This is a discussion archive created in November 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.

I am hurted in many ways, seeing this added to en.wiktionary.org. --Connel MacKenzie 23:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What about thunk? Are you hurted by that too? Fark 23:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Cute, but that is marked as erroneous or facetious use only. Are you suggesting that "hurted" is used the same way? Clearly it is not. --Connel MacKenzie 01:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

2,560 Google books hits. Keep. --Ptcamn 11:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Strangely, I see no Google-Books hits... is registration a prerequisite to seeing them, or some such? Beobach972 19:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Still, I think it should be kept and marked like thunk. Beobach972 19:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?q=hurted does indicate that "hurted" is a spelling error for "hurt", but then does list the 2,000+ sarcastic nonce uses. --Connel MacKenzie 18:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Google thinks that the perfectly respectable term spirant is a "spelling error" for spirent, which doesn't even seem to be a word.

They aren't "sarcastic nonce uses". They're mostly either children's speech, or archaic. --Ptcamn 07:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the OED has cites from 15th, 16th, 17th & 18th centuries (spread between their entries for hurt (verb) and hurted (participle adjective)) as an alternative to hurt. --Enginear 09:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Added more cites, tagged archaic or non-standard, added usage note, etc --Enginear 16:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, great entry! --Jeffqyzt 20:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Fantastic cleanup, Enginear! --Connel MacKenzie 06:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we need all the inflections of make love, and other phrases? Jonathan Webley 21:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd probably say 'delete' normally, but this is the more common form of the phrase, isn't it? And a very common idiomatic phrase, at that. Idiomatic, in that the same construction can't really be used for any other possible meaning of "love" + "make". Wiki is not paper... --Connel MacKenzie 18:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, keep. bd2412 T 20:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We should be consistent. Does this really count as an exception or should I put it to a vote? What do people think about made love, fell in love, falling down, giving up etc.? DAVilla 18:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What would the vote be about? Whether or not we keep entries that are idiomatic? --Connel MacKenzie 19:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether to keep inflections of phrasal verbs (or potentially any verb phrase) as soft rather than hard redirects. But I don't know what I was thinking for a vote. That's not the way to get clarification. DAVilla 10:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, Kept. --Connel MacKenzie 18:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy (fixed to list properly,) but I wonder, for such a famous phrase, do we want an entry, rather than just a reference within Brutus? Certainly, one would want to look it up, the first time seeing it, right? --Connel MacKenzie 06:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It’s an important phrase, and here we can explain the parts. Cleaned up. Keep. —Stephen 08:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as it is cleaned up appropriately, I rescind my request. Medellia 08:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternative approach would be to redirect it to Brutus (and explain it there); that way it still shows up in browse/search results. - dcljr 18:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It can be used idiomatically:

“Et tu, Brute?” is used to express surprise and dismay at the treachery of a supposed friend.

So keep. --Dart evader 19:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted apparent invention by Richard Eedes in a Latin play in 1582, added ==English== section for loaned use since 1591 (pre-Julius Caesar), + cites. All quite unexpected and interesting. (Someone had already removed the RFV tag.) --Enginear 23:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I used to know someone who was fond of saying, "Et tu, Frute?" —Stephen 19:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Kept. --Connel MacKenzie 18:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And other recent additions by the same user. Ncik 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Already deleted most of them :P but wasn't sure about this one. If it were pared down, it might meet WT:CFI. --EncycloPetey 00:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Capitalized (it's a name, not a species) and added quotes. I think he's used allusively enough to warrant inclusion. --Ptcamn 14:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Kept. --Connel MacKenzie 18:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This was nominated for speedy deletion, but should be kept. It is a cell biology / cytology term for flagellated (whip-bearing) cells. --EncycloPetey 00:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, keep. I have expanded the definition. SemperBlotto 22:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Kept. --Connel MacKenzie 18:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I think it is not a word for a wiktionary. Contrary we must to have all "words" as 3-5-2, 3-4-3, 3-3-4, 4-3-3 and so on because all of them are "A popular soccer formations". In any case, it can't be an "English adverb" --VPliousnine 09:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Perhaps it should be a noun, but it describes an identifiable thing with a set meaning. There are quite a few combinations of numbers that serve similar functions. This also happens to be a steam locomotive configuration. bd2412 T 14:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. See BD 2-4-1-2 above (I doubt there are more than a dozen loco wheel formations and rather fewer soccer formations, and until you've seen the definition of one or two, they are fairly opaque). --Enginear 23:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

For someone with the tag "Enginear" you should know better ;-) There are at least 50 steam locomotive combinations excluding rare ones, and at least a few dozen have names: 4-4-2 is Atlantic ... Robert Ullmann 00:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, careless indeed! Thinking back to my steam trainspotting days, I suppose there were about a dozen, and several names, in use in England in 1960 alone, and we didn't have anything bigger than Pacifics ... it's just it takes a while to blow out the cobwebs before I can get that bit of my brain up to speed. --Enginear 01:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So... keep. Pedant 02:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I count 81. A drop in the bucket for the whole of the dictionary. Let's collect 'em all. bd2412 T 01:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a small, finite (in practical terms) set, so let's. To come up with a figure like 81, I guess you still have some reference books, so you'd better lead, and I'll try to find some good cites. I see that Robert Ullmann helped cite anorakish so he may know more than either of us. ;-D --Enginear 13:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have the single greatest reference book ever conceived - the train lovers of Wikipedia! :) bd2412 T 15:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of the above are extremely rare (in practice), but they're all set meanings that are verifiable without much difficulty. bd2412 T 15:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Have added to my to-do list, and will try to cite those for which we already have entries...though not all at once. Where could anyone find a line straight enough to run a 4-14-4 (or a 0-12-0)? The Nullarbor Plain? And how would you ever get it in and out of a depot! --Enginear 15:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Iowa. I take that back; it's the Russians who use it! bd2412 T 19:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Striking and closing as kept (obviously). bd2412 T 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I see this has been tag has been erroneously removed again. I know I commented on this very recently (therefore it cannot properly have been archived, without at least a week for others to comment on it.) Yet the tag was POV-removed from this heading which does not meet WT:CFI. There is no iso code for it - so it should not be a separate language heading. Still. --Connel MacKenzie 22:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnologue entry for Jamaican Creole English, jam ⁠
aka "Patois" Robert Ullmann 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• The previous discussion was archived as no consensus after a month without new comments (the nomination was five months old). See Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2006/06; you can search Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives to find previous discussions, or look for incoming links. — Pathoschild 01:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Jamaican Creole is recognized as a distinct language by many linguists. You may disagree, but that's original research. I think Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian are a single language — shall they go too? --Ptcamn 05:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I made an error looking for the exact name given (which is still wrong in our entry.) Thanks to Robert Ullmann for clearing that much up for me. But I know I commented on this in the last couple days. When I looked for the archive earlier, it was in a transition state. But I don't see how it could have been archived when I commented only a day or two ago. Was it in a different discussion section, perhaps, that I asked that same question? --Connel MacKenzie 05:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK, there is some other fundamental problem here. Pathoschild (or someone?) made the executive decision to bypass WT:CFI, according to the archived comments. The new information provided by Robert Ullmann today is finally a reason to possibly keep the modified fi entry, but that was not clear at all, when that call was made. NOW, I am not saying that becuase procedure wasn't perfect, would should go back and destroy a valid entry (as this will become when cleaned up.) But much greater care needs to be taken, when throwing out a decree of "no obvious consensus" (or the opposite.) If WT:CFI says we don't do it, you can rest assured it was fought for, inch by inch, with good reason. --Connel MacKenzie 05:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  I'm the one who closed the discussion, but I did not bypass the criteria for inclusion. In the archived discussion you argued that it was not a language, but Davilla linked to the Wikipedia article which clearly stated "ISO 639-2: to be added" (thus, that it was a valid language). Since the criteria for inclusion state that a language with an ISO code is acceptable, your argument was thus answered.

  No further argument being put forth in over four months (despite my request from both yourself and Davilla to take another look), I assumed that none was forthcoming and that, therefore, there was no consensus either way regarding deletion. If closing it encouraged you to reopen it and renew discussion (reaching the same decision for the same reason), then that was better than having the request sit there for months without discussion or resolution. Given that I closed 47 requests yesterday, I think one ill-explained decision isn't too bad. :) — Pathoschild 05:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  I must've been going to fast then, as I didn't see that mentioned in the Wikipedia article (and he didn't say so here either.) But you are right - a minor error (of mine), in combination with a minor error (of yours), in combination with a minor error in the orignal contribution, compounds itself quite nicely. All that in combination with a work-in-progress (your revamping of the RFD's archiving process) leaves lots of room for bigger "errors" than this. So, indeed, well done on getting started on the new process. --Connel MacKenzie 05:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks. :) — Pathoschild 06:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Listening to the song cited, I can't actually hear a "fi".... --Ptcamn 05:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  Following the first link of this, it seems that is just a bad transcription of the lyrics. Another line does have 'fi' pronounced clearly. --Connel MacKenzie 05:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs at RFD, if "Jamaican Patois" isn't a separate language then it's a form of English and this definition should just be moved there. Kappa 02:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Jamaican Creole (don't call it "Jamaican Patois", that's derogatory) is a real language separate from English, and fi is a real word of it. Angr 17:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Kept. --Connel MacKenzie 17:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed a long time ago...still no usable content? --Connel MacKenzie 01:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense to Semitic scholars. Terms such as Nif'al, Qal, Piel, Peel, and so on, are a traditional Semitic system that is the equivalent of parts of speech. Since Semitic languages have so many forms (some 70 for Arabic), it is more meaningful to scholars to take the word for "to do" (פעל, pa‘al) and apply the intended pattern, it shows the form intended (nif'al, piel, peel, af'el, peal, paal, etc.), it concisely expresses the form (many of which have no good equivalent in English). We do the same thing in Arabic, and the words that are translated as "noun", "verb", etc., are actually just forms of the verb "to do" with a certain nominal or verbal pattern applied to it.

When I have time, I will try to clean it up, but it is certainly useful to Hebrew scholars and students as it is. —Stephen 17:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, then in the meantime this should probably be moved to its talk page and the rfd tag changed to rfc (or removed?) --Connel MacKenzie 09:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Copied to talk page. —Stephen 16:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've no objection to the term, just to the spelling: "smell you later", surely? Or else (warning: encroaching thin-edge-of-the-wedge argument :) ) we would need to allow "see ya later" and forms with "ya" for "you" of all phrases in which "you" is unstressed. — Paul G 09:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think the thin-edge-of-the-wedge ever evolves, so that should not be an issue. In a few cases such as this phrase, the "ya" spelling is much more common than the "you" spelling, so if the article is moved to "you", it still needs a redirect from "ya". —Stephen 17:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree this doesn't seem like a thin-edge problem. Offhand, I can think of only see ya later, talk to ya later and perhaps talk at ya later. Any other 'ya' constructions are probably for the nonce, only. --Connel MacKenzie 09:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Verdict: Kept DAVilla 17:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Previously nominated for deletion in a group nomination, but no consensus was reached about this page. The original argument for their deletion was sum of parts. Note that Wikipedia has a redirect from Fire alarm horn to Fire alarm notification appliance. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. It is the sum of its parts.--Dmol 20:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Not used in the UK. --Enginear 16:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Two definitions implies ambiguity in meaning. Keep. DAVilla 21:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it (so what!) but since there is no strong consensus to delete, it should be kept. --Connel MacKenzie 18:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing rfd tag. --Connel MacKenzie 16:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Previously nominated for deletion in a group nomination, but no consensus was reached about this page. The original argument for their deletion was sum of parts. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 17:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Sum of its parts. --Dmol 17:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Unidiomatic - deleted. — Paul G 08:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not used in the UK. --Enginear 16:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Then it passes Pauley #1, the fancy dress test. DAVilla 21:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It is idiomatic in the sense that you don't necessarily need to pull something in order to activate a fire alarm. Edit: Keep. DAVilla 21:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Good points. But I don't recall ever seeing a fire alarm "pull" that didn't say "pull down" or "break glass, pull lever" or similar. AFAIK, they do require a "pull" of one sort or another. Don't they? If they do, that would reinforce the Pauley #1 argument. If they don't, that would reinforce DAVilla's second point. Either way, it looks like the request has merit, so I second the restore. --Connel MacKenzie 18:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Kept. --Connel MacKenzie 17:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists urbandictionary as the "reference" therefore should be deleted and started anew. --Connel MacKenzie 17:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Why. Surely the term exists although it needs a cleanup. Having a UD as a ref should not be reason to get rid of what is clearly a correct (albeit longwinded) definition.--Dmol 17:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Made it into a simple "alternative spelling of" man-eater (which we have had for some time, and is the usual spelling). SemperBlotto 18:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Kept reduced. --Connel MacKenzie 17:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

(This discussion was split from a group nomination for asdf and fhqwhgads.)

This nomination is based on an earlier nomination for asdf. Asdf and fhqwhgads have no meaning, although they are of encyclopedic relevance. Both are common nonsense substitutes for real words (see Greeking). The question these pose is whether Wiktionary should define words as a dictionary, or give brief summaries of encyclopedic relevance as a lightweight encyclopedia. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I did a test once and could find no random collection of four letters that got fewer than 300 Google hits, with most getting tens of thousands. Of course, asdf gets millions, and it is possible that someone may come across it and wish to look it up in the dictionary, so keep. No vote on fhqwhgads, after reading the 'pedia article I could go either way on it. bd2412 T 04:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  By the way, BD2412, the numbers of Google hits is not in itself a criterion for inclusion. "Hte" (a typo for "the") gets over six million hits (although many of these are initialisms), but we won't be including it. — Paul G 08:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep for asdf. --Ptcamn 04:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Connel MacKenzie 06:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• On a related note, both the OED and Wikipedia have an entry for "etaoin shrdlu" (see the Wikipedia article. If "asdf" has a similar meaning, then keep — Paul G 08:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• jkl; DAVilla 20:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be "keep"; removing RFD tag. --Connel MacKenzie 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Volcanoes can be active, dormant or extinct. "Active volcano" is not a set phrase because you can make the adjective predicative ("this volcano is active") as well as attributive ("this is an active volcano"); the content therefore belongs at "active". See "active volcano" in Wikipedia (redirects to "volcano") and "active" in dictionary.com (lists a meaning applicable to volcanoes). — Paul G 08:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep as 1) Wiki is not paper, 2) the term active volcano is very much likely to be looked up in and of itself, especially in comparison to inactive volcano which would not be serviced very well, by being hidden in active. 3) When referring to a volcano that is active or inactive, the noun referent is volcano. But when referring to a specific active volcano that is the noun you are referring to. If you could explain to me how those are not different kinds of objects (they being 'volcanoes' vs. 'active volcanoes') then perhaps my opinion/vote could be changed. Isn't a bun a kind of bread, the same way an active volcano is a kind of volcano? --08:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC) I don't know why my sig wasn't listed, but this was my comment and !vote to keep. --Connel MacKenzie 17:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary is not paper, but we still have criteria for inclusion. "Inactive volcano" would go under "inactive", not "active".

See my comment about the predicative use of the adjective. Note that the Wikipedia article has subsections on "submarine volcanoes" and "subglacial volcanoes". These are set phrases as you would not refer to a volcano that is submarine or subglacial. On the other hand, it defines active, dormant and extinct volcanoes predicatively, not attributively. There is no doubt that you can say "active volcano", but I maintain that this is simply a juxtaposition of an adjective and a noun rather than a phrase deserving of its own entry.

I don't follow the analogy with buns and bread. Where is the adjective here?

Note also that Wiktionary does not (at least not yet) have articles for "dormant volcano" and "extinct volcano". — Paul G 08:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn’t, but it certainly should and eventually will. —Stephen 22:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Translations are often unpredictable. E.g., active in Russian is активный, энергичный, or деятельный ... however, active volcano is действующий вулкан (in-force volcano) or огнедышащий вулкан (fire-spitting volcano). —Stephen 22:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Add the Russian entry, get rid of active volcano. Just because a term or phrase can be translated into a unique foreign-language phrase doesn't mean it merits and entry in English active volcano = red car in terms of meriting inclusion. - DaveRoss 17:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If we delete it, how are people going to know that an active volcano is both one that is currently spewing out lava, and also one that spews it out every few years but not at the moment (I'm pretty sure that the second form is not a dormant volcano). SemperBlotto 17:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, per SB - apparant technical meaning is not intuitive. bd2412 T 19:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep per SB. Edit: the definition at active is general and does not cover this concern. DAVilla 20:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

SemperBlotto, the answer is easy - you define "active" that way. In any case, I'm not sure that geologists define it in the first of the senses you give.

To the anonymous contributor pointing out the Russian translation: we write translations to fit English entries, not vice versa. "Cousin" has different translations in French depending on whether it is a male or a female cousin, but we do not have separate English pages or senses for these; "nephew" and "niece" translate to the same word in Italian, but we do not combine these entries into one. In fact, as words behave differently in different languages ("nephew" and "niece" have distinct translations in French, for example), it would be impossible to write the English wiktionary to suit the translations for all languages.

These are not equivalent. English does not distinguish gender in cousins, and an English page designed to accomodate the French semantics would be forced and unnatural. In the case of active volcano, every major language including English has a term for it. The phrase active volcano could be just another section on the volcano page or active volcano could have its own page...or we could have both. As an experienced translator, I know that someone who needs to translate active volcano into another language may look first at volcano to see if active volcano is mentioned, or he may begin by searching for active volcano directly. What he will NOT do, if he is a competent translator, is to take the word volcano and the word active independently of each another from their individual pages (as opposed to, for example, "red bandana", where a translator will select the words individually and not even think of looking for the phrase). The advantage we have over a print dictionary is that we can easily have active volcano in both places: on the volcano page and also on the active volcano page. —Stephen 22:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought I would look in some of my professional-grade bilingual dictionaries and I find such words as active volcano and extinct volcano in the majority of them. So far, the only dictionary I have looked in that doesn’t list types of volcano other than volcano is a cheap Cassell’s German dictionary for students and tourists. —Stephen 23:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So translations have to be made to fit the English entry as best as possible. If there is a different way of translating "active volcano" from combining the translations of "active" and "volcano", then that should be given as additional information in the translation: "Russian: <translation of "active" with application to volcanoes>; active volcano: <translation of "active volcano">. — Paul G 15:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems like the best policy, but out of curiosity, what would the translations section for active look like if the translation of "active volcano" were a single word in another language? DAVilla 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Such as 活火山... Cynewulf 06:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. That has 火山 = volcano. Maybe there aren't any examples? DAVilla 18:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

活火山 is one word, not two. I was going to say that 活 isn't a word, but it is. According to JDICT, it means "judo art of resuscitation; encouraging somebody; giving somebody a pep talk". 活花 ikebana doesn't mean "active flowers" (or even living flowers), it means "flower arrangement". You can't just break a word down into its component kanji and expect it to make sense. It's like saying that "automobile" means something that moves itself -- by that definition I am an automobile. Cynewulf 08:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, the German for airplane is Flugzeug, literally "flying thing". --EncycloPetey 08:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Although these entries are sum of parts, they're perhaps the best place to record precisely what a term means. vintage car is another example that wasn't removed. In both cases the adjective can be applied to more specific classes or instances. My question then, how to link them back from active or vintage from the definition line rather than a bulleted example or one of many compound terms. DAVilla 18:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, keep. From the definitions at active, one would not be able to determine that an active volcano is not one with the potential to erupt at any moment as opposed to one that is currently erupting. Thus, the combination of words may be a juxtaposition, but it's one in which the adjective takes on a meaning peculiar to the situation. --EncycloPetey 08:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

keep it won't all be covered in the def at active Pedant 02:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I am adding Chinese translation there.--Jusjih 18:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, for the love of sanity. This is a specific sense of active. Widsith 16:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I count three people voting for deletion, more voting keep, and a couple people on the fence. That doesn't seem like a consensus to delete. I think the removal of the RFD tag from the entry was a minor, simple procedural error, in that this conversation didn't declare it as "no consensus to delete." For Widsith's love of sanity, should this be left open for another week, or struck out now? --Connel MacKenzie 17:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Widsith except that the somewhat technical definition of active is not fully covered there, and I can't see how to add it without overloading the present one. --Enginear 21:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete: The relevant sense at active is "In action; actually proceeding; working; in force;", and "an active volcano" is actually used as an example there. The difference is not one of a technical definition vs. a layman's definition with regards to "active." It's one of a an everyday time scale vs. a geologic time scale, where pretty much anything in the last several centuries is happening "right now." --Jeffqyzt 21:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

But that is precisely why it must be kept. That sense of time cannot be conveyed as a meaningful distinction anywhere except in an entry such as active volcano. --Connel MacKenzie 07:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps a good example service for the appropriate definition of active, and delete active volcano. --Enginear 22:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, sum of its parts. Angr 17:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "SoP" alone is still not a valid reason for deletion on en.wikt. --Connel MacKenzie 07:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep - is more than sum of parts. Παρατηρητής

Kept - no consensus to delete. --Connel MacKenzie 17:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a common misspelling? Isn't is a given name, spelled this way? --Connel MacKenzie 02:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• It is rarely used as a female given name, as a "misspelling" of Madeline. It is in "baby name" websites, but not in more academic works. SemperBlotto 08:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So it should be listed as a diminutive female given name, then? --Connel MacKenzie 18:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Removing tag. --Connel MacKenzie 14:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not nearly as common as El Nino in print.  :-) So, does this get cleaned up to point to La Niña as an ASCII reduction, or just deleted? --Connel MacKenzie 04:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved to La Niña and cleaned up. —Stephen 07:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The redirect, if not deleted, should state that it's an alternative spelling or common misspelling. Checking I saw it used a few times, so the page is merited IMO. DAVilla 20:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You're moving it to RFV then? --Connel MacKenzie 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah, too lazy. I'm voting keep while it's still here. DAVilla 10:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

{shrug} OK, but currently, it is still a redirect. --Connel MacKenzie 15:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ruakh cleaned it up. Thanks. --Connel MacKenzie 07:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikipedia before deleting? --Connel MacKenzie 19:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it got cleaned up before I looked at it. No idea whether it was transwikied. --EncycloPetey 03:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Completely nonexistent. Garners the magic zero results on all Google searches. Uncle G 10:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Gone SemperBlotto 17:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie (3 November 2006 (UTC))

Quite simply, this was a typo on my part; the proper spelling is Hinaliʻi. I see no reason that this ought to remain. Medellia 22:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You can just add {{delete}} in cases like this, there is no need for RfD process. (In particular, if you created it yourself, we have no reason to question deleting it!) Robert Ullmann 22:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize that! Thank you. Medellia 22:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-idiomatic phrase. No reason to have a separate entry. - dcljr 18:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be "evilly" anyway? Pedant 02:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a German compound term meaning 'moose urine' or 'elk urine', similar compound terms are easily constructed for any creature which produces urine. Thus I argue that it is a sum of it's parts & should be deleted. --Versageek 21:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Pro deletion: it is misspelled because of decapitalization and it is nonsense, because You could then create ...urin entries for every single animal.

best regards --birdy _{(:> )=|} 22:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 18:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing the namespace - this is spam in the main namespace? --Connel MacKenzie 08:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to the Wiktionary: namespace. Someone please delete the redirect in main space. RJFJR 13:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect deleted. --Jeffqyzt 14:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Protologism. In urbandictionary but no print citations. SemperBlotto 08:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

and the few non-print cites nearly all seem to refer to names of blogs and websites, rather than a game as defined. Delete and perhaps move to LOP. --Enginear 13:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, and on WT:LOP. --Connel MacKenzie 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Messy and totally not extant. It's not on google (with the exception of a possible urban dictionary entry), dictionary.com, or merriamwebster. Google books shows the word "to range" and misspellings of orange. The irony of my finding this fake orange word is overwhelming. (partially copied from discussion page) Iamnotanorange 16:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. SemperBlotto 16:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Former prime minister? Used attributively? --Connel MacKenzie 20:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If and when it is, I suspect it is as Pitt the Younger (who very young potential prime-ministers are sometimes compared to), Pitt the Elder, or if ambiguity is acceptable, just Pitt. They were both William, so the word gives no benefit to any attribution. --Enginear 23:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• deleted by someone a while ago. --Connel MacKenzie 17:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I probably should have deleted this on sight, but anyway, is it any more than the sum of its parts? Jonathan Webley 12:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to clean this up.  It sounds less like a conference in the way most people think of it (people coming to listen to speeches or Power Point presentations) and more like a summer camp.  In Mormon culture, youth conferences are much more like summer camps than conferences, so I really think it is more than the sum of its parts. — V-ball 13:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While I could see having an entry for "youth conference", I can't see it as something specific to a particular group such as universal Unitarians. It has broad general meaning (to specific summer camp settings) in non-"religious" contexts as well as pretty much every religion. --Connel MacKenzie 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Since no one wants to clean it up, I suppose it should just be deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 18:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, delete it. Παρατηρητής

DELETED --Williamsayers79 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up this transwiki, but aren't Greek entries supposed to be in the Greek script? --Connel MacKenzie 08:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. Deleted. SemperBlotto 08:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"All right?" (or "Alright?" if you prefer) is the greeting - the "mate" could just as well be "son", "Mr Smith" or "Your Majesty" (although she might frown at that). It is also UK specific, and not commonly used outside London and the south east of England, for that matter.

There are several other things wrong with the name of the article, such as spelling and inclusion of the question mark, but if it gets deleted, these are academic. — Paul G 09:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. For comparison, alright mate gets only 63 books.google hits, while alright gets 114,000. So, while it does meet current CFI, and is fairly common in London, it is certainly not a prime use of alright. Strangely, the more common (in London) awright mate gets only 8 GBC hits...must be a step too far for phonetic writing of speech. --Enginear 15:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Wonderfoolism. Deleted. SemperBlotto 15:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Every incarnation of every product from every company merit entry? Not in my opinion. - DaveRoss 05:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Nor mine, though it is intriguing to think that some vapourware can be cited for over a year before it comes to market. --Enginear 14:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted ages ago. --Connel MacKenzie 17:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Previously nominated for deletion in a group nomination, but no consensus was reached about this page. The original argument for their deletion was sum of parts. Note that Wikipedia has an article for Fire alarm pull station. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Wasn't this one a keep? --Connel MacKenzie 17:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  Nope: "fire alarm pull station, fire alarm horn, and pull the fire alarm still seem unsettled. bd2412 T 17:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)". —{admin} Pathoschild 22:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Not used in the UK. --Enginear 16:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Either keep or move to pull station. DAVilla 21:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I'd prefer to see it moved/merged. --Connel MacKenzie 18:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Merged and deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 16:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

(This discussion was split from a group nomination for asdf and fhqwhgads.)

This nomination is based on an earlier nomination for asdf. Asdf and fhqwhgads have no meaning, although they are of encyclopedic relevance. Both are common nonsense substitutes for real words (see Greeking). The question these pose is whether Wiktionary should define words as a dictionary, or give brief summaries of encyclopedic relevance as a lightweight encyclopedia. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I did a test once and could find no random collection of four letters that got fewer than 300 Google hits, with most getting tens of thousands. Of course, asdf gets millions, and it is possible that someone may come across it and wish to look it up in the dictionary, so keep. No vote on fhqwhgads, after reading the 'pedia article I could go either way on it. bd2412 T 04:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  By the way, BD2412, the numbers of Google hits is not in itself a criterion for inclusion. "Hte" (a typo for "the") gets over six million hits (although many of these are initialisms), but we won't be including it. — Paul G 08:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, but the number of Google hits is indicative of the likelihood of a person coming across the word somewhere and wanting to look it up. bd2412 T 18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

    • That may well be the case, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll find it in Wiktionary. Someone looking for "hte" will not find it here. "If a word has at least n Google hits, it should be included" is not among our criteria for inclusion. — Paul G 15:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fhqwhgads -- I don't believe it's used beyond Homestar Runner.
• Keep --Connel MacKenzie 06:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• RFV it so we know whether it is used widely or not, this is a premature RFD. - DaveRoss 17:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  Seems like it would fail, but no objections to trying. DAVilla 20:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE I like strongbad and he is very funny, but this has no place here, long live Trogdor the Burninator!--Williamsayers79 16:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - is nonsense. Παρατηρητής

Deleted for now. It has been months and there doesn't seem to have been an argument for keeping it presented, or any citations. Dmcdevit·t 22:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A word from fiction. Jonathan Webley 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. —Stephen 21:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted long ago. --Connel MacKenzie 17:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved to appendix namespace and this thread moved to WT:RFDO.--Williamsayers79 08:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Self promotion page. 201.79.162.81 17:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, deleted Robert Ullmann 17:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

pimp slap-noun (slang), a publicly delivered, full swing slap from a pimp to a disrespectful prostitute with the back of his hand to her face as punishment and/or humiliation.

I have asked the creator of the entry to provide verifiable citations and to tidy the article.

Suprisingly, lots of Google hits. Jonathan Webley 07:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

See also w:bitch-slap SemperBlotto (Seems to have been deleted! but is still to be seen on Answers.com) 07:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

While pimp slap is astronomically rare (secondary sources, joke "slang" dictionaries only,) bitch slap is common jocular vernacular in the US. (Albeit with the opposite meaning...to slap as a "bitch" would slap, or to slap like a girl who is sorely offended. Pretty much the opposite of the definition currently given.) --Connel MacKenzie 20:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

keep: I've only heard it in the context of 'to slap one as if the slap-ee were a bitch', rather than as if the slap-er were a bitch. Both bitchslap and pimpslap were very common terms in California prisons in the 70's-80's at least. I'd say it should be kept.Pedant 03:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The majority of instances in which I've heard its usage are in rap songs; on his album Paid tha Cost to Be da Bo$$, for example, Snoop Dogg included a song entitled "Pimp Slapp'd." Medellia 20:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion is to delete. It is astronomically rare. To Rfd. Andrew massyn 19:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, 28 google book hits, only the first of which appears to be a slang dictionary. Kappa 02:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

28 book hits? That's not so astronomically small. DAVilla 21:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, with Wiktionary's endorsement, that has already grown to 48 book hits. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 22:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"pimp slap" and "pimp slaps" together get 34 b.g.c. hits through 2005 (so, before the Wiktionary entry). (link) Not all of those count, since a significant proportion are verb uses and/or hyphenated, and one or two are mentions rather than uses, but a significant number do; certainly enough that this would pass RFV. —Ruakh_TALK 17:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It is derogatory, and slang, but it is used, it has 72,000 hits from google. It is a synonym to bitchslap. Also, as a reference look at its defintion at the Urban Dictionary. --Evrik 15:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as already listed at UD. (Again, the notion that it is synonymous with "bitch slap" is false; it is antonymic if anything.) --Connel MacKenzie 15:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Synonym A word or phrase that has a meaning the same as, or very close to, that of another word or phrase. Both terms denote violence toward women. The pimp slap is done by a man to one of his prostitutes. One of the definitions of bitch slap is a slap directed toward a woman (slapping a person as a pimp would slap a prostitute) --Evrik 15:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

NB: WT:RFC#bitch slap. --Connel MacKenzie 05:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see consensus to delete here, but I do see mainly (urbandictionary.com) secondary sources. (Confer {{nosecondary}}.) Move to WT:RFV? --Connel MacKenzie 05:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Okay by me. --Evrik 17:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Moved to RFV. --Connel MacKenzie 17:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition to spam at the bottom of the page, this entry oughtn't be orthographically Romanized (it's a Greek word), and the word in Greek script already exists: καλός Medellia 20:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted ages ago. --Connel MacKenzie 18:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No definition given. No Google hits. SemperBlotto 16:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please delete soonest stop pressed wrong button whilst examining templates stop very sorry stop will try to be more careful in future stop why can't you even delete your own mistakes query Moglex 17:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Just tag it with {{speedy}} in the future. DAVilla 20:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Moved from WT:RFV. DAVilla 20:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Def given seems wrong. Unlikely that this has entered English proper. --Connel MacKenzie 15:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The first few pages listed on Google for "Internet blackhole" seem to be all about some business reports re missing profits etc, and a few pages on lost info. Nothing remotely like def given. You could have an internet blackhole, as in a place with little internet, but that is the sum of its parts, and therefore should not be included. Also, you can have a blackhole for reasons other than the ones given, namely technical, cultural affinity, anti-big business etc. Recommend deletion, --Dmol 20:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it’s fairly accurate except for the spelling. It should be Internet black hole. Recommend move to correct orthography. —Stephen 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please provide citations and move if necessary. I am leaving this open to the end of November. Andrew massyn 19:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

