Redirected, discussion archived to Talk:monkey boy. -- Visviva 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sent to RFV, discussion archived to Talk:randominity. -- Visviva 04:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Restored, discussion archived to Talk:ازهر. -- Visviva 04:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:TOSH. -- Visviva 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived at Talk:reformist. -- Visviva 04:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:OP. -- Visviva 04:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a joke.

Yes, deleted "supporter of my squirrel". --EncycloPetey 00:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A word from a constructed language Barakhinei. See Verdurian language. Also chilêl and shkankh. Cerealkiller13 19:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

All deleted --Williamsayers79 09:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be an invented form with creative use of prefixes. No widespread use. Dmcdevit 02:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Previously deleted in main namespace. --Connel MacKenzie 06:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Google:"involuntary government" gives fewer than 700 hits. It looks like at most half of these are using "involuntary government" as a phrase, and of those, it looks like almost none seem to be using it with any meaning other than the sum-of-parts "government that people cannot choose not to be governed by". Article gives no citations to indicate the phrase is used with the meaning it gives. —Ruakh_TALK 03:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Or should this be at WT:RFV? I'm not completely clear on the line between the two. —Ruakh_TALK 05:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I could not verify this at all (and I tried). Deleted SemperBlotto 09:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No coherent content. --Connel MacKenzie 06:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No coherent continent. deleted --EncycloPetey 07:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No evidence of existence in common use. Dmcdevit 09:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Move to RFV? ? --Connel MacKenzie 03:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved unto a capitalised entry at Cymry. The lower case form is incorrect. We do not allow redirects for this purpose. Delete. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --EncycloPetey 04:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A misspelling for martial arts.

deleted --Versageek 02:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A misspelling for martial artist.

deleted --Versageek 02:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 04:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted - but created imaginist as it seems to exist. SemperBlotto 11:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

w:Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Cynewulf 18:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It gets 80,000 google hits. Shouldn’t we keep this? —Stephen 18:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia, however, only seems to list http://ja.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/動物警察. —Stephen 18:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals gets 602,000. 動物, 愛護, and 協会, sure, just like society, prevention, cruelty, and animals. But does the name of the organization get a dictionary entry? Cynewulf 18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Since this is English Wiktionary, where the users speak good English, "Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals" isn’t necessarily needed. But since we speak little Japanese, the Japanese is very useful. —Stephen 20:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so foreign-language phrases are exempt from WT:CFI. Cynewulf 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What applies to English in the English Wiktionary does not necessarily apply to other languages. For example, many languages divide the extended family differently and more intricately than English. We don’t need to have "wife’s sister’s brother-in-law" in English, but if another language formally recognizes that relationship, then we should have that term. —Stephen 21:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Just to clarify: what about 夫人の妹の義兄? Cynewulf 21:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think that’s a set phrase in Japanese. —Stephen 01:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we use a more stringent criterion for inclusion of non-English terms? It seems strange to treat Google hits with utter disdain in English but to accept "it has lots of hits" as sufficient cause to include a term for other languages.

Some examples:

前 mae is a suffix in Japanese that can mean "in front of". You can say things like 駅前 in front of the station, 国会前 in front of the Diet, etc. These get 30 million and 30 thousand hits, respectively. Do we want both? Perhaps we do; it can be difficult for people with no knowledge of Japanese to figure out where word breaks are.

What about 日の国会? This gets about 55 thousand hits. Maybe someone will try to look it up here. The problem with this is that it doesn't make sense on its own. It's part of a phrase: for instance "3月5日の国会議員選挙の結果" the result of the Diet member election on March 5. Do we want 国会議員 Diet member? Do we want 国会議員選挙 Diet member election? Perhaps we do; it can be difficult for people with no knowledge of Japanese to figure out where word breaks are. But if we assume our users have no knowledge of breaking words apart, this would suggest that we want 日の国会 and even 3月5日の国会議員選挙の結果.

What about 夢十夜? This gets about 48 thousand hits. It's the title of a story by Natsume Sōseki, meaning something like "w:Ten Nights of Dream". I don't think it's used to refer to anything else. Is this encyclopedic material? People use it, certainly, but should they know to look for information about it at an encyclopedia?

I don't really think we should include compound nounds such as this and WT:RFD#Eierschalensollbruchstellenverursacher, and phrases such as WT:RFD#치는 사람, based only on the fact that they get lots of hits on Google. To be included, these should have some property that isn't easily guessable from their component parts, such as an irregular pronunciation or an idiomatic meaning.

I'd like to hear some opinions from people besides Stephen, even if only to say "yes, I agree with Stephen".

Cynewulf 20:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted absent other opinions. Name of organization, no indication of meeting WT:CFI. -- Visviva 13:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The word's usage cannot be verified, google gives only 11 hits none of which conform to the usage given here, seems uncitabl, and possibly a misspelling Randy6767 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing like the meaning on Google books - Deleted SemperBlotto 22:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a duplicate entry of ἀποκάλυψις with the vowel length diacritics in the title, which was decided not to be proper notation in Wiktionary:About Ancient Greek. Atelaes 03:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• OK. deleted SemperBlotto 08:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The fragment of text moved by bot from w:Bahman should not have been wiktionaryized. It did not specifically deal with the subject as a word. It was also interwikied against the pt,vi and sv encyclopedias.

I could eventually develop it here in the dictionary, but at the moment it was just dangling in there without a proper dictionary context/content. Tagged as #REDIR for now.

deleted we have too much crud lying around --Williamsayers79 09:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm incorrect here (if so please correct me), but I was under the impression that we weren't doing Romanization entries for Greek words. Atelaes 03:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We aren't. deleted --EncycloPetey 05:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Had a discussion further up the page, but no consensus. This is an obvious delete surely. --Gobbler 22:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per Dmh's "would someone want to know what this means" guideline. --Connel MacKenzie 15:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

STRONG DELETE - This kind of stuff is nonsense.--Williamsayers79 01:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

delete --EncycloPetey 01:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Misspelling of abhorrers. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. This was submitted to RFV only yesterday. I agree with you that it appears to be a misspelling, and I expect it to be deleted, but we have an agreed process which means it should stay in RFV for a month, in case some strong supporter doesn't log on for a bit. Both you and I would have been frustrated if some of the words each of us has championed had been deleted after a single day. Sometimes it takes me weeks before I have time to sort a word out. Let's be fair in case someone wants to champion this one though I hope no one does. --Enginear 19:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this situation is a little different. I imagine that the contributor just wanted a word on Wiktionary meaning “one who abhors”, but did not know how to spell the already extant word, abhorrer. This isn’t the same as nem con or axiomata. Nevertheless, process is important, so I guess it gets its month on WT:RFV. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In RfV process, need not be considered here. Robert Ullmann 11:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically a bhuna made with lamb. Compare with cheese pizza - a pizza made with cheese. Jonathan Webley 20:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic. — Paul G 21:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

misspelling 16@r 20:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC) and bladeed 16@r 20:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

TheCheatBot and PastBot errors (blade has been fixed now). Deleted. (note these could have been {{delete}} tagged) Robert Ullmann 20:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This website shouldn't deserve an entry just because it's a wiki. --Gobbler 09:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite so, it is just SPAM, speedied out of our way... Robert Ullmann 11:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it exist in English? It appears to be a valid word in French. Jonathan Webley 12:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is only French. Fixed. —Stephen 07:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Struck per Stephen's fix, lack of further comment. bd2412 T 19:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sum of parts, encyclopedic, not formatted.--Dmol 19:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Link SPAM. Robert Ullmann 12:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not spam, exactly, but a commercial name as opposed to a dictionary word. bd2412 T 13:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete. —Stephen 13:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, a good entry, and not SPAM. - Patricknoddy 14:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please explain why this is "a good entry". Cheers! bd2412 T 14:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted on sight. SemperBlotto 15:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Would contributors please avoid using "sum of parts" as a reason for deletion. Use "unidiomatic" instead. Please read this section of Help:Nominating an article for cleanup or deletion to see why "sum of parts" is unhelpful as a reason for deletion. — Paul G 15:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Unidiomatic (I would have said "sum of parts", but I wouldn't want to annoy Paul) SemperBlotto 16:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me (this is a delete opinion) that it would be "religion-based conflict" anyway, would it not? - DaveRoss 16:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 21:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with TheDaveRoss, which makes the fact that this is unidiomatic academic. — Paul G 10:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted SemperBlotto 10:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

icosihenagon exists (see http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.polygon.names.html, which might well be the source of the word) but geometry generally transliterates the Greek for "twenty" as icos..., not ikos... . — Paul G 10:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted - we have the real word. SemperBlotto 10:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Misspelt. Gaston 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents moved to correct spelling. Delete away! Urhixidur 03:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 01:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we remove the etymology or move it back into the main entry? Kappa 01:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

DELETE Copy content back to main article in line with Wiktionary:Etymology. If I find any more of these they will be shot down pronto!--Williamsayers79 10:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - to the main article, but this is too much. Maybe good for a Wikipedia or Wikibooks article, but not needed in a dictionary (a similar examination could be conducted for most any word). bd2412 T 11:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Put it back the way it was - we have better ways of hiding long entries now. SemperBlotto 13:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • But do we need this much information in an etymology? Everything from the third sentence on (beginning "In modern French...") is a) pure speculation and b) largely irrelevant to the origin of the modern English word, "pray." bd2412 T 13:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• This was copied from the 'pedia; 1/2 of the etymology there was added a few days ago by a brand-new user (2nd edit). Haven't looked for the other paragraph. Smells like pure copyvio. (I'm supposed to believe a newbie wikipedian wrote that paragraph from scratch in one edit? yeah, right ;-) Just delete it. Someone ought to check if the wp user is from the CSU net. (Although this isn't really subtle enough...). Delete Robert Ullmann 14:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  Note the wikipedia article is w:Prayer at this edit which added both paragraphs. Robert Ullmann 15:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we can probably get a more concise etymology from Webster 1913 or the *Online Etymology Dictionary (*E-mail to webmaster from this site, reply: he is happy to REFERENCE his work).--Williamsayers79 14:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Until Robert came along no one had convinced me that this should be deleted. So there are obvious problems with this specific entry. However, I am convinced that it is possible to write an excellent one page etymology for a word (or a good one page discussion of pronunciation, usage, inflection, etc). I would very much like for Wiktionary to be able to accommodate things of this nature. As people so often say, we are not a paper dictionary. So I wonder why we can't have ten pages of excellent, scholarly material on a single word, if it is available. Obviously someone will retort that the vast majority of users are not interested in such material, and no one should have to look past a two page note on regional distributions just to get to the definitions. I guess I had thought that subpages would be the way to go in such instances. Is there no possibility of such in-depth word studies on Wiktionary? And what is this better way of hiding things that SemperBlotto mentioned? Atelaes 19:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be valid to include larger Etymologies but I think we should still keep the more concise versions on the actual article's main page. We can still link to a sub page if necessary but I would not like to go down the route of removing all the Etymologies to sub-pages.--Williamsayers79 13:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't include "word histories" at all for several reasons. So no, under no circumstances, do we want ten pages of discourse. With a team of 100 full-time copyvio-checkers, it still wouldn't be feasible to accept such lengthy information, that can under no stretch of the imagination ever be covered by the "fair use" clause for definitions. Semper was talking about rel-top, etc., to use DIVs for section hiding. --14:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Erm, this was me. --Connel MacKenzie 16:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Atelaes :-) You convinced me to put up a vote about this at Wiktionary:Votes  :-) Incidentally, I didn't write pray/etymology from scratch, nor did I copy it from wikipedia, I moved it there from pray, where it existed as the inline etymology, in its giant fullness, taking up half a page at the top of the entry :P And it had been there for several days, unchallenged. The person who put it there did so as their very first (and only) contrib... :o) Thanks everyone for all the great discussion on this RFD, as the creator of prayer/etymology I'm fine with it being deleted :-) I do agree with Atelaes that in general if someone writes an original, insightful discourse on a word history, it makes a fantastic addition to Wiktionary :-D

Language Lover, please remember to sign your comments.

I agree that it would be useful to have in-depth word histories. I also agree that they don't below on the main entry in the Etymology section. However, I'm not sure we need to create a whole new set of subpages for this. One option is to put the Word History as a section on the /Citations subpage. After all, the Citations should pertain to and support the Word History, shouldn't they? This would eliminate the need to create a whole new set of subpages to keep track of, while allowing a space for those word histories that are lengthy, interesting, or complicated. --EncycloPetey 20:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see YOU remembered to sign your comment, EncycloPetey :-). I look forward to the results of the vote. But, Connel makes an excellent point in that, if the vote does pass (much to his chagrin, I imagine), such etymologies will be prime targets for copyvios and will need to be watched very carefully. Atelaes 20:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Who removed my comments from here? We do not include word histories, under any circumstances. --Connel MacKenzie 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The concerns in 2004/2005 were that the number of sysops was far too paltry to take on the massive additional task of monitoring all word histories for copyvios (given that all such copyvios would likely be subtle, and not subject to the same rules as "definitions" that allow Wiktionary to exist.) In the past couple years, the disparity between number of sysops and number of "users" and increased by an order of magnitude. The problem of simply keeping up is so much worse now, than it was a couple years ago, that this silly vote should simply be removed. There is no way that WMF is likely to hire dozens of research specialists to exclusively track down copyright violations for word history subpages of dictionary entries here. --Connel MacKenzie 16:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even that would be insufficient. The situation is worse than I've portrayed so far. You'd need a lawyer or an intern to do a real copyright search on each one, using real copyright search tools, not just a web search. That would be enormously expensive. And totally inconceivable. --Connel MacKenzie 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think removal of the vote would be rather contrary to Wiktionary culture. Certainly, if the situation is that bad, it should be easy to get a few more sysops to vote it down within the given month. Atelaes 17:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I just added the sources I used. I would have added them earlier, but Connel MacKenzie blocked my account (Creator face) for the following reason: "pray copyvio." But just because I wrote two paragraphs about something doesn't mean that I copied it, and I wasn't given a chance to prove this anyway. The entry only took me about an hour to write. It was actually really easy and fun. Researching word etymology and history is like an adventure. It makes you feel like a detective. In this case, it's also important because there really is no sure origin of the word. In order to maintain a neutral point of view in cases of uncertainty, it's important to give all sides of the story, then let readers decide.--Νικα 10:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if this thing has, in fact, been originally written and is not a copyvio, then I believe it should be kept. It would seem that, in this specific instance, there is not a concise foo<foobar<foaber type etymology. Certainly the current vote on word histories should be borne in mind with any decision made for this entry. However, it seems to me that most of the people who voted against word histories did not do so because they considered word histories to be inherently bad or unuseful, but rather because they believed most of them would be copvios or unecessarily wordy. Perhaps, if the vote ends in its current state (i.e. with no clear consensus), we could adopt a policy of "word histories are neither permitted nor prohibited, but must be judged on an individual basis" as a reasonable compromise. In my opinion this particular piece is not needlessly verbose, and I shall wait and see if someone can show it to be a copyvio. If not, I would argue it be kept. Any one else? Atelaes 10:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

See discussion 11:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 11:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 11:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 11:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 11:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 11:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 11:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 11:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 11:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 11:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 11:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 11:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 11:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 11:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 21:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 21:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 21:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 22:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 22:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 22:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 22:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 23:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 23:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 10:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 10:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion. 11:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Deleted. See discussion. 12:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)