This page is for entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script. For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English. For entries in other non-English languages, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English.

Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. The most common reason for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "green leaf". It is occasionally used for undeletion requests (requests to restore entries that may have been wrongly deleted).

Out of scope: This page is not for words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Disputes regarding whether an entry falls afoul of any of the subsections in our criteria for inclusion that demand a particular kind of attestation (such as figurative use requirements for certain place names and the WT:BRAND criteria) should also go to RFV. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.

Adding a request: To add a request for deletion, place the template {{rfd}} or {{rfd-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. The section title should be exactly the wikified entry title such as ]. The deletion of just part of a page may also be proposed here. If an entire section is being proposed for deletion, the tag {{rfd}} should be placed at the top; if only a sense is, the tag {{rfd-sense}} should be used, or the more precise {{rfd-redundant}} if it applies. In any of these cases, any editor, including non-admins, may act on the discussion.

Closing a request: A request can be closed once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because there is no consensus, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. The threshold for consensus is hinted at the ratio of 2/3 of supports to supports and opposes, but is not set in stone and other considerations than pure tallying can play a role; see the vote.

• Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it was deleted), or de-tagging it (if it was kept). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
• Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFD-deleted or RFD-kept, indicating what action was taken.
• Striking out the discussion header.

(Note: In some cases, like moves or redirections, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFD-deleted” or “RFD-kept”.)

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

Term added by Mare-Silverus (talk • contribs), who either is, or is somehow related to, our long-term UK anon who adds lots of problematic Japanese terms.

I think this is SOP, as simply 鎖 (kusari, “chain”) + 具足 (gusoku, “armor”), but I'd like to get input from others. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we should create 具足 before deleting this. Also, is the usual English term not chain mail?  --Lambiam 07:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Japanese 具足 created. This is an old term cited first all the way back to 722, but despite its age and Chinese-derived reading, I can't find evidence of a borrowing from Middle Chinese. My resources for Chinese are limited, so I'd appreciate it if any more-Chinese-savvy editors could have a look at the etymology.

Re: English chain mail, @Lambiam, were you commenting on the use of alt spelling chainmail at the 鎖具足#Japanese entry? If instead you were suggesting non-SOP-ness on the basis of the English term mail not corresponding exactly to 具足 (gusoku, “armor”), I would counter by suggesting that someone fluent in English would understand that mail in the context of the armaments of centuries past is broadly equivalent to armor on the one hand, and on the other, that someone fluent in Japanese and familiar with the same contexts would choose the term 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira) instead, as indeed we see at the JA WP article ja:w:鎖帷子. In terms of raw Google hits (granted, only a very rough measure, but still), google:"鎖帷子" "は" (adding the "は" to filter for Japanese) gets us 4.8M hits, while google:"鎖具足" "は" gets only 4.3K. At best, this would be an uncommon synonym, but I argue that it's not an integral enough term to even warrant an entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Eiríkr— I was commenting on the senses listed for 鎖 (kusari), which do not include any of the synonyms “mail”, “chain mail” or ”chainmail”. In English, just “chain” does not have the sense of “chain mail”; for someone not familiar with the meaning (and possibly also not with medieval armour), trying to figure it out from the literal translation 鎖+具足 = “chain”+“armour” might not work too well. I do not know if 鎖 by itself can have the sense of “mail”, or that this requires the combination 鎖具足. If the former, that sense should be added. If the latter, I am not convinced we have an SOP here.  --Lambiam 01:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam, I'm curious about your reasoning. You state, "the senses listed for 鎖 (kusari), which do not include any of the synonyms “mail”, “chain mail” or ”chainmail”" -- no, they do not. For that matter, neither does English chain?

Japanese 鎖 (kusari) generally just means chain. Indeed, so far as I know, any "armor" sense for English chain on its own only comes about from use of this term as a shortening of chain mail, so I'm a bit confused why you think Japanese 鎖 (kusari) needs to have some kind of "armor" sense for Japanese 鎖具足 (kusari gusoku) to not be an SOP? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 02:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Eiríkr— My reasoning is very simplistic. If I see that the meaning of compound noun X+Y, where X modifies Y, is rendered in English as A+B, then I expect that one of the meanings of X is A and one of the meanings of Y is B. So when there is a claim that this is a sum of parts (which I can see is the case for A+B), then I expect that an astute language learner can understand from the context which combination of meanings applies. Application of this simplistic formula in the hope of getting from 鎖+具足 to “chainmail”+“armour” requires 鎖 → “chainmail” and 具足 → “armour”. Chainmail armour, to me, is armour fashioned of chainmail. The notion of “mail” as a quasi-fabric used to fashion armour is absent from either of the components 鎖 and 具足, but paramount in their compound 鎖具足. So, apparently, 鎖具足 ≠ 鎖+具足.  --Lambiam 10:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam: Ah, I see now where we have our disjuncture. I perceive English mail in this context as synonymous with armor (technically, a hyponym). Thus, English chain mail = chain + mail = chain + armor, which I view as analogous to 鎖 (kusari, “chain”) + 具足 (gusoku, “armor”). The usage of English mail in armor contexts is very limited, with (I think) only three such collocations allowed: chain mail, plate mail, scale mail. The more common senses of English mail could also arguably make the armor-related collocations more distinct lexically: we're not talking about sending these things via post, for instance. The usage of Japanese 具足 (gusoku) is not limited in this way, and I think this makes the collocation of kusari ("chain") + gusoku ("armor") less of an integral lexical item, and more of an SOP.

I'd also like to draw your attention back to the fact that English chain mail is not glossed as Japanese 鎖具足 (kusari gusoku) in any reference I've encountered -- the term 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira) is used instead. In fact, there is no page at ja:w:鎖具足 (Kusari gusoku), and the article at ja:w:鎖帷子 (Kusari katabira) contains zero instances of the term 具足 (gusoku). In addition, the JA WP article links through to the EN WP article at w:Chain_mail and vice versa. See also bilingual entries for "chain mail" at Eijiro and Weblio, glossing this in Japanese as 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira). See also the lack of any entries for 鎖具足 (kusari gusoku) at Eijiro, Weblio, and monolingual dictionary and encyclopedia aggregator Kotobank. For that matter, Weblio's page amusingly suggests that kusari gusoku might equate instead to "chain furniture".  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

How chain mail is glossed in Japanese texts is (IMO) not relevant to the present issue. (This might have some limited relevance if the issue is whether the term can be verified.) I am not a native English speaker; I have always understood mail to refer primarily to the material, like one can say that early armour was “made from mail ”. Note that, whereas armour has a countable sense, chain mail is uncountable. A medieval knight may have been “wearing an armour”, but not _*“a chain mail”. In French, the term maille from which the English term is derived, is just a single link; you can combine a lot to make a cotte de mailles. Two centuries ago the term chain armour would have been readily understood,, but today this is less obviously so. On Wikipedia, the article Kusari (Japanese mail armour) states: “Kusari gusoku (chain armour)(鎖具足) is the Japanese term for mail armour. Kusari is a type of armour used by the samurai class and their retainers in feudal Japan. When the word kusari is used in conjunction with an armoured item it usually means that the kusari makes up the majority of the armour defence.” This is supported by a citation to a book entitled A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor: In All Countries and in All Times that mentions kusari gama, kusari gote, kusari kabuto, kusari katabira, kusari-kiahan, kusari sode, kusari tachi, kusari toji, kusari wakabiki, kusari-zukin. It seems reasonable (to me) to include a definition of the kind “(of armour) chain mail”.  --Lambiam 21:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam: The English Wikipedia's articles related to Japan are, far too often, a cesspit of pop-culture misunderstandings and imaginings about Japan. I generally avoid wading in on Wikipedia, as I simply don't have the time to simultaneously manage the morons while also assiduously citing every minor detail.

