Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

This page is one of the Wiktionary:Utilities. Its purpose is to request and discuss the deletion of articles, definitions, and other pages. 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
• Sysops who delete pages that have been listed here should 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 category of all those entries / pages tagged with the template {{rfd}} (Requests for Deletion).

Entries are automatically withdrawn from this list if the {{rfd}} and/or [[Category:Requests for deletion]] code is removed from the entry. It should only be removed if the result of the deletion discussion was to keep the entry.

These entries may have the discussion of why the entry needs deletion or why it should be kept 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. When doing so, please include 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 Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion process, which includes 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: 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:

• Unwritten article

Alert list

The following items were cleared and then protected:

• Starfrosch
• You are an idiot!
• Wiktionary:WikiProject Chinese Characters
• Mlingk and multilingual associations

These are mostly items that have persistently reappeared. They should be shot on sight.

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)

Bug apparently has been fixed, removing category now (and this message later in the week.) --Connel MacKenzie 22:38, 22 May 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)

E-business

• E-business. Flurry of nonsense from several anon IPs. --Connel MacKenzie 23:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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.

My point in nominating this for deletion is that e-whatever and iwhatever are lower (in terms of acceptability) than "leet" terms. If anything, people should be warned that using such terms will lower people's opinion (of the intellegence of the person using the term.) We certainly shouldn't be encouraging these perversions of the language. Obviously, that is my POV opinion. --Connel MacKenzie 06:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Text added to Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion:

There is occasionally concern that adding an entry for a particular term will lead to entries for a large number of similar terms. This is not a problem, as each term is considered on its own, based on whether it is in wide use, not on whether it is similar to some term in wide use. Some examples:

• Any word in any language might be borrowed into English, but only a few actually are. Including spaghetti does not imply that ricordati is next.
• Any word may be rendered in Pig-Latin, but only a few (e.g., amscray) have found their way into common use.
• Any word may be rendered in leet style, but only a few (e.g., pr0n) see general use.
• Grammatical affixes like meta- and -ance can be added in a great many more cases than they actually are (Some basic suffixes like plural -s and past tense -ed really can be used almost anywhere. Adding terms with these inflections but with no special meaning is mostly harmless but discouraged).
• It may seem that trendy internet prefixes like e- and i are used everywhere, but they aren't. If I decide to talk about e-thumb-twiddling but no one else does, then there's no need for an entry.

E-business is used all the time, in news stories, advertisements and most likely scholarly journals by now. There are plenty of terms and particularly senses of terms that I don't like, but that can't keep them out of Wiktionary. There is ample precedent for including a "Usage note" to the effect that, say, "this term is considered <your pejorative here> by many", though be warned it generally takes a few iterations to get the languages of such a note hammered out to everyone's equally mild dissatisfaction. -dmh 19:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

March 2005

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)

Delete Kevin Rector 05:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I too think this is a delete. CBI is linked here on a rhymes page, but google for CBI turns up plenty of TLAs before this. (I didn't actually dig down far enough to see if this ever did show up, BTW.) --Connel MacKenzie 04:37, 18 May 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)

Delete Kevin Rector 05:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep: It is not obvious what "European" refers to. The article provides this information and thus should be kept. Ncik 09 May 2005

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)

Why not just redirect it to Main Page and protecting so the vandals aren't even getting that much recognition? Kevin Rector 05:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Connel MacKenzie 07:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Perhaps it would look better redirected to something like Wiktionary:Vandalized pages with an explanation there, that someone's hobby is to vandalize pages here. --Connel MacKenzie 22:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to REDIRECT --error: link target missing--. --Connel MacKenzie 11:39, 8 May 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)

I'm a Romanian native speaker, and I can confirm that it is a dirty word which means female genitals. —User:memox26

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)
  • I'm not crazy about this, but there does seem to be scattered evidence for it. I'd like to see a couple of citations in which U's is used as described in the middle of otherwise ordinary text (this was a major reason for accepting pr0n in my view). The examples I've turned up so far are in a contexts like yOuu pEople have nO idea wHat u's are taLKin bOut and Hey JT n the boyz form MDP, I think u are the best and I no that u's are ganna go far keep doign u'r thang. Hardly "illiterate", but not I'm not convinced I'd call this general usage. I would count boyz, though, at 1 million+ google hits. -dmh 19:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Including this sets a dangerous precedent whereby we will have to have an entry for any concievable spelling of a word no matter how obscure or incorrect. I'd delete it. Kevin Rector 05:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Delete - unless it can be shown to be a common phrase. Kevin Rector 05:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

?

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 [?], [?] 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)

• This word seems to be in "Ane Satyre of the Thrie Estaitis (1554)" at least according to w:History_of_the_Scots_language. Meaning looks right too: "Thay swyfe Ladies, Madinis and vther mens wyfis". Might just be a spelling varation of Swive? Kappa 20:27, 25 Apr 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)

Delete as this is marginally valid slang if it is at all. Kevin Rector 05:58, 28 Apr 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)

Delete - It's not real, if it is real it only has been for a week (sarcasm). Let's let it age and see if it catches on ouside of the 738 (out of 6.6 billion) people who've used it so far. Kevin Rector 06:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki:Zorras

1) No language entry. 2) seems to be a plural. SemperBlotto 17:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Note that neither of these are true any more. I intend to review the transwikied articles once the bulk have been moved, by the way. Uncle G 13:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep as Uncle G has fixed it up. Kevin Rector 06:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is the plural of zorra, which in turn is the feminine form of zorro. I am going to make this a redirect to zorro which will include the noun and adj. forms, both masc. and fem. as well as sing. and pl. With that I will also remove the RFD - TheDaveRoss 07:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki:Zurbuchen

Do we need a Swiss surname? SemperBlotto 17:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Four-coloured kingfisher

This does not seem to exist. Only Google hits for "Halcyon quadricolor" are empty definitions. SemperBlotto 22:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete as unverified/unverifiable. Kevin Rector 06:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Philipp

Typo? Philip and Phillip are the only spellings of this name I am aware of. — Paul G 10:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I thought that, too ... until I did a Google search and found the likes of Phillipp Lenard [1], Phillipp Gemacher [2], and Phillipp Haas [3]. English may not be the right language (although it's unclear to me what is), but it's definitely a given name. As I recall, the Greek equivalent has two πs as well. So it may well be that Philip and Phillip are the mis-spellings. ☺ Uncle G 11:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No, just because the Greek spelling has two (consecutive) πs does not make Philip and Phillip misspellings, any more than "macaroni" is a misspelling of the Italian maccheroni or "czar" is a misspelling of the Russian ????. That's just how the name came to be transliterated. Note that it's "Philipp" (one "l") that I'm asking about, rather than "Phillipp". It may be that these are rare alternative spellings; if so, they need to be marked up as such. &madsh; Paul G 09:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    1. Get yourself a web browser that renders "☺" properly. (The one that I use at home doesn't, either. ☺)
    2. In which case have Philipp Lenssen [4], Philipp Slusallek [5], Philipp Hoschka [6], and Georg Philipp Telemann [7], all of whom were on the first page of the Google Web search results. Uncle G 14:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I get a funny blob that looks like a smiley if you squint at it. But it could just as easily be read as a squished bullet. Your posting makes sense now <smiley>. I'll sort out "Philipp" and "Phillipp". — Paul G 09:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• So does Wiktionary want ever spelling of every first name? My wife works in a hospital and there's quite a few people that apparently just make names up, are we going to have entries for Tonishatin and Hondihala and Loquishinta? Just wondering out loud? Perhaps all the variant spellings of common first names could simple redirect to the standard spelling. Kevin Rector 06:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, Philipp is the normal German spelling of the name. --Angr 15:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mysogeny

As far as I can tell, this is a mis-spelling of misogyny. Uncle G 14:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Um, there's a little MOVE button that you should use, instead of creating the new article then requesting the old one to be deleted (after you corrected it.) Google returns more than a few results for the misspelling (and as I recall, they didn't have this spelling redirect when I first entered this group of words.) Keep (as just a "common misspelling of misogyny" entry.) --Connel MacKenzie 14:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As usual, your description is not what actually happened. Read the change log, my edit comments, and indeed the edit histories of the two articles themselves. Uncle G 14:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed this comment. Care to elaborate on your allegation? What description did not reflect "what actually happened"? --Connel MacKenzie 03:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirected to misogyny SemperBlotto 14:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Either Delete or Redirect to Misogyny. Putting an entry in as a "common mispelling" just seems wrong to me. I've never seen any other dictionary that has entries for mispellings. In fact it seems to go against the whole nature of a dictionary. Misspellings (if kept at all) should be redirects. Kevin Rector 06:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When I tried that a long time ago, my change was (almost instantly, IIRC) reverted and I was cautioned against giving misspellings an air of legitamacy in that manner. If someone spells it wrong and looks it up here, they should be informed that they misspelt it. That was the major reason I was given, anyhow. --Connel MacKenzie 06:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Well ok, that makes some sense I suppose. Kevin Rector 18:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Mysandry

As far as I can tell, this is a mis-spelling of misandry. Uncle G 14:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep as note of misspelling. (Edit conflict) --Connel MacKenzie 14:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Redirected to misandry SemperBlotto 14:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Complement of the subject

No definition. If one exists, it should be included in complement. SemperBlotto 16:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yiff

Protologism with a surprising number of meanings; possible copyvio (see [8]); seems to have been invented for a laugh rather than to fulfil any useful purpose (see the aforementioned link again). — Paul G 09:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• See w:yiff. To my surprise, the number of Google Groups hits convinces me that this satisfies both criteria 1 and 4 of Wiktionary:criteria for inclusion. (Also see this.) I think that you're right about the copyright violation, though. I'll do one of my rewrites. Do you want to keep this content in the history, or do you want the rewrite at Yiff/Temp ? Uncle G 14:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite to avoid copyvio. Yeah, it's a furry slang word with a wide range of meanings. (The adjective "yiffy" also has disparate meanings, from "sexually aroused" to "sexually appealing") Been around for a very long time, and even was on the episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation where they went to a furry convention. Too old to be a protologism. BTW, that etymology of "Y.I.F.F." that Bahumat gives may be genuine, but probably unrelated to the current word; see [9]. A good extended definition is here. —Muke Tever (a furry)
  • The rewrite is at yiff/Temp. Delete the original copyright violation and then move this into place. (The Wikipedia link will then be automatically correct.) I've also given you yiffs, yiffy, yiffing, yiffed, yiffable, yiffest, yiffer, and YIFF — all (bar the last) complete with quotations — for good measure. I've done my part starting you off. Further improvements, such as quotations for the adjectival senses of yiff and yiffer and citations from CSI: Crime Scene Investigation dialogue, are up to you. Uncle G 23:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, but I'm not an admin on en:, so I cant delete the original copyvio. —Muke Tever 15:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Nor am I. I expect that one of the administrators will notice this discussion shortly, though. Uncle G 02:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yiff deleted. Yiff/Temp moved to Yiff. Yiff/Temp deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 06:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April

E-quaintances and E-quainted

• E-quaintances and E-quainted - e-nonsense. Protologisms at best. --Connel MacKenzie 10:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • And yet you aren't nominating e-quaintance ? Uncle G 13:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed, that one as well. All three are protologisms promoted by on-line dating services with minimal actual web use, and apparently no actual print use. And the discussions about such constructed protologisms has gone on at length in the past, perhaps before your time here. These should be (at most) single line entries in Wiktionary:List of protologisms. And then deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 16:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • So Dmh's comment that these are not protologisms, in the history of e-quaintance, just passes you by? And there's no evidence to back up your assertion that on-line dating services are the promoters of these words, upon which you are basing your argumement. None of the quotations in e-quaintance or e-quaintances have anything remotely to do with dating. Uncle G 20:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your lack of diplomacy is (pointlessly) off-putting. You had already pointed out that I had missed (entirely) e-quaintance. All the quotations are internet related, but I was referring to the results of doing a very quick www.google.com search for the terms...which showed a heavy bias towards on-line dating. Furthermore, although I respect dmh's opinion, even he can make a mistake; I did not see any justification for his assertion that it is not. JesseW obviously first pointed out the term's specious origin. The point that you are adept/talented at cleaning up an article, does not make the word any less of a protologism. --Connel MacKenzie 21:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Things may have changed in my absence, and if so that's fine, but my understanding was that a protologism was essentially a term and definition offered up in the hope of usage. If it's already in use prior to the definition, then it's not a protologism. The judgment call here is what we decide to call "in use". We tend to disallow terms whose only examples are limited to a particular person or entity. If I work for FleargleCorp and we all call ourselves "Fleargloids", but no one else does, that's too specialized. If I concoct a philosophy of fleargology and want to promote it by defining it on Wiktionary, that's going to get shot down too — I need to promote myself to the point that people unconnected with me are using it, and then it can go in. We're also careful about trademarks that haven't become household words for similar reasons. Much of the impetus is from the desire to keep Wiktionary being from used as a promotional vehicle. To me, this is one of very few reasons not to err on the side of inclusiveness.

In this case, while I quite agree that I can make mistakes (duck tape anyone?), I don't think this is one of them. E-quaintance seems to be fairly widely used, and its origin in online dating is not relevant here. It's not a trademark of a particular company, it's just a bit of net.jargon that may well fade into obscurity but hasn't yet. That said, I'm not a big fan of separate entries trivial inflections. I'd think E-quaintances and E-quainted should be no more than redirects to E-quaintance and E-quaint. -dmh 19:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that clarification. By your explained definition, it would clearly be included. But my understanding was that there was a distinction between print and internet-only references. I do not recall seeing any NYTimes quotatons in my cursory google search, so nominating it seemed (and still does seem) reasonable. --Connel MacKenzie 07:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just had a go at updating/clarifying Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion, but even before that there was no specific mention of print. As long as we don't just go by sheer numbers of google hits (unless that number is in the thousands), the internet is an extremely valuable source of attestations. -dmh 18:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I strongly object to you adding the anything-goes line It has been used in running text in at least three independently recorded instances, whether in print, audio, video or on the internet. "...publicly available written texts" is pretty much the exact opposite of what you wrote! That does not coincide with the spirit of the previous versions; it directly conflits with them. This opens the door for vandals (or anyone promoting their protologism) to post three blurbs on three different blogs. The previous phrase (that you deleted) "publicly available written texts" essentially refered to anything one can check out of a public library. That is certainly a specific mention of print.

• I appreciate your notion that it would be nice for Wiktionary to be the first "authority" to validate a new term, but that clearly is not our goal. There is something to be said for not including "leet" terms and limiting entries to spoken languages. Suddently including massive quantities of questionable terms only makes Wiktionary look like a very unreliable reference.

• Lastly, no one, when doing a google search, can conceivably verify more than the first few entries (alternately, the first entry from several pages.) Instead, time and time again, the simple number of google hits is referenced. Google hits shouldn't be a permissable positive justification for a word's use; the pages linked to should be the attestations. Google itself is a great resource, but is being relied on too heavily, often inappropriately.

• The problem with google search results is that they are not verified. Published items are.

• To slide this change into Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion, obfuscate the change with dozens of good improvements and then to misrepresent it is very underhanded. I have held a high opinion of you in the past; I am baffled by this, as it seems intentional. --Connel MacKenzie 06:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

financé and financée

Both are misspellings. Ncik 03 Apr 2005

• deleted. Eclecticology 05:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) Though one could say that society women go to university to find doctors and lawyers who will ensure that they are better "financée" in their marriage. :-)

fazillion

Only 38 Google hits - do we need to limit the number of these invented words? After all, just about any syllables can be stuck on the end of "zillion" or "jillion" to make up any number of these. — Paul G 09:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Our normal criteria for inclusion should apply, and act as the limiting factor. The fact that a word is invented is irrelevant. All words were invented. I gave you all of the other words because they appear to fulfil those criteria, being in widespread common use. (43800 Google Groups hits for bazillion, for example. Even bajillion, the lowest, gets 1050 Google Groups hits.) I didn't give you this, or any other of the (as you rightly say) many possible variants, because they appear not to. ☺ (A mere 5 Google Groups hits for fazillion.) So I'm with you. Delete. Uncle G 11:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with you on the point about "invented words". That was a bad chose of term on my part. Perhaps "nonce word" (or even "non-word") might have been more appropriate. — Paul G 11:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Deleted — Paul G 11:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • This one looks good to me. Just about any syllable can be stuck onto the end of zillion or jillion, but most aren't, and that's interesting data. The criteria for inclusion have called for three citations within a year for quite a while (I indadvertently dropped "in a year", but don't see a great need to reinstate it). There seem to be at least that many hits in the last year. -dmh 20:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • There has only been one Google Group occurrence within the past year. The next earlier occurrence was 19 months before that. To put this reliance solely on the numbers somewhat into perspective: kdpnq gets 5 Google Groups hits, too — three of which are in a single year, moreover. Uncle G 22:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure I follow the logic here. The real criterion is whether people are using a term outside a specialized context, not whether there is a certain number of usages in google groups, or findable via google search, or in the Congressional Record, or in any particular place. In this case, it's easy to turn up three independent usages within a year of each other, even (arbitrarily) disallowing compound constructions like "a billiion fazillion hojillion" or whatever. I don't see how it matters whether they're in google groups. For example:
            • Could you add a 'characters' subcategory under the 3D section please? It will make moderating 3D a fazillion times easier. in [10] from May 7, 2005
            • I can finally catch up on sleep after a fazillion days of sleep deprivation. in [11] from March 13, 2005.
            • Tell me a gorilla is not 90 fazillion times cooler than either of those mascots. in [12] on July 2, 2004.
          • As to kdpng, I don't see three independent entries in running text. I just see hits that happen to have that sequence of characters. From context, it looks like it might be rot13, except it decodes to "xqcat", so maybe not. In any case, it doesn't seem relevant, except as an example of why raw google hits are not enough.
          • Personally I don't think the "within a year" criterion is particularly useful, and "within the last year" is right out as it excludes dated usages we're trying to document. -dmh 16:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • No-one said anything about things being required to be in Google Groups. That requirement is a red herring that you've introduced. And the point about kdpnq was precisely that basing things solely upon the numbers is problematic (the flaws of the Google Web and Google Groups tests, especially below their noise thresholds, being well known). I'm not convinced by what you've put forward that fazillion has become a word yet. Your mis-spelling "billiion" above is an order of magnitude more common than it is, and even has a more definite meaning. Rustling up a grand total of 43 occurrences of "fazillion", as we have between us (presuming that there are no duplicates - which of course is more than likely), is not impressive. Moreover, such a low bar leaves Wiktionary wide open to protologisms. It would be relatively easy for a single determined person to, say, get kdpnq independently repeated enough times to satisfy your new "at least three independent occurrences in the whole of history" (which is what it boils down to) criterion. The stereotypical "handful of schoolchildren trying to get their made-up word into the dictionary" certainly could satisfy such a criterion with only a moderate amount of work. Uncle G 03:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Kevin Rector 03:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tooth-to-jowl

I think he means cheek by jowl SemperBlotto 21:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No, it was used in my home when I was growing up, although a Google search does reveal only two instances of the phrase: "Most Latinos don’t live tooth-to-jowl because they love each other so much." http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2002/April/07/biz/stories/06biz.htm and "... facilities in areas where people are living tooth-to-jowl means going the whole day without relieving oneself..." http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/tf7interim.pdf

• I wish people would sign their posts! It's a matter of courtesy.

  I've checked the quotes and they seem convincing. The best place for these quotes is on the article page where they can be evidence of the use, so I've copied them there and added proper credits. Eclecticology 07:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Abad

Not a word. --69.11.250.91 18:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• "What links here" tells us that it's a word in Old English, Breton, and Indonesian. Uncle G 12:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Abney

Not a word. --69.11.250.91 18:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The article tells us that it is a surname. Uncle G 12:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems like a pretty good reason to delete it then. --Connel MacKenzie 07:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not if one reads the Main Page and notices the Wiktionary Appendix:Surnames listed there. Uncle G 01:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Hey, it's not my policy. I recall reading (somewhere) that on Wiktionary, we list surnames in the appendix, but the link should remain red - surnames themselves are not to be kept as entries.
      • Also, it should be mentioned that Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion has been changed massively since I linked it on 07:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC), largely without discussion. At least, any conversation about the changes is not immediately evident. --Connel MacKenzie 07:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Lovedom

Appears to be a protologism. --69.11.248.65 16:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Mikhail Epstein is User:Mikhail Epstein, by the way. Uncle G 12:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary talk:Ass Pus Parlour Kaboodle, Wiktionary:Ass Pus Parlour Peep Show and Scrapie ass pus off my peenie

Created by you-know-who. \Mike 18:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, as usual. Eclecticology 03:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To be or not to be

This is not Wikiquote. SemperBlotto 06:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Agree. Nor is the phrase sufficiently idiomatic to warrant an entry. Eclecticology 07:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted. SemperBlotto 09:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sugarpic

No such word. Also see w:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sugarpic. Uncle G 12:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted SemperBlotto 19:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

food pipe

Seems to be my own invention Ncik 09 Apr 2005

• Deleted SemperBlotto 19:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Google turns up 10,800 hits, e.g.,

• A new screening test for oesophageal (food pipe) cancer could dramatically improve survival from the disease",
• Heartburn occurs when the acid contents of the stomach pass backwards up into the food pipe (called the gullet or oesophagus)."
• "Heartburn", so called due to its location (near the heart, as people describe it), is a discomfort caused by acid from the stomach as it is expelled into the lower part of the esophagus (the food pipe). Usually, people who complain of heartburn also have a problem with the valve which closes over the top of the stomach after food enters from the food pipe; this valve, which is called the Cardia Sphincter, becomes relaxed ... and it allows the acid to be released into the food pipe. The cells which make up the esophagus (food pipe) are different than those which are in the stomach lining, and are not capable of handling the acid. Hence there is a burning sensation - heartburn. Another cause of heartburn (there are a few others, in fact) include a "hiatal hernia", which is a "raising of part of the stomach" above the diaphragm (the muscle which pulls down into the abdomen when breathing). Essentially (and normally), the stomach remains under the diaphragm and the food pipe goes through the diaphragm and then into the stomach. Sometimes, however (as with a good number of people with the problem), the stomach slides above the diaphragm, which also propels food and acid back into the food pipe, and again causes burning in the area, which is described by the patient as heartburn.

I'll leave it to someone else to extract a definition from this raw material -dmh 19:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aegis cruiser

If it needs an entry here then it should be Aegis class cruiser - but even that would probably be better suited to -pedia. SemperBlotto 06:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Are there any guidelines for this kind of thing? I see twinkie has an entry... Kappa 21:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

veg*n

• veg*n - if anything, should be a redirect to vegan. Delete? --Connel MacKenzie 19:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree, since
    1. It doesn't mean the same thing as vegan.
    2. It has an established usage in the vegetarian and vegan community -- see, right there I normally would have typed "veg*n community". Examples: [13] [14] [15] [16] Note that in all of these pages "veg*n" is not synonymous with "vegan", or with "vegetarian" for that matter.
    3. Some people are confused about the usage, understandably, since it looks closer to "vegan" than the longer word "vegetarian": hence the need for a dictionary definition. E.g., this person: [17] Note the first and third replies.
  • I am requesting this be undeleted. Zach Alexander 11:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted SemperBlotto 19:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Why? The reasons above look pretty clear to me. It's attested. It has a well-defined meaning. Perhaps there's an issue with the spelling? But we've had this discussion already. See G-d, pH, GiB, and of course everyone's favorite, pr0n.

Um, what happened to GiB? -dmh 16:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it is mistakenly at gib. --Connel MacKenzie 05:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Restored. SemperBlotto 16:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Next time I put something up that looks iffy (and I admit this does) I'll try to put a few reasons/links on the talk page. Zach 13:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Excellent! -dmh 04:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Indonsian months

• Typo in title, made by me. Correct category is category:Indonesian months. \Mike 01:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Deleted. — Hippietrail 02:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Depa

Wrong alphabet, wrong capitalisation. Should be delta-epsilon-rho-alpha (all in capitals), not dee-ee-ar-ay. — Paul G 15:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 16:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sheepshly

looks like typo Ncik 14 Apr 2005

Javier solana

Wikipedia stuff under wrong title Ncik 17 Apr 2005

Peter Gadiel

Wikipedia stuff Ncik 17 Apr 2005

Foreign relations of Sudan how to write sentences and Foreign relations of Sudan languages

Obviously bollocks Ncik 18 Apr 2005

• Deleted some time ago. SemperBlotto 16:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The cage by Neil Bissoondath story of a young Japanese woman, cocrophilia, cocrophiliac

The latter two are misspellings. Added usable parts where they belong. Ncik 18 Apr 2005

• All deleted. SemperBlotto 16:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cheble

Does this word exist (in any language)? Anyway, contains nothing to be taken serious, especially when having a look at the talk page. Ncik 19 Apr 2005

Deleted both. --Connel MacKenzie 06:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hotfull

Misspelt; dubious - can anyone find an example of "hotful" in this sense? — Paul G 16:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted SemperBlotto 16:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, that one's possible to rescue (valid sv:). But don't worry, I'll make a new entry :) \Mike 17:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

7ofSpades' contributions

Boobtastic, titerific, titerrific, jizztastic, geekasm - all protologisms that seem to have been invented by the contributor for the nonce. — Paul G 08:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• If we had "votes for deletion" as in another place, I would vote to delete all of these made-up words. SemperBlotto 21:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them, this isnt urbandictionary. But maybe it should be...hmmm, policy change time. We'll see --Wonderfool 23:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I doubt it, and I for one would object to it. Wiktionary:Beer parlour/Protologisms. People know where UrbanDictionary is if they want it, in any case. On past evidence, I'd say that the people who make up words certainly know. Uncle G 01:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete the lot of them. Kevin Rector 06:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I deleted them all except for geekasm which does seem to have some usage. Kevin Rector 15:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Famster

Does this word exist? In what language? SemperBlotto 21:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Google says that Lil Jon & The Eastside Boyz had this word in a song of theirs. However, that song sucks. And urbandictionary doesnt have it neither. --Wonderfool 21:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete It's not a word. Kevin Rector 06:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Umm, suckage is not cause for deletion (would that it were), but lack of mention anywhere outside the song in question would be. -dmh 05:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. SemperBlotto 15:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki log

A bunch that I untranswikified: Transwiki:Blower, Transwiki:Byline, Transwiki:Breeches, Transwiki:Drey, Transwiki:Dwelling, Transwiki:French door, Transwiki:Cardinal symptom Wonderfool. More: Transwiki:Gourmand, Transwiki:Hock (zoology), Transwiki:Impost, Transwiki:Tinsel, Transwiki:Theater (military), Transwiki:Suicide king, Transwiki:Spoken pause, Transwiki:Strok (handwriting). Im off2bed soon--Wonderfool 00:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• If you turn them into redirects rather than deleting them, that should at least guard somewhat against those words being transwikified again. I've been taking Wiktionary notices off any articles in the Wiktionary queue that I've found to be already in Wiktionary. But sometimes another editor has come along, not checked the edit history, and blithely slapped the notice back on again. The GFDL requires that you turn the ones where you've merged content, such as Transwiki:Dwelling (Why didn't you simply rename the article, rather than copying&pasting, by the way?), into redirects, moreover. Uncle G 01:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, redirects would've made more sense. But I dont think that the transwiki pages should be kept afterwards. I guess this is the expurgator in me wanting to cut down the number of unnecessary page --Wonderfool 21:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see the conversation(s) above, particularly the WikiMedia page that Uncle G referenced. Transwikis are supposed to become redirects, and not be deleted. Redirects do not count as "pages", as least as far as (8,223,478 - the number that appears on Special:Recentchanges) {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} is concerned. And deleting them takes space (deleted article is retained indefinitely, the page history gets a deletion added, and the deletion log builds up.) Lastly, without a redirect left behind, Wikipedians will keep readding them! --Connel MacKenzie 06:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DNIYM

Another protologism promoted using UrbanDictionary. Uncle G 01:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. SemperBlotto 07:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What was mexico before a republic

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 07:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kiss or dare

This seems to be not idiomatic enough — discounting the silliness at the end of course. Uncle G 05:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 07:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Restored. Without happening to know about Truth or Dare, one might just as well think this was a variant of Trick or Treat. -dmh 04:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

shid

Just "shit" with an American accent. Hardly "slightly more polite" than "shit". — Paul G 09:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It appears to possibly be a word. But certainly not with that meaning. It appears, from context, to be the word for east in some language, but I cannot ascertain the language from that context (and so don't know whether this is the actual word or a romanization of it). Furthermore: this says that it is a word in Sumerian, but since it is not in cuneiform it appears to be a romanization and not the real word. this says that it is a word in Persian, meaning shining, but again since it is not in Arabic it isn't the actual word. Uncle G 11:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shid 2004-12-29T22:45Z 06:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • People who create protologisms add them to Urban Dictionary almost as a matter of course, often at the very same time as they add them here. In practice, Urban Dictionary is not evidence for the existence of a word, merely evidence for someone desiring the existence of a word. Uncle G 23:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There's no verification that it's a word beyond being a protologism. Kevin Rector 21:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Huh? Google "shid". Note many multiple independent usages (interspersed with a bit of chaff). Bada bing. While certainly not a major player in the history of English, this variant only differs from shucks or shoot in being rarer. What really piques my curiosity, though, is the firewood measurment sense, which only seems to be on the internet in one place, but the site as a whole is a detailed discussion of firewood in general and I see no reason it would just make up the term. Can anyone verify from print sources? -dmh 04:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • A bunch of google hits does not a word make. However, I hadn't seen the firewood definition, if, verified, would make for an interesting entry. Kevin Rector 05:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
      • "A bunch of google [sic] hits does not a word make"? This is not from Google, it's from UrbanDictionary.com. And, in this case, of course it does make a word. A language is flexible. Just because a word is not lexicalized, that doesn't mean it's not a word. Merriam-Webster Online: If a word is not in the dictionary, does that mean it isn't a real word? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 21:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Being from Urban Dictionary makes evidence less reliable, not more. Urban Dictionary has no bar against inclusion of completely fabricated content, and passively encourages protologisms. The non-UrbanDictionary firewood definition is far better, because it cites print sources, and we can in turn cite it. Why didn't you put the sources in once you had found them? Uncle G 23:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Do you want homonyms? Look at this: "In England, a system of sizing for large pieces of fuel wood. A shid was 4 feet long, and the girth was indicated by notches".[[18]] 2004-12-29T22:45Z 22:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Also, an initialism for "slaps head in disgust". 2004-12-29T22:45Z 22:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Wrong. That would be SHID. Uncle G 23:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Absolutely right, because people use it with lowercase letters, too. What counts is the way people use it, not the way a Wiktionarian tells me how to spell it. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 05:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
            • Still wrong. Your own actual definition of the acronym was "Slaps Head In Disgust", using uppercase letters. More interestingly, perhaps, is the fact that there seems to be just the one single source, a list of emoticons and acronyms, for the assertion that this acronym even exists at all. It's a common occurrence for novices to ask what such acronyms mean when they first encounter them on Usenet, and to have them expanded by other posters. And yet this has never happened for SHID. The irony of your claiming that "What counts is the way people use it", whilst not citing any such uses, is that it appears that people don't use it. 17:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Not in my American accent, or in anyone else's I know. The t -> d shift is medial (e.g., little -> liddle), not final -dmh 04:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• I've looked around and outside of the Urban dictionary, I can't really find any definitive support for the notion of shid having anything to do with shit so unless some proof is given those parts of the entry need to come out. Kevin Rector 05:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• A couple of points: (1) Flapping does affect the final t of a word if the next word begins with a vowel, as in " on a stick!". (2) the OED does not have an entry for "shid", making the unit of measurement meaning suspect (but of course not disproving it, even the OED can't be entirely complete). (Neither do Webster's Third New International or Random House "Webster's" Unabridged.) (3) Regardless of whether it's a word of English, it is a word of Manx, so please don't delete the entire page. --Angr 07:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

pamcake

TheDaveRoss nominated this.

See w:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pamcake. Uncle G 10:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. SemperBlotto 11:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm ... I'm not going to dig through all 1700+ hits just to ressurrect this. What I see from the top few pages are:

• Plays on the name "Pam" and "pancake".
• Random misspellings of "pancake"
• One possible deliberate misspelling.

Not enough evidence to acquit. There might be enough in there to merit an entry, but it's up to the contributor to find it and ressurrect. -dmh 05:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Kermudgen

Does this word exist? Is this what it means? Other words by this user are of a totally different nature. SemperBlotto 06:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Also persnipince by the same guy. SemperBlotto 07:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some contributions seemed OK, the rest were mostly nonsense. I was going to let him get it out of his system, and review them tomorrow. Now that he's blocked though... delete kermudgen, persnipince... --Connel MacKenzie 07:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the original page had, but was it possibly trying to be curmudgeon? —Muke Tever 18:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• both deleted. Some edits by this user rolled back. SemperBlotto 07:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pantshit

No such word. Creator's other contributions have been either unsubstantiated or outright vandalism. Uncle G 11:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Common slang in the US, but usually it's "pant shit funny" as an idiomatic phrase. --Connel MacKenzie 12:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. Connel can add the idiom if he feels the need. SemperBlotto 13:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't. Thanks anyhow. --Connel MacKenzie 01:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bleeding fart

The phrase is not clearly an idiom, and occurs so rarely that it is difficult to discern whether in actual use it isn't a simple non-idiomatic combination of bleeding and fart. Creator's other contributions have been either unsubstantiated or outright vandalism. Uncle G 11:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 13:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The word 'nigger

Nigger is already there --Wonderfool 22:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 00:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thankee

Could exist. Nominated it because it was added in a vandalism spree by Bobtail. Ncik 24 Apr 2005

• Real word/definition, can't confirm the etymology. I associate it with "thankee kindly" which gets 527 google hits. Kappa 02:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It does exist. One of the things that The Pelican Shit vandal does here at Wiktionary is pick words at random from Template:Requested articles and create spurious definitions for them. We either overwrite them with real definitions or delete the articles so that Template:Requested articles stays redlinked. Uncle G 02:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clark Kent

aka:Superman Ncik 24 Apr 2005

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 21:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

nuggies

Protologism? Needs confirmation, preferably with quotations from print sources. — Paul G 09:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think you'll find many print references to slang about illicit drugs. On the other hand, the contributor had a rather strong tendency toward vandalism (perhaps he was in a bad mood from encountering too many nuggies?)  :-) Anyway, a quick google turned up http://www.cpop.org/cannabis_synonyms.htm - so this may actually be a keep? {shudder} --Connel MacKenzie 01:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Nuggies is a word, not very proper, but among the marijuana community it is widley used. This is a valid entry, and though it is silly, words like this are a valid part of any dictionary.
• Our own appendix, Wiktionary Appendix:Cannabis Slang, has nug, nugget, and nugs, lending some further credence to the assertion that this is another such slang term. I would be surprised if there weren't print references for such slang terms, given that the world of drug use is a subject not infrequently addressed by popular fiction, and often incorporating slang and subculture for effect. (Remember Trainspotting?) Uncle G 02:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Necronomicon

• Necronomicon - Nonce? Ref w:Neal Stephenson's w:Cryptonomicon. --Connel MacKenzie 05:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• What the? I thought everyone knew of the w:Necronomicon. (Of course, the Necronomicon is not properly defined as "h".) —Muke Tever 23:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. For God's sake, keep it. Why do we have to delete every single word people don't like? This one's useful. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 06:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, keep. It is not a matter of not liking it. The term was defined as "ħ", which really wasn't much to go on. Yes, shame on me for not having read this bit of Lovecraft. Removing rfd. --Connel MacKenzie 04:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

cockblock

Protologism? Needs evidence of currency. Also needs cleaning up - are the verb defs really verbs, or just variations on the noun; are they just different ways that a "cockblock" can occur? — Paul G 09:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've heard it before, but only as a verb. Pretty sure it was via TV or movie and not through my ailing social life. Google has over two thousand hits for cockblocked, 3500 for cockblocking... —Muke Tever 23:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protologism, protologism. Why does every damned word have to be a protologism? This one's useful. What I mean is keep it. Look at it: <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cockblock>. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 06:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Appearance in urbandictionary is suggestive, but it's not reason for including a word. A fair number of urbandictionary entries are either made up or too localized to be of interest here. Nonetheless, I agree that there's a bit of trigger-happiness afoot when it comes to entries that the plaintiff hasn't heard of and hasn't bothered to do even a quick search on. -dmh 04:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

To be clear, I ressurected this word and defined it based on the results of a trivially easy search. -dmh 05:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Googlevirgin

Only one hit on Google, in the first sense. Probably should be "Google virgin", and then in that sense no different from "X virgin", where "X" is anything, meaning "one who is new to or inexperienced with X", in which case it can be deleted. — Paul G 09:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and don't delete and move. If the argument is about the number of results found on a regular Google Search, then move the article to "Google virgin" as a phrase, which throws up 728 results. And, yes, it is semantically different from other noun phrases where the determinandum is "virgin", because it is an idiomatic expression and because the senses of the phrase can't be inferred from the separate senses of the separate words in the phrase. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 15:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kevin Rector 20:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ncik 05 May 2005
• Delete First, many of the hits are for "Google" juxtaposed with "Virgin" (as in Branson or as in Virgin Islands). Tightening the search to "a google virgin" turns up 21 hits, many of which are repetitions of the same quote. There are the requisite three independent usages, but it's clear from them that, as Paul G says, the idiomatic term is "virgin". If you know that Google is Google and "virgin" can mean "someone new to a particular experience or product", then "google virgin" is no problem. -dmh 05:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and add a new sense to virgin (if not already there) in the sense that I describe above. "Google virgin" could even be given as an example - how's that for a compromise? — Paul G 06:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Googlevirgin isn't a word in use. Google virgin isn't idiomatic. Delete. Paul G, make your addition to virgin. Not only have I seen virgin used in the non-sexual senses of neophyte and pristine, I've even used it in those senses. ☺ (That second sense is given in the Jargon File entry for "virgin", by the way.) Uncle G 17:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted; extra sense (as I described) added to virgin, with "Google virgin" used as an example. — Paul G 08:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

G'nite

• User:Paul G added rfd 27 April 2005

Keep. Peoetic contraction. Added to RFD conversation. --Connel MacKenzie 11:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

eacute

• Deleted by Paul G 27 April 2005 without discussion.

Request keep. Comment clearly indicated the purpose for having the link (appearing on Wikipedia top 5,000; therefore a proable term to be looked up.) I can understand rewording article to emphasize that it is first and foremost an abbreviation, in addition to being an HTML directive. Or adding the security-keyword usage, etc. Is there a historic conversation regarding HTML that I missed? --Connel MacKenzie 11:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • No, you there was no conversation that you missed. But is "all words in all languages" intended to include computer languages, of which HTML is one? I'll restore it - please add clarifying text to the entry to justify its existence. Thanks. — Paul G 17:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Reading the rfd comment posted by anonymous user User:203.222.154.2, I tend to stand by my original reason for deleting this entry. It is not a word, whether or not it appears in the Wikipedia top 5000 (no doubt many other non-words appear there too, but that is not sufficient justification for a Wiktionary entry). — Paul G 17:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The comment was: 22:09, 26 Apr 2005 . . 203.222.154.2 (rfd: this isn't interlingual, it's not a word at all except in HTML or are we including all markup and programming languages too now??)

Although I think it would be nice to also include programming languages, doing so does seem a little silly at this point, and obviously not in keeping with general Wiktionary goals. But for the most common terms, people's knowledge of them is surprisingly common. This does seem to be the case for eacute. Evidence of that is the frequency it appeares on Wikipedia. I would like this term to be restored. --Connel MacKenzie 04:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep Deleted I'm opposed to including "words" from programming or HTML. I'm a programmer, and I know that could get out of hand really really quickly. Consider body. Not only would you have to have it in English, now you'd also have to have it in HTML (HTML is a different language than English). Current policy as I understand it does not leave room for non-spoken languages. I could misunderstand the policy but this is a can of worms I think we should keep closed personally. I also think this is contrary to the goals of Wiktionary. Kevin Rector 04:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I respect your concern that this is a can of worms. But I do believe this is a nonce, an exception to the hard-and-fast rule, therefore should be restored. --Connel MacKenzie 14:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was the anonymous user who rfd'd it. I was on a strange computer and not logged in. A bit more about it though. It's not HTML which isn't a programming language anyway (it's a markup language). It's a "character entity" which as I understand comes from SGML. HTML was either based on or inspired by SGML and took character entities from there. Even as a character entity it can only be spelled &eacute; - with the ampersand preceeding and the semicolon following. The reason it is in Wikipedia's list is because they used a simplistic algorithm which classified any string of ASCII alphabetic characters as a word. The reason the used such a simplistic algorithm was because MySQL's full text search indexing algorithm wasn't HTML-aware and used a similar simplistic algorithm. I don't think we should include markup language jargon with some characters stripped off which are included in a list due only to a series of obscure technical reasons. Certainly not the stuff of dictionaires. The stuff of markup language technical reference manuals. — Hippietrail 15:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't seem to get google or altavista to search for " eacute " - the 154,000 hits on google tend to add in the term wrapped by any delimiter, including ampersand and semicolon. But there is at least one security terms reference to it, there on the first of many pages. Is it truly only a technical glitch that I included this term in the top 5,000? What do you call "é" conversationally? --Connel MacKenzie 17:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"é" is, of course, read as "e acute". Now there is a case for including that, along with "e grave", "e circumflex", "c cedilla" and, oh look, all those accented letters in the box you see below when giving your comments on this thread. The case for including these is that someone hearing someone say "café is spelled c-a-f-e acute" might wonder what that last letter is and want to look it up. After all, unaccented letters have spelled-out forms too (for example, Chambers dictionary has entries for most of the alphabet; some of the best-known of these are "aitch", "zed" and "zee"; others, like "double-u", look a bit odd and arbitrary, but there are nevertheless featured). This makes the case for excluding "eacute" much stronger - it is definitely not a Wiktionary entry, because, as has been discussed above, it would be either "<ampersand>eacute<semicolon>" (the "nowiki" tag didn't let me type it as it should be) (HTML token) or "e acute" (letter). — Paul G 07:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your sense of humor. I was talking about a symbol name, not the alphabet, (er, technically are letters symbols also? Of course they are. Hmmm.) You are right, we probably should have an entry for aitch, zed, zee, double-u, etc.  :-) But I am in no rush to enter them, and thank you for the explanation of your rationale for deleteing this. --Connel MacKenzie 19:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Nooooooo

• Talk:Nooooooo should have been deleted when Nooooooo was deleted? --Connel MacKenzie 11:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now deleted. — Paul G 17:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

??2 ??4

I think that the numbers are something to do with its pronunciation. But, surely, they should not be part of the word's title? SemperBlotto 12:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm... I havn't seen Chinese transliterated into Cyrillic before. The normal spelling is ??. The numbers indicate tones, and are generally only used when the accent marks are unable to be used (such as in ASCII environments). In this case the romanization with accents would be bóài (??´?`?). —Muke Tever 15:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Someone (81.77.212.238) has recently added and wikified transliterations of Chinese words involving numbers to Chinese translations on, for example, sheep, fish, cat, land, and time. I don't know anything about the Chinese language but as far as I know, transliterations don't have their own pages, and thus wikifying them shouldn't be permitted as not to suggest otherwise. Ncik 28 Apr 2005
  • A cyrilization ☺ is not the actual word in the actual script. (If it were an actual word in Russian, it would be a different matter.) X-izations belong in the articles on the actual words, not as separate dictionary articles. We don't treat transliterations as actual words for languages using Greek, Arabic, and other alphabets. We shouldn't for Chinese and Japanese. Go down this route and we'll end up having all of the IPA pronunciations wikified and with their own individual articles. Delete. Uncle G 11:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki:Xenodius

This was transwikied from Wikipedia and I'm pretty sure it's factually false. It only gets 20 google hits. I think it's a made up word. Kevin Rector 16:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 06:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

œconomy

POV, and incorrect - "economy" is the correct spelling. "Œconomy" is etymologically more precise, but "economy" is the spelling that is used. If "œconomy" was once used, perhaps this could be changed to read: (''obsolete'') [[Economy]].

Google lists 332 hits, several of which appear to involve old books. As it is etymologically more precise, perhaps a valid variant spelling, and possibly an archaism, should it be cleaned up instead? --Wytukaze 17:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definitely. Among other things, this spelling appears in well-known works. -63.86.210.252 15:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

suisare

There's exactly one indication, a page with notes on Etruscan translations, that this is a word in Italian, meaning misrepresent. I couldn't find it in any Italian-English dictionaries that I was able to check, however. The only evidence that it is a word is Wikipedia's suisare, submitted by w:User:63.226.184.127. (For comparison, this article was submitted by User:63.231.167.247) Urban Dictionary has lots of repeat submissions of this word, apparently from (given the pattern of user names) one person who is desperate for someone else to adopt this protologism. There are a couple of instances of message-board and guestbook spam, too, one where "suisare suisare suisare" is just repeated over and over. Uncle G 14:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Kevin Rector 20:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 01:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mouseterbation

After adding the word to the dictionary, I realized that it is properly a protologism. I have added this to the protologism section, and the Wictionary entry for it should be deleted.

Thank you,

Ed Otto

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 01:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tyrocracy

Tyrocracy - cute. --Connel MacKenzie 01:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Kevin Rector 02:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted (yummie!) SemperBlotto 06:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki:Liejournal

Transwiki article that shouldn't have ever made it over. It's not a real word and it's going to be deleted on Wikipedia too. Kevin Rector 02:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 06:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ellmist

Rubbish. Kevin Rector 03:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 06:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:English words spelled with diacritics and/or ligatures

Obsolete. Replaced it by "Category:English words spelled with diacritics or ligatures". Ncik 29 Apr 2005

Criterian

Don't need random company names here. Ncik 30 Apr 2005

• What's the point of deleting it? There are other company names in this dictionary, too.

The help file says:

"As a general guideline, a term should be included if any of the following apply:

1. It is clearly in widespread use.
2. It is used in a well known work.
3. It appears in a refereed academic journal.
4. It has been used in running text in at least three independently recorded instances, whether in print, audio, video or on the internet. "

Doesn't it follow all the four guidelines?

1. Google has 4400 results. That's widespread.
2. And I bet the company's name is in a "well-known" work.
3. Not journal, but academic anyway: the National Institute of Standards and Technology refers to it. [19]
4. Has it been used in running text in at least three independently recorded instances? I bet it is, because the company test for a well-known computer security standard.

2004-12-29T22:45Z 00:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blah, blah Ncik 30 Apr 2005

I agree with Ncik on this one. This seems to be a vanity page. The NIST link cited above does not use the term as a word, only as a link to a commercial entity. I am not finding any citations to this as a term but only as a link to the proper name of the company. The 4400 results on Google seem to be links to the proper name, not obtuse uses of a new word. If you find citations in a printed well-known work that refers to this term, (not the proper name) please add them here. Please do not reinstate deleted pages while it is being discussed here, particularly minutes after it was deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 14:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't reinstate the delete page while it was being discussed, because there was no discussion at all in the first place. This discussion started after I reinstated the page. Back then, before the page was deleted, the term was supposed to be a misspelling of "criterion", according to an administrator who deleted the page.

My appologies. I must have misread the date/times? Er, no, I saw that you added (17:33, 29 Apr 2005) a new definition after it had been deleted (16:41, 29 Apr 2005.) Checking now I see the timezones make reading this quite confusing (and the inital post is not timestamped?) I still agree with Ncik that this should be deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 16:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Next thing, I would like to know why you say this is a w:vanity page, because to me it makes no sense. I didn't put the article to promote the company, and, most importantly, I have nothing to do with the company. What's the point?[User:2004-12-29T22:45Z|2004-12-29T22:45Z]] 16:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I misuse the term vanity page to also include promotional pages. As you point out, criterian does not directly link to the company (good.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just in case, I'm no employee, relative or friend of anyone in the company, and I'm not the user who started the article the first time. I reinstated the article because I found that the word does have a meaning after all.

Next point, the NIST page does use it as a word and as a term, because even if it's a proper noun, it's still a word. And that wouldn't make it the first proper noun or company name in this dictionary. And the hyperlink on NIST's page is not only a hyperlink, because the word is on the same page.

And another thing, to make it clear: I added a new definition after the first Criterian article was deleted. This is a new and different Criterian article. I just say it to avoid a possible misunderstanding. I don't understand what you mean by "initial post" when you ask "the inital [sic] post is not timestamped?". As far as I remember, I timestamped every post of mine. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 17:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to Ncik's post not being timestampted. Also, I said link, not hyperlink...the page you identified is a listing for a particular vendor of that name. But you know, I've checked my thoughts on this, and am shocked I've wasted this many keystrokes on something I don't care about either way. --Connel MacKenzie 04:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

As to the guidelines

• 4400 google hits does not mean "widespread" (particularly since many of these are misspellings of criterion). For comparison, here are some random words and their google hits:
  • pigeon: 3,860,000
  • funicular: 200,000
  • glossolalia: 59,900
  • have: 1,340,000,000
• A company's name is not a well-known work (do I really have to say this?) and in any case, how does a company's name appear in itself?
• The listing you gave was for NIST's directory of accredited labs. This is not a referreed journal in any sense. Further, this is just a listing of the name, not a use of the term.
• Don't bet that the term has been used in running text. Show that it has. This is your best bet.

In any case, most of the google hits won't count under the (somewhat subjective) independence criterion, which is aimed specifically at disallowing vanity pages and non-vanity pages for terms used only in narrow contexts. -63.86.210.252 15:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, what exactly is the "independence criterion"?

• And I didn't say that "the company's name is [...] a well-known work" (your text), and yes, you don't need to say that, because that doesn't respond to what I said. I said that "the company's name is in a "well-known" work" [emphasis is mine]. Do you see the preposition in in the sentence? And, yes, it's true that not all the 4400 Google results refer to the company, but the name is widespread anyway.

• And another thing: the help text says, "As a general guideline, a term should be included if any of the following apply" [again, emphasis is mine]. Notice it says "any", which means that if any of the four conditions applies, the term is allowed to be included into the dictionary. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 21:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Next: do you want "running" text? Here's your "running text" (citations):
• "He and other business leaders are predicting that this month's accreditation of the Criterian Independent Labs will help the biometrics sector grow into an even larger part of the area economy." [20]
• "Criterian Independent Labs is a non-profit Common Criteria test lab approved by

the National Information Assurance Partnership." [21]

• "Malnick, senior manager for Criterian Independent Labs at the West Virginia

High Technology Consortium (WVHTC) Foundation, is responsible for [...]" [22]

• "Criterian Independent Labs, a National Information Assurance Partnership

certification lab, is. an independent testing organization oriented toward the [...]" [23] 2004-12-29T22:45Z 21:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Reasons:

1. It's encyclopedic. If it belongs anywhere, put it on Wikipedia.
2. There are many thousands of company names out there. Are we going to include them all?
3. Company names don't have meanings beyond "A company that does X." Fancy entering that thousands of times? I don't.
4. People don't use dictionaries to found out what company names mean. Google will do perfectly well for that. The majority of companies have websites that tell you what their companies do.
5. The reasons for keeping it are red herrings. There are many non-dictionary words that fit the criteria (ahem) given, but will not get into Wiktionary. Why? Because they clearly don't constitute the sort of material that goes into a dictionary. We have to use our discretion - these are guidelines after all, not hard-and-fast rules.

So, I repeat, 'delete.

Delete I am almost always in favor of restraint with regards to deleting articles, but in this case we are talking about a small, minor company that has almost no existence in the English language as a whole, which means that its existence as an article is highly suspect. There's no real argument here in defense of it (by any of the lines of reasoning here we would do as well dumping a phone book into the Wiktionary). While I am inclined to keep almost all place names that have been added, I think that the bar for companies and individuals should be pretty high as far as having an entry in the Wiktionary. Because of the particular discussion here, I also think that it is clear that the policy needs to be more well-defined. -Jun-Dai 06:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• The consensus seems to be to delete it, so I deleted it. Kevin Rector 16:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

A nice cleanup job by SemperBlotto, but this really is just the simple combination of Pope and Benedict and XVI, and is neither an idiom nor attributive. This is an encyclopaedia article on an individual person, not a dictionary article on a phrase. Uncle G 11:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dunno. If it can amass the quality of it:Papa Benedetto XVI's translation table it should be keepable. (it: article lacks a definition though... articles on it: seem to habitually lack definitions...) In any case, proper names occasionally do make it into dictionaries (John Paul II in AHD, Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Proper nouns (names)) —Muke Tever 20:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Ncik 02 May 2005

Agree - delete. If this were to be included, we would need to include all the other popes too. Translations can be found in Wikipedia. it: is in the wrong, IMO - Papa Benedetto XVI does not belong there either. — Paul G 06:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I've posted a comment on the discussion page for the article on it.wiktionary.org (translation below). I'll report back if I get a reply.

"What is the point of this page? It is not a dictionary entry, more like an encyclopedic one. It does not include a definition and it nothing more than a list of translations, most of which are already given in the Wikipedia article on Pope Benedict XVI. This page is therefore pointless and I would say that it should be deleted.

"Incidentally, do you intend to create pages for all the other popes?"

I had a reply today. Here it is:

"Hi Paul, nice to meet you again. Names normally do not belong to a wiktionary, but it often can happen that you need to know the translation of the name of a person. We do have Aristoteles there, We do Have Giovanni Paolo II [John Paul II] there. There are translations for their name and so there is going to be a section with names of people with their translations. The same like the names of Cities and their translations. These translations often are used by translators and there is no dictionary that gives you the names. This is one of the huge advantages Wiktionary has: we can simply create it. Yes, we are going to insert also other names, but for now there's no specific project. All this is then, in the near future, going to be part of the Ultimate Wiktionary, I don't know if you followed this thread, but it will avoid a lot of double work and will be a many-to-many languages ressource with the possibility to upload, download and update contents using xml structure. More info on Ultimate Wiktionary can be found on meta (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wiktionary)]. Btw. if you have further questions please contact me on the [Italian Wiktionary (http://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:SabineCretella)]. Ciao!!--SabineCretella 05:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)"

• Keep. We are a translating dictionary as well as other kinds of dictionary. The topic has been discussed before. "Pope Benedict XVI" has many translations. We have names with translations including Harry Potter, and we certainly need Plato. We should have the other popes' names if they also have translations into other languages. — Hippietrail 09:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • We are a translating dictionary, and we (should) have translations for Pope and Benedict and XVI. None of these translations are any more than the separate translations of those three individual words (with the occasional definite article thrown in). (As such Plato, being a single word akin to Benedict, and not akin to Pope Benedict XVI, is a red herring.) The Italian Wiktionarians have, it seems, let sentiment get in the way of sense. We shouldn't do the same. What next? Translations of whole sentences? Does President George W. Bush get a dictionary article "for the translations" because of the same specious reasoning that translators won't just look up the translation of President ? Uncle G 03:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't have any objection to the name being there. I think we should focus on adding content and removing vandalism and publicity stunts, and while it's not important to me to have this entry here, I don't see any value in removing it. As long as we're not writing articles on the topic, we're not in serious danger of duplicating the efforts of the Wikipedia. True, anyone wanting to find out what "Pope Benedict XVI" is could look it up on the Wikipedia, but there's no reason for them not to start here. Jun-Dai 03:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Pinyin romanizations

• Shijian
• Shi2jian1
• Shi2jian4
• Shi2wu4
• Dian4hua4
• Shu3biao1
• Lao3shu3
• Da3yin4ji1
• Jian1shi4qi4
• Jian4pan2
• Shu1zhuo1
• Jisuanji
• Dian4nao3
• Yi3zi
• Zhuo1zi
• Ma3ling2shu3
• Mian2yang2
• Pu3tong1hua4
• Zhong1wen2
• Zhong1guo2 de
• Zhong1guo2ren2
• Ce4suo3
• Yu4shi4
• Huo3che1
• Chu2fang2
• Chuang1
• Men2
• Fang2jian1
• Kong1jian1
• Ma3
• Fang2wu1
• Shui3
• Mian4tiao2
• Mi3
• Dao4
• Dou4fu3
• Qin2cai4
• Fan1qie2
• Qing1gua1
• Hong2luo2bo
• Cheng2
• Li2
• Ping2guo3
• Zhu1
• Hou2zi
• Yu2
• Shi1zi
• Lao3hu3
• Xiang4
• Mu3ji1
• Mu3niu2
• Mao1
• Gou3
• Qi4che1
• Shi4ji4
• Gong4chan3zhu3yi4
• Xiang1jiao1

These aren't the actual words in the actual scripts at all. They are transliterations with pronunciation information embedded. The articles on the actual Chinese and Japanese words, such as ?, give the romanizations of those words, and Wiktionary:Chinese Pinyin index allows readers to look up the actual words from the romanizations. Uncle G 11:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Note that the anonymous user giving us these articles is also going through all of the linked-to English word articles and wikifying the pronunciations for the Chinese translations. Uncle G 01:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh my! Before I went to a rehersal, there were only a handful here - wow. I just blocked User:84.68.57.254 for 24 hrs. I need to put some kids in bed (storytime) and I have a very early morning tomorrow. What others need blocking right now? --Connel MacKenzie 03:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• The list is growing too large to continue enumerating further individual articles here. I'm therefore listing the IP addresses (that I have noticed so far) that have brought us these articles (and which are adding corresponding "translations" to other pages). Uncle G 11:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Special:Contributions/84.66.86.250
  • Special:Contributions/84.68.57.254
  • Special:Contributions/84.65.152.126
  • Special:Contributions/81.77.139.181
  • Special:Contributions/84.66.56.23
  • Special:Contributions/84.66.11.59
  • Special:Contributions/84.66.241.237

Perhaps instead of tagging these as {{rfd}} we could add a {{pinyin}} template for future entries, so they can go into an rfd sub-category? Just a thought... --Connel MacKenzie 21:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Latest spottings:

• Special:Contributions/81.76.91.7 --Connel MacKenzie 00:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Special:Contributions/84.66.54.87 --Connel MacKenzie 08:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Moved here from WS:VIP:

Several IPs contributing tons of numeric romanizations. See WS:RFD. IPs include:

• Special:Contributions/81.77.9.217
• Special:Contributions/81.77.139.181
• Special:Contributions/81.79.109.247
• Special:Contributions/84.65.152.126
• Special:Contributions/84.66.11.59
• Special:Contributions/84.66.56.23
• Special:Contributions/84.66.241.237
• Special:Contributions/84.68.57.254

Don't know how many more were used, but reportedly all were anon IPs. --Connel MacKenzie 04:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like a Chinese speaker to weigh in on the conversation at WS:RFD...doesn't Chinese have one written language, but dozens or hundreds of spoken varients? These entries don't look entirely like they are entirely meaningless. I'm begining to regret blocking the one IP I did block for 24 hours. --Connel MacKenzie 05:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC) Edit: Changed wiki User: to Special:Contributions/. --Connel MacKenzie 08:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Most of the ones being edited already have pinyin, tone counts aren't necessary. --Blastu 20:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

So, those are called tone counts then? Cool. I suppose, now I know enough to ask: what's a tone count? Any why aren't they necessary? (Or perhaps the question is, why do some people think they are?) --Connel MacKenzie 06:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

resoid

A mis-spelling of resold that seems not to be in widespread use and so not to have yet achieved status as a word in its own right. Uncle G 12:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 13:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

T3

Maybe there's an abbreviation here. (Google yields too many false positives. The noise drowns out the signal.) But this current definition is utter gibberish to me. I cannot make any sense of it at all. Google searching on the keywords yields nothing helpful. Uncle G 12:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Replaced gibberish with real def. --Connel MacKenzie 13:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Excellent. Uncle G 15:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

May 2005

User's contribs

I think this discussion may've been had before, but anyway, are all this guy's contribs gonna be kept?

• See above. Also note that this is not the only IP address that has been submitting these articles. Uncle G 01:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Apple II

This was around here since last year with the rfd tag on!--Wonderfool 22:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New AP guy

Calls himself mangle now. Delete him at will --Wonderfool 23:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

publiode

Searched on Google and found not a single passing reference. --Dvortygirl 07:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

DeleteKevin Rector 07:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 07:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Beef Stevens

From the same user as publiode Kevin Rector 07:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Also has no apparent usage. Delete. --Dvortygirl 07:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 07:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Deeed

Also from the contributor of publiode and Beef Stevens. Kevin Rector 07:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 07:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Ghnaglamie

Not a single hit on google. Kevin Rector 07:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 07:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:List of Jews

This seems to not be needed. Kevin Rector 07:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 07:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Fancruft

Wikipediacruft. 24 18:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Like Vfd, appears to have established usage on Wikipedia and duly listed as a neologism. At the risk of an ad hominem attack, User:24 has been meddling/borderline vandalizing today. --Dvortygirl 20:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the matter at hand; besides, I wasn't "vandalising" or "meddling". Your talk page belongs to me as much as it does you. 24 20:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Your contributions to my talk page are yours, as a matter of simple etiquitte please do not archive anyone's talk page without their prior consent. --Connel MacKenzie 22:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Vfd

Wikipediacruft. 24 18:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

please do not duplicate requests. Conversation is above: keep. --Connel MacKenzie 22:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Wiktionary jargon belongs on help pages. Ncik 02 May 2005

User talk:Wonderfool/archive

Someone (User:24 is fiddlin around with our talk pages. How rude --Wonderfool 20:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 22:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Various User Talk /archive pages.

I rolled back unrequested archivings of user's talk pages, however the /archive pages still remain for the moment until I'm more certain. The pages are:

• User talk:Petruk/archive
• User talk:Ortonmc/archive
• User talk:Fonzy/archive
• User talk:2004-12-29T22:45Z/archive
• User talk:Polyglot/archive
• User talk:Paul G/archive
• User talk:Pumpie/archive
• User talk:Hippietrail/archive
• User talk:SemperBlotto/archive
• User talk:Dvortygirl/archive Deleted by request. --Connel MacKenzie 23:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• User talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 23:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Worterbuch

No such word. Ncik 02 May 2005

• Redirected to correct German spelling Wörterbuch SemperBlotto 07:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Being an admin you should rather delete. Ncik 02 May 2005

Er, not according to Wiktionary:Page deletion guidelines Section 3.1, and 3.2. Keep. --Connel MacKenzie 21:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

So Connel has now expanded Section 3.2 to prevent the deletion of "Worterbuch". This is ridiculous. Again Connel has a problem with the search engine and the fact that in non-edit mode there is no character box available. Furthermore it doesn't change the fact that "Worterbuch" is neither a word nor a common (i.e. noteworthy) misspelling. Ncik 04 May 05

Thanks for completely discrediting yourself with an unwarranted (and totally incorrect) ridiculous personal attack. Sysops are cautioned to wait if there is any question whatsoever, before deleting. Checking the edit history of the page deletion guidelines, I do not see my name appearing anywhere. I do not recall making any statement one way or another about the search box, in the conversation about this term! Lastly, my recommendation for keeping it is because it is a "romanization" of the German spelling. I have not followed that debate too closely though. --Connel MacKenzie 20:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. However, calling "Worterbuch" a "romanization" seems like an ad hoc excuse to me. I suppose by "romanization" you mean "a (the) spelling using the 26 (plain) letters of the Latin alphabet only" (or would you allow words containing accents? Also, there are French and Spanish (both romance languages) words that use the diaeresis). But then, being consistent, we would have to include all words in a spelling variant without diacritics. That's absurd. You could as well start "romanizing" words of languages using a different alphabet. Ncik 04 May 05

You are reading my mind now? I explain why I said something, and you allege it to be somehow after the fact? Oh my. Stop being absurd, and inflamatory. If you wish to press on with your point of view, you would do better if you softened your tone. --Connel MacKenzie 21:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 22:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)> Even though when it comes to the tone of this argument, I'd take Connel's side in a moment, I'd have to say my vote is for deleting Worterbuch, as the un-umlauted version is non-controversially erroneous rather than alternative. The English-ification of the word is Woerterbuch. </Jun-Dai>

What I don't understand is why it's apparently ok to have mispellings that redirect in some cases but not in others? A word like Worterbuch is the sort of word a native English speaker would likely mispell. Keep Redirect. Kevin Rector 04:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

A native language A speaker is generally likely to misspell any word of any other language. Ncik 05 May 2005

<Jun-Dai 07:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)> Well, for the record I'm not at all in favor of having mispellings that redirect. That essentially provides a small level validation of the spelling as acceptable. Pages that have entries that say "common misspelling of . . . " would be okay, imo, but I'd prefer not to have them. Unlike the Wikipedia, our project is by nature larger numbers of much smaller pieces of information, and the danger of over-clutter is much greater, though certainly there are worse things to worry about. </Jun-Dai>

Delete "Worterbuch" [sic]. Now read 3.2.1 on Wiktionary:Page_deletion_guidelines#Notes_to_administrators. "Worterbuch" [sic] is not accepted by German dictionaries. The o has to have an Umlaut. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

But this is the English wiktionary, and English speakers are notorious for ignoring "those little doodads they put on toppa them there letters". Even if they do know what a trema is, who says they're tech-savvy enough to even know how to type it? Germans have an ö key on the keyboard, sure, but the average American has to use the obscure code alt+0246, or copy and paste from somewhere. It's only a redirect, keep it. Incidentally, y'all could probably edit the redirect message to better indicate to the user what's going on—I noticed another wikipedia has it changed to the effect of something like "Redirected to "page" from "other page"", and maybe a really useful message could be put in there. —Muke Tever 12:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, which Wikipedia? Ours matches en:. Do you mean it should be (Redirected to "{{PAGENAME}}" from "$1")? That seems redundant to me. --Connel MacKenzie 11:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

mux

Dubious content - needs verification and clean-up if correct. Note however that this is a real word - see [24] - but not with the senses given to it here.

• Made into a proper definition SemperBlotto 09:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Keep Kevin Rector 05:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki:Camponology

Spelling mistake - should be campanology SemperBlotto 18:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete Kevin Rector 04:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, I thought we were keeping transwikis as redirects (spelling mistake or not) not deleting them anymore so as to prevent Wikipedians from retranswikiing them. --Connel MacKenzie 05:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Social Media

Contains nonsense. If idiomatic then as "social media". Ncik 04 May 05

• Yes, this should be a "to-do list" on someone's user page - but the user who generated it doesn't have one. Perhaps we should give him a little time to create one. SemperBlotto 08:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Page has now been blanked by original contributor. Delete? --Connel MacKenzie 07:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 07:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Long articles

This seems to be superseded by Special:longpages? --Connel MacKenzie 23:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. Out of date, and of no real use. SemperBlotto 08:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

pedia --Wonderfool 00:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. (it is still present on -pedia, where it redirects to two proper articles) SemperBlotto 08:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Aibohphobia

As a general rule, we don't keep talk pages without a main entry, right? --Connel MacKenzie 04:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I would think that it would be ok to have a talk page if it's purpose is to discuss the creation of the article (for instance, I have some information about a word but not enough to create an entry I could put that infomation on the talk page). However, this talk page is fairly non-sensical to me so I'd say delete. Kevin Rector 04:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 08:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Oneliner

Wiktionary:Oneliner - What links here lists no pages. Looks like an experiment leftover? --Connel MacKenzie 05:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete it. Kevin Rector 05:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• It's one of those block-compressed ones that won't delete. I've forgotten what we do with them. SemperBlotto 08:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I added {{pending deletion}} and protected the page. Kevin Rector 14:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Please don't bother protecting it; we're trying to get rid of it. I just renamed several of them to ZZZZZ... and deleted the redirects. --Connel MacKenzie 23:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Word of the week

Not maintained; a miscellany of lists and various other things; messy; lots of typos, which is not good for Wiktionary. If this is to be kept, it needs to be cleaned up and put in a namespace.

This seemed like a reasonable idea at the time - but got out of hand. To some extent it has been superceded by Wiktionary:Words in the News which I created a while ago and now rarely remember to update. Perhaps that should be deleted as well. SemperBlotto 08:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course, you meant "superseded", didn't you? ;) — Paul G 10:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

When is the editor going to get a spellchecker? SemperBlotto 10:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted Kevin Rector 19:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

wallyrigg

I suspect this should be "wallyrig". Google has no hits for either spelling. The associated term "wallyrigged" has three Google hits, all to the same content, which discusses the term and gives examples. — Paul G 10:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. Kevin Rector 14:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Difficult

content is worthless. - TheDaveRoss 13:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Gone - my first delete... ahhhh. Kevin Rector 14:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • ...and there was much rejoicing in the land... ;) - TheDaveRoss
  • I wouldn't have bothered. It's only an article's talk page. TheDaveRoss could have just blanked the rubbish. Uncle G 14:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • But then a link that should have been red would have been blue. I would think that you of all people can appreciate that Uncle G. :) Of course, strictly speaking you are correct. Kevin Rector 14:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Indeed. ☺ Although nothing actually does link to the talk page. Uncle G 14:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Aggregator (online)

What is the title meant to be? — Paul G 15:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Apparently it was meant to be a disambiguation page from Aggregator. I left a note to the contributor explaining why it was deleted. Kevin Rector 15:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Yamá

I'm thinking that "Alabama" isn't a language. If we delete this we need to check the Italian interwiki. Kevin Rector 03:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Alabama, as well as being a US state, is also a native American people, and their language. SemperBlotto 08:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

"Alabama" certainly is a native language of America. Several websits include this word so I'm willing to accept it: http://www.elite.net/~runner/jennifers/yes.htm , http://www.ling.unt.edu/~montler/Alabama/Dictionary/y.htm#yamá — Hippietrail 09:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Well look at that. I very happy to now stand corrected. Kevin Rector 13:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Attention.xml

I'm reasonably confident that English words don't have dots in their middles. Uncle G 08:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Name of some application, from what I can see. Delete, unless we are going to include WordPerfect, Excel, nedit, AbiWord et al.

• Deleted. But, I'm wondering if we should have entries for the common DOS type suffixes .exe, .doc, .txt etc (with or without dots). SemperBlotto 11:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• If we do, I suggest putting these in an appendix linked to from the main page. Note that the latest edition of Chambers Dictionary (2003) has a comprehensive appendix of country codes (.uk, .fr, etc), so if a paper dictionary can have this, maybe there's good reason to list both these and the DOS suffixes on Wiktionary too. This is with the proviso, of course, that they are marked up accordingly so that users aren't lead to believe that they are standard English words (although they would be somewhat odd-looking ones). — Paul G 09:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• • I would agree with that. Also, on the subject of dots, I am for including them as part of the titles, as they are a fairly fundamental part of the term. This is also useful because there might be a file extension or country code with the same pattern as a real word, excluding the dot, or, in some cases, file extensions can be used as words in their own right (though often these are capitalised or included with the preceding dot.) --Wytukaze 11:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Brain coersion

Simply put, this isn't even a protologism. It's a mis-spelling of 'coercion' combined with POV depiction of an unspecified form of communication - subliminal messages or mind control, perhaps. Where's my tin-foil hat? WP user: Tiefling

• Deleted. Kevin Rector 14:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

n00b lolz0r

Leet. Sufficiently common to keep? Likewise n00b. — Paul G 10:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• I deleted "n00b lolz0r", however if we are going have leet then I would say that "n00b" is fairly significant. Personally I'd dump all leet speak. Kevin Rector 14:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, could you please wait a couple of days before you delete so that others can have a look and give their opinion?! Ncik 07 May 2005

nessiness

Apparent nonsense - can anyone find any citations? — Paul G 10:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, if anyone can prove it's a word I'll undelete. Kevin Rector 13:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

A.s

No content. Meant to be the plural of A.? — Paul G 11:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 11:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

aard-vark

It says its not an acceptable spelling in teh article --Wonderfool 15:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

This spelling is acceptable. Only recently I saw it in a bigger (and contemporary) dictionary (The Oxford Dictionary of English in it's newest edition as far as I remember). Ncik 06 May 2005

Category:Spanish elements/list

short term tool, it served its purpose. - TheDaveRoss

Gorglin

Quite a few hits on Google. But I can't figure out what it actually means, if anything. SemperBlotto 19:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. If anyone can prove it's a word I'll gladly undelete it. Kevin Rector 19:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

肛門

Page content was "Á". I have removed that and added Japanese definition. Should be okay now? --Dunhamrc 03:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki:Sarcade

I don't think this word is in use, couldn't find any relevant google hits. Kappa 14:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, you are right. It is a word added to Wikipedia as a joke and unthinkingly moved here. But, or so I'm told, we can delete any word except a Transwiki one - they are sacrosanct. Or is that not so? SemperBlotto 14:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Pff, sancrosanct. If it has no place in Wiktionary, for whatever reason, it should be deleted, according to sysop discretion. I say go ahead and delete it, Semper, especially since that apparently has no place on Wikipedia either. --Wytukaze 15:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not what was actually said. The deletion of transwikied content concerned entries that had then gone on to be moved to the main article namespace, leaving redirects behind, and entries that had been merged into main namespace articles. Deleting the redirects made it harder to proceed directly to the actual articles (in their final resting places) from the transwiki logs (on both source and target projects) and made it less obvious to editors of the source projects when they were transwikiing something that had already been transferred at least once before. (There have actually been incidents where Wikipedians have repeatedly re-tagged articles for transwikiing. I've suggested that bots such as KevinBot and McBot check for an existing article in the transwiki namespace, and refuse to overwrite any such articles without a human intervening.) And retaining the source articles after merges is required for GFDL compliance. Uncle G 17:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The transwikifier bot that I wrote that McBot is running is already in the process of being re-written to not transwiki words that are already in the Wiktionary in either the transwiki: pseudo-namespace or the main namespace. I just haven't had time to deploy it. Kevin Rector 16:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• The only evidence that turns up for this being a word turns out to be the original Wikipedia article (before it was rewritten to be about Sarcade the settlement in Somalia rather than sarcade a supposed verb). This isn't an article about the proper noun. I agree. Delete. (And if the consensus is the same in a day or so's time as it is now, less than four hours into the discussion, I will. ☺) Uncle G 17:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Jeffrey is right about the sacrosanct bit. We want to discourage Wikipedians from just throwing garbage over the transwiki wall, especially after we've reviewed it and decided it is not Wiktionary content. Perhaps we should blank these and tag them with a template that says something to that effect? --Connel MacKenzie 18:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that if a word is not going to be making it into the main namespace then it should be deleted. It's possible, but not likely to arrive again in the future. Kevin Rector 16:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
      • But I wasn't speaking hypothetically. When "we" were on the delete-the-redirects kick (when, back in February?) they did start creeping back in. With the recent addition of bots to move them to our Transwiki namespace, this problem becomes decidedly more exaggerated. --Connel MacKenzie 06:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
      • [Just noticed your embedded comment above.] Sorry, but I still think this should be redirected to Wiktionary:List of protologisms or somesuch. (I didn't know you wrote that bot. Nicely done, BTW!) --Connel MacKenzie 06:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Various stubs

I am deleting various articles that have remained as stubs with pronunciation but no content since they were added by User:Poccil in June 2004 from a "pronouncing dictionary". If any of them are real words they will get added again in time. SemperBlotto 14:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if I can make them into real articles (or redirects), I shall. SemperBlotto 14:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Greek history

I don't see how the definition adds anything to that of each word separately. Are we also going to have French, Italian . . . . . History? and Geography? and Cooking? . . . SemperBlotto 16:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, good. I was wondering if this should've been put on rfd. And no, I don't think we should have such articles, delete. --Wytukaze 16:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted - not a set phrase; sense is derivable from the individual words; suitable for a Wikipedia entry but not for Wiktionary. — Paul G 08:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

605_66_6176

Simply list a number... TheDaveRoss 18:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

or someone's social security number... Deekayen 18:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• You beat me to it by minutes. It looked like someone's telephone number to me, too. Article content was the title. Deleted. Uncle G 18:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Bhadreswar population

Content is " want to know the population of bhadreswar town, dist. hooghly,west bengal as per last census report". This is neither a dictionary article, nor even a encyclopedia article, as the title might suggest, merely a badly-formed request. Incidentally, I am highly perplexed by this article. --Wytukaze 18:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto

tsatsuru & tsatsujii

Error made by me. The correct titles are respectively tsatsutsuru and tsatsutsujii. --Wytukaze 22:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by request of author and sole editor. Uncle G 01:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Ya-got-beef

Hippietrail and HiFlyer have both tagged this. Connel MacKenzie disagrees. Discussion seems prudent. Is this actually the known spelling, for starters? Is the hyphenation correct? It appears to me to be a contraction of "Do you have a beef?" (i.e. "Do you have an objection/problem/disagreement?" — a meaning for beef that we don't have, by the way), and as such isn't all that obvious from the sum of the individual parts. Is it idiomatic enough? Uncle G 12:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• As an American, I never in a million years would have guessed the urinate meaning that someone provided. If that is simply wrong, then delete it. --Connel MacKenzie 16:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this one needs cleanup, not deletion. I'm not sure it should be hyphenated, but it does seem to be in relatively widespread use and have a specific, distinct meaning.--Dvortygirl 16:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I found a fair few occurences of those three words together on Google Web. Most of them had the meanings of "you have a beef" or "you have beef", although some were incomprehensible. For examples:
      • "If ya got beef I'll cook it" [25] — plainly not an idiom
      • "I know fools from Wilson that'll whack ya, ya got beef" [26] — incomprehensible
      • "There's tarter on your teeth, homeboy ya got beef Well then ya get broke, because my crew's no joke" [27] — seems to be solely for the sake of the rhyme and the metre than for actual sense
    • But is "ya got beef?"←"you got a beef?"←"do you have a beef?" idiomatic enough? One could ask ...
      • "That motherfucker gotta beef with me." [28]
    • ... where exactly does one stop along that road? Does every verb+noun combination qualify as an idiom merely because the individual words are slang rather than mainstream? beef needs the sense of "objection/problem/dispute" added. But once it has that added, is "ya got beef" non-obvious from the sum of you + got + (a +) beef ? Uncle G 17:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "taking the piss" in British English has nothing to do with urination. (Now that definitely is an idiom. ☺) Does that help? The second "meaning" isn't actually a meaning at all. If anything, as far as I can see, it's merely a usage note for the first meaning. Uncle G 17:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• I would say include it, minus hyphenation. It is idiomatic enough, and the form "Do you have beef?" is not idiomatic. Certainly, if you try to apply that sentence idiomatically, it sounds almost as ridiculous as the Queen saying "What is up, home slice?". And on the matter of taking the piss, well, taking a piss means urination, but like Uncle G said, the phrase with a definite article in does not. --Wytukaze 17:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'll tell you guys (and gals), I have a real beef with this being in the dictionary. It just doesn't qualify from where I'm sitting. Kevin Rector 23:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Uncle G: Thank you for the clarification. I had never heard "take the piss" used in this sense. In light of the evidence, please delete. I have added the "objection" sense to beef.--Dvortygirl 07:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Transtheism

Encyclopedic. Strangely, Wikipedia thought it wasn't, and moved it here. SemperBlotto 15:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• I hadn't noticed the Wikipedia article. It wasn't transwikied. The same anonymous user wrote the same article twice, on both projects, starting at Wikipedia. The version tagged for transwikiing to Wiktionary (incorrectly with the wrong tag, placing it into the wrong category, which is why I didn't see it and why it was not transwikied by the 'bots) was an early version of the article which read as follows "Transtheism is a non-anthropormorphic, non-eternalistic view of God. In transtheism, God has one primary attribute, transcendance.". In retrospect, {{rfc}} would have been the correct tag, not {{encyclopaedic}}, because (also in retrospect) I think that a dictionary article can be made here. I've got a whole mess at w:chav (that has just come up on my watchlist) to tackle, though. Any takers? I'll remove the tag from w:transtheism. Uncle G 17:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I took a stab at formatting it. But a quick google search implies that this is made up...if one considers the difference between running text and google hits, that is. I think this is a delete after all. --Connel MacKenzie 23:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

AQUA FORTE

I find the definition suspect in and of itself, though I am no authority on Portuguese. However, it would need to be wikified, and moved to aqua forte, as it is by no means an acronym/initialism. --Wytukaze 17:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• He might even mean aqua fortis, which is an ancient name for nitric acid. SemperBlotto 18:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Good grief! Look at all of those uppercase redlinks at Wiktionary:Interlingua index (aqua - aquose)! Uncle G 21:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oh my.. They're not supposed to be like that, are they? --Wytukaze 21:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Aaaand with minimal effort, my doubting question is proven correct. Huzzah! --Wytukaze 21:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Which question? That they aren't supposed to be like that? No, they aren't. That whole index needs to be visited and the uppercase redlinks at the very least turned into lowercase ones. Uncle G 10:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted. SemperBlotto 07:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Mleh and Blar

Synonyms of Bleh? Are these worth cleaning up? --Connel MacKenzie 03:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• No. They, along with "bleh", are not real. Delete 'em. — Paul G 14:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• I've found blar being used as an alternative spelling of blah (in particular, "blar blar blar" instead of "blah blah blah", such as here and here). Uncle G 20:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Similar uses of mleh can be found here and here. bleh occurs as an interjection here, here, and here. Uncle G 20:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    • All in all, I think that these go with hmm and mmm. Uncle G 20:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Both deleted. Kevin Rector 02:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Buffology

While Google lists 83 pages for "buffology" about 3/4s of them are in reference to people using "buffology" as a screenname, and the others are all related to an invented term for trivia knowledge of the Buffy show. - TheDaveRoss 06:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. Kevin Rector 22:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Nelep

Proports to be emotional torture. Google only lists the word on pages in language(s?) I don't understand. And only 2,000 hits at that. --Connel MacKenzie 10:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• It's the Slovenian for "ugly"/"not beautiful" according to w:Slovenian grammar. An apparent use is here. It's also (as far as I can tell, although I might have mis-read) a family name and a place name. The article asserts it to be an English word, but like you I can find no evidence at all for that. Uncle G 11:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • So, this should be deleted then? So that when a fluent Slovenian speaker arives, they can enter it on a clean slate? --Connel MacKenzie 05:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

scoptophilia, scoptophile

I might well be wrong, but I believe these should be "scopophilia" and "scopophile" respectively. Can anyone confirm which form is correct or whether both are? — Paul G 14:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Google:scoptophilia, Google:scoptophile. I couldn't give any kind of NPOV rendering of what's correct, but the root scopt- (from σκώπτω means to mock or jest, and not to look at, and there doesn't seem to be any scopt- in Latin, so if people are using 'scoptophile' to mean a specialized kind of voyeur, it's not etymologically sound. —Muke Tever 15:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Quite - the term that I've seen before comes from the Greek (something like "scopein"), meaning "to look at", as in "telescope", etc. Move both to scopo- spelling.

Kérnaxion

As at w:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kérnaxion. Uncle G 20:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. Kevin Rector 23:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

BRACKISH

I think this one is more than obvious. TheDaveRoss

• Do you just want the redirect deleted? Uncle G 11:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Extraneous redirect deleted. Kevin Rector 15:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

manpanion

Protologism? I've never heard of it. Nastily formed blend (my POV). Presumably only applies to male couples. — Paul G 09:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'd never heard or read it, either. I've added what scant few quotations I can find. I'm not convinced that it rises above the level of protologism yet. One of the two quotations indicates that it applies to normal heterosexual relationships. Uncle G 20:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • As opposed to abnormal heterosexual relationships, or abnormal homosexual ones perhaps? ;) This is a use of "normal" I dislike, but then I don't write the dictionary. Oh, I've just remembered, I do :) Let me see if that sense is there. — Paul G 17:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
    • According to the second definition at normal it can mean "Usual; ordinary". Considering that the vast majority of relationships are heterosexual, one could consider it "normal" or "usual" without being disparaging. Just a thought. Kevin Rector 02:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I tend to agree. I think though it can often be used unthinkingly, as in the example I have given. Perhaps it is also a synonym for "able-bodied", or any other adjective describing a majority as opposed to a minority. I have heard and seen it used in the sense of "heterosexual". Perhaps too, as Kevin suggests, this is just a fine distinction of the sense "usual, ordinary" rather than one deserving separate treatment. I'll copy this discussion to the discussion page. — Paul G 09:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I added it to Wiktionary:List of protologisms and deleted it. Kevin Rector 13:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently it was on Jay Leno, according to [29] and [30]. In addition to the two citations that were in the article (and still referenced in the protologisms list), that makes three independent instances, satisfying Project:Criteria for inclusion. Undelete. —Muke Tever 05:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Ве́деніе

Created as redirect to Веденіе by Hippietrail. Tagged for deletion by Stephen G. Brown without explanation. Uncle G 15:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

See User talk:Stephen G. Brown for my explanation for these. — Hippietrail 02:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Веде́ніе

Created as redirect to Веденіе by Hippietrail. Tagged for deletion by Stephen G. Brown without explanation. Uncle G 15:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

See User talk:Stephen G. Brown for my explanation for these. — Hippietrail 02:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Official languages of the European Union matrix

...and Talk:Official languages of the European Union matrix

User:Dubaduba did some great work here back in April, but it is in the wrong place. Either:

1. distribute the translations among all the English entries, and delete this page and its discussion page; or
2. move to somewhere else - perhaps an appendix.

I'm not sure why the languages of the European Union deserve special treatment; if it were to be kept it might be more appropriate to translate the names of all languages into all languages, which makes another reason to delete it (that table would be impossibly unwieldy to use). So I suggest we go for option 1 above.

• Useful as a requested article/to-do list, and as a source of translations. But this is not a main namespace article in my view. I haven't checked, but I would not be surprised if this list were out of date. A table translating every name for a language into every other language would be impossibly large (and duplicate the translation tables in the individual articles, to boot). So as an appendix this would probably not be very useful. Either Userfy as a to-do list or go with Paul G's option of distributing the translations. Uncle G 01:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Cowardly Lion

It hasn't yet progressed from being the character's name to being an idiom, as far as I can tell. I welcome any evidence to the contrary. Uncle G 01:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've deleted it, if anyone provides the evidence I'll gladly undelete it. Kevin Rector 02:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems to me the original contributor would have been best able to do that. Kappa 02:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I very much doubt it. The original contributor was simply filling in the redlinks at Wiktionary Appendix:Fictional characters with encyclopaedia articles about individual story characters, precisely the sort of articles that we don't want, but which that list encourages. I've already had to do a complete rewrite of Baloo, another of xyr contributions. (That, at least, could be turned into a dictionary article about a name — and a common noun.) Uncle G 03:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Well I guess they might be able to figure out what wiktionary wants from your edits to Baloo, if they can't do from the red links. For evidence of being an idiom, how about [31] ? Kappa 04:19, 11 May 2005

Mafipulate

A few hits on Google, but none of them seem to be genuine. SemperBlotto 07:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted Kevin Rector 04:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Beligians in the congo

Title is a typo of a subject we probably don't need in Wiktionary, content is:

is an idot Bold text

--Wytukaze 14:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Clearly nonsense. Deleted — Paul G 14:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

meh

Invented word used in The Simpsons. Was included on on 29 April 2005 in Wikipedia's list of made-up words in The Simpsons, but it has since been deleted. — Paul G 15:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

However, this word has well and truly entered the lexicon. It is commonly used by teens, online and offline, and can be encountered all over (if rarely in print). This should be marked as a neologism, but other than that, keep. --Wytukaze 16:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 18:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)> keep. It's used enough, and I can't think of any good reason to delete it. </Jun-Dai>

It's not just used by teens. My sister is over 40 and used it in an e-mail to me. I didn't realize it was from the Simpsons, though. Should we keep it or delete it? Meh... --Angr 20:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I apologise. I meant predominantly used by teens, which I think you'll agree is a true enough statement. In any case, I'd like to weigh in with another keep :D --Wytukaze 20:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Wytukaze's second keep was mine, by proxy. - TheDaveRoss

meh138 13 May 2005; Keep: A simple Google and you'll notice that "Meh" shows up in many blogs, and often in online gaming. Also, there were a collection of stories focused on the word Meh written in the late 1980's and 1990's, before the word was used on the Simpsons. A sampling have been posted at mehword.tripod.com <meh138>

A Daughter's a Daughter

Content is "daughters are hot and the author, Agatha Christie made this book a killer. She worked on it for two years and publised it in 1950." So, let's see.. POV, encyclopaedic, non-idiomatic phrase, improper formatting.. Well, the latter would be an rfc qualification, but I think we can all see the point. --Wytukaze 20:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 21:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Make an example of

Non-idiomatic phrase, not wiktionariable. - TheDaveRoss

• Deleted Kevin Rector 21:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow this place is stricter about inclusion than real dictionaries. Kappa 00:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The text was "Make an example of". If there was actual text I would not have been so quick to delete it. My theory is that if there's nothing there then it's just as easy for an editor to re-create the page with actual text as it is to clean up the text. I'd be happy to undelete it if there is going to be more debate on it though. Kevin Rector 01:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
      • If anything needs to be said about this phrase, it can be said at example. --Angr 14:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I guess the American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms got it wrong. Kappa 10:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
          • It wasn't deleted because it isn't idomatic. It was deleted because there was no content. Feel free to re-create it with actual content. Kevin Rector 13:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Proper definition created. It is not difficult. SemperBlotto 13:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Okibi-Hiryuu & BondageJaguar

This linked pair seems to be a cross between vanity and vandalism --Dunhamrc 03:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted both. Kevin Rector 03:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Sprankton

Protologism. Kevin Rector 03:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Douglas MacArther

well, for starters, this proper noun has been mis=spelled --Dunhamrc 03:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Gone Kevin Rector 04:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Tubgirl

I would have deleted this drek on sight, but I'm not sure we have a policy for that. Kevin Rector 04:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

What exactly's wrong with this word again? I see it mentioned all the time. Sure, what it references is pretty atrocious, but that doesn't keep it from being a word. —Muke Tever 05:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, obviously you and I have a different understanding/philosophy of what makes a word. By the way, I have no objection to words that describe atrocious gross or otherwise nasty things. Kevin Rector 05:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, Google:tubgirl site:slashdot.org shows a lot of what I'm talking about. It's common, has extended/idiomatic senses ("it's no tubgirl, but..." [32]; "like a gaijin tubgirl" [33]; "whirl around and go all Tubgirl on him!" [34]) even. For people who don't know what any of that means, which would you rather send them to, wikt:tubgirl or google:tubgirl? —Muke Tever 06:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

(which isn't, of course, meant to imply that the current article is a good one yet -- its definition, at the very least, is somewhat circular, though it does have the dubious virtue of linking to the relevant Wikipedia article) —Muke Tever 06:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a proper name, therefore like surnames, should not be here. I do not believe it is the stated goal of Wiktionary to promote /. vandals. Even though I have argued in favor of keeping fisting, this leet-ish nonsense should be deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 06:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• The citations by Muke Tever prove that this is used as more than just a proper name. Kappa 10:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• They do not! Anonymous posts on a weblog of a vandalous nature are not a reputable reference source! If that were true, we would include all "leet" terms, which we do not. I'm more inclined to include leet terms than this dreck. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 04:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

1. "a weblog of a vandalous nature.." -- Wow, you've never heard of Slashdot ? It's a news blog.
2. "anonymous posts" -- Admittedly two out of the three links I posted were by anonymous cowards. Don't think it matters, anonymous people have a right to the language as much as anyone else.
3. "we would include all "leet" terms, which we do not" -- Leet spelling, no. But leet slang (in normalized spelling) should be just as valid as any other slang or jargon.
4. "reputable reference source" -- This is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Our "reputable reference sources" are any text produced by a native speaker of the language being described, as that is what our job is to describe. —Muke Tever 15:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Muke, very cute...yes, I missed a comma.
2. Er, not just Anonymous Coward, but *ALL* 'niks on /. are anonymous. There is no verification that one's /. name matches one's name in real life.

This is true all over the Internet. But not being anonymous isn't just a matter of using your real name. Muke Tever isn't my real name, though that doesn't keep me from having a consistent identity that people know well. —Muke Tever

1. But it's not accepted on Wiktionary, in general. (That's not my rule nor position, mind you.)
2. There is a salient difference between actual use, and a miniscule clique making up a word for a single specific use. In this case, it is the latter.

Minuscule, I don't know. Even just taking the undoubtedly non-proper-noun senses—i.e., the verbs—one gets: tubgirled (118 ghits) and tubgirling (45 ghits) for example, and criteria for inclusion only mandates three. —Muke Tever

Please be reasonable. This entry's appearance on Wiktionary was a troll. There simply is no valid justification for this. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 21:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Valid justification, according to project:Criteria for inclusion, for general words: both attested (by widespreadness, over 20,000 ghits), and idiomatic (does not mean the same as its components tub+girl). Justification by crit. for inc. for proper names: used as a common noun (commonly written without capitalization) as well as verb (google links above) and also used in attributive senses (/. links above). What's the justification for deletion? I've just reread this entire thread and the only objection so far is that it's a kind of proper name (but again, there are allowances for such in the inclusion criteria). —Muke Tever 00:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

-indentation.

Muke, the criteria you are quoting are from a disputed version of that page, that was changed without consensus. For that matter, it was changed without any discussion. So, you are quoting an individual's opinion...the non-subverted version does not allow for internet sources, but instead published ones. --Connel MacKenzie 01:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The criterion in question is only one of the criteria I used. Also, that was added by User:dmh over a month ago, and has been edited by three other users since then, and doesn't appear to have been "disputed" at all until just today. —Muke Tever 14:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It is true I am only blatantly challenging it now. I have mentioned that batch of changes several times before. Note that what User:Dmh said he was adding was not directly related to this. Out of curtesy, I had hoped to give User:dmh an opportunity to respond.

The single line added was added amongst a plethora of good enhancements and clarifications. Since I trust User:Dmh's contributions, I initially gave his revision only a cursory look. I had not noticed why some were presenting seemingly ridiculous arguments until you pointed out what it said in that fourth item. In disbeleif, I saw that line in his revision. Yes, a month later. Yes, it is still wrong a month later.

After tonight's particularly spirited vandalism flurry, it is even more evident that Tubgirl is a troll contribution. DELETE. --Connel MacKenzie 08:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it was a troll last week, but it's been edited constructively by two editors since then and no troll has touched it. (See the diff between creation and current.) So I don't think "troll contribution" means anything—I doubt it's valid to declare a page somehow 'unclean' because at some point it has been touched by a troll. —Muke Tever 00:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Muke, I appreciate your talented reworking of this page. Honestly, I do. But I believe the question must be asked, should it be fixed? Even reworked, it serves only to promote childish vandalism, by validating it. By validating it, you are accidentally promoting that type of childish vandalism. (See deletion log from last night.) Please stop changing the subject as I address your points one by one. Also, please don't imply that I said something I did not. (WTF? "unclean"?) Lastly, I shall repeat, the convention of deleting nonsense, trolls and vandalism is not my convention, it is Wiktionary's. And has been for a long time. This word does not exist outside of the lexicon of certain vandals. Are we to start including all other graffiti tags next? The consensus in the past has been a resounding no. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 01:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Why shouldn't a vandalized page be fixed?

Painting over vandalism doesn't validate it. Defining offensive words isn't vandalism anyway.

The subject has been tubgirl the whole time, I'm not aware of having changed it, outside of a brief digression into criteria for inclusion, which in this case was topical anyway.

Yes, 'unclean' was perhaps hyperbole. But it seemed to be the attitude associated with wanting to delete a page even after 90% of the original content has been replaced.

Forno was nonsense. Ass-pus guy is vandalism. Defining tubgirl as "a hot chick you should check out," or "a misunderstood poet of our age" would be a troll.

I don't know that all words in all languages should be meant to exclude anybody. Even graffiti tags, if you can find their use by three authors in running text anywhere (Kilroy was here, maybe?). —Muke Tever 04:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The page wasn't vandalized; the page itself is the troll/vandalism. --Connel MacKenzie 06:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't agree. —Muke Tever 15:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. <Jun-Dai 16:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)> My vote is to keep this until we have a policy page (that has seen at least some sort of community approval, even if it's just four people voicing their support) that explains why this and articles like it should not be on the Wiktionary. Though this example may be extreme--both in terms of popularity/ghits and in terms of the referent itself--there are enough like it that I feel that there should be a single policy page dealing specifically with this issue. I would, however, settle for a dedicated section of a policy page that deals with terms that have developed exclusively or almost exclusively in informal contexts over the Internet (which is what we are dealing with, ne?). For a term as important as this one, it is not sufficient that we merely have a convention of deleting/disallowing them or that we agree that in this case the term is objectionable. We need a policy. </Jun-Dai>

Jun-Dai, I completely disagree with the notion that this vandalous entry is a term "developed...in informal contexts over the Internet". As the quotes that Muke added today perfectly exemplify, the term is only used to talk about and/or promote (intentionally or unintentionally) this type of vandalism. Its existence on Wiktionary serves to further validate and promote it. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 17:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 18:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)> Connel, I pretty much agree with your sentiment, especially the last one. But I think you are drawing a line here that is not at all clear, and where the line is drawn, and what it signifies is very much part of identifying what the Wiktionary is. This is why I want to see a policy page on this. I don't personally care whether the Wiktionary decides to include Internet-based obscenity (vandalism, as you call it) and leet-speek (a related consideration, with a sub-clause regarding whether it is a different language, a dialect of English, or simply jargon), but I refuse to support the deletion of such articles until I see a policy page that defines such terms as being clearly outside of the scope of the project. My reasoning is that I fear we will be deleting a chunk of well-intentioned work (writing, research), and if we are going to do that, I want a clear page to point to to explain why we've done that. The mere existence of this debate points to the fact that there's currently too much room for disagreement with regard to what little current policy we have. </Jun-Dai>

OK then, how do you suggest that concern be addressed? BP vote? We already have a disputed version of Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion which I think should be the policy you are hoping to find. The earlier version of it clearly prohibits this type of entry, the latter disputed version clearly allows it (and is at odds with general practices.) Or are you volunteering to write a new policy sub-page of CFI, which would also probably need WS:BP approval? I think if I were to write it, it would be under too severe scrutiny (for POV) to be meaningful. Likewise Muke or dmh. --Connel MacKenzie 18:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 19:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)> In that case, I'm afraid our policy is not such that I feel we can defend deleting this article. I'll be happy to revisit my decision when we do have some official or semi-official policy that clearly indicates why the article is being deleted. As I'm sure you've noticed, I've taken a first step in attempting to determine what policy is on the Wiktionary, and I'd appreciate any efforts in molding this, er, policy. </Jun-Dai>

the term is only used to talk about and/or promote (intentionally or unintentionally) this type of vandalism. — I really don't like this argument. Praseodymium is only used to talk about and/or promote chemistry, and gules heraldry, and phoneme linguistics — It sounds like there areas of human discussion that are somehow off-limits to the dictionary? —Muke Tever 23:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

On one hand yes. Chemistry needs no external validation. Linguistics needs no external validation. Heraldry might (but in ages past it did not.) But vandalism by its very nature certainly needs external validation! The point of tagging a site like Wiktionary with an entry like "tubgirl" (whether it gets cleaned up or not) is to get recognition. Furthermore, Wiktionary itself is fequently a vandalism target. Now the target is providing the only legitimate validation for this term? I think you don't like that statement only because you heard it from me. But going on face value, the statement is true. --Connel MacKenzie 02:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not a dictionary's job to "validate" anything, only to describe.

And I'm not sure I entirely understand this latest argument. The idea that wiktionary should eschew words in the field of vandalism because it is a target of vandalism, it immediately springs to mind the idea that wiktionary would eschew words in the field of theft if its content were often plundered, or that it would forego words in the field of fire if its servers were regularly subjects of arson. None of these cases sounds like all words of all languages to me. —Muke Tever 05:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

You supplied inappropriate words for comparison - words that clearly exceed the threshold for inclusion, with the implication that a single feature of those words was relevant, when in fact that was a specious argument.

The idea that Wiktionary should eshew this term because it is a vandalism attempt is orthogonal. Perhaps I should not have pointed that out? That does not change the fact that this term is only used by such a small set of people for such a short period of time in such a specialzed manner that it does not meet the minimum requirements for inclusion.

It has been Wiktionary's policy (since inception?) to not include Proper Names as "words." --Connel MacKenzie 16:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Cathardick

Webcomic exists, but seems to be the only sense of this word. Not in common use. --Dvortygirl 05:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Gone Kevin Rector 05:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Dougie poynter

I'll just cite the content, I think:

Dougie poynter is very hot!!! He keeps lizards and loves blink and if your a true fan you will know all of everything i be writing so i shalt not go on!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahaha check out more about him on some other websites like mcflyofficial.com and loads others you will find if u search him on alltheweb.com!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol i shall update this when i can be bothered as i am more interested in harry and many rock bands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--Wytukaze 09:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)!!!!!!111oneone

Ooh, it looks like Wonderfool deleted this a minute after I made this request. --Wytukaze 14:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Volapük introduction

I don't know if this has ever come up before, but I found this on Special:Longpages. It's clearly not a suitable article for the main namespace, perhaps not even suitable for Wiktionary as a whole, and is possibly copyright violation. If it's not copyvio, or we can't find any copies of it, I suggest it should be saved somewhere; it seems such a shame to just eradicate it. I found it quite interesting to read, by the way, I suggest you do the same. --Wytukaze 16:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• If it really is GFDL, and not a copyright violation, I'll be happy to put it onto the Languages bookshelf at Wikibooks. Unfortunately, the bottom of the article leads me to believe that it is a copyright violation. Uncle G 18:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• I'm wondering if it is vanity rather than copyvio - trying to push a silly language. Either way, it has got to go. SemperBlotto 07:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Friction force

I assume that he means coefficient of friction, or just friction SemperBlotto 21:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 07:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Musical fruit

content is: "Beans, the musical fruit that makes you toot."

• Deleted. Kevin Rector 04:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikitangent

0 google, certainly a protologism. - TheDaveRoss

• I added it to Wiktionary:List of protologisms and deleted it. I rather like this one as I have been on many Wikitangents in my life. Of course in might be more appropriate to call it a webtangent as the same phenomenon can happen on any old regular web site with links that are interesting. Kevin Rector 14:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Add an entry

Content is "A strange looking creature who died because of repetitve strain injury and led to blindness, would have found the cure for cancer but decided to play on planetarion instead" (with the editing comment "Andy Savage"). An attempt to mock someone? In any case, not Wiktionary material. Would've been nice if they did find the cure to cancer... --Wytukaze 12:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh look, Andy savage appears again. This should also be deleted, of course. (I would've posted this earlier, but the power failure that made the servers go down obviously prevented this). --Wytukaze 14:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Bowdler

When the part of speech is given as "Biographical", one knows that something is wrong. This apparently sprang from a redlink at bowdlerize that should have been an interwiki link. This isn't a dictionary article about a word or a phrase. It's an encyclopaedia article about a person. Uncle G 15:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted Kevin Rector 15:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[[:/.]]

Quite a complicated one this. The article title doesn't work, basically, as browsers (IE, Mozilla and Mozilla Firefox at least) try to link to /. The article itself is a redirect to Slashdot, and can be accessed by using this. It can also be called using a template, {{:/.}}, which displays the slashdot article text. A similar problem is linking to it, as a simple [[]] link will resolve in a subpage of the article with the link (Preceding it with a colon does work, mind). I'm not entirely sure how this would be deleted (I'm not clear on the mechanisms of deletion in MediaWiki), but I reckon it should be done. In Slashdot, the link to [[:/.]] should be changed to /., but no searches for "/." will actually work. I've rambled on long enough, comments? --Wytukaze 01:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Hrumph. It seems a common abbreviation (certainly common on fark and elsewhere) to me. The link itself was problematic, which is why I entered it as a redirect. Google oddly refuses to search the term, even in quotes.  :-) Lastly, I seem to recall the search box here working for it in the past...it is certainly not working now. I agree that the link in slashdot could perhaps be bolded instead of linked (improperly.) --Connel MacKenzie 03:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I deleted it since it's not even possible to get to the page through normal means. If this is a problem I'm willing to discuss it, but I can't for the life of me think of a good reason to have an article that you can't get to that exists specifically to redirect. Kevin Rector 20:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• I think it is wise to point out that the search button behavior has been changing recently. As developers settle on a particular search method, it is quite possible it will again be reachable from there.
• It is still a common shortening of the term.
• Deleteing it because it can't be reached right now is probably not a valid argument.
• Also, this quite possibly is linked to, from http://slashdot.org/ (or its archives) itself.

• Thinking of this some more, I believe I entered this as a result of a /. link to begin with. --Connel MacKenzie 04:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleting an item immediately after hearing an argument in its defense is also against the current deletion policy.
• --Connel MacKenzie 08:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that it is a common enough abbreviation, but that doesn't excuse the problem of its title and the errors introduced therewith. As of current, it could only be accessed via external links, or colon-links, which won't direct to the article. All links to [[:/.]] (of which there are currently none, I believe) could instead be directed to slashdot, with a piped link if desirable: /.. If later versions of the software can handle this title, let it be entered. Until such time, I think this special (I aim to set no precedents) case should remain deleted, whether proper procedures were followed or not. --Wytukaze 07:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

What errors? Oh, you mean if it were to be linked incorrectly here, I guess? But that does not explain why you think it is acceptable to break external links. Why do you condone ignoring policy? Perhaps because it matches your POV opinion? What will you do when the policy violations don't? --Connel MacKenzie 08:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sorry? My POV opinion? I do believe you've got me wrong. I'm entirely in favour of including [[:/.]], it's a widespread alternative form; however, I am not in favour of including articles which, by their very nature, cannot function correctly. Do those external links actually function? A link of the form http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki//. does not work as desired, no matter what anyone's POV might be. If you can show me that an external link does work, without any modifications (such as http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=/.&redirect=no which does work, but it's not the standard form, and neither will it actually perform its function, namely, to redirect.) then I shall gladly vote for its undeletion.

That aside, I apologise for any way in which I may have offended you or otherwise acted in a manner that could have angered you (or generally 'got your back up'). --Wytukaze 08:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The condoning of ignoring policy was why I was overreacting.

Right now, I do not know how I entered this in the first place. Clearly, the Wiktionary software was functioning differently when I entered it 1 Feb 2005. Is it because the "search" capability it now turned on again, that the Wiki s/w is using a different method? I don't know. Will this link go back to working, the next time the server is slow and searching is disabled again? I don't know, but I suspect it will. --Connel MacKenzie 08:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

(moving back to the margin)Perhaps it was actually from an internal link? That would give you http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=/.&action=edit, which does work. Either way, if at some point the link works, by all means, add it, I won't object. I suspect it won't, though, because the problem with the title itself appears to be the full stop at the end. I think browsers ignore that. --Wytukaze 09:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• I re-added it since I was the one who deleted it and Connel makes a good point that I should have waited. Personally, I think it's pointless to include this in the dictionary but it doesn't hurt anything either. I tried to un-delete it, but I couldn't because of the nature of the link. Kevin Rector 13:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

From Special:logs/delete I was able to restore the original history. I did encounter the problem Kevin described also, when trying to restore it from it's own page. Learn something new every day...

I am now seeing just how bizarre this is now. This page's table of contents links #.2F. which oddly works. Additionally, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki//%25%32%45 seems to work also? It is difficult to even guess where the URL encoding is breaking, but by merit of the double encoding I'd guess that this is actually intended to work? Now I just don't know. I do not recall going to such pains in February. --Connel MacKenzie 18:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Mission

Encyclopaedic. Not sure if even title is salvagable. --Connel MacKenzie 05:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• I agree on the content. As for the title, as far as I can see it is not an idiom. It's just Roman + Catholic + mission. I looked to see whether this information was in Wikipedia. It isn't. Transwiki (to w:Transwiki:Roman Catholic mission in Turks and Caicos Islands) and Delete. One of our very rare transwikies to Wikipedia. I'll do the transwiki if the consensus agrees. Uncle G 11:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• I agree. Kevin Rector 19:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• I've transwikied it to the aforementioned, and dealt with it further from there. Uncle G 23:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Ipkissium mascosus

I think that this is supposed to be Latin - but isn't. It looks like a joke to me. SemperBlotto 07:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• Pumpie added it on 2004-04-08 to the Latin index. Given that xyr other contributions there appear to be good faith ones, I believe that this wasn't intended to be a joke. Note the original etymology and definition. I think that xe took a comic book too seriously. I cannot find any uses or attestations of ipkissium (also in the Latin index), so it does not qualify as a word; and therefore ipkissium mascosus cannot be an idiom. Uncle G 11:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, have you seen the Latin index pages? They're full of random nonsense. Some more examples from Wiktionary:Latin index i: "ID" (id I could see, sure), "illusiv" (German, isn't it?), "idealum" (for idealem?), "insult" (English!), "intertana" (a googlewhack, I have no idea)... I don't know about 'good faith', I only remember User:Pumpie's dubious contributions (mostly on la.wikipedia, admittedly, less so here). —Muke Tever 02:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 07:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

"house at hame"

Certainly others feel differently, but I could care less about Emily Dickenson. Anyhow, this is not the place for such spurious questions. --Connel MacKenzie 07:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Slave Dynasty

From special:shortpages. --Connel MacKenzie 03:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Converted into proper entry. SemperBlotto 07:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Connel MacKenzie 08:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Acecious

Zero Google; appears to be vanity. Also, please have a look at Big Al. --Dvortygirl 04:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 07:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Big Al

Not dictionary material. TheDaveRoss

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 07:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Not an idiom. And we have big and Al. Deleted (as 2 administrators have done before me within the past 24 hours). Uncle G 22:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Googlewhack

<Jun-Dai 08:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)> As amuzed as I am by it, this article smells to me of promotion. But then again, maybe not. What do y'all think? </Jun-Dai>

• Yes, this is a well-documented new word. (I had an email from somebody a few weeks ago to say they had Googlewhacked a part of my own website (I forget the pair of words)). SemperBlotto 10:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this term sees use well outside of googlewhack.com. I know I use it (and ghit, which I'm surprised to see bearing the 'protologism' stigma). I edited it to reflect the use I'm familiar with (and to clarify that only one result is found). —Muke Tever 02:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Words go from being protologisms to being neologisms. It certainly is a term that is used only in specialized circles. I dunno, I think tagging it as a protologism (still) is quite valid. --Connel MacKenzie 20:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• This now has wide currency, thanks to Dave Gorman's book and theatre show. I think it has certainly graduated from protologism to neologism. — Paul G 13:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Churchward

Oh come on now! You could create one of these by taking any noun and adding "ward" to the end. Some of them obviously do exist - homeward is an obvious example. But not this one, I think. SemperBlotto 21:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• I can find no evidence that the adjective claimed even existed. This is, however, a well-attested proper noun. I've done a complete rewrite. Uncle G 22:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Shuli

Vanity methinks. - TheDaveRoss

• Almost certainly, given that, although it isn't (as claimed) an adjective, it is a proper noun. It's a hypocoristic for Shulamith (and possibly Sulamit) that appears to have become a given name in its own right. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to hunt up more details right at this moment. Uncle G 04:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Who studies space

Content is "Hi I study space.Just joking." Does not merit an entry even if cleaned up. — Dvortygirl 05:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted as a user test of the edit function. Uncle G 05:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

anthopomorphism

I have cleaned up, merged content, and added to the article already at the correct spelling, anthropomorphism. This is an error and a less-complete duplicate. --Dvortygirl 15:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. (sorry, I created it from a wrongly spelled red link) SemperBlotto 16:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Lloyd Carr

Badly formed article for an encyclopaedic topic, and not one that really merits an encyclopaedia article at that (IMO). --Wytukaze 20:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Edit: Just been cleaned up a bit by the creator, but it's still not a worthy article. Plus, they removed my {{rfd}}. For shame! --Wytukaze 20:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

com'n...your rfd was removed completely by accident, newbie mistake. You sure sound like an 'expert' so remove the entry if you must. Wiki seemed like a good idea!

Ah, apologies for the false accusation, then. And I'm not exactly an 'expert', compared to others around here, I'd imagine. Also, I can't delete it myself, I need to be a sysop to do that. Besides, someone else might decide it warrants an entry here. Personally, I doubt that they would. Wiktionary is specifically for words, as it's a dictionary and all, but Wikipedia might be the right place for this, I'm not sure. I doubt they'd want you to make an entire article on it, but there's likely a list of coaches somewhere on there. If you can find something like that, by all means include it, otherwise it's probably best left alone. Regards, Wytukaze 21:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You are right. No other people are in the Wiktionary. My mistake, but I learned a lot. Wiki is much less mysterious!

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 21:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Bucky Beaver vandalism

Delete all his contributions (new articles and categories). Delete:

• Eekpa - Deleted then restored as redirect and protected --Connel MacKenzie 08:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Category:Ass pus - Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 08:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• (Image:Wooter.jpg) - Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 08:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Estrange - Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 08:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Estrange - Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 08:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Category:Animal fucking - Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 08:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Breech birth - Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 08:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Carefully deleting page moves in attempt to restore edit history now. (Goatse gone.) --Connel MacKenzie 05:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Connel MacKenzie 08:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

... --- ...

Probably the most familiar Morse code message, but if you are familiar with it, why would you want to look it up? I don't think we should have Morse code in here. Provide the Morse code alphabet to an appendix by all means (I have suggested to User:SemperBlotto he might like to do that, in reply to a message on Morse code) but do not have any Morse code entries. In any case, the wiki software can't handle some of the characters, such as "." and "..". — Paul G 10:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I've just found where the Morse code alphabet needs to go – there is a red link on this page — Paul G 16:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I linked Appendix:Morse code on that page, but I wonder, should the language be listed instead as English? And is the code itself an initialism? SOS is an initialism, but dot dot dot dash dash dash dot dot dot is pronounced a little differently? --Connel MacKenzie 21:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Josh best

vanity page, conten: "Josh best is a cool cat yo." - TheDaveRoss 12:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted SemperBlotto 14:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

WHAT IS ISLAM

Maybe we should have a wikiCAPITALISEDQUESTIONS --Wytukaze 19:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

IT HAS BEEN DELETED.  :-) --Connel MacKenzie 20:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

That would have to be wikiCAPITALISEDQUESTIONSWITHNOQUESTIONMARKONTHEEND :) — Paul G 13:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

"Bushian Warfare Cult"

Encyclopedic, not NPOV, no meaning distinct from the combination of words, and article title is in quotes. --Dvortygirl 06:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Wow. This is my first sighting of "Granfalloonian" in running text. MoveToWikiSource perhaps? (So whomever it is doesn't try re-adding it here?) Otherwise, chuckle reading it once, then delete. --Connel MacKenzie 06:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• If you look at the same user's edits to Bushian, you'll see where this is being copyvioed from. Uncle G 06:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted SemperBlotto 07:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Bushian Warfare Cult

• Still encyclopaedic, with no meaning distinct from the combination of words. Uncle G 11:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Cleveland steemer, Clevland Steemer

Repeated entry with different titles, typos, wrong capitalisation... oh, and the content is suspect (do not read if you've just had lunch...) — Paul G 13:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted (definitely suspect, as the item that supposedly warms the mouth will be at the same (bodily) temperature) SemperBlotto 13:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Chili dog

Appeared at the same time as Cleveland steemer and Clevland Steemer, and is apparently one of a series. (Wikipedia has encyclopaedia articles on these things. See w:donkey punch.) Is this an idiom? Moreover, is simply adding the sense of "hot dog" to dog (as other dictionaries do) enough to cover the more mainstream meaning of phrases such as "chili dog", "corn dog", "danger dog", "Dodger Dog", and "cheese dog"? I think that it probably is. Uncle G 12:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• I have converted it into a "normal" entry but, not being American, I may not have it quite right. SemperBlotto 13:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• Close, but not quite. A chili dog is not covered with chili sauce, but chili itself, the beans-and-meat stuff. Messy, but delicious! I fixed it. —Dvortygirl 01:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Subscription management software

advertisement --Dunhamrc 21:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC) agree advertisement Wjbean 21:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 21:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Yoig

A protologism or perhaps just a nonce? --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Protologismy. Ghits return suprisingly large number of binary innards of PDF files, also commonly typo of 'yogi', and apparently may be a word in Hmong. BALEET. —Muke Tever 01:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Tá grá agam ort.

If language is identified, this should be kept, but not at entry with punctuation at end. --Connel MacKenzie 21:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The language is Irish. I think it needs a cleanup more than a deletetion, and obviously needs to be wikified. But I don't speak Irish so I'll have to wait for someone else to do it.

--Dmol 22:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The period at the end of the term/phrase is part of it? --Connel MacKenzie 23:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC) Also note: What links here (to it) points to I love you. --Connel MacKenzie 23:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Dullea

Surname. --Connel MacKenzie 21:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Murrification

Protologism? Or just nonsense? --Connel MacKenzie 23:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonsensical-looking protologism. (If anything one would expect it to mean the process of making something murry, i.e. likely to make one go 'murr'.) Delete. —Muke Tever 01:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 08:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Kitai

Surname. --Connel MacKenzie 05:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Non-English_words

This page is old, and was only ever of very temporary interest.--Richardb 05:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 08:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)