Kept, discussion archived to Talk:ladies'. -- Visviva 15:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 20:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete DAVilla 18:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete this is not idiomatic and has no special meaning to be conveyed.--Williamsayers79 08:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 15:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:strikethrough. -- Visviva 15:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lacking context of any kind, such as the language. -- Visviva 04:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

We have a template for exactly that situation - {{nolang}}. An entry with no language parameter will automatically be deleted if one is not supplied within a month. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Aha, thanks. Consider the nomination withdrawn. ... but the template just says that the term will be "listed for deletion" after a month. Which is it? -- Visviva 04:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As pe #RFV. --Keene 08:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved. DAVilla 18:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

um, why? It's not unique to Wiktionary, and in fact I didn't think it was even very prevalent here (we seem to be pretty unabashed about all the voting that goes on around here). -- Visviva 12:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Restored. DAVilla 13:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass deletion request, for loads of wikijargon entries, as per #!vote etc. Some of these entries (esp. initialisms) may have other meanings warranting inclusion, bear in mind. --Keene 08:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep all, as properly tagged. --Connel MacKenzie 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

All of them are used within Wiktionary and the other related wikis. As these are all (I hope) permanently archived, they should all meet out CFI. So keep all. SemperBlotto 08:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, they utterly fail the CFI as not independent, being particular to this one small community, and are shameless, unprofessional self-references besides. If these are intended to help new users who are unfamiliar with the tem, they should go in Wiktionary:Glossary. The main namespace is for readers, the project namespace is for editors. Delete all below. Dmcdevit·t 08:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This is Wiktionary-specific, not used except in discussion, and so belongs a Wiktionary:Glossary. DAVilla 13:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The participants here do not seem to be distinguishing between terms that are used throughout the WMF wikis (like WMF) and terms which are unique to Wiktionary (like CFI). But this seems like a rather important distinction to me (particularly wrt independence). Need to ruminate on this a bit.. -- Visviva 14:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete most. The only exceptions I see are inclusionist and deletionist. CFI has a wiktionary policy article and it's the only reason somebody would be looking for CFI outside of wikiality.--Halliburton Shill 04:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. —Ruakh_TALK 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, delete this one as unique to Wiktionary. -- Visviva 11:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Dmcdevit. JackLumber 21:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:OLPC. -- Visviva 15:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:WMF. -- Visviva 15:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:bugzilla. -- Visviva 15:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:per nom. -- Visviva 15:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As per CFI --Keene 08:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep all, as properly tagged. --Connel MacKenzie 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep if used outside Wikimedia projects. —Ruakh_TALK 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless cited, never heard of it. -- Visviva 11:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Obscure. JackLumber 21:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless cited, never heard of it, self explanatory, excessive. Kappa 05:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:ns. -- Visviva 15:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As per CFI --Keene 08:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC) This was previously kept because it had an article on Wikipedia. That article has since then been deleted. --Keene 08:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep all, as properly tagged. --Connel MacKenzie 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's no longer called this, so I don't see any point in defining the project for this spelling. Delete. I'm surprised Wikipedia didn't keep it as a redirect though. DAVilla 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. —Ruakh_TALK 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete as vanity. JackLumber 21:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. As per Keene & JackLumber. May as well be adding an article for Wiktionary 2.0, in which case it belongs with Greater Manchester as a sum of parts.--Halliburton Shill 03:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:OTRS. -- Visviva 15:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As per CFI --Keene 08:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep all, as properly tagged. --Connel MacKenzie 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems too narrow a use. Delete. DAVilla 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. We are a dictionary, not a dumping-ground for garbage the other WMF projects don't want. —Ruakh_TALK 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple observations: during today's downtime (European servers unreachable) this was, once again, a repeatedly asked question in #wikimedia-tech. Saying GIYF does not help; Wiktionary has the definition for this, Google has no clue. There are terms that are relevant only to WMF; because they are obscure, people need to be able to look them up somewhere. That's why it is tagged properly, as jargon specific to WMF. --Connel MacKenzie 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Ditto. Obscure. JackLumber 21:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:inclusionist. -- Visviva 13:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As per CFI --Keene 08:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep all, as properly tagged. --Connel MacKenzie 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete as Wiktionary-specific, not used except in discussion. DAVilla 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. —Ruakh_TALK 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Obscure argot. JackLumber 21:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is of course, why it is tagged correctly. --Connel MacKenzie 14:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:deletionist. -- Visviva 13:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As per CFI --Keene 08:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep all, as properly tagged. --Connel MacKenzie 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per CFI, TTBC. DAVilla 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. —Ruakh_TALK 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. English is spoken by 1,000,000,000 people; the people who know and use this term can be counted on the fingers of one hand. JackLumber 21:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it is used here, it is rather unfair to not have it explained. Which is why it is properly tagged. --Connel MacKenzie 15:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As per CFI --Keene 08:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep all, as properly tagged. --Connel MacKenzie 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete as above. DAVilla 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. —Ruakh_TALK 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete as above. JackLumber 21:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:BJAODN. -- Visviva 13:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As per CFI --Keene 08:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep all, as properly tagged. --Connel MacKenzie 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep as tagged. DAVilla 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC) But try to verify if the tag is necessary. DAVilla 13:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

RfV, seems mostly to be used off-project (but not widely), and usually to refer to Wikimirror.com. -- Visviva 11:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you RFV the tag (and keep even if it fails), or would you RFV the entry itself, in which case your comment is closer to "delete unless used"? DAVilla 14:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The latter, I think... delete unless cited. <embarrassed smile> I'm still a little puzzled at the relationship between RFD (which is sometimes a path to verification) and RFV (which is sometimes a path to deletion); but in the end, the important thing is that we either figure out a good reason for this to be here, or get rid of it. -- Visviva 05:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:wikiproject. -- Visviva 00:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:dewikify. -- Visviva 00:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:wikify. -- Visviva 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As per CFI --Keene 08:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would RFV the entry itself, and not keep as wjargon. DAVilla 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless cited, and ditch the tag regardless, since even if this term is used on-wiki it isn't "wikijargon" in the usual sense. Actually I can't find much that even hints this is used (on-wiki or off). The phenomenon itself is well known, of course; but it doesn't seem that anybody uses this term to refer to it.-- Visviva 05:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

delete or RFV if anyone thinks they can cite it, with 0 google books hits I wouldn't bother.

Redirected; discussion archived to Talk:tener calor. -- Visviva 10:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 01:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. But an argument could be made for having "you had me at hello" which is fairly common.--Dmol 21:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Wikiquote. -- Visviva 13:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely keep this as it is the basis, the root if you will of all RPGs. Thile there may have been other (most probably) before. The Dungeons and Dragons term/logo has got to be the main RPG in most peoples minds. All true roleplayers know of Dungeons and Dragons.

see #Dungeons & Dragons further up this page. Note also that these arguments are reasons why Wikipedia should have an article (it does - see w:Dungeons & Dragons), not why Wiktionary should have an entry (about which I have no opinion). Thryduulf 20:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 04:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Havent' we done this one before? Speech act. Keep. DAVilla 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirected to the thing of it, without prejudice. Even if this is used as a noun (no evidence provided), it would seem to be just an alternative form of the thing of it. Please feel free to revert/revise if you disagree. -- Visviva 01:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the pages that link to the non-existent verb quarire are just different forms. Quarire is probably just a typo for guarire. 68.231.151.161 20:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that - you should never let a person with poor eyesight run a bot!. SemperBlotto 20:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm gladdened to hear I'm not the only one that makes some mistakes when trying to supervise bots. --Connel MacKenzie 03:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Note capitalization.