That particular article is one such example: the very first sentence in that article is plainly, patently wrong. What's more, the referenced work never uses the combined term kusari gusoku. Monolingual sources never mention armor or arms in definitions of the term 鎖 (kusari, “chain”), and given my own subjective understanding of the term and its uses, I'm not sure it makes sense to add any such sense to our entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

But what about the terms kusari gama, ..., kusari-zukin listed in the cited glossary. Are these not romanizations of attestable Japanese terms of art, such as 鎖帷子?  --Lambiam 21:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam: Sure. Here's a brief breakdown to provide a bit more detail and context.

• 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira) is literally 鎖 (kusari, “chain”) + 帷子 (katabira, “single-layer kimono”, literally “kata "single, one part of a pair", in reference to the usual double layering of a kimono + hira "flat thing" = "layer"”). Strictly speaking, 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira) refers to a single layer of chain mail used as a shirt-like or robe-like garment covering the upper body. This is arguably the single most common application of the material called chain mail in English, which I suspect is why bilingual sources tend to relate these two terms. The material itself, as a sheet of linked metal loops, is often referred to using the English-derived term チェーンメール (chēn mēru). Some dictionary entries will clarify that the item of armor is kusari katabira, and the material is chēn mēru, as indeed we see in the two sense lines at the Eijiro entry for "chain mail".
• 鎖鎌 (kusari-gama) is literally 鎖 (kusari, “chain”) + 鎌 (kama, “sickle, scythe”). This is a weapon consisting of a short-bladed sickle with a long chain extending from the base of the handle. See the image at ja:w:鎖鎌, and more content in English at w:Kusarigama.
• 鎖頭巾 (kusari zukin) is literally 鎖 (kusari, “chain”) + 頭巾 (zukin, “hood”, literally “head + cloth”). See also the images at google:"鎖頭巾". Lemmings-wise, monolingual JA sources do not treat this as a single term.

Looking further at the other kusari items in that index view:

• Kusari Gote: 鎖篭手 (kusari-gote, literally “chain + gauntlet”)
• Kusari Kiahan: not a Japanese term, presumably a mistake for kusari kyahan → 鎖脚絆 (kusari kyahan, literally “chain + leggings, gaiters”), referring to something like chain-mail greaves, only presumably also covering the back of the lower leg, not just the shin.
• Kusari Sode 鎖袖 (kusari sode, literally “chain + sleeve”). Lemmings-wise, monolingual Japanese sources do not treat this as a single lexical term.
• Kusari Toji: I'm really not sure what this is supposed to refer to. The toji element is presumably 綴じ (toji, “binding, fastening”)? If so, this doesn't seem to be any specific item of armor.
• Kusari Wakibiki: 鎖脇引き (kusari wakibiki, literally “chain + armpit-pulling”), from the way the material is pulled or drawn across the gap between the other parts of the armor: a piece of gousset. Lemmings-wise, monolingual Japanese sources do not treat this as a single lexical term.

I note a few other items listed in that index view, things like Krug, Kurdaitcha, and Kurtani, that cannot be Japanese terms. Given the instance of Kusari Kiahan, I am left uncertain if these are misspellings, or simply non-Japanese terms.

Anyway, HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The book is supposed to be a glossary for all countries, so it should not be a surprise to find Romanizations of Japanese terms in an alphabetical list in the company of non-Japanese terms.

Case in point. Imagine someone with a beginner’s level of Japanese who comes across the term 「鎖頭巾」 in a context where the meaning is not at all clear (such as an ad offering an antique 鎖頭巾 for sale). Since she cannot find the term in Wiktionary, she assumes it is a sum of parts, and looks up its components: 鎖 = “chain”; 頭巾 = “wimple, hood, gorget”. In her understanding of the term “chain”, it is a linear sequence of links. Neither ”chain wimple” nor “chain hood” make any sense to her, but after looking up the unfamiliar term “gorget” and seeing the image, she guesses that “chain gorget” could be a gorget worn on a chain, just like a “chain watch” is a watch on a chain. Is there a plausible way she could have discovered that in this combination 「鎖」implied an item made from mail?  --Lambiam 22:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam: (after edit conflict)

... Where do you get the wimple or gorget senses for 頭巾 (zukin)? Those aren't in our entries. I can kinda see where wimple might come from, as the core meaning of the JA term is literally "head + cloth", and that's at least the right ballpark. But gorget is just wrong as a translation for 頭巾. The expected Japanese term is 喉当て (nodo-ate, literally “throat + putting, applying, placing-against”).

If you got kusari zukin and its mistranslation of "gorget" from the linked glossary by George Cameron Stone, I'm mystified -- I can't find any instances of zukin at all in that book, kusari or otherwise.

For the expected senses of 鎖 (kusari, “chain”) + 頭巾 (zukin, “hood, head covering”), I wouldn't expect as much potential for confusion as you suggest. For example, google:"chain hood" comes right up with pictures of the expected hood made of chain. Similarly, google:"chain shirt" and google:"chain gloves" come right up with relevant armor-related images, and even the more unusual google:"chain sleeves" and google:"chain leggings" find armor-related hits within the first page.  :)

Some collocation-specific senses must be understood from context, even though the collocations themselves might not be lexical. Consider white crane. This could be a large white bird that inhabits wetlands, or it might be a white piece of construction equipment used to lift things. The term crane here is polysemic, but that doesn't necessitate that collocations using different senses of crane are necessarily lexical items unto themselves. So it is with 鎖 (kusari) -- though arguably even to a lesser extent than crane, since the armor and non-armor senses for 鎖 (kusari) are still about "loops of metal chained together". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ah, re: the erroneous gorget sense at ずきん, that is a mistake apparently entered when that page was created, which has not been replicated at the lemma entry at 頭巾#Japanese. I'm about to correct the ずきん entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

If chain hood can legitimately mean “hood fashioned of mail” (as an instance of, more generally, chain NP meaning “NP fashioned of mail”, then a sense is missing at English chain.  --Lambiam 09:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Chinese. I believe this is best analyzed as -人], and 人 "someone" can be replaced freely with "I", "you", etc. The usage examples should be moved to 死. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comment: if we do keep this, I think it should be merge with the Gan sense under pronunciation 2. While it's analyzable as above, it seems to be fossilized as a kind of intensifier (at least in certain varieties). It's in some dictionaries, such as 南昌方言詞典 and 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典. I'm leaning on the keep side, but I'm not sure. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Actually, after some thought, the two meanings seem to be different depending on the verb/adjective. 南昌方言詞典 defines it as "用在動詞或形容詞後，表示令人非常（高興、生氣、難受等）" and lists 熱～, 笑～, 氣～, 煩～, 急～ and 冷～ as examples. To me, these belong to the definition that is being rfd-ed. @Mar vin kaiser who added the Gan sense recently. 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典 defines it as "置於動詞之後，用來表示「非常……」、「很……」的意思" and lists 驚死人 and 貴死人 as examples. 驚死人 could be interpreted as the rfd-ed definition, but 貴死人 is harder to interpret as such. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

This just means "the malign virus" in Korean. In this article we can see that North Korea has also called Ebola and MERS the "malign virus". Delete as sum of parts.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

And since Korean has no definite article, it may just as well mean “a malign virus”, which these viruses certainly are in the medical sense of “harmful, potentially lethal”.  --Lambiam 21:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

If the gloss is correct, though, 악성비루스 refers not to the virus SARS-CoV-2 but to the disease COVID-19, which would technically make it not SOP anymore. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja: There's no actual evidence that the gloss is correct. The creator is not a native speaker, and the actual NK statement in late July (quoted here) that presumably prompted this creation was about "a defector to South Korea suspected to have been infected by the 'malign virus'" ("악성 비루스에 감염된 것으로 의심되는 월남도주자"). The word used here, 감염 (gamyeom), is usually for viruses and not diseases.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Delete. — LoutK (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Question: Could the use of this term be considered a euphemism? MSG17 (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Agree with Mahagaja. If the provided definition is correct, it is obviously not a SOP. This seems more like a verification issue to me. Fytcha (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Delete. It is a SOP. KCNA (in June 18, 2015 ) was also called "MERS", "SARS" and "Ebola virus" as "악성비루스" in 2015. And Choson Sinbo (in October 19, 2017) and Rodong Sinmun (in December 26. 2018) were also called "스툭스네트" (stuxnet) as "악성비루스" during 2017–18. Dubukimchi (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
• If I'm understanding correctly, it's just a descriptor for Covid (most recently), and not a name for it. In that case it would be SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.

Continuing discussion from RFV to RFD per “WT:BRAND is for RFD, not RFV, take it there.” — Mnemosientje. J3133 (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

WT:BRAND states: "A brand name for a product or service should be included if it has entered the lexicon." So the question is, can it be verified that 「ポケットモンスター」 has entered the Japanese lexicon. (For English Pokémon it appears that is has.)  Should verification that there are uses attesting that a term has entered the lexicon not be handled at RfV?  --Lambiam 00:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

WT:BRAND is for WT:RFV and not for WT:RFD. (As per WT:BRAND 3 special cites are needed and not just any cites; WT:RFV is about finding and adding cites.) The closure of the RFV obviously was done in error. --2003:DE:372F:4522:88A8:41EC:CDF6:D857 20:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @Mnemosientje who closed the RFV. J3133 (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

WT:RFV states that the RFV pages are for "disputing the existence of terms or senses", and to test whether something meets the attestation criterion at the WT:ATTEST header of WT:CFI. So I tend to heap everything that's not disputing the existence of a word into RFD. I can see how the wording of WT:BRAND can make it seem like a "verification" matter and thus be put under RFV, it's honestly open to interpretation and I don't have very strong feelings on the matter. The closure, though, was not in error: people had not been responding for two years (which seemed a bit ridiculous) and I could've just closed it as unresolved (as nobody seemed to care enough to solve it), which would've circumvented this whole discussion. If someone wants to solve the issue of this word meeting WT:BRAND (be it here or at RFD), go ahead, as long as it actually gets taken care of and doesn't sit unanswered for another 2 years. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Mnemosientje I would very much argue that WT:BRAND is an RFV matter, since it is about finding attestation of uses that meet WT:BRAND. As far as I can tell, that is also the current practice. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 19:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Keep, move to WT:RFVN. --幽霊四 (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

keep Shlyst (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not a Korean word. The actual Korean abbreviation is 중정 (Jungjeong).--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Keep, move to WT:RFVN. --幽霊四 (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Probably part of the Talk:真実和 series of nonsense. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Same page author, 4RM0 (talk • contribs), same time-frame, in mid-2008. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

After puzzling over another highly suspicious set of Japanese "female names" with other people, I've come to the conclusion that these websites make up kanji spellings by combining known names and kanji readings for the less imaginative. Reading 李 as い is only explainable as the Korean surname, and surely would not appear in someone's given name. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

https://web.archive.org/web/20070516205541/http://www.dd.iij4u.or.jp/~ume20/f_name/index.html

The source of all evil? —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• I've deleted 今日実子 (Kyōmiko) as bogus. google:"今日実子さん" finds all of one hit, which is just a list of potential feminine given names -- of what provenance, I have no idea. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

—Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

this is stupid. can we just delete all of these female given names? —Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

No particular opposition from me. I might go so far as to suggest a quick Google search, and immediately deleting anything that doesn't return hits. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I just searched as follows for one such spelling:

• google:"吾実理" "は" -glosbe -namedic -weblio -name -enamae -wiki

That still returns hits, but only 4 of them, and all of these four are mentions and not actual cases of people with this name. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Blindly believing in red links. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Apparently deleted. —Fish bowl (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

—Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The "edit summary search" is apparently broken, not returning more than one page of results. —Fish bowl (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

—Suzukaze-c (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

—Fish bowl (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection, Fish bowl, Eirikr: Any objections if I go ahead and mass delete + mass revert Tim Euler? His German edits were as clueless as always (I actually already suspected it was him on the 13th: ) so I have little faith in his edits in other languages. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fytcha: I have no objection. —Fish bowl (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, by all means go ahead. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 05:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

 Done. I spared 悼齔, 卵巢炎, תיקון because other editors have edited them in the meantime. FYI @Justinrleung. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Wise Bridges Fool Walls, I think it's a sum of parts: 기 (gi, verbal nominalizer) + 때문 (ttaemun, “because”, bound noun following a noun to mark it as a cause) + 이다 (ida, “it is”) > "it is because..."--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

As above.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I will add that I think both should be redirected to 때문 (ttaemun).--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Karaeng Matoaya: Honestly, I thought redirects might be more appropriate, but I was not sure. Thank you for letting me know.-—Wise Bridges Fools Walls (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

We have a very prolific anon from Vietnam, likely Baka Fumiko. This is one entry created by that anon.

I don't dispute that this is attestable. I question whether this is dictionary material. @TAKASUGI Shinji, Suzukaze-c, Huhu9001, Alves9, Dine2016, any other JA editors, what is your sense? Is this more widely used than I'm aware, with any overtones or nuances that might point to this meriting a dictionary entry? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 03:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Delete. It’s not a fixed phrase but rather a reference. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Neutral —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Comment. It or the variant ブルータスよ is in Daijisen, Daijirin, Kōjien, and various kotowaza references. The first two even say 用いられる. BRPXQZME (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Merely 5 results total at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22正八胞体%22, accompanied in 4/5 results with similar constructions like 正多胞体 正五胞体 正十六胞体 正六百胞体, which seems to make this an unremarkable sum of parts.

@Binarystep —Fish bowl (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

We document English equivalents like 5-cell, 8-cell, 16-cell, 24-cell, 120-cell, 600-cell, and so on without considering them sum of parts, I don't see why the Japanese terms should be treated differently. Binarystep (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think they're all also SOP by sense 19 of cell. WT:SOP: "Idiomaticity rules apply to hyphenated compounds in the same way as to spaced phrases." — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'd argue that 8-cell isn't SOP due to the fact that most people wouldn't automatically picture a tesseract when they hear the word, even if they knew the relevant definition of cell. Besides, where do we draw the line between SOP and common formulas used to construct new terms? You could easily make a convincing argument that common prefixes like anti- and non- should fall under SOP, along with chemical formulas like trichloromethane (if anything, chemical formulas are quite literally "sum of parts").

Point is, I think we should at least consider the context of how words are used. All of the "X-cell" entries (and any translations thereof) are legitimate mathematical terms, and I think removing them would do more harm than good. There's a difference between a generic term like "wooden door" and technical jargon that has zero meaning outside a specific context. Binarystep (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Another way to argue would be to point out that, since pentachoron etc. are obviously inclusion-worthy, it would be ridiculous to exclude their much more commonly used n-cell synonyms, especially since deletion of 5-cell entails the removal thereof in the article pentachoron. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Without the articles for 正八胞体 and its siblings, I would have no way to find out what it means, because the individual article for 胞 doesn’t have the meaning “cell (in 4-dimensional geometry)”, only “cell (in biology)”. The articles also provide translation entries for the English articles for “8-cell” and its siblings, as well as “tesseract”. If these are to be deleted, at the very least there should be a redirect added to 多胞体 “polytope (in 4D geometry)”.

122.213.236.124 02:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

keep Shlyst (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Notifying Atitarev, Tooironic, Fish bowl, Justinrleung, Mar vin kaiser, RcAlex36, The dog2, Frigoris, 沈澄心, 恨国党非蠢即坏, Michael Ly): Chinese. Following the RFD-deletion of Federal Reserve System as being encyclopedic. My nomination is not to be counted as a vote cast for deletion. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

This one is tough. We do, after all have entries for the names of high-profile organisations. The dog2 (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Japanese.

# ], ]

Perhaps sum of parts? —Fish bowl (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Possibly. I note that various other things (both physical and abstract) can come before the に (ni): google:"に移す"

Definitely worth a usex and / or usage note at 移す. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

keep Shlyst (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Japanese.

===Etymology===
{{ja-l|電話}} (''telephone'') + {{ja-l|を}} + {{ja-l|かける}} (] spelling of {{ja-l|掛ける}}, ''to speak'', ''to call out'')

===Verb===
{{ja-verb|でんわ を かける}}

# to ] someone over the ]

====Synonyms====
* {{ja-r|電%話する|でん%わ　する}}
* (''uncommon'') {{ja-r|架%電|か%でん}}: a ]

====Antonyms====
* {{ja-r|電%話を切る|でん%わ　を　きる}}: to ] the ]

====Related terms====
* (''intransitive'') {{ja-r|電%話がかかる|でん%わ が かかる}}:
* {{ja-r|電%話|でん%わ}}: ]
* {{ja-r|電%話に出る|でん%わ に でる}}: to ] the ]

Perhaps sum of parts? Not in monolingual dictionaries. —Fish bowl (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

===Etymology===
From {{m|ja|電話||telephone|tr=denwa}} + {{m|ja|を|pos=a grammatical marker following the direct object|tr=o}} + {{m|ja|切る||to disconnect, to hang up; to cut|tr=kiru}}. Literally meaning "to hang up the phone" or to "disconnect or cut the phone".

===Verb===
{{ja-verb|でんわ を きる|type=1}}

# to ], to ] a ]

====Conjugation====
{{ja-go-ru|でんわ を き}}

Perhaps sum of parts? Not in monolingual dictionaries. —Fish bowl (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Both of these might count as SOP, but the idiomatic (or at least non-obvious) use of the verbs makes me unsure.

If these entries are removed, the collocations should definitely be included as usexes on the relevant entries (at least the verbs, possibly the noun as well). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

To me, both terms seem idiomatic, so I vote keep. Compare analogous Korean 전화를 걸다 (jeonhwareul geolda, “to telephone”) and (just created by me) Korean 전화를 끊다 (jeonhwareul kkeunta, “to hang up”).--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Leaning delete as SOP, though not super strongly. If deleted, these should definitely be added as {{coi}} to both the noun as well as the verbs entries. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

keep Shlyst (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Japanese. Sum of parts, ワープロ "word processor" + the explanatory qualifier ソフト "software". —Fish bowl (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

SOP. Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Binarystep (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks SOP but it's in 大辞林. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

keep Shlyst (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Japanese.

===Etymology===
Borrowed from {{bor|ja|en|mill}}, from {{m|en|Millstone}}, a ''{{w|Magic: The Gathering}}'' card with a similar effect.

===Noun===
{{ja-noun}}

# {{lb|ja|Hearthstone}} A strategy centered on depleting the opponent's deck.

====Derived terms====
* {{l|ja|ミルウォーロック}}
* {{l|ja|ミルウォリアー}}
* {{l|ja|ミルデッキ}}
* {{l|ja|ミルドルイド}}, {{l|ja|ミルドル}}
* {{l|ja|ミルローグ}}

Game-specific official jargon, WT:FICTION? —Fish bowl (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is it official jargon? From the info provided on the page, I assumed it was a fandom term. Binarystep (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Crikey, what a dog's breakfast. The entry misses the perfectly cromulent senses of English surname Mill, or the mil that is one thousandth of an inch, or the ミル (miru) that is the common name for Codium, a kind of edible seaweed, or the borrowing of English mill that appears in various borrowed compounds, such as コーヒーミル (kōhī miru, “coffee mill”).

No time at the moment to dive in and fix the entry. Suffice it to say that Etym 1 as it currently stands must likely be deleted due to WT:FICTION. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 04:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

• I'm only familiar with this term in English, not Japanese, but in English it refers to a game mechanic that exists in multiple CCGs. If the Japanese word is used the same way, I think it should obviously be kept. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Chinese. SoP: 禮拜 "religious service" + 儀式 "ritual". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is this limited to Christianity in Chinese? Theknightwho (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: No, it could also be used for Islam, for example. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think it probably does pass WT:PRIOR, though. The Christian liturgy is a well-defined concept. Theknightwho (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: I don't see how it would have any more specific meaning than the sum of its parts. Liturgy can look very different across different branches of Christianity. Also, 禮拜的儀式 is also commonly attested, which suggests that the "compound" isn't that tight. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 14:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @Mar vin kaiser as the entry creator. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: I think the reason why I added this is because it can be said as the equivalent of the English word "liturgy" which itself can be used for Islam and Buddhism (Islamic liturgy and Buddhist liturgy). I think the meaning of 禮儀 is broad enough (it could mean etiquette? ceremony?) that it would be useful and reasonable to have this entry remain to provide people the technical term in Chinese for "liturgy". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've gone through some of their contributions. Most (all?) of this appears to be copy-paste from some other bilingual JA→EN dictionary, which includes lots of things that we would treat as SOP. There's the occasional nugget of validity in there, but most of the entries they've created are problematic. I've flat-out deleted a small handful of them as patently obvious phrasal SOP, and I've listed a few others below. I don't have time to fully vet the rest of their contributions, however, so I'd like to ask the rest of us to pitch in. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

keep, except maybe 一時帰休制 Shlyst (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

SOP:

• 一時 (ichiji, “temporary, provisional”)
• 会計 (kaikei, “ accounting”)
• 監査人 (kansanin, “auditor”)

Pinging entry creator @Japanfreak0. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Delete Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Delete. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

SOP.

• 一時 (ichiji, “temporary, provisional”)
• 休業 (kyūgyō, “work suspension; shutdown; holiday”)

Pinging entry creator @Japanfreak0. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Delete Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Delete. Suitable for {{coi}} though. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

SOP.

• 一時 (ichiji, “temporary, provisional”)
• 帰休 (kikyū, “layoff, furlough”)

Pinging entry creator @Japanfreak0. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Delete Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Leaning towards keep. It's also in DJR. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

SOP.

• 一時 (ichiji, “temporary, provisional”)
• 帰休 (kikyū, “layoff, furlough”)
• 制 (sei, “system”)

Pinging entry creator @Japanfreak0. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Delete Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Delete. Suitable for {{coi}} though. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

SOP.

• 一時 (ichiji, “temporary, provisional”)
• 預かり (azukari, “custody; checking, as in a coat check or luggage check; taking something or someone into one's care from someone else”)

Pinging entry creator @Japanfreak0. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Delete States that this term is especially used with baggage. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Neutral. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also SOP, just using the related verb stem 預け (azuke, “putting something or someone in someone else's care”) to express the other side of the action (putting into care, as opposed to taking into care). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Weak Keep States that this term is especially used with baggage. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Neutral. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Meh, might be valid, looks borderline SOP to me.

• 一時 (ichiji, “temporary, provisional”)
• 預かり (azukari, “custody; checking, as in a coat check or luggage check; taking something or someone into one's care from someone else”)
• 証 (shō, “certificate”)

→ "claim check"

If this is deemed not SOP, the entry needs cleanup -- Japanfreak0 goofed on the reading, etc.

• Delete No special usage this time Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Neutral. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

SOP.

• 一時 (ichiji, “temporary, provisional”)
• 預所 (azukari-sho, “check, depository, storage place”)

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Keep The English translation is "cloakroom" not "temporary depository" Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Leaning towards keep. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

SOP.

• 一時 (ichiji, “temporary, provisional”)
• 解雇 (kaiko, “dismissal, firing”)

Pinging entry creator @Japanfreak0. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Keep Usage contrasts with 一時帰休. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Leaning towards keep. It's also in DJR. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

SOP.

• 一言 (ichigon, “one word”)
• も (mo, “even”)
• 無い (nai, “not have”)

Pinging entry creator @Japanfreak0.

Delete Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

There might be some value to this, as the first term 一言 could also have the pronunciation hitokoto or ichigen, and in this particular turn of phrase, it seems like ichigon is more common / traditional. I would argue that this would be better as a usex at 一言 (ichigon) though, as I don't think this is enough to merit a full independent entry. There's also the problem that this might be shifted to more polite forms such as 一言もありません (ichigon mo arimasen) or 一言もございません (ichigon mo gozaimasen). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

It is somewhat idiomatic in the sense of " no complaints", "no excuse", etc, in agreement to what has been said by others. It is usually not used in the sense of "I have no words ". Isn't there a need to explain that? Whym (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keep. Idiomatic. I'm solely to blame. I have no means of refutation / face-saving. #apologetic

WT:LEMMING 大辞泉, 「一言もありませんが」のNG例とお勧め文例 -- Ywhy (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keep. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

These names for Kangxi radicals were all deleted for supposedly being SOP, despite the fact that they reference the characters' shapes rather than their meanings. They're no more "sum-of-parts" than 十字 or H-shaped. Binarystep (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'd also like to note that 丿部 was deleted after four months by an RFD with zero votes (not counting the nomination), and no discussion other than my initial objection. There are entries at the top of this page (such as 死人 (sǐrén)) that have managed to survive for over a year under similar circumstances. Binarystep (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Support undeletion it doesn't make sense to do so, since there are useful non-encyclopedic information about these radicals, such as their names and pronunciation in each languages, which sometimes can be different from the normal pronunciation. Also it is absurd that we have entries like 單人旁 and 走之底 which are the descriptive names of the radicals, but not the standard 人部 or 辵部. I do see the reason of the deletion about SoP to be sort of valid, but if they are treated as such the radicals would require a separate etymology in the character pages, since they "reference the characters' shapes rather than their meanings" as BinaryStep suggested. However this would mean that the information about radicals to be extremely scattered across an already lengthy page, if not forgetting about them entirely, which is the case for most pages. –Wpi31 (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Comment: 部 is added to each Kangxi radical name, so in a way these are kind of SoP. These should probably be instead be a definition under 丿, 支, 辵, etc. Also, it's not fair to compare these to 單人旁; things like 人部 and 辵部 (as far as I can tell) refer to the classification of a character under a particular radical, which may or may not reflect a particular component of a character (i.e., it's an abstraction from character components). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

What about separating 人(U+4EBA) and ⼈(U+2F08) etc? That way it won't be SoP, but also allows separate radical entries to be created at the codepoints in the Kangxi Radical block. –Wpi31 (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

A separate "radical" part of speech would be better, especially given the Kangxi arrangement was not the only one. Theknightwho (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Wpi31: They were separated, but were merged: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=⼈&action=history —Fish bowl (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep deleted as Justin notes. See also my comment at Talk:丿部. —Fish bowl (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fish bowl: I count 1 support vote and 0 oppose votes. Given that 丿部 was deleted without any votes at all, it doesn't seem fair to hold this RFD to a higher standard. Binarystep (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Chinese. SoP: 騷靈 + 現象. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Chinese. Rfd-sense: "flimsy; weak". Common for adjectives to be reduplicated. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Undecided. One may argue that there is a semantic shift from "thin; not thick" to "filmsy; weak" and therefore this should be kept, but I wonder if this particular sense is actually attested or not. The vast majority of ghits seems to only mean "thin; not thick". Might be an RFV issue? – wpi (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Japanese. Some kind of apparently SOP motto. This, that and the other (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Full phrases like this are generally not includable unless they are proverbs. Is this one?

