This is a discussion archive created in September 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.

Someone added the speedy delete tag to this, but we've had it for a long time. I think we should keep it. Robert Ullmann 16:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• A slight variation in transliteration gets one Google books hit . bd2412 T 16:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...no non-dictionary hits on ordinary Google (or Metacrawler) though. Does anyone other than that book's author use it?...though I must say it does have a certain appeal...maybe there's a more usual spelling. If it is kept, our list of languages suggests the language should be Jamaican Creole rather than just Jamaican. --Enginear 18:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Creole? I think it's Jamaican Patois. A creole is formed by a mix of languages, no? bd2412 T 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't have to be a mix to be a creole. Its name in ISO 639-3 is actually Jamaican Creole English. --Ptcamn 01:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Ok. Fixed that. bd2412 T 02:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps WT:LANG needs revisiting. I've forgotten where to find the link to ISO... --Enginear 19:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

One month later, and nobody's voted to delete this or in fact even proposed as much. Verdict: keep. DAVilla 16:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is a link. It is a character in the Unified Han range with an entry created by the NanshuBot that contains only the hex Unicode value (the example is 4B20). The rest is the blank "template" (form) for the Han charcters.

There are dozens of these, you can see them at the beginning of Category:Japanese kanji sorted under ? (a real question mark this time ;-) because they lack radical/stroke information.

They represent real codepoints, for real characters, but characters without OS support; not in the characters sets that preceded Unicode; presumably because they are seldom if ever used.

In any case, these entries are "blank", can they go away? Robert Ullmann 21:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather useless to have them in the dictionary if we are technically constrained from even showing the characters. Delete them all. bd2412 T 22:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I only looked at a couple of them, but I didn’t have any problem seeing them. I suppose they are probably rare and unusual, but I don’t see why they should be deleted. I looked, for example, at 䰗. To me it looks very much like 鬮 / 阄 (jiū), lots, to draw lots. I’m not sure it’s the same character, but I think it could be categorized according to its radical 門 / 门 instead of "?". —Stephen 22:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You can see them (assuming you have the language script installed) whether or not they are of any value...I would say not. No information other than the unicode value would be like having "0041" for "A" and nothing else. I say delete until they have meaningful content. - TheDaveRoss 22:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI: The New Gulim font, or a version of it at least, seems to be supporting the glyph of the character in this heading. I can see those characters on my browser Opera with no problems, and my MS Word chooses the font to display 䬠 (again, with no problems). --Tohru 03:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in letting them be so long as that's the layout we're using. Someone will want to add content, and better that they should know what's requested. DAVilla 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The lack of OS support (in various cases) is just an observation; the question is do we want to keep entries that are blank except for the Unicode hex value? There isn't any harm, except that we would hardly keep dozens of (say) English language word entries that consisted only of the word? Robert Ullmann 15:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

we should try to find/add information. Concur with DAVilla. RFD withdrawn. Robert Ullmann 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Unihan database has information about these characters. 䬠 is falling rain or snow. --Ptcamn 14:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• If they can be defined, vote withdrawn. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for completeness, these entries turn out not to be from NanshuBot; they were added by a user filling in some of the code points skipped (presumably because the Unihan DB had no useful information). I've stashed them in Category:CJKV characters with little information and put that in with things that need attention at some point. Robert Ullmann 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this can be salvaged. Transwiki to Wikipedia? --Connel MacKenzie 06:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikified and simplified. Wikipedia already has an entry. SemperBlotto 13:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a non-sense article.--Williamsayers79 08:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Made it into a real one. SemperBlotto 08:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten (but wouldn't the plural be blood sera)? bd2412 T 15:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Kept. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The picture. Aedes aegypti is neither a gnat nor a noseeum. it is the yellow-fever mosquito. Andrew massyn 20:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to use VfD for that! Just delete the pic. bd2412 T 03:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Kept. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This neologism originated as a hoax on the German Wikipedia. It has never been observed before and can be found only in mirrors and copies of, and references to the Wikipedia articles, with only a few non-notable exceptions. The English Wikipedia entry for Nihilartikel has been changed accordigly, most content of the old article has been moved to Fictitious entry. See the discussion on w:en:Talk:Fictitious entry. Cacycle 02:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. This reminds me of Wonderfool’s antics. Delete Nihilartikel and also nihilartikel. Or at least mark them as hoaxes and neologisms. —Stephen 02:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

But it is wonderfully self-referential! Can we keep it? (Please, I found a kitten, can I keep it?) Robert Ullmann 23:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Only as Wiktionary jargon, at best, and I doubt that includes the German... unless it has independent citations like any other word. DAVilla 22:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I cant comment on the German. Would native German speakers make a decision.

The English nihilartikel is also up for rfv. I would like to keep it. It has been formatted to reflect a neologism and Wiktionary jargon. It seems to be gaining acceptance as a word, and I think it is one that should be accepted (Be bold remember). However, I am moving this discussion to RFD for consensus. Andrew massyn 06:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

English nihilartikel now cited: independent usage seems to be growing (starting May 05 or earlier) with significant archived blog use. --Enginear 09:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm treating this as an RFV. English passed, keeping German as referent. DAVilla 17:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cancel that. Deferring RFV, keeping as wjargon. DAVilla 17:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? SemperBlotto 20:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

definition given is: Often heard in the sentence "Well that's just ducky" meaning "That's just great" but sarcastically. - I use this term all the time and it's always sarcastic.. however, since detecting sarcasm in writing is difficult, finding something to cite to verify the sarcastic sense is another matter entirely. --Versageek 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not so hard to find. --Connel MacKenzie 02:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, ducky is an adjective meaning "great"; personally, I associate it with the 1920's, but I'm not sure if it was current before then. An equivalent might be swell. Like many faddish superlatives, once it's past its prime, it tends to be used in a mocking or ironic sense. I'm not sure it should be written up that way, though, unless it's irrevocably become the primary sense. Perhaps a usage note? Also, it should definitely have the modifier removed. Compare just great or really swell or totally rad. Jeffqyzt 02:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think those last three examples would meedmeet CFI, easily. --Connel MacKenzie 02:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Connel, by "meed", did you mean "meet" or "need"? I can't tell whether you're for or against...and if so, whether it's for or against inclusion of this phrase, or the current CFI.

In any case, surely this would lead to massive proliferation of entries if we added (only to take the case of ducky) just ducky, not so ducky, pretty much ducky, always ducky, etc. In the specific case of "just ducky" (which can be used either ironically or not), surely just is only being used in its standard adverbial sense, and is no differerent than in the phrases just awful, just peachy, just great, just fine, etc. In other words, I am arguing that the phrase is not idiomatically distinct from the combination of just + ducky. Jeffqyzt 13:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Meet", meaning that those three should probably be here. The 'thin-edge of the wedge' argument is quite invalid. Wiktionary relies on citations to determine if certain combinations are used a certain way. So "pretty much ducky" and "always ducky" would not only meet tremendous opposition on the grounds of common sense, they'd also be mostly unverifiable. Your examples "just awful" and "just fine" clearly are not idiomatic, while the other two most certainly are. --Connel MacKenzie 08:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure when is the appropriate time to move this over to the Tea Room...anyway, here's some examples that seem to me analagous to "just ducky" (in its ironic sense.) Note that some of these are sarcastic/ironic, and others are "straight."

Q: "How are things today?"

A: "Just fine. I blew a tire on the way to work, and I've been stuck in meetings since I arrived."

A: "Pretty much ducky. ..."

A: "Just awful. ..."

A: "Really really swell. ..."

A: "Absolutely catastrophic. ..."

Also, here are some cites of "pretty much ducky":

• 1995: Walter Olson, Juries on Trial

  Indeed, The Wall Street Journal's news coverage of the law...subscribe to the view of the world that sees the great majority of court cases as being resolved rationally at modest expense...and, in general, everything about contemporary American litigation as pretty much ducky (except that maybe there isn't enough of it).

• 2005: Lauren, this hat will eat your soul on atypically.knit

  I'm knitting a triple strand at the same ~2.5 sts/in that the Shannon knits at, and everything is pretty much ducky so far.

• 2006: animate_mush on animate_mush's journal

  Good fun. And tomorrow I'm flying up to SF to see my other favorite guy, so things are pretty much ducky.

I'm not really proposing the "wedge" argument. I'm merely proposing that just is being used in its standard adverbial sense, and the phrase is merely the sum of its parts without additional idiomatic implication. Or are you arguing that the phrase "just ducky" is always sarcastic? If it's the latter, here are some cites of non-sarcastic use:

• 1994: David Reid, Sex, Death and God in L.A.

  I'd love to say that in Santa Barbara Max and I went to a motel and things were just ducky because that's my idea, really, of how things should turn out.

• 2000: Barbara Weltman, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Starting a Home-Based Business

  This all sounds just ducky: built-in concept, built-in products, advertising, and systems.

• 2003: Kim Grant, Lonely Planet Florida

  For a brief period after a hurricane, as if to add insult to injury, conditions become just ducky for a tornado.

If anything, I'd say that it's the adverb just that has the preponderance of usage in ironic situations, irregardless of what adjective it's paired with. So...I'm basically wondering what your rationale for specifying that this particular combination of adverb + adjective should be defined as a term is, verses any other combination. Or should they all? (P.S. if this is becoming irrelevant to the question of RFV, please send me a message and I'll shut up or move my discussion to the appropriate venue. Jeffqyzt 19:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter that it has not been given a definition - or even formatted? Παρατηρητής

Not really. Why go to the effort of reformatting it if it may be deleted? Now that it is more likely to stay, it will need attention. --Connel MacKenzie 08:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, I don't think this meets WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. Jeffqyzt 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support its deletion, but the argument would have to be transferred to WT:RFD. DAVilla 21:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Does it need to complete RFV first? Or can I create an entry in RFD at the same time? Or does an admin need to do it, since it's currently still under RFV? Jeffqyzt 23:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a judgement call. Just don't impede the obstruction of injustice, or something like that. DAVilla 21:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it has idiomatic meaning, but only from context I agree that just is a modifier, but it is not a set phrase. Take the following sentences and compare them. Four different meanings, each derived from context.

• I have a duck in my pond and a ducky in my bath.
• 'Ello ducky. Arn't you looking beautiful.
• Thieves broke in. Life is peachy. Everything is ducky!!! HA!
• Look Johnny. See the duckies.

To Rfd then. Andrew massyn 11:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, you've proved the point that just ducky is idiomatic, unlike ducky on its own. The third 'example' you have listed just above is the only one remotely close to the topic, but doesn't match the wording of the entry being requested for verification at all. With all these citations amassed, why did you move this to RFD from RFV? I see only one person seriously opposed to keeping the entry (because it is not an idiom by his definition) yet quite a few citations here with exactly that idiomatic use. Perhaps moving to RFC would be more appropriate. --Connel MacKenzie 02:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. My objection is to the word "just" which is irrelevant to the meaning, which is derived from context. The definition shoulc come under "ducky" only. Andrew massyn 08:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Your example provided above shows that in some strange dialect, someone has used the term without "just" preceding it. But the normal construction is just ducky, not ducky. --Connel MacKenzie 09:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea where you dug up your citations for pretty much ducky, but in comparison to just ducky your construction obviously could only be an error or a nonce. Note: also compare this to this (the latter pointing directly here, to this conversation! --Connel MacKenzie 09:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Connel, I'll agree with you that "just ducky" is the most common construction. However, I disagree that the meaning is only conveyed by that particular construction, for the reasons I've outlined above. In this case, just is one of a series of modifying combinations that can be applied. The combination just ducky is a modification of ducky with the adverb just. Nothing more. The meaning of ducky remains intact whether it is modified by just, not so, always, quite, etc. (all of these have Google Books hits) or even when it's not modified at all (also has Google books hits, try "was ducky".) You're not going to find a wealth of uses, though, because the word is just not that common. I'm not opposed to a usage note at ducky indicating its most common construction, though. --Jeffqyzt 13:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. I do not think the label "idiomacy" restricts a set phrase to only one idiomatic form. To me, "just ducky" is an order of magnitude more common than "ducky" as an independent form. While it can be manipulated into a free-standing form, the common construction is "just ducky." What argument of yours above says that "just ducky" isn't a set phrase? --Connel MacKenzie 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No clear consensus, closed without deletion. Now taking suggestion and votes of approval for the just ducky test: (1) Is the phrase more common than the same meaning for one of the component words as found in isolation, outside of that phrase? or (2) Does the phrase more commonly carry a sarcastic meaning rather than the literal? Does "just ducky" qualify under either of those rules, or is it more of a combination? DAVilla 17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 18:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Impossible to verify with a straight Google search, as hundreds of thousands of false positives come up (mostly relating to cosines); however, searching for the phrase "'cos I said" yeilds nearly 20k hits, and 14 book hits:

Tony Brown, Jimi Hendrix (2003) p. 24.

• ‘I was down in the Village, it was right before I quit this R&B group, you know, ‘cos I said, ‘well come on down to the Village so we can get something together,' ...

S. C. Williams, Religious Belief and Popular Culture in Southwark C. 1880-1939 (1999) p. 133.

• ... it was shining on the chamber and I screamed ‘cos I said, ‘look, it's Jesus here!' and we fell down the stairs we were so frightened.

Rick Delbridge, Life on the Line in Contemporary Manufacturing(1998) p. 54.

• Angle's response was, 'Cos I said so'.

Note that many hits cite "cos" (in "cos I said so") without the initial apostrophe. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Should that be ’cos rather than ‘cos? Unless the editor made that mistake too, that is. DAVilla 06:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Right now it's at 'cos - I'd put different apostrophe styles down to a spelling variation. bd2412 T 13:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• rfd removed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone added the speedy delete tag to this, but we've had it for a long time. I think we should keep it. Robert Ullmann 16:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• A slight variation in transliteration gets one Google books hit . bd2412 T 16:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...no non-dictionary hits on ordinary Google (or Metacrawler) though. Does anyone other than that book's author use it?...though I must say it does have a certain appeal...maybe there's a more usual spelling. If it is kept, our list of languages suggests the language should be Jamaican Creole rather than just Jamaican. --Enginear 18:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Creole? I think it's Jamaican Patois. A creole is formed by a mix of languages, no? bd2412 T 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't have to be a mix to be a creole. Its name in ISO 639-3 is actually Jamaican Creole English. --Ptcamn 01:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Ok. Fixed that. bd2412 T 02:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps WT:LANG needs revisiting. I've forgotten where to find the link to ISO... --Enginear 19:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

One month later, and nobody's voted to delete this or in fact even proposed as much. Verdict: keep. DAVilla 16:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty arbitrary acronym... - TheDaveRoss 03:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

But still has its own article in wikipedia? \Mike 03:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep - tens of thousands of Google hits, 20+ Google Books hits. It's attested and has a set meaning. bd2412 T 03:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep or move to rfv. --Connel MacKenzie 21:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Kept. --Connel MacKenzie 19:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably a moot point now, but just FYI to my knowledge it dates to the late 80s, as the abbreviation of a R.E.M. song title. It is in sufficient "hipster" usage that one of the San Francisco weekly indy newspapers (The SF Weekly or the Guardian, I forget which) used it in a headline, a couple of years ago, under the assumption that it would simply be recognized. Took me about 20 sec. or so, but I did, so I guess the assumption wasn't that far off, at least if your intended audience is SF & Silicon Valley thirty-somethings. — SMcCandlish 08:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

User Gliorzio added RfD tag to this entry, did not add it here. Probably is a fine word; this user has been steadily vandalizing Japanese entries by blanking information (removing hiragana, unlinking rōmaji, etc) for over a year. AFAIK, this user has never added information to the wiktionary. (yes, if you go back at least a month or so, and look at the non-Japanese entries) Robert Ullmann 18:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 算数する is a good page. I think Gliorzio wants to delete it simply because it’s the sum of its parts. If this were the Japanese Wiktionary, he’d have a point. It is often difficult for native speakers of other languages to grasp the different needs and requirements that English-speakers have with regard to the foreign language entries. Gliorzio seems to be editing for a native Japanese readership, but that does not serve an English audience very well. I encounter this same problem with other languages. —Stephen 20:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The entry has a couple of things in its favor:

1. User:Izumi5 has a consistent track record of quality Japanese entries. He is also a native speaker.
2. The use of the word in this way can be found via Google. Granted, it is not an impressive number of hits, but still enough to attest to its usage.

I'll leave it to the native speakers to debate the "correctness" of using the term as a verb (Perhaps those hits are all examples of incorrect usage).

Question, what is current Wiktionary thinking with respect to suru (to do) verbs. Most Japanese dictionaries do not have separate entries such as word suru. Instead, they list the word, then indicate that it may be used as a verb when followed by suru. In other words, Wiktionary should have an entry for 勉強 (to study), which includes 勉強する in the entry, but 勉強する should not be a separate entry. I don't think it necessarily hurts anything to have it as a separate entry, it just seems unnecessary if we already have 勉強. A-cai 20:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I stand corrected. My Seiko Japanese electronic pocket dictionary does list 勉強する as a separate entry. A-cai 20:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In general, we list all the forms of a word as separate entries. Even if the Japanese dictionary does not, we would still want the suru form, particularly because it is often a verb form of a noun stem. We also want all the conjugations at some point ... Robert Ullmann 21:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've updated WT:AJ to remove the reference to redirecting pages. (the wikt hasn't redirected forms for a long time) and give examples of referencing (e.g.) suru and na forms to their stem forms. Robert Ullmann 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed rfd. —Stephen 13:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we don't need to delete it, but need to be careful about the rareness. I left more on the talk page. --Tohru 05:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My general feeling is that we should make -する verbs (except perhaps especially common ones) redirect to the noun form. They are all Japanese, so there is no danger of conflicting with other languages, and there's no reason, in my mind, to keep them at separate entries. They should not be considered merely the sum of their parts, however. For that, Japanese has +をする, which is really the sum of two parts (noun + verb). The +する form is actually, as far as any text I can recall goes, is actually considered a single term, and it's no more the sum of its parts than, say, drinkable or antiwar, which have entries in probably just about any dictionary. For the record, the 電子辞書 that I carry with me has +する as it's own sub-entry underneath the noun term--separate from the noun, but subordinate--which is basically what I'm recommending. Jun-Dai 00:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Kept. --Connel MacKenzie 19:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

All "flogging the mule" hits save one are in lists for terms for masturbation, and all "flog the mule" terms are also. The two books.google hits are both for literal mule floggings, and not supportive. - TheDaveRoss 14:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I knew what this was going to say before I read the definition. Perhaps we should have a generic entry for the universal understanding that " the " = masturbate. E.g. person #1 "I think I'll go home and smack the walrus". Person #2, "yeah, I'm going to go punch the penguin myself". Hmmm... perhaps not. bd2412 T 15:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is delete. This conversation can move to WT:RFDA in a week. --Connel MacKenzie 18:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No onelook, no legit Google, no books.google, WT:LOP perhaps. - TheDaveRoss 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to WT:LOP in case it is (or, so that it can be) deleted... it was too interesting a word to simply let it die. Beobach972 02:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Move to WT:LOP and drop it, even if the sole reason for doing so is this line from the entry "It is ill formed etymologically as equally as the word “homosexual”." - TheDaveRoss 02:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, but doing so would be homophobophobic! (If you can't tell, I'm not being serious; lol.) Beobach972 03:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This belongs maybe on BJAODN, except that it isn't even funny. Since the contributor was so adamant about removing the RFD tag, I've deleted it, redirected and semi-protected it (for a day or two, I suppose.) --Connel MacKenzie 03:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Er...the word seems to have gone missing. Thats rather queer dont you think? Andrew massyn 19:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

(Note missing trailling period) Encyclopedic. Transwiki to Wikipedia (if it meets the 'notability' criteria there.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 23:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Google (english only) I read through the google hits and the only ones I found which used this term were Wikt and some lists of defs. - TheDaveRoss 18:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 16:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Plausible, a possible protologism. Jonathan Webley 12:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

One google hit besides en:w, searching on "yeard hairstyle" almost all the hits are mispellings of "years" with "hairstyle" coincidentally elsewhere in the page. This entry is a copy of the en:w entry made 5 days ago. (and immediately tagged for deletion) Robert Ullmann 13:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No meaning was provided by the author, although an example sentance would suggest 'shit' was the intended meaning.

google hits are primarily names, blogs and forums, even Urban Dictionary doesn't have this one. --Versageek 05:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

complete crud.. — This unsigned comment was added by Versageek (talk • contribs).

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 15:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This entry looks like it should be in Urban Dictionary. Could be well meaning vandalism of sorts?--Williamsayers79 08:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

zero google hits.. --Versageek 23:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

stufado is yummy. Παρατηρητής

only a hand full of google hits, mostly blogs/forums & myspace type pages --Versageek 18:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would've guessed stupendilicious, but then, that doesn't meet our criteria either. --Connel MacKenzie 18:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

{{alternative spelling of|} michei jachson is the beast man in a world.

No entry for braekdanc. DAVilla 06:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you suppose he meant breakdance, breakdancing? —Stephen 04:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this someones name or a plant?--Williamsayers79 13:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I can only find refs to a person. It doesn't seem to be a type of tweed cloth. Recommend {{{1}}}. What sort of plant did you mean? --Enginear 14:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Capitalized it is a person. Deleted. SemperBlotto 15:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A protologism perhaps? Jonathan Webley 12:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly that. Added to list and then deleted. SemperBlotto 13:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No search results for either соаз + татарча or соаз + tartar. Beobach972 16:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This is real word, but more frequently spelled as саз. Eric Utgerd 13:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

To Andrew massyn: KEEP both spellings. Thanks. Eric Utgerd 07:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now located verification for the spelling саз at the Русско-татарский краткий словарь, therefore I recommend that the spelling саз be kept; however as no verification for the spelling соаз has been found, I recommend that it be deleted, and this discussion archived. Beobach972 20:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Two different recommendations. I can't decide. To rfd. Andrew massyn 13:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No evidence of use in Tatar texts. Deleted'. —Stephen 15:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I can find no Tartar attestations. Beobach972 16:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you can see placed references. Because of this, please remove RVF. Eric Utgerd 02:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

To Andrew massyn: KEEP. Thanks. Eric Utgerd 07:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My recommendation is that this word (сабид) be deleted because it fails to meet Wiktionary CFI : a) no Tartar-language usage has been provided (the citations being in Russian), and the citations furthermore b) do not convey meaning. Beobach972 17:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Two different recommendations. I can't decide. To rfd Andrew massyn 13:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The references are nothing more than personal given names in Russian documents. I cannot find this word in any Tatar texts. Delete. —Stephen 15:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 21:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I can find no usage of this in Tartar. Beobach972 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is just another way of etymological spelling Cyrillic харт , Latin hart. Eric Utgerd 13:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

To Andrew massyn: KEEP. Thanks. Eric Utgerd 08:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Tartar section of hoar'd has been moved to the more accurate transliteration / Latin spelling hart; therefore I recommend that hoar'd be deleted. Beobach972 21:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Two different recommendations. I can't decide. To rfd. Andrew massyn 13:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tatar харт should be linked to from hoary, but hoar'd is not a word. Deleted. —Stephen 15:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Previously listed on RFV, but indicated that it passed incorrectly. Only two books.google hits convey very different meaning than definition currently given (which has previously been indicated to be a copyright violation.)

This needs an expidited RFV (due to incorrect removal) and RFDing. --Connel MacKenzie 19:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "googledork" was coined by the author and originally meant "An inept or foolish person as revealed by Google." After a great deal of media attention, the term came to describe those who "troll the Internet for confidential goods." Either description is fine, really. What matters is that the term googledork conveys the concept that sensitive stuff is on the web, and Google can help you find it. The official googledorks page lists many different examples of unbelievable things that have been dug up through Google by the maintainer of the page, Johnny Long. Each listing shows the Google search required to find the information, along with a description of why the data found on each page is so interesting. —This unsigned comment was added by Andrew massyn (talk • contribs).

A further discussion on the term.] Andrew massyn 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I can understand the assertion that this is perhaps a slang term. If it is, then certainly durably archived printed references can be found for it. For example, slang drug terms see many, many occurences in print. But something as obscure and narrow as this 1) hasn't entered the English language, 2) Is not likely to be looked up (as the term as defined can only be used in a miniscule, narrow context.)

RFV tag restored. --Connel MacKenzie 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly think the term can be expanded. As far as I have seen, it has two or possibly three meanings: As cited; A neglegent webmaster who allows personal information to be revealed; A person who opens his computer to the world by sheer ineptitude. As for it's existence, I have no doubt that it exists and accordingly removedthe rfv. If necessary it should be moved to rfc or to the Tea Room. However in my opinion rfvpassed. I shall check google books, but will not be disapointed if I dont find it there yet It is bound to make its way into print.

More discussion. Andrew massyn 18:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Two book results: one for googleDork and one for googledork. Andrew massyn 18:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Page was vandalized again today. Talk page still listed bogus references. Redirecting and protecting. --Connel MacKenzie 06:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I see deletion as a bit bold but not out of line, if only because I agree that something a little stronger and more convincing would be nicer as proof. Redirection and protection: see below. Disagreement is not vandalism! DAVilla 18:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Connel wants to ditch it, I want to keep it. To rfd for consensus. Andrew massyn 08:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The page seems to be missing. Andrew massyn 08:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the quotations on the talk page should not have "disappeared". Whether the process clarifies this I don't know, but it should always be possible to reincarnate the page with the right citations. To me that's more an effort of accumulation that has to build on previous effort. What would be the appropriate place if the talk page is not kept? DAVilla 17:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The move to --error link target-- was also a bit strong and unnecessarily pre-emptive. The RfV tag may be/probably is appropriate given the current discussion, but insistence on its removal should be met with protection, not with page deletion, unless with some certainty RfV failed, in which case deletion alone, and not protection, should be enough. DAVilla 18:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

While what you say sounds reasonable, I don't think it is. One affect of leaving bogus pages on Wiktionary is that mirrors propogate the term. This intereferes tremendously with determination efforts. The page was bogus to begin with; the citations added were never citations from a durably archived source...unless, like google, you consider Wiktionary itself to be a durably archived source. The practice of leaving orphan talk pages also needs serious review. One excellent contributor has been very helpful in archiving this page, however, insists on retaining the "failed" entries where they seem to be causing secondary problems.

In this particular example, the long time between it accidentally non being listed here, caused additional mirrors to report it as a seemingly valid term. One question about the term I still have is what its nature is; is it a nonce, or a trendy-pop term. The profferred citations suggest the latter, but since those web pages don't exist, it is hard to verify even that.

I'm not sure that moving the conversion now, to RFD is any more benefical than discussing it right here. --Connel MacKenzie 18:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion 07:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 11:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 11:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 11:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 11:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 11:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 11:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 11:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 11:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 11:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 11:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 11:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. See discussion. 00:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

'Templates' were originally called 'custom messages' and intermingled with the interface messages in the MediaWiki namespace. In June 2004, these were moved to their own Template namespace in three steps by a script designed for the task (see Template initialisation script). It then updated all pages to use the new template namespace.

However, a byproduct of the process is that the 'custom messages' still exist as unused and orphaned redirects, even though some of the templates they redirect to have since been deleted. These clutter a few specialpages, the uppercase-to-lowercase redirects combined with the MediaWiki-to-Template redirects to make a mess, and some of them are broken redirects. Tim Starling (developer) confirmed on IRC that these are no longer used anywhere; since there's no use for them since early 2004, there's no point spending time maintaining them ever after.

I propose the templates in the MediaWiki namespace be deleted, along with any broken double redirects from the later capitalisation redirection. Wiktionary:MediaWiki custom messages is a very incomplete list of these; a more complete list can be obtained from Special:Contributions/Template namespace initialisation script. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 05:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. Delete. —Stephen 10:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Thank you for the clear explanation of the history of these. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 17:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Is that everything in here? — Vildricianus 09:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  Yep. Those 272 pages should take less than half an hour to delete, once I get around to it. // Pathoschild (talk / map) 03:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted. - TheDaveRoss 01:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)