Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Archived revision by Eclecticology (talk | contribs) as of 20:18, 19 March 2005.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid Wiktionary page title; the value "WS:RFD" is not valid. This page is one of the Wiktionary:Utilities.

  • The current policy governing the use of this page is at Wiktionary:Page deletion guidelines. The requests themselves belong on this page.
  • Some key discussions of deleted items are saved at Wiktionary:Deletion archive
  • Would sysops who delete pages that have been listed here PLEASE show and date this on the list when they do it. A simple **Deleted. ~~~~ is enough. The items affected are almost always properly deleted, but acknowledging that you have done this is good for building community confidence. Eclecticology 11:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page lists all articles / entries / pages that have been nominated for Deletion in one of two ways.

  • Check the alphabetical AUTOMATED LIST of all those entries / pages tagged with the code [[category:Requests for deletion]].
The tagging is usually effected by editing the code {{rfd}} into the page to invoke the {{rfd}} template - the "Requests for deletion" template.
Entries are automatically withdrawn from this list if/when the {{rfd}} and/or [[category:Requests for deletion]] code is deleted from the entry.
These entries may have the discussion of why the entry needs deletion within the Talk: (Discussion) page of the article itself, or in this page. Both should be checked.
  • There is a manually created and maintained list within this page, below. You can use the Make a new nomination link below to add your nomination to the list, and a brief explanation of your reason for nominating the page for deletion. Old entries are relisted by month. Please put any extensive discussion in the Talk: (Discussion) page of the article.
For help on how to do a good nomination, see Help:Nominating_an_article_for_cleanup_or_deletion
For an overview see Cleanup and deletion process, including how to remove a nomination after cleanup is done.
  • Note: If the title of a page is a valid term but the content is an incorrect entry, nonsense or vandalism, then the page should be nominated for cleanup using the {{rfc}} template rather than being nominated for deletion.

See also page Wiktionary:Lists of words needing attention

Make a new nomination


Special Nominations for Deletion

Permanent deletion list

The following link(s) should always be red. Please delete the corresponding article(s) should it(they) appear:

Alert list

The following items were cleared and then protected:

Mostly items that have persistently reappeared. They probably need to be shot on sight.

Category:Compressed is now Category:Pending deletions

This is a temporary category which includes a number of articles where there was an agreement to delete, but a technical bug prevented this from happening. When the bug is fixed the deletion can be completed, and the category eliminated. Eclecticology 23:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Uncle G created a template {{pending deletion}}, and replaced all the category entries with the template, to duplicate the Wikipedia style of dealing with this type of entry. The template puts the entries into the new Category:Pending deletions. As I find these, I am renaming them to be prefixed with "ZZZZZ" and deleting the redirect so the old article can show up red instead of blue, while the dead page still appears in the new category. --Connel MacKenzie 16:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

General Nominations for Deletion

February 2005

Current events

This list has nothing to do with current events. Eclecticology 22:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • It should probably be de-linked from the Main Page's Selected Entries section, then Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 21:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I've been wondering why this was still in the navication Jun-Dai 23:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • This page is linked to in the side bar of the main page. Should the reference to it be taken away from there? Or is there another purpose for it? Polyglot 10:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Checking "what links here", the answer is no. Therefore, please remove reference on main page and then delete. --Connel MacKenzie 14:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't know of the top of my hat how to get rid of it on the main page. I tend to believe it's part of the Wiki interface (The other wiktionary projects also have it.) Now I added a real current event in it. Can it stay that way? Polyglot 21:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • How very strange. When I reverted the entry earlier, your post wasn't there. --Connel MacKenzie 07:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • The page with this title should probably deal with the dictionary treatment of the expression. What Polyglot added to the page gave me the idea that the sidebar item could become "Current issues" which would link to something like Wiktionary:current issues. That could be used to track the progress of major internal policy issues, when votes are due to expire, etc. For now it's just a quick idea, but it could be expanded (but not on this page) if there is support. Eclecticology 01:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

portokali

Do we need a link that phonetically spells a Greek word with English letters? I fixed πορτοκάλι (not completely) to which this page links, but I don't know that this page will serve any purpose. ???--Alia H 03:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Although I argued to some extent in favour of the idea some time ago, I've done nothing more about it. There are arguments for this in terms of making other scripts more accessible to more readers. Since I have no plans in the forseeable future to develop this idea, I'm not going to complain much if the community wants to dump this. Eclecticology 08:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Transliterations might be worth pursuing, but this is a bit of a minefield, in my view. Just sticking with (modern) Greek, would we allow for, say, υ (upsilon) to be transcribed as u, y and i? What about accented characters? "Πορτοκάλι" could become "portokali" or "portokáli", but some words could have numerous transliterations (take "ευχαριστώ" - υ could be u or f, χ could be kh or ch, ώ could be o, ó or even w...). What about Chinese and Japanese, with their various transliteration schemes? I think it all risks getting a bit exponential, with each word requiring several redirects, unless, of course, we come up with standard transliteration schemes and require users to stick to them.
Anyone who wants to find a translation for a word they find on the web can cut and paste it into the search box. Anyone who wants to add a foreign word can use the "Characters:" box at the bottom of the edit page (although this provides only for European languages at the moment).
These facilities don't cover all the bases by any means, but I think the amount of work involved would prevent automatic handling of transliteration from getting off the ground.
— Paul G 10:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Help me out, please. Was a consensus ever reached? I see after randomly hitting paidika, and doing some research that this had already been debated back in August. I only just recently stumbled upon Wiktionary, so I missed it, and I cannot find it in the current Beer Parlour discussions. Meanwhile, what do we do with paidika, which doesn't even have the Greek word anywhere on the page? (Sorry I know this discussion probably doesn't belong here any more, but this is where it is, so this is where I'm asking.)--Alia H 05:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with PaulG. This is the English Language Wiktionary. The entries should be readable to English readers. So Transliterations provide a useful tool. A Greek phrase book for English users phrasebooks would not have the Greek Phrase in Greek alphabet, 'cos it would be useless to the English reader. Same goes here. don't get rid of the transliterations, they are vitally useful.--Richardb 14:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

seeWiktionary talk:Policy - Transliteration--Richardb 15:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Richardb, your point about phrasebooks isn't the case. My father's Greek phrase book (which is a modern one) lists Greek phrases using the Greek alphabet - they need to be, so that you can show them to a Greek person if you know no Greek - but are also transcribed (but not transliterated) into English to enable English readers to read them aloud.
However, my view is not so much against transliterations (it's a good idea, for the reasons put forward) but against the potential unwieldiness of providing transliterations when there could be many possible transliterations for each word. — Paul G 10:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


anurag

Claimed to be a Sanskrit, but Sanskrit does not use the Latin alphabet. This looks like a transliteration. It needs to be replaced with a page in Sanskrit script. — Paul G 10:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hang on! This is the English Wiktionary ? We allow foreign words, as long as they have explanations in English. This fits that description. It may then have a translation which uses the Sanskrit script, and a link to the Sanskrit Wiktionary (??) written in Sanskrit. Or have I missed something ?? It just needs Wikifying, with a ==Sanskrit== language heading.--Richardb 14:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
See Wiktionary talk:Policy - Transliteration
The page on transliteration policy is new and this is the first time I've seen it. As discussion of transliteration is still in a very early stage, "anurag" is currently in limbo. However, if we end up disallowing transliterations, "anurag" as a page (but not as a word in Sanskrit script) will have to go. If we end up accepting transliterations, it will become a redirect page to the page that spells it in Sanskrit script. Either way, it won't remain as it currently stands, even with cleanup. — Paul G 14:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Apparently the transliteration is incorrect in any case - see the article on "anurag" in the page on transliteration policy. So it looks like this page should go (because it is incorrect rather than because it is a transliteration). — Paul G 10:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone actually have anything to say about the proposed /draft transliteration policy ?Wiktionary:Policy - Transliteration ? --Richardb 10:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Traduccional

  • Empty page listed as "notenglish". SemperBlotto 16:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Filled with content, translationary linked to it Polyglot 16:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • IIRC we had a discussion some time ago about whether "translationary" when used as a noun would be a protologism? Eclecticology 18:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I believe there was something like that. My memory doesn't serve me very well though. I don't mind if they are deleted Polyglot 22:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Megan

Just silliness SemperBlotto 22:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Deleted. Connel MacKenzie 22:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Reinstated, and made into a proper entry. Please replace content of nonsense articles with genuine titles rather than deleting them. — Paul G 10:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Um, I thought first names were indexed but the entries themselves were discouraged. That's why I whacked the garbage, instead of replacing it with content. Is my understanding of first names incorrect, or is it just that we should try to create entries no matter what, in lieu of deletion? --Connel MacKenzie 17:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I've never seen anything discouraging adding entries for given names. I have added dozens myself and never had anyone comment on that until now. If a user looks up "rob", the word they are after might actually be the name rather than the verb. Similarly, if they look up "Megan", I believe there should be something there telling them it is a name. — Paul G 10:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the clarification. I don't know why I had that mistaken impression, but I did (and that is why I initially deleted it.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • This one's been adequately fixed and should stay. Still, I don't feel the obligation to replace a nonsense article with something real immediately. Deleting should still be acceptable. The title can always be revived when someone is ready to deal with it. Eclecticology 08:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed. I'll rephrase my request as a comment: "Replacing the content of nonsense articles with genuine titles is preferable to deleting them." (that's more readable too) — Paul G 10:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)



swastik

Might be a translation of "swastika" in some language, but nothing links here, and none of the translations at "swastika" (from Wikipedia) are "swastik". Is this an obsolete English form of the word? — Paul G 09:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The word swastik crops up in lots of Indian websites. It seems to be the Hindi version of swastika rendered in Western text (But I can't quite prove it). SemperBlotto 16:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, the word swastika is not used in India. The word swastik represents an ancient religious symbol, a variation of Nazi insignia. I haven't researched this and I'm fine if the page is deleted. Prajwal
(Above comment from Prajwal might be POV. Restored whole page, then pasted above comment back in.) --Connel MacKenzie 06:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


E-business

I left non-e for the time being, redirected e-business to e-commerce (which needs some work) and deleted the others. SemperBlotto 23:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
<Jun-Dai 22:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)> It should probably be done from scratch, but e-business needs its own entry; it is distinct from e-commerce.

Grrrr

...as well as hmm and mmm.

"The spelling is unclear", says the page. Provide entries for interjections, by all means, but don't go overboard with the number of consonants. "Hm", "mm" (both in the latest Webster's Dictionary) and "grr" might be acceptable. Chambers Dictionary lists "brrr", but the existence of this word could be considered moot.

"Grrrr" is also marked as being for all languages (now commented out), but this is patently false (I doubt that Hindi or Russian spell this word this way, if at all).

Hmm... I only know the world spelled with two m's as standard. "Hm" as an interjection seems rather to be a rather more deprecatory word, a form of "humph!" or however you want to spell it. My instinct tells me the usual spellings are grr, hmm, and mmm, unless a special effect is called for of the type alluded to in hmm. I agree these are probably not multilingual terms though.
Also I searched my several years of IRC logs for use of these words—more useful than a Google search, because Google is full of acronyms that look like this—and made a table because I have lots of free time. —Muke Tever 19:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"gr" 4 times† "hm" 654 times "mm" 393 times‡
"grr" 167 times "hmm" 2,638 times "mmm" 1,291 times
"grrr" 137 times "hmmm" 1,160 times "mmmm" 487 times
"grrrr" 36 times "hmmmm" 166 times "mmmmm" 168 times
"grrrrr" 16 times "hmmmmm" 40 times "mmmmmm" 79 times
"grrrrrr" 5 times "hmmmmmm" 20 times "mmmmmmm" 48 times
"grrrrrrr" once† "hmmmmmmm" 7 times "mmmmmmmm" 26 times
  • † Legitimate uses, excluding hostnames, usernames, etc.
  • ‡ Too many uses to go through and pull out non-legitimates (e.g. "millimeter", "mm" as noise of acknowledgement, etc.).
  • Interesting how "mmm" tends to have a higher extending factor. Hmm...

Tidal wave:Quotes

The lengthy discussion here has become more of a policy discussion than a discussion about this specific article. The discussion have been moved to Wiktionary:Beer parlour/Quotation pages

Yankee ingenuity

How is this different from any other ingenuity. SemperBlotto 16:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • It is a historic phrase. --Connel MacKenzie 17:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The term does exist, but more to characterize a stereotypically American way of doing things. It could stay if the definition is clarified. Eclecticology 00:18, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I can't find any concrete references for filling out the etymology (that it came from war-time, during rationing, when resources were very scarce.) It may be a much older term, as it is applied to Ben Franklin here and there. --Connel MacKenzie 08:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Borg Borg Borg

....clones anything that is put on one of the copies onto the other two copies. I placed the {{rfd}} on one of them, and it appears on all three? Something evil there be happens. Heh... --HiFlyer 17:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is due to the awful way that the Wiki database is structured. Articles are stored using a unique ascending PageID as a key, but retrieved and updated via the ArticleName - which is not unique. There is a way of deleting by PageID, but I don't know how to do it. SemperBlotto 18:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is still not clear to me what the problem is. How does one even see the other articles? (Wiki'ed link might help?) --Connel MacKenzie 18:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

REQUEST: When beginning a new item on this page, please use level three headings; it makes the general management of the page much easier. Eclecticology 18:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This means the "add new entry" script needs to be fixed. It currently creates level-two entries. For entries after March 1st, 2005 this should not be needed anymore. Connel MacKenzie 16:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 2005

Tang Yijie

  • Vanity. -- \Mike 09:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • This seems like a good candidate for {{Move to Wikipedia}}. --Connel MacKenzie 16:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • It has already been splattered there. I just saw it on New Page Patrol. It's at w:Yijie, and it has already been marked as a deletion candidate via the copyright violations process. Uncle G 17:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliaphobia

  • I believe this to be a joke. The supposed meaning does not follow from the makeup of the word. SemperBlotto 18:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Ye Olde Reliable Google Groups test finds this in lists of joke phobias, such as "Aibohphobia: the fear of palindromes". Does [1] listing it as his "word of the day" on 2003-10-03 (see Google Cache) satisfy the inclusion criteria? Or is the fact that he made this Friday's word in "phobia week" too much of a giveaway? ☺ Uncle G 22:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be a redirect to the "correct" (apologies) spelling Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia? (6 p's instead of only 5.) --Connel MacKenzie 03:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Son of a pencil sharpener

Needs evidence. Ephemeral usage. Could even be urban legend. Eclecticology 08:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rivers of Ukraine

Originally pr0n ad. Encyclopedic title. \Mike 20:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 06:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bitty box

Supposed baby talk. SemperBlotto 22:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


aethyr

Purports to be the cardinal points. Language or derivation missing. Looks like rubbish to me. SemperBlotto 12:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • It does appear to be a word, though, even though I cannot, after a brief search, find a usage that matches this particular definition. It appears to be a term in magick and gnosticism. From the search results I'd say, moreover, that it has passed from protologism into jargon. Uncle G 12:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cood

I thought that it was a protologism at first. A quick Google Groups search convinced me that this is a proper noun at least. It's also an abbreviation for coordinate (and a popular mis-spelling of both "cook" and "good", it seems). Hence the RFC rather than the RFD. Uncle G 12:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Scrumtrilescent

Nicely formatted - but no definition, only supposed examples. SemperBlotto 15:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added the definition for the heck of it, but think this would qualify as a protologism, so also added the {{protologism}} comment to the page. In my understanding, it was created on an episode of "Saturday Night Live" spoofing "Inside the Actor's Studio". As those shows have national coverage in America, the word may have picked up a cult following of sorts.--My two cents, for what it's worth.--Alia H 03:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Opcipocal

Protologism. No hits on Google. SemperBlotto 17:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

JeffDedeJeff

Zero hits on Google. SemperBlotto 08:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. SemperBlotto 08:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cily

Purports to be Italian. I have never heard of it. SemperBlotto 17:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not formed like an Italian word - Italian does not use the letter "y", except in words borrowed from languages that do (for example, "whisky"). A quick Google search reveals this site - possibly (I haven't looked) a website for an pop group. That doesn't however justify its entry in Wiktionary. Note the similiarity to the English word "silly". I think someone's having a joke at our expense. — Paul G 09:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Antigonist

Very few hits on google, none of which seem to match definition. Word structure does not seem to match definition either. HelloMrMe

Deleted. SemperBlotto 20:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Central Bank of Ireland

I'm not sure where the boundaries on proper nouns are, exactly, but I'm pretty sure that this oversteps them. central bank, maybe. This, no. Uncle G 20:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

European System of Central Banks

Again, I think that this oversteps the boundaries on proper nouns. Uncle G 20:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ass pus

Need I say more? --HelloMrMe 07:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. SemperBlotto 08:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the latest re-vandalism, I put the notice up and protected the page. --Connel MacKenzie 05:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pizda

Described as female genitals without evidence; He even admits it's not in dictionaries. Eclecticology 10:17, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • From a quick Google Web search it seems to be a word in Polish and Romanian. I've no idea what it means, though, and whether the supplied definition is correct. Also note the supporting translations at twat added by what appears to be a different editor. Uncle G 15:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about Romanian, but it *is* a common Slavic dirty word, which might explain why it wouldn't be found in, e.g., your average English–Eastern-European dictionary. But the "Alternative dictionary" of vulgar slang in various languages (which I can't link to from here, the URL seems to be blocked in the spam filters) suggests it does get used in Romanian. —Muke Tever 18:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

every day

This article (with no definition) means just what it says. It is NOT the adjective everyday. Do we need it? SemperBlotto 17:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I suppose we need it just as much as we need I love you. It would be a useful place to put translations, as in some languages it is a single word, e.g. Japanese, where 毎日 means "every day", which can also mean "everyday" as well, I think. —Muke Tever 18:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I can understand the inclusion of noun phrases, such as dung beetle. But an article for something that not only is not a single part of speech (This is adjective+noun.) but also is two words is very dubious. If this is permissible, then one has to ask where the line is actually drawn for article titles. Where do we stop? Whole sentences? Uncle G 11:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aarau

Content is Saubraz - are these German placenames? SemperBlotto 17:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Deleted. If it is a German place name he should have said so! Eclecticology 06:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

mid-November

Also for the other months.

  • How is the use of mid- here any different from what might be expected? Eclecticology 19:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It isn't. That brings up another issue, though. Should mid be at mid-? Do we include the hyphens in prefixes? Uncle G 11:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that we need the hyphens in prefixes and suffixes to distinguish, say super from super-
  • Delete. But article is non-deletable at the moment. SemperBlotto 11:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I've copied Wikipedia's mechanism for dealing with this, and tagged the article. Uncle G
      • Yes, hyphens are included in prefixes and suffixes. See the appendices. — Paul G 09:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Crow

  • Encyclopedic. --HelloMrMe 22:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. But it is another of these damn undeletable articles. SemperBlotto 11:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I've copied Wikipedia's mechanism for dealing with this, and tagged the article. Uncle G 23:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

U's

  • Illiterate usage. Eclecticology 06:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • A tricky one. Does all words in all languages include Internet slang? Wiktionary certainly is happy to have some of the abbreviations and contractions therefrom, and other slang abbreviations and contractions. What distinguishes u (for you) and u's (for youse — which occurs in Scottish English too, by the way) from the likes of ain't (which isn't slang, by the way) and y'all? Uncle G 12:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • In my recent cleanup of the categories, I've discovered that all words in all languages does include Internet slang, or at least Category:Leet. Uncle G 12:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't know about other people, but I was tagging articles as "leet" so I could find them easier later on, for deletion. --Connel MacKenzie 17:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The page is valid, at least; u's is the plural of u (the letter, I mean, not the pronoun). List "u's" as an alternative spelling of youse—with whatever usage tag you find appropriate—and put a reference to it in u's (but not a full article). —Muke Tever 02:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Smowz

Rubbish--69.11.250.229 22:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish deleted. SemperBlotto 22:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ultrametamorphic

Ultrametamorphic smells like a protologism, not worthy of its redirect, to me. --Connel MacKenzie 19:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • It seems to be a real term in Geology. Google Web turns up occurrences in geology papers. It moreover seems to be accepted and understood widely enough within the field to not itself require definition, but to instead be used in the definitions of other terms. See [2] for example. It's probably not synonymous with metamorphic to a geologist, so to be on the safe side I'd give it a definition of ultra- + metamorphic. Uncle G 19:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have found a proper definition at my local library (in a recent Webster - it wasn't in the BIG Oxford). SemperBlotto 17:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eutopy

Categories

These categories are now empty. Their category pages serve no useful purpose and can be deleted. Uncle G 12:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

supercalifragilisticxpalidocious

Mis-spelling of supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Anyone who remembers the song should remember the correct number of syllables. The word doesn't fit the tune otherwise. ☺ Uncle G 15:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 16:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Titivate

  • Titivate Ms Leopold + Titivate does not result in any hits on google. --Connel MacKenzie 17:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ms Leopold has a larger vocabulary than her students have, it seems. ☺ Uncle G 01:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WikiPied

Wikidom I'll just about stomach. But this is too much. If anything would turn up such a word, it would be Google, but Web has 1 hit (questioning whether it is a word) and Groups has zero hits. Uncle G 01:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. — Paul G 10:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aeropetespithekosozophobia

Vfd

I think this belongs in a "terms used by Wiktionary/Wikipedia/wikis"-type appendix rather than as a main entry. — Paul G 09:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. My rationale was in the vein of trying to be nice to visiting Wikipedians, who tend to make this error. --Connel MacKenzie 06:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aye Aye, Sir

Needed? Surely "aye aye" suffices. The capitalisation is redundant, too. Otherwise we might also want "yes sir", "no ma'am", "maybe Your Majesty", etc (OK, I exaggerate a bit). — Paul G 16:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, according to the "Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea", it is an official Royal Naval phrase, with capitalisation, distinct from Aye Aye, which is the response to a hail. SemperBlotto 17:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Could you update the article to this effect, Jeff? — Paul G 09:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So updated. SemperBlotto 10:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vire ton cul de mon paysage

Nice, and correct French grammar, but does this exist? There are no Google hits. Someone might well have used it in a TV programme, but that alone doesn't make it worthy of an entry in Wiktionary, any more than "get the hell off my land" would be. — Paul G 17:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Colourful expression, but the meaning is perfectly predictable. Someone who wants to cite a TV programme as a reference should specifically identify the programme so that the information can be traced. Eclecticology 19:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ʆ

Not written in English - what is this symbol anyway?

It's a curled esh :x) Apparently it's a (non-IPA) symbol representing the palatalized version of [ʃ], [ʃ] being the sound of English "sh". It may have other uses. —Muke Tever 18:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


swyfe

The only two contributions by this person are ancient Scots sexual terms. Should be documented if we keep this. Eclecticology 12:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Added note. --Connel MacKenzie 07:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blooming

Gerunds and (present) participles are not to be classified as nouns and adjectives, respectively. Even less so should they have their own pages. Ncik 12 Mar 2005

There has been some agreement in the past that to facilitate "direct-hits" the other forms do merit their own entries (usually with just a redirect.) In the current scheme, it is very easy for someone to add a valid noun definition for blooming that is very much unlike any definition found under bloom.
Keep. --Connel MacKenzie 06:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The solution to the problem you mentioned in the sentence "In the current scheme,..." is not allowing separate pages for gerunds, participles etc. It would eliminate your worries about synchronization (If there are words whose gerund or particple has a genuinely different meaning from all its verb forms (contradiction!?), please give examples). Ncik 13 Mar 2005
I'm talking about blooming vs. bloom right here. This specific individual word blooming seems very much to merit its own entry. (Who said anything about synchronization?) Wiktionary:Beer parlour#-ly_and_-ing? is proabaly a better place to discuss the general concept (where this was specifically discussed before.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A gerund or participle won't usually have a different meaning exclusive of its original verb's, but it will often have extra meanings that the verb doesn't have. An example is from the Latin verb orior "to rise" — the present participle oriens, which does mean "rising", also has extended meanings (the most common probably being "the East", whence English orient). Lewis & Short's Latin dictionary is full of definitions of participles (though not under their own headwords—which are merely references to the verb they belong to--but as subentries under their verb). —Muke Tever 17:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying to limit my discussion to English words. In this case, the specific word blooming. It does seem to have an extra meaning (I wouldn't use the word exclusive here.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fisting

Same reason as above (blooming). Ncik 12 Mar 2005

Ncik is right. Both counts. --HiFlyer 03:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. As much as I find offense in the vulgarity of the term, it is a common meaning in Hollywood.
  2. And it is a very different meaning that anything hinted at in the fist entry.
  3. And separate senses do merit their own entries (still.)
Keep. --Connel MacKenzie 06:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hypocalciuria

Made into a proper article. SemperBlotto

Wichio can tonka

Content is just "wichio" which seems to be the name of a web bowser. SemperBlotto 07:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Deleted. Perhaps "tonka" refers to the toy trucks. :-) Eclecticology 19:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

aol

Content is "Adverb. Word used to express agreement with a statement." We have a proper entry for AOL. Does aol mean anything to anyone? SemperBlotto 12:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

aol might be an acronym for ass outta luck, like sol is for shit out of luck. Now a-ok might be what goes there...Just a guess --HiFlyer 17:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's valid slang. It's derived from AOL the Internet service — the joke is that AOL users especially near the beginning of Endless September were prone to posting replies to Usenet posts consisting of "me too" with no useful content. Although I think it's more an interjection than an adjective. (As already mentioned on the talk page, see the Jargon file on this word) —Muke Tever 00:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Copaste

Possibly intended to be an amalgamation of "copy" and "paste", but the definition does not suggest this, and I haven't found any references on Google. Google has 1000+ hits but many of these are to Spanish pages. — Paul G 10:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. SemperBlotto 10:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Velleity

If this is a protologism, it's a bloody old one. Get your Latin dictionaries out and look up velleitas. Or just stick the word into Google Web and notice that 7 out of the first 10 hits are various on-line dictionary entries (AHD, Hutchinson, M-W, &c.) for this word. Uncle G 22:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for good catch. IIRC, this was during a vandal flurry. I have rolled back my incorrect changes. --Connel MacKenzie 04:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slurpies

Currently blanked by author. I believe the proper plural is slurpees. I have created new page for Slurpee. Am I correct in this assumption, or is this an alternate spelling used by the masses? Personally, I've been using the term iccy since a child, so I'm not sure. Mark4011 02:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Desiliter

    • Deleted, along with "desilitre". They were moved to the correct pages and are now redirects. I don't think either is a common misspelling. — Paul G 10:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Паскал

  • No... It's an example of the Pascal (Паскал) programming language. Why it's here, I don't know. —Muke Tever 15:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

blogettes

Is this real? It is linked to from "blog", which suggests it is good.

It needs to be cleaned up and moved to "blogette". — Paul G 13:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Abrreviation list

This is well meaning, but is in the wrong place. It should probably be something like Wiktionary:List of abbreviations. Do we have anything like that? Do we have a list of lists? SemperBlotto 09:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there already is a list (an appendix or maybe a category, I think), but I think the person who set this one up wants it to be a list of abbreviations used in dictionaries. Wiktionary only abbreviates genders, nothing else - there is no need, as Wiktionary is not a paper dictionary. I think this makes this page rather redundant (and of course the title is misspelled). — Paul G 12:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As Paul said, yes, we have both Category:Abbreviations, Acronyms and Initialisms and the older Wiktionary:List of acronyms and abbreviations. Also of mention is Wiktionary:Abbreviations in Webster, and on a related note WS:I2T. I also see no reason to keep this. --Connel MacKenzie 07:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Does not serve any useful purpose. Deleted. — Paul G 09:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Plante fasin blong bifo i stap

Is "Bislama" a language? Is giving the English for this phrase useful? — Paul G 12:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1) Yes. 2) No. Consider it deleted. SemperBlotto 13:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anatistical

This was added to Wikipedia by a bot, and has now been transferred here by the transwiki system. I do not believe it to be genuine. SemperBlotto 20:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Smutriculator

More rubbish from the transwiki system. SemperBlotto 20:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • See w:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Smutriculator (and note that this wasn't transwikied but submitted in parallel to both Wikipedia and Wiktionary by the same original author) Uncle G 04:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks we need a page that lists words like this for which no meaning is clear, but which have a legitimate literary origin. Eclecticology 05:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geegy

See w:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Geegy Uncle G 04:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I would delete unless somebody can provide a legitimate source. Eclecticology 05:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleddau Bridge

Not really dictionary material, and not enough for an encyclopedia. SemperBlotto 22:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Probably make a good start of an article in Wikipedia. Perhaps it is recent news? Hard to tell from this entry. --Connel MacKenzie 02:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Still looks more encyclopedic than lexicographical. Eclecticology 05:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • See w:Pembroke Dock and w:Neyland. Uncle G 08:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nimf

  • Nimf perhaps it should be Netherlands Investment Matching Fund? --Connel MacKenzie 04:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Deleted. If your alternative is valid it would belong under NIMF. Eclecticology 05:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion&oldid=173452"