Re: the apparently derivation as a calque of Latin credo ut intelligam (WP article: Credo_ut_intelligam), I think the JA literally parses out as "I don't know, so I don't believe", which would seem to be quite different from the Latin... ??? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think it’s a correct literal translation:

• 知らん, the classical volitional form of 知(し)る (shiru), directly translates intelligam, a form of the verb intelligere (“to understand”) in the present subjunctive;
• ために and ut both indicate purpose;
• 信ず would be the classical conclusive form of modern 信(しん)ずる (shinzuru), so 我は信ず directly translates credō, which is a first person singular form of crēdere (“to believe”).

About whether it’s a proverb, I googled it and it seems to be used mostly in reference to Anselm’s position of credo ut intelligam. Examples:

• here, p. 6:

  アンセルムスが合理主義にも反主知主義にも反対し，「知らんがために我は信ず」という信仰と知識の関係を調和的に捉えている点では，本当のスコラ哲学の父として認められると九鬼は考えているわけである。それについては以下のように述べられている。

• here, ６１−７０位:

  アンセルムス(1033-1109) 　イタリア生まれのスコラ学者。「知らんがために我は信ず」の立場をとり，神の存在証明を試みた。初期スコラ学の代表者の一。

Since it seems to be a consistently used translation, could it be included like 我思(われおも)う、故(ゆえ)に我(われ)在(あ)り (ware omou, yue ni ware ari, “I think, therefore I am”) was? Mcph2 (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mcph2, thank you for the breakdown, at first blush I clearly got the wrong end of the stick.

That said, I see that google books:"知らんがために我は信ず" -wiki -dict nets a paltry 29 ostensible hits, collapsing to just 16 when paging through. While clearing CFI's bar of three, this is still clearly not widely used in the Japanese-writing world. Searching instead for google books:"credo ut intelligam" "は" -dict -wikt -wiki (adding the Japanese topic particle は (wa) to filter for Japanese texts), we get 367 ostensible hits, collapsing to 167 when paging through, most of which seem to offer different translations of the Latin.

By way of contrast, google books:"我思う、故に我在り" gives us 1,780 ostensible hits. Still not tons, but substantially more. Alternative spelling google books:"我思う、故に我あり" yields another 2,950 ostensible hits. I see also that both the Kojien and Gakken dictionaries include this latter phrase, while omitting the former.

I don't think this particular phrase, 知らんがために我は信ず (shiran ga tame ni ware wa shinzu), passes muster. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr: I hadn’t thought of searching Google Books like that. Since it’s rarely used and it’s one of many translations of the same Latin phrase, I agree that we should delete it. Mcph2 (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

If it's rarely used, couldn't it just receive a "rare" qualifier? MedK1 (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

keep Shlyst (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Chinese. SoP. RcAlex36 (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't have any comments as to whether or not this should be deleted, but if that is the official name of the park, I'd avoid making the rationale SOP and focus around whether or not it's encyclopedic (especially because there's no subentry for it at 九龍 / 九龙 (jiǔlóng) nor a redirect already and since it's a public park). See: Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion § Place names. An example of a clear keep would be if 科科斯板块 were an entry: it would be kept by default or redirected to 科科斯 with a subsense with 板块 (bǎnkuài) at the definition line. AG202 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Comment. We currently have Hyde Park and Central Park, among others. The question is where do we go from here? ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

After some thought, I do think this is not quite SoP. I agree with AG202's and Tooironic's comments. I'd probably say at least a weak keep as a rather notable park in Hong Kong. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Changed to RFD-sense for "a unit of area equivalent to the size of Kowloon Park, approximately 13.3 hectares" — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Chinese. SoP. hold + 住 (verb suffix). – Wpi31 (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Wpi31: Are all these meanings compatible with other suffixes or without a suffix? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@justinrleung: the three HKC senses should be the same with or without the suffix.

The problematic one is the Mandarin neologism sense, which AFAIK is borrowed from HKC and is always followed by the suffix. (and I don't think it could be used in this way in HKC) – Wpi31 (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The pronunciation part can be useful. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Chinese SOP: 軍事／军事 (jūnshì) + 監獄／监狱 (jiānyù). Also refer to the explanation for the corresponding English term.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Leaning towards delete, unless the English equivalent has strong arguments for keeping. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Comment: the corresponding English term has been kept after RFV. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 14:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Chinese. Probably code-switching of outlook#Etymology 2. Main question is whether the “look; appearance” meaning of outlook appeared first in English (then this would be code-switching and deleted) or Chinese (then this should be kept). – Wpi31 (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

PS: I believe there's a slight semantic difference here: in Chinese, "outlook" only refers to the appearance of a person, whereas in English it could also mean the appearance of objetcs in general (as evidenced by some of the quotes). – Wpi31 (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. See Weird regional usages of English: "There is a huge amount of (Cantonese to English) negative language transfers in Hong Kong English (or ‘Honglish’), such as the proverbial oddball misuse of outlook for 外貌 (‘outward appearance‘), body check (for medical checkup), and open/close (for switch on/off)." -- Ywhy (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please avoid using a non-academic source (i.e. a random wordpress post). It is obvious that the word is originally from English, but the question is whether the "appearance" sense is an internal development in English or is it a semantic shift or (mis)interpretation in Cantonese. Note that research is hard since Cantonese is pretty much non-existent on the Internet pre-2000, and most conversations resort to using English since most netizens in that era are well-educated. Until we know the answer to the question, it is difficult to make any decision. I think we could stale this discussion (i.e. keeping it open) or close as no consensus. – Wpi (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I share the blog author's take on this matter and he put it way more eloquently than the tongue-tied me can ever do.
In addition, in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 5th ed.(2009), Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 4th ed.(1989), 6th ed.(2000) & 9th ed.(2015), no definition of outlook includes 'outward appearance'. So it must have been calqued on Cantonese 外表 rather than stemmed from standard English. -- Ywhy (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not saying that it is developed in standard English - even the English entry outlook says it's a Hong Kong English word; I was instead considering the possibility that the word is an internal development within Hong Kong English. Even then we can't rush to such conclusion. – Wpi (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Japanese. "wealth inequality": sum of parts. (@Shen233) —Fish bowl (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

agreed, go ahead Shen233 (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Hmm, I note that this is a set phrase. One doesn't say, for instance, 富貧の差 (fuhin no sa, literally “rich poor 's difference”). An alternative way to say this in Japanese is 持てる者と持たざる者の差 (moteru mono to motazaru mono no sa, literally “can-have people and not-have people 's difference”), but this is also a set phrase: one cannot swap the noun order to 持たざる者と持てる者の差 (motazaru mono to moteru mono no sa) and still have it sound "right" -- just as one cannot say "the difference between the have-nots and the haves" and have that still work stylistically / idiomatically.