When you blackhole an internet web site, you are either submitting that URL address to a spamhaus list, or perhaps killing it on your own local firewall. (Confer blacklist for the historic equivalent.) I still think the definition given is pretty much the inverse of the typical meaning. --Connel MacKenzie 07:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the definition used by Reporters Without Borders, which has a widespread impact on certain stories in the media. However what I see in use is everything under the sun. DAVilla 19:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dmol, I am beginning to appreciate your suggestion of deletion more and more. All citations given so far seem to be for different meanings. But then, it is hard to guess at why those bad-blog (i.e. not durably archived ones) are being added. --Connel MacKenzie 19:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-idiomatic, although I notice the definition of black hole is only the literal. DAVilla 20:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree...merge into black hole then delete. --Connel MacKenzie 14:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. DAVilla 19:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Moved from talk. DAVilla 19:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the penguinsix blog listed as a quotation? Surely that reinforces the fact that the definition given, is wrong, right? (But the blog itself, of course, is not durably archived anyhow.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, what is with that nonce quotation after the 'definition'? --Connel MacKenzie 18:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Beobach972 02:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted ages ago. --Connel MacKenzie 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is long, but still...why isn't it just subst:'d into the entry and deleted? --Connel MacKenzie 08:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Merged into haben. —Stephen 03:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

http://print.google.com/print?q=fasion&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 Shows this spelling to be, what, ~0.1% as common as fashion? --Connel MacKenzie 08:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted SemperBlotto 08:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Common? --Connel MacKenzie 00:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Vanishingly rare. No google books hits. Only 6 on Metacrawler, all dictionaries, at least 5 of which are us and our mirrors. Doesn't meet CFI. Let's make it vanish. Delete --Enginear 20:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. DAVilla 20:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

humuhumunukunukuapoaaa is not spelled like that -- humuhumunukunukuapuaa is correct, I think. Delete it, we have no entry for dictioonarry, right? Pedant 03:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted ages ago. --Connel MacKenzie 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Belongs in the Appendix, after a clean transwiki. --Connel MacKenzie 02:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine that anyone would argue that this is a common misspelling. --Connel MacKenzie 21:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it gets several thousand Google hits, including about a dozen Google books hits - plus there's always that famous boy band, N'SYNCophant. :) bd2412 T 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:-)

13 b.g.c. hits (at least some of which are valid) compared with at least 18400 for sycophant. Less than 0.1%, and near the borders of present CFI, even if (as I believe it should) it is treated equally with a "correct" spelling. Not my highest priority to cite. I preferred the phonetics of another possible misprint, sycophat (perhaps the result of too much tripe), but unfortunately it has no hits at all. --Enginear 22:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the stats! What I meant to suggest in my initial comment above, is that this misspelling can't be common, when sycophant itself is such a rare term. --Connel MacKenzie 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems a legitimate misspelling to me. For quite some time, I thought this is what the word was. But I don't see the need to call it "common" in the entry either. There's low cost to keeping an attested misspelling. - Taxman 22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that we only allow entries for a dozen or two, of the very most common misspellings. (And the deletion of those, is a separate discussion.) --Connel MacKenzie 00:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but due to wiki is not paper, etc, I just don't see the harm. This is the most common misspelling of this word, it's not like the thin edge of the wedge and trying to include synkofant or something. I reallize those types of things aren't a good idea. Until we have a more powerful search function, someone typing in syncophant should get to sycophant. - Taxman 00:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it - how could it be a legitimate misspelling? It isn't a phonetic misspelling. It isn't a likely typo. --Connel MacKenzie 22:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "correct spelling of a common mispronunciation"? bd2412 T 06:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Enough! - it has been deleted - not a common misspelling. Otherwise hrose siht would be a common misspelling of ...... --Williamsayers79 19:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a real word. It returns no meaningful Google search results: "boucking out" returns zero, "bouck out" returns 63 results about taking people named "Bouck" out of various games (but none relevant). —{admin} Pathoschild 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted SemperBlotto 22:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

An anon (es:?) blanked the page, saying it was misplaced. If true (my Spanish Babel is 0) it should be deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 20:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like it should have been poseyendo. deleted SemperBlotto 16:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is definitedly poseyendo. Conjugation added at poseer. —Stephen 19:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 11:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 11:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 11:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 12:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 12:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)