text:
Talk:-geddon

RFD discussion: June–October 2020
-geddon seems like it is just a common portmaneuau component, rather than bona fide noun forming suffix. All listed attestations are poorly/sparsely used, which definitely suggests this term is more of an ad-hoc conversational utility than an independent linguistic lemma. Achierius (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. All words using it are portmanteaus of Armageddon, and can be listed as derived terms there. This ain't a suffix. DonnanZ (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How does it differ from ? Is that a suffix? Or are all words using it portmanteaus of Watergate? —Mahāgaja · talk 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The difference with is dictionary recognition, perhaps because it is better known than, which I can't find in Oxford. If it can be found in other reputable dictionaries, keeping it can be considered. DonnanZ (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do query Etymology 2 of though (in place names), which probably come straight from . A tollgate or gate in a town wall are sources I have come across. DonnanZ (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably in some placenames in Scotland and Northern England it's from gate² . —Mahāgaja · talk 13:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That certainly applies to some streets up north, but there can also be terrible corruptions -, according to a book I have, comes from Cumbric badd + ceto- ("boat wood"), recorded as Batket c1160, definitely not from bath + gate! DonnanZ (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "boar wood" actually, I misread it. DonnanZ (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The main difference is that -gate is used by people who don't seem to be referring to . You still have combinations like "carmageddon" that show awareness of the word "Armageddon". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Abstain Delete. Words built on this should be indicated as . — SGconlaw (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Abstain Delete. It's not productive enough to be considered a suffix like -gate. There is also carmageddon used to refer to the consequences of closing a major highway, possibly limited to Southern California.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's a point at which a word is used enough to construct portmanteaus that it creates a productive suffix. This is not as popular as, but it's crossed that threshold. appears robustly attestable. Then there's a thousand nonce words like potatogeddon, which while not independently attestable by our standards, still exist. Not every iteration of  is independently attestable, but the fact it exists as a productive suffix is. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WaN., I encourage you to look at the evidence of productivity of this suffix. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck through delete to abstain instead. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I also think I don't know enough on the subject. Abstaining. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep per the above. There is also a band called Hairmageddon, and an annual haunted house in Tampa, Florida, called Scream-A-Geddon. The term has become imbued with meaning as a suffix. bd2412 T 04:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, per the Daily Mail and others, "spermageddon". bd2412 T 04:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your example "Hairmageddon" supports (and not ), so why did you vote to delete that one? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because -ma- exists as an infix, so Hairmageddon would be hair -ma- -geddon. bd2412 T 05:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The -ma- infix is etymologically distinct from the -mageddon suffix, though. -ma- is a nonsense syllable arbitrarily inserted into words for humourous effect (, saxomaphone), whereas -mageddon is formed by shaving off the first syllable of so that it preserves syllabicity when attached to a one-syllable noun. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I still think that the actual productive portion of the term is just "-geddon", and the rest is just adjustment to get to that portion. bd2412 T 17:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, comparing to, I find more people (including the editors at MacMillan Dictionary) talking about -mageddon as a suffix than -geddon (although there are a few of the latter, including a bar journal article, whose examples look more like blends, however). Meh. - -sche (discuss) 18:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Words You Should Know 2013 has an entry for -geddon, and also lists a few more examples. The book also considers a suffix. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have created -pocalypse, with citations to "gunpocalypse", "cookiepocalypse", and, of course, "Trumpocalypse" (though the last one could also be interpreted as an "-ocalypse"). bd2412 T 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I have removed "Trumpocalypse" in favor of an earlier citation for "foodpocalypse". bd2412 T 21:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WordyAndNerdy and per my rationale above for -mageddon ... anything using -mageddon also uses -geddon.  — Soap — 15:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: and 'geddon and geddon are possible words. Purplebackpack89 17:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Abstain: Not clear to what extent we should document blend/portmanteau formation patterns as suffixes. Multiple dictionaries do have -gate for Watergate-based blends, but we can note that Category:English words suffixed with -gate has 151 items. For Armageddon, the implied quasi-suffixes would include -mageddon and -geddon. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-kept. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:-geddon


text:
Talk:seven hundred fifty

RFD discussion: June–October 2020

 * See Talk:seven hundred and fifty.

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

title: Talk:seven hundred fifty


text:
Talk:rhythm and blues music

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
SOP, rhythm and blues + music? On a side note we do have rock music but not rock and roll music. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. - -sche (discuss) 19:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. PUC – 21:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. Equinox ◑ 03:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not just SoP, it's an outright redundancy, like saying "dodo bird". Khemehekis (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:rhythm and blues music


text:
Talk:Provincial Achievement Test

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Dictionary material? If we include this we have precedent to include possibly hundreds of other standardized test names, starting with American College Test and Scholastic Assessment Test. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. For language proficiency tests and ungeneric names of school examinations. Of course not chemical or medical tests (, or whatever;  I count as physical test, though with fitness tests and competitions the possible endlessness after arbitrary criteria set by humans becomes problematic). Fay Freak (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Provincial Achievement Test


text:
Talk:six million lies

RFD discussion: June–October 2020
Is this an idiomatic, lexical item? I'm sceptical; it seems like just saying that 6 million Jewish deaths were lies, and the same collocation is found in reference to other sets of six million things someone considers fake/made-up, like: besides there also being obviously SOP uses like Meanwhile, many of the uses which are related to Holocaust denial are about about a specific song: (The form is also found, at least on a specific cloth left in a specific city.) But I'm not sure; it's arguable. What say you? - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1935, Common Sense
 * “Six Million Peasants Die as Soviet Hoards Grain”—six million lies in single sentence. It matters nothing to Mr. Hearst. Nor does it matter to him that his  correspondent, Thomas Walker, “who for several years has toured the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ...
 * 1905, John Ogden Murray, The Immortal Six Hundred: A Story of Cruelty to Confederate Prisoners of War, page 169:
 * I do positively believe I had to tell my comrades six million lies about how I fell down in one of the cisterns that some one left open.
 * Jack Levin, Gordana Rabrenovic, Why We Hate, Prometheus Books (ISBN 9781615926480), page 120:
 * And “Six Million Lies” by No Remorse contains the following Holocaust-denying lyrics: Did six million Jews really die, or was it just a Zionist lie?
 * Do you think this is an occasionalism? Otherwise I see no problem. The use as graffiti may point to it being a stock phrase. Fay Freak (talk)
 * I just don't see a reason to consider this lexically idiomatic. The evidence of use in references to other things, including other instances of six million deaths that the speaker likewise considers lies, shows it's not limited to the Holocaust. Even if it were, would that be evidence that it was a lexical term? When someone scrawls "Auschwitz lie" or "Zyklon B hoax" on a tombstone or otherwise uses that phrase, they almost invariably mean that they think the idea that Auschwitz was a death camp was a lie, and not e.g. that they think the idea that the town was destroyed by the Mongols in the 1200s was a lie, (or, respectively, they think the idea that people were gassed with Zyklon B was a lie, rather than something else,) but I don't think we need an entry for Auschwitz lie or Zyklon B hoax, do we? But I'm not sure; maybe you or someone else wants to make an argument for idiomaticity... that's one reason I've brought it up here, I want to know what everyone else thinks... - -sche (discuss) 16:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok then, it is just as though one wrote “Auschwitz lie”, “Holo[caust] hoax” etc. Delete. Which however leads us to the question whether we should have an entry, conceptualized as a particular mythological number amongst some speakers. Fay Freak (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I can see how it has more of a claim to idiomaticity. In I mentioned a Jimmy Carr joke (for example) that relies on the reader hearing "six million Jews" and thinking of those murdered. And Granger found other collocations below. I wonder how many other casualty numbers are used in such ways... I see a few uses of "fifty-eight thousand (families|sons)", referring to the number of US deaths in Vietnam, but it seems much rarer / further from idiomaticity than "6 million". - -sche (discuss) 01:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that six million is not an idiomatic phrase, but rather a well-known piece of numerical information. Like 365, 1492, or 93 million miles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete as not idiomatic unless somebody contributes quotations showing otherwise. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Doesn't seem idiomatic to me. Lots of phrases with "six million" can be found alluding to the Holocaust: "six million stories", "six million lives", "six million relatives", "six million hearts". —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete. This is an allusion, not a lexically significant term. Do we need an entry for because of all the books that reference the number of days in a year their titles? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:six million lies


text:
Talk:Morgan Freeman

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Not an adjective, and all quotes quite obviously refer to. Listen to Morgan Freeman's voice and make your own conclusions; there's nothing lexical here. PUC – 15:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Or, from another angle: you can't know what is meant if you don't know who Morgan Freeman is and don't listen to his voice. To me that's proof that it hasn't entered the English lexicon. PUC – 15:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as it stands. Not adjective, agreed. Could conceivably move it to a noun entry like M~ F~ voice if we really think that's so commonly used that people who never heard of the person would use the phrase. Equinox ◑ 15:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As creator of the entry, I believe it should be kept. See also this discussion on Dan Polansky's talk page. All quotes about Darth Vader refer to Star Wars as well. If you don't know who Darth Vader is you can't understand that either. I came to this entry because I was trying to say something, trying to explain the kind of voice that was needed for a voice-over. I couldn't quite find the words I was looking for, until I thought "Morgan Freeman". Perfectly described the kind of deep voice I meant, it didn't mean "go hire Morgan Freeman", and I figured I wasn't the first to think of that. After some further consideration, I also believe this entry is useful for future generations who may not know Morgan Freeman. Imagine you are reading a text from the 1960s that says "and he said with an Alan Reed voice" (now when you look him up you may or may not find you have actually heard his voice, depending on how old you are) or "and she said with a Penny Singleton voice" (which I think won't mean much to most people nowadays), it would be useful to be able to look it up. (I don't know if these examples are attestable, but Morgan Freeman in this sense is) Morgan Freeman gets used in text that is otherwise completely unrelated to Freeman, it assumes the reader knows what it means, like it assumes the reader knows what "voice" means. Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "I also believe this entry is useful for future generations who may not know Morgan Freeman": we're not supposed to make predictions and to create an entry because of something that might happen in the future. PUC – 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention the Germans. I bet a fair number of Germans don't know what Morgan Freeman sounds like. Also, might? Is English Wiktionary different from Dutch Wiktionary and does it not aim to provide historical knowledge, only current terms? Or are you suggesting that Morgan Freeman is immortal? (well.. that's open for debate I guess, I mean, after all, he is God..) Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Another example: if we leave our America-centric viewpoints behind for a moment, imagine you are reading a German text and encountered something like "eine Friedel Morgenstern Stimme". (again, no idea if this particular example is attestable or not) I would surely like being able to look that up. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: I've changed the entry to attributive noun, as that is the correct PoS if I understood Dan Polansky correctly. Not many names are attestable for this kind of attributive noun, so this doesn't mean tons of names would be added. Alan Reed might be attestable (though I have doubts), Penny Singleton probably isn't. Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse should be easy to attest. James Earl Jones may also be attestable. But I can't even say for sure whether or not Elvis Presley would be attestable. So, limited. Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most names of well-known people could be used in this way. Take, for example, an "Albert Einstein intellect" or a "William Shakespeare style of writing." But that doesn't mean we should create those entries. Imetsia (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For every subject/field there is only a very limited number of names that can be used in this manner while also being attestable in sources that are not otherwise related to the subject. Talking about a "Tiger Woods swing" in a golf magazine is more likely to refer more directly to the person, while "she grabbed the broom and knocked him down with a Tiger Woods swing" would be completely unrelated. And in such an instance, Tiger Woods is part of the language. His persona is irrelevant, his name has been reduced to the qualities of his swing. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 * If we should have this entry, then probably as a proper noun defined as "an American actor and film narrator noted for his clear, calm and deep voice" or the like, but then it fails WT:NSE's "No 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." Defining it as an adjective seems like a workaround around WT:NSE. Do we have any other such entry for a real person? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dan. Examples are clearly in contravention of NSE. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. We have . This might appear to have a more clearly detached sense than, but I remark that by employing names as a different part of speech we cannot work around the restrictions for names of specific entities and at best it is only semantic genericity that permits us such entries. Conversion is easy. “Then he went fully G.W.F. Hegel.” – “He considered to stage a .” – “When I told him about our using Windows, this freetard went completely .” – “When will Trump pull a ? He could at least pull an .” (As you might read in Nrxn publications.) Etc., etc. This semantic genericity needed is hardly measurable however, a fact Dan Polansky does not like. There is no stringency here, seems about to be deleted while  stays, for very opaque reasoning. Fay Freak (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If it was up to me, I would delete Arnold too; I don't see anything lexical/genericised in there. PUC – 21:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The above examples do not seem to be from actual use, e.g. finds nothing, and so does . Whatever these examples were supposed to demonstrate, they are not actual uses found in the corpora. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously, because I made them up to show a pattern. Similar things have been said. What has been demonstrated is that one can use any name of an individual characterized by having done or having been something to denote what he is characterized for, provided that the audience got the facts about the individual – often only people with a certain education or certain readings understand: as Dan Polansky not everyone understood every allusion I gave, people who do not know what is (shockingly many; basic education is rare) would not understand a text about “a Richard Stallman” as in the example, most however understand in context what “an ” is because for this one just needs to know that there is a bodybuilder of that name. Whereas in contrast a sentence like “Let us pray that Trump Senior becomes Caesar Augustus, and Trump Junior becomes Emperor Constantine” stays dark to most people (what this real example implies is basically that Augustus and Constantine were persons who threw the  particularly far back – yes, now it has become really obscure, but that’s the usual style in the  and you might see the point –, but somehow a vocabulary of such names is unsuited for a dictionary audience, regardless of its form of attestation; I mean not only because one should not enable  with such entries, but due to the project goal of not letting the dictionary intersect with encyclopediae, and this thought goes with every name of a specific entity). The mere replaceability of  with a concept like, the fact that it is understood by many sharply, fooled people into believing the term passed an (imaginary) threshold by which its inclusion is more than a name of a specific entity that violates WT:NSE. Fay Freak (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Things made up can hardly demonstrate anything about actual term usage; they may at best remind us of some actual usage. As for the inclusion of Arnold Schwarzenegger, we have to remember that CFI has changed since the entry was created and since it passed its RFD in 2009. The hammer that can now be used to delete the entry was introduced in Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals, where voters probably did not realize they will create a discongruence in that Darth Vader can be pulled in via a certain principle (existence of use in "attributive sense") while the same principle would no longer be afforded to Arnold Schwarzenegger. I would argue that the principle should be applied to both Darth Vader and Arnold Schwarzenegger or to none. I would further argue that Arnold Schwarzenegger should not be defined as "muscleman" but rather as "An Austrian-American bodybuilder and actor noted for highly muscular body" or the like, a definition that both identifies the individual and the characteristics that can be picked by metaphorical uses. To my mind, Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals did not solve any burning problem and was basically unnecessary. We now have a problem in CFI that we should try to fix somehow. Interestingly, Lexico does feature Arnold Schwarzenegger as an entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete as it stands; it's clearly not an adjective, it fails tests of adjectivalness, and some of the citations even pluralize it. Should there be a noun sense? Eh. CFI suggests not (as noted above) and I'm sceptical that it is, or that people would expect to find it as, dictionary content; probably a soft redirect to Wikipedia is sufficient. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Morgan Freeman


text:
Talk:cactus fruit

RFD discussion: June–October 2020
There are a great many cacti with edible fruits, and most of those fruits have been referred to as "cactus fruit". If you Google the phrase, you mostly see references to commercially grown types such as prickly pear and dragonfruit, not saguaro, as our definition claims.

This is an attempt to change the English, SOP definition to match the much more specific translation- sort of like creating an entry for "fruit tree" with the definition "a tree that produces pears" because you can't figure out where to add poirier as a translation. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete as sum of parts when properly defined.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. If you have multiple translations of that kind,, you can invent an SOP entry dedicated to it, see WT:THUB. Otherwise leave it out. Fay Freak (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep my dictionary refers to the English equivalent of nanilzheegé as cactus fruit specifically, its my understanding that this is idiomatic as it does not refer to any cactus fruit such as a prickly pear but rather saguaro cactus fruit specifically. If not then yes how may I create or transform the entry for purely translation purposes?N.G. Smokingloon (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You should fix your understanding. Of course it just means a fruit of any cactus. No English speaker will understand you if you order a “cactus fruit” and mean a saguaro cactus, because simply this is not specific. When a specific term is translated in a certain way this does not necessarily mean that it has this meaning. It is often just out of convenience. The entry, this title, you cannot have for this translation. An entry seems warranted to me after a search. . Fay Freak (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you so sure? What if in Arizona people speaking English do understand it to mean that? Much as in the way people understand hearts of palms to not mean a palm tree's myocardium but rather the culinary sense?Nevertheless I believe that saguaro fruit may suffice.N.G. Smokingloon (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What if in Arizona people speaking English understand it to mean "duck, I'm coming out shooting!"? The home of the Arizona Cactus Ranch, that sells prickly pear fruit in many forms, is unlikely to conflate cactus fruit with saguaro fruit. The Arizona Daily Star, writing their "Quick reference guide for harvesting cacti in Tucson" mentions four types of cactus fruit, but only uses "cactus fruit" in "barrel cactus fruit", which is obviously "barrel cactus" + fruit. There's no reason to think that Arizona, of all places, would limit cactus fruit to being one type of cactus fruit.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete at this time... but I would note that if there were, for example, one language with a specific term for "saguaro fruit" and one with a specific term for "barrel cactus fruit", and one with a specific term for "prickly pear fruit", but not enough to create all those terms as THUBs, I would consider having this entry as a THUB for those translations + s. (That a dictionary explains nanilzheegé as "cactus fruit" does not mean "cactus fruit", in the reverse direction, denotes [only] saguaro specifically, given the above evidence to the contrary.) - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, but probably make the definition less specific. Ƿidsiþ 11:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Four deletes to two keeps, one of whom is the famously clueless permabanned creator of the entry. RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:cactus fruit


text:
Talk:acknowelege

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Delete per vote on common misspellings and Ngram. PUC – 13:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Tentatively keep and redefine. A Google Books search suggests that this is an obsolete alternative spelling rather than a misspelling. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added citations and changed it to an obsolete spelling.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * keep--MianMianBaoBao (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-kept. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:acknowelege


text:
Talk:possessive-pronoun

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Votes/2019-05/Excluding self-evident "attributive form of" definitions for hyphenated compounds. PUC – 10:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 * I don't think here is a good reason to keep this. Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would move it to RfV - can we find actual usage for it? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Clear Delete per decision to exclude hyphenated terms that are defined merely as an attributive form of the spaced phrase. Mihia (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:possessive-pronoun


text:
Talk:amphipaticity

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Delete per vote on common misspellings and Ngram. PUC – 12:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WT:CFI as a rare misspelling (=spelling error), per above. Let me note R:GNV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:amphipaticity


text:
Talk:International

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Again I think this is like the New in New York, a word that is capitalised only by virtue of being part of a proper noun. There are two senses here: 1. "International Airport (as the shortened form of an airport name)", and 2. "A shortened form of the name of an international group" (with a citation about "the leaders of the ditherers' International" in politics); sense 2 is the same as the better definition at lower-case, "(politics) A transnational organization of political parties of similar ideology." Equinox ◑ 00:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

 * I'm inclined to agree - the same thing with (and a few others I suspect). International, however, was a make of truck manufactured by, so the entry could be retained for that. DonnanZ (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the vehicle sense, and altered the RFD to en. DonnanZ (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete both senses, it's like referring to the High Court of Appeals for Foobar or the Supreme Court of the United States of America as "the Court" (which was deleted, see Talk:Court), and indeed the quotation under sense 2 exemplifies this, by also speaking of the Party. - -sche (discuss) 08:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:International


text:
Talk:approprimate

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Delete as a rare misspelling: not found in GNV:. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete as currently defined. This is implausible as a misspelling, so if it's not an alternative form or a different word, it's probably a typo. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no policy dedicated to "typos" in WT:CFI, only to "misspellings": WT:CFI: "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included." There is a non-passed vote on proposed regulation of typos, one that was largely unnecessary since most of what the proposers would consider to be typos can be easily deleted as rare misspellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For anyone interested, the vote is here. PUC – 13:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of how we end up treating them, and even irrespective of the extent to which we can distinguish them in practice, it is essential that we make a conceptual distinction between typos (accidental typing errors made by people who know how to spell the word) and misspellings (spellings that the writer mistakenly thinks are correct). Mihia (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Essential for what? Not for users who want to avoid misspellings: does anyone aim to write in misspellings but not typos? Not for policy and not for mainspace markup, as far as I can see. The vote (Votes/2019-03/Excluding typos and scannos) contains evidence suggesting at least one author considers typos to be species of misspellings. Again, nearly every typo is a rare misspelling and can be deleted using the current policy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see too many opinions and too little evidence and too few references. Comment is free, as they say. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A fair amount (a majority?) of contributors appear to consistently make a distinction between typos and misspellings, even among those who voted against the above proposal. Don't you think it's unfortunate that this isn't reflected anywhere? PUC – 11:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Majority does not science or proto-science make; and we already had a look at evidence. I would really prefer if people meet me on evidence and such, not opinion. Even below, we read "rare error", which means "rare spelling error", and if we realize what stands for, we get that spelling error would intuitively be referred to as . Thus, the notion that typos are not misspellings seems bizarre, although someone might want to try to maintain that kind of non-intuitive terminology. However, if someone proposes that common typos should have a different template or different output, e.g. via en, I will probably not oppose; but I think it is pretty useless since, to repeat myself, nearly every typo gets deleted as rare misspelling anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct that in common parlance typos are a kind of misspelling, but I believe that in previous discussions here the distinction has been made as I represented it. Whatever terminology we use, there is clearly a fundamental difference between the two things. Mihia (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There sure is a notional contrast, but why would it be fundamental and why would it matter for our purpose? Since, what dictionary users find offline in books and online in web pages is typeset or typed text rather than hand-written text; when that text contains a spelling error, what should it matter for dictionary searches whether the error originated during the author's writing down the manuscript or during the typesetter's turning the manuscript into typeset matter? (Of course, in modern times, the manuscript is often typed directly.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We're trying to describe the language. A misspelling is a part of the language in the minds of those who use it- such things can and do replace the "correct" spelling. A typo is usually an artifact of the keyboard layout and/or the neuromuscular coordination of the typist. It is no more a part of the language than an OCR error, which, by the way, the average online reader is far more likely to encounter than a misspelling or a typo (don't even suggest having entries for those- that would be cliinilo). Chuck Entz (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a thoughtful response and thank you for that. However, it does not seem so simple. First, I would say that it is primarily words that are part of language, not their spellings. But if we focus on spellings as we probably should in discussing this matter, I would argue that spellings are primarily the things produced outside of the minds, and less things inside minds. Spellings in typed matter are both produced by minds and imprinted on minds. And I do not see why we should consider a language to consist primarily of things in the minds and give things outside of minds (auditory utterances, manuscripts, typed matter) a secondary role. If we allow that a language consists both of things inside minds and outside minds, then common spelling errors in typed matter (whatever their origin) are part of the language. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On a different note, it may not even matter whether spelling errors are part of language (or are considered to be); spelling error entries could just be pragmatic search aids to improve the usability of the language documentation project. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, rare error (whether we want to view the error as a typo or a misspelling, it is too rare to include). - -sche (discuss) 18:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. Typing error, not misspelling. Equinox ◑ 11:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:approprimate


text:
Talk:pleasure-boat

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Delete per Votes/2019-05/Excluding self-evident "attributive form of" definitions for hyphenated compounds. PUC – 12:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't like the vote but it passed, and the case is clear. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sink. I mean, delete.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:pleasure-boat


text:
Talk:eflluvium

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Delete per vote on common misspellings and Ngram. PUC – 13:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete – I think this is a typo rather than a misspelling (it makes no sense with English phonics, and doubling the wrong letter is a fairly common kind of typo). Even if it is a misspelling, it's too uncommon to include. I checked several Google Books results and they were all scannos. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record: Votes/2019-03/Excluding typos and scannos, a near pass. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI and per GNV above. In the GNV search, the frequency ratio seems much more favorable in 19th century, but a random look in Google books suggests these are mostly scannos. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete, utterly absurd to have junk like this. Equinox ◑ 10:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete, not likely to be an intentional spelling. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:eflluvium


text:
Talk:Nobel

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
I don't see anything adjectival about this; I see attributive uses of proper noun Nobel. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * sense: Relating to the Nobel Prize or to Nobel laureates.
 * Delete. Can't say "that prize was Nobel" etc. Covered by existing noun. Equinox ◑ 08:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have reservations about the noun too. DonnanZ (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Plenty of results for “received the Nobel” as short for “received the Nobel Prize”. --Lambiam 16:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is outrageously laughable that Nobel Prize is listed as a derived term of this supposed adjective. --Lambiam 16:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I moved it to the surname. Maybe the other derived terms should be moved there too. DonnanZ (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. They need to go somewhere. DonnanZ (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not an adjective.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, not an adjective. PUC – 16:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nobel


text:
Talk:bipartison

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Delete per vote on common misspellings and Ngram. PUC – 13:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WT:CFI as a rare misspelling (=spelling error), per above. Let me note R:GNV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:bipartison


text:
Talk:-mentum

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Not a suffix. Examples (which we don't have entries for) are blends of name + "momentum". DTLHS (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per proponent. PUC – 21:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. It dates back to 2016 (the presidential election campaign?). DonnanZ (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, it dates back to 2004, and "Lieberman says he's got the 'Joementum'". bd2412 T 03:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was a bit vague here, referring to when the English entry was added, the Latin entry was created first, diff. DonnanZ (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I already hate myself for this, but see Dean Del Sesto, Shift Your Thinking for Success (2018), p. 52: The endgame of a status-quo work ethic will turn momentum into “nomentum or slowmentum” where exemplary work ethic creates “flowmentum and growmentum.” bd2412 T 04:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Jeffrey C. Alexander, Bernadette N. Jaworsky, Obama Power (2014), p. 90: David Axelrod referred to Romney team's idea that its candidate was building up steam as “fauxmentum”. bd2412 T 04:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:-mentum


text:
Talk:mood rainbow

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
No definition given. Appears to be sense 3 of rainbow: "A wide assortment; a varied multitude". One citation also speaks of a "fashion rainbow", another metaphor of the same form. Equinox ◑ 10:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete, sum of parts. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, sum of parts. Fay Freak (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. Compare "emotional rainbow". - -sche (discuss) 18:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:mood rainbow


text:
Talk:antijewish

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Tagged but not listed (but see the above section on anti-Jewish). Equinox ◑ 08:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep: should be RFVed, not RFDed. Equinox ◑ 08:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did find one, for what it's worth DonnanZ (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Possibly keep as a common misspelling of anti-Jewish if we can trust the following: . If we believe that GNV counts scannos, we could delete this as a rare misspelling. By contrast, does not find antibritish. RFV is also an option. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy move to RFV. It may be citable but most hits are search engines helpfully matching anti-Jewish.  I added one citation.  I found a second I won't add because it's the English abstract of a German paper and may be ESL.  For comparison, journal articles by scientists from non-English speaking countries occasionally use  but  is considered the correct spelling in modern standard English.   Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no basis for the above "speedy" since this form is at least somewhat plausibly subject to a RFD-relevant deletion rationale of WT:CFI: "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included". --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The nomination was "unattested sop". The unattested part is RFV material.  SOP does not apply to unspaced compounds.  Do you want to nominate on the additional ground that it should be considered a misspelling?  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The RFD page does not state any RFD rationale; one would have to check . Anyway, I am now nominating this for RFD as a rare misspelling, while not voting yet. Let us have a look at whether evidence suggests this is a rare misspelling. Evidence (above GNV) makes it pretty clear it is a misspelling; the remaining question is whether it is a rare misspelling or common misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as a rare misspelling, actually; I don't believe most of the GNV finds are anything but scannos, from randomly checking Google Books. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Admittedly rare, but it can be intentional, in this article the spelling antijewish occurs three times. DonnanZ (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, misspelling can be intentional in that it can be systematic in an article written by someone who has that misspelling stored in their mind as canonical. The above article's title is "The Belgian and French medicine and the "Ordres" facing the "jewish question" during the Second World War", with jewish in lowercase (should be Jewish), apparently written by French-speaking authors. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted as a rare misspelling. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:antijewish


text:
Talk:anti-Jewish

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Tagged by Special:Contributions/2600:1700:9758:7D90:91FA:587E:5DCB:1A66 as "SOP". — surjection ⟨??⟩ 22:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep. The alternative is much worse, I regard anti-Jewish as the correct form. DonnanZ (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 * They're both unattested sop.2600:1700:9758:7D90:596D:BAF1:A6D1:C3EE 04:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sure the term can be attested. There are even books with anti-Jewish as part of their title, DonnanZ (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep per WT:COALMINE if can be cited. Everyone agrees that the "SOP" argument doesn't apply to words written together with no hyphen or space. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree! PUC – 08:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It can't be denied the term exists, whether we are Jewish or non-Jewish. DonnanZ (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't apply as our policy is presently constituted, but logically it makes no difference to SoPness whether a term is spaced, hyphenated or solid. Whether we write "anti Jewish", "anti-Jewish" or "antiJewish"/"antijewish" is really a semi-arbitrary choice or writing convention that does not in any way affect the fact that the meaning in all cases is "anti" + "jewish". While spaced and hyphenated phrases are are already under the scope of SoP rules, the difficulty that we face is how to treat e.g. "antijewish" as SoP. As I see it, there are two issues. The first is whether a user can look up the meaning of a solid SoP term if he/she encounters it and does not recognise the composition. This could be handled in software, without a specific entry, provided we have entries for the components, which in 99% of relevant cases we probably do. This is actually a much better solution for lookup than having individual entries for every case, because it means e.g. any "antiX" that anyone might coin would automatically be catered for. The second issue is agreeing which solid SoP terms to keep and which to discard, and framing rules to differentiate one type from the other. This seems more problematic. Mihia (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I ought to mention one other consideration that I omitted, which is that people may wish to consult the dictionary to determine which form is correct, e.g. whether they should write "anti-Jewish", "antiJewish" or whatever. Mihia (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep per WT:THUB via Czech and German : these are not compounds and therefore escape THUB exclusion criteria. On the other hand, one might argue that anti-Semitic serves fine as a hub, but I would still keep anti-Jewish as a more direct translation, in common use; ; there are also Czech  and German . --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Waiting to see what happens to antijewish. If we keep antijewish we need to keep this, otherwise delete per CFI: "Idiomaticity rules apply to hyphenated compounds in the same way as to spaced phrases."  Anti-Semitic is not sum of parts, all the uses of anti-Jewish I have seen are.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, and the above quote regulation is in no conflict with WT:THUB: "[...] Some attested translation hubs should be included despite being non-idiomatic and some excluded, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which. [...]", italics mine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that anti-Jewish shouldn't be spelt antijewish because of English spelling conventions doesn't make it automatically SoP. That is a cockeyed argument. Merriam-Webster agrees with anti-Jewish, now added as a reference. DonnanZ (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-kept. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Beer parlour
See. Dan Polansky (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:anti-Jewish


text:
Talk:mAhg−1

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Do we allow entries for one unit per another unit? Seems like there could be a lot of these if they were allowed, but there are no other unit symbol entries in  and apparently not in   either (though for these I only glanced at the titles and didn't look at the pages for all of them). — Eru·tuon 04:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have thought so. Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See also Requests_for_deletion/English. Mihia (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is another case where I think the rule for chemical formulae should be applied.  It is used in technical literature where readers will know how to separate it into component parts.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in physics there is no in principle distinction between the strings of unit symbols that make up a compound symbol, eg mAh and the inverse with might be for example ms−1 or km/h. It is not as if there is an unlimited number actually in use, so I think that Wiktionary should cover these inverse compound symbols too. I will concede that mAh/g is in much more common use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The number of combinations like, , ..., is also not unlimited, but that is by itself not an argument to keep these. The number of physical units in use is large; just for this same physical quantity the units Ahg−1, mAsg−1, mAhkg−1 and Ahkg−1 are also in use. --Lambiam 13:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Weak delete; in context someone will hopefully know how to separate the parts, as with chemical formulas. - -sche (discuss) 16:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. I would add that this is simply isn't under a dictionary's purview. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:mAhg−1


text:
Talk:unEnglish

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Rare misspelling of un-English. does not help here much since it chokes on hyphenated forms: when a form is split across lines, the hyphen may be part of the term or merely an indicator of word split, and GNV does not know which is the case. confirms as much, while it does find some true attesting quotations of unEnglish. As a further supporting testable (refutable by possible observations) thesis, English does not do camelCase except for brand names, that is, prefix cannot be attached to a capitalized word without a hyphen. That is, whenever camelCase is attested at all, it is a vanishingly rare variant of camel-Case. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I have seen this in edited, published writing. I think it's somewhere in the book of short stories I'm currently reading. I'll see if I can find it. At any rate, it may be rare but I'm quite certain it is not a misspelling. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If we start with the premise that copyedited writing can contain misspellings, then the question is what would be the deliberative or observational basis for "I'm quite certain it is not a misspelling". --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, un-English is in M-W, as is anti-Italian. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I found it and have added the quote. And this hyphenless spelling occurs not only in the edition in my possession: I found it in two other editions of the same story at b.g.c, with snippet view (at least in my country): and . I can believe a misprint in one edition, but not the exact same misprint in three different editions. The hyphenless spelling here is clearly deliberate. As for "un-English" and "anti-Italian" in M-W, so what? No one is denying that the spelling with the hyphen is more common. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would reprints or other editions of the same story not contain the same misspelling, if it is a misspelling? The spelling without hyphen seems vanishingly rare compared to the spelling with hyphen. Here again, what is the observation from which it follows that it is not a misspelling? Present at least once in copyedited corpus => not a misspelling? Or, intentional on part of the author => not a misspelling? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Other editions would have editors and proofreaders reading the text keeping an eye out for misspellings. And these aren't just reprints, they're different editions with different page numbers and line breaks and everything, so it's not just a single misprint that got copied into other printings. And in this case at least, we have "intentional on the part of the author" + "allowed to remain by various editors and proofreaders of various publishing houses" = not a misspelling. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. But that seems still to be a rather weak evidence, I would argue, since we do not really know whether there were multiple rounds of proofreading. And even if there were multiple rounds and they really did look carefully for mistakes in what they knew was already copyedited before, it still does not amount to much more than "at least 3 independent occurrences in copyedited corpus => not a misspelling", a principle that would lead to the conclusion that concieve is not a misspelling, which seems untenable. Even if you raise 3 to 10 above, you still get a principle that is likely to declare concieve to be not a misspelling, again, untenable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can find this spelling by searching the sites of the Economist, Guardian, and Washington Post. -Mike (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can find concieve here:
 * The Guardian: "They concieve of Britain as a member of an eventually supranational and democratically-controlled European Community."
 * Washington Post: "The use of fertiltiy drugs brings about great increase in the ability of many many couples to concieve."
 * The Telegraph: "Peter and Kate Hill were struggling to concieve".
 * Would the assumption be that newspapers cannot contain misspellings? --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The idea that the might contain misspellings is inconcievable. --Lambiam 20:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but how do you draw the line? I could find some other websites where unEnglish is used (probably intentionally; here for example). At what point do misspellings become merely variations? I recognize it may be a rare and nonstandard form of the word, but people on this site often use the coal mine/coalmine example for justifying including words where the space/hyphen is optional. -Mike (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @Mike: My point is that "I can find this spelling by searching the sites of the Economist, Guardian, and Washington Post" does not support the notion that this is not a misspelling. To determine whether something is a misspelling, I use a frequency ratio criterion, detailed in User talk:Dan Polansky/2013, which is an operationalization of WT:CFI's "There is no simple hard and fast rule, particularly in English, for determining whether a particular spelling is “correct”. Published grammars and style guides can be useful in that regard, as can statistics concerning the prevalence of various forms". That is, when a putative variant spelling is vanishingly rare compared to the main spelling, the best estimate is that it is a misspelling. I don't understand the relevance of the coalmine note above; in relation to coalmine, deleting rare misspellings removes some of the less fortunate applications of WT:COALMINE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My feeling is the same as Mahagaja's, that it's an intentional spelling on thepart of at least some writers (that they would continue to use even if told the "usual" spelling was "un-English", unlike the situation with "concieve", where corrected editions change the spelling if they catch it, in my experience), which means it's a " " (given how many places I can find that call it "wrong" or advise against it), but not a misspelling, AFAICT. Comparable words include "unAmerican" and "antiSemitism"/"antiSemitic"; stackexchange nots that wordnik has some examples of "unAmerican" (on the right of that page). Julius Nicholas Hook and William Ferdinand Ekstrom's 1953 Guide to Composition, page 391, implicitly accepts that some people intentionally use(d) mid-word caps, when they write (underlining mine) that "A capital letter in the body of a word has a rather strange appearance: unAmerican. For that reason, when a prefix is attached to a capitalized word, it has become conventional to insert a hyphen: un-American, pro-British, pre-Tito." I dug around to try to find other discussions of this, but it's hard because search engines don't care about capitalization and so put "unenglish" and "unamerican" and "antisemitic" into the results. - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For high-frequency misspellings such as concieve, there will always be many occurrences in copyedited corpora, by definition of "high-frequency misspelling". As for "corrected editions change the spelling [concieve] if they catch it, in my experience", where can I find "corrected editions" as opposed to "editions"? What is the evidence that "corrected editions" do not correct "unEnglish"? Where did you look that I did not look, and what did you see there? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Re 'where can I find "corrected editions" as opposed to "editions"?': look for works that have been published multiple times or in multiple editions; later editions often contain corrections to spelling errors in earlier editions. For example, [//www.google.com/books/edition/An_Inquiry_Into_the_Principles_of_Politi/uN8TAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22When+luxury+is+examined+with+respect+to+this+object+,+the+idea%22&pg=PA309&printsec=frontcover this 1770 edition] of James Steuart's Inquiry Into the Principles of Political Oeconomy contains "the idea we concieve of", while [//www.google.com/books/edition/The_Works_Political_Metaphysical_and_Chr/IMA5AQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22When+luxury+is+examined+with+respect+to+this+object+,+the+idea%22&pg=PA408&printsec=frontcover this later 1805 edition] has corrected the spelling to "the idea we conceive of"; further evidence that concieve was a misspelling is that the 1770 edition also contains the correct spelling. Native-speaker intuition or awareness as to whether people intentionally use a less-common/standard spelling is useful here. Wen Smith, Tip of My Tongue: Forays in the American Language (2000), page 217, recognizes that hyphenated forms of [prefix + Capitalized word] combinations are now standard, but chafes, saying "A dumb hyphen will stick its nose in to make work when the work is superfluous. One dumb hyphen once decided that unAmerican would be better as un-American, and a lot of people have agreed. Now, whenever a prefix is followed by a capital letter, you can expect a hyphen to turn up, as in pro-Irish or anti-Semitic." (I am addressing the general case, not only unEnglish, since this is a general phenomenon.) The unhyphenated forms could be listed as proscribed (maybe a usage note like being as's "may be considered an error"), as quite a few style guides advise to always put a hyphen, and some may even explicitly/actively advise against the unhyphenated forms. - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * -sche: Ok, and what searches should I look at to see whether copyeditors have corrected unEnglish to un-English in at least one switch of editions? (Of course, copyeditors corrected unEnglish to un-English countless times, not necessarily between editions, or else unEnglish would not be vanishingly rare, but that's my story that has so far been rejected.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep per above. J3133 (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is hard to say that this is definitely a misspelling. If kept, I would prefer labelling along the lines of uncommon alt. spelling. Mihia (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 * I would change the rules for English words: a compound word where a proper noun not at the start remains capitalized is treated the same as a hyphenated form. Under that rule, unEnglish is the same as un-English but unenglish is not. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep. It may be seem an unEnglish spelling, but the cites do not seem to be typos or poor editing. Labelled uncommon. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Problems with the above: 1) not all rare misspellings are specifically typos; 2) generally, rare misspellings are often found in quotes that are well copyedited except for the misspelling; this is especially so when we look at misspellings in copyedited corpora. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as an uncommon or rare, sometimes proscribed, alternative form (but not a misspelling per se), based on my longer comments above. - -sche (discuss) 19:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-kept. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:unEnglish


text:
Talk:rugby-boot

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Delete per Votes/2019-05/Excluding self-evident "attributive form of" definitions for hyphenated compounds. PUC – 13:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:rugby-boot


text:
Talk:paraphilic infantilism

RFD discussion: August–October 2020
Sum of parts, with the meaning clear from looking at the two words separately. Equinox ◑ 17:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep All wikipedia articles automatically qualify, right? Even if it can be analyzed as SoP.  — Soap — 23:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Wow, no, where did you get that idea? WP articles have titles like "Political opinions of J K Rowling". Equinox ◑ 23:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. And, please don't comment if you have no idea what you're talking about — it's counterproductive. Go read WT:CFI. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay apologies for the misunderstanding. I need a nap. — Soap — 14:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am also suspicious of the narrowness of the definition and would RfV it if it survives RfD. DCDuring (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:paraphilic infantilism


text:
Talk:empty promise

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
SOP: see sense 5: "Destitute of effect, sincerity, or sense; said of language" (empty threats, empty words, empty thanks, etc.). I added a French translation, but it's not entryworthy either. PUC – 22:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep per lemming principle. DonnanZ (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Votes/pl-2018-12/Lemming principle into CFI. PUC – 17:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No consensus. DonnanZ (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as SOP. Imetsia (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * CoBuild does not have an entry with a definition; they just have example sentences. Why don't we just add a couple of usage examples and be done with it.
 * IOW, Delete. DCDuring (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD discussion: December 2020–March 2021
Original discussion: Talk:empty promise

 * Undelete >SOP — Dentonius 12:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, undelete. I voted keep before. DonnanZ (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Undelete of course. It is a set phrase or common collocation at worst, and should be kept. I see the destroyers are crawling out of the woodwork again. Why don't "they" build? There are endless red links and unregistered words and phrases to be added. Petty-mindedness at work. I call it as I see it. -- A LGRIF  talk 17:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's put things into perspective. Algrif: 2855+ entries created vs. PUC+aliases: 4958+ entries created+1756+ entries created+796+ entries created.
 * Conclusion: idiocy at work. I call it as I see it. Goodbye. PUC ~ 212.224.225.25 19:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you think those figures show. I call your stupidity as you display it! PUC off -- A LGRIF  talk 19:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I see it, RFDs by IPs should be disallowed. We like to know the true colours of the nominator. DonnanZ (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What RfD are you referring to? DCDuring (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * just above. It's obviously the same user who commented above in this undeletion request with IP# in the 212.224 series. DonnanZ (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * PUC, those statistics mean nothing. It doesn't answer any of these things: (1) How much time does he dedicate to this hobby? How much do you? (He was inactive for a while as well. You need to adjust to factor that in.) (2) What have you personally removed from this website? What has he? (3) How many constructive edits has he made to other pages which he didn't create? How many have you? (4) It's easy to go for quantity when creating pages here: head-word and definition. But what about quality? The numbers you've shown don't prove what you're saying. Let's not forget that there are other ways to be constructive here which don't necessarily involve editing pages. And don't forget, some of us contribute on other wikis too. — Dentonius 21:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, forget about the childish dickwaving. I shouldn't have brought that up. Let's simply focus on the absolute figure: I've created more than 7000 entries (sorry if they're not to your satisfaction). Now, reread Algrif's statement: "I see the destroyers are crawling out of the woodwork again. Why don't "they" build? Petty-mindedness at work." A bit shortsighted and imbecilic, don't you think? PUC – 22:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the stats for your RFDs under your various guises over the years? DonnanZ (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Stay deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stay deleted, SOP. Even setting that aside, why would we want to upend a vote that we concluded barely more than two months ago? Imetsia (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stay deleted, per deletion discussion. I also note that, contra, Wiktionary is a lonely lemming among references at . DCDuring (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * OneLook omitted a very important lemming, the king of the lemmings. DonnanZ (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Weak undelete, per Donnanz. I agree it's a set phrase (usually not a very strong reason for keeping for me) and also that it's SOP, but a lemming's a lemming. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stay deleted, per Imetsia. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I wasn't originally going to make any further comments here. However, PUC brought up his beautiful statistics. World-beating statistics. Bot-made statistics. Here is just a random look-up. See what you make of it. I would recommend summary deletion of primary tense, open-ended contract, or that PUC puts his money where his mouth is and completes his entries. I would also suggest a closer look at his unbeatable record. Sorry Mr PUC, but you asked for this. -- A LGRIF  talk 22:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, I apologise for my previous messages; calling you an idiot was... idiotic.
 * I never said I had an "unbeatable record" (not quite sure what you mean by that), or that my entries were "complete". Also, as you will have noticed, I'm not a native speaker of English; for that reason, I don't feel comfortable writing definitions in English from scratch. So yes, I make heavy use of when I'm creating English entries, in the hope that a native speaker will fulfil those requests. I don't see how that warrants summary deletion.
 * However, that does not mean I consider "my" entries immune to deletion. Obviously, I'm not going to nominate them for deletion myself, as I feel they all belong in some way (otherwise I wouldn't have created them). But if you think they should be deleted, feel free to RFD them.
 * That being said, please understand my frustration, and why your comment really made my blood boil. I don't consider myself "petty-minded", and I'm not trying to "destroy" anything. My goal here - like everyone else's - is to make the dictionary better. That means creating new entries, of course (and I think I've done my fair share of that, as I was trying to show with the figures above). But for me, that also means getting rid of cruft. And SOP entries are, imo, a prime example of cruft. Not always, as other considerations may apply, but most of the time. (About that: pace certain people, the SOP rationale is not "Wiktionary's worst enemy": it's a common sense principle. If someone thinks we should get rid of it altogether, they haven't thought things through and haven't pushed their line of thought to its logical conclusion.)
 * So, maybe I'm dead wrong here, and maybe this entry definitely deserves to stay/be restored, but as things stand, I just don't see it, sorry. First, I don't see how it's not SOP (see, sense 5). All right, but as I said that's not the only consideration there is. However, in the present case, I don't see any other particularly compelling argument to keep the entry. Does that make me a "destroyer"? 212.224.224.126 18:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe you are a destroyer. In small numbers, you are useful. In large numbers (the present situation), you're a menace. You band together and destroy whatever you don't like. There are simply too many of you. Your English is excellent, by the way, 212.224.X.X. My command of other languages isn't nearly as good as your command of English yet it doesn't stop me from providing definitions on other Wikis. Other people pitch in and correct when I make mistakes. — Dentonius 19:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment 1. Can we stop the personal attacks, please, and stick to the substance of the matter. Mihia (talk)
 * Comment 2. empty promise, idle threat and air resistance are IMO prime examples of why we need a better set phrase / common collocation policy -- something that will allow proper treatment of these undeniable-set-phrase-yet-explicable-as-sum-of-parts combinations. Mihia (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Mihia, in BP I proposed more than one way to deal with this phenomenon. Only a few listened. — Dentonius 09:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stay deleted. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stay deleted, only a single lemming is not enough imo, also =SOP. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Undelete' - a set phrase with a unique meaning more than SOP. Definitely something a learner of English or first-time encounterer would look up. Facts707 (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Stays deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 08:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:empty promise


text:
Talk:rear admiral lower half

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Is this a common enough misspelling to merit inclusion? John Cross (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Common enough that the U.S. Naval Institute and the U.S. Dept. of Defense spell it that way, albeit with capital letters. Also seen that way in an article in The Space Review by an assistant professor associated with the U.S. Air Force and elsewhere. One question is: is this really a misspelling at all? Another one: should we too capitalize it? At least in military circles, it seems more common to capitalize the names of official ranks. --Lambiam 13:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Capitalisation is probably better avoided for ranks, although there is and  - all too often they are not worthy of the title. DonnanZ (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I don't see a basis for considering it a misspelling. It seems like just an alternative spelling. - -sche (discuss) 00:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've edited it to be a simple alternative spelling. Resolved? - -sche (discuss) 16:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-kept. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:rear admiral lower half


text:
Talk:break into song

RFD discussion: August–October 2020
SOP. PUC – 09:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete, indeed SOP ( sense 37). Compare “break into chant”, “break into wailing”, “break into applause”. Is the given pronunciation a joke? --Lambiam 15:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's sɔŋ you're looking at, it's a given US pronunciation for . DonnanZ (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Lambiam made that comment before I made . —Mahāgaja · talk 06:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also sense 4. – Einstein2 (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete per examples as Lambiam gave. Equinox ◑ 17:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete, SOP. J3133 (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, sum of and .  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as SOP since we have break into. And has anyone noticed that the example sentence doesn't use the phrase break into song? Also, what's "prescence"? Khemehekis (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 04:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:break into song


text:
Talk:whirling void

RFD discussion: September–October 2020
A tornado is (somewhat poetically) a whirling void, but that doesn't make it an idiomatic term for one. This is like having an entry for "green fruit" defined as "an apple". Equinox ◑ 20:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Flush the whirling void down the bathtub drain of history... delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * thereby causing a gurgling void. --Lambiam 13:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, whirl it into the void ... Mihia (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed; the first hits on Google Books don't match this meaning, and it seems more useful to our readers to not portray it as usually meaning "tornado".--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD failed. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:whirling void


text:
Category talk:Terms derived from the PIE root *gʰazdʰo-

RFD discussion: October 2020
I accidentally spelled the root wrong (it should be ǵ instead of g). —Globins (yo) 17:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Next time, an empty category can be tagged with d rather than being brought here. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


text:
Talk:sum of money

RFD discussion: September–October 2020
Sum of parts. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, we kept piece of furniture. (Don't ask me why.) ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. PUC – 10:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete DCDuring (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. Equinox ◑ 18:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep. - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete, SOP. J3133 (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. We already have  as the collective noun for money.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 20:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:sum of money


text:
Category talk:English terms derived from the PIE root *gʰazdʰo-

RFD discussion: October 2020

 * See Category talk:Terms derived from the PIE root *gʰazdʰo-.


text:
針灸銅人

Noun

 * 1) acupuncture model

title: 針灸銅人


text: 针灸铜人

title: 针灸铜人


text: perdulários

title: perdulários


text: perdulária

title: perdulária


text: perdulárias

title: perdulárias


text: Lugwardine

title: Lugwardine


text:
Template:R:Oxford Dictionary of Abbreviations 2011 (online-only)/documentation

Usage
This template may be used in the "References" section of an entry and on talk pages to provide a citation to the online-only Oxford Reference edition of the A Dictionary of Abbreviations (the Oxford Dictionary of Abbreviations 2011).

Parameters
The template takes the following parameters:

 * 1 or entry – the entry in the Dictionary cited. If not specified, the name of the Wiktionary entry is used.
 * part of speech or pos – the part of speech of the entry. By default, the template italicizes the value assigned to the parameter and adds a full stop (period) to the end. To turn off the default formatting for the purpose of specifying a different formatting using wikitext markup and templates, for example: sb.$1$, specify 1 or yes: see the example below.
 * 2 or url – URL of the individual entry, if needed.
 * 3, text, or passage – a passage quoted from the Dictionary.
 * nodot – by default, the template adds a full stop (period) at the end of the citation. To suppress this punctuation, use 1 or yes.

Examples

 * Wikitext:
 * Result:


text: Template:R:Oxford Dictionary of Abbreviations 2011 (online-only)


text: ikidomari

title: ikidomari


text: いきどまり

title: いきどまり


text: ништь

title: ништь


text:
Talk:God the Son

Misunderstanding of the Filioque controversy
The original text said that the Son is begotten either directly or indirectly (through the Holy Spirit). This is a misconception of the Filioque controversy between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, which concerns whether the procession of the Holy Spirit is from the Father only or from the Father and the Son (ex Patre Filioque).
 * Azuizo (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:God the Son


text:
глоухъ

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) deaf

title: глоухъ


text:
蠻針瞎灸

Idiom

 * 1) to do things with disregard for the customs or rules

title: 蠻針瞎灸


text: 蛮针瞎灸

title: 蛮针瞎灸


text:
-miit

Etymology
Derived from the locative case ending.

Suffix

 * 1) is in/on/at [noun]

title: -miit


text: mánzhēnxiājiǔ

title: mánzhēnxiājiǔ


text:
містобудування

Noun

 * 1)  urban planning, town planning,

title: містобудування


text: QoL

title: QoL


text: Worster-Drought

title: Worster-Drought


text: 立ち入り禁止

title: 立ち入り禁止


text: Drought

title: Drought


text:
Talk:questioning

Usage in dating sites
questioning = querisexual
 * 1) a person who doesn't know its personal sexual identity
 * 2) a person who doesn't have a narrow or clearly defined sexual identity; and/or might doesn't want to have

Note that etymology is not tautological to definition.

[Nasty joke: Where do we mingle these and how?]

title: Talk:questioning


text:
-tsiar

Suffix

 * 1) somewhat, slightly
 * e.g. tunuaamitsiarit!
 * Move a little backwards!

title: -tsiar


text:
McClurg

Etymology
Anglicized form of, a personal name meaning "footman", from.

Statistics

 * According to the 2010 United States Census, McClurg is the 9778th most common surname in the United States, belonging to 3314 individuals. McClurg is most common among White (94.09%) individuals.

title: McClurg


text:
الفاظ

Etymology
.

Etymology
, from.

title: الفاظ


text:
alhòli

Etymology
From 🇰🇲.

Pronunciation
Provençal: /aˈjɔli/, /aˈʎɔli/

Noun

 * 1) aïoli, a sauce made from garlic, egg, olive oil and other ingredients

title: alhòli


text:
faniꞌ

Etymology
Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) squirrel

title: faniꞌ


text:
pilluarpoq

Verb

 * 1)  is happy

title: pilluarpoq


text: لفظوں

title: لفظوں


text: لفظو

title: لفظو


text:
folosh

Etymology
Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) spoon

title: folosh


text:
pedalski

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  gay

title: pedalski


text: foshi

title: foshi


text:
chipota tiik

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) girl

title: chipota tiik


text:
pilluarit

Etymology
Imperative second-person singular (intransitive) form of.

Interjection

 * 1) congratulations, happy [whatever]

title: pilluarit


text:
pilluaritsi

Etymology
Imperative second-person plural (intransitive) form of.

Interjection

 * 1) congratulations, happy [whatever]

title: pilluaritsi


text:
aubespin

Etymology
From, from (with a change in gender), from  +. Cf. 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1)  hawthorn, whitethorn, a plant in the genus

title: aubespin


text:
ukiortaaq

Noun

 * 1) New Year

title: ukiortaaq


text:
Qts.

Etymology
From English term quarters, i.e. living quarters, by shortening.

Noun

 * 1)   used when addressing mail.

title: Qts.


text:
tərsa

Etymology
From. .

Noun

 * 1)  Christian

title: tərsa


text:
Talk:como

Portuguese: only in the main clause
What does that even mean? Any clause starting with "como" is a subordinate one. Please provide further explanation, as it is making learners insecure. --2001:16B8:38A7:DE00:C9AE:7EB9:1976:C0A3 23:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:como


text:
abajon

Noun

 * 1)  blueberry, fruit of the plant

title: abajon


text:
технічний

Etymology
From. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) technical

title: технічний


text:
antiheroo

Etymology
From. .

Noun

 * 1)  antihero

title: antiheroo


text:
법계

Noun

 * 1)  dharmadhatu

title: 법계


text:
碳循環

Noun

 * 1) carbon cycle

title: 碳循環


text: 碳循环

title: 碳循环


text: tànxúnhuán

title: tànxúnhuán


text:
świszczypała

Etymology 1
From.

Noun

 * 1)  harum-scarum, madcap

Declension
Masculine declension:

Feminine declension:

title: świszczypała


text: Talk:see for yourself

title: Talk:see for yourself


text:
технологічний

Etymology
From. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) technological

title: технологічний


text: წაკითხვის

title: წაკითხვის


text: დაგვეხმაროთ

title: დაგვეხმაროთ


text:
anolha

Etymology
From

Noun

 * 1)  heifer

Alternative forms

 * vedèla (languedoc), (provençal)
 * junèga (languedoc)
 * jurga (languedoc)
 * borreta (languedoc)
 * junja (limousin)

title: anolha


text:
დაეხმარება

Verb

 * 1)  to help

title: დაეხმარება


text:
rħam

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) marble

title: rħam


text:
優選理論

Noun

 * 1)  optimality theory

title: 優選理論


text: 优选理论

title: 优选理论


text: Little Billington

title: Little Billington


text: 优选论

title: 优选论


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁ewgʰ-

Reconstruction
is from underlying */h₁ewgʷʰ/-, the (vowel ) variant of, with the change *wgʷʰ > *wgʰ due to the.

Derived terms
See *h₁wegʷʰ- § Derived terms.


text:
優選論

Noun

 * 1)  optimality theory

title: 優選論


text:
siegħ

Etymology
From. As usual, the emphatic ṣ- was dissimilated against the final pharyngeal.

Noun

 * 1)  a unit of dry volume, equivalent to 6, that is officially 111 imperial cubic inches (1.818 L).
 * 2)  a vessel of such measure, a bushel
 * 3)  a unit of surface area, equivalent to 10, that is officially 224.1 imperial square yards (187.4 m2).
 * 1)  a unit of surface area, equivalent to 10, that is officially 224.1 imperial square yards (187.4 m2).

title: siegħ


text:
sieħ

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to call

title: sieħ


text: tànshuì

title: tànshuì


text:
二氧化碳稅

Noun

 * 1) carbon tax

title: 二氧化碳稅


text: 二氧化碳税

title: 二氧化碳税


text: èryǎnghuàtànshuì

title: èryǎnghuàtànshuì


text: Citations:out to lunch

title: Citations:out to lunch


text:
Template:century

[ c.]

title: Template:century


text:
User:Vox Sciurorum/Test

Templates
Testing for template work. NaN | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1

Germanic
,

Misc
Formatting test: Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬,.

title: User:Vox Sciurorum/Test


text:
Mål

Noun

 * 1) time as in the first time; many times

title: Mål


text:
Template:century/documentation

Usage
This template provides information about when a sense was first used, to the nearest century. The template is placed at the end of a sense-line, after the definition.

Examples

 * For words that are still in use, specify the first century in which it was used.
 * e.g., returns 1
 * For obsolete senses, add the last century in which it was used.
 * e.g., returns 1

title: Template:century/documentation


text:
生物地理學

Noun

 * 1)  biogeography

title: 生物地理學


text:
acidcore

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  A subgenre of both acid techno and hardcore which combines the two.

title: acidcore


text: 生物地理学

title: 生物地理学


text:
llec

Etymology
..

Adjective

 * 1) lay, secular
 * 2) ignorant

Noun

 * 1) layperson
 * 2) lay brother

title: llec


text:
gägenœwer

Preposition

 * 1) opposite
 * 2) * 2018, Susanne Bliemel, Dat wier de Nachtigall un nich de Uhl ... : Plattdeutsche Geschichten, Hinstorff (publisher)
 * "nds-de"

- An de Wand gägenœwer vun dat Finster hüngen de Diplomen un Zertifikaten vun Fru Wanda Raffel.

title: gägenœwer


text:
𐤐𐤋𐤔

Noun

 * 1) architect

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) architect

title: 𐤐𐤋𐤔


text: Category:gem-pro:Crime

title: Category:gem-pro:Crime


text: Category:gem-pro:Criminal law

title: Category:gem-pro:Criminal law


text:
桃李もの言わざれども下自ら蹊を成す

Etymology
From Chinese.

Proverb

 * 1) a man of virtue will naturally attract admirers, good wine speaks for itself

Usage notes
The can be pronounced as  or

title: 桃李もの言わざれども下自ら蹊を成す


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/wambu

Etymology
From. Cognate with 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1)  womb


text: とうりものいわざれどもしたおのずからみちをなす

title: とうりものいわざれどもしたおのずからみちをなす


text:
burundês

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) Burundian

Noun

 * 1) Burundian

title: burundês


text: Template:R:nds:WAPM

title: Template:R:nds:WAPM


text: せっぱつまる

title: せっぱつまる


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/Ingumār

Etymology
From, equivalent to.

Proper noun

 * , meaning famous in battle


text:
切羽

Noun

 * 1) thin washer on either side of the guard (tsuba) of a sword
 * 2)  (up to) the hilt; wits' end

title: 切羽


text: せっぱ

title: せっぱ


text:
切り羽

Noun

 * 1) face (of a wall of coal or ore, etc.); working face (of a mine)

title: 切り羽


text: Category:Proto-Koreanic nouns

title: Category:Proto-Koreanic nouns


text: きりは

title: きりは


text: 切り端

title: 切り端


text: 切端

title: 切端


text: 切刃

title: 切刃


text: せっぱ詰まる

title: せっぱ詰まる


text: 切羽つまる

title: 切羽つまる


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/ambō

Etymology
From, from ~ , from the root. Formal cognate with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1)  belly

Descendants

 * (attested as )
 * (< ), (< ) (secondary thematicization)
 * (< ), (< ) (secondary thematicization)

title: Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/ambō


text: chángcǐyǐwǎng

title: chángcǐyǐwǎng


text:
Ingimarr

Etymology
From, from +.

title: Ingimarr


text:
cyrliog

Adjective

 * 1) curly

title: cyrliog


text: gyrliog

title: gyrliog


text: chyrliog

title: chyrliog


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/Ingumēraz

Etymology
From.

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/Ingumēraz


text:
砂鍋糜

Noun

 * 1)  clay pot rice porridge a Teochew dish

title: 砂鍋糜


text: 砂锅糜

title: 砂锅糜


text: qtajja'

title: qtajja'


text: Citations:Zawra

title: Citations:Zawra


text: Category:ofs:Organs

title: Category:ofs:Organs


text:
habut

Etymology
From Hiroshima.

Adjective

 * 1) grumpy

title: habut


text:
Bramsegel

Etymology
Unclear, see 🇨🇬 for more.

Noun

 * 1) topgallant sail

title: Bramsegel


text: Template:R:nds:LW

title: Template:R:nds:LW


text:
brandsejl

Noun

 * 1) life net
 * 2) * 1987, Hans-Eric Hellberg (tr. from Swedish by Erik Juul Clausen), Farlig landing, Lindhardt og Ringhof (ISBN 9788711709863)
 * "da"

- Heldigvis havde brandvæsenet netop udrykningsøvelse, så jeg havnede på et springlagen. – I et brandsejl, mener du? - Det hedder springlagen. Sådan kalder man det nu.

title: brandsejl


text:
कारा

Etymology 1
.

Noun

 * 1)  a prison

Etymology 2
..

Adjective

 * 1) black

Etymology
Probably from the root.

Noun

 * 1) a prison
 * 2) binding, confinement
 * 3) the part of a lute below the neck (for deadening the sound)
 * 4) pain, affliction
 * 5) a female messenger
 * 6) a female worker in gold
 * 7) a kind of bird
 * 1) a kind of bird

title: कारा


text:
fée des dents

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  tooth fairy

title: fée des dents


text:
papouiller

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to pet, snuggle, caress

Usage notes
This verb can have a sexual connotation.

title: papouiller


text:
mettre un temps fou

Verb

 * 1)  to take a long time, to take ages, to take forever

title: mettre un temps fou


text:
homme à tout faire

Noun

 * 1) handyman

title: homme à tout faire


text: watchcap

title: watchcap


text: watchcaps

title: watchcaps


text:
nowenna

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1)  novena

title: nowenna


text: Category:gem-pro:Fabrics

title: Category:gem-pro:Fabrics


text: Category:gem-pro:Watercraft

title: Category:gem-pro:Watercraft


text: Category:gem-pro:Vehicles

title: Category:gem-pro:Vehicles


text: Category:gem-pro:Machines

title: Category:gem-pro:Machines


text: Category:English terms spelled with ʟ

title: Category:English terms spelled with ʟ


text:
Qtrs.

Etymology
From English term quarters, i.e. living quarters, by shortening.

Noun

 * 1)   used when addressing mail.

title: Qtrs.


text:
polynose

Noun

 * 1)   winged fruit from trees

Adjective

 * 1)  Pertaining to a modification of viscose fibers in which the cellulose is copolymerized.

title: polynose


text: polynoses

title: polynoses


text: QTS

title: QTS


text:
करी

Etymology
Borrowed from the nominative singular of, from. is from the root, while the suffix is from.

Noun

 * 1) an elephant

title: करी


text:
gran giorno

Etymology
lit. 'big day'.

Noun

 * 1) big day day on which something significant happens

title: gran giorno


text:
Qualified Teacher Status

Proper noun

 * 1) a teaching qualification required in some schools in England and Wales.

title: Qualified Teacher Status


text: Category:Urdu terms derived from the Sanskrit root कृ


text: Category:Hindi terms derived from the Sanskrit root कृ


text:
in assoluto

Etymology
lit. 'in absolute'.

Adverb

 * 1) in an absolute way when compared to other options; of all; ever

title: in assoluto


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/wagn

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  cart, wagon

title: Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/wagn


text: Category:Proto-West Germanic terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *weǵʰ-


text: Category:gmw-pro:Vehicles

title: Category:gmw-pro:Vehicles


text:
色厲內荏

Etymology
From the Analects, Book 17 (《論語·陽貨》):

Idiom

 * 1) to appear tough on the outside but be weak and timid on the inside

title: 色厲內荏


text: Category:gmw-pro:Machines

title: Category:gmw-pro:Machines


text: Citations:俄國語

title: Citations:俄國語


text: 色厉内荏

title: 色厉内荏


text: Category:Proto-West Germanic terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *h₃nebʰ-


text:
外強中乾

Idiom

 * 1) to appear strong on the outside but in reality be weak on the inside

title: 外強中乾


text: 外强中干

title: 外强中干


text: jpegged

title: jpegged


text:
Wiktionary:About Javanese

This policy explains considerations for Javanese entries that are not covered by WT:ELE and other general policies.

Entry layout
This is a basic layout for Javanese entries:

Etymology
From, borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) fire

Introduction
Javanese is one of the Austronesian languages, but it is not particularly close to other languages and is difficult to classify, as successor of since 16 century. Javanese is native to central and east part of. Javanese is used by traditional immigrant communities of Javanese descent in other part of Indonesia, in Malaysia, in Suriname (the Dutch colony of Surinam until 1975), in Sri Lanka and in New Caledonia.

Orthography/Spelling
Historically, Javanese was written in Carakan, Pégon, and Roman scripts. Javanese was written in Carakan or Hanacaraka especially during the time of Mataram dynasties. Many publications in Carakan were published during the colonial time. The usage of Carakan declined drastically in 20th century with the ban of regional language publications during the Japanese occupation in Java. Attempts to revive Carakan has grown in recent years. Pégon is an Arabic abjad designed to write Javanese. Its usage is limited to traditional Islamic boarding schools or pesantrèn. Each school has its own standard for writing in Pégon.

The introduction of the Roman alphabet for Javanese came along with European imperialists in Java. Practices of writing Javanese in the Roman alphabet has lasted for more than 100 years with its first orthography established in 1913. Until now, most Javanese write and read their language in the Roman alphabet, yet struggle to write and read in Carakan. Due to the latter, pre-independence Javanese books are massively transliterated into the Roman alphabet. Javanese dictionaries, school textbooks, magazines, and TV channels are thus written in the Roman alphabet.

Wiktionary may be used by learners who are and are not proficient in Javanese. Some Javanese learners may be only able to read and write in Roman without knowing a word in its standard form yet want to learn about it, while some others may want to learn a word in other spellings, including ones in Carakan and Pégon. Considering the mentioned situation, the latest Roman spelling standard, which is Ejaan Bahasa Jawa Huruf Latin Yang Disempurnakan (2006) and Bausastra Jawa, is used to determine for placing a word’s definition.

title: Wiktionary:About Javanese


text:
JPEGged

Adjective

 * 1)  lossily compressed so that much of the quality has been lost.

title: JPEGged


text: Category:Old English terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *weǵʰ-


text: JPGs

title: JPGs


text: jpgs

title: jpgs


text:
.gif

Etymology
From, which is an initialization of.

Noun

 * 1)  An extension for GIF files.

title: .gif


text:
.jpeg

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  An extension for JPEG files.

title: .jpeg


text:
.jpg

Etymology
From, modified to fit the three-letter file extension format at the time.

Noun

 * 1)  An extension for JPEG files.

title: .jpg


text:
.jpe

Etymology
From, modified to fit the three-letter file extension format at the time.

Noun

 * 1)  An extension for JPEG files.

title: .jpe


title: 0X


text:
0b

Symbol

 * 1)  Indicates that the number that follows is in binary.

Related terms

 * (hexadecimal)
 * (octal)

title: 0b


title: 0B


title: 0O


text:
0o

Symbol

 * 1)  Indicates that the number that follows is in octal.

Related terms

 * (hexadecimal)
 * (binary)

title: 0o


text: shǒuliúdàn

title: shǒuliúdàn


text: liúdàn

title: liúdàn


text: Category:Old Saxon terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *weǵʰ-


text:
Talk:￼

Unlinkable
Links in categories etc to this page do not work (see e.g. Category:mul:Computing). Should this be moved to e.g. Unsupported titles/OBJ? – Nixinova [T|C] 04:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * It works fine ￼. I think it is only your issue. Try another browser. --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried Firefox and Safari (I have a Mac) with the same result: on the category page itself, I can see it when I view the source, but when I use the element inspector, it shows a well-formed anchor tag with empty space where the "￼" should be. When I select that part of the page, all the other items in the list have an object after the bullet that gets highlighted, but that item doesn't. There seems to be a difference between the rendering of the h3 and the rendering of the anchor tag, so the difference between the category page and your wiki markup here doesn't surprise me. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is possibly Mac & IOS problem. They used OBJ a lot even in plain text but their users can't see. (I see OBJ in many Facebook/Twitter captions/comments) Perhaps Mac & IOS will remove it when rendering. Windows and Android always see the glyph and the link works normally. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the issue with the links of interest?
 * The respective anchors' href attributes' should have the value: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%EF%BF%BC Anxiolydiot (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:￼


text:
和碩特

Etymology
, from, from.

Proper noun

 * 1)  (one of the four major tribes of the  people)

title: 和碩特


text: 和硕特

title: 和硕特


text:
sabbha

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) polite
 * 2) honorable

title: sabbha


text:
ناراحت

Etymology
From 🇰🇲.

Adjective

 * 1) upset
 * 2) uncomfortable
 * 3) sad

title: ناراحت


text: tánglèi

title: tánglèi


text:
penakut

Etymology
From, from. Equivalent to. Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) A person who is scared

Adjective

 * 1) scaredy-cat

title: penakut


text: lìdé

title: lìdé


text: wàiqiángzhōnggān

title: wàiqiángzhōnggān


text: sèlìnèirěn

title: sèlìnèirěn


text:
Talk:catalogue

catalog
Can we merge these two to avoid the duplication of definitions, translations, etc.? Compare color, colour, where only one entry has all the content. Beware: there is at least sense at catalogue not given at catalog (the computer directory listing). Equinox ◑ 21:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Mahāgaja · talk 07:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:catalogue


text:
Talk:tar baby

RFM discussion: October 2020
Lots of overlap here. Equinox ◑ 22:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Merged. - -sche (discuss) 08:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:tar baby


text:
Talk:tarbaby

RFM discussion: October 2020

 * See Talk:tar baby.

title: Talk:tarbaby


text: renewable energies

title: renewable energies


text: kězàishēng

title: kězàishēng


text:
再生能源

Noun

 * 1) renewable energy

title: 再生能源


text:
широкополосный

Adjective

 * 1) broadband; wide-ranged; wide-stripped

title: широкополосный


text:
逼良為娼

Idiom

 * 1) to force a lady into prostitution

title: 逼良為娼


text: 逼良为娼

title: 逼良为娼


text: широкополосная

title: широкополосная


text:
ព្រះនាង

Etymology
🇰🇲

Pronoun

 * 1)  you; she

Noun

 * 1) princess; queen

title: ព្រះនាង


text:
រាជបុត្រី

Etymology
🇰🇲

Noun

 * 1) princess; king's daughter

title: រាជបុត្រី


text:
to sider af samme sag

Adjective
("two sides of the same matter")

 * 1) two sides of the same coin

title: to sider af samme sag


text:
bramsegel

Etymology
, see 🇨🇬 for more.

Noun

 * 1) topgallant sail

title: bramsegel


text:
epizóda

Noun

 * 1) episode one part of a media series

title: epizóda


text:
Talk:Leier

Additional German definition
Can't this also mean "barrel organ" or "hurdy-gurdy" in German? 173.88.246.138 06:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes. Added. More specifically it's called "Drehleier", but the simplex is also used. (In fact it's the traditional sense, while the use for "lyre" is a humanist restoration.) 88.64.225.53 03:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Leier


text:
orthorrhaphan

Noun

 * 1) Any fly of the infraorder Orthorrhapha

Related terms

 * orthorrhaphous

title: orthorrhaphan


text: orthorrhaphans

title: orthorrhaphans


text:
osmostressor

Noun

 * 1) Anything that causes osmostress

title: osmostressor


text: osmostressors

title: osmostressors


text:
zinda

Verb

 * 1) to be firm, be tough, stay in place

title: zinda


text:
overglycosylated

Adjective

 * 1)  Excessively glycosylated

title: overglycosylated