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

Failed rfv. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Has numerous citations. --Primetime 19:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Note the two references added after the entry failed rfv are invalid citations. Verification is about usage not secondary sources. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think inclusion in a dictionary with a rigorous fact-checking process is proof of usage. I think it's a shame that you get a kick out of deleting other people's work--especially when that work is obviously legitimate. I'm the complete opposite of you in terms of how I view the writing of others. I didn't create any of these entries, yet I feel a profound sympathy for the authors who did. --Primetime 07:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It is nice that you think that. But the Wiktionary community does not. Originally I too had similar reservations about this particular "rule." But in practice, it allows Wiktionary to weed out bogus entries like "storm in a teakettle" (unused in GP) while keeping valid phrases like "tempest in a teapot." The results I've seen from the RFV process have been pretty good to date. More importantly, there has been none of the ambiguity that was rampant the entire preceding year. You like a term that's been rfv'd? Find some citations for it. You've got an entire month to do so. Much of the subjectivity of RFD has been mitigated by RFV being as specific as it is.

As to my personal pleasures, I assure you, you are way off base. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that this is in another dictionary may not count for attestation, and it may not help meet the criteria for inclusion in its current form, but it does sway opinion. The attention an RFD draws is good, but I don't think we can consider the RFV process to have failed when such sources are found. At the very least we should provide another month after the last valid attestation or a strong reference such as this. Essentially the entry should have to be re-listed. Vote to keep either indefinitely with the single quotation, because of the inclusion in Webster's, or for as long as is deemed necessary to find additional support. Davilla 13:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Appearance in another dictionary may sway opinion; that obviously his/her hope. But as I recall, the decision for letting RFVs last one month was to give comments like that every imaginable benefit of the doubt, instead of letting entries fail after only one, (or five or seven) days. The entry should not be "re-listed." The original entry was very reasonably questioned. After a generous month, it failed. To have a random secondary reference, implying that there is perhaps an archaic or obsolete quotation somewhere, is not a "strong source." Yes, the OED has a reputation for being rigorous...but rigorous about a different set of rules for inclusion than ours!

Actually, one of their criteria is having at least three quotations included with the entry. --Primetime 19:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Three quotations. Dictionary definitions are not quotations. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to now assert that it really is a valid phrase in widespread use, three print citations spanning a year need to be included with the entry's resubmission. Otherwise sysops are instructed to delete it "on sight" rather than waste more of everyone's time on an entry that has been identified as not meeting our criteria. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't really care that much about this entry. Let it burn. I guess I shouldn't care about Webster's either. They have different criteria and therefore, what they call attestation?--complete trash. So let it burn as well. But there's something wrong with this process. Maybe a month isn't enough time, or maybe it's too generous. Make it a year, make it a week, I don't care, the community has and will decide that. But there's a big difference between an entry that simply can't be attested because it really doesn't deserve to be here, and an entry that's difficult to attest but clearly deserves time for this to happen. Since being RFV'd, storm in a teakettle gained one attestation on 1 Feb. That's progress. Most entries that don't deserve to be here wouldn't have gotten that far. Give it more time, at least a month (however long that is) from 1 Feb. Re-listing it to draw attention... no longer necessary in this case. It may be close to death, fine. But it hasn't actually failed yet, not in my opinion. Davilla 17:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• There is nothing to prevent anyone from resubmitting this entry with adequate citations. They can take as long as they like to find them - ten years if need be. The links User:Primetime removed did not refer to this nonce but rather to the correct entries (which is why this was RFV'd over a month ago.) So far, the collective Wiktionarians that care about Wiktionary being a descriptivistic, inclusive dictionary were able to find only one quotation. In the short history of RFV, the bulk of quotations for terms appear either A) soon after an entry is listed, or B) right before the deadline. In this case, it seems the collective resources available have been exhausted, indicating that this wording really is a nonce. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the citation for this entry because I realized that it was incorrect. I was using this space to refer to other entries that I certainly hope are not deleted, as they appear in some very reliable dicitonaries (i.e., "metrosexual", sense 2 and "gafel" above.) These are obviously correct, or the dictionaries in question wouldn't have said they are. Having a citation added, especially from a published source, should be more than enough proof. Connel just made that up about it having to have three citations. I just checked the Criteria for Inclusion page and found the following:

"Attested" means verified through

• Clearly widespread use,
• Usage in a well-known work,
• Appearance in a refereed academic journal

. . .

• Sense one of metrosexual is not contested. Where did you get that from?
• Again, your transparent omission of "or" and the fourth criteria is erroneous. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's remarkable to even have a reliable citation added on a project such as this. Every other editor I have seen on these pages remove the tags if one citation from a published source is added (e.g., SemperBlotto, Eclecticology). Connel is operating outside of consensus and of policy when he says that the citations added to the entries above aren't enough. No reasonable person would think that this isn't enough. --Primetime 19:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• See response on rfv to Primetime's identical rant. I am not acting "outside of consensus" and furthermore did check with others. You need to read and comprehend our criteria before spouting off that someone else is wrong. It is great that you have a subscription to OED online, I'm sure it is useful in many ways. But citing it directly does not demonstrate usage. If others have removed tags inappropriately (I've no evidence that they have, by the way) then what they did was a mistake. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, is there really that big a difference between storm in a teakettle and storm in a tea-kettle? Davilla 15:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Merged with storm in a tea-kettle and redirected. —Vildricianus 22:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ainulindalë, tinco, Aldalómë. According to WT:CFI Quenya doens't merit Wiktionary status. --Dangherous 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See also: http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/User_talk:Connel_MacKenzie/todo#quenya. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

See also Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/January-March 06#Quenya. --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is suitable for inclusion. Jonathan Webley 22:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted it. I reentered it with a non-psychotic definition instead. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I would think the article belongs at choke the chicken except I'm not familiar with the expression. Davilla 20:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic. Or is that a rule we overlook when your name shares its spelling with a normal word? — Hippietrail 21:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't have any problem with a one line encyclopedic entry - especially when it is a person associated with words (poetry in this case). SemperBlotto 22:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep I personally like short bios on well known individuals, especially when the name has great potential to be used in eponymously or metaphorically in literature. - TheDaveRoss 22:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep. I admit to knowing nothing of Roman history Davilla

Seeing these reactions, is it time to take a vote on whether we want to become an encyclopedic dictionary instead of a non-encyclopedic dictionary with some exceptions? — Hippietrail 23:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt there would be as much support for an entry on Marcus Valerius Martialis or any variation thereof. Most of us would likely vote against an encyclopedic dictionary because it would duplicate the efforts of Wikipedia. However, this is a case where a single word, a nickname, commonly substitutes the full name of a specific person. Einstein and Eisenhauer are fine too since they can be introduced in conversation without specifying which Einstein or Eisenhauer is being talking about. I would be less enthusiastic to support King Tut or Bob Hope, as they are known, and certainly not under Hope or Tut. Davilla 15:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Sam 7 February 2006

• keep. I note an entry for Martial, (Marcus Valerius) in my 1967 Random House Dictionary of the English Language. It’s also in my Latin dictionary. The Random House also has entries for Einstein (Albert) and Eisenhauer (Dwight David). Under Einstein, it reads: "1879-1955, German physicist, U.S. citizen from 1940: formulator of the theory of relativity; Nobel prize 1921." Here’s another Random House entry for "Hope, Bob (Leslie Townes Hope), born 1903, U.S. comedian, born in England." I think any good dictionary needs to give the most basic info on sufficiently famous and important persons. The only problem is "sufficiently famous and important." I suppose that the Google Print criterium would suffice. —Stephen 13:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Persons of the Roman era tend to have their names translated (Latin Martialis is Martial in English and French, Marcial in Spanish and Portuguese, Marziale in Italian...) and we ought to list this. —Muke Tever 19:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  What you're arguing is a different case than the entry that exists. If Martial in English is the equivalent of Martialis in Latin, then you should add a sense saying such, and I don't think anyone would argue it. The sense that's in question is that of Marcus Valerius Martialis. Davilla 07:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• I was talking about Marcus Valerius Martialis. If one is translating an English text into Spanish, one translates "Martial" into "Marcial" only if it refers to M. Valerius Martialis or perhaps one of a short list of other people, who should also be listed in the entry. The point is that the list of people for whom the name is translated is limited. It does not normally include, say, Martial Célestin, former prime minister of Haiti, and the Roman horticulturist Quintus Gargilius Martialis does not normally appear as "Martial" in English. The list of people called 'Martial' with translatable names does include M. Valerius Martialis, and a few saints. The point of having an entry like this to hang translations on is not that some names are to be blithely translated on all occasions, but to tell us whose names get translated and whose don't, which is on a person-by-person basis. —Muke Tever 17:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. Then you have a strong case. Now what about the saints? I doubt they go by "Martial" alone, as M. Valerius Martialis does. On the other hand, they probably don't deserve a dictionary entry at their full names, at least not in my opinion. Would it be appropriate to add another sense at Martial that merely lists or otherwise denotes the people whose name is translated thus? See my draft on the page. Davilla 23:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. That we're a wiki doesn't mean we have to reinvent the very concept of a dictionary. There's a good reason for keeping encyclopedias and dictionaries separate, and it's not just conservatism. Besides, translation info can for the most part be found at Wikipedia by checking the interwiki links. / Peter ^Isotalo 20:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep A dictionary defines things and an encyclopedia explains things. A definition is usually short and but an explaination is usually not. Nobody is suggesting that we should be encyclopedia. As for translations the "for the most part" is really the problem with relying on interwiki links isn't it? --Patrik Stridvall 22:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe Polyglot when he says this is a real word in two languages. The entry blanking doesn't make much sense. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The word larka is Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, etc., for boy, while larki is girl. However, Hindi writes it in Devanagari (लडका and लडकी), and Urdu in a modified Perso-Arabic script. Punjabi uses a modified Devanagari. Perhaps these articles were blanked because they’re in the wrong alphabet. I certainly can’t see why there should Hindi/Urdu entries in Roman letters. And besides the spellings larka/larki, there are several other ways to transliterate these languages into Roman ... i.e., ləṛka/ləṛki, which is more accurate. —Stephen 13:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What links here is empty now, but rumour has it that this function is unreliable. (?) — Vildricianus 09:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep as this is constantly reused by visitors from other language Wiktionaries, and periodically cleared out. --Connel MacKenzie T C 11:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. I've reinstated it. — Vildricianus 12:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've copied the above to the talk page, and added a note to the template itself that it is invalid and should be replaced by plain text. Eclecticology 07:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Local/in-group slang, failed RFV, no evidence. Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/January 2006#butters —Muke Tever 23:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Connel RFD'ed it because the RFV was for "buffin' the muffin"... but policy is to put verb phrases at the infinitive form, no? keep. —Muke Tever 17:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It seemed like that entry should have been moved to reduce confusion. Something was wrong, I just wasn't sure what. The form buffin' is pretty unique; wasn't that why it was rfv'd in the first place? Keep, I guess. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

UK law applies. All the original OED went into the public domain at the end of 1998. The first supplement went into the public domain at the end of 2003. Eclecticology 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

So why is the template nominated for deletion? We attribute Webster's 1913 in the same manner, don't we? --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Without attribution, you are violating the GFDL! --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there should be no attribution. A simple reference in the reference section of the article should be enough. The same could be said about the Webster template. Generally, I don't go looking to change those, but if I'm editing for some other reason, I do replace that ugly box with a normal reference. Eclecticology 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The edit summary here says only "pointless template" (edit at 07:40 UTC - note that MediaWiki will display your timezone when following this link.) Five minutes later, I warned about the GFDL above. Seven minutes later, you added a link to a non-existant template: R:OED then created that shortly after. This is bizarre. Why didn't you just correct this template and rename it to R:OED? Why create in effect, a gap in edit hostory by deleting this template instead of just correcting it?

Furthermore, why the unannounced policy change for attribution? We've always tagged Webster entries that way, with no objection. Is there a conversation on the topic hidden somewhere not obvious to me? I concur that the references may be more intuitive and look better. But shouldn't something like that be discussed? Moreso, since you've reverted this twice now, it is obvious there is some contention or confusion on the matter: why isn't this a community vote? How are people to know that you've decided it should now look otherwise?

I suppose you'll make an excuse, or say you didn't see the warning. If recent events hadn't transpired, I'd be inclined to make that assumption for your benefit.

It would be acceptable to me in this situation, if you temporarily delete template: R:OED and move template:oed1923 there, then restore it to the state you feel is appropriate. (Presumably that would be moving back over-redirect and restoring earlier version, retaining redirect so that viewing history is more consistent.) And announce the policy change somewhere.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 23:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This is one of a series of words added by 129.34.20.23 from the notoriously unreliable Christmas 2005 bestseller The Meaning of Tingo, about foreign words expressing a concept for which there is no word in English. Regardless of its status in German, it is certainly not a word of English, as its appearance in that book demonstrates. Flapdragon 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You could change the language into German - then everything was ok, here in Germany it's indeed very rarely used but it exists. Greetings Pill δ 19:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

nonesense Tawker 00:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Made into a proper entry (this is a French word). — Paul G 11:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was uncomfortable making that entry, but didn't see much point in retaining "021202" as the whole content in the interim. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Grown from the Wikipedia article currently at w:Heliotrope (color), which was a straight cut-and-paste copyvio from the American Heritage Dictionary (see e.g. ). Not sure of the level of copyright paranoia over here, but it's still pretty clearly derived. —Cryptic (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: No, I don't think so. Still, I think we should avoid cutting and pasting that large parts of sentences and instead rewrite them using our own words.

Long answer: The problem is that there is only so many way so define a word. Especially scientific words that might even have a widely accepted definition. In this case however the first sense looks a little to much cut and paste for my taste. It would be hard to claim that it is one of few reasonable definitions. Still, I don't think it is a copyright violation. That said is really the fact that the is native to Peru Wiktionary material. Such thing should be at Wikipedia or possibly at the pages for Heliotropium or Heliotropium arborescens. --Patrik Stridvall 17:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I just completely overhauled the entry -- rewrote the definitions, added new senses and a bunch of other stuff. Definitely not copyvio anymore, so I removed the RFD tag. Keffy 17:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the plant ALWAYS faces the sun, especially at night. SemperBlotto 17:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Okey-doke. (Though maybe when they droop, they're still trying, if only that dang earth hadn't gone at put itself in their way.) Keffy 17:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Non English Tawker 20:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Russian. Fixed. —Stephen 10:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not idiomatic; encylopedic. Kappa 02:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Meaning is obvious in English; translations may not be. Davilla 08:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Tawker 05:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what the contents were, but this should be a real entry in some form. Davilla 17:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Not english Tawker 06:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It’s Georgian. Fixed. —Stephen 09:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Non english, short Tawker 08:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up (from Special:Whatlinkshere.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Failed rfv. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirected and protected during tonight's main vandalism spree. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

non english Tawker 07:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hindi. Fixed. —Stephen 13:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Non english Tawker 02:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Entry contents are "Jesus" but Special:Whatlinkshere says it is Hebrew for Christianity. Anyone know which it is? Jesus has a different Hebrew translation listed here. Probably cleanup, not delete. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It means Christianity. Fixed. —Stephen 11:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

spam Tawker 03:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove the ads and cleanup; not spam in the normal sense. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

a popular misquote; See Wikiquote wikiquote:John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton Eclecticology 01:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would such a popular adage, with over a hundred exact print citations be marked for deletion? Wouldn't it serve as a better advertisement for Wikiquote, in the references section (stating the correction to the popular use?) This is not Wikiquote; this adage is used a lot, even if half (or more) of the time it is attributed incorrectly. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Better to keep it and mark it as a misquote, should anyone want to find the origin of this common adage. Davilla 08:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If we want to keep adages and proverbs, then we should keep the accurate one in preference to the misquote. --Richardb 12:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

How is this one not accurate? The people I've heard say it never give attribution. It's only inaccurate if you claim it's a quote. As an adage, this is the way it's used, for better or worse. Davilla 15:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"What links here" gives no hits. Unused? SemperBlotto 20:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This template was copied from Wikipedia, where it seems to work fine for making Greek characters visible in Internet Explorer. Unfortunately it doesn't work in Wiktionary yet. Can't somebody make it work instead of deleting it? /Erik Holst 22:20, 25 February 2006

Content is "save page" - makes no sense to me. Tawker 01:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew. Fixed. —Stephen 15:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Already have a tinker senses should be checked for overlap of course. - TheDaveRoss 21:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Tinker made into a surname entry. Nothing to be added to tinker (extra definitions were wrong). SemperBlotto 22:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Sex Using categories like this to to link synonyms of "sex" is duplicating the use of WikiSaurus:sexual intercourse and other WikiSaurus entries.

So, should I make the effort to delete the category, which means editing each entry in the category, since you can't actually delete a category ?

Also, annoyingly, they've used a capitalised Sex in the category name. --Richardb 05:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the issue you have with the capitalization? It is standard on Wikipedia to capitalize the first word of a category, and I think trying to do differently on Wiktionary would be a Sisyphean task. We should capitalize category names the same way to avoid confusion.

Wiktionary has different capitalization rules to Wikipedia, though somwwhat unclear. As it is, categories are variously created with or without capitals, and the possibility for duplicate categories exists. Ah well, let somone with a bot sort it out.--Richardb 10:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In any case, there can be a real use for a Category:Sex, since not all terms relating to sex are synonyms of sex. The category fulfills a different purpose from the WikiSaurus entry. --EncycloPetey 05:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC) True - Richardb.

• The Main Page link to Wiktionary:By topic#Category:Human (Category:Anthropology) clearly lists Category:Sex as valid topic for entries to be added to. --Connel MacKenzie T C 10:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Kept

Is this idiomatic? Do we say "ageist slur" or "homophobic slur", for example? — Paul G 19:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Dvortygirl 21:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Restore. Set phrase. Davilla 18:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It's idiomatic at least to the extent that a naive person would have expected the phrase to be racist slur. Keffy 01:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

'Racial slur' is a common, set phrase (at least in the U.S.), while 'ageist slur' and 'homophobic slur' are not. —Stephen 15:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Restored; rfd tag removed. — Paul G 16:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This spectacular relic of a vandal from last year brings back some not-so-fond memories for me. I think it can safely be deleted now. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Content already exists at an#Old English. Previous discussions on BP have agreed that OE words should be listed on page titles without diacritical marks (which of course weren't used by the Anglo-Saxons themselves). Widsith 11:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Should these be redirected? If there were anything else on the page, it would have a "see also" at top. Davilla 18:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend using a redirect rather than deletion, since it is quite possible that a later article will be linked to the spelling containing the diacritical marks. --EncycloPetey 06:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved the 3 words on the list to category Category:Stub.--Richardb 14:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? Did you notice that it was reducing the (overwhelmed) category stub? Deleting it probably isn't the best way to help. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

OK.Couldbe useful, but seemed not really in use. If Connel wants it, that enough for me. Request withdrawn.--Richardb 12:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Has been in RFD category since October. Certainly Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde has come to have an idiomatic meaning to the effect of "polar opposites". How shall we clean this one up? —Dvortygirl 05:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I couldn't find any evidence of either Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde having an idiomatic meaning. I shall make them into simple fictional character entries. SemperBlotto 16:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

How could this not be idiomatic? The cites are obviously hard to dig up, from all the noise generated by the original works. The first metaphoric sense I found was three pages down in the search (but there are dozens of pages of print citations to potentially comb through.)

• http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN1419144987&id=aRQ52hFfwfoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Dr+Jekyll&sig=0irbp4DHVwWPCDd7wniJ6fnDa9c

  "In his Dr. Jekyll mood the cat was a drowsy, affectionate, domestic, cushion—loving puss, who liked petting and gloried in being nursed and patted."

Simply listing them as fictional characters does not seem accurate. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Belongs in Wikiquote. Eclecticology 20:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

'against deletion - it is part of speech - and where do you put all the translations on wikiquote??? --SabineCretella 00:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Against - GerardM 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep short phrases and aphorisms. They have and deserve longer definitions and origins, unlike quotes derived primarily from the unique wit of their utterers. That said, this isn't a very canonical or idiomatic phrase in English; perhaps it isn't the right English phrase/term for the concept. +sj ] 00:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, where did all of those translations come from? Don't delete outright, but transwiki if necessary. It doesn't ring in English; maybe it's worth keeping if it does in other languages? I'm just wondering how anyone would find this in a dictionary. Davilla 14:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Decided to vote keep despite the questionable merit of a common saying because of the following twisted rationale: If a hypothetical page of one of the translations existed, e.g. Más se estima lo que con más trabajo se gana, with both the common translation "That which is difficult to obtain is highly valued" and the literal translation, in this case "One values more that which with more work one gains", then I would support keeping that page to preserve the literal translation. Supporting a translated entry page, I would therefore have to support the entry in question. Another way of looking at it is this: Although the quote may not be a common saying in English, it is established enough worldwide such that variations differ in its translation, and that should qualify it for inclusion. Davilla 16:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Category:Quotations seems to be targeted with these two nominations. But that is how someone would find these entries, if the category were linked from the Main Page perhaps. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Deleted. These were the only two items like this in the category, and were put there last September. I see no general need to start listing quotes that have no linguistic importance. Eclecticology 08:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Then remove them from the frikin category. I can't believe you overrode five votes against you with no one in favor! Restore. Davilla 03:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Not an idiom with which I am familiar. Jonathan Webley 22:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure whether this is a valid topic or not, in any case current content is encyclopedic in nature. Jonathan Webley 21:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted, and has now been resurrected with the same pointless content. Jonathan Webley 12:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Another literal translation by User:130.111.98.241. — Vildricianus 10:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fucksafe points to deleted page

Content = title. TheDaveRoss 18:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably not a suitable topic for inclusion. Jonathan Webley 12:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't keep Romanizations, do we? If we do, this needs cleanup (template:romanji has changed significantly...my "subst:" of it show the bad result. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete redirected page get out of here!. (Actual entry is at get out of here, but the sentence "get out of here!" should be capitalized anyways.) Davilla 22:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Failed RFV. The German word it's based on appears to be legitimate, but no evidence given that an English form exists or that this would be it. Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/January 2006#ball horn, Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#ball_horn_nope_-it.27s_from_Das_Capital —Muke Tever 23:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

-philia word failed RFV, only one cite found (archived to talk page). Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/January 2006#Autagonistophilia —Muke Tever 23:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic. Davilla 07:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Deadheaded SemperBlotto 08:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote Undelete, cleanup. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this not encyclopedic material? I don't think I'd reconsider, but where could someone find the original? Davilla 03:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The original entry was incorrectly formatted in numerous ways. Any sysop can view or restore recently deleted pages. The pertinent content looked something like this:

1. A parade held every New Year's Day (except if New Year's Day is on a Sunday) and first started in 1889 in Pasadena, California.

Related Terms * Pasadena *California * 1 January * 2 January * New Year's Day

--Connel MacKenzie T C 16:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup? It could be phrased better, I suppose, but I don't think that was the main objection. Does it pass my ad-hoc test, having a common and non-obvious translation, or better yet a standard one, on the other side of the world? Davilla 06:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Not English. This is one of a series of words added by 129.34.20.23 from the notoriously unreliable Christmas 2005 bestseller The Meaning of Tingo, about foreign words that allegedly express a concept for which there is no word in English. Regardless of its status in Japanese, it is certainly not a word of English, as its appearance in that book demonstrates. Flapdragon 01:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. Protologism. Eclecticology 08:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is one of a series of words added by 129.34.20.23 from the notoriously unreliable Christmas 2005 bestseller The Meaning of Tingo, about foreign words expressing a concept for which there is no word in English. Regardless of its status in German, it is certainly not a word of English, as its appearance in that book demonstrates. Flapdragon 01:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I created this entry before I really quite figured out how Japanese entries work -- the correct one is ドイツ, but of course, that exists too :) The どいつ is simply superfluous. (oops -- forgot to sign) Cruinne 15:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

ふらんす、it's the same case. ―Gliorszio 03:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The quickly growing entry for John Wright is clearly vandalism (along with various revisions to asshole that I tried to revert). Keffy 02:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Blammed. Asshole was cleaned up successfully, thanks. --Wytukaze 03:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

SemperBlotto had originally RfV but I have transferred this discussion here because it is more appropriate. I agree that a native speaker would find these useless, but only because you already know not to say "does not he?", "hasn't been he?", or "may he?" The usage notes can be very helpful to a foreigner. So the first vote is keep at whatever title the tea room this discussion deems appropriate. Davilla 11:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This is verging on providing grammatical information, which ought to be in Wikibooks if it isn't already. The user who doesn't know English grammar is very unlikely to look up this phrase - they will look up individual words. "Does" redirects the user to "do", where they should then see how this word is used to form questions. Furthermore, "does one" is not idiomatic. If we were to keep it, we would have to provide "do I", "do you", "don't we", and dozens of other sentence fragments used at the beginning of questions ("will you", "should I", "have they", "isn't he", "might she", etc). Does one want to go there? No, one does not. :) — Paul G 11:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's ten times simpler to redirect the pronouns. The word "one" was used as placeholder, as has already been applied without objection. How else would you include the expression "get it into one's head"? You're arguing that the entries shouldn't be listed under either (1) the "one" heading because it isn't idiomatic, nor (2) some 700 different combinations because it's overwhelming, and from this you conclude that it shouldn't be listed at all. Your first argument at least follows a legitimate logical framework. I have major issues with the second. Davilla 12:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My only argument is that this is unidiomatic. My second argument can safely be disregarded without changing my opinion that this should go. It would not feature in print dictionaries. — Paul G 11:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this would change that opinion, but you can't substitute another word in the tags. With anything but the pronoun, the reader or listener would assume a change in subject. For example, it's awkward and strange to say, "Timmy loves ice cream, doesn't Timmy?" and not the same thing to say "doesn't the little boy?"

By the way, we do agree on something. These shouldn't be included in print dictionaries. ;-) Davilla 13:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice that a list of other links has been included ("Related terms", although this should really be under "See also" as most are unrelated to "does one"). My list of examples suggests that this isn't anywhere near being complete. I think we would be making a rod for our own backs with entries of this type. — Paul G 11:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. I was able to give a fairly comprehensive list because the class of auxiliary verbs is closed. I'm sure I've missed a number, but it's not the slippery slope you suggest. Davilla 12:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If it is intended as a place-holder for all the other tag questions, then why are these listed and linked to? — Paul G 11:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

They were listed for completeness, but that could be reconsidered. In particular, they probably shouldn't be linked to, as I intended to redirect them all anyways. (My fault for clarity. I didn't want to redirect too many as examples before being sure it would be done that way.) Davilla 13:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep but move does one? to does one and add the question mark to the "inflection line" immediately after ===Interjection===. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (strikeout 18:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC))

Connel, I agree that the question mark should not be part of the entry, but what are your criteria for keeping this entry? — Paul G 11:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a simple solution here that should keep everyone happy. This material belongs in the auxiliary verbs themselves (do, will, have, etc) in the form of a definition of the auxiliary verb and a usage note. There will then be no need for "does one", etc. — Paul G 14:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Added example definition to have as per this suggestion. Davilla 08:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Modified:

• "have" can be in the present tense in UK usage.
• the part of speech is not "interjection". I have changed it to "interrogative auxiliary verb" - could someone to confirm that? — Paul G 18:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Paul. It belongs under the usage notes of the pronouns.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul's solution seems appropriately elegant. Changed weak keep to delete as per Paul. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The more extra stuff that ends up in here the more I wish there was a Wiki devoted just to what dictionaries have traditionally been doing. — Hippietrail 17:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  I appreciate those sentiments. :-) -Ec.

• I did revise doesn't one? as a contraction, though I would still get rid of the question mark, but most of these are more suitable only to a grammatical page in the proper place to show how English questions are formed. Eclecticology 05:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've changed the tag on the page to rfc, and renamed the article to omit the question mark. Paul's suggested changes are good in case anybody has the time to do the work. Eclecticology 08:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  Could you refine and check and refine again a group of entries such as have you, haven't you, and have you not (or your pick) until they're just the way you want them, and then I'll duplicate it? Or if you want to delete these we can go with the note at have etc. only. Davilla 01:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved to RfV. — Paul G 17:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Fictional biography...and a poor definition at that. - TheDaveRoss 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the "Fictional characters" debate from not too long ago. IIRC, Harry Potter was one of the borderline situations discussed. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Non dictionary

Nonesense Tawker 23:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Google doesn't turn up anything Tawker 00:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A made-up word by Greg Scott on the ITV1 programme 'Quizmania'

Deleted. --Dvortygirl 05:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Not dictionary content. Tawker 06:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Made into normal surname entry at Hedman SemperBlotto 08:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This template was a redirect to template:gstr and had only one entry pointing to it (since subst:'d.) Aside: The pointed to template has major problems; gralonking headings, incorrect ordering and whatnot, that I'm trying to clear now. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Is an IP, I don't think it deserves a unique entry. Tawker 21:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Bio, not dictionary content. Tawker 05:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Off topic. Tawker 06:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Failed rfv. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Appears under "gaffle" in The Cassell Dictionary of Slang, page 462 (1998) by Jonathan Green. Also appears in Slang and Euphamism, page 146 (2001) by Richard A. Spears. Finally, the OED lists gafel as another spelling of gaffle. --Primetime 05:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

See discussion at #metrosexual as to why these are not quotations and do not depict usage. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The metrosexual issues were not the same as this after all. But the main premise I had for questioning them both remains for this one. We still do not allow secondary sources, right? There is a beer parlour discussion about this starting now; this probably shouldn't be deleted without reading that (if concluded) first. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Failed rfv. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Failed rfv. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Failed rfv. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Failed rfv. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 01:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Seems more suitable for Wikipedia, they probably already have an article about it. Kappa 02:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well yes, but they spell it correctly.  :-) --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonesense -- Tawker 02:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

blank - google didn't turn up anything. Tawker 02:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Gibberish deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone's conlang, judging from google it doesn't look to be in widespread use. Kappa 03:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Non existant user. Tawker 08:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'm sure you'll be able to do this for yourself soon. Jonathan Webley 09:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia entry has also been recommended for deletion. Jonathan Webley 21:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Gone already. SemperBlotto 22:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is this gone? Incidentally at wikipedia the main argument for deletion is that it's a dictionary definition which has been transwikied... Kappa 23:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It seems like it appeared to be vandalism, considering the definition given was even more vulgar than urbandictionary's. Feel free to resubmit it (with three print citations) if you think it meets CFI. (It probably should have been rfv'd though.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Amend: it was very correct to delete this, as it is repeat vandalism. If it were a transwiki, it would be in the transwiki: pseudo-namespace, neh? --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Meh, the wikipedia article isn't going anywhere, I guess that will have to do. Kappa 03:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
        • There's something wrong about this being kept at Wikipedia, but rejected here. I mean, there's even a bloody TV show named after it, and I'm very reluctant to define the concept as encyclopedic. Demanding written attestation seems like being overly strict just because it's unimaginably obscene. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia keeping it is very wrong.  :-)

If a neutral definition can be entered, that is attested with citations, it will not be deleted. But the entry that appeared here as initial vandalism was absurdly obscene. Then, the entry was made to be even more obscene in some adolescent's imagination. That vandalism was also deleted. I don't see on our main page, that our goal is to become a repository of obscure, deranged scatalogical humor. For the contributor who submitted (and resubmitted) this, kudos to them for fooling Wikipedia. But since it is not attested, it does not belong here.

Since it was a term previously entered as vandalism, to be accepted here, it does need three print citations spanning a year. Note: the final result can describe something obscene, but to see the "definition" slowly growing more obscene without attestation indicates vandalism. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonesense -- Tawker 02:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. —Dvortygirl 03:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the sum of its parts, to me. —Dvortygirl 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see how a schedule can be defined as an amount of fog - I would probably have deleted it on sight (on a bad day). SemperBlotto 10:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Bus schedule on foggy days. Delete. —Stephen 12:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep perhaps. The scheduled number of days (dependant on the amount of fog) is not the same thing as an amount of fog. Perhaps it could be in a category of terms (and phenomenon) that have been created for polital correctness, if we have something like that. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  Would agree except the definition is so poorly worded. It's not the amount of fog, but I don't think it's the number of days either. Use online seems to suggest a schedule (for buses, classes, etc.) used on foggy days, as announced through the media, much as a snow day would be or, in my part of the world, an ozone action day. True sum of parts would be "foggy-day school schedule", so it's pretty close. Davilla 16:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think it means "amount of fog" at all ... that is, I think the definition was poorly written. I believe it just means "the (bus) schedule in effect during the foggy season". —Stephen 15:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

higuero international international airport and Santiago of the gentellmen international airport need formatting, spelling, capitalization, and NPOV (that is, complete overhaul) if we plan to keep them. Are we keeping airports? —Dvortygirl 03:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted - not dictionary material. Not good enough for moving to -pedia. SemperBlotto 08:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Tosh, right? Jonathan Webley 07:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Asploded. SemperBlotto 08:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Relicts which are no longer in use. Ncik 15:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

added by IP, user does not exist

Not a user -- Tawker 00:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Only content was itself -- Tawker 05:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Jonathan Webley 07:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This category is not needed since since in most cases the irregularity in the verbal phrase is identical to what it would be in the verb alone. Eclecticology 07:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's get rid of it. Ncik 11:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't really need a template when the only thing it does is put put a tag on the definition line. This term is already in the POS heading anyways. Eclecticology 07:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently not used, either. Delete. —Dvortygirl 05:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Is a school district dictionary material? (needs formatting) SemperBlotto 08:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I say delete. Objections? Davilla 16:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Ncik 00:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Schools out - SemperBlotto 08:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This was the result of a finger-slip while moving euripides to Euripides --EncycloPetey 09:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Mike 11:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

All are promotional. - TheDaveRoss 19:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, they should certainly have ™ added. SemperBlotto 20:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please leave them rfd for the moment, they fail a simple Google check (as in I couldn't find a single use as defined). - TheDaveRoss 20:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

So is the entry for iPod, but that's considered legit. Wiktionary is a grass-roots project, so why would deference be paid to large corporations by allowing definitions of their technologies but rejecting those created by smaller ones? FYI, check eBay (another promotional entry, by the way) -- you can get eRefs there. - Pepperoni 20:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Google for iPod and note the non-Apple usage. Now please do the same for these three terms. I have no problem with the inclusion of trademarked terms if the are actually in use and not here to promote a product or website. Trademarked or no a term has to pass the standards for inclusion, I rfd'd this because I don't feel it does. - TheDaveRoss 20:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well observed by TheDaveRoss. Delete. Ncik 16:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If a term is related to a product or website, then it is actually in use isn't it? Should inclusion be based on the context in which a term is used? Also, terms like eBay don't have a non-eBay use and they're included. If someone runs across these relatively new terms and wants to know what they mean, they should be able to go to Wiktionary and find out. I think that's one of the primary advantages of a reference like this over a traditional print dictionary -- it can reflect new technology and include new terms more quickly. - Pepperoni 18:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Only content is "!" -- Tawker 01:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

We should be able to clean this Islamic proper noun up though, and turn it into a proper entry. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

We already have the noun hadith - I wasn't aware that it is also used as a proper noun. SemperBlotto 08:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea what this entry is for, and certainly no idea why it has a category of Policy Think Tank. I think it might be a mistaken entry --Richardb 00:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's about the hiragana も. Kappa 00:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Well, why is the word "index" in the title, and there is no realistic entry, and why is it in Policy Think Tank category ?--Richardb 05:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a new kind of index being tentatively proposed? —Muke Tever 22:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This was an experimental attempt in a discussion about how to sort out kanji readings, and I think it's ok to delete it now. See the "Kanji readings" section on Wiktionary talk:About Japanese for the detail. --Tohru 04:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This entry is encyclopedic, however we may wish to retain some of the content. Jonathan Webley 07:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Can it be moved/merged into the Index: pseudo-namespace? --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved to Wiktionary Appendix:Cherokee slang. —Stephen 10:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

From Special:Contributions/130.111.98.131. — Vildricianus 17:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

so vild whats the point? I looked them up... 130.111.98.241 17:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm deleting all the nonsense we got from U of Maine during today's spree (ip range 130.111.0.0/16). --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonesense Tawker 18:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Gone. Mike 19:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this "Kimball Court", and so does it refer to a specific place, or is it a generic term? — Paul G 19:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. The latest in a string of junk edits from U of Maine today. --Dvortygirl 21:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Although, perhaps we should keep it because it is inventive. - TheDaveRoss

Deleted. Yes, nonsense. --Dvortygirl 21:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Was it a protologism? Got a ring to it. Davilla 18:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, probably vandalism.

Deleted. Nonsense. --Dvortygirl 21:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Gives examples of the "Pittsburgh accent". Probably not worth keeping. Jonathan Webley 21:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

When did they start calling soda "pop" in Pittsburg? --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we also need Cleveland accent and New York accent? Delete. Sum of parts, even if it were cleaned up. --Dvortygirl 06:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It does not define the Pittsburgh accent - just gives examples - Παρατηρητής

Delete or split? Title sums parts, and there's a place for the more notable stuff in Wikipedia, or individual entries here if they can be attested. Davilla 18:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic and unidiomatic. Moved content verbatim to Wikipedia. — Paul G 16:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As Davilla says, the individual definitions can be saved if they can be attested. — Paul G 16:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted SemperBlotto 16:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonesense Tawker 22:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Known uncooperative anon. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

...meaning an act of masturbation? I've heard this expression. It should be hyphenated, of course: "five-knuckle shuffle". 23,900 hits on Google; there's even one on Google Print. Keep after appropriate reformatting. — Paul G 07:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Are minor fictional characters suitable for inclusion? Jonathan Webley 13:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC) No. Deleted.--Richardb 15:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Content is title. - TheDaveRoss 23:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Useless, empty, obsolete, deprecated, reduced to zero. — Vildricianus 18:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the disused Template:-nlnoun- may shorten the Template list as well. — Vildricianus 19:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 13:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)