Is this used in English? My reading of the recent placenames votes would indicate that as a town of 63,825 (as of 31 Mar 2005) it would get an entry as its Japanese name w:ja:宇佐市, but do we presume that it is used in English based on this?

(this is assuming that some variation of the placename votes eventually passes) Cynewulf 00:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

May be the conjugated form of the French verb user at the third singular person of simple past, but with a capitalisation only seen at the begining of a sentence (i.e. in French, only at the start of a question like "Usa-t-il de moyens inavouables?")

In English, I see no meaning, except possibly an alternate writing for "USA" taken as an acronym and transfomed into a word. But the correct writing is still "USA" for this wellknown acronym... 90.45.113.92 07:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Moved to Appendix:Place names/Usa and redirect deleted; no indication of attributive use in Japan, Germany, Tanzania, Russia, or any other country where this place name is used. -- Visviva 02:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of possessive case which we ought not have. bd2412 T 02:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Delete. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 03:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The community opinion seems pretty clear on this per recent discussion. Deleted. DAVilla 13:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The proper entry already exists at octo- fully describing the concept, however a borrowing from Latin does not make an English rule. The invalid heading "Affix" is evidence that this is wildly misplaced.

When I simply corrected the error, User:Kappa incorrectly restored the entry (without discussion.) Presumably he has something he wishes to say on the topic here.

--Connel MacKenzie 03:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• octo- is about a prefix, not an infix. See also -nil-, -un-, -bi-, -tri-, -quad-, -pent-, -hex-, -sept-, -enn-. Kappa 03:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In Latin it is an "Infix" or "Affix" while in English these are "borrowed terms." There are reasons these are invalid headings. Thank you for identifying some of the other errors. --Connel MacKenzie 03:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

These are also all prefixes in chemical nomenclature. The fact that several prefixes appear serially does not make the later ones infixes. An infix is an affix inserting into the center of an existing word, not one inserted after a prefix. --EncycloPetey 03:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Connel and EncycloPetey — these are not infixes. However, can these number prefixes also function as suffixes? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 03:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably in Latin, I'd guess. --Connel MacKenzie 04:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Any English examples? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 04:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

None that I can think of, and I'd actually be surprised to see Latin use them as suffixes. Numerical qualifiers are added as prefixes in any Latin situation I can devise. Since Latin is a highly inflected language, suffixes tend to (1) identify a word as a particular part of speech, and (2) inflect the word for a particular function. As a result, you don't find other sorts of suffixes in Latin. --EncycloPetey 19:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

EncycloPetey makes a strong argument for me, about serial use not equivalent to an infix. I'm willing to judge each on its merits though, if someone wants to point out an exception to that. DAVilla 11:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The prefix given herein as -nil- is the only near-exception — the other number “infixes” given are no different from -oct-. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Replaced with a redirect for now. --Connel MacKenzie 00:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:wigga. -- Visviva 02:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Same as #-oct- above. --Connel MacKenzie 03:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no entry at nil-, unlike oct-. Also in this sense it never occurs at the beginning of a word so the hyphens seem justified even if its technically a prefix. Kappa 04:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

But we do have the correct entry at nil already? How is the use of one single word-formation (a very rare term an obsolete rare term, at that) the proof of existence of a whole class of usage? The example ununnilium is just a compound word. --Connel MacKenzie 04:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC) (edit) 04:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn’t the fact that an affix is used to form a compound word a sign of its productivity? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 08:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Same as #-oct- above. --Connel MacKenzie 03:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Removed. --Connel MacKenzie 00:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Same as #-oct- above. --Connel MacKenzie 03:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirected. --Connel MacKenzie 00:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Same as #-oct- above. --Connel MacKenzie 03:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirected. --Connel MacKenzie 00:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Same as #-oct- above. --Connel MacKenzie 03:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirected. --Connel MacKenzie 00:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Same as #-oct- above. --Connel MacKenzie 03:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirected. --Connel MacKenzie 00:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Same as #-oct- above. --Connel MacKenzie 03:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirected. --Connel MacKenzie 00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Same as #-oct- above. --Connel MacKenzie 03:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirected. --Connel MacKenzie 00:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Same as #-oct- above. --Connel MacKenzie 03:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirected. --Connel MacKenzie 00:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept, for now, discussion archived to Talk:-bloody-. -- Visviva 13:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Kept, for now, discussion archived to Talk:-fucking-. -- Visviva 13:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there something idiomatic about this I'm missing, or is it simply sum-of-parts? --Connel MacKenzie 16:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems so to me, delete. Widsith 08:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• delete. If there is something extra that needs to be said about an Islamic cleric, then this should be done at cleric. Thryduulf 09:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. (Over one month with {{nolang}}.) --Connel MacKenzie 05:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Does it deserve an entry here? Beobach972 18:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I know some people who use it as a generic term for any packaged icecream cones, even if it's a different brand. --Ptcamn 19:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Then wouldn't that belong at the lowercase? I'm not particularly in favor of keeping the brand itself except in an etymology that links back to pedia. DAVilla 15:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If the lowercase version refers to the upper case version in its etymology (which I guess it should?) then we should keep both. Having never heard of the brand myself... What region is this specific to, again? --Connel MacKenzie 18:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe cornetti are sold throughout Europe under various names. I've heard it used as a generic ice cream cone name only in Italy, but have purchased them in France and Germany as well. Medellia 19:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Since "Cornetto" is an English-language brand name, the plural of any generic form would be "cornettos" (possibly capitalised), not "cornetti". — Paul G 09:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Are there any citations for the generic usage? As worded currently, the sense still fails CFI. Dmcdevit·t 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Relisted from last year. --Connel MacKenzie 18:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagged, but not listed here?

Keep, wikify, capitalize, etc., if truly a famous place name. --Connel MacKenzie 21:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Have wikified, capitalised, cited, etc., partly because some youth obviously cares about it and might be encouraged to join us, and partly as a discussion point re CFI -- it satisfies our present CFI, but has <10 books.google cites for this meaning (it is also a surname and possibly a village in Manchuria). In my view, this is an appropriate entry, since all editors should have the freedom to add a few valid words that they are specially interested in, as well as words of more general interest. (And particularly so for contributors from countries where we are underrepresented.)

So what is fame, and why is it so different from notability that we care about it here? It's enough for me that several authors have mentioned it, over a period of >120 years, making it older than many US West Coast towns, and someone cared about it enough to start the entry. None of the authors seemed to mention the fort though, so that was abandoned. --Enginear 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with defining the word as a placename of a certain origin and so on, but in my opinion defining it as a specific place is encyclopedic, and such an encyclopedic entry should be understood in the general context to be that specific place. I don't doubt that's true even though to me the name has no meaning. But the citations listed do little to support the criterion I would like to see admitted, and so they set a poor precedent in my opinion. DAVilla 15:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The "encyclopedic nature" could be toned down by saying A village name as shown on this map. I agree that the etymology and underlying meaning (currently unknown in this case) are the most interesting/important (lexically) aspects of a place name or personal name. But, although I can't think of a logical reason, it feels all right to me to note the actual usage of a place name (even if it consists of more than one word) where I would hate to see a biographical summary of a real or fictional person.

Also, sometimes there are two homographic names have different etymologies, eg Lee (river) and Lee (town) or Dollis Hill and Dollis Valley (all in London). Without any description of what feature the names refer to, it is impossible for anyone to know which etymology is for which. Of course, that issue applies to some personal names also, and I have no idea how to deal with it then.

I think your comment re the content of cites may be a sidetrack. Our CFI requires that cites show "use" rather than merely "mention", and it so is unusual for them to also explain the origin of the headword. Since there were only a few "good" cites available, I wasn't surprised that I didn't find any explaining the origin (though I would certainly have used one had I found it). Perhaps I should have chosen one or two which spoke of people from the village, rather than of its location, but I don't think that would answer your criticism. My (dubious) logic was to use cites which showed the differentiation of this definition of Bagrian from the other uses I found (another location (1 cite) and a personal name (perhaps 4 cites)).

A possible solution would be only to allow names already in Wikipedia, and for the definition to be merely # ].

Is anyone else interested in this topic -- and if so, should we move it to the BP? --Enginear 18:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Is meant to say "used attributively" not "famous." So sorry. --Connel MacKenzie 18:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I say keep it.  The # ]. is a good idea, but really any city should be in here, since it's a word and some person could come across it while reading and wonder what it is. — V-ball 18:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention, they might need to hear the pronunciation. --Connel MacKenzie 19:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The "some person could come across it while reading and wonder what it is" argument is fallacious. We are not obligated to define every assortment of letters that can be found in print, and someone that looks up an encyclopedic title will be directed to Wikipedia by our page when there is no result on Wiktionary. We don't need an article on encyclopedic concepts like Defenestration of Prague, or the other hundreds of thousands of articles like it on Wikipedia (multiplied by the number of languages, millions!), even though, obviously, Prague was not defenestrated, so the meaning is not obvious. Dmcdevit·t 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

At present, as cited, none of the senses defined or citations given pass CFI by showing a generic or attributive sense. The citations establish that it exists (for the purpose of an encyclopedia) only. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• In the map linked above, I do not see this town/village listed. I agree the citations show no generic meaning is implied by using this term; this clearly fails the "New York deli" test. As it doesn't even appear on the (detailed) Wikipedia map it links to, I seriously doubt it can be considered a "city" (as per the WT:VOTE currently in progress.) --Connel MacKenzie 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not used attributively at all. --Connel MacKenzie 17:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Re-listed from November 2006. --Connel MacKenzie 18:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Moved to Appendix:Place names/Bagrian; does not meet mainspace criteria as they stand. -- Visviva 13:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:ya'll. -- Visviva 02:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:shouldn't've. -- Visviva 02:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:wouldn't've. -- Visviva 02:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Several senses marked as redundant. Translations may need to be rechecked with definition changes (currently a "translation of the week" entry.) --Connel MacKenzie 21:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge as far as possible to reduce redundancy.--Jusjih 14:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While I strongly agree, I'm not certain the en.wikt community does. Perhaps a straw poll to solidify en.wikt's stance? Right now, it is pretty counter-productive having a tiny minority of "splitters" spreading definitions far and wide, against the general practices that I and others have used for a couple years now. --Connel MacKenzie 15:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The zoology and botony senses might be important to keep distinct. Otherwise animal or human it's pretty much the same stuff, with at most a minor distinction beteween the countable (three hairs) and uncountable (its hair). The only sense that I don't think would be immediately obvious as distinguishable is the use of hair to refer specifically to the hair on one's head: you've got hair all over your body, but that's not what people mean when they talk about cutting your hair or how nice your hair looks. DAVilla 15:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Re-listed from December 2006. --Connel MacKenzie 20:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. --Connel MacKenzie 23:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong? Are you saying "grandma's" doesn't mean "grandma's place of residence" Kappa 00:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct, that is what I'm saying. "Grandma's" means only the possessive of grandma, not at all her residence. In the sentence, "I'll be at grandma's" the word "house" is implied, from the preceding question "Where will you be?" --Connel MacKenzie 03:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, "house" is implied by context for both of the citations you provided. --Connel MacKenzie 03:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

But nothing else can be "implied by context" in this way - it would have to be explictly mentioned. Kappa 04:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Any noun at all can be implied by context. --Connel MacKenzie 23:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Per discussion of my aunt's in RfV, this has nothing to do with grandma in particular - it could be used with many relational terms (mom's, dad's, sis's, papa's) and just about any proper name (Joe's, Shakira's, Mahmoud's, Kappa's) - it has to do with a meaning attributable to the 's, and this sense is already covered at 's. bd2412 T 07:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Since when did Wiktionary ask people to look up suffixes separately from the words they are attached to? Kappa 07:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that was the original way Wiktionary was organized. --Connel MacKenzie 21:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

's is not your usual suffix. The number of entries needed to accomodate the various possible combinations would equal the number of entries for first names (let's go to Paulie's), last names (oops, left the report at Johnson's), nicknames (hey, swing by Lefty's later and we'll go from there to that party at Stinky's) and the aforementioned familial relations. That being said, I could see us making an allowance for the familials, as most people have a "grandma's" or a "nana's" or a "granny's" to go to, while the proportion with a "Joe's" will be less. bd2412 T 17:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been one the fence about including possessive on Wiktionary. Two reasons that I've taken the idea seriously at all: (1) the possessive is sometimes formed by adding 's (e.g. cat's), and sometimes by adding a terminal apostrophe (e.g. glasses'); (2) the pronunciation is not easily guessed by a non-native speaker, since it varies between adding a /s/ (e.g. Mike's or book's) or a /z/ (e.g. bowl's or Joe's). --EncycloPetey 01:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: It appears that a new vote will result in the elimination of all possessives that are not idiomatic. Some have supported possessives that are unclear (as to the 's or s' rule) but grandma's would not gain admittance on those grounds. Therefore it must be shown to be idiomatic. DAVilla 10:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please keep - this is not obvious for foreigners. Παρατηρητής

Re-listed from December 2006. Sense of a personal possessive to imply their residence, is a function of context, not a definition of the term. --Connel MacKenzie 22:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. Pragmatic does not mean idiomatic. DAVilla 10:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. --Connel MacKenzie 23:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per grandma's. bd2412 T 07:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep - as above. Παρατηρητής

• Re-listed from December 2006. --Connel MacKenzie 22:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As above, I would presume for everyone. DAVilla 12:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The sense without an explicit object possessed is idiomatic. —Stephen 16:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't this apply to any name with many implied objects? e.g. "We'll use Jennifer's" . Thryduulf 18:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the following examples:

• Mom wouldn't allow a dog, so Jennifer's was always a fond memory for me.
• Mom wouldn't allow a dog, so Grandpa's was always a fond memory for me.

If you think "Jennifer's" means "Jennifer's dog" in the first sentence, but "Grandpa's" means "Grandpa's place" in the second, then I would suggest that it is in fact idiomatic, in that one sense of 's has become dominant. However, I'm not completely convinced that is a strong enough reason to keep the entry. DAVilla 19:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh... I thought of Jennifer's dog and Grandpa's dog, respectively. I don't think this is idiomatic. — Beobach972 22:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Without a specified object, there is an idiomatic assumption that the object is their house or building. I would delete these specific forms and include this meaning as a separate sense of 's, because it comes up quite a lot. For example in UK, chemist's = pharmacy. You also talk about going to the butcher's, the baker's, etc.....or people used to before Tesco conquered the world anyway. Widsith 09:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I still go to the butcher's and the baker's. But it's the candlestick maker's that has lost my custom now. :-D - Algrif 15:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this after seeing the sentence "Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I've been at my sister's while my brother-in-law's been in hospital" in an email earlier today. In this sentence the first "'s", "sister's", is a possessive but no object is specified so we are left to guess what it is she is in possession of and thus where the writer has been, but it is idiomatically assumed that it is her abode (house, flat, caravan, etc). We should have an explanation of this somewhere, but as the construction is used with just about every noun referring to a person (e.g. "Jennifer's", "my sister's", "grandpa's", "the boss's", "Adbul's great aunt's", "my wife's friend's") as well as "his" and "her's", the number of specific all-but identical entries would be near infinite. Widsmith's suggestion to include the meaning at 's makes a lot of sense. Thryduulf 22:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:e-quainted. -- Visviva 03:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Moved from WT:RFV#Bellman-jokes. DAVilla 13:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Would this meet oir CFI it it was wikified, slimmed down and moved to Bellman joke (it is a copy of the Wikipedia article) SemperBlotto 12:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Not in my opinion. But if it's considered sum-of-parts, then Bellman would be a "part". DAVilla 13:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have the Swedish term, which I’m guessing would be something like Bellmanhistorierna. Also, we should have Bellman as a separate entry. That’s what I did for a similar case of Russian jokes that feature a cavalry lieutenant named Rzhevsky (English) and поручик Ржевский (Russian). —Stephen 17:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Re-listed from January 2007. --Connel MacKenzie 04:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Gameboy. -- Visviva 03:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Moved to WT:RFDO#Various lists DAVilla 18:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this can be considered "common". —Ruakh_TALK 19:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, delete. Do these cites represent scannos? Widsith 08:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the cites are really written that way in the respective sources — but I'm not sure they're all in the given sense. (Those are the only three non-scanno cites I could find on b.g.c., BTW.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. Thank you Ruakh. --Connel MacKenzie 16:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn, discussion archived to Talk:active dry yeast. -- Visviva 03:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure that this one was caught; the template has been rendered obsolete by the newer versions of Template:la-decl-1st which are gender neutral. All pages which formerly used the old template were modified to reflect the new one. Thanks! Medellia 19:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Already deleted. In the future, use WT:RFDO for templates etc. DAVilla 19:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely forgot about that. Thanks for the heads up! Medellia 15:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:MTV. -- Visviva 03:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Foucault. -- Visviva 03:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

scare the X out of to be deleted as with some of Dvortygirl's other "formulaic" entries like X like Y - it is just confusing. --Keene 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

delete. Like the others we should have an entry at the most common form (presumably "shit" or "crap" in this instance) with redirects from other forms. Thryduulf 19:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - and can someone generate a list of the others (and get them deleted) SemperBlotto 07:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Google can generate a list of (many of) the others but cannot, I'm afraid, get them deleted. —msh210 19:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

here + 's. Possessive case --Keene 18:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is not possessive, it's an abbreviation of here is - as in "here's Johnny". We allow abbreviations, so keep. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not an abbreviation, but a contraction. Keep. —Stephen 22:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sense deleted, thanks. —Ruakh_TALK 02:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops - didn't realize there was a sense there. bd2412 T 19:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:idiosyncracy. -- Visviva 03:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fails independence criteria. --Connel MacKenzie 18:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cruft. Delete. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

delete --EncycloPetey 23:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Does not seem to fail WT:CFI#Independence as currently written. Although Gbooks hits include lots of mentions from works that are clearly part of the narrow Star Wars community, there are also a respectable number of uses in works that are neither part of that community nor quoting the films/novels verbatim (although they are all consciously referring to the Star Wars universe). For example, this study of epic literature, this canonical reference on human-computer interaction, and this academic work in translation studies. I would have to argue: keep or rewrite the CFI to reflect whatever our real definition of independence is. -- Visviva 13:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Discussion moved from RfC. bd2412 T 18:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Idiomatic? A set phrase? bd2412 T 17:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Usually that's a question for RFD, unless you're following SemperBlotto's lead. What you're requesting here is three quotations. When you have three quotations will that answer your quetion? DAVilla 18:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Three quotations showing idomatic use will, yes. bd2412 T 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Move to RFD? Widsith 09:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

move to RFD.--Williamsayers79 14:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving to RfD. bd2412 T 18:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I see zero b.g.c. hits for this, but plenty for social pariah, which is probably a more useful listing for pariah#Related terms. --Connel MacKenzie 20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 21:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Invalid punctuation in entry title. --Connel MacKenzie 02:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• This and How much is it?, below are just redirects to the entries without punctuation. Exactly what is the problem with them? Thryduulf 09:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what has happened here. The entry used to lie on this page, not on the one without the question mark. Has this been changed without the usual page move function? __meco 13:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • no it was moved using the page move function: "02:19, 14 July 2007 Connel MacKenzie (Talk | contribs) (35 bytes) (How much does it cost? moved to How much does it cost: Invalid punctuation in entry title)" so it would appear that Connel moved the pages and is now nominating the redirects caused for deletion. I am not currently aware of the policy we have about punctuation in page titles - we must have one as the question mark in this entry cannot be invalid if there isn't a policy. Please can someone enlighten me. Thryduulf 14:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am nominating only the redirects. There is a concept here, that I think you are missing. Many of the en.wiktionary contributors spend much more time here than elsewhere (such as Wikipedia) due to the enormous overbearing political nightmare that hangs over such places. Not everything that is accepted policy here is formalized into "official policy" (whatever that actually means) despite my relatively recent attempt to reduce confusion with WT:VOTE. Not including sentence punctuation is a very well established practice here; the topic is so well ingrained that is simply hasn't come up in a long time. FWIW: the main reasons sentence punctuation is disallowed is that it has nothing to do with individual terms one will look up, and breaks some of the search features. Now, since we do have WT:VOTE, I suppose someone could formalize this...but it does not seem to be worth the effort, to me. --Connel MacKenzie 07:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Never mind the punctuation, how on earth does this qualify as an idiom? -- Visviva 15:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not an idiom, it's a phrasebook entry. (We include a number of very common phrases that are useful for travelers and such.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Both it and How much does it cost. Not idiom. Sum of parts. Not essential for travelers because simply learning how much, cost, and price will do the same.--Halliburton Shill 12:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm undecided as to whether to keep or delete the redirects. Keep the content-containing entries. Halliburton Shill: wieviel Kosten? (...which might provoke the response: two, Mein Herr, one for those who use proper grammar, and one for you!) Wiktionary ≠ paper, so we can list useful phrases that aren't necessarily of the greatest importance. — Beobach972 16:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete I'm not clear why this phrase is here either with or without the punctuation mark. The idea of a useful phrases list seems good to me, however. But certainly I understand that punctuation marks can cause search function problems and should be discouraged or disallowed. Algrif 13:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Invalid punctuation in entry title. --Connel MacKenzie 02:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep as a redirect. —Stephen 18:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep as a redirect.--Jusjih 16:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:ent. -- Visviva 03:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sum of parts? bd2412 T 20:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. delete. Thryduulf 21:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, definition is wrong - it is abuse aimed at poor administrators by people who have their rubbish deleted. SemperBlotto 21:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely what it's not. How does this compare with child abuse for instance? Is there any other type of abuse that isn't "abuse of" that thing? Keep and RFV if you like. DAVilla 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I deleted before you posted your comment (I'm sorry, I guess I should have waited). Maybe we should restore this, add the sense that SemperBlotto mentions, and RFV both senses? Of course, if both senses pass RFV, we'd then re-delete the entry, which is not usually how RFV works … —Ruakh_TALK 21:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The deletion was reasonable; restoring it would not be. If someone wishes to assert it is valid, they should provide three relevant citations when they re-create the entry. I don't see any compelling reason to restore the deleted stub in that case, though. --Connel MacKenzie 16:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What good would it do to give three citations of something that you claim isn't idiomiatic in the first place? The three citations rule applies to terms that have failed RFV. I find it baffling that admins with the most deletions still confuse these two. I don't see a lot of the trash that you have to delete, but apart from spam, gibberish, personal attacks, and what not, we require that terms be idiomatic and that they be attested. Maybe if we actually started qualifying deletions as no content/gibberish/not English, spam, personal attack, unidiomatic (including encyclopedic topics), or unattested, then the differences would be more apparent to you. (What am I missing? Deletion of own mistakes? Do misspellings count?) DAVilla 02:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Three citations showing idiomatic use. that neither precludes it from being re-entered, nor from being re-nominated for RFD, but it certainly has a very strong bias towards re-deleting a questionable entry. The "three citations rule" predates RFV itself, doesn't it? --Connel MacKenzie 03:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the fried egg test is a negative test: what makes fried egg an idiom is not that it always refers to an egg that's prepared by frying (that much is sum-of-parts), but that it never refers to some eggs that are prepared by frying (e.g. scrambled eggs); in other words, it's idiomatic in its specificity. Likewise, it might be easy to find uses of administrator abuse in the specified sense, but what would make it an idiom is a lack of uses in other sum-of-parts senses. That's hard to demonstrate by adding three cites to the entry. :-)   Of course, such cites could theoretically exist; one could imagine a cite where a character asks, "Would you like your eggs fried, boiled, or scrambled?"; but I don't think it's reasonable to require such cites in order to demonstrated fried-egg idiomaticity. —Ruakh_TALK 04:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Precedes, yes, but "predate" is misleading. RFV derives directly from the three citations rule. DAVilla 23:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange that the deletion log seems to have lost a record of that. Is that inappropriate use of undo? How did that happen? I would like to know what reason SB gave for having deleted it the first time. Or SB, if you could just comment, was what you said above intended to be any more than sarcasm? DAVilla 02:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. (The term would pass the fried egg test if it only had the sense this entry gave, but as SemperBlotto says, it also means "abuse of (an) administrator(s)", and even someone who used it to mean "abuse by an administrator" wouldn't necessarily specifically mean that the administrator used his administrative tools, as opposed to using his status as an administrator or the threat of using administrative tools.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

delete --EncycloPetey 20:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete, cruft. bd2412 T 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Reunited with the force. Widsith 16:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Star Trek. -- Visviva 03:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:consume mass quantities. -- Visviva 03:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept, I guess, discussion archived to Talk:aw hell no. -- Visviva 03:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This looks like sum of parts to me. The only rationale I can see for possibly keeping it is to distinguish it from the similar word player piano. --EncycloPetey 22:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

weak keep if definition is changed to simply pianist SemperBlotto 22:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference, between pianist and piano player. I can play the piano, but I wouldn't consider myself a pianist. A pianist, to me, is one who has professional piano-playing skill.

SonPraises 05:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Piano player can mean pianist and "a mechanical device that actuates the keys of a player piano" so a player piano? --BiT 13:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Set phrase? Idiomatic? Or as it appears, just sum-of-parts. --Connel MacKenzie 23:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

May be sum-of-parts, but is quite rare in North American usage -- though it's markedly common in UK/IE, and may see some use in AU/NZ as well. Also, as a US native myself, I wouldn't have associated this specific meaning with the term; if I heard the phrase used by another American, I might take it to mean just "the back part of the garden" or "the garden behind the other garden." -- Visviva 11:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

See above. --Connel MacKenzie 23:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Jell-O. -- Visviva 03:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sum of parts, I think. Dmcdevit·t 07:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 21:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't follow wiktionary conventions SonPraises 08:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted. pay one's last respects already exists. --EncycloPetey 08:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 03:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted Wiktionary is not a Star wars wiki --Williamsayers79 13:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sum of parts (not idiomatic). Should probably be "closet atheist" anyway. SemperBlotto 17:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 13:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

S-o-P. --Connel MacKenzie 19:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Conveyed concept is unique in that it denotes a concept as understood or preceived by another person. IF someone explains an idea or if an idea is conveyed by some type of media then that idea or concept, yes, ia a conveyed concept but in the mind of the person/people to whom it was conveyed it is a concept processed within the framework of their understanding of that concept. That concept, being either poorly or percisely conveyed, is now a concept as understood or processed by whomever it was conveyed to and can be correctly defined as a conveyed concept.

The conveyed concept is individual in that each person will process the idea or concept in their own individual way. My explanation of an idea can and will be interpeted differently by differant people. So a conveyed concept is more then just the conveyance of a concept or a concept that is conveyed. Once a concept is communicated it becomes a conveyed concept and unique to each individual. — This unsigned comment was added by 64.178.183.192 (talk).

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you have written. However when reading the words "conveyed concept" I would expect them to mean "a concept that has been conveyed". Looking at the definition given for conveyed concept I find that it is exactly this: concept (definition 1) + convey (definition 2).

The expression "conveyed concept" is therefore just a sum of parts (which is what Connel MacKenzie means above with the Wiktionary jargon "S-o-P"), which we do not include as entries at Wiktionary, and therefore this should be deleted. Compare to ambulance chaser, for example, where the meaning is not literally chaser (one who chases) + ambulance. Thryduulf 09:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Conveyed concept is S-o-p when used as literal - A poorly conveyed concept is hard to understand. -The man running after the ambulance is an ambulance chaser conveyed concept becomes an idiom when used as - The conveyed concept of the thesis was obviously an allegory. -The ambulance chaser knows how to score some bucks.

— This unsigned comment was added by 64.178.183.192 (talk).

I still don't get how that usage is idiomatic. I read "The conveyed concept of the thesis was obviously an allegory" as "The concept conveyed by the thesis was obviously an allegory" or "The concept the thesis conveyed was obviously an allegory", i.e. the thesis conveyed a concept that was an allegory. The definition you give at conveyed concept doesn't offer a meaning that is not covered by the meaning of the word "conveyed" followed by the word "concept".

"The ambulance chaser knows how to score some bucks" means "the person chasing after an ambulance knows how to score some bucks", presumably by literally chasing after ambulances. However when you know that "ambulance chaser" idiomatically means "an unethical lawyer" the meaning of the phrase changes to "the unethical lawyer knows how to score some bucks" presumably through unethical legal means. Thryduulf 18:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly tripe, therefore it has been deleted --Williamsayers79 20:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To say a concept conveyed is the same as a conveyed concept is rubbish. This project, Wikipedia , is built on the very premise that words and phrases can have different meanings. So to when an idea or concept is passed from one person to another. The concept of God is only developed as it is conveyed. Yet there are a vast number of conveyed concepts regarding God. My conveyed concept of God is not a concept that was conveyed but my understanding and faith in my conveyed concept. This would be my understanding of a concept that was conveyed to me but not necessarily the concept that was conveyed. Clearly there is a lack of thought process when a phrase that clearly has a separate meaning then it's S.o.P. is dismissed as tripe. In the above dialog the word conveyed is repeatedly used as a verb while the phrase conveyed concept is is not an action phrase when used as an idiom. In contrast it is much like red herring in that it describes something other then the S.o.P. A number of published examples were presented that used the phrase conveyed concept not as an action phrase but as an idiom for an individual understanding of an idea presented to them. Perhaps the reason you have difficulty understanding is that your conveyed concept of this is somehow clouded or your unwilling to recognize the obvious. — This comment was unsigned.

Perhaps the problem is that you think this is Wikipedia. This is the dictionary companion Wiktionary. In that phrase, conveyed functions as an adjective, concept is a noun. (What type of concept? The conveyed one.) While an argument might be made that this is a set phrase (I doubt it,) it still is pretty undeniably sum-of-parts and not idiomatic. --Connel MacKenzie 21:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I must concede at this point. Although, I would like to mahe an arguement for it being a set pharse.

Keeping in mind that what was conveyed is not always what was conveyed...

When used in speech 'conveyed' would be stressed in the phrase conveyed concept.

No synonym can be used in place of conveyed that would hold the same meaning.

The only synonym for concept would be idea.

Idea would be too general a term to use and would not denote the actual thought process involved in the assimilation of a concept by a person. When looking at an art piece one can say what the conveyed concept of the art means but a conveyed idea would not imply that persons constructive thought to arrive at their conclusion. An idea is only the spark that starts the flame of a concept. As one conveys a concept to either one or the masses that concept evolves into a conveyed concept as it is understood by whomever it is conveyed to. In the thought process of the person who is interpreting the concept that is being conveyed they develop or construct a conveyed concept of what was conveyed to them.

Consider this: This piece of material when introduced in a specific way introduces the child to the concept of height. Once the child understands the conveyed concept they may explore that material in a multitude of ways as long as the materials are still being handled respectfully.

This sentence would not mean the same if idea was used.

Thus the phrase has stress on the first word and no other synonym can be used without changing the meaning of the phrase. — This unsigned comment was added by Thedosmann (talk • contribs) at 2007-08-15T20:13:15.

You are obviously passionate about this phrase, but you seem to be misunderstanding how a dictionary works. There are many phrases whose components cannot be replaced without changing the meaning of the phrase. That condition does not qualify the phrase as a valid dictionary entry. The definition of “conveyed” and the definition of “concept”, along with an understanding of how English works, are enough to understand the phrase “conveyed concept”. So, there is no reason for the phrase to have its own a dictionary entry. If you would like to contribute to this project in other ways, please let me know on my talk page and I will direct you toward more useful ways to contribute. Rod (A. Smith) 20:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Unique patterns of stress is one of the Pawley criteria. The term is not a set phrase in my mind, but I'm not an artist. Indeed, I can barely understand them at times. DAVilla 20:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you start the Conveyed concept article at Wikipedia, as the meaning of "conveyed concept" has encylopaedic merit and so it is likely to be accepted there. The phrase "conveyed concept" however do not have dictionaric merit. Thryduulf 23:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Provisionally kept, discussion archived to Talk:dwin. -- Visviva 11:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"A company which replicates and distributes a video game. Not necessarily the same as the game's developer. " - unidiomatic. — This unsigned comment was added by 79.73.171.93 (talk).

I agree, this is just a sum of parts. delete Thryduulf 09:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, absent any policy or consensus to do otherwise; discussion archived to Talk:à contrecœur. -- Visviva 11:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the definition, it "only exists as the derived adjective benighted". If that is the case, then this is not a word. bd2412 T 02:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The definition was incorrect. Corrected and kept. SemperBlotto 07:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Struck. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Please delete. 164.106.131.111 14:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this anon. meant to nominate Mamahuhu for deletion. (The original section title was Accidentally created.) † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 15:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Adam and Steve. -- Visviva 11:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A fictional continent from a sci-fi universe (albeit a popular one). bd2412 T 02:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Although amusing (Castlemaine an all that!) this has now been deleted--Williamsayers79 09:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:a- -ing. -- Visviva 02:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

NOR. --Connel MacKenzie 03:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about "circumfixes" in English, but one thing I do know, this is not one of them. Widsith 09:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think you could find a source that agrees with your knowledge? (The claim that it is a circumfix is supported by The American Heritage Dictionary; see http://www.bartleby.com/61/55/C0365550.html or http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=circumfix.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

See Chambers for an example. The fact that the OED excludes is is also a kind of support. But it's not even a matter of sources, it's a matter of evidence. I have gone over this in great detail at #em- -en, have a look if you can bear to go through it all. In brief, the fact is that this "circumfix" has never been added to any word. Rather, such forms as appear to display it actually consist of y- + past participle, a fact which is obvious from the fact that many do not end in -t at all, eg yborn, yfed....consider also ybrought, which is obviously not y- + brough + -t. Widsith 11:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Further, of your two sources, only the AHD claims that y- -t is a circumfix, and the one example they give is wrong. yclept was not formed with y- -t but is a natural development of the Old English geclypod. Widsith 11:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that you and the AHD have differing conceptions of what makes something an affix. Your conception seems to be that X- is a prefix if there exists a word Y and a word XY, such that XY was formed by prepending X- to the existing Y (and analogously with other kinds of affixes). The AHD's conception seems to be that X- is a prefix if there's a definable commonality between various words starting in X- (and analogously with other kinds of affixes). (That's not a perfect characterization of either conception, but I think you see what I mean.) Insofar as I've represented your conception accurately, I definitely don't 100% agree with it; there are plenty of words in re- that descend from Latin words in re- (rather than the re- having been added in English), but I still consider them to be using the same English prefix re- as we see in e.g. redo. (My point being that even if words in y- -t descend from older words in ge- -od or whatever it is, that doesn't stop me from considering y- -t a circumfix.) That said, I now realize that I can't be completely representing your conception accurately, because you do seem to be accepting y- as a prefix even when it's part of words descending from older words in ge-. So, if you could clarify your thought process for me a bit, I'd appreciate it.

Also, while I really have very little knowledge of historical forms of the language, your statement that words in y- consist of y- + past participle sounds really strange to me; my understanding had been that Modern English past participles evolved from the dropping of y- from Middle English past participles, so your description seems to have it backward. (And I would indeed say that -ed and -t are used to form past participles in Modern English, even though there are some past participles that do not use them.)

—Ruakh_TALK 17:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In Old English, past participles could exist with or without the Germanic perfective prefix ge-. This meant that past participles had two forms, both of which usually survived into Middle English. Gradually the ones starting with y- or i- went out of fashion, and consequently got picked up by later writers as deliberate archaisms. It's not that I accept or don't accept y- as a prefix even in words from ge-, but it's not a helpful way to describe it. You could say (this is the kind of thing the Oxford dictionaries do) that yclept corresponds to y- + clept, but there is no sense in which something has been added simultaneously at the beginning and end. As I say, the clearest demonstration of that is the existence of such words as yfed, yborn, ywrought etc etc, where there is no suffix in sight and where the second element is clearly a participle form in itself. You cuold feasibly analyze yborn as y- + bear + -en, but it is not a helpful description nor is it one which to my mind corresponds with the reality of how the word arose. Even in OE you had the choice of saying eitehr boren or geboren, and so this and similar words have always seemed to be PREFIX + PARTICIPLE. English in any of its recorded forms has never 100% needed ge-/y- to make a participle (that requirement was in proto-Germanic and pre-dates written records), it was only ever used as a kind of intensive, albeit extremely common. Widsith 08:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted per Widsith's arguments, and the absence of any further discussion. -- Visviva 11:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing but a use of combo; sum of parts. --EncycloPetey 05:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. The thing is that it's always called a "TV/VCR combo". No one ever calls it a *"VCR/TV combo". The fact that TV and VCR must be in the order they're in is a reason it should stay.

That's not a reason to keep it. We can say "big yellow schoolbus", but not "schoolbus big yellow". Predominance of one word sequence over another is not reason in and of itself to keep an entry. The sequence "VCR/TV combo" is possible in English and would be just as easily understood as the more common pattern. --EncycloPetey 06:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference betweem *"VCR/TV combo" and *"schoolbus big yellow" is that the latter violates English word order whereas the former doesn't. In English adjectives must come before nouns, and adjectives describing size must come after those describing color. However in "TV/VCR combo" both "TV" and "VCR" are attributive nouns which go before nouns, but in no necessary order according to English grammar. *"VCR/TV combo" would be understood by people but it sounds extremely odd to me and I'd think to most English speakers similar to how it would sound if people talked about "white and black" pictures rather than black and white. "TV/VCR combo" seems like a fixed term, similar to "rearview mirror". You could call it a "back view mirror" and you'd probably be understood but that would be incorrect, like saying "VCR/TV combo". — This comment was unsigned.

"Combo VCR/TV" would be as ungrammatic as "schoolbus big yellow" (or "combo sandwich and soda" as opposed to "sandwich and soda combo"). bd2412 T 17:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 18:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. We should have TV/VCR, but the "combo" is superfluous sum-of-parts addition. bd2412 T 20:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I can understand "white and black" being a sum-of-parts even while "black and white" is a set phrase, but "VCR/TV" is legitimate, looking at google book hits. I don't know what other meaning "VCR/TV combo" would have. Maybe they're trying to be poetic? Delete. DAVilla 22:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete, along with the 2 below. Widsith 18:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted by consensus. -- Visviva 11:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing but a use of combo; sum of parts. --EncycloPetey 05:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep Is idiomatic in that it's a combo of a DVD player and a VCR, not a digital versatile disc and a VCR. Jooge 13:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Pragmatically that's not a convincing argument. Delete. DAVilla 21:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing but a use of combo; sum of parts. --EncycloPetey 05:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Is idiomatic in that it's a combo of a television and a DVD player, rather than a combo of a television and a digital versatile disc. Jooge 13:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So, we'd keep Big Mac/Coke combo because it's a combo of a Big Mac and a Coke, rather than a combo of a Big Mac and shake? I don't follow your reasoning, and I have never heard this phrase used. I have heard TV/VCR, but never TV/DVD and certainly not TV/DVD combo. --EncycloPetey 20:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. It may be plausible in an advertisement, but is still sum-of-parts, not a set phrase, not idiomatic. --Connel MacKenzie 05:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing but a use of boombox; sum of parts. --EncycloPetey 05:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Another sum-of-parts from Shoof. --EncycloPetey 06:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Also twentieth century. 4.235.132.228 06:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep for translations. Some languages actually say "century twenty-one" rather than "twenty-first century".

We don't keep English entries just because other languages do things differently. --EncycloPetey 07:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Very common set phrase. Keep. I wouldn’t bother with "eight century" or "ninth century", but I think it is useful to have the really common ones such as the seventeen, eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth. —Stephen 20:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —msh210 20:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not idiomatic, but keep 20th and 21st Century as valuable phrasebook entries. DAVilla 21:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted without prejudice. Contained no phrasebook content. -- Visviva 15:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

--EncycloPetey 06:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Adjective. Normally used to describe Foxes. :-) Algrif 13:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted without prejudice. Contained no phrasebook content. -- Visviva 15:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Kept absent consensus to delete. Discussion archived to Talk:Geneva Convention. Clearly should not be included, but current policy does not appear to bar it explicitly. -- Visviva 11:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to WT:-). Finally a funny one. --Connel MacKenzie 04:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

But only the English. I have verified (and corrected) the Latin section based on Lewis & Short. --EncycloPetey 05:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if this was started over the entry itself could be salvaged? Maybe not. --Connel MacKenzie 06:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be salvagable, but wow! does it need work. --EncycloPetey 06:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, unfortunately, discussion archived to Talk:France. -- Visviva 11:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"The thing on the top of a trunk of a car that you open with your keys." Another Shoofism --EncycloPetey 00:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I use a crowbar, not keys, myself. In newer cars I've only opened the damn things by the little lever or button near the driver's seat, or from a remote. Sum-of-parts (not even labeled as automotive? How useless.) Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 19:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This was part of an aborted political move about 4 years ago to rename French toast and French fries to eliminate the "French" from them. It doesn't seem to ahve had staying power, though it did briefly make national news in the US because of President W. --EncycloPetey 00:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As above for freedom toast. --EncycloPetey 01:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As above for freedom toast. --EncycloPetey 01:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow... what's next... freedom maids? freedom bread? Delete. 68.231.151.161 01:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

All these (and some other crap from User:Shoof) deleted. SemperBlotto 07:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Store name. Not dictionary material. Jooge 04:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete. While there are connotations an author can convey by mentioning it, it remains a single corporate entity; a chain of stores. You can't write 'wal-mart' to mean a 'Wal-Mart' and it plainly is not used generically for any conglomerate chain of stores. Nor is it used as a figurative union-buster (it is just the largest modern example.) Nor is it used figuratively as a purveyor of cheap products (is is only famous as such.) Not worthy of encyclopedic coverage, so no point in transwiki-ing to Wikipedia. --Connel MacKenzie 20:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should be laughing or slapping my forehead or what. The Wikipedia article has 78 references, not counting references on secondary pages such as History of Wal-Mart, Criticism of Wal-Mart, etc. Not worthy of encyclopedic coverage!?! Indeed, an argument is not made illegitimate by errors on minor points, but you're really doing yourself a disfavor by being so wrong on a judgement that's so easy to double-check. No, it doesn't apply here, but certainly you must have some sense of the meaning of notability?

Used attributively in "Wal-Mart job", "Wal-Mart career", "Wal-Mart store", "Wal-Mart brand", etc. Obvious keep. DAVilla 18:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So sorry, but I wasn't talking about "Wikipedia's notability criterion" there, rather, I was talking about general (aka "real") encyclopedias' criteria for inclusion. --Connel MacKenzie 07:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

But you said that its unworthiness of encyclopedic coverage was an argument for not transwikiing it to Wikipedia; certainly if something is known to meet Wikipedia's notability criterion, than its failure to meet other encyclopedias' criteria for inclusion should be irrelevant in determining whether we send it there? —Ruakh_TALK 16:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake; I should have been considering their criteria, rather than a general notion of all collective general-use encyclopedias. However, it does not look like we have any content for Wikipedia that they don't already have. (Thanks DAVilla.) So deletion, rather than transwiki to Wikipedia is still more appropriate. --Connel MacKenzie 18:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsure because I want to say I've heard an adjective or verb derived from this, but I can't remember for sure. If we do delete it, then we should delete the redirect from Wallyworld (a nickname for Wal-mart). --EncycloPetey 20:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I reckon that would be "Wal-Marting," (var. sp. w:Walmarting), a term which seems to be used widely in at least three senses: (of a company) becoming like Wal-Mart, (of a community) suffering the economic/cultural impact of national retail chains, (of a consumer) shopping at Wal-Mart. Not entirely sure if it meets CFI in the last sense, but definitely seems to in the first two. Wal-Martization, which apparently carries only the second meaning, is also fairly well-attested. The Wal-Mart effect is a very well-attested term in the economic discourse of the last decade. So if being a root for multiple words and phrases is sufficient to qualify as "attributive use" -- and that had been my understanding, per Foucault et al. -- Wal-Mart seems to qualify. -- Visviva 06:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Important name, strong keep. —Stephen 16:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain that, please? A trademark is a trademark, not a definition; I don't see how "importance" implies that this entry is not spam. It isn't used generically to mean "any store" nor a "type of store" (or chain.) Even if it were, that would probably justify keeping an entry at wal-mart, not Wal-Mart. --Connel MacKenzie 18:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Just a note, this name has been used as a colloquial verb although I don't know how strict the dictionary criteria are on this project in that respect. See also neologism. — This unsigned comment was added by 67.181.63.245 (talk).

• Keep, used attributively in multiple CFI-meeting phrases; highly symbolic. -- Visviva 06:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted without prejudice, does not meet current standards; a proper entry can always be written. -- Visviva 13:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Brand name, which isn't dictionary material. Jooge 04:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 20:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. To say "I have a Sony" would be meaningless, because the company has too many lines of products for the phrase to automatically refer to any one thing. bd2412 T 20:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. --EncycloPetey 20:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

An important name which takes different forms in some languages (for instance, Japanese). Keep. —Stephen 16:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say keep if the audience is expected to know that the entity is an electronics company, as opposed to, say, a male given name, without any other contextual information to indicate as much. I can't spot any examples off-hand, but for such a large company I have no doubt that such quotations exist. DAVilla 08:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Kept, with some misgivings, discussion archived to Talk:which's. -- Visviva 02:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Brand name. Should we also include Sam's Cola, Chek Cola, Mountain Dew, Sprite, Dr. Pepper, Root Beer, Vault, Sierra Mist etc.? Jooge 04:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, there is no period in Dr Pepper. —Stephen 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you justify having Coca-Cola in the dictionary and not other branded drinks? This not a case like 'Hoover' where the brand name has come to stand for the generic. The generic for cola is cola, not Coca-Cola. 87.112.27.52 19:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That depends on where you live. In some parts of the United States, a Coca-Cola or a coke is generic for all soft drinks. --EncycloPetey 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an argument for keeping coke, not for keeping Coca-Cola. --Connel MacKenzie 20:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not intended to be an argument either way, but merely an observation about the preceding comment. --EncycloPetey 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

At the moment the Coca-cola still has the first usage as a brand name, and it still has a large quantity of translations that I'm pretty sure translate the brand name NOT the regional usage. 87.112.16.34 06:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Then should all those translations be there? I have a strong suspicion that in at least the majority of those countried, Coca-Cola means the branded product, not a generic carbonated drink. 87.112.16.34 07:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Root beer is a type, not a brand. As for the rest, it is doubtful that most of them meet the CFI which I have proposed for brand names. "Pepsi" might but probably not "Pepsi-Cola". bd2412 T 20:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 20:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep Pepsi-Cola and keep Coca-Cola. These two in particular are international and the names take different forms in different languages. —Stephen 16:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So? The translations should be for coke or possibly coca-cola, though I doubt that sincerely is used generically. Any time I've heard cola referred to by the brand name it has been coke or pepsi, not Coca-cola nor coca-cola nor Pepsi-cola. All brand names have translations - the fact that they start out as a play on words to begin with, means they aren't words themselves. --Connel MacKenzie 18:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Visviva 02:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Jacksonville. -- Visviva 02:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Has been redirected; discussion archived to Talk:fo shizzle. -- Visviva 02:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!. -- Visviva 02:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Big Mac. -- Visviva 02:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:conversate. -- Visviva 02:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 21:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

delete; this isn't a general sci-fi word that's made it into broad use outside of Star Wars. --EncycloPetey 01:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Use the Force: delete. bd2412 T 23:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

See discussion 10:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 10:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 10:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 11:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 03:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 04:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 05:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 05:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 05:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 05:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 05:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion 05:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion 05:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion 05:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion 05:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion 05:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion 05:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. See discussion 05:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. See discussion of July 2007. 12:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)