All that said, I'm not sure how much set-phrase-ness counts towards grounds for inclusion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think 貧富 vs 富貧 is a separate matter. 寒暖の差 is much more common than 暖寒の差, but that doesn't inform us anything about the の差 part, which is the main part to look at when discussing whether it is a sum of parts or not. --Whym (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

• I'm inclined to say it's not idiomatic enough considering the parts can be separated, as in 貧富の大きな差. Whym (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Leaning towards delete. Makes for a good collocation though. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

keep Shlyst (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Japanese

This was tagged long ago but seems not to have been listed here. The fate of this RFD should probably be tethered to that of its donor language term, at Jeanne d'Arc, unless we can see metaphorical use in one language not present in the other. —Soap— 11:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It occurred to me after I posted this that I'd rather see it at RFV, since what we're looking for is metaphorical use, but I will leave this here as its French counterpart stands currently at its own RFD. —Soap— 11:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

If Pricasso is allowed then I don't see why ジャンヌ・ダルク and Jeanne d'Arc shouldn't be. Protegmatic (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was included with other-language equivalents at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English. —Fish bowl (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree that this should be solved as a matter of RFV. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Japanese. The term is the courtesy title of Fujiwara no Tadamichi. According to WT:NSE, o individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic, which should also applies to specific names referring to a person like this. The entry is therefore out of scope.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Japanese. The term is the courtesy title of Kujō Yoshitsune. Delete for the same reasons (out of scope per WT:NSE) as mentioned above.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Japanese. The term is the courtesy title of Saionji Kintsune. Delete for the same reasons (out of scope per WT:NSE) as mentioned above.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

It seems that you overlooked the last part of the green text: “...page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic”; linking the four for emphasis. Don’t see the alleged proper names there... what seems to be the matter? You were probably thinking about card numbers 6, 11, 16, etc. of that particular anthology which do have said names... by the way, there’s a few more! ～ POKéTalker（＝◉＝） 05:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, perhaps I misunderstood. I thought WT:NSE may also extend to cover specific non-idiomatic personal names that may not fulfill these requirements. This leads to another point: they are prime examples of sum of parts, just like we won't create an entry named Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith that states that it's the formal title of Elizabeth II, or Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular as the title for the dictator Idi Amin.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is the first time am seeing a user appealing to the SOP card when the sense(s) do mean more than just them... assuredly, the above three aren’t the so-called “non-idiomatic sum of parts” you were expecting; and do not drag English to this discussion. An example that would both qualify for SOP and NSE is 6 (Middle Counselor Yakamochi) and 11 (Councillor Takamura) mentioned earlier. Since when is the “courtesy title of...” sense out of scope for this or other non-English language? Never seen such a case... what of Zhongni (second-born from Ni Hill), for Confucius? ～ POKéTalker（＝◉＝） 05:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but as the terms's meaning are clearly directing to the courtesy names of people, why are you speaking card numbers? Some sort of playing card meanings like king of spades? I don't understand.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

To the point: at least read Hyakunin Isshu on Wikipedia to know what these three really are. Where in the NSE says that courtesy names, especially in foreign languages, are “out of scope” from your understanding? Don’t see any proper names of persons somewhere in the three you are requesting for deletion.. ～ POKéTalker（＝◉＝） 13:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Unlike the nomination, I don't think it's covered by WT:NSE, but I still vote delete all: encyclopedic. —Fish bowl (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Chinese. SoP: 耳朵 + 聾. – Wpi31 (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. RcAlex36 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Silghtly weak keep.You know what, I’ll say keep as well, instead of delete. As the creator of the 耳朵聾 page, I don’t usually keep a check and research before making any pages here. I’m just a normal editor. I’m not a linguist or anything like that in any way. So I am sorry that I didn’t research beforewards. It is shown as a dialectal variant on the 聾 page. (I know this page (link here) is my creation) Kanjishowa21-4 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Weak keep. It seems to be 'idiomatic' (not necessarily non-SoP, but a normal way of expressing this, as opposed to 耳聾) in some varieties (see the dialectal synonyms at 耳聾). (The page needs a clean-up, though, if we keep this.) — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep. Upon a quick check in a handful of Wu topolectal dictionaries (Suzhounese, Chongmingnese, Hangzhounese), all of them define the term as equivalent to 耳背 (hard of hearing) instead of "deaf" - i.e. not equivalent to 耳聾. The Chongming dictionary in fact distinguishes between 聾耳朵 (deaf) and 耳朵聾 (hard of hearing) which to me seems like it could warrant a keep. – Musetta6729 (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Weak keep. The Wu word exists warrants an entry per above, but the current entry itself is SoP and requires some heavy reworking/clean up. – Wpi31 (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Redirect to 耳背. This is already documented in the dialectal synonyms of 耳背. -- Ywhy (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

They are completely different words, so they should not be redirected. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Chinese. This seems to be a common collocation, but it's SoP. The entry should probably be at V. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Move to V. V你50 is similarly common. – Wpi (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete. or else we have 微我相片 微我簡報 微聊 -- Ywhy (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is an Internet slang. Others are not.

vivo X90 推出“v 我 50”肯德基联名礼盒，将于明日“疯狂星期四”发布 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@内存溢出的猫: It might be an Internet meme, but how is it not the sum of its parts V (verb) + 我 (indirect object) + 50 (direct object)? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

What about mentioning "esp in reference to eating at KFC" in this entry? 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@内存溢出的猫: This feels very encyclopedic rather than something for a dictionary. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Finally I get it. Marketing gimmick by KFC. Only V我50 or V你50 are popularized, as it's roughly the amount spent for a single visit.

Advertisement/Endorsement of KFC & Vivo -- Ywhy (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Although this was incorporated into KFC's official marketing, the original campaign didn't have this phrase, which likely started as an Internet slang later. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Move to V perhaps. RcAlex36 (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification/CJK#민서.

Chinese. Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Place_names: this is a building. – Wpi (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if it can be kept as a noun referring to any Wong Tai Sin temple (rather than the specific one in Hong Kong). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Chinese. SoP: 值+銅鈿. Musetta6729 (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I feel like it's keepable? "Worth money" doesn't necessarily mean "worth a lot of money", right? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 11:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete "is " always psycholinguistically means "is noticably ] in all languages, especially Chinese with 很 (hěn) Daniel.z.tg (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Mainly I felt as if 值銅鈿 was not a distinctly lexicalized construction. It is (to me) a somewhat acceptable way to say "valuable" but I wouldn't say it's that idiomatic at all - in Shanghainese at least I would default to 價鈿大 or 價鈿貴, and 值銅鈿 isn't necessarily a defined standalone adjective either, compared to something like 吃價鈿 "expensive, valuable".

It also sounds a lot better to me separated e.g. as 值交關銅鈿 "worth a lot of money", and in that sense I also don't necessarily see how it's special as opposed to, say, a phrase like 值鈔票. Musetta6729 (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just to revive this discussion, I see some ghits for google:"老值銅鈿". I think this kind of shows that it's keepable as an adjective? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

(Pinging @Musetta6729, ND381). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that still wouldn't really be strong enough evidence since 老值鈔票 is also idiomatic

I'm not against keeping it but I just want to point that out — nd381 (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

^ second this here.

With this in consideration I wouldn't be opposed to keeping the entry either (though maybe as a V/O phrase), and I think the adjective sense should maybe be moved to rfv or have a rfex, if we want to keep it.

Though the phrase is sayable and attestable in Shanghainese (I myself would rarely say it so I don't necessarily have good judgement for how natural it is), what seems like a big problem to me is the (Wu) label. Currently we have many words that are simply tagged as Wu where in reality they are only used in a certain range of Wu varieties. Most of these are fixable fairly quick, but this one doesn't seem very straightforward because there's probably a good range of localities even within Northern Wu for which the adjective sense might not be too natural (especially if they don't use 銅鈿 as a standalone word), and there just doesn't seem to be a good way of testing or certifying that without a good number of attestations from around the place. The word should probably be tagged as Wu either way (and then maybe a following list of descriptors or a usage note), but this would need to come from what we can gather from attestations then. — Musetta6729 (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Per above, tentative keep but add V/O sense and move adjective sense to rfv.

(also if we were to keep 值銅鈿／值铜钿 then this implies that we should probably also create 值鈔票／值钞票 for at least some consistency. which I would be fine with, but it depends on what everyone else thinks) — Musetta6729 (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Japanese. Rfd-sense:

1. (historical) an Ise-class battleship of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II (see Japanese battleship Hyūga on Wikipedia.Wikipedia )
2. 大和: a World War II battleship
3. a battleship of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II (see Japanese battleship Musashi on Wikipedia.Wikipedia )
4. a class of dreadnought battleships in the Imperial Japanese Navy built after World War I ( Nagato-class battleship on Wikipedia.Wikipedia )
5. the lead ship of the pair, known for its participation in Operation Crossroads ( Japanese battleship Nagato on Wikipedia.Wikipedia )
6. (historical) a class of battlecruisers in the Imperial Japanese Navy built before World War I, see Kongō-class battlecruiser on Wikipedia.Wikipedia
7. (historical) the lead ship of her class, which was rebuilt into a battleship in 1929, see Japanese battleship Kongō on Wikipedia.Wikipedia

Encyclopedic. – Wpi (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Wpi, I see your point about encyclopedic detail.

That said, I think it is still lexically significant and useful information that these terms can be used as ship names.

As an example, what would you think about rewording the Japanese 大和 (Yamato) sense line to something more like what we see in the topmost line at w:Yamato#Ships?

Yamato, several Japanese ships of this name

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete and replace with "names of various battleships" Daniel.z.tg (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete entirely —Fish bowl (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Switching to Delete for the same reason as my other diff. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Fish bowl, @Daniel.z.tg, are you arguing that there is no lexical sense wherein these terms are used as ship names? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think it's not something that should be in the dictionary. —Fish bowl (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

We have plenty of other entries that basically say "this is a given name", "this is a surname", "this is a place name". Why would "this is a ship name" not be similarly significant lexical information about a given term? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 05:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Chinese. SoP: 笑 "to laugh" + 到 "to the extent" + 碌地 "to roll on the floor". – Wpi (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Objection: it does not refer to literally rolling on the floor. —Fish bowl (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Learning towards keep. Are there other constructions that use 到轆地? RcAlex36 (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep unless 到轆地 is demonstrably productive. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete Neologism calque of ROFL, and I don't know if it will last Daniel.z.tg (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Daniel.z.tg How on earth is this neologism? See the quote from a song that I've just added. – Wpi (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I incorrectly assumed any internet-related slang (and me judging it by the English term is also questionable) would be a neologism. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep because I think this is the etymology of the English term: Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2023/August#ROFL RFV failed Daniel.z.tg (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Being an etymon of a word in another language does not mean a term had to be kept. – Wpi (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep as per the trend of keeping English borrowings/calques into Cantonese. Personally I think those are just code switching unless the meaning is innovative, but keeping this type of entry seems to be the consensus here. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify, this is definitely not code-switching, and it is unclear that this is even from English. It could very well be an independently created phrase. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Weak keep per the arguments put forward by others. – Wpi (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

ABC Cantonese-English Comprehensive Dictionary (2021) records 俾人打到碌地 and 痛到碌地 in addition to 笑到碌地. RcAlex36 (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Comment: I've added some examples to 轆地. -- Ywhy (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Ywhy: I'm sure 轆地 is attestable, but are these citations or your own examples? RcAlex36 (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@RcAlex36: I adapted these from actual usages. I googled "到轆地 -笑到轆地" and found 到轆地. I suppose are reasonable too so I improvised one. I was merely suggesting 轆地 is flexible and should not be confined to 笑到轆地. -- Ywhy (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Ywhy: While these examples might be fine, it might be a little excessive to come up with our own examples, which are less weighty evidence than usage independently found "in the wild". It would be preferable if we directly added (preferably durably archived) quotes to the entry, especially since it might be contentious. See WT:QUOTE and WT:ATTEST. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

This rigidity in attestation and quotation is what stiffled creativity and engagement. Cantonese is rapidly wasting away and further bound by rote learning and we imbue no individual thought and style into it. No wonder are there many entries with none examples, for word without context is extinction!

魯迅《狂人日記》：「從來如此，便對麽？」 ― rule rule rule fool fool fool -- Ywhy (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Ywhy: I'm not saying you can't create examples, but there should only be enough to illustrate usage. Having quotes that function the same as examples would be preferable because it shows that we aren't making stuff up from thin air. The primary purpose of Wiktionary is documentation and usability, not creativity. The fact that we have so many Cantonese editors actively engaged in editing here shows that Cantonese is not necessarily rapidly wasting away. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply