text:
ქცევის კოდექსი

Noun

 * 1) code of conduct

title: ქცევის კოდექსი


text:
վարքականոն

Noun

 * 1) code of conduct

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

title: վարքականոն


text:
wire off

Verb

 * 1) To separate or close off by installing a wire barricade or fence, as around the perimeter.
 * 2)  To send (a message) by wire.
 * 3)  To separate and remove (a form) from a mass of clay using a cutting wire.
 * 1)  To separate and remove (a form) from a mass of clay using a cutting wire.

title: wire off


text:
تانا شاہی

Etymology
Equivalent to.

Noun

 * 1) despotism, dictatorship

title: تانا شاہی


text:
miarka

Etymology
From.

title: miarka


text:
common clay

Noun

 * 1) The ordinary, run-of-the-mill people.

title: common clay


text:
-tai-

Affix

 * 1) again, indicates that the verb action has been done before.

title: -tai-


text: menemässä

title: menemässä


text: menemällä

title: menemällä


text: menemättä

title: menemättä


text: menemän

title: menemän


text: menemistä

title: menemistä


text:
jŏ

Etymology
.

Pronoun

 * 1) I

title: jŏ


text:
a·sam

Noun

 * 1) the side

Derived terms

 * a·samo

title: a·sam


text:
karkoszka

Noun

 * 1) stick

title: karkoszka


text:
δόγια

Etymology
Ultimately from, compare: 🇨🇬, , ,. 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬 are borrowed from the same source.

Noun

 * 1)  funeral service

title: δόγια


text: tandes

title: tandes


text:
내한

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  coming to Korea

title: 내한


text:
User:Mahagaja/Ogham

 * ᚐᚂᚂ ᚆᚒᚋᚐᚅ ᚁᚓᚔᚅᚌᚄ ᚐᚏᚓ ᚁᚑᚏᚅ ᚃᚏᚓᚓ ᚐᚅᚇ ᚓᚊᚒᚐᚂ ᚔᚅ ᚇᚔᚌᚅᚔᚈᚔ ᚐᚅᚇ ᚏᚔᚌᚆᚈᚄᚈᚆᚓᚔ ᚐᚏᚓ ᚅᚇᚑᚒᚒᚓᚇ ᚒᚒᚔᚈᚆ ᚏᚓᚐᚄᚑᚅ ᚐᚅᚇ ᚉᚑᚅᚄᚉᚔᚓᚅᚉᚓ ᚐᚅᚇ ᚄᚆᚑᚒᚂᚇ ᚐᚉᚈ ᚈᚑᚒᚒᚐᚏᚇᚄ ᚑᚅᚓ ᚐᚅᚑᚈᚆᚓᚏ ᚔᚅ ᚐ ᚄᚚᚔᚏᚔᚈ ᚑᚃ ᚁᚏᚑᚈᚆᚓᚏᚆᚑᚑᚇ

 * ᚛ᚁᚔᚃᚐᚔᚇᚑᚅᚐᚄᚋᚐᚊᚔᚋᚒᚉᚑᚔ᚜ ᚛ᚉᚒᚅᚐᚃᚐᚂᚔ᚜

 * ᚛ᚂᚓᚌᚌ[--]ᚄᚇ[--]ᚂᚓᚌᚓᚄᚉᚐᚇ᚜ ᚛ᚋᚐᚊ ᚉᚑᚏᚏᚁᚏᚔ ᚋᚐᚊ ᚐᚋᚋᚂᚂᚑᚌᚔᚈᚈ᚜

title: User:Mahagaja/Ogham


text:
엊그제

Noun

 * 1) a few days ago

Adverb

 * 1) a few days ago

title: 엊그제


text:
brnieć

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1)  to swell

title: brnieć


text: -ication

title: -ication


text:
hiwcuþ

Adjective

 * 1) familiar (+ dative with something)
 * 2) of the family or household: familial, domestic

title: hiwcuþ


text:
πυρρούλας

Etymology
Ultimately from.

Noun

 * 1) bullfinch

title: πυρρούλας


text: weekenderna

title: weekenderna


text:
gehiwcuþlician

Etymology
+.

Verb

 * 1) to familiarize

title: gehiwcuþlician


text: weekendernas

title: weekendernas


text:
hiwcuþnes

Noun

 * 1) familiarity

title: hiwcuþnes


text:
hiwcuþlice

Adverb

 * 1) familiarly

title: hiwcuþlice


text:
Talk:sospes

RFV discussion: April 2017–January 2021
RFV for the ablative singular and the genitive plural or neuter nominative, accusative or vocative plural to determine the declension of some adjectives (abl. sg. -ī or -e, gen. pl. -ium or -um, neuter pl. -ia or -a).

Notes: References: "121. [...] a. The Ablative Singular commonly ends in -ī, but sometimes -e. [...] The following have regularly -e:—caeles, compos, [†dēses], dīves, hospes, particeps, pauper, prīnceps, sōspes, superstes. [...]" b. The Genitive Plural ends commonly in -ium, but has -um in the following:1— 1. Always in compos, dīves, inops, particeps, prīnceps, supplex, and compounds of nouns which have -um: as, quadru-pēs, bi-color. 2. Sometimes, in poetry, in participles in -ns: as, silentum concilium, a council of the silent shades (Aen. vi. 432). [...] d. Vetus (gen. -ĕris) and pūbes (gen. -ĕris) regularly have -e in the ablative singular, -a in the nominative and accusative plural, and -um in the genitive plural. For ūber, see § 119 [note: there is ūber, abl. sg. ūberī, gen. pl. ūberum, neuter plural ūbera, and the note "An ablative in -e is very rare."; but there is also vetus with abl. sg. "vetere (-ī)"]. [...] 122. The following special points require notice:—[...] d. Many adjectives, from their signification, can be used only in the masculine and feminine. [...] Such are adulēscēns, youthful; [†dēses], -idis, slothful; inops, -opis, poor; sōspes, -itis, safe. [...] 1 Forms in -um sometimes occur in a few others." -80.133.100.252 07:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It could be that the declensions is unknown or that wt's declension is wrong. Well, in Medieval or New Latin some more forms could be attested, but then there should be a note and then it could be that there are multiple forms.
 * Just BTW as defence in advance: Knowing how wiktionary creates inflected forms, and seeing what grammarians write or grammars state, it's justified to question multiple entries with doubtful inflected forms.
 * Allen & Greenough's New Latin Grammar for schools and colleges founded on comparative grammar, 1903, p. 53f.:
 * Stating that sōstes has abl. sg. -e, but not stating that it has gen. pl. -um could mean that the gen. pl. is -ium or unattested. If it is -ium, there could be more declensions than just abl. sg. -ī, gen. pl. -ium (like i-stem substantives) and abl. sg. -e, gen. pl. -um (like consonant-stem substantives) and abl. sg. -e or -ī, gen. pl. -ium (poetically sometimes -um) (participles, with forms depending on the way of usage). In fact, with ūber, abl. sg. -ī (very rare -e), gen. pl. -um, neuter plural -a A&G have another declension form.
 * 21st century grammars (Pons, Klett, Duden and others) mention the following adjectives with abl. -e and gen. pl. -um: vetus, dīves, pauper, prīnceps, compos, superstes, sōspes, particeps, although many grammars just mention a few of them.
 * William Smith & Theophilus D. Hall, The student's Latin grammar. A grammar of the Latin language, 2nd edition, London, 1867, p. 18 had this: "The following Adjectives have [Ablative Singular in] ĕ only: paupĕr, pūbēs, dēsĕs, compŏs, impŏs, caelebs, princeps and sŭperstĕs."
 * Just BTW: An 18th century grammar noted that several adjectives, such as "ales, bipes, bicolor, cicur, compos, concolor, degener, deses, dives, impos, inops, immemor, memor, locuples, paper, particeps, praeceps, redux, superstes, sospes, teres, anceps, biceps, triceps &c." don't have a neuter nominative, accusative or vocative plural, which would mean that e.g. *sospitia or *sospita is unattested (or was so centuries ago, or at least was uncommon or proscribed). An 19th century grammar mentioned something similar; namely that some adjectives such as "vigil, memor, compos, impos, pauper, dives, sospes, superstes, redux, supplex, particeps, princeps" are often used of persons, thus are often used in masculine and feminine gender, although they are sometimes also with neuters, but it's avoided to use them in the neuter plural cases in -a; for example one can say numen nemor, but not numina memora. So it could be more complicated to attest or verify the correct declension of caelebs or sospes for example.

sospes

 * See A&G cited above, and compare with superstes.

particeps

 * See A&G cited above.
 * Georges: "particeps, cipis, Abl. cipe"

princeps

 * See A&G cited above, and compare with particeps.

deses

 * See A&G cited above.

caeles
BTW: A&G mention defective adjectives too. From the defectives A&G mention, exlex and seminex/semineci here are mentioned without any note, while primoris has one.
 * See A&G cited above.
 * L&S mentions this example: "sub caelite mensa, Paul. Nol. Carm. 24, 9 al.", though it is Late Latin.
 * Also RFV for the nominative singular as L&S states "but not found in nom. sing.", as Gaffiot states "(inus. au nominatif)" and as Georges states "Nomin. caeles nicht nachweisbar." (nom. [sg.] caeles not attestable).

caelebs
Though it's an poetic example with abl. sg. caelibe (used out of metrical reasons?).
 * Compare: caelebs
 * Also: GBS has results with caelibum like "[...] vt inprimis de Collegiis caelibum virginum ita constituatur [...]" (with should be: of the unmarried virgins), but for caelibium there is only one GBS result found thrice (in "[...] quam Senior Augustus post Julius rogationes incitandis caelibium poenis & augendo aerario sanxerat [...]") and that could be something else.

pubes

 * See A&G cited above.
 * Compare: Talk:pubes
 * www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/ gives some more results with puberum, and some with pubere and puberi, but none with puberium or puberia or pubera.

impubes

 * Compare with pubes.
 * Note: Pliny might have impubium but that would be a form of impubis and not of impubes (gen. pl. impuberum or impuberium?)

redux

 * L&S: "rĕdux (rēdux, Plaut. Rud. 4, 2, 4; id. Capt. 5, 1, 2), dŭcis (abl. reduce, Liv. 21, 50: reduci, Ov. H. 6, 1), adj."
 * Lewis: "redux ducis （abl. reduce; poet. also reducī, O.)"
 * Georges: "Abl. Sing. bei Dichtern auch reduci"
 * This implies that the abl. sg. is usually reduce and poetically (out of metrical reasons?) also reducī. The questioned plural forms however could be unattested (in ancient Latin).

supplex
Gen. pl. supplicum for the subst. should be attested (Cic. Mur. 4, 9: "repudiatio supplicum"). supplice and supplici for the adj. should be attested too (see supplex). Though as for now, supplice could be a poetic form (out of metrical reasons?). How about the gen. pl. or neuter pl. of the adj.?
 * See A&G cited above, for gen. pl.
 * L&S: "supplex (subpl-), ĭcis (abl. supplĭci, but also -ĭce freq. in dactyl. and anap. verse [...] As subst.: supplex, ĭcis, m."
 * Lewis: "supplex (subpl-) icis （abl. icī or ice; gen plur. -icum, rarely -icium), adj. [...] As subst m."
 * Georges: "supplex, plicis, Abl. gew. supplice, doch auch supplicī, Genet. Plur. supplicum u. (selten) supplicium"
 * This could mean that the adjective has both forms. However, this is more complicated as the dictionaries maybe don't properly differ between the inflection of the adj. and the subst., and it get's more complicated as there is also a noun supplicium.

uber

 * For the doubtful plural forms.
 * A&G has abl. sg. -ī, "very rare" -e, gen. pl. -um, neuter pl. -a
 * Dictionaries have abl. sg. -ī and one reference or cite with -e, but often they don't mention the doubftul plural forms.
 * Note that there is a also a noun uber which also has gen. sg. uberis, so just attesting the word forms uberum or ubera, doesn't mean anything.
 * RFV closed without any deletions, a bit unconventional but this is clearly going nowhere so I'll do the dirty work. If someone really objects and is willing to put in some effort, let them succinctly and gradually re-RFV the entries affected. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 22:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:sospes


text:
Talk:quis

quisquam
For the feminine quaequam and the plural.

Dictionaries and also some grammars are a bit vague about the declension and usage of compounds with qui and quis. One dictionary had an example with "quaequam lab. qualitas, Cael. Aur." under the word labilis. However, in Caelius Aurelianus' text it is "aut cujusquam labilis qualitatis" (or "aut cuiusquam labilis qualitatis") and the dictionary should have changed the case from genitive to nominative (which BTW is done not rarely). Maybe note that the conjunction which looks like a feminine accusative is an own word. Maybe also note that Wiktionary's table has feminine quaequam with ablative quōquam and not *quāquam. Maybe also compare with Wiktionary's  where the adjectival feminine is quaepiam with ablative quāpiam while the substantival feminine is quispiam with ablative quōpiam. Mentionings in grammars don't attest words. The mentionings can be mentioned, but in usage notes and not in the declension table. An old misreading maybe could be mentioned too, but shouldn't attest anything and should belong into a usage note and not the declension table. Plautus uses quisquam adjectivally for the feminine: "quod neque ego habeo neque quisquam alia mulier, ut perhibent viri" (Plaut. Cist.; LCL: "A mind is something I haven't got, or any other women, either, according to the men"). The neuter dative, any maybe also the genitive or ablative, is used adjectivally too, compare with the examples in F. Neue: "Quisquam steht gern substantivisch [= Quisquam is often used substantivally]. Doch auch [= But also] si cuiquam [dat.] generi [dat. of the neuter genus] hominum [gen. pl. of homo] und [= and] si cuiquam [dat.] ordini [dat. of the masculine ordo] Cic. Verr. Acc. 2, 6, 17, cuiquam [dat.] legationi [dat. of the feminine legatio] Fam. 3, 10, 6 [...] cuiusquam [gen.] rei [gen. of the feminine res] Quintil. 10, 2, 6, a quoquam [abl.] incepto [abl. of the neuter inceptum(?)] Suet. Cäs. 59.". Even an adjectivally used quidquam or quicquam seems to be attested although Allen & Greenough do not mention it and the adjectivally used cuiquam could also belong to an unattested (or New Latin) *quodquam. Besides F. Neue's examples an older grammar stated that Plautus used quicquam adjectivally (in "numquam/Numquam quicquam facinus feci peius/pejus neque scelestius" in Menaechmi III. LCL has "Plus triginta annis natus sum, quom interea loci, | numquam quicquam facinus feci peius neque scelestius, | quam hodie, quom in contionem mediam me immersi miser." with "More than thirty years I've lived, and never in all that time have I done a worse or more accursed deed than to-day when I immersed myself, poor fool, in the middle of that public meeting." Well, in this English translation a word like any does not appear, but that doesn't say anything about the Latin text. "old form QVIQVAM, S. C. Bacch." or "QVIQVAM, S. C. de Bacch." This should be senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus. www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lsante02/Bacchanalia/bac_orig.html once has "QVI[S]QVAM", and Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus has "QVISQVAM" (under "Text") or "qui[s]quam" (under "Transliteration into classical Latin"). As the text often has "QVISQVAM" or "quisquam", the single "QVI[S]QVAM" or "qui[s]quam" might look like an error. "quīquam = quisquam, Verg. georg. 4, 447.". www.thelatinlibrary.com/vergil/geo4.shtml and the text at perseus.tufts.edu have "Scis, Proteu, scis ipse; neque est te fallere quicquam sed tu desine velle." there; latin.packhum.org/loc/690/2/0#3 has "scis, Proteu, scis ipse, neque est te fallere quicquam:". So this form seems to be doubtful. With *quaequam the form *quiquam would make some sense, but as *quaequam seems to be less correct, *quiquam too seems to be less correct. F. Neue has an example with feminine quemquam, but the noun was corrected, so maybe one could argue that quemquam has to be corrected too. One grammar gave the accusative quamquam with reference "Plaut. Mil. IV, 2, 68", which is also F. Neue's example, and he writes: "und quemquam porcellam Mil. 4, 2, 68 (im vet., decurt. und Vat. des Plaut. proculem, in den Hdschr. [= in the manuscripts] des Prisc. 5, 3, 13 S. 645 proculenam und porculaenam, porcellam ist eine Verbesserung [= is a correction] von Reiz)." After looking into more older grammars, it seems that if a grammar mentions quaequam or quamquam and if it gives a reference for it, it is Plautus' Miles gloriosus IV. As some editions have quemquam and as F. Neue mentions various forms of the substantive, it's a doubtful passage. As ATM this seems to be the only cite for the feminine quaequam, quamquam, quaquam, and as the feminine quisquam is attested, and as the substantival quidquam (quicquam) is used adjectivally too, it seems to be more likely that quemquam is the correct word. So it looks like quisquam is thus declined: BTW: Is the the feminine of the substantival pronoun attested?
 * Some dictionaries mention quaequam, but as far as I saw without cite, and as far as I saw dictionaries don't mention a plural. However, dictionaries mention that quisquam is used for the feminine (in "Plaut." and "Ter."), and BTW they mention that quīvīs is also an ablative of quīvīs (in "Ter.").
 * Allen & Greenough state this: "The indefinite pronouns quispiam, some, any, and quisquam, any at all, are used both as substantives and as adjectives. [...] Quisquam is both masculine and feminine; the neuter is quidquam (quicquam), substantive only; there is no plural."
 * Friedrich Neue, Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache, 2nd part, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1875, p. 241-246: "Das Neutrum von quicumque ist überall quodcumque, welches gleich dem einfachen Pronomen relat. quod auch substantivisch gebraucht wird. Zu quisquam und quisquis ist nur das Neutr. quicquam oder quidquam und quicquid oder quidquid nachzuweisen, wiewohl Diom. 1 S. 321 ein quodquam und Mar. Victor. 1 S. 2460 neben quicquam und quicquid ein quocquod aufführt. [...] Quicquam facinus hat Plaut. Men. 3, 1, 2 und Merc. 1, 2, 43; suum quidquid genus talearum Cato R. R. 48, 1, quidquid solamen humandi est Verg. Aen. 10, 493, und quidquid est nomen Plaut. bei Serv. [...] Die übrigen oben angeführten Composita haben doppelte Form des Neutrum, mit quid substantivisch, mit quod adjectivisch. [.. ..] Quivis und quisquam gestatten den Ablat. Sing. quivis und quiquam, vergl. über den Ablat. qui und aliqui unter 36 und 41. [...] Auch quisquam dient als Femin. [...] Nicht allein auf weibliche Personen wird quisquam angewandt, sondern auch [...]. Quisquam hat keinen Plur. [...]  Quisquam steht gern substantivisch. Doch auch si cuiquam generi hominum und si cuiquam ordini Cic. Verr. Acc. 2, 6, 17, cuiquam legationi Fam. 3, 10, 6 [...] cuiusquam rei Quintil. 10, 2, 6, a quoquam incepto Suet. Cäs. 59." — i.e.: [shortend and paraphrased: quodcumque is also used substantivally.] For quisquam and quisquis only the neuter quicquam or quidquam and quicquid or quidquid are attestable, although Diom. has a quodquam and Marc. Victor. besdes quicquam and quicquid a quocquod. [...] [cites, see the quote]. [...] The other above mentioned compounds have a double form for the neuter, with quid substantivally, with quod adjectivally. [.. ..] Quivis and quisquam can have the ablative singular quivis and quiquam, compare about the ablative qui and aliqui under 36 and 41. [cites.]  [...]  Quisquam serves as feminine too. [Mentioning that old grammarians declined this word through all genders and numers.] [Cites.] Quisquam is not only used for female persons, but also [cites which show quisquam used with or in reference of things]. [...]  Quisquam has no plural. [...]  [Mentioning of an old incorrect reading with *quibusquam which is quibusdam.]  Quisquam is often used substantivally. But also [cites with adjectival use, for some cites see the quote].
 * The masculine and feminine is used both substantivally and adjectivally.
 * The ablative quīquam seems to be used substantivally in Plautus: "ne a quoquam acciperes alio mercedem annuam, nisi ab sese, nec cum quiquam limares caput" (Plaut. Bacch. at Non.; LCL: "Not to let you take a yearly fee from anyone else but him, or rub heads with anyone"). F. Neue also has examples with adjectival use. So it should be a form of both the substantival and the adjectival pronoun. The ablative quīvīs however could, by attestion, be restricted to the adjectival pronoun.
 * Doubtful forms, below in the summary table mentioned in []:
 * Dictionaries mention a masculine nominative quiquam.
 * Older grammars have quenquam besides quemquam, and the form with n can also be found in New Latin texts and older editions of ancient authors. Maybe it's a ML or NL mistake like for ? For the conjunction quamquam dictionaries mention the form quanquam too and refer to the conjunction quamquam, where sometimes the form with n is mentioned too and sometimes not.
 * The adjectival neuter nominative quodquam/quocquam is mentioned in some older grammars.
 * The nominative *quaequam is mentioned in dictionaries and older grammars. Older grammars also mention the ablative *quāquam, and sometimes but sometimes not the accusative *quamquam (there is a conjunction of the same form: ) or *quanquam (which might also be an alternative form for the conjunction).
 * With the adjectival forms feminine quisquam and doubtful quemquam and neuter quicquam, it looks like the adjectival pronoun is declined like the substantival pronoun. As Plautus is the common reference, it might however be the Old Latin declension. As dictionaries and older grammar mention forms like quaequam, quamquam, quāquam and quodquam/quocquam, these forms could exist in Medieval or New Latin, but would require a label or qualifier.

-80.133.125.36 20:59, 14 April 2017 - 08:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

quisquis
RFV for: Rationale and notes:
 * feminine ablative singular quāquā used substantivally and not just adjectivally
 * feminine accusative singular quamquam and feminine plurals

As for quīquī some interpretations of cites should be wrong (by mistaking an ablative singular for nominative plural), and some could depend on the edition. There might be cites for fem. acc. sg. quamquam and fem. plurals, but the cites seem to be doubtful, i.e. they contain errors or depend on manuscript or edition. For the feminines it's different: As there is feminine nominative singular quisquis, one could also assume that the other feminines are or would be like the masculine too, that is, the forms could be common. From quāquā one could derive the other feminines, but that only works if quāquā is attested substantivally and then one could derive two forms, an older one from quisquis, a later one from quāquā. References: "In quisquis whoever, both parts are declined, but the only forms in common use are quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) and quōquō. Note 1.–Rare forms are quemquem and quibisquibus; an ablative quīquī is sometimes found in early Latin; the ablative feminine quāquā is both late and rare. Cuicui occurs as a genitive in the phrase cuicui modī, of whatever kind. Other cases are cited, but have no authority. In early Latin quisquis is occasionally feminine. Note 2.–Quisquis is usually substantive, except in the ablative quōquō, which is more commonly an adjective." Original: "42. [...] quisquis auch adjectivisch in quisquis color Verg. Ge. 2, 256 im Pal., im Med. und Bern. b c m. sec. und bei Serv., und Horat. Serm. 2, 1, 60, quisquis honos Verg. Aen. 10, 493, quisquis erit ventus Plin. H. N. 18, 34, 77, 339. [...] Der Dat. und Ablat. Plur. beinahe aller dieser Pronomina hat quibus, nicht quis. So [...] quibusquibus Liv. 41, 8, 10 [...] 44. Quisquis [...] hatte in der guten Zeit keine eigene Form für das Femin. Quamquam rem a quoquo cognoverit ist zwar bei Cic. de orat. 1, 15, 67 in den Lag. 13 und 32 und mehreren andern, aber in mehreren Büchern quamque, statt dessen in den Ausg. [= Ausgaben] quamcumque; und quaequae in ceterae naturae suis seminibus quaequae gignuntur Cic. N. D. 2, 22, 58 ist nach dem Leid. A und Erl. in quaeque berichtigt.  Die Dramatiker gebrauchen quisquis [...] mit Beziehung auf eine weibliche Person. Mulier, quisquis es Plaut. Cist. 2, 3, 66, liberalist quisquis est von der vorher erwähnten furtiva virgo Persa 4, 3, 76, quisquis es, quae parentis in tam angustum tuos locum compegeris Rud. 4, 4, 102. Dazu kommen die unter 33 nach Non. S. 197 angeführten Stellen des Liv. Andr., Cäcil. und Pacuv. [.. ..] [...] Quaqua als Pronomen [...] ist zuerst in quaqua de re Tac. Ann. 6, 7, dann quoquo nomine quoquo ritu quaqua facie Appul. Met. 11, 2 S. 755 (in den Flor. 1, 3 quaq; in den Guelf. 1. 2 und anderen Büchern quaque); quaqua ratione C. I. L. 3, 781 Z. 19 und wahrscheinlich Z. 2, Scäv. Dig. 32, 41 § 9, Ulpian. Dig. 37, 14, 16. 40, 12, 7. 45, 3, 5. 49, 5, 5, Paul. 17, 2, 3 § 1, Marcian. 34, 4, 13, Pompej. comment. S. 74 (130); ex quaqua causa Gaius Dig. 29, 1, 17 § 1, quaqua exceptione Ulpian. 44, 4, 2 § 5; quaqua aetate Tert. de anima 56, quaqua parte Pompej. comment. S. 387 (269) und 400 (275). [...] Quaequae als Neutr. Scäv. Dig. 34, 3, 28 § 1 aus einem Testament: Quibusque legata in eo testamento quod incideram dedi, omnia rata esse et quaequae scripta sunt volo; und vielleicht Sen. benef. 2, 4, 1 ubi, quaequae impetrasti, rogandum est nach dem Meil. 5, in welchem queque ist (in mehreren Büchern quoque, in einzelnen quod und quid). Aber falsch ist [examples with errors and corrections]. Falsch ferner als Fem. [another example with an error and correction]. Ut in dote essent fructus quosquos percepisset Ulpian. Dig. 23, 4, 4; aber unrichtig quosquos proxumus nanctus est montes, in iis castra posuit Liv. 27, 28, 2 im Put., Med., Colb., Bamb. und in den Pal. Über quibusquibus vergl. unter 42, und über die ganze Declination von quisquis Madvig zu Cic. Fin. 3, 14, 45." Translation: "42. [...] quisquis also adjectivally in [cites]. The dative and ablative plural of almost all of these pronouns (i.e. pronouns compounded from qui or quis) has quibus, not quis. So [...] quibusquibus in Liv. 44. Quisquis [...] didn't have an own form for the feminine in the good time. [shortend and paraphrased: The feminines quamquam and quaequae in some texts are doubtful or were corrected.] The dramatists use quisquis [...] with relation to a female person. [cites.] [.. ..] [...] Quaqua as pronoun in [cites]. [...] Quaequae as neuter in [reference] out of an testament: [cite]. But wrong is [examples with errors and corrections]. Also wrong as feminine is [another example with an error and correction]. [cite with quosquos]; but incorrect is [an incorrect example with quosquos]. About quibusquibus see under 42, and about the whole declension of quisquis see [reference]." (a) as nom. sg.: quiqui pro quisquis in neque partem tibi ab eo quiqui est indipisces Plaut. Aul. 4, 10, 44/45, is ita appellatur quiqui admittit Varro R. R. 2, 7, 8; (b) as abl. sg.: Pl. Men. 1159; (c) as nom. pl.: Plaut. Cas. 3, 1, 10, quiqui licebunt Men. 1159 = 5, 9, 97, Poen. 3, 2, 11; Liv. 29, 19, 9 in Put. m. pr.; (d) without mentioning a case: esto ut hi sint, quiqui integri sunt, et sani, Cic. Sest. 45, 97; quiqui licebunt, Plaut. Men. 1159 (with translation rather implying it to be abl. sg. than nom. sg. or nom. pl.). Plaut. Men. 5, 9, 97 and Plaut. Men. 1159 is be the same, and it is once given as a source for a ablative and once for a plural which doesn't work. For me it seems that Cas. "cum quiqui" and Poen. "cum quiqui" are abl., and Men. "venibunt quiqui licebunt" might be too although it might look like a pl. as the verbs are in pl. There are editions of Plautus' Aulularia with qui instead of quiqui, and it does depend on the edition. The rerum rusticarum de agri cultura at www.thelatinlibrary.com/varro.html does not have quiqui. And looking in various books at books.google it does indeed depend on the edition. As for "Liv. 29, 19, 9 in Put. m. pr.", "m. pr." should mean manu propria = by one's own hand and Put. should denote a manuscript or edition. The text at www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.29.shtml doesn't have quiqui. So it might depend on the manuscript or edition. F. Neue stated regarding "esto ut hi sint, quiqui integri sunt, et sani, Cic. Sest. 45, 97" that it does appear in editions but not in manuscripts. At www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/sestio.shtml it does not appear but "esto igitur ut ii sint, [...], qui et integri sunt et sani [...].". So abl. sg quiqui should exist (and is also mentioned in A&G), while nom. sg. and nom. pl. quiqui seem to be doubtful and could be cases for A&G's "Other cases are cited, but have no authority." From what I've seen, there could be three forms: -80.133.100.252 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Allen and Greenough state after giving some forms: "Other cases are cited, but have no authority", which leads to the question whether or not it's correct. Are there other cites with "authority" (whatever that's supposed to mean), or for some forms even cites (and may thay be without "authority")?
 * As for quibusquibus the given cite depends on edition (see quisquis). There could be other cites - but are there any?
 * If it depends on the manuscript or edition, there should be a note.
 * There could also be Medieval or New Latin cites, but then there should be a label or note.
 * Feminine ablative quāquā could, by attestation, be restricted to adjectival use (some might say that it's then not a pronoun form but an adjective form).
 * Nominative plural quīquī and plural genitive quōrumquōrum could be unattested too, but these forms make sense if there is quōsquōs, quibusquibus or neuter quaequae (for these compare the notes in quisquis).
 * See quisquis for some citations and notes.
 * Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar for schools and colleges founded on comparative grammar, edited by J. B. Greenough, G. L. Kittredge, A. A. Howard and Benj. L. D'Ooge, 1903, p. 69:
 * Maybe the late and rare feminine ablative quāquā is commonly or even only used adjectivally?
 * Friedrich Neue, Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache, 2nd part, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1875, p. 240-241 & 245 and 246-249:
 * So can one say that the feminines quamquam and quaequae do exist (that is, exist in ancient Latin)?
 * L&S: "quī-qui, pron. indef., for quisquis, whosoever (very rare): quiqui est, Plaut. Aul. 4, 10, 45.", and "quis-quis, quaeque, quodquod, and subst. quicquid, quidquid". Other dictionaries mention quiqui, quaequae and quodquod too. Feminine quaequae and adjectival neuter quodquod seem to be doubtful (cp. F. Neue). For quīquī see below.
 * The given references for quīquī in various sources are:
 * substantivally used: quisquis, quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) - plurals do occur, but could be doubtful (quisquis)
 * adjectivally used: quisquis, *quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) - the feminine could be unattested
 * adjectivally used: quisquis, *quaequae (abl. quāquā), *quodquod (quocquod) - the feminine except abl. quāquā and the neuter *quodquod could be unattested

 * TL;DR. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussions could then arise, if citations are found: Are the citations correct, or doubtful, from old editions or the like? Do the citations contain a selfstanding pronoun or what in English is also termed adjective (as in demonstrative adjective, indefinite adjective) or determiner (as in demonstrative determiner)? Additional problems do arise because of this BP proposal. Treating Old Latin and other Latin as different languages means that Plautus (as in quisquam, mecum, illic) doesn't attest anything for the other Latin. -91.6.199.79 10:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In short it is verification request for certain forms (see "For the feminine quaequam and the plural" and "RFV for [...]"). For the verification procress everything else such as references and citations can be ignored.
 * Very late reply, but doesn't quamquam also mean "although"? Johnny Shiz (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * RFV closed without any deletions, a bit unconventional but this is clearly going nowhere so I'll do the dirty work. If someone really objects and is willing to put in some effort, let them succinctly and gradually re-RFV the entries affected. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 22:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May 2021–February 2023
Latin. "for feminine quae etc.". 19:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinkster 2015 p. 1174:  Also this stackexchange answer and this one - I suggest using that for questions about Latin grammar. Brutal Russian (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's "masc. qui / fem. quae (normally the determiner forms)", that is and not, and also has "normally the determiner forms", meaning there are exceptions, that is  (f. ) used like pronouns. 14:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Quis, quī and quae are all used as both pronouns and determiner forms, as explained in the stackexchange answer. Quī and quae are "normally" the determiner forms, and optionally interrogative pronoun forms. quis is "normally" the interrogative pronoun form, and optionally the masculine determiner form. Saying that they're used "like" the other one is begging the question. quis and quī are clearly in a complementary distribution based on being followed by a vowel or a consonant. A confusion between these two paradigms - one o-stem, one i~consonantal-stem, existed for millenia, and saying that quae is part of the quī paradigm is equivalent to saying that the Dat./Abl. quibus is part of the quis paradigm that is exceptionally used "like the o-stem determiners", whose Dat./Abl. is quīs. You're trying to shoehorn the language into tidy prescriptive school grammar-friendly tables, it doesn't work like that. Brutal Russian (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Cited (under sense 1). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Cited in Old Latin (which in en.wiktionary once was a separate language). I guess that should be noted somehow, or further quotes would be needed. --2003:DE:372E:DA74:2560:4D6F:A0D6:B2F5 15:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. I've added one from Cicero just for you. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I have been editing further, since I found some examples from the Vulgate. I think it's clear that quae can be used from a certain point on in Latin as a feminine singular interrogative pronoun, but I'm not sure examples like "Quis illaec est mulier?", "Sed quae illaec avis est?", "At quae est ista tertia decuria?" are actually conclusive with regard to the form of the interrogative pronoun, because couldn't these be forms of the interrogative adjective used in agreement with the accompanying noun? For comparison, it seems Cicero was able to use "quod" instead of "quid" in "Quod est hoc iudicium in quo iam biennium versamur?" (Pro Quinctio 42.3). I'm not sure how to explain the syntax, but it seems somehow it was possible to use interrogative adjective forms in this kind of context (I'm not sure if there was a slight difference in meaning as in English between "What trial is this?" vs "What is this trial"). This makes it seem tricky to me to sort out whether examples of  should be cited on the page for  or —would it make sense to keep a separate citation page for, with a note at the top of the other citations pages linking to it?--Urszag (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Cited (again). I added a separate citation page for quae: Citations:quae. There are a number of unambiguously pronominal examples of quae in the Vulgate, such as "Quae ego sum?" and "quae es?". There is also a usage note now at saying that quae is used as a feminine form "in later Latin", while quis is used as a feminine form "In the early Latin of Plautus". It's clear I think that the feminine nominative singular quae existed as an interrogative pronoun past a certain point, while it's less clear what exactly that point is, but anyone interested in that specific question can look at the citations. Unless there is some challenge to the current citations, I think this should be considered verified.--Urszag (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

RFV passed since the citations of feminine quae have stood for more than a week without further challenge. Accordingly, I'm going to de-tag the word.--Urszag (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:quis


text:
Talk:quisquam

RFV discussion: April 2017–January 2021

 * See Talk:quis.

RFV discussion: May 2021–November 2023
Latin. 'quaequam' is certainly necessary, for feminin singular and plural but also for neuter plural.

 * I am not sure what you mean by “certainly necessary”. The form quaequam is easily attestable in later Latin texts; it would seem rare, though, to restrict a use of “anyone” to female persons. --Lambiam 11:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, you are rigth! I looked a little further. Now I am sure the feminine forms quaequam, quamquam, quaquam, quarumquam, quasquam are never used by Latin writers. Instead they use the words ulla, ullam... (derived from ullus). Also in all plural forms Latin writers use forms of ullus. For instance: Tibi certabit ulla? Will any woman compete with you? SumMus235711 (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you delete my page for the word quaequam. Or you tell me how I can remove that page (I made myself)? SumMus235711 (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

That page quaequam is deleted! Good. I also replaced the feminine forms quaequam, quamquam ... by ulla, ullam... on the page quisquam. We still have to replace all plural forms by ulli, ullae, ulla... What do you think of this proposal? SumMus235711 (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Well, generally we also include Late Latin and New Latin terms (e.g. ). I think some of these forms qu*quam can be attested, although perhaps not in Classical Latin texts. Editors better versed in Latin than me may have an easier time discerning whether uses of qu*quam in later texts are meant to be inflected forms of quisquam. In L&S, the entry for quisquam starts with “” [my emphasis by underlining], and Gaffiot also gives this form, suggesting that quaequam it is found in Latin texts that are not Neo-Latin.  --Lambiam 00:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It could also be, and might even be more likely, that L&S gives an unattested form. It notes: "Quisquam as a fem., like quis (ante-class.)", and gives examples, but doesn't give any example for (*?)quaequam. 14:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Basically it seems to be related to the feminine of issue tormented on this page just below, the separate feminine form of which creeps up post-Classically. quaequam is indeed attestable, and indeed rare, mainly it seems for the reason you mention - the female-only restrictive condition is pragmatically rare, more so than the interrogative pronoun. It also sounds kind of rude, granted this might be my Russian intuition based on - Russian distinguishes pronouns from determiners way more strictly, so using the latter alone sounds very abrupt. It's confusing to me that says "you are right" only to immediately disagree with the statement that , saying that it's  , which is untrue. The Oxford Latin Dictionary says:   is used instead of this word only when we're talking about the determiner (sī ūllus porcus grunniat, sī ūlla avis canat), but as standalone pronouns these are dispreferred. Incidentally this means that using as a pronoun shouldn't sound abrupt; it does sound discriminatory, which women tend not to like. —My opinion is that it passes the RFV easily, but could use some Usage notes. Brutal Russian (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some men also tend not to like language that is discriminatory towards women. Does that make them ? --Lambiam 11:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think in regards to gender-descriminatory language, men tend to not like what women don't like, but they don't care as much. For example, women are significantly less likely to refer to themselves using female-specific profession terms in Russian because these sound less professional, and in some cases bordering on derogatory (, even ). You'll often find women referring to themselves using gender-neutral (masculine) terms. This issue doesn't exist at all for male-specific terms as far as I can think, which in my opinion reflects the fact that men aren't sensitive to language that discriminates men (not discriminates against men). Brutal Russian (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I've made somewhat substantial edits to the notes and declension tables at and would appreciate review to see if the current version is satisfactory and accurate. I removed the plural forms from the main table as I couldn't find any unambiguous evidence of them being used except in very late texts. The main table now only shows m/f quisquam, quisquem etc. and neuter quidquam/quicquam; I'm not sure whether it should have quaequam/quamquam as well, but since there seems to be only a single classical attestation (the quamquam mentioned above by Brutal Russian and the Oxford Latin Dictionary), I thought it was better to just mention it in a note. There doesn't seem to be an easy way to adjust the template to display just masculine and neuter singular versions: I'm not sure why, but adding the parameter num=sg seems to have automatically caused the masculine singular to be applied to the feminine? This might be OK depending on if we want to allow for the pre-Classical use in Plautus. I also included a larger table with the declension given by Pseudo-Probus and Diomedes, which includes all of the other plausible forms (except for dative/ablative plural quisquam, which I'm not sure ever existed) as well as some implausible forms (technically, Pseudo-Probus mentions vocative forms identical to the nominative, which basically have to be purely theoretical, but I'm not sure how to adjust the template to show them, or whether I should do that if I could). I had difficulty finding even late or Medieval Latin examples of the plural forms and first-declension feminine forms; if anyone can work on that further, I'd love to see it.--Urszag (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's impressive and thorough work, thanks. I don't see anything objectionable after reading it through. I agree with the treatment of quamquam as a note if it's a (Classical) hapax. I also think it's fine for the table to include "masculine/feminine" with reference to the ante-Classical feminine instances, although the num=sg issue does sound like a bug that should be fixed either way unless there's some way to force it to show the empty feminine column. The lack of a good online corpus makes it difficult to search for Medieval Latin cases thoroughly, but I added an instance of adjectival quarumquam at Citations:quisquam (the "1406 January 28" quote). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I actually just thought of a potential issue with the current table at (and also the one at : I'm not sure that the form  is really attested as a feminine ablative singular form. Unlike  and, which are third-declension forms and so in principle don't have any especial reason to be restricted to one gender (aside from usage),  is a second-declension form and so I'd theoretically expect it to be confined to masculine and neuter use. Assuming what L&S say about the rarity of quoquam outside of Livy is true (I haven't tried to check), would it be sensible to just exclude the ablative singular from the table?--Urszag (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Given that various feminine and plural forms have been attested, and there are now usage notes describing the low level of attestation in Classical Latin, I'm going to mark this as an RFV passed.--Urszag (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:quisquam


text:
Talk:deses

RFV discussion: April 2017–January 2021

 * See Talk:sospes.

title: Talk:deses


text:
Talk:caeles

RFV discussion: April 2017–January 2021

 * See Talk:sospes.

title: Talk:caeles


text:
Talk:caelebs

RFV discussion: April 2017–January 2021

 * See Talk:sospes.

title: Talk:caelebs


text:
Talk:princeps

RFV discussion: April 2017–January 2021

 * See Talk:sospes.

Derived terms
I'd also like to see there - for Latin
 * principatus (land supposedly given in trust and governance to a prince),
 * principium (in principio erat verbum... - from Vulgata ...), and
 * principle (foundation of a line of thought).

I am not yet used to the style and structure of wiktionary so I prefer to propose that here first. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:princeps


text:
Talk:particeps

RFV discussion: April 2017–January 2021

 * See Talk:sospes.

Genitive plural -um not -ium
Most sources seem to indicate that the genitive plural should be participum not participium (and Wiktionary entries in other languages agree). It seems that quite a few genitive plurals in -um appear as -ium in the English Wiktionary. Wordiesmith (talk)

title: Talk:particeps


text:
Talk:impubes

RFV discussion: April 2017–January 2021

 * See Talk:sospes.

title: Talk:impubes


text:
κύρβεις

Etymology
As a technical expression, suspected of being a loan, perhaps from. According to Beekes, the older connection with is unacceptable. Fick and Kretschmer also adduced, which would have been named after their whirling dances.

Proper noun

 * 1)  triangular tablets, forming a three-sided pyramid, turning on a pivot, upon which the early laws were inscribed
 * 2)  all pillars or tablets with inscriptions
 * 3)  the Pillars of Hercules
 * 4)  pettifogging lawyer, as if a walking statute book

title: κύρβεις


text:
小屏

Noun

 * 1)  small screen

title: 小屏


text:
大屏

Noun

 * 1)  big screen

title: 大屏


text:
寬屏

Noun

 * 1)  wide screen

title: 寬屏


text: 宽屏

title: 宽屏


text:
দুৰাকাছ

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) tortoise

title: দুৰাকাছ


text:
簡單多數

Noun

 * 1) simple majority

title: 簡單多數


text: 街采

title: 街采


text:
墨索里尼

Proper noun

 * 1) Mussolini (surname)

title: 墨索里尼


text:
街採

Noun

 * 1)  street interview

title: 街採


text: I'd of

title: I'd of


text:
華誕

Noun

 * 1)  birthday (of a person); anniversary of the founding (of an organisation)

title: 華誕


text:
curteancă

Etymology
From.

title: curteancă


text:
golancă

Etymology
From.

title: golancă


text:
milițiancă

Etymology
From.

title: milițiancă


text:
mireancă

Etymology
From.

title: mireancă


text:
割切

Verb

 * 1)  to cut (using a knife, lathe, etc.)
 * 2)  to cut metal using a machine tool

title: 割切


text:
mitocancă

Etymology
From.

title: mitocancă


text:
mocancă

Etymology
From.

title: mocancă


text: 简单多数

title: 简单多数


text: 华诞

title: 华诞


text:
orășeancă

Etymology
From.

title: orășeancă


text:
συκοφαντία

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) vexatious or dishonest prosecution, chicane, barratry, blackmail
 * 2) oppression, extortion
 * 3) quibble, sophism, deception

title: συκοφαντία


text:
puștancă

Etymology
From.

title: puștancă


text:
大師賽

Noun

 * 1)  Masters

title: 大師賽


text:
săteancă

Etymology
From.

title: săteancă


text:
法西斯分子

Noun

 * 1) fascist elements
 * 2)  fascist

title: 法西斯分子


text:
oișoară

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) ; small sheep

title: oișoară


text:
おぼれじに

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) death by drowning

Verb

 * 1) to die by drowning

title: おぼれじに


text: 溺れ死に

title: 溺れ死に


text:
vulpișoară

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) ; small fox

title: vulpișoară


text:
buzișoară

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) ; small lip

title: buzișoară


text:
umbrișoară

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) ; small shadow

title: umbrișoară


text:
țărișoară

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) ; small country

title: țărișoară


text: Template:RQ:More Psychodia

title: Template:RQ:More Psychodia


text:
scărișoară

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) ; small ladder

title: scărișoară


text:
まよいこむ

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to become hopelessly lost and wandering

title: まよいこむ


text:
țâțișoară

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) ; small tit, breast

title: țâțișoară


text: 大师赛

title: 大师赛


text:
εἶρος

Etymology
This word ultimately continues, from , the same root of 🇨🇬 and.

Noun

 * 1) wool
 * 2) cottonweed
 * 3) kind of fever
 * 1) kind of fever
 * 1) kind of fever

title: εἶρος


text:
twk

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  salary or pension paid in arrears
 * 2)  backdated payrise or bonus
 * 1)  backdated payrise or bonus

title: twk


text: Template:RQ:More Iniquity

title: Template:RQ:More Iniquity


text:
căprișoară

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) ; small goat

title: căprișoară


text:
arculeț

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) ; small bow

title: arculeț


text:
Τρῆρες

Proper noun

 * 1) Treres, a Thracian tribe

title: Τρῆρες


title: Template:R:grc:Blažek:2014


text:
ațișoară

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) ; small string

title: ațișoară


text: ἔμειναν

title: ἔμειναν


text:
guci

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) large, wide-mouthed earthenware or stoneware jar

title: guci


text:
cănăruț

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) ; small canary

title: cănăruț


text:
muculeț

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) ; small booger
 * 2) cigarette stump

title: muculeț


text:
lemnișor

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) ; small piece of wood

title: lemnișor


text:
Plover

Proper noun

 * , named for the bird.

title: Plover


text:
mierluță

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) ; small blackbird

title: mierluță


text:
miișoară

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) ; small thousand

title: miișoară


text:
uunarpoq

Etymology
From, from. Compare.

Verb

 * 1)  be scalding hot

title: uunarpoq


text:
αἰτιάομαι

Verb

 * 1) to accuse
 * 2) to blame
 * 3) to charge

title: αἰτιάομαι


title: Template:R:grc:Witczak:2014


text:
jidăncuță

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) ;  small Jewess

title: jidăncuță


text:
szpinawy

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) dirty

title: szpinawy


text:
ôkrōngły

Etymology
, from.

Adjective

 * 1) round

title: ôkrōngły


text:
ညးဖျဵုဂှ် ဒှ်ညးထေဲ

Proverb

 * 1) a hungry man is an angry man

title: ညးဖျဵုဂှ် ဒှ်ညးထေဲ


text:
nevăzător

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) blind

Noun

 * 1) blind man

title: nevăzător


text: ĸutdleĸ

title: ĸutdleĸ


text:
Talk:superhabitable planet

RFD discussion: May 2020–January 2021
Per WT:Tea room/2020/May. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete then; seems like the commonest collocation but still SoP. Equinox ◑ 14:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 15:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete, SOP. J3133 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, certainly the translation table won't be missed. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:superhabitable planet


text:
Talk:main page

RFD discussion: April 2020–January 2021
See Tea room discussion --5.41.222.252 00:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 14:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC) Abstain — Dentonius 18:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Kept. Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought you wanted to delete the main page? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * After doing it 5 times, the novelty rubs off, Voxy Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not kept, there are at least 4 votes for deletion at the Tea room. J3133 (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted (counting Tea room votes). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The page has not been deleted. J3133 (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it seems to be a sort of software redirect that I am unable to delete. I don't know how to resolve this one. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we can just close this discussion. The page isn’t even editable by administrators (maybe it needs a bureaucrat to access it), so there is no likelihood of editors editing it. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I just deleted it. It doesn't take a bureaucrat to do it (though I am one, so you may ask how I would know), but you have to add "?redirect=no" to the URL by hand in order to go to the page itself without redirecting. And just for the record, all the bureaucrat flag does is enable you to add or remove privileges for user accounts- it's totally useless otherwise. It's possible to be a bureaucrat without being an admin, though in practice someone who is trusted enough to be made a bureaucrat has almost always already been made an admin before then. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Funny how it didn’t generate a “redirected from” link, which usually appears when redirects are clicked on. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why, but it probably has something to do with the way the Main Page is integrated into the system as a default address. I didn't know until I tried it whether the "?redirect=no" trick would work on this type of redirect, but fortunately it did. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:main page


text:
Talk:heap with

RFD discussion: June 2020–January 2021
SoP --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cf. stack with, fill with, load with. To me, all these seem like standard collocations not idiomatic enough for dictionary inclusion. Mihia (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:heap with


text:
Talk:bowling ball rack

RFD discussion: September 2020–January 2021
I made rib-rack earlier on, then was surprised we didn't have spice rack, so made that too. Then for a laugh I made bowling ball rack, and wondered how many of the racks would survive an RFD, and why. --Daleusher (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just WF having a laugh. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete, SOP. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. - -sche (discuss) 05:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  18:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:bowling ball rack


text:
Talk:talk nonsense

RFD discussion: August 2020–January 2021
Sum of parts: talk + nonsense. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. One can also spout nonsense. Some talk baloney, others talk malarkey.  --Lambiam 11:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep for translations. PUC – 10:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete DCDuring (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. J3133 (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:talk nonsense


text:
Talk:get the time

RFD discussion: November 2020–January 2021
SOP. The entry even gives synonyms "have the time" and "find the time", showing that there's nothing specific to "get" here. Benwing2 (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Don't see this one as idiomatic enough. We may as well add get a moment, get five minutes, and others indefinitely. Mihia (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:get the time


text:
Talk:Nazi helmet

RFD discussion: May 2020–January 2021
Nazi & helmet? —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 06:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 * There was nothing visually distinctive about the helmets worn by the German Army during the Nazi period, compared to what the Reichswehr had been using since WWI, except for the decal of an eagle gripping a swastika with its talons. (image) The SS had their own insignia. This model of helmet (sometimes imported from Germany, sometimes copied) was also used by the armies of Argentina, Bolivia, Chili, China, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, and Spain. It is doubtful whether the uses tend to refer specifically to the 1935 or later Third Reich issues, or generally to this model of helmet – in which case it is debatable how SOP this is. --Lambiam 07:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's an RFV matter, to see if e.g. "WWI Nazi helmet" is attested (it does not seem to be), and conversely, whether other styles of helmets the Nazis used can be referred to as Nazi helmets (I expect so). I don't know. The current contents of the entry are not compelling. - -sche (discuss) 06:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 15:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. It could be moved to RFV, but I don't think that a few amateurs calling a pre-Ennabling Act Stahlhelm a "Nazi helmet" is a compelling argument for keeping this either. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as SOP. - -sche (discuss) 08:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nazi helmet


text:
Talk:first among equals

RFD discussion: November 2020–January 2021
Senses #2, #3. Straight-forward use of sense #1.__Gamren (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say keep the citations though and put them under the first use. Rauisuchian (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's also odd that sense 3 mentions the Patriarch of Constantinople, but not the Pope, who the Orthodox consider to be the original first among equals. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In Anglicanism, the Archbishop of Canterbury is also called the first among equals. No need for a separate sense for that either, though. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:first among equals


text:
Talk:get underway

RFD discussion: November 2020–January 2021
Redundant to underway. Benwing2 (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, it doesn't seem like a particularly set phrase to me compared to conjugated forms of be underway. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:get underway


text:
Talk:Worster-Drought

RFD discussion: November 2020–January 2021
I believe there is a policy against double-barrelled surnames, personally I don't see any point in including them. I guess the rest of the entry is OK. DonnanZ (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, we had decided long ago that double-barrelled surnames are nothing but trouble (and, in a way, are no less SOP than a combination of a given name and a surname or middle name and surname). Any combination could be created by happenstance, with no lexicological significance, and the combination means no more than having surname X joined with surname Y. bd2412 T 00:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. PUC – 12:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete the surname. Equinox ◑ 05:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. Things are getting worse and worster. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Worster-Drought


text:
Talk:price for quick sale

RFD discussion: November 2020–January 2021
SOP. 212.224.234.45 16:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, the phrase I know is "price for a quick sale". To me, the version without "a" seems like a headlinese abbreviation. Mihia (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said below, as the creator of this entry, previously unfamiliar with WT:CFI, I agree with the IP that this is SOP and not eligible and hence should be deleted along with the other-tense entries; but my familiarity with the phrase is in the past tense, “priced for quick sale” in newspaper classifieds of the last century like the one I gave as a quote, where indeed you paid by the letter (edit: or word) to advertise. So that's the most common use I'm familiar with. --Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The classifieds style that you mention would be akin to what I termed "headlinese". You could call it "telegraphese". Mihia (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, on further reflection, perhaps there is a way of looking at this such that the absence of the article needn't indicate "ese". To me it seems marginal or debatable. Mihia (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:price for quick sale


text:
Talk:Pichu

RFD discussion: September 2020–January 2021
See discussion on Jigglypuff above. Ultimateria (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. Equinox ◑ 18:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tharthan (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The question is whether it meets WT:FICTION. I can't find any WT:FICTION-meeting cites offhand, so I'm leaning towards delete, but in my mind this really belongs on RfV. Khemehekis (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No. If the nominator wanted it simply verified, they would have brought it to RfV. The suggestion is that this is not fit for an all-purpose dictionary, for reasons given at (as mentioned above) Jigglypuff. I happen to agree with that suggestion. Tharthan (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. J3133 (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. I've scoured Usenet and Google Books for Pichu, and although it was hard to limit to the Pokémon meaning because of all the appearances of Machu Pichu, I couldn't find any cites for the Pokémon that didn't refer to the Pokémon fictional universe. Khemehekis (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, those interested can look it up at Bulbapedia. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  18:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete --DannyS712 (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pichu


text:
Talk:-k-

RFD discussion: September 2020–January 2021
I personally am not sure this should be deleted as opposed to just moved (to k? to some appendix about not-per-se-lexical/lexemic things Englsh does?), but per Tea_room/2020/September (which see), an RFD is in order. - -sche (discuss) 15:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

 * To me this feels a little like having an entry for the ie (-ie-?) in ferries. Or more exactly, like the h- in Spanish huelo. It isn't a morpheme but just a spelling rule. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete, don't move to k. It's an artifact of English spelling rules, not a morpheme. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a dictionary item. Mihia (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. "ck" is a digraph like "sh" or "ch" that's a positional variant of "c". It's used much as "qu" is in some Romance languages to prevent misreading of the phonetic value. The "k" has no identity separate from the digraph. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Someone needs to clean out Category:English words interfixed with -k- when this is deleted. - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (Re [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/English&oldid=prev&diff=61464683 diff]: OK, done, mostly by [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=shellacked&diff=prev&oldid=61384320 dropping any mention of k]; if it's just "an artifact of English spelling rules, not a morpheme", I suppose it's not something to mention at all, like Urwald only says "ur- + Wald" and not also "+ the rule that initial letters and not medial letters are capitalized". The category now exists, like -k- does, solely to house the pharmaceutical morpheme.) - -sche (discuss) 06:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:-k-


text:
Talk:Trump mania

RFD discussion: June 2020–January 2021
Created in 2017 by a sock of an editor known for creating protologisms, and whose English is pretty poor. As a native speaker, I don't parse this the same way as, and I also give it a different stress pattern. This does not appear to be the same lexical item, and is thereform sum-of-parts. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom--I agree fully with the different parsing and the importance of the different stress pattern.--Uisleach (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as sum of parts. In addition to the more common excited-about-Trump sense ( sense 2) there is a smaller amount of use to mean Trump Derangement Syndrome (mania sense 1). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Trump mania


text:
Talk:pictorial convention

RFD discussion: October 2020–January 2021
Sum of parts, as with "typographical convention", etc. etc. Equinox ◑ 15:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Imetsia (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. PUC – 16:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think it is obvious from the sum of its parts. DonnanZ (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree. Definitely not SOP. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete in the absence of actual examples where the meaning is not obviously "pictorial" + "convention". I could not find any from a quick search. Mihia (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mihia. - -sche (discuss) 04:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:pictorial convention


text:
Talk:West Coast

RFD discussion: September 2020–January 2021
"The western seaboard of the United States." SOP, west + coast.__Gamren (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, and why would it be SOP if relating to the United States but not when to British Columbia? Also, the fact that it refers to a region in the United States specifically, without and, makes it idiomatic, especially if you consider that this meaning is present even on the British Isles or elsewhere where one speaks English. Because it is a cultural region, a fact which is not reflected in the definition. While in general it is not easily imagined that this is used so in the UK without much US context, in  contexts it clearly is a term. Keep, maybe redefine. Fay Freak (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of the debate over civil war. In the US, West Coast refers to the US west coast, because we're in the US. In the UK, it would presumably refer to the British west coast, and in Canada, to the Canadian west coast. If I'm reading a book about Australia, and it mentions the West Coast, I have no difficulty in assuming that they're referring to the Australian west coast. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In any case, Delete all adjective senses as this is not an adjective but a noun used attributively or for its associations. Possibly/probably Add a noun sense along the lines of "(attributive) Denoting a style/type of [...] originating from or associated with the west coast of the United States", on the basis that international readers may be expected to understand that e.g. "laid back West Coast feel" refers to the west coast of the US. Abstain on the purely geographic noun definitions, as I do not have a clear position about how we should treat these, but I question why we should have definitions relating to the US and New Zealand, and not to the dozens of other geographical areas that can be termed "West Coast". Mihia (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, delete the adjective senses. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the adjective completely, and expand the proper noun to include BC, if that's correct. I can vouch for NZ's West Coast, having been there. DonnanZ (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the adjective for the reasons expressed above. I’m not sure about the noun though; if retained it’s potentially going to contain a very long list of geographical locations. There’s both an East Coast and a West Coast even in Singapore. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We could give an inclusive definition like "A proper name given to regions along the west coast of various land masses, especially the continental United States." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems a good idea. — SGconlaw (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep, keep, keep. I give my blessing to East Coast as well. - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the adjective section, keep the two noun senses (or maybe replace them with Vox Sciurorum's tentative definition). PUC – 14:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In the US, "West Coast" has definite implications, as indicated by the synonym left coast. However, any region anywhere in the world has an added layer of meaning to place names. In LA, we have Orange County, Watts, South Central, the Valley, and others as areas symbolic of various socioeconomic strata. In New York, each of the bureaus as well as Lawn Guyland, the Hamptons, etc. have similar symbolic overlay. So do areas of London and various regions in England, and various parts of Australia. This is of great interest, but I'm not sure we can do it justice in a dictionary. I mean, you can take almost any nation of more than a certain size and mention the capital city (or a specific part, such as Westminster in the UK), and people in that country will understand that you're talking about bureaucracy. It's a matter of metonymy. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I don't regard it as a "named region" with capital letters as far as the UK goes. It would just be the west coast, not the West Coast. Equinox ◑ 19:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Adjective senses RFD-deleted; proper noun senses RFD-kept. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Canada
10 cents'll get you a Loonie that even in Canada "West Coast" is more generally talking about Cali with or without Oregon and Washington. In any case, no one is using it as inclusive of the contiguous US, BC, and Alaska as any kind of unit. — LlywelynII  03:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:West Coast


text:
Talk:language maven

RFD discussion: August 2020–January 2021
Added in 2005, before our current rules were in place, with a subtly misleading definition. I have corrected the definition to demonstrate that it is straightforwardly SOP. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But your new definition isn't right. A language maven isn't an actual expert on language (those are called linguists). A language maven is someone, usually a journalist, who has strongly held prescriptivist opinions on language. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's how Pinker uses it, and arguably Safire as well (though Pinker means it as a bad thing and Safire as a good thing, so it's not entirely clear their definitions are the same). Those are usually not independent; search with  and you get quotes like this: "It would take a very imaginative language maven indeed to explain satisfactorily why the part of a car that covers either the engine or the luggage compartment is called a “bonnet” in the U.K. and a “hood” in the United States." Now it's clearly just a maven in the area of language. You might be forgetting, by the way, that most people never come into contact with linguists, so their conception of a language expert is an English teacher or copy editor rather than an academic who studies syntax theory. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether our users have heard of linguists or not, we won't be doing them any favors by suggesting that someone like is an "expert" in an area he knows nothing about. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * People are referred to all the time as “computer mavens” in news items although they don’t know *xcr*m*nt – or perhaps just a trick or two. Come to think about it, most ”health experts” aren’t. Many so-called “fair trials” are nor fair, if only because the jury was not impartial, or else because both the defence and the judge were grossly incompetent, Does that mean we should adjust the definitions, or do these merely reflect what people mean when they use these terms, whether their judgement is correct or not? --Lambiam 15:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The journalists (also in Germany) constantly cite certain “experts”, too, which aren’t really representative of any science. The journalists constantly use words in meanings they don’t have or without knowing their meaning, and constantly repeat the same designations, apparently having considerable language-impairments, or indeed they are lying, for someone is elevated to an expert or maven because he is most available for interviews. The requirements for becoming a journalist are very low in the 21st century. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 * People are also incorrectly referred to by ignorant journalists as "computer experts" or "computer gurus". This does not mean the word has a different sense; it just means that journos can't tell an expert from an ex-parrot. Equinox ◑ 17:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 * I think this is sum of parts, if we assume that "maven" has implications of "(self-declared) expert", which I think it does. Ƿidsiþ 06:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP per Widsith. PUC – 10:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The term "maven" may imply the expert is self-described, as Widsith suggests, or it may simply be used inaccurately sometimes, but I think "langage maven" is SOP in any case. - -sche (discuss) 01:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:language maven


text:
Talk:feel down

RFD discussion: August 2020–January 2021
Now having made sure that my tired eyes had not deceived me (see this being brought up in the Tea Room here), I bring this entry to RfD.

This is the verbal feel plus the adjectival down. One can also "feel bad(ly)", "feel great", "feel sad", etc. Not deserving of an entry, for one.

Secondly, not only is the existence of this entry bizarre, just as bizarre is that this entry is a part of "Category:English phrasal verbs with particle (down)". That is utter nonsense. This is no such thing. Tharthan (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. Feel up is a phrasal verb. Feel down is not.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you aren't happy with the category it can be removed - it was added manually. But I would keep this entry: wading through the different meanings of, as used here it's a predicative adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the rationale for keeping? PUC – 11:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. I will feel sad, unhappy and depressed if this SOB SOP is kept. --Lambiam 11:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. PUC – 11:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Vox; we are the only OneLook dictionary which has this. "I feel down", "it gets me down" (although, we have that at get down), "it brings me down" (although, we have that, too, at bring down), ... "I feel depressed", "I feel sad", etc ... - -sche (discuss) 00:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Feel, unlike get or bring, is open to complementation by all adjectives that denote states of feelings. Thus, there us nothing novel or unexpected about either of feel down/sad or feel up/happy, whereas get (one) up/happy and bring (one) up/happy do not convey meaning analogous to get (one) down or bring 9one) down. I think this may be due to get and bring often participating in light-verb constructions whereas feel does not. DCDuring (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes, other feelings can be used with "feel", but that's only half of the question. Can "down" be used with this meaning with other verbs in the same the way that other feelings are? I note that "down" does not have this meaning with "to be": "I am happy" and "I am angry", but not "I am down".  "He became happy" and "He became angry", but not "He became down".  "Down" does not function in the same way as these "feeling" adjectives, so this cannot be considered simple sum of parts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:feel down


text:
Talk:flu jab

RFD discussion: September 2020–January 2021
Sum of parts. There is also Covid jab, measles jab, HPV jab etc. – Einstein2 (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Speedied. How much time do we have to waste on COVID conspiracy nonsense? Obviously a jab is a vaccine. The End. Equinox ◑ 10:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Wrong decision, I think it is idiomatic, more or less (and I'm having one on Monday). Reinstate, no proper discussion. DonnanZ (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also have kept this. A jab is not a vaccine, it's a vaccination &c. I'm due for mine pretty soon. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as sum of + . Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What, delete it twice?? I think jab is British English in this sense anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Double tap. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep deleted; SOP. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 * I'm not seeing any real meaningful arguments to keep. There are all kinds of jab: search for "tetanus jab" or "rubella jab". The fact that you got it last week, bless your little heart Blotto, means nothing. I had a pint of Moretti last night but that isn't a reason to create an entry for pint of Moretti (but I'm sure Wonderfool will try). Equinox ◑ 18:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's put it this way: if pink unicorn encephalitis had similar epidemiological characteristics to the flu, people would be getting a pink unicorn encephalitis jab very much like the current flu jab. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see a real unicorn, let alone the (SOP)?, but on Monday afternoon I will get a real flu jab. DonnanZ (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Is "Invisible Pink Unicorn" the latest in the long string of "Flying Spaghetti Monster" variants that mean-spirited antitheistic neckbeards have come up with? Tharthan (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Unlike the mean-spirited theistic neckbeards who wish hell on all of us?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I wasn't referring to that. I meant it as a random reference to some creature that has never had a disease named after it. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted, SOP. There isn’t a use either in having a large amount of vaccination names for translations, as it would be easier to look up the name of a disease and append the respective name for a vaccination. Nobody would look this up. Fay Freak (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * They can't now. I did look it up before it was deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep deleted; SOP. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted, the sense of vaccination at jab is sufficient. bd2412 T 20:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Undelete >SOP — Dentonius 10:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted, and in such state it remains. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:flu jab


text:
Talk:pithec-

RFD discussion: September 2020–January 2021
Not a prefix. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it a morpheme? We also have "prefixes", , , , , , ..., , . I see no reason to single this one out for special treatment. --Lambiam 16:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The two sole derived terms seem to me to just be either straight up the Greek word pithekos (with latinized  from Greek ) + -oid and -ology, respectively. To me, it doesn't really seem like a prefix in the narrow sense. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 18:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * More has been Latinized, like ⟨th⟩ replacing Greek ⟨θ⟩. I agree it isn’t a prefix, but the same story holds for the (non-exhaustive) list I gave above. All are Latinized stems of Greek words, with or without a euphonic infix -o-. --Lambiam 18:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would delete those too. PUC – 20:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The two words aren't using pithec- as a prefix, and there are only two of them.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. PUC – 20:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:pithec-


text:
Talk:no-smoking

RFD discussion: April 2020–January 2021
Seems SOP as "no" (sense 3) + "smoking." And by adding a hyphen, any such "no-[X]" construction can become an adjective — e.g. "no-soliciting sign," "no-food-or-drink zone," etc. Imetsia (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason why you targeted this one, and not, and ? DonnanZ (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really; I didn't realize these were even entries, although they do sound equally as SOP. Imetsia (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete this. : non(-)smoking is not the same because it actually means "not smoking", e.g. a nonsmoking adult, whereas a "no-smoking sign" is named after the words on it, more like a "turn-left sign" etc. Equinox ◑ 02:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I knew that. But I didn't realise this one is a new entry. DonnanZ (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to keep this, as I regard it as the correct form for as an attributive adjective, although many people wouldn't bother inserting a hyphen. And there are no-smoking signs every-bloody-where these days... DonnanZ (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But isn't the consensus that we don't keep "attributive form" versions of words? (We even had a vote on it). In any event, the more basic question is whether should even be kept in the first place, since the SOP rationale provided in the request for deletion seems to apply just the same. Imetsia (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * By sense 3 of, “Not any possibility or allowance of (doing something)”, is definitely SOP. No fighting, no drinking, no spitting, no gambling, no playing outside, no pleading your way out of it, no crying for mama.  --Lambiam 06:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete as SOP, IMO. ("No smoking" can at least be, and has been, argued to be a useful phrasebook entry.) - -sche (discuss) 06:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. PUC – 20:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the recent hyphenated attributive compounds vote. Khemehekis (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  13:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete given the consensus that we do not include hyphenated attributive adjectives of this sort. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:no-smoking


text:
Talk:penis-haver

RFD discussion: November 2020–January 2021
Seems pretty SOP to me...I would understand if this was some kind of derogatory/feminist term for a man or a trans-man, or whatever, but as it stands, it's no more idiomatic than book-haver, teeth-haver, accordion-haver. Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Glades12 (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yo, Gamren, would you like to keep the entry you created? -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh.__Gamren (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Lame ;-) -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 19:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Question. Are, , attestable? If not, comparison with their idiomaticity is moot. --Question-haver Lambiam 22:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I dunno, the first quotation makes it seem non-SOP to me, since penguins (like most birds) do not, in fact, have penises. —Mahāgaja · talk 23:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 * The current definition does seem purely SoP but the entry misses the idea that this is a neologism for a certain class of human, introduced for some specific reason (avoid offending certain groups?). It isn't used about animals, is it? Equinox ◑ 21:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mahagaja, given the title of that book and the content of the "intro", I have little confidence that the authors are aware of that fact.__Gamren (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Given the quotations penis-haver seems a synonym for man except possibly for connotations.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 * There's a spectrum of use, from cites like the ones in the entry, to cases where it's used in e.g. discussions of penis healthcare (what people with penises should do to take care of their penises) by folks who are conscious that "men" is not the most relevant/accurate term there since some men don't have penises (e.g. some trans men) and some people other than men do have penises (e.g. some trans women). But that's (still) SOP, that's the point, that it just means "person who has a penis". (I agree with Gamren that the penguin quotation is more likely a sign that the authors think penguins have penises and are wrong, than that they're using "penis-haver" to mean "male who does not have a penis".) Delete, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 04:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. PUC – 14:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:penis-haver


text:
Talk:child rape

RFD discussion: August 2020–January 2021
Looks a lot like Wonderfool's crappy SOP. --Kriss Barnes (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as SOP. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 * But how is a reader to know this doesn't refer to a young plant? J/k, delete. - -sche (discuss) 04:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A baby rape plant? Baby rape is even worse. Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 07:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We have, and . Although we have no entry for it, baby cucumber is also a thing. So why not baby rape? Do you have a baby beef with it :)?  --Lambiam 12:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The OED does have male rape, which is comparable. I would also say that in terms such as gang rape or acquaintance rape, the first element describes who is committing the rape; but with child rape, male rape and others, the first element describes the victim instead. So there are certainly lexicographical grounds for explaining this. Ƿidsiþ 12:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Rape was, by definition, carnal knowledge of a female by force and against her will. So male rape was different from rape. Now the laws are unisex and you can rape anybody.  On the other hand older rape laws did include rape of a child, at least of a girl.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is that "X rape" is not predictable: it sometimes means "rape of X" and sometimes "rape by X", and it depends on the collocation. I am not saying we should definitely keep this, but I am pointing out that there are lexicographic reasons for doing so. Ƿidsiþ 13:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * True, but...that's also true of a huge variety of compounds, perhaps simply true of compounds generally. ("Gang abuse" is by a gang (in many books, by a gang of children targeting an elderly person) while "child abuse" is of a child, a "bird puppet" depicts a bird while a "cotton puppet" is made out of cotton, a "frat party" is held by a frat (rather than to celebrate the recent joining of a frat) while an "engagement party" is to celebrate a recent engagement (rather than being a party made out of 'engagement(s)', or to get engaged at), etc.) The former narrowness of rape can be noted in the entry rape, but I'm not sure it lends any idiomaticity to other compounds (which are certainly numerous: "elder rape", "spousal rape", "date rape",, ...). (As an aside, our entry says rape can broadly mean "any sex act forced by any person upon another person", but even this may not be broad enough, if the noun can be attested in reference to situations were the perpetrator and/or victim is e.g. an animal. Then again, I'm having trouble finding examples, so maybe the noun is not attested in such cases, although the verb certainly is.) - -sche (discuss) 19:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but some would say this is exactly why dictionaries try to include common collocations, even when their meaning is fairly obvious. Ƿidsiþ 07:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not the coziest stuff to link, but in these places animal rape means "human-on-animal rape"  and here it means "animal-on-human rape" . Its typical meaning seems "intraspecies rape among non-human animals". ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  15:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Shouldn't date rape be included as idiomatic, though? When I first saw this term at age 14, I didn't know that date rape didn't necessarily occur on a date. Khemehekis (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP, not lexicalised. Also, I agree with -sche: the semantic link between the two components of a compound is a priori undetermined; that's not a reason per se to keep them all. PUC – 21:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I think I would favour deletion. It could be rape by a child, or of one child by another; that is not usually what we mean but I think that's more about the nature of the world (it's more likely for an adult to abuse a child, or for child-on-child sex to be interpreted as play, etc.) than about the lexicography. Equinox ◑ 19:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Should be kept: child abuse and drug abuse are here to stay. rape is just another verb that has taken the shape of a noun. The SoP argument would make more sense, if it were possible to generate ad infinitum (cat rape, dog rape etc.) And how about child rapist? Then delete gang rapist, too. As if language is simply logic. Example: https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-merseyside-52476219 Melvin Miller: Paedophile who filmed child rapes jailed --Hartz (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You may notice that rape uses the term "person" in the relevant definition. Even so, I think you'll find a few references to rape of and by animals. As for gang rape, that can involve randomly unrelated people, not a gang in any of the senses we have. In other words, the missing terms are due to semantic limitations of the component parts rather than to anything special about this combination. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:child rape


text:
Talk:salt dough map

RFD discussion: November 2020–January 2021
Yes, it's a cute thing. But I'm not seeing anything NSOP here. Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, SOP. Delete.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete, SOP: one can also make a salt-dough mountain, a whole salt-dough-nativity scene, or merely a salt-dough shepherd. But shouldn’t we have an entry ? The meaning is not easily guessed; it is not a compound like cake dough. --Lambiam 22:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete, but I also endorse having an entry for . Almost all doughs have some salt in them, but they aren't all salt dough. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, and make . Fay Freak (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep. I didn't even know this was the term for it. I learned something new. It seems like an established teaching term. You all keep trying to take away beautiful things. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 09:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. PUC – 13:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  13:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:salt dough map


text:
Talk:gender reveal cake

RFD discussion: September 2020–January 2021

 * brief prior discussion in the Tea Room

I'm unsure whether gender reveal is idiomatic, but I believe this is SOP regardless: there are also "gender reveal smoke bombs" (which give off pink or blue smoke), "gender reveal balloons" (which are pink or blue, or are full of pink or blue smoke), etc, besides "gender reveal parties" / "gender reveals" themselves. And besides cakes that are pink or blue, which the current definition refers to, a Google Image search also shows white cakes with hollow centers containing things like coloured M&Ms, and gender-reveal "surprise cakes" where a mechanism pops a hollow tube up out of the top of the cake, containing something to indicate gender. - -sche (discuss) 18:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. SOP for a cake that serves the purpose of revealing a gender. bd2412 T 01:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, and gender reveal itself also seems SOP, as a reveal of gender. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would think that gender reveal could get a bit more leeway since in practice it is specifically used with respect to revealing the gender of an unborn baby, as done by the parents, to the public or to people in their circle. When the doctor or medical technician tells the parents what the baby will be, this isn't called a gender reveal. A cake or a balloon or whatever would just be the device used to announce this, however. bd2412 T 02:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well you have a point there. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. A reveal is a dramatic device, not just an instance of revealing. It's a sort of unveiling, a surprise. Just telling someone isn't a reveal. You have to make a show of it. In various types of makeover shows on reality TV you have the before/introduction, the main part where they show the makeover being done, and the finale is the reveal, where an audience, or whoever the makeover was done for, gets to see the results for the first time. More often than not someone is brought in blindfolded to make their reaction more dramatic. At least that's what I remember from when I used to watch that kind of thing a decade ago. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's still only part of the equation, isn't it? After all, any editor in this discussion could, through some dramatic means, "reveal" their gender, but that still wouldn't be a "gender reveal" in the commonly understood sense of the gender being that of an unborn child. I recall seeing a comedy bit where the comedian said they went to a gender reveal party, the joke being that it was the adult partygoers who were revealing their gender, with some being a surprise. bd2412 T 19:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say the comedy bit means that a "gender reveal" party is not distinct from the meaning of its words yet; it just happens that gender reveal parties are for unborn children, because when else would it make sense?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pat? bd2412 T 01:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete the cake. Not sure about gender reveal alone.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Copied from the earlier Tea room discussion: The common meaning of the compound noun gender reveal is “”. This is just like is short for “baby-shower party ”. However you analyze it, gender reveal cake is SOP.  --Lambiam 08:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete but create gender reveal Purplebackpack89 20:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. FWIW, my take on the SOP-ness or idiomaticity of "gender reveal" is that I have never once in my life heard this phrase until very recently, yet I immediately understood what it meant, without any need for explanation. Mihia (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. J3133 (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  18:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete --DannyS712 (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

gender reveal party
Per above. J3133 (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as SOP now that gender reveal has been created, and the sense is just gender reveal party. bd2412 T 19:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP, as above. - -sche (discuss) 15:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  18:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete --DannyS712 (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Both RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:gender reveal cake