This is a discussion archive created in June 2006, though the comments contained may not have been posted on this date.Please do not post any new comments on this page. Seecurrent discussion, or thearchives index.

Language not listed onw:List of ISO 639 codes? --Connel MacKenzieTC21:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darkinjung seems to be an extinct Australian aboriginal language. Do we accept those?SemperBlotto21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't we?Kappa23:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, it wasn't even a written language then? Hmmm, let me check my authoritative Oxford Darkinjung Dictionary... --Connel MacKenzieTC23:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was written. How would even know what its words were otherwise? --Ptcamn23:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation (on IRC.) I'll remove the rfd tag...but I'm sure the language issue will resurface again. --Connel MacKenzieTC21:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaks for itself.bd2412T04:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - the entry has now been deleted and protected against recreation byConnel MacKenzie. Thanks!bd2412T20:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think if I was here more often I'd start compiling statisitics on who is the most autocratic person around here. Connel is doing well. This word has 283 Google Hits. At the very least it should be listed as a protologism, not instantly deleted by one autocrat, using a sledgehammer of a procedure to lock the word out!--Richardb08:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong; he's just among the most active. What a brilliant spate of personal attacks! —Vildricianus10:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is better, open and honest abuse, or Connel stalking nmy contributions/undeletes, and taking the sledgehammer to so many? I am open and honest and above board, if somewhat abusive through shear frustration. Connel isn't abusive in speech, just in action!--Richardb07:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richardb, Iknow you have the ability to see the entry that was deleted. If it were used as a nonce word, that would not be the meaning. This was obvious vandalism that someoneelse nominated. --Connel MacKenzieTC20:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out also that the definition before deletion was something along the lines of the person who bags the body parts after you dismember a whore... ergo, deletion+protection=good call. Cheers!bd2412T20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I no-longer have the ability to see the entry that was deleted, because of the "sledgehammer" process I referred to before. You moved it somewhere else, and then deleted it, thus making it untraceable. Not an approved process at all.--Richardb07:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(See below for a note about the availability of the text that was deleted. —scs20:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Again, Connel conveniently missed out the second meaning/definition that was in the entry, which was quite a reasonably thoughtful entry. (I can't quote it now becuase Connel has hidden and deleted the entry. --Richardb07:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also some sort of unwritten code of etiquette that if Administrators start having a war over a word, then the default position is to leave it in!--Richardb07:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a bad enough code to get rid of it. —Vildricianus09:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for being autocratic, I am completely in agreement with the action which was taken, as are Vild and BD apparently, and seeing as that represents 4 out of the 5 people who have made any sort of indication of their opinion on the matter, seems very democratic to me. I would appreciate if you would stop crying havok every time someone made a decision that you do not agree with, if we waited for the entire community to vote on every word that comes up for deletion then exi***nt would still be here, as would about 2,000 *on wheels pages. Yelling at people for being "autocratic" when they have the exact same abilities and influence as you do is a bit silly, and it is getting old from my perspective. Instead of threatening to compile some ominous statistics about Connel (and probably my, and I have a feeling SemperBlotto would do well on your stats) various abuses of power, come and tell us how you would have handled something, or would like it to be handled in the future. Most of the opinions you have been issuing recently have been confrontational at best, and rarely have offered up an alternative solution. -TheDaveRoss21:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better than nominating a word on RFD, then deleting it in less than 2 days, then completely deleting and hiding it when another administraor disagrees, all within 3 days. As to not offering solutions, I did. I suggested the Protologism process was more appropraite than instant and then unreversible deletion, overriding another administrator.--Richardb07:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Richardb07:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same abilities in theory, but I do NOT have the ability to be so brazenly arrogant as to hide and delete entries by completely unethical processes. I bring my complaints here for debate, or try formaulting policies for all to discuss, not take unilateral action to destroy other people's work, and then lie about the circumstsances. I did try off-line email discussions to try to convince Connel to stick to the great deal of good work he does sometimes, instead of becoming some sort of witch-finder general vowing to delete all entries that offend his personal taste. It has to be better to err on the side of leaving questionable entries in for a bit longer, not deliberately seeking out new words for personal approval/disapproval, and then deleting them, no matter if they have some support from others.

• 283? I think not. Zero is what I seehere. --Connel MacKenzieTC02:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another favourite ploy of Connel's. Mis-quote. I quoted the number of google hits, not the number of google book hits. It deserves at least treatment as a protologism.

• My personal favorit citation:FUCK COCKMONKEY TREEHUGGER SLURAWCUNTWHOREBAGGER TRICKDADDYWANNABE AINTYOMOMMABLOW ME ASSHOLE . YOU JUST COULDNT LET IT FUCKING END. (also, the 283 is deceiving, all but 16 are "similar" [aka, mirrors of Urbandict etc.] and definately don't count. Most of the rest are amidst gibberish and usernames)-TheDaveRoss03:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bit more thoughtful response. But, why not put it into Protologism list, as I suggested ? At a glance I thought it had a few sensible uses, and a sensible second definition, so I thought it was worth a longer look, not instant dismissal. I might even be wrong, but Connel has denied us the ability to even check what the entry did say. --Richardb07:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Ican't take away your sysop flag. --Connel MacKenzieTC08:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, how about being reasonable?

1. Why don't you follow the links in the undeletion view? Don't tell me you've not already found the entry.
2. Whe don't rely on plain Google hits here; Google books is the stuff we're looking at.
3. You just don't seem to understand that made-up neologisms don't fit here. How often are we going to have to repeat that? It's one of the most basic principles around here and if you'd like to discuss that, go ahead and do so (not here, in the BP). But this here word is made-up, nonsense, and nowhere near widespread. 283 poor Google hits is an argumentnot to include it.
4. Go ahead and put it inWT:LOP. What are you waiting for, you do have an edit button, don't you? —Vildricianus09:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, perhapsI don't understand. Are you having difficulty seeinghttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Wiktionary:Deleted_nonsense orhttp://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Wiktionary%3ADeleted_nonsense&timestamp=20060613051724 ? --Connel MacKenzieTC16:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two are apparently not independent:

1. • 1998 September 28, Daniel Rush, "DoD Bans Sexually Explicit Pubs, Video",alt.military,Usenet

     Here we are, defending awhore bagger and adultering jerk, as well as the freedoms of the couch potato fools back home and these DC jerks can tell me that I can't have this magazine or that magazine.

   • 1999 March 30, dan rush, "Ground troops = WORLD WAR III",alt.president.clinton,Usenet

     Grab your socks people, the big fuck is coming thanks to that Arkasaswhore-bagger!

This is as close to using the term as exists. Otherwise just unenlightening namecalling, plus forums, user pages, and of course urban dictionary. I couldn't find anything else.∂ανίΠα19:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who's curious about the deleted text, it's the two-parter by "KingOzymandias" athttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Whorebagger. (I don't know which came first, that entry or the one here that got deleted). Note that there's not super-good agreement of the definitions in question with the others listed there, or with thesporadic other hits which google turns up. —scs20:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, having refreshed myself with the UrbanDictionary def, I am stunned by how right I was to tag this in the first place.bd2412T03:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at those two citations, they certainly wouldn't support the definition that had been given. Rather, those two citationsseem to indicate a pejorative comment meaning "someone who can only (or whose pasttime is to) get laid by a whore." But even that doesn't seem to pass CFI (as above.) --Connel MacKenzie19:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition #2 # The ability to do mathematics. #:Mymathematics isn't very good. This can be done with any field of study. One could just as easily say,Myphysics isn't very good etc. Because this applies equally to any field of study, it should be removed.Fark20:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree,delete.Widsith22:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what this page is for. This should go atWT:RFV. —Vildricianus23:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't, because I'm not disputing the existence of this definition. I'm saying that it applies equally to any field of study, and so shouldn't be mentioned.—This unsigned comment was added byFark (talk •contribs) 02:00, 15 June 2006.

No dude, your askingmathematics to be deleted.Keep. Also, anonymous comments may at all times be removed, so sign them. —Vildricianus11:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is,unsigned comments, in case that was ambiguous.

This keep vote (now unbolded) is clearly for the page rather than the sense.59.112.50.16315:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say that? Rebolded. —Vildricianus16:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only asking definition 2 to be deleted, not the whole page. Read what I've written above. Definition 2 goes equally well with any field of study, so needs no mention. Do you agree or disagree with removing it?Fark11:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed with{{rfd-sense}}.59.112.50.16315:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent troll! Bravo.Keep. --Connel MacKenzieTC23:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons?59.112.50.16315:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem? The RFD is for the 2nd definition only. It's ludicrous. We couly equally add the same sort of thing tocycling,reading etc etc.Widsith12:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen an RFD for definitions. Even better than RFV is the Tea room, for this is an issue that could affect more entries and is purely linguistical. As if it could be sorted out by voting! I'd like to see opinions and arguments, not votes. —Vildricianus16:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a distinct sense recognised by other dictionaries. Yes, it can be applied to any field of study, but that's irrelevant (the thin-edge-of-the-wedge argument is not a valid reason for not including something). —Paul G08:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edge-of-the-wedge is invalid... except for most figurative senses, substantivation of adjectives, most gerunds, and less notable constructed adjectives from participles. Her knitting, your typing, their canoeing lead to everyone's best guessing.Davilla07:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, which dictionaries recognise this as a separate sense? The OED certainly doesn't, nor does Webster's, nor does Merriam-Webster, nor does Encarta, nor does American Heritage, nor does Dictionary.com. I can't believe any authority could possibly call this a distinct sense.Widsith21:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted disputed sense.Andrew massyn09:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes: "I did mathematics at university" - here "mathematics" is clearly a field of study. However that is not the sense in "My mathematics is not very good" - it means what the definition said: the ability to do mathematics. No, it's not on the OED, but that's not a reason to exclude it. The meaning is distinct, and so would some translations be. Furthermore, "numeracy" is a possible synonym, but not for the main sense of the word. This is further evidence, to my mind, that this sense is distinct from the main one.

Ha ha, I notice that the sense was deleted, but not the translations :) Having this as a separate sense is harmless. Omitting it is an oversight.Restoring. —Paul G07:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had preserved both when running through generic trademarks, and although there is support for the generics, both in the community and as reflected in the rules, I'm not so sure that the company names meet CFI. On the other hand we haveMicrosoft from whichMicro$oft is derived. What is or should be our policy concerning company names?Davilla19:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. They are in general use. In the generic sense they are not copyrightedAndrew massyn.

The nomination is specifically for the company names, not the generic senses in lower-case.59.112.38.21513:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be checking the more obscure occasional trademark question athttp://uspto.gov/ orhttp://www.wipo.int/ or both? --Connel MacKenzie20:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note thataspirin andescalator began as trademarked terms...bd2412T16:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said elsewhere, the trademarked referents are normally kept, anyway.Keep. --Connel MacKenzie18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both.bd2412T17:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need actual usages for all three meanings.Eclecticology08:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Erotic art depicting female children, generally between the ages of 8 and 13.

1. Producers of the lolicon and bishoujo material often argue that the Japanese constitution guarantees their freedom of expression in this matter and that laws restricting these materials would be unconstitutional. -Megatokyo
2. Lolicon is a part of hentai anime with pictures of young girls ranging from ages 3-16. -fan listing
3. "loli-con for 'Lolita complex' comics, a genre of porn comics for men featuring young girls." - "Office Sluts and Rebel Flowers: The Pleasures of Japanese Pornographic Comics for Women" by Deborah Shamoon inporn studies (2004)→ISBN p. 101 n.8 - Linda Williams, editor

2. A pedophile fixated on young girls.

1. "There has been significant public outcry in Japan following the kidnapping and murder of an elementary school girl in Nara, Japan and the arrest of a suspected lolicon for the crimes. -Megatokyo

3. The sexual attraction to young girls.

1. Lolicon, or Rorikon (ロリコン) is the Japanese gairaigo term (usually short form) for Lolita complex (derived from the novel Lolita), the sexual attraction to fictional and real underage girls, or ephebophilia. (Strictly speaking, Roriita-konpurekkusu in Japanese means only psychological tendency of an adult man or older boy; rorikon, however, additionally implies persons who have such psychological tendency. This difference is important.) -Hentai:Lolicon:Definition

Fan listing site does not work; Megatokyo is a members only site; Hentai site is a general Lycos-Tripod main page. None of this verifies anything. While I'm confident that there may evidence for the first meaning, I am far from convinced about the other two.Eclecticology07:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan listing sites are now excluded? Let's not count usenet either then. Hell, let's only take printed sources, the internet is dubious. Print sources should only be taken if there is evidence that the document has been edited by three experts holding masters or doctorates. That way we can be _really_ sure we define words how they are actually being used. Who sets these standards? Why are the arbitrarily applied? Why haven't you responded aboutA.? -TheDaveRoss01:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EC,go stick your head up a dead bear's bum with this stupid rejection of perfectly valid (though bad taste) entries. I'm removing the rfv. --Richardb09:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what happened to "no personal attacks?" Add valid print citations instead, if you feel passionate about it. Perhaps if you'd been around when it was nominated, you'd have seen there were more problems with this entry than meets the eye, now. Please also note that the ridiculous assertion made by adding this entry, is that it is aEnglish termin widespread use (which this rfv process demonstrated, is false.) Sites that do not represent a published source at all, are not "durably archived" as per CFI. --Connel MacKenzieTC14:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

consensus is to keep.Andrew massyn

No. Two people thinking itmight be a valid entry is not consensus. The entry never found print citations, and the "RFV" tag was vandalously removed with an excuse that Wikipedia had an entry. As it turns out, the Wikipedia article seems to be a product ofUser:Primetime/w:User:Primetime (w:User talk:Primetime#I'm not very happy with your edit to Lolicon, the (now) well-known vandal/suckpuppeteer/copyvio promulgator. --Connel MacKenzieTC09:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is as ubiquitous on the internet as it is absent off of it. If LOL is to remain, lolicon should also. -TheDaveRoss06:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like you are aruging that ithas not entered general usage. Obviously, it is not as ubiquitous asLOL, or it wouldn't have been nominated. There are still no durably archived citations for this - I still think it does not meet CFI. --Connel MacKenzieTC16:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Huge no. of hits online.Andrew massyn20:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As no agreement yet reached moving to rfd. Please post further comments there.Andrew massyn20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to reach consensus here. Please consider your responses. ThanksAndrew massyn20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Huge no. of hits online.Andrew massyn20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The clear lack of anyone willing to dig up a citation of any durably archived sort is a pretty good indication that this isn't a word. It probably won't exist in a couple years - no reason for us to be the sole promoter of the term.PLEASE NOTE: at least half the "citations" on the sub-page are already gone. The other two won't load on my browser at the moment... --Connel MacKenzieTC23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have a look for citations myself, but I'd be worried about what sites I'd end up finding, and I doubt that my argument would go down well in court (Yeah, Mr. Judge, I was looking for references for the word "lolicon" when I stumbled across this child porn site. And I needed 3 seperate references, which is why I went into 3 seperate child porn sites)! Sorry, this is not a helpful comment. --Dangherous15:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Few books.google hits. 2 to be precise. Perhaps a term too new for inclusion here, but then, we've had similar cases that are still around, IIRC. —Vildricianus15:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the term isn't new, it has been around for 8 years at least, seeing as it has been on 4chan at least that long as a major category of posts (meaning sense 1) Also it has been included in at least 1 scholarly work. This term suffers from the fact that it's predominant usage is "verbal" (which can now be said to include instant messages, message boards, other forms of direct personal communication) so there isn't as much documentation of it's usage as we normally like. The fact remains that it is used VERY widely in sense 1, and less widely but still used in senses 2 and 3. If senses 2 and 3 are to go, so be it, but losing sense 1 would be unfortunate. -TheDaveRoss16:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting perspective. To what extent do we include predominantly verbal terms? Anyway, that's where some of the idea behind any descriptivistic dictionary clashes a bit with its possibilities... spoken language versus written language. Has this ever been discussed before? —Vildricianus18:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Also cleared the citations page (a couple of good references kept, but mostly forums or broken links) and added a fourth meaning I'd seen.∂ανίΠα22:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. Also, wow. According to the history, Dav has been working on this entry for the last five and a half hours! Nice job.Widsith22:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is keep. Has been cited. Have moved this discussion to the talk page and removed rfd.Andrew massyn11:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Something is very wrong. These are all internet references, but many do not have links anymore. Most of them are blogs, specifically prohibited inWT:CFI as not being durably archived (and indeed; most are "404"s now.) --Connel MacKenzie18:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be'nuff and'nuff said?SemperBlotto10:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes --Enginear13:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved from rfv. Please post further comments here. if no furhter comments it will be deleted in a fortnight.Andrew massyn11:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At most, should be moved, as per conversation above.Davilla07:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is harmless, adds some minimal value. Deleting it adds no value, actually removes value. (

If you feel the urge to delete other peoples entries all the time, why don't you get a job as a graffiti removalist somewhere, instead of rampaging through other people's embryonic contributions in Wiktionary!)--Richardb09:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to 'nuff.Andrew massyn09:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page is just an infinitely recursive redirect.Sceptre21:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. It redirects to a spelling with an accent over one of the letters.SemperBlotto21:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't redirect when I first visited the page. My bad.Sceptre21:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mebyon Kernow is a political party. Do we allow political parties in English Wiktionary? --Brandnewuser18:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We allow definition, but not encyclopedic entries.SemperBlotto18:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entry has been cleaned up, therefore struck here. --Connel MacKenzie18:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderfoolism for urbanspelunking? --Connel MacKenzieTC19:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Books, the bookSubterranean Cities: The World Beneath Paris and London (2005) by David L Pike uses the term. I can't access the book itself due to copyright, but I think it's sufficient to show that it's a real word. --Ptcamn19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have added cites, etc --Enginear00:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verified. Struck.bd2412T06:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This and other pages by the same contributor purport to be Hindi, but they are in the wrong alphabet.—Stephen19:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From rfv. Please post further comments here. If not verified, the article will be deleted in two weeks.Andrew massyn04:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just a Hindi word. It is used quite readily in English to describe God (in Sikhism).82.37.160.14720:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is used in English. Appropriate Hindi word should be created in Devanagari script. --Dijan13:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfvfailed. Deleted.Andrew massyn15:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would you come to that conclusion? There isw:satguru with plenty of references. At the minimum if you restore what was there I'll create the appropriate devanagari entry. -Taxman21:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've restored the word. I must have been having a bad day when it was deleted. Appologies and Best wishesAndrew massyn18:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved toWT:TR#X one's Y off and the like — Vildricianus11:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that this is a real word -Παρατηρητής

From rfv please post further comments here. If no verification the artcle will be deleted in two weeks.Andrew massyn11:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, even in the ref given, it's two words. Ascold spot it's either a protologism or a "real" word, as a less-common antonym tomost meanings ofhot spot, including some we don't yet have, and also refers to an area associated with paranormal phenomena, and to an area of a building, etc, where insulation or air-tightness is compromised. But as one word, the only hits it seems to get are websites, bands, etc of that name. Maybe easier to delete this and start acold spot entry from scratch when someone has time.Enginear14:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had investigated this a while back and not found any independent supportfor the definition given, although a future submission could fall under Enginear's generalization.Davilla16:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it certainly must have cellphone-context usage. Doesn't it? Still needs a lot of cleanup, too. --Connel MacKenzie17:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, how did this fail RFV?Books 1 - 10 with 213 pages on coldspot. (0.00 seconds) --Connel MacKenzie17:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lots of print refs, butNONE I could find for the electronic usage. Four uses to do with low temperature, and ALL the rest are capitalised tradenames, etc.Hotspot has >12k books entries, many of them with the electronic meaning, socoldspot will probably be citable in a year or two, but as of now, it is not. Perhaps put in LOP to await resurection? --Enginear15:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RFVfail I was talking about, had found no valid use of the term at all. So I think this should be moved to "cleanup" instead of delete or verify. The cell-phone use can be readded when print citations support it. --Connel MacKenzie18:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've replaced the content with the only verifiable meaning I can find (variant ofcold spot). Any new verifiable meaning can be added thereafter. —[admin]Pathoschild07:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this just Wiktionary and Wikipedia jargon? It seems harmless enough, and, as Connel created it, the inclusionwill probably be vehemently defended. But maybe not. --Brandnewuser00:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep! Keep!^{<-- vehement defense}bd2412T00:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose you're right, it is basically a protologism.Widsith08:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a neologism, but not a protologism; it isn't a term created for the term's sake (proto) it is a term created to represent a concept. Whatever it was that linked there, no longer does, so I honestly don't know why I had created it (other than the obvious reasons.) Since it is properly labeled as{{wjargon}}and the nomination here came from a sockpuppet, I doubt this entry needsvehement defending. My casualkeep should do just fine. --Connel MacKenzie16:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —[admin]Pathoschild06:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Claims to be Hindi, but it’s the wrong alphabet.—Stephen19:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From rfv. Please post further comments here. If not verified, it will be deleted in two weeks.Andrew massyn19:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned this up, added a reference and the devanagari, moving it to the proper titleअद्बैत. Sokeep now. -Taxman00:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.bd2412T05:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —[admin]Pathoschild06:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Supposed to be Albanian for book (I think - format is horrendous), but looks like a verb to me.SemperBlotto07:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it just meansABC's, and by extension,alphabet. There is a book calledAbetare, which is the Albanian equivalent of ourDick and Jane. I suppose it would be cognate with Italianabbecedario.—Stephen10:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From rfv. Please post further comments here.Andrew massyn06:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It’s Albanian forprimer.—Stephen13:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per—Stephen.bd2412T06:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —[admin]Pathoschild06:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no such a language as "Serbo-Croatian", and therefore wherever it appears in Wiktionary it should be deleted. These are two different languages, each with its own history and development.ThanksTamara

Sorry, but Serbo-Croatian is a language, although no longer called that. Since certain words derived from that language during the period when it was called Serbo-Croatian, then Serbo-Croatian should be used rather than listing each language separately (not knowing exactly from which 'partition' the word came). --Dijan13:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —[admin]Pathoschild06:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sum of its parts.Gorrut16:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sum-of-parts alone is not a valid reason for nomination. --Connel MacKenzieTC17:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if it means the same thing to the Brits. They have a lot of unusual terms using the wordform. In any case, it’s difficult to guess the equivalent offirst grade in any given language. The Americanfirst grade is still inkindergarten in Russia (детский сад), and Russians begin grade school only at age 7. The Russianfirst grade is oursecond grade. In lower grades, Russian useкласс, or class. At university, the word isкурс, or course. It’s actually a complex cultural term.—Stephen16:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I noticeform lacks the British educational sense, as well as a slew of others (e.g., as in 'top form').

Keep perStephen.bd2412T06:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —[admin]Pathoschild06:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It just seems a bit wrong to includetennis player in Wiktionary, and I know we don't use the "sum of the parts" rule, but this term mightn't be valid. --Dangherous13:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's useful for a non-native speaker to know that the term is "tennis player" and not "tennisser" or something; likewise for other languages. For instance, Spanish seems to have "tenista" but "jugador de bádminton".Kappa00:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a non-native speaker doesn't know what the term is, then how will they look it up? Rather they'll look under their own term (e.g.tenista) and see that the English translation is two words. It doesn't need its own entry.Widsith17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That implies we would this entry in all languages but English. And how is an English native speaker supposed to findtenista?Kappa02:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no problem linking to a two-word term whose words are wikified separately. But, I take your point about having somewhere for an English-speaker to look it up.Widsith09:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we havetennis court andtennis racket, and should also havetennis ball, andtennis match.bd2412T06:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - similar topiano player vs.pianist. --Ed Poor21:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —[admin]Pathoschild06:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sums of their parts.Gorrut16:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sum-of-parts alone is not a valid reason for nomination. --Connel MacKenzieTC17:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Keep, Keep. - Not at all sum of their parts: "doggie door" as a sum of its parts would be a door made out of doggie,cat flap would be a flap on a cat (maybe some dangling skin or something), and pet door would be a door that has been domesticated (like a pet dog, pet cat, pet hamster etc.)--Dangherous16:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perDangherous.bd2412T19:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - invalid nomination. --Connel MacKenzieTC17:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Don't have strong feelings aboutcat flap orpet door, butdoggie door should definitely have an entry, IMO — in which case others might as well be included, too. Shouldn't someone close this nomination? -dcljr18:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —[admin]Pathoschild06:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we really want entries for numerals?Gorrut16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sum-of-parts alone is not a valid reason for nomination. --Connel MacKenzieTC17:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is supposed to be a redirect.Fixed.—Stephen16:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the redirect. Doesn't Wiktionary general delete redirects? If so, this should be deleted, not redirected.Gorrut16:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not delete redirects.—Stephen17:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I don't see why a translingual thing should be redirected to a single language.Kappa17:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It redirects toforty where all the translations of 40 are to be found. Spanish users can immediately find the English number by typing40. In the Spanish Wiktionary, I would expect 40 to resolve tocuarenta. Other numbers, such asTemplate:ARchar, may benefit from having their own pages.—Stephen18:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, not as a redirect. --Connel MacKenzieTC17:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Dunno. We need a sounder policy on numerals. Going to write something. — Vildricianus17:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the previous consensus was to keep numbers up to a hundred at least. I havemajor objections to redirecting though. In some contexts the symbol "40" is read ascuarenta orquarante etc. rather thanforty.

As this is the English wiktionary, it should redirect to the English word for 40.Fark16:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. If we formulate a relevant guideline in the future, this and other such pages can be adjusted to conform. —[admin]Pathoschild06:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic.Gorrut16:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic, of dictionary importance.STRONG KEEP. --Connel MacKenzieTC17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Encyclopedic" means that the definition is of encyclopedic expansiveness, complication, or selectness. It doesn't describe whether the topic itself could or should end up in an encyclopedia or not. We try to give brief definitions for whatever is suitable for us, including obscure technical terms, scientific topics and Texan place names.Keep. — Vildricianus17:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —[admin]Pathoschild06:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sum of its parts.Gorrut16:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sum-of-parts alone is not a valid reason for nomination. --Connel MacKenzieTC17:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has two distinct meanings, set to work and leave for work, and both senses are difficult to predict in any given language.—Stephen18:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, doesn't it have a wholly idiomatic sense of to beat someone (e.gwent to work).bd2412T19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that’s slightly different ... that usage is a phrasal verb "to go to work on." The preposition is key. It doesn’t mean anything so narrow as "to beat," but it means to get serious with, to get busy with. You can also go to work on a bowl of ice cream or go to work on a prospective client.—Stephen19:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, butthat's an idiomatic sense to the extent that it may not necessarily involve "work" in the sense of a job or even labor.bd2412T03:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP. --Connel MacKenzieTC17:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —[admin]Pathoschild21:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Jamaican Patois section - dialect, not a language. --Connel MacKenzieTC22:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between dialect and language is artificial, and linguistically not a scientific one. We allow dialects of Chinese for instance.Keep and ensure that the heading is correct. Seew:Jamaican Creole.Davilla07:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what happened here. The entry seems quite a bit longer, but the non-standard heading I was complaining about originally is still there. Move to RFC to remove that section, or at least rename the language heading to list it properly? --Connel MacKenzie17:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WT:CFI#Languages to include was what I was referring to, by the way. There is no ISO 639 code for this, therefore we should not have it, right? --Connel MacKenzie18:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, no consensus to delete. Feel free to tag it for cleanup, or start a discussion on whether to include such dialects in theBeer parlour. —[admin]Pathoschild21:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This whole series of made up numbers names... --Connel MacKenzieTC07:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes please.Delete them all.SemperBlotto07:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete them all. While the number does have a potential application (it is a little leass than the estimated number of electrons in the universe) I can't imagine anyone but a mathemetician or physicist wanting to discuss such large numbers, and I can't imagine a them using such long words when they can define them in figures, with no possible ambiguity or misunderstanding, in many fewer keypresses.Even thegoogleplex, a short name for a very big no (10^{<snip>lots of zeros</snip>}) invented in 1926, only appears in real use in that sense inOnly 2 authors of online-accessible English language books on books.google are as red-faced as me over misspelling (see below).--Enginear 23:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Why would any mathematician talk of aduovigintillion, when they could merely write 10⁶⁹ and thereby save any ambiguity re whether a billion is 1000 million or a million million, etc? --Enginear23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Googleplex is located in Santa Clara County, CA. The number is agoogolplex.Davilla05:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If we also keepseven hundred and fifty which I've nominated below.Roofing5400:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been pondering all of these large numbers and the various discussions relating thereto.If we keep them, they should be put at an appendix somewhere with the shortend form as the definition. ie 10²⁵. The divisions e.g.duovigintillionth are a waste of time and space. Further, I am not volunteering to move them all. if it agreed that an appendix is the way to go, then the creator should be given a limited period to set it up and to move theseabomonations words to the appendix. Please comment soon as I will be getting to all of those numbers on the rfv page shortly. My feeling isneutral leaning to delete. Thanks.Andrew massyn12:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry Roofing54, but could you please qualify why you think these should be kept? These are not attested in any way, whilst 750 certainly is. Someone decided to make up names that no one could ever conceivably use and entered them here. That is quite different from actual numbersin common use with possibly tricky translations. --Connel MacKenzieTC16:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the large number names up to vigintillion, and the names centillion, googol, and googolplex, come from numerous encyclopedias and dictionaries.

All of the large number names from unvigintillion up to novemnonagintillion were coined (created) by John Knoderer (webmaster (at) mazes.com).

Moved to WT:LOP & deleted.Andrew massyn08:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)}}[reply]

With an awful sense of foreboding, I wish to nominate this pointless entry. The definition tells us nothing more than the page title.Widsith19:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forbode not - please dodelete.bd2412T22:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although oddly enough I would thinkpiece of furniture to be idiomatic.∂ανίΠα23:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, move the definition proffered for the "item" to the "piece". But still delete the item.bd2412T23:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. -TheDaveRoss00:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probablydelete, but same decision should be taken withitem of clothing.item of data may be OK, I'm not sure.SemperBlotto07:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The synonymsfurniture piece andclothing piece would also be okay, right?59.112.50.16316:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In AmE, it would bepiece of furniture andarticle of clothing.—Stephen16:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... except have a look at the google hits. Evenclothing article gets a few like "If I send you a shirt or other clothing article, can you dye it?"Davilla07:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the redirect from item of... to piece of... —Vildricianus11:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from RfD.Davilla15:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I meant RFV, but this'll do. Zero google books hits. Can we cite it?Widsith13:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've come across this in Italy. But, there, it refers to the thieves who steal your handbag and then zoom away on their Vespa scooters. I've assumed it to be a blend ofVespa andpaparazzi.SemperBlotto13:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved back to rfd. The cites on the page are not linked to the word.Andrew massyn18:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page you have requested does not exist. Not exactly a durably-archived citation. --Connel MacKenzieTC21:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Someone can add an Italian entry in due course.Andrew massyn21:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stepped on by a hoof. Any takers? Needs some cleanup.SemperBlotto10:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find this anywhere...delete.Widsith11:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another silly joke? -Παρατηρητής

From rfv. Please post further comments here. If no verification in two weeks the article will be deleted.Andrew massyn18:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfvfailed.Andrew massyn21:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No content. --Connel MacKenzieTC20:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Eripides sounds like Euripides (but he was Greek).num can mean just "if" or even "surely not".quam can mean "how" or "how much". But I can't really get it to make any sense (though it is for real) - we need a proper Latin scholar.SemperBlotto21:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was a character in a Latin comedy by Plautus. The wordnumquam (ornunquam) meansnever. I thinkNumquameripides is supposed to mean something like "Never-give-backer". I’m sure there must be a better term for someone who doesn’t like to return things, but I can’t think of it at the moment.—Stephen21:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word appears to be of doubtful reading. Lewis & Short also give the formsNumquampostreddonides andNumquamposteaeripides[1]. The Perseus text ofPersa uses "Numquameripides" tho[2]. —Muke Tever22:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, is this a delete then? It never got cleaned up. --Connel MacKenzie18:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Months passed without correction - item deleted. --Connel MacKenzie16:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted. Previously re-deleted. Still nonsense resubmitted without citations. Print citations appearing on books.google.com: Urbandictionary (the new book from the infamous website.) --Connel MacKenzieTC 02:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)-deleted. -TheDaveRoss03:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted - This is a spelling variant entry. It is pretty pointless to make spelling variants have to have all the complexity of a full entry, including citations. This spelling variant has over 200,000 Google hits (it's not likely to have many "print" entries). I made a note of that on the page itself to try to deter the deletionists.

But no!, personal taste rules instead ! You guys are unbelievable in your relentless trying to maintain some kind of standard language, unpolluted by current popular words. Accept it,chillaxin is far more used, in that spelling, than 90% of the words in this Wiktionary. You are completely abusing your deletion powers. It's not this word that needs protecting, it's the whole of Wiktionary that needs protection from over-enthusiatic deletionists. Actually, I'm not sure any more than I can put it down to over-enthusiasm. And I now believe Connel is stalking me, as he has been accused by others, picking on words I have previously re-instated. --Richardb07:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redeleted. This came up as a very-poorly formatted entry from my todo lists. The point of having the spelling varientsverified is to determine which ones areused. --Connel MacKenzieTC08:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get your facts straight sir.I was the one being stalked by Ncik. I even generated comparative statistics that showed it, but Ec didn't want to see it. I've never stalked your entries; I have stalked known vandals. Were you entering any Ancient Greek or Biblical Hebrew? That's what my last couple thousand edits have focused on cleaning up.

Since you are intent on wheel warring, against community consensus, I rolled back your last deletion. Now that it is clear you wish to make it personal, I'll step away...and the other sysops here will redelete your additions probably much faster. You've not justified why you would do such a thing, particularly to entries that have previously failed the RFD process. Youknow you aren't supposed to resubmit deleted entries without three print citations. So, is this all just a bizarreWP:POINT? I fail to see what you are trying to prove. --Connel MacKenzieTC08:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• it's not likely to have many "print" entries. Equals: it's not likely to deserve inclusion here.
• it's the whole of Wiktionary that needs protection from over-enthusiatic deletionists. I remember seeing you voted support for Connel in his adminship years ago. And for Dave.
• The entry is atWT:LOP. Where it belongs. —Vildricianus09:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Nonsense. 6 pages of results on YouTube, several movies so titled. It's used in thisStar Trek parody. Attesting words takes a lot of work. "Not likely to have print entries" = harder to cite and easier to pick on.DAVilla18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Attestingreal terms is not nearly so hard, but I agree that attestinginvented protologisms/nonces is. This entry should not be restored. --Connel MacKenzie17:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purported Australian word for going bush-mad or something of the sort. No relevantgoogs. None at all on Google books.bd2412T01:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not believe that this is a real word - maybe a joke? -Παρατηρητής
• Any older northern bushies out there heard this one?? -thetoorbulmassive
• ahha! This old chestnut..it's no joke...the old folks used to wheel this one out occasionally and they're northern folks...—This unsigned comment was added by59.167.105.165 (talk •contribs) .(diff)

• Print citations would help this survive the RFV process. --Connel MacKenzieTC15:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've heard it before, when I was young I had an uncle that used it occasionally. He would walk us across the road to the beach - When it was safe to cross he'd say 'Go Zoomly' or 'Zoomly now!' to usher us across the road without hesitation. I just thought he was weird.—This unsigned comment was added by220.237.85.97 (talk •contribs) .(diff).

From rfv. Please post further comments here. If not cited, it will be removed in two weeks. Also note capitalisation.Andrew massyn11:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Two unsigned comments. Where does that put us? Feature request: the ability to see who made an edit, for instance by highlighting a piece of text and automatically searching for the last time it was changed. Right now the search is manual.Davilla11:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This word did exist- i knew of it more as a warning as in the last comment- but whether it is in current use is in doubt. -flatpacker

• Note: the above comment constitutesflatpacker's first, last, andonly edits.[3].bd2412T19:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this hoax - the sooner, the better.bd2412T19:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I came across this word in ilounge. I was surprised because I thought it was an archaic word and when I googled it I was directed here. I was amazed to see it and that's why I signed up and added my comment. I do not care about its future in Wiktionary either way. -flatpacker
  • Even archaic words can be expected to get relevant Google hits, or Google Books hits, or to appear in some kind of dictionary - this gets none of the above.bd2412T04:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about an old bush word here, and one that was only really used in isolated regions. I'm not saying it should be kept but i have heard of it.-Mrlaugherlaugher

Note: Above comment in support of this hoax added by anonUser:58.105.132.46[4] (only edit from this IP[5]), then supplemented and signed by newly createdUser:Mrlaugherlaugher[6] (only edit fromthat account[7]).bd2412T22:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a booksearch websearch and newssearch. Cant find anything. Deleted.Andrew massyn12:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does he meanfrittata ?SemperBlotto21:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From rfv. Please post further comments here. If nothing positive, the article will be deleted in a fortnight.Andrew massyn12:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - DeleteΠαρατηρητής

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie17:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to cross the line for encyclopedic topics.Davilla18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As do most entries inCategory:Star Wars (except perhapsdroid). —Vildricianus18:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the only other one I was considering nominating wasObi-Wan Kenobi.Davilla18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear your reasoning here. Obi-Wan vs. Jabba the Hutt? —Vildricianus18:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close calls. Both are "legit" in a sense.Jabba the Hutt has been parodied in other works, andObi-Wan would be acceptable if he can be cited like that. The question is if they're encyclopedic. Usually full names raise a sort of flag for me, whether real or fabricated. Still the first isn't clearly a name, and shortened to "Jabba" doesn't quite cut it, so what are you left with? It's kind of a slippery slope all the way down. I'd like to see how other people make the call to get a better idea of where to draw the line.Davilla18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm!Delete this one, we must, or prevail, the dark side will.bd2412T18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junk it!Widsith18:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to refine our policies regarding fictional characters on WT:BP first. --Connel MacKenzieTC19:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up. —Vildricianus19:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per my argumentsbelow. –66.222.190.5206:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and all the others)Παρατηρητής

deleted. -TheDaveRoss02:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move toAppendix:Proto---whatever? --Connel MacKenzieTC22:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved, redirect deleted. --Connel MacKenzie18:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An entry already exists forPersian. This appears to have been an experiment and has already served its purpose. I see no reason to keep it.Yorktown177614:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged two sections and identical comments. —Vildricianus15:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-split so that links from pages find the proper conversation. --Connel MacKenzieTC16:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think with the color/colour debate still fluctuating, and this method being one of the alternates proposed, it is worth keeping for a while yet. --Connel MacKenzieTC16:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain o me why there is an entry forPersian andPersian/Experiment? If they both contain the same information what use doesPersian/Experiment serve? -Yorktown177612:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, as it appears to have become a forgotton relic.bd2412T05:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic entry about non-notable phrase --Versageek01:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be a misspelling ofMiami?Jonathan Webley08:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It looks like a misspeling. --Yorktown177620:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about it in English, but ‘Miamia’ is the Latin name for ‘Miami.’ —Muke Tever22:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Latin is a dead language, and was dead long before U.S. colonizers chose to adopt the Native American word "Miami" to identify place names.bd2412T16:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one that though "Mamma Mia!" when reading this? --Connel MacKenzie16:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly - Delete.Παρατηρητής

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie17:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

joke?Kipmaster10:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No idea.DeletedSemperBlotto14:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Connel MacKenzieTC03:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is interesting... though it surely must be taken with a grain of salt.bd2412T04:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Prior discussions about these ridiculous entries concluded thatattestation was required for them (particularly, as mathemeticians never use such terms.) --Connel MacKenzieTC15:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I've removed the tag and added a reference.Town Door13:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have removed the tags from all these words, but they still haven't been attested except in lists. We need to see themin use.Widsith13:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • These numbers would never be in use. They're so big that you'd never see them used outside of lists.Town Door13:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole series of made up numbers names... --Connel MacKenzieTC07:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes please.Delete them all.SemperBlotto07:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete them all. While the number does have a potential application (it is a little leass than the estimated number of electrons in the universe) I can't imagine anyone but a mathemetician or physicist wanting to discuss such large numbers, and I can't imagine a them using such long words when they can define them in figures, with no possible ambiguity or misunderstanding, in many fewer keypresses.Even thegoogleplex, a short name for a very big no (10^{<snip>lots of zeros</snip>}) invented in 1926, only appears in real use in that sense inOnly 2 authors of online-accessible English language books on books.google are as red-faced as me over misspelling (see below).--Enginear 23:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Why would any mathematician talk of aduovigintillion, when they could merely write 10⁶⁹ and thereby save any ambiguity re whether a billion is 1000 million or a million million, etc? --Enginear23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Googleplex is located in Santa Clara County, CA. The number is agoogolplex.Davilla05:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, why the embarrassment? I didn't know it till I looked it up, either.DAVilla21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If we also keepseven hundred and fifty which I've nominated below.Roofing5400:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been pondering all of these large numbers and the various discussions relating thereto.If we keep them, they should be put at an appendix somewhere with the shortend form as the definition. ie 10²⁵. The divisions e.g.duovigintillionth are a waste of time and space. Further, I am not volunteering to move them all. if it agreed that an appendix is the way to go, then the creator should be given a limited period to set it up and to move theseabomonations words to the appendix. Please comment soon as I will be getting to all of those numbers on the rfv page shortly. My feeling isneutral leaning to delete. Thanks.Andrew massyn12:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry Roofing54, but could you please qualify why you think these should be kept? These are not attested in any way, whilst 750 certainly is. Someone decided to make up names that no one could ever conceivably use and entered them here. That is quite different from actual numbersin common use with possibly tricky translations. --Connel MacKenzieTC16:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From rfd. Have added discussion above as well. Please post further comments here.Andrew massyn19:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.sexvigintillion gets more than a thousand Google hits.Gorrut15:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete would be my $.02.Kevin Rector17:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and all the others)Παρατηρητής

Delete Same CFI for all terms, running text citations for each and every one. -TheDaveRoss16:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the large number names up to vigintillion, and the names centillion, googol, and googolplex, come from numerous encyclopedias and dictionaries. All of the large number names from unvigintillion up to novemnonagintillion were coined (created) by John Knoderer (webmaster (at) mazes.com).

Moved to WT:LOP & deleted.Andrew massyn18:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan redirect. (We should figure out a way of mechanically rooting these out; I suspect there are lots.) —scs17:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gone.—Stephen17:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that from at least one XML dump a while back, but it does seem we've grown some more. I'll see what auto-zapping I can do. Now that external redirects are handled properly, we probably don't need the orphan capitalization redirects either, right? --Connel MacKenzieTC04:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'shoi polloi--Allamakee Democrat18:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AlsoCum Dumpster (or at least clean it up)--Allamakee Democrat18:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And since I'm still at the bottom,coördinate. I don't think Wiktionary doesNew Yorker style with thediaeresis. It's co-ordinate or coordinate.

Coördinate is valid. --Ptcamn01:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I too would argue that it is a word, it most certainly is not a word in English. --Connel MacKenzieTC04:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition given:

Grade shark, to purposely drop a standard grade for no other reason but self gratification, usually done in club races which dont actually mean anything, if anything you take a win away from a deserving athlete, otherwise known as a "Monster".

Rod(A. Smith)03:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzieTC04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has entered the general language? --Connel MacKenzieTC21:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 431337 ("Delete").bd2412T21:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Leet is not a well known "language" nor would I expect anyone to look up the word 31337. --Yorktown177615:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Listed asEnglish Leet for aFinnish word, really?Jonathan Webley21:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  No, listed as English leet for an English word not currently defined in Wiktionary.eleet (if it exists) would be an Internet slang spelling ofelite, based on31337—31337 is actually an Internet slang spelling ofelite. However I think31337 is archaic now—haven't seen it in years. —Muke Tever22:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, so it would be31!73?bd2412T23:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but as English, not as Leet, which isn't a language. It looks like it could be cited in the traditional sense, that is, within a line of text conveying meaning.Davilla07:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.Widsith08:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect toleet, which is its synonym. Redirect1337 as well, following theWikipedia consensus. To summarize, Germany's name is officially "Deutschland", but it is spelled "Germany" in English. Following, leet is spelled "l33t" inleetspeak, but in English it's spelled "leet". The term itself has unique meaning in net culture, so it is worth noting. This meaning is distinct from leetspeak. –Gunslinger4700:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. I've been informed that you guys don'tdon't do redirecting. Keep it, then. It's common enough. 1,000,000+ instances on Google. –Gunslinger4703:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  For it to be considered a "word in any language" as our main page used to say, it first needs to be a wordin a language. I'm sure there are lots of seemingly random caracter combinations from 8080 assembler that would be informative to keep, but our focus here (I've been told) is on real, spoken languages, only. --Connel MacKenzie17:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Literary languages are well documented in Wiktionary. Consider the many asian characters which have no connection to phonetics, such as田 (rice paddy). Vote change to neutral because I am not familiar enough with Wiktionary to rule on something like this. –Gunslinger4704:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see five to delete, one to keep and one neutral. (My vote is stilldelete, as original nominator.) Language heading of entry is still unsatisfactory, and no "citations" alluded to have been added. --Connel MacKenzie17:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Dont Delete! True its old, but hardly irrelevant...atleast internet pages are selling [31337 T-Shirts]:[8] People are bound to question, and this way atleast they can ind out what it means!!—This unsigned comment was added by125.23.50.113 (talk •contribs).

This looks like there is not consensus, even though the majority want deletion. Or am I reading this wrong? Move to RFV, or LOP then? --Connel MacKenzie18:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —[admin]Pathoschild04:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

An entry already exists forFarsi. This appears to have been an experiment and has already served its purpose. I see no reason to keep it.Yorktown177614:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged two sections and identical comments. —Vildricianus15:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-split so that links from pages find the proper conversation. --Connel MacKenzieTC16:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This experiment focuses on the POV vs. NPOV aspects of the color/colour debate. Even though I don't like this approach, it does clearly demonstrates the technique suggested. --Connel MacKenzieTC16:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any language can appear only once in the category "languages". Therefore Persian language can only occur once in this category and other synonyms must be deleted and included in the main articlePersian. --Ingmar Kuhn|Ingmar Kuhn11:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Are you suggesting thewordFarsi doesn't exist? --Connel MacKenzie17:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, currently identical with no meaningful incoming links and no recent edits. —[admin]Pathoschild05:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Although these two entries exist the have correct Wikisaurus entries that meet all requirments.WikiSaurus:chav/rfv &WikiSaurus:masturbate/more --Yorktown1776

Um, what? --Connel MacKenzieTC04:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted; one was an unused and empty subpage, the other redundant with the content page. —[admin]Pathoschild06:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just browsing through Special:Broken redirects [This page no longer exists- Xavier 1234567] and started clicking the links. It appears that a majority of these pages serve no function and are quite useless. Is there any point in keeping them and if so why? --Yorktown1776

The result of clicking the link is too nearly topical for me to correct. Though I don't understand why it happens either -- how can a page heading be different to the name used for calling it -- is it because it'sSpecial:?Enginear00:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To find the page in question go to the Special pages in the toolbox and from there click the Broken redirects to reach the right page. -Yorktown177612:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are all redirects to entries that got "temporarily" deleted. They'll be re-entered botwise soon, so the redirects should remain. —Vildricianus22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Whatever existed in June, the three broken redirects this month were unneeded. —[admin]Pathoschild06:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A self-confessed protlogism (sniglet).Jonathan Webley19:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. It is miss-labeled as a sniglet. Similar cites from books.google go back to 1968! It should be moved toWords In The News wherever that page has gotten to. --Connel MacKenzieTC04:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This needs formatting and trimming.SemperBlotto07:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe the vote has been closed, but: searching for "propatula" on books.google.com does not return any English results using the word as defined on the page. It does not seem to have currency outside of its creator, who is the one who added it to Wiktionary and Wikipedia[9]. It is obviously aprotologism and, as such, belongs only inAppendix:List of protologisms. --ArthurDenture03:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the vote has not been closed. And frankly, you are correct. My vote for keeping it is my POV, but it ultimately may not meet our CFI.http://books.google.com/books?q=propatula&as_brr=0&hl=en shows 31 hits, but few are English; the contents there seem mostly restricted. Interestingly enough,http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=propatula&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wi shows something I wasn't expecting. --Connel MacKenzieTC03:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Propatulus" in Latin means "open" or "uncovered"; hence all the scientific terms in that google search. Similarly, the English book search seems to be returning results having to do with German and Latin. None of them match the definition given in the Wikitionary page. [sorry, forgot to sign this at first.] --ArthurDenture04:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless someone wants to rewrite it from scratch for the scientific (taxonomic) sense. In its current state it's badly written, and clearly a protologism. (Here: I'll sweeten the pot for guilt-free deletion by adding it toAppendix:List of protologisms... done.) —scs16:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —[admin]Pathoschild06:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Very normal, common, unidiomatic English construction.Widsith08:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would argue that it is idiomatic. It's limited to describing qualities that people have -- you never see, say,policy of steel.Of steel is used metaphorically in this way butof diamond isn't, despite diamond being known for its hardness. These things aren't necessarily obvious to a non-native speaker. --Ptcamn01:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, it doesn't mean literally made of steel.KeepSemperBlotto07:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That's just an idiomatic meaning ofsteel itself. — Vildricianus20:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed.Delete considering Google hits for "steel nerves", "steel grip" etc. But there should be a definition atsteel first! Also,man of steel versus "steel man" deserves special treatment.DAVilla21:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• man of steel,heart of gold,diamond geezer etc are idioms, but simplyof steel is just normal figurative language. If it belongs anywhere it belongs insteel as Vil says. Apart from anything else, this is where people will look; it isn't reasonable to expect people to search forof steel.Widsith17:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The idiomatic meaning seems related to the wordsteel as a verb: "to render insensible, inflexible, unyielding, determined, etc" (Dictionary.com Unabridged v1.0.1). 'Steel' as an adjective indicates something having this property; [[nerves of steel]] means determined and unyielding nerves, in the same way [[steel nerves]] would. —[admin]Pathoschild00:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. —[admin]Pathoschild21:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)