Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Italic. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Italic, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Italic in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Italic you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Italic will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Requests for deletion/Italic, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
This page is for entries in any Italic language, i.e. Latin, its sister languages (e.g., Oscan, Faliscan), and its descendants, including Romance languages (e.g., French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Catalan).
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.
Maybe an RFV would be a good idea. Lewis and Short says the verb is used both intransitive and transitively, so a passive participle seems like it should theoretically be possible. I could find no examples in the PHI classical corpus or the Corpus Corporum, but Google Books might have something (e.g. I see "tinnivit & tinnitam percepit rem" here).--Urszag (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
In Hindi newspapers the Hindi etymon seems to be the title of "Deaths" sections. A better definition might be "sad news". --Lambiam11:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Spanish, etym 5, sense "a cheap drug...". From my understanding of it, this is cocaine paste, and typical "paco" would have this stuff in it, in varying amounts.
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Portuguese. We currently have the 3 SoP entries amo-te, eu te amo, and te amo. The second entry is the Phraseboook entry; there should be no reason to have the other variations.
Maybe Jiffy is not it, but I still feel the fact you can shorten it to "meia" without needing to have said 'horas' earlier in the convo should count for something. Absolute keep. MedK1 (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
English’s half-hour(“half an hour”) have never been RfDed, so it’s not that there was consensus to keep, just that no one felt the need to request their deletion. I assume this is because the terms would be kept due to, maybe, a combination of WT:THUB and WT:COALMINE.
As for Italian mezz'ora, it’s probably because it’s written as a single word (i.e., with no hyphen or space), which makes it pass WT:CFI. Even if the apostrophe isn’t the reason, it’s also more likely to have flown under the radar. Polomo47 (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keeping as a useful “translation target” is not a CFI-compliant argument. I also believe the reason such English entries are kept is due to WT:THUB, and as such that their existence does nothing for its translations.
I’m also confident that the Portuguese translations in that entry are wrong, because someone got confused after reading the poorly worded definitions. Indeed, meia hora should be an appropriate translation for both senses (not that if it weren’t it wouldn't be SoP). “X e meia” is a translation of “half past X”. Polomo47 (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep, and also create quarto de hora e três quartos de hora. These are not common SOPs, but the only fractions of an hour that are commonly used in speach. I think it's useful to have them in order to acknowledge their extensive usage in Portuguese time division, and distinguish them from actual SOPs like terço de hora (for 20 minutes) or três quintos de hora (for 36 minutes) that one would only see in mathematical problems. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
No, they are not equivalent. Terço de hora involves a mathematical operation: you take one hour and you divide it by 3: it doesn't mean 20 minutes, it means literally a third of an hour, thus it's an obvious SOP. However, that is not true of quarto de hora. Pretty much nobody thinks of a full hour divided by four when quarto de hora is mentioned, they just automatically take it as meaning 15 minutes. If it's meaning is 15 minutes instead of a literal quarter of an hour, then it is not SOP. - Sarilho1 (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
What you’re describing strikes me simply as a consequence of commonness, rather than anything about the expressions in particular. Of course more common collocations are more readily understood. Polomo47 (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
That's why overwhelming commonness is important to support my point that these three expressions have passed from mere expressions of mathematical operations to lemmas of their own right. - Sarilho1 (talk) Sarilho1 (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
It'd be weird if the first one meant 0h30 and the second one 0h00. The second one is obviously 12AM on the dot, so I feel it's pretty safe to think the same goes for the first.
Couldn't this be a misspelling like pêras? There were three forms with the circumflex after all, it seems plausible for someone to mix things up. Google Books shows results up to page 10 and I've found some modern mentions, including a machine translation (lol?). Trooper57 (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yeah... I guess I do need to get started on that RFM I wanted to make if I want to delete this. This word should indeed be attested before 1911/1943, but it should be hard to find any attestations from after that. I made this an RFD because an RFV would've been pointless, but really neither works. Polomo47 (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Latin. Quite a strange entry: it just says see coest, with the usage note This is the headword given in some dictionaries. However, this form does not occur, as the verb is impersonal.
Other dictionaries use this headword, so it looks like a lacuna when Wiktionary doesn't also have it. Hence it should be a hard redirect, just like we hard-redirect other dictionary forms like hold your breath → hold one's breath.
If no other language had an entry for consum, I would have made it a hard redirect to coest. But this wasn't possible. This was my strongest reason for creating the entry.
It's very plausible that someone would run across coest or confuit in a text and look it up under consum. Yes, we have non-lemma form entries to take them to the right place, but I imagine many people directly search for the lemma if they (think they) know what that is.
The disappearance of "n" in forms before a vowel is rarely seen in Latin verb forms - it may even be unique for this verb, I'm not sure. (Other con- + e- forms insert an -m- instead, I think.) have This makes the job of the lemma-seeker even more challenging.
@This, that and the other Thanks - I wonder if we should have some agreed-upon way of handling these. In theory, the same issue also applies to all impersonal verbs, as they're reasonably rare, or even deponent ones, though they're common enough that I expect it isn't a problem for those. @Nicodene @Benwing2 Thoughts? Theknightwho (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is similar to a ghost word, a word found in dictionaries that doesn't actually exist. The most famous ghost word is dord, which we don't have an entry for (our entry dord is for an unrelated term). One possibility is to delete it but put a usage note mentioning that the word is sometimes lemmatized under "consum" or confuit. That way someone searching for it might (conceivably) come across it (although the other consum words in other languages will be an issue), especially if they search for it in conjunction with another principal part that actually exists. Benwing2 (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Another possibility is the keep it but put the usage note in the definition as a non-gloss defn, something like sometimes used as the lemma of coest, but not attested. @Theknightwho I don't think there's a general practice to be found here; this is a sui generis case and we only need to do the same for other impersonal verbs if they're also lemmatized at a made-up first person singular. Benwing2 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latin. This is a duplicate of onomatopoeia, where the trema is included in the headword.
It doesn't make sense to treat tremas in Latin titles any differently from macrons: the form exists as a pronunciation aid. Yes, it can be attested in real Latin works, but so can the macron, and we don't include that either. