人部 or 辵部. I do see the reason of the deletion about SoP to be sort of valid, but if they are treated as such the radicals would require a separate etymology in the character pages, since they "reference the characters' shapes rather than their meanings" as BinaryStep suggested. However this would mean that the information about radicals to be extremely scattered across an already lengthy page, if not forgetting about them entirely, which is the case for most pages. –Wpi31 (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: 部 is added to each Kangxi radical name, so in a way these are kind of SoP. These should probably be instead be a definition under 丿, 支, 辵, etc. Also, it's not fair to compare these to 單人旁; things like 人部 and 辵部 (as far as I can tell) refer to the classification of a character under a particular radical, which may or may not reflect a particular component of a character (i.e., it's an abstraction from character components). — justin(r)leung { (t...) 06:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What about separating 人(U+4EBA) and ⼈(U+2F08) etc? That way it won't be SoP, but also allows separate radical entries to be created at the codepoints in the Kangxi Radical block. –Wpi31 (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A separate "radical" part of speech would be better, especially given the Kangxi arrangement was not the only one. Theknightwho (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They were separated, but were merged: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=⼈&action=history —Fish bowl (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted as Justin notes. See also my comment at Talk:丿部. —Fish bowl (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I count 1 support vote and 0 oppose votes. Given that 丿部 was deleted without any votes at all, it doesn't seem fair to hold this RFD to a higher standard. Binarystep (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Japanese entries くぁw背drftgy富士子lp and くぁwせdrftgyふじこlp
Meaningless gibberish, produced by just mashing on a keyboard.

If this is intended to signify something, the entries could benefit greatly from the addition of a descriptive definition. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

 * asdfghjkl —.
 * The Japanese entry also links to くぁwせdrftgyふじこlp, which lists at least 4 usages in popular culture. —Fish bowl (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Why on earth should a user have to click through to an entry in a completely different language, or a completely different project, in order to finally find what might be a definition? If we start at, that's at least two clicks away.  This is unacceptable.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Is this keysmashing? Theknightwho (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Umm probably yes (and I know I am not Fish bowl. Kanjishowa21-4 (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Unstriking, as I do not think that either entry is useful in their current states. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

騷靈現象
Chinese. SoP: 騷靈 + 現象. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 00:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

薄薄
Chinese. Rfd-sense: "flimsy; weak". Common for adjectives to be reduplicated. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 00:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Undecided. One may argue that there is a semantic shift from "thin; not thick" to "filmsy; weak" and therefore this should be kept, but I wonder if this particular sense is actually attested or not. The vast majority of ghits seems to only mean "thin; not thick". Might be an RFV issue? – wpi (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

= October 2022 =

音声合成装置
Japanese.

音声合成 "speech synthesis" (音声 + 合成) + 装置 "device", sum of parts —Fish bowl (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Delete. SOP.  The only conceivable idiomaticity I can think of here (which I also think is insufficient to clear the SOP bar) is the wrinkle that  refers specifically to a physical device or other hardware, and thus this particular collocation cannot be used to refer to a software speech synthesizer.  For the latter, we have the collocation, which is also SOP.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

警察庁
Japanese SOP: The term can be translated as "(National) Police Agency" or "Police Office", is an unidiomatic sum of part of 警察 (Police)+庁 (Agency; Office; Department). As per what discussed in Talk:Federal Reserve System, encyclopedic yet unidiomatic entries are deletable SOPs. Per opinion stated above at, I also don't think that national/jurisdictional government department responsible for policing is high-profile enough to survive under WT:IDIOM.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Keep. It's included in Kotobank, which is often used for references. Also, the collocation seems quite specific and is used more like a suffix, rather than an independent word, unlike e.g. . Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Keep. This is idiomatic inasmuch as it is not just "police office", but rather specifically the .  This sense is not derivable from the constituent parts  +, and thus this is not an SOP term.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks for your opinion. Given by the term's inclusion in Daijisen, it seems that it may have a chance of survival under WT:LEMMING.
 * Respectfully I disagree with the opinion that This is idiomatic inasmuch ... rather specifically the National Police Agency (Japan): take a look at 警察庁 (曖昧さ回避) and you'll find that it's not unique to Japan (unlike terms like 廉政公署 in Chinese — the in Hong Kong or the  in Macau  — that is unique to both places). As long as there are similar agencies in other countries, they're to be translated in this same way. Similarly, unless it's so uniquely composed like Home Office in the UK, if we had entries like department of the interior (likely won't survive per WT:RFD), we also wouldn't link them to specific national agencies like  or so.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , interesting re: use to refer to other nation's police agencies. Even so, the "national" element seems to be a common thread in all these uses of, something that is missing from the constituent parts of the term.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

= November 2022 =

知らんがために我は信ず
Japanese. Some kind of apparently SOP motto. This, that and the other (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Full phrases like this are generally not includable unless they are proverbs. Is this one?
 * Re: the apparently derivation as a calque of 🇨🇬, I think the JA literally parses out as "I don't know, so I don't believe", which would seem to be quite different from the Latin... ??? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it’s a correct literal translation:
 * 知らん, the classical volitional form of, directly translates , a form of the verb in the present subjunctive;
 * ために and both indicate purpose;
 * 信ず would be the classical conclusive form of modern, so 我は信ず directly translates , which is a first person singular form of.
 * About whether it’s a proverb, I googled it and it seems to be used mostly in reference to Anselm’s position of . Examples:
 * here, p. 6:
 * アンセルムスが合理主義にも反主知主義にも反対し，「知らんがために我は信ず」という信仰と知識の関係を調和的に捉えている点では，本当のスコラ哲学の父として認められると九鬼は考えているわけである. それについては以下のように述べられている.
 * here, ６１−７０位:
 * アンセルムス(1033-1109) 　イタリア生まれのスコラ学者. 「知らんがために我は信ず」の立場をとり，神の存在証明を試みた. 初期スコラ学の代表者の一.
 * Since it seems to be a consistently used translation, could it be included like was? Mcph2 (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mcph2, thank you for the breakdown, at first blush I clearly got the wrong end of the stick.
 * That said, I see that nets a paltry 29 ostensible hits, collapsing to just 16 when paging through.  While clearing CFI's bar of three, this is still clearly not widely used in the Japanese-writing world.  Searching instead for  (adding the Japanese topic particle  to filter for Japanese texts), we get 367 ostensible hits, collapsing to 167 when paging through, most of which seem to offer different translations of the Latin.
 * By way of contrast, gives us 1,780 ostensible hits.  Still not tons, but substantially more.  Alternative spelling  yields another 2,950 ostensible hits.  I see also that both the Kojien and Gakken dictionaries include this latter phrase, while omitting the former.
 * I don't think this particular phrase,, passes muster. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I hadn’t thought of searching Google Books like that. Since it’s rarely used and it’s one of many translations of the same Latin phrase, I agree that we should delete it. Mcph2 (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's rarely used, couldn't it just receive a "rare" qualifier? MedK1 (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

九龍公園
Chinese. SoP. RcAlex36 (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Delete. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 00:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have any comments as to whether or not this should be deleted, but if that is the official name of the park, I'd avoid making the rationale SOP and focus around whether or not it's encyclopedic (especially because there's no subentry for it at nor a redirect already and since it's a public park). See: . An example of a clear keep would be if  were an entry: it would be kept by default or redirected to  with a subsense with  at the definition line. AG202 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. We currently have Hyde Park and Central Park, among others. The question is where do we go from here? ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * After some thought, I do think this is not quite SoP. I agree with AG202's and Tooironic's comments. I'd probably say at least a weak keep as a rather notable park in Hong Kong. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 23:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed to RFD-sense for "a unit of area equivalent to the size of Kowloon Park, approximately 13.3 hectares" — justin(r)leung { (t...) 05:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

= December 2022 =

뽈스카
It is claimed that 뽈스카 is the north Korean term for Poland. However, no such term is documented in any north Korean sources (unless they have been purged and retroactively changed, which in this case is unlikely), or even the south Korean archives. It seems that such term has never been in use. The correct term is 뽈스까, which also has a Wiktionary page. As 뽈스카 doesn't seem to have ever existed, I think it should be deleted. Παραλλάξιος (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think RFV would still be more suitable. --ItMarki (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Japonic/na-
see page here

I don't think this root should have it's own page. Each verb can simply go as "cognate with transitive/intranstive verb *xxx". Chuterix (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 * I've encountered a separate theory, that Japanese verbs and  can be viewed as extensions of a theorized ancient Japonic copula, which manifests still in modern Japanese as an archaic verb conjugation suffix indicating that an action is complete, usually without intent (contrasting with the more common action-completion and past-tense suffix , evolving from older , which did indicate intent).

 * nu ("is")
 * naru ("become")
 * nasu ("cause to become")

 * I don't think the root is na-.
 * I believe it might have been Frellesvig who wrote about this ancient "n"-based copula. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "I don't think the root is na-."
 * This is why I want the entry *na- I created to be deleted.
 * Interesting that naru and nasu was made from nu. Chuterix (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

四海兄弟 - Japanese
by.

I'd argue that this is not SOP as Japanese: this literally breaks down to "four seas siblings", which isn't immediately associatable with the gloss of "universal brotherhood". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Listed as 四字熟語 on 三省堂 新明解四字熟語辞典 and 小学館 デジタル大辞泉. NM  01:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

= January 2023 =

hold住
Chinese. SoP. hold + 住 (verb suffix). – Wpi31 (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are all these meanings compatible with other suffixes or without a suffix? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 00:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * the three HKC senses should be the same with or without the suffix.
 * The problematic one is the Mandarin neologism sense, which AFAIK is borrowed from HKC and is always followed by the suffix. (and I don't think it could be used in this way in HKC) – Wpi31 (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The pronunciation part can be useful. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

拉鏈
Chinese. Rfd-sense: "fly". From what I can tell, the example sentence under this sense is still referring to the zipper, not the fly. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 00:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Added by in . — justin(r)leung { (t...) 17:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"

 * 你褲子的拉鏈鬆開了/滑開了. || Your jeans' zipper has loosened / slid down.
 * 你的褲襠打開了. || Your fly is undone.
 * } Revert and Supplement. ^Does this sound natural? -- Ywhy (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The examples are good enough for this "sense". Kungming2 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * } Revert and Supplement. ^Does this sound natural? -- Ywhy (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The examples are good enough for this "sense". Kungming2 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

= February 2023 =

軍事監獄
Chinese SOP: +. Also refer to the explanation for the corresponding English term.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards delete, unless the English equivalent has strong arguments for keeping. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 04:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

outlook
Chinese. Probably code-switching of outlook. Main question is whether the meaning of outlook appeared first in English (then this would be code-switching and deleted) or Chinese (then this should be kept). – Wpi31 (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 * PS: I believe there's a slight semantic difference here: in Chinese, "outlook" only refers to the appearance of a person, whereas in English it could also mean the appearance of objetcs in general (as evidenced by some of the quotes). – Wpi31 (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Delete. See Weird regional usages of English: "There is a huge amount of (Cantonese to English) negative language transfers in Hong Kong English (or ‘Honglish’), such as the proverbial oddball misuse of outlook for 外貌 (‘outward appearance‘), body check (for medical checkup), and open/close (for switch on/off)." -- Ywhy (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please avoid using a non-academic source (i.e. a random wordpress post). It is obvious that the word is originally from English, but the question is whether the "appearance" sense is an internal development in English or is it a semantic shift or (mis)interpretation in Cantonese. Note that research is hard since Cantonese is pretty much non-existent on the Internet pre-2000, and most conversations resort to using English since most netizens in that era are well-educated. Until we know the answer to the question, it is difficult to make any decision. I think we could stale this discussion (i.e. keeping it open) or close as no consensus. – Wpi (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I share the blog author's take on this matter and he put it way more eloquently than the tongue-tied me can ever do. In addition, in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 5th ed.(2009), Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 4th ed.(1989), 6th ed.(2000) & 9th ed.(2015), no definition of outlook includes 'outward appearance'. So it must have been calqued on Cantonese 外表 rather than stemmed from standard English. -- Ywhy (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that it is developed in standard English - even the English entry outlook says it's a Hong Kong English word; I was instead considering the possibility that the word is an internal development within Hong Kong English. Even then we can't rush to such conclusion. – Wpi (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

= March 2023 =

泡菜妹
Chinese. SoP: 泡菜 "kimchi" + 妹 "girl". Mahogany115 (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards delete since we have the adjective sense "Korean" under 泡菜. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 03:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral —Fish bowl (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

コロナ
Japanese. Rfv-sense: person who is infected by (novel) coronavirus

I found one use of this in 2020 (see Citations:コロナ), but haven't been able to find others. It is difficult to search for, as most written sources that would include it would also include terms such as etc. I've searched several Japanese newspapers and only found that one. I've searched the web, but gave up after being inundated by mention of the pandemic generally. Cnilep (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ...and the one from 2020 is no longer available. Cnilep (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 * I tried to find some online. Whether they are good for WT:ATTEST is doubtful, but at least a 自治体 is "better" than some Internet rando.
 * https://www.nippon.com/ja/japan-topics/c030119/
 * https://www.sankeibiz.jp/econome/news/200402/ecb2004021601008-n1.htm
 * https://www.town.kotohira.kagawa.jp/uploaded/life/6736_8499_misc.pdf
 * https://www.city.kitakyushu.lg.jp/page/dayori/200701/pdf/files/200701_page01.pdf
 * https://www.city.nishiwaki.lg.jp/material/files/group/5/reiwa2nenn6gatu.pdf
 * https://www.tmd.ac.jp/med/psyc/topics/covid-19/henken.pdf
 * https://es.higo.ed.jp/nanataki-c/wysiwyg/file/download/20/2333
 * http://www.furanoryokuho.hokkaido-c.ed.jp/shiryou/mado/%90%B6%93k%8Ew%93%B1%95%94%95%D6%82%E8/_%90%B6%93k%8Ew%93%B1%95%94%95%D6%82%E8R2%94N%93x%91%E61%8D%86.pdf
 * —Fish bowl (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * [BTW, One News is a regional broadcast television news program rather than "some Internet rando", but they apparently don't durably archive the content they upload to the web. Cnilep (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)]

 * Just noticed that the definition has "Internet slang" in it. The quotes suggest that this label is too specific, or that this usage has escaped the Internet. This should be amended. —Fish bowl (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 * http://hdl.handle.net/10723/00004148 弱者に降りかかるCOVID-19（聴き手：野口 久美子、鄭 栄桓）
 * http://doi.org/10.14988/00028307 特措法・感染症法の改正 : 罰則の検討を中心にして
 * —Fish bowl (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I parse all these attestations as referring to the novel coronavirus (disease), or at best the state of being infected with it, much like the famous "僕はうなぎだ". Notice they're all preceded by a topic of a person. Defining it as a person with the virus would be akin to defining うなぎ as "a person who eats eel". Nardog (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I can see that interpretation. Then what do you think of the definition "infected person" itself? Does it exist? Should it be removed? —Fish bowl (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it should, that's what I was implying. At least I don't see it's supported by any of the citations above or in Citations:コロナ so far. The "小" in "コロナ小" is clearly the suffix standing for "小学校", so it better translates as "Corona Elementary". Nardog (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Moved to Requests for deletion/CJK. —Fish bowl (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The citations simply do not support this definition (so I don't understand why it was moved here). You could replace the word in them with 癌, 糖尿病, etc. and they would be still grammatical, but we don't define them as "person with cancer" or "person with diabetes". This is a function of the syntax, not of this lexical item. Nardog (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

貧富の差
Japanese. "wealth inequality": sum of parts. —Fish bowl (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 * agreed, go ahead Shen233 (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Hmm, I note that this is a set phrase. One doesn't say, for instance, .  An alternative way to say this in Japanese is, but this is also a set phrase: one cannot swap the noun order to  and still have it sound "right" -- just as one cannot say "the difference between the have-nots and the haves" and have that still work stylistically / idiomatically.
 * All that said, I'm not sure how much set-phrase-ness counts towards grounds for inclusion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think 貧富 vs 富貧 is a separate matter. 寒暖の差 is much more common than 暖寒の差, but that doesn't inform us anything about the の差 part, which is the main part to look at when discussing whether it is a sum of parts or not. --Whym (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

 * I'm inclined to say it's not idiomatic enough considering the parts can be separated, as in 貧富の大きな差. Whym (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

= April 2023 =

ジャンヌ・ダルク
This was tagged long ago but seems not to have been listed here. The fate of this RFD should probably be tethered to that of its donor language term, at Jeanne d'Arc, unless we can see metaphorical use in one language not present in the other. — Soap — 11:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It occurred to me after I posted this that I'd rather see it at RFV, since what we're looking for is metaphorical use, but I will leave this here as its French counterpart stands currently at its own RFD. — Soap — 11:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It was included with other-language equivalents at Requests for deletion/Non-English. —Fish bowl (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

流量密碼
Sum of parts: "the password [key] to [getting] website traffic". ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral: are there other figurative uses of 密碼 like this? Is it a collocation with other similar collocations, or is it more unique? —Fish bowl (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * likely an artifact of translation. off the top of my head:
 * {| class="wikitable"

 * The Wealth Codes: How to Build Massive Wealth|| 致富法則；財富密碼
 * The Secret To Success|| 成功的秘訣；成功的密碼（ambiguous：成功的秘密）
 * The Secret To Viral Post|| 流量密碼
 * }
 * Delete. --Ywhy (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Secret To Viral Post|| 流量密碼
 * }
 * Delete. --Ywhy (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 * That makes sense to me; delete. —Fish bowl (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Delete per above, but do we need a separate sense for 密碼 meaning a figurative "secret to unlocking something"? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 03:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

= May 2023 =

法性寺入道前関白太政大臣
Japanese. The term is the courtesy title of. According to WT:NSE, [n]o individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic, which should also applies to specific names referring to a person like this. The entry is therefore out of scope.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

後京極摂政前太政大臣
Japanese. The term is the courtesy title of. Delete for the same reasons (out of scope per WT:NSE) as mentioned above.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

入道前太政大臣
Japanese. The term is the courtesy title of. Delete for the same reasons (out of scope per WT:NSE) as mentioned above.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 * It seems that you overlooked the last part of the green text: “...page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic”; linking the four for emphasis. Don’t see the alleged proper names there... what seems to be the matter? You were probably thinking about card numbers 6, 11, 16, etc. of that particular anthology which do have said names... by the way, there’s a few more! ～ POKéTalker（＝◉＝） 05:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, perhaps I misunderstood. I thought WT:NSE may also extend to cover specific non-idiomatic personal names that may not fulfill these requirements. This leads to another point: they are prime examples of sum of parts, just like we won't create an entry named Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith that states that it's, or Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular as the title for the dictator .廣九直通車 (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the first time am seeing a user appealing to the SOP card when the sense(s) do mean more than just them... assuredly, the above three aren’t the so-called “non-idiomatic sum of parts” you were expecting; and do not drag English to this discussion. An example that would both qualify for SOP and NSE is 6 (Middle Counselor Yakamochi) and 11 (Councillor Takamura) mentioned earlier. Since when is the “courtesy title of...” sense out of scope for this or other non-English language? Never seen such a case... what of Zhongni (second-born from Ni Hill), for Confucius? ～ POKéTalker（＝◉＝） 05:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but as the terms's meaning are clearly directing to the courtesy names of people, why are you speaking card numbers? Some sort of playing card meanings like king of spades? I don't understand.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To the point: at least read Hyakunin Isshu on Wikipedia to know what these three really are. Where in the NSE says that courtesy names, especially in foreign languages, are “out of scope” from your understanding? Don’t see any proper names of persons somewhere in the three you are requesting for deletion.. ～ POKéTalker（＝◉＝） 13:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

耳朵聾
Chinese. SoP: 耳朵 + 聾. – Wpi31 (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. RcAlex36 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Silghtly weak keep.You know what, I’ll say keep as well, instead of delete. As the creator of the 耳朵聾 page, I don’t usually keep a check and research before making any pages here. I’m just a normal editor. I’m not a linguist or anything like that in any way. So I am sorry that I didn’t research beforewards. It is shown as a dialectal variant on the 聾 page. (I know this page (link here) is my creation) Kanjishowa21-4 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It seems to be 'idiomatic' (not necessarily non-SoP, but a normal way of expressing this, as opposed to 耳聾) in some varieties (see the dialectal synonyms at 耳聾). (The page needs a clean-up, though, if we keep this.) — justin(r)leung { (t...) 20:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Upon a quick check in a handful of Wu topolectal dictionaries (Suzhounese, Chongmingnese, Hangzhounese), all of them define the term as equivalent to 耳背 (hard of hearing) instead of "deaf" - i.e. not equivalent to 耳聾. The Chongming dictionary in fact distinguishes between 聾耳朵 (deaf) and 耳朵聾 (hard of hearing) which to me seems like it could warrant a keep. – Musetta6729 (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The Wu word exists warrants an entry per above, but the current entry itself is SoP and requires some heavy reworking/clean up. – Wpi31 (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 耳背. This is already documented in the dialectal synonyms of 耳背. -- Ywhy (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They are completely different words, so they should not be redirected. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

V我50
Chinese. This seems to be a common collocation, but it's SoP. The entry should probably be at V. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 19:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Move to V. V你50 is similarly common. – Wpi (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Delete. or else we have 微我相片 微我簡報 微聊 -- Ywhy (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an Internet slang. Others are not.
 * vivo X90 推出“v 我 50”肯德基联名礼盒，将于明日“疯狂星期四”发布 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It might be an Internet meme, but how is it not the sum of its parts V (verb) + 我 (indirect object) + 50 (direct object)? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 15:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What about mentioning "esp in reference to eating at KFC" in this entry? 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This feels very encyclopedic rather than something for a dictionary. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Finally I get it. Marketing gimmick by KFC. Only V我50 or V你50 are popularized, as it's roughly the amount spent for a single visit.
 * Advertisement/Endorsement of KFC & Vivo -- Ywhy (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Although this was incorporated into KFC's official marketing, the original campaign didn't have this phrase, which likely started as an Internet slang later. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to V perhaps. RcAlex36 (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

= June 2023 =

민서
Korean. Just an English transliteration. The English word "meatgrinder" is commonly called as "(육)세절기" in Korean. Dubukimchi (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

 * @Dubukimchi: It seems attestable for this sense. Cognate with Japanese . Also check in Google searches. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Atitarev: I found some results in Google, but it is used to only a limited extent as a compound of "미트 민서" or "민서-기(機)". Dubukimchi (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dubukimchi: Hi. Thanks. I've made some changes to the entry based on the limited results. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Send to RFV? —Fish bowl (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fish bowl: Yes, it can be. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

A4紙
Chinese. SoP: A4 + 紙. --Mahogany115 (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Delete, but let’s create a sense at . Theknightwho (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it's necessary since it's in Translingual. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Justinrleung The pronunciation section is useful, I think. Theknightwho (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Pronunciation in Translingual, like at, might do? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 02:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kungming2 (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

男扮女裝
Chinese. Sum of parts. Definition also incorrect. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 * What does it actually mean? Nardog (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 * It's specifically male-to-female crossdressing. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 02:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Common collocation. This word is somewhat formal, often used in written form, and the colloquial counterpart is 女裝. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

 * RFD kept. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 12:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

川中島
Chinese. Tagged by but not listed. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

窗外
Chinese. SOP. See also Talk:outside a window and WT:RFDE. This, that and the other (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 15:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 * WT:LEMMING: Taiwan MoE Guoyu and Taiwan MoE Min Nan ? —Fish bowl (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Delete. I'd have removed 門外 too. -- Ywhy (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

黃大仙祠
Chinese. Criteria_for_inclusion: this is a building. – Wpi (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it can be kept as a noun referring to any Wong Tai Sin temple (rather than the specific one in Hong Kong). — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

= July 2023 =

ダース
Japanese. Rfd-sense: "(Star Wars) Darth"

WT:FICTION; Darth does not have an in-universe definition.

—Fish bowl (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

= August 2023 =

值銅鈿
Chinese. SoP: 值+銅鈿. Musetta6729 (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like it's keepable? "Worth money" doesn't necessarily mean "worth a lot of money", right? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 11:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "is [adjective]" always psycholinguistically means "is noticably [adjective]] in all languages, especially Chinese with Daniel.z.tg (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Mainly I felt as if 值銅鈿 was not a distinctly lexicalized construction. It is (to me) a somewhat acceptable way to say "valuable" but I wouldn't say it's that idiomatic at all - in Shanghainese at least I would default to 價鈿大 or 價鈿貴, and 值銅鈿 isn't necessarily a defined standalone adjective either, compared to something like 吃價鈿 "expensive, valuable".
 * It also sounds a lot better to me separated e.g. as 值交關銅鈿 "worth a lot of money", and in that sense I also don't necessarily see how it's special as opposed to, say, a phrase like 值鈔票. Musetta6729 (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

日向, 大和, 武蔵, 長門, 金剛
Japanese. Rfd-sense: Encyclopedic. – Wpi (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  an -class battleship of the  during
 * 2)  a World War II battleship
 * 3) a battleship of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II (see )
 * 4) a class of dreadnought battleships in the  built after World War I
 * 5) the lead ship of the pair, known for its participation in
 * 6)  a class of battlecruisers in the  built before World War I, see
 * 7)  the lead ship of her class, which was rebuilt into a battleship in 1929, see

 * @Wpi, I see your point about encyclopedic detail.
 * That said, I think it is still lexically significant and useful information that these terms can be used as ship names.
 * As an example, what would you think about rewording the 🇨🇬 sense line to something more like what we see in the topmost line at w:Yamato?
 * "Yamato, several Japanese ships of this name" ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace with "names of various battleships" Daniel.z.tg (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete entirely —Fish bowl (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Switching to for the same reason as my other . Daniel.z.tg (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 * @Fish bowl, @Daniel.z.tg, are you arguing that there is no lexical sense wherein these terms are used as ship names? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's not something that should be in the dictionary. —Fish bowl (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of other entries that basically say "this is a given name", "this is a surname", "this is a place name". Why would "this is a ship name" not be similarly significant lexical information about a given term? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

笑到轆地
Chinese. SoP: 笑 "to laugh" + 到 "to the extent" + 碌地 "to roll on the floor". – Wpi (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Objection: it does not refer to literally rolling on the floor. —Fish bowl (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Learning towards keep. Are there other constructions that use 到轆地? RcAlex36 (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep unless 到轆地 is demonstrably productive. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Neologism calque of, and I don't know if it will last Daniel.z.tg (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Daniel.z.tg How on earth is this neologism? See the quote from a song that I've just added. – Wpi (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I incorrectly assumed any internet-related slang (and me judging it by the English term is also questionable) would be a neologism. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep because I think this is the etymology of the English term: Etymology scriptorium/2023/August RFV failed Daniel.z.tg (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Being an etymon of a word in another language does not mean a term had to be kept. – Wpi (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * as per the trend of keeping English borrowings/calques into Cantonese. Personally I think those are just code switching unless the meaning is innovative, but keeping this type of entry seems to be the consensus here. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, this is definitely not code-switching, and it is unclear that this is even from English. It could very well be an independently created phrase. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 07:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per the arguments put forward by others. – Wpi (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ABC Cantonese-English Comprehensive Dictionary (2021) records 俾人打到碌地 and 痛到碌地 in addition to 笑到碌地. RcAlex36 (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've added some examples to 轆地. -- Ywhy (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sure 轆地 is attestable, but are these citations or your own examples? RcAlex36 (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I adapted these from actual usages. I googled "到轆地 -笑到轆地" and found [打|痛|嚇|玩|開心|激動]到轆地. I suppose [醉|攰] are reasonable too so I improvised one. I was merely suggesting 轆地 is flexible and should not be confined to 笑到轆地. -- Ywhy (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * While these examples might be fine, it might be a little excessive to come up with our own examples, which are less weighty evidence than usage independently found "in the wild". It would be preferable if we directly added (preferably durably archived) quotes to the entry, especially since it might be contentious. See WT:QUOTE and WT:ATTEST. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 06:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This rigidity in attestation and quotation is what stiffled creativity and engagement. Cantonese is rapidly wasting away and further bound by rote learning and we imbue no individual thought and style into it. No wonder are there many entries with none examples, for word without context is extinction!
 * -- Ywhy (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you can't create examples, but there should only be enough to illustrate usage. Having quotes that function the same as examples would be preferable because it shows that we aren't making stuff up from thin air. The primary purpose of Wiktionary is documentation and usability, not creativity. The fact that we have so many Cantonese editors actively engaged in editing here shows that Cantonese is not necessarily rapidly wasting away. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 07:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

大事に
Japanese. Verb "大事にする": sum of parts: adverbial form of ? —Fish bowl (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Delete. Nardog (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, delete. This is pretty straightforward WT:SOP as  with the adverbial particle .  The construction   is basic Japanese grammar, "treat something  -ly, treat something as  ; make something  ".  You could just as well have, , etc. etc.
 * I would argue that we should keep the form for it's idiomatic sense of  -- but then I see that we already have that entry.  Although that is bafflingly marked as "rare", when the o-daiji ni form is the only form I've heard for this in decades of working in Japanese-speaking offices.  Just last week, a native-Japanese-speaking coworker texted another who was feeling poorly to .  Time allowing, I may have a go at  to expand and clean it up. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not used frequently enough independently of お Daniel.z.tg (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know what my conclusion here would be yet, but at least it can be used without お. See the following excerpt from ."「で、今日は気分はどうだい」と彼は優しくたずねた. 「今日はいい方ですの. ただちょっと元気がないだけ. 」 「大事にするんだね、奥さん. 僕は心配でならないんだ. 」" Whym (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In deliberately casual contexts, the honorific prefix might be omitted.  We can tell that this is such a context, in part due to the  in the first line -- I don't think  as an inquisitive copula ever appears outside of casual / intimate speech.
 * In such cases, this would essentially be a variant form of . If we decide to keep the  entry, it will need a thorough revamping. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

= September 2023 =

主教
Chinese. Rfd-sense: "to mainly teach". SoP: +. – wpi (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards keep. It seems that we have a few entries with 主 used in this way: 主演 and 主修. It is also useful to keep as a contrast to the zhǔjiào reading. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 14:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

衣服
Chinese. Rfd-sense: “to put on clothes”. SoP: +. Mcph2 (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP but remember to Move its quotation to . -- Ywhy (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WT:LEMMING since it's in 漢語大詞典. Also it would be good to have this juxtaposed against the more common pronunciation 1. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 15:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

= October 2023 =

毛主席
Chinese. 毛+主席. Already in example of the entry 主席.--Mahogany115 (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: Previously kept after an RFD. See Talk:毛主席. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 08:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blatant preferential treatment. -- Ywhy (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Clear SoP, just like we won't create terms like . Should have been deleted earlier.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

失ウ, 失フ, ウシナウ, ウシナフ, +relevant item at ushinau

Japanese. Katakana was used predominantly before the modern era in some genres of text (Meiji Constitution, etc.) in the same way that hiragana is today, so attestation is not the issue. Rather, I doubt that recording these is meaningful, as it would apply to essentially every native word in the language, and the search function is capable of finding words in either hiragana or katakana. —Fish bowl (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 * I came across in w:Talk:Historical kana orthography, referring to the Shōwa Emperor's use of it in the 1945  (see File:ImperialSurrenderRescript.jpg, central block, column 12, characters 8–9). I searched for it on the English Wiktionary. It didn't come up, despite the fact that both  and  (but, perhaps crucially, not ) already existed. I'm not all that bothered whether these specific katakana forms stay, but it should be considered whether removing them and others like them helps or hinders someone running across such terms who wants to know what they mean, as I did. 0DF (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Could you explain what the problem is with having entries for these forms with katakana where we would normally find hiragana, please? 0DF (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

 * I think it would be an unnecessary proliferation of entries ("apply to essentially every native word in the language"). —Fish bowl (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Thanks for responding. I'd like to rebut your earlier assertion that "the search function is capable of finding words in either hiragana or katakana", by which I took you to mean that the search function finds hiragana terms given katakana queries and vice versa: Whilst working on the quotation at Citations:失フ, I searched for, which didn't and still doesn't exist in the English Wiktionary; the search box's shortlist for that query currently comprises (in order) , , , , , and ; exists, but isn't shortlisted. IMO, the shortlist for a katakana query should give, in priority order: 1) the katakana term that exactly matches the query; 2) the katakana term(s) that differ(s) from the query by the addition or removal of one or more  and/or , and/or by variation in kana size relating to  and/or ; 3) the hiragana term that is the exact equivalent of the katakana query; 4) the hiragana term(s) that differ(s) from the katakana query in the same manner as that described in point 2, with the added qualification that it or they be the hiragana equivalent(s). (And, of course, the shortlist for a hiragana query should give the same results re hiragana and katakana terms, mutatis mutandis.) Insofar as the search box doesn't prioritise other-kana equivalents in its shortlists (in the same way that it does prioritise letter-case equivalents for Latin-script queries), having entries for other-kana equivalent terms has greater utility. I would say that that utility outweighs the drawback of entry-proliferation. Besides that, there is the matter of consistency: Why, if they're unnecessary, do entries exist for  and , the katakana equivalents of the hiragana  and ? Why does  have both  and ? And why does  have , , and the historical , but not the historical ? It is a remarkable coincidence that I should find four unnecessarily proliferated kana entries from the six-entry shortlist yielded by a single katakana query. Is there a clearly stated policy on this matter somewhere? 0DF (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How did you search?
 * If I use the full search feature to look for katakana クシ, as at https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?search=%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B7&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1, I get くし in hiragana as my second hit.
 * Different approaches to searching will produce different results, unfortunately.
 * The sorting of alternative hits that you describe (starting from "IMO") relies upon collation settings that, if memory serves, are not entirely within our control as Witkionary editors -- for that, I think we need to get help from the WikiMedia folks, and they have not always been generous with their time when it comes to Wiktionary.
 * As for "why ... do [katakana] entries exist" for equivalent hiragana ones, that often comes down to the simple fact that this is an open wiki, with many participating editors who are not familiar with (or sometimes don't agree with) our various practices and policies. If you peruse the user contributions of the editor who created the クシャクシャ entry, you'll see that they spent a lot of time and effort creating these alternative-from entries as stubs using  to refer readers to the "main" entries.  I have no details as to their motivation for doing so.
 * Re: "Is there a clearly stated policy on this matter somewhere?", I presume you're asking if there's a policy on including katakana-only entries? The closest I can think of is a general practice to only have lower-case entries for English terms, at least for those that aren't proper nouns or for some reason otherwise usually written with special capitalization.  Even that is only a practice, as best I can find at the moment -- I see nothing in WT:ELE or WT:CFI that specifically says "don't create entries like PEACOCK" (which is essentially not too different from what we have at クジャク).  The rule of thumb for languages using the Latin alphabet appears to be, "only create entries for a specific capitalized form if there is a solid lexical reason for doing so."
 * For Japanese, we generally don't have any solid lexical reason for creating katakana-only entries, so our modus operandi has been to not create these. There is no hard and fast prohibition against creating katakana-only entries, as mentioned at About_Japanese, but these may be viewed as cruft by the Japanese-language editors here (including me, for many such entries), and if there is no clear reason for these to exist on usability-related or lexical grounds, they might be removed -- as this thread is discussing.
 * In most cases, it looks to me like users create katakana-only entries simply because the underlying MediaWiki software platform is, frankly, not all that good at properly handling Japanese text. See the third paragraph above in this very post.  This is a large part of why we have such "unnecessarily proliferated kana entries".  If the MediaWiki folk were serious about supporting Wiktionary, and serious about supporting all the languages we work with, most (all?) of the issues you bring up would vanish.
 * Separately, about the main point in this thread that @Fish bowl brought up, our basic standard for creating Japanese entries is outlined at About_Japanese, specifically in the #Lemma_entries section:
 * As a general rule, the most common spelling is considered the lemma.
 * In modern usage, particles and verb conjugation endings are all written in hiragana. As such, we should have an entry at  (using hiragana for the okurigana), but not at .  Any historical citations of spellings using katakana should go on the citations page for the form using hiragana.
 * HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

 * We definitely do have variant-script versions of Japanese words. I think the policy should be attestation: if we can find 3 qualifying citations for a term written in unusual orthography, where the entire passage is not written in such orthography, then it should be included. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Three is a vanishingly small number for a well-attested language like Japanese. Especially if we include manga in the scope of any such search, given that manga authors are famously / notoriously flexible in their spellings.  Let alone the simple fact that katakana was the de facto "main" kana variety for governmental and other official texts from the Meiji period up through the end of WWII.
 * Again, the hiragana / katakana distinction in Japanese is analogous to the lower-case / upper-case distinction for Latin-alphabet text. I notice we have no entry at [[SONY]], for instance, despite that company's use of the all-caps spelling on its website and products.  Similarly, we don't have any entry at [[アラス]] (the diacritic-less katakana rendering of ), despite this particular spelling's use in the Japanese text of the script of the proclamation of surrender made by Emperor Hirohito.
 * I maintain that, if a term's katakana spelling is not lexically significant (with the possible exception of discoverability / usability concerns, as I outlined earlier in this thread), I don't think it merits inclusion. Just like how [[PEACOCK]] is not lexically significant, and does not merit inclusion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your long comment. You've given me much to think about. As a resolution to this particular case, what do you think about using redirects? would redirect to 、  would redirect to 、  would redirect to 、 and  would redirect to  (the katakana sense at  would simply be deleted). What do you think of that as a solution? 0DF (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @0DF, I am mildly concerned about the potential for unintended behavior, and the maintenance overhead of keeping track of entries like this. That said, I am open to the idea of redirects, if other editors are also amenable. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Katakana being the default kana variety in Meiji-era Japan does not address my point, because I've explicitly excluded the case where the entire passage uses unusual orthography by modern standards. -- King of ♥ ♦<b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 22:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @King of Hearts, the question remains, are these alternative spellings like 失ウ demonstrably lexically significant? Or are these the functional equivalent of all-caps spellings of regular English terms like [[PEACOCK]]?  Until and unless we can show lexical significance, or there is a compelling technical reason (such as the usability and discoverability issues outlined above), we have no grounds for creating entries for such katakana spellings. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If PEACOCK appears 3 separate times, each in the course of otherwise normally capitalized English text, then yes I would include it as an alternate spelling. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 18:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there any lexical significance in that alternate spelling? If not, and the only difference is capitalization (or swapping hiragana / katakana), then the behavior should be an automatic redirection to the correct variant.  This is already laid out at Entry_layout:
 * "If someone tries to access the entry with incorrect capitalization, the software will try to redirect to the correct page automatically."
 * Indeed, if we browse to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/PEACOCK, the system redirects us to the entry at [[peacock]]. The fact that the system currently does not do that for spellings like https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/カワル, which should redirect to [[かわる]], is a failure of configuration. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. Shen233 (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

= November 2023 =

All Ryukyuan romanisation entries

 * Category:Okinawan romanizations - 117 entries
 * Category:Kunigami romanizations - 72 entries
 * Category:Kikai romanizations - 5 entries
 * Category:Yonaguni romanizations - 2 entries

In short, these entries don't make sense. There are no official or widely agreed-upon systems for romanising any of the Ryukyuan languages, and as far as I can tell, our current transliterations don't follow any of the systems that do exist.

The only reason these were created is because the Japonic modules were written with Japanese in mind (which does link transliterations), and these hard-coded links remained in place when the modules were expanded to account for the Ryukyuan languages. Unfortunately, some people then decided to waste their time by creating romaji entries based on these links, despite the fact that in many cases they're not very good (e.g. should probably be romanised as, due to the initial glottal stop).

The vast majority of languages don't have entries for romanisations, including major languages like Korean, and those that do follow widely-known, established systems like Pinyin or Hepburn. That certainly doesn't apply here, so let's get rid. Theknightwho (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Delete all. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 * While most of what you say makes sense, you're oversimplifying the history, given edits like, , and . Chuck Entz (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, hmm, for mijiushi and mutu, the first is arguably problematic.
 * みじうし is romanized in our entry as mijiushi. JLect instead renders this as miji'ushi or mijiqushi.
 * Separately, as described in the JA WP at 沖縄方言の表記体系, orthographies for the Ryukyuan languages are not entirely settled, even in kana. There's an argument to be made that this same term above should be written in kana as みじ'うし instead.
 * We (the EN Wikt editor community) need to figure out what standards we are using -- for both kana and Latin characters, and clearly document that somewhere easily discoverable -- before we do much more to build out our coverage for these languages. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards delete, but the romanisation module needs to be fixed to reflect the correct romanisation that would be reflective of the actual phonology, as many of them are currently inaccurate/wrong after TKW started to convert them to use the new module. Hold for Okinawan as that seems to have some non-kana writing (there was a Latin script spelling of but I forgot which page it is). – wpi (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Wpi That's not down to me - Huhu9001 did the current transliteration module. I simply moved the code around. Theknightwho (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

會說
Chinese. Rfd-sense: "to be able to speak (especially a language)": sum of parts? convert to &lit? —Fish bowl (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think even the adjective sense should be deleted. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 02:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. But how do we address 你可真會說 as euphemism for 自圓其說, 厚臉皮 or 油腔滑調, 馬屁精 ? -- Ywhy (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

사실은
Sum of parts. + .--Saranamd (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 * No opposition towards deletion as the entry creator. However, the broadly analogous 実は is in monolingual dictionaries (https://www.weblio.jp/content/実は). Is there a clear difference as to why 사실은 isn't? —Fish bowl (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you mean the Japanese adverb "実は", it is similar to the Korean word "사실" or "실은", not "사실은". So, the Korean entry "사실은" should be moved to "실은". Dubukimchi (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

= December 2023 =

马伯乐
Chinese.

WT:NAMES

—Fish bowl (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

 * I think the surname sense is keepable if attested for more than one Maspero, though moved to 馬伯樂? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

커먼
Tagged by 157.65.230.118. I couldn't find any words for "커먼" in the Standard Korean Language Dictionary. And according to the CBD-CHM Korea, "callithrix jacchus" (common marmoset) is officially called "마모셋원숭이" in Korean. --Dubukimchi (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Send to RFV It appears to be a problem of insufficient attestation.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

= January 2024 =

絨毛膜取樣
Cantonese. SoP: 絨毛膜 + 取樣. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

久治良
can we have a conensus for lemmatizing old japanese entries? I prefer no okurigana, and only manyogana variants if the term isn't attested semantically in WOJ (e.g. 許呂佐; lemmatize as ko2ro2s- regardless of conjugation) Chuterix (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Old Japanese spellings in man'yōgana are so variable that I don't think we should create lemma entries at any man'yōgana spelling. Instead, I think we should formalize our EN Wikt approach to romanizations for Old Japanese (particularly with regard to the as-yet-uncertain vowel variants marked in many materials as ), and use the romanized spellings for our Old Japanese entries.
 * → I am personally a fan of using the subscript numerals as above, as this distinguishes the vowel values without making any implicit or explicit judgment on how these were actually pronounced. That said, I recognize that it is not obvious how to input these for many people's keyboard layouts, and I am open to argument for some other notation.
 * I am perfectly happy for there to be soft-redirect entries for the various and sundry attestable man'yōgana spellings for any given term, provided that the main lemma entry is at a standardized spelling -- which, as far as I can think this through, would have to be a romanization.
 * I am opposed to creating entries at truncated root forms like ko2ro2s-. No reference that I am aware of collates verbs using truncated roots; they all use the terminal / predicative for Old Japanese, same as for modern Japanese.  We know what the terminal / predicative form of Old Japanese verbs would be even for those verbs where we don't have attestations of such conjugations (such as  for the 許呂佐 example above), so we should follow the principle of least surprise and use these for our lemmata. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Old languages are surprising in at least one way.
 * Perhaps we could input them as normal ASCII numbers, like a sample ko2ro2s-. This is like how we see a romanization link like (Pinyin (numbered tone) reading of ). Then, it could be sufficent that way. What do you think? Chuterix (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've created page User:Chuterix/Comparison of A and B type romanizations in Old Japanese. Expansions will occur on this page. The index notation will be used for the.
 * Also yeah; how the heck anyone is supposed to type subscript numbers like this? Chuterix (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Western linguists often use the truncated root form for yodan verbs, and renyokei for nidan/ichidan. Vovin, Pellard, Frellesvig, etc. See ONCOJ dictionary here Chuterix (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That may well be, but outside of such niche academic contexts (which includes ONCOJ's morphological analysis), every dictionary I've seen uses the terminal / predicative form for verbs as the lemma. I recommend that we do the same. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

ko2ro2su
See Requests for deletion/CJK Chuterix (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 * That discussion is still ongoing, and we have not achieved consensus. Given my current read of that thread, ko2ro2su would indeed be one of the proposed forms for the Old Japanese lemma.
 * We should hold off on any RFD of this term until the discussion about how to lemmatize Old Japanese has been resolved. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

= February 2024 =

写真写りがいい
Japanese. Defined as "photogenic"; is a phrase that literally translates as "reflection/appearance in photographs is good". . —Fish bowl (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Ya, I think this is a naive entry, possibly inspired by other bilingual resources that might include otherwise-SOP terms and phrases as translations. See, for instance, the EJ ↔ JE Weblio entry here, and the corresponding lack of any such entry in the monolingual Japanese Weblio here.
 * Looks like the same user added this as the translation at 🇨🇬. I have no objection to including this as a translation in our table there, but it should be clearly broken down into its components -- as Japanese,  is an SOP phrase (actually an entire grammatical sentence), and this literally breaks down to  +  +  + . ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

⿰亻児
Japanese, supposedly an extended shinjitai of based on original research as it is not encoded in Unicode. Eyesnore (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 * @Eyesnore A few problems with this request:
 * This is a matter for WT:Requests for verification/CJK.
 * It's not really relevant whether it's been encoded in Unicode: plenty of legitimate (but rare) characters still haven't been encoded, and on the fipside, some encoded characters.
 * We're a secondary source, so original research is actively encouraged.
 * Theknightwho (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, you may move it to RFV to check for any attested uses of this supposed extended shinjitai based on analogy. Eyesnore (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

文明小史
Chinese. Name of a novel. If should not be a Wiktionary entry, then neither should. RcAlex36 (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

法租界
Chinese. SOP of +. If this is allowed, then should we have other terms like or ?廣九直通車 (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Delete unless it saw use as a proper noun, but it seems to mostly exist as a component of proper nouns: 上海法租界, 廣州法租界 etc. Theknightwho (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 无印良品称“法租界” 引网友不满：醒醒 上海没租界了 --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

保安
Chinese. Rfd-sense: "guard at a gate; entrance guard; gatekeeper; doorkeeper; sentry", which should be under the sense as "security guard; security man" as 保安 does not refer specifically to a guard at a gate. RcAlex36 (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 * RFD deleted. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

= March 2024 =

リュキュ
Ainu. The term cannot be seen in real texts and has no historical probability. The word itself is also phonologically invalid in Ainu, which if valid would be リユキユ (riyukiyu) without the palatalization (no CyV in Ainu, all CyV would become Ci.yV such as Kiyo for Kyo=Kyoto, and Tokiyo for Tokyo). Ōta Mitsuru has coined ルチュ (Rucu) for Ryukyu based on Ryukyuian pronouciation) in his 和愛辞典. This リュキュ (ryukyu) can be seen as coinage most likely from a English or Japanese speaker without enough Ainu knowledge. So I would suggest the deletion. Mkpoli (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 * As you note, this is historically improbable, as the population of Ainu speakers in Hokkaido, Sakhalin, and other northern islands would not have had much contact with anyone talking about the Ryūkyū islands.
 * This might alternatively be a modern borrowing into Ainu, which could also account for the palatal glide.
 * That said, we would need evidence that this is actually used by Ainu speakers. My limited resources (mostly from The Foundation for Ainu Culture) don't include this term, to the best of my searching abilities. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

リンゴ
Unsure what the nominator intends for. Batchelor recorded it as an Ainu borrowing from Japanese, in the 1905 second edition of his Ainu-English-Japanese Dictionary, as we can see here in the scanned version available via Archive.org.

We also see the word spelled in hiragana as in running Ainu text, as on page 77 of this intermediate-level teaching text for Chitose-dialect Ainu. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your evidence. リンゴ seems to somewhat in used, although Batchelor's dictionary is infamous of its accuracy, and for the modern usage it is difficult to determine if it is code-switching or proper borrowing. In late 20th century, almost all (if not all) Ainu speakers are bilingual, so it's probable if the Japanese term with a voiced plosive ('g') is borrowed with that as a marginal phone. Anyway, I would like to withdraw my request for for now. Although it should be disscused if the Hiragana form should be used. -- Mkpoli (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

ロソク
Ainu. Same as although with valid phonology, without attestation and any support in dictionaries.

There is an entry in М. М. Добротворски's dictionary refering to Mkpoli (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I mis-clicked the Send button. There is a entry, but the Aynu term is Ratchako instead . There is no direct usage of rosoku. Mkpoli (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Batchelor recorded on page 380 of his dictionary here.  Meanwhile, per Batchelor's other entry here,  means "lamp", not "candle".
 * @Mkpoli, I cannot find any instance of either ラッチャコ or ratchako in your linked PDF. That file apparently spans pages 227 to 273.  Could you explain where you found the term in the file?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Eiríkr Útlendi, sorry I put the wrong link there. The correct one is here: M.M.ドブロトゥヴォールスキーのアイヌ語・ロシア語辞典(19). It says:
 * <blockquote lang="ru" xml:lang="ru"> Рачако . Мос. лампа (отъ Яп.  росоку , или  рассоку , свѣча), фонарь, (отъ Яп. ( ラ ツ シ ヨ ク )  рассіоку , восковая свѣча).
 * and translated as:
 *  Ratchako . Mos. ランプ（日本語の rosoku, あるいは rassoku「ろうそく」から），灯火， （日本語の（ラツシヨク）rassioku「ろうそく」から）．
 * -- Mkpoli (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting. There is a Japanese reading rassoku for the modern term rōsoku .  I can find suggestions that  might rarely have been pronounced as rōshoku, so while I cannot find evidence of any rasshoku pronunciation, it is plausible enough to suppose that this might have existed.
 * However, it seems less plausible to me for Japanese rassoku or rasshoku to become Ainu ratchaku — how and why would the medial consonant or  fortify to become ?  Ainu has a native  phone.  And how and why would the second vowel  become ?  These are contrastive in both Japanese and Ainu.
 * Separately, I note on page 73 of the PDF that the authors record Ainu terms rosoku and rósugu as borrowings from Japanese rōsoku. These are much more straightforward.
 * ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

你係乜誰呀
Chinese. In modern standard Cantonese, this isn't a neutral "Who are you?" but a more impolite "Who the heck are you?" or "Who do you think you are?" It probably should not be a phrasebook entry. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 06:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 * pinging as entry creator —Fish bowl (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete The interpretation by @Justinrleung is correct in my experience. It is (now) inherently insulting. See 乜誰 for the details. Vampyricon (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a neutral expression, and this particular phrasing is not common at all to warrant inclusion in a phrasebook. – wpi (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

 * RFD deleted. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 乜誰 is used in other Yue lects such as Dongguan, and I think it's neutral in those lects. (Though I don't know if we have phrasebook entries for non-standard Yue lects.) --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we confidently know how they would say this (including the sentence-final particle)? If not, then let’s not bother. The entry was just in Standard Cantonese, which is clearly not right. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 15:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

문재앙
There seems to be no need to create a word with a derogatory meaning toward the President of the Republic of Korea. --YeBoy371 (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

 * So, by your reasoning, we shouldn't have entries for derogatory terms for the former President of the US, but we have Mango Mussolini (among others that I couldn't bother finding). Take this to WT:RFVCJK if you have doubts about its existence instead. ItMarki (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * yields 1.22 million ostensible hits, including news publications like this one or even government websites like this one.
 * We (the English Wiktionary editor community) have not created this word. We are simply documenting its existence, and lexicographically significant details like meaning and derivation. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Send to RFV instead, and note the requirement for WT:DEROGATORY also.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

okinawa
Wrong kana and proper entries Okinawa and chōkaku already exist Ythede Gengo  (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Ultimately reworked to point to the correct entry: note that there are two common (as in, "not proper") nouns romanized as okinawa. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

ブログ投稿
Japanese. Sum of parts: +. —Fish bowl (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Absolutely agreed. SOP, delete.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

敵
Japanese. Rfd-sense: "revenge, vengeance". Submitted by an ephemeral IP user.

親の敵: the murderer/humiliator of one's parent;

妹の仇: the violator of one's sister; (the nature of grievance is unspecified)

The correct sense is actually "enemy". Whether vengeance would be exacted is contingent on the context. -- Ywhy (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 * (This would appear to be User:Fumiko Take, FWIW. —Fish bowl (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC))
 * The edit in question was . Sure looks like Fumiko.
 * Looking more deeply now, I can't confirm this sense in any of the references I have access to, such as the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten entry here at Kotobank, or the Daijisen entry here at Weblio (both in Japanese). In the context of the quote added by the anon, the "enemy" sense still fits.  I suspect the "revenge" sense is a mistake, due either to the anon misunderstanding a Japanese text, or reading a mistaken translation.
 * (FWIW, I'm sorry I didn't dig deeper earlier.)
 * Barring any native speakers chiming in to confirm any "vengeance" sense, I'd say delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

金星凌日
Chinese. SoP: +. RcAlex36 (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

大日本帝国陸軍
Japanese, SoP of +. Also cf. reasons for WT:RFDE.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

大日本帝国海軍
Japanese, SoP of +. Also cf. reasons for WT:RFDE.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

= April 2024 =

塳文化亞東
Vietnamese, tagged but not listed with comment “Ad hoc construction from known elements”. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

塳文化𡨸漢
Same. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

塳文化東亞
Same. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Probably an RFV issue? 沈澄心✉ 12:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think means we shouldn’t include multiword phrases in Hán–Nôm, as the separate parts can be looked up. I certainly agree with the sentiment, but we don’t yet have policy on this. If this passes here, I’ll nominate it for verification. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

dou3-2, waa6-2, kiu4-2, dek6-2
Cantonese Jyutping transcription for morphemes with a changed tone (3→2). Do we want this? This feels like it is entering "word" territory, and we do not have Jyutping entries for compound words. —Fish bowl (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Leaning towards delete. I wonder if we should redirect these to dou2, waa2, kiu2, dek2 and have the links in point there as well. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 19:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Same view as Justin. – wpi (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

都市計画税
Japanese, SoP of +. Do we need to create other entries of different kind of Japanese taxation, for which a number of them are SoP?廣九直通車 (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Crikey, no! 😄  I don't think there's any utility in adding SOP entries for all the umpteen kinds of.
 * SOP, delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

한겨레
Korean. Rfd-sense:

Encyclopedic; WT:COMPANY / WT:BRAND? —Fish bowl (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Chinese terms of 訪X
All Chinese terms. Clear SoP of + the corresponding abbreviations of various countries and territories. As long as there's a country with different starting characters we can always create new phrases using such logic.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And it appears that there's also similar items in neighbouring Japanese. Will consider further action on them based on the comments of this RFD.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete all. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 14:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete all. RcAlex36 (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

 * RFD deleted all (for Chinese). — justin(r)leung { (t...) 21:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

= June 2024 =

包岑縣
Chinese. SoP. Instead there should be 縣 at. – wpi (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Delete. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 15:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 * RFD deleted. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 21:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

獨立國
Chinese, SoP of +.

Unlike other terms like or  that signifies a country's form of government, the term is pretty much of a declaratory title used by all sorts of countries from Papua New Guinea (Independent State of Papua New Guinea) to  (Independent State of Croatia).廣九直通車 (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

才能
Chinese.

Sum of parts (才 "only" + 能 "can")? —Fish bowl (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Delete. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

匯豐銀行
Chinese.

WT:COMPANY —Fish bowl (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Delete. RcAlex36 (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 21:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

向泡沫方向
Chinese. Gibberish. —Fish bowl (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Delete. Clearly vandalism. RcAlex36 (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

樹莓派
Chinese.

WT:BRAND —Fish bowl (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia says "Pi" in Raspberry Pi is a reference to the Python programming language, so maybe we should keep this translation. In China, the "Pi" has therefore been used for lots of similar development boards like Orange Pi. Also, the name might be confused with the actual raspberry pie dessert, which has happened in Chinese Raspberry Pi communities before — they sometimes gets posts from raspberry farmers. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

豉汁蒸排骨
Chinese. SoP: +  + ; 豉汁蒸鯧魚 and 豉汁蒸鯇魚 would also be considered SoP. RcAlex36 (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Delete. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

國家安全機構
Chinese, SoP of +. Unlike English security service where "security" implies "national security", this entry clearly doesn't have idiomatic meanings.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Delete. Definitely SOP, nothing idiomatic that can't be understood or conveyed through the literal meanings. Kungming2 (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Delete. RcAlex36 (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

真正一歇歇
CHinese. SoP: 真正+一歇歇. — Musetta6729 (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

 * See earlier discussion re: 真正一歇 Talk:真正一歇 Musetta6729 (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

小學詩
Chinese. Proper noun of unclear importance. —Fish bowl (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 21:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

= July 2024 =

平靜下來
Chinese. SoP: +. RcAlex36 (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Delete. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kungming2 (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

冷靜下來
Chinese. SoP: +. RcAlex36 (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Delete. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kungming2 (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

国会
Japanese, various country-specific senses for their national legislatures, including: These country-specific senses are clearly encyclopedic, should be retained for Wikipedia, and violates WT:CFI. This is just like we will not include senses like "the Parliament (Britain's bicameral legislature)" in parliament (and even in Parliament we only mentioned especially while do not list every national legislatures called parliament).廣九直通車 (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * the National Diet
 * the
 * the Parliament
 * the
 * the National Assembly
 * the National Assembly

Japanese terms of 訪X
All Japanese terms. Clear SoP of + the corresponding abbreviations of various countries and territories. Also cf. the reasons given in .廣九直通車 (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 * While I understand the Chinese case, the Japanese case might be more tricky because of how formal/literary these compounds are. for one is found in goo, a monolingual dictionary. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

방한
Korean, SoP of +. Also cf. the reasons given in .廣九直通車 (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * is also nominated as the verb form of the term, for the same reasons.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Similar to the Japanese case, 방한 (訪韓) is found in naver, a monolingual dictionary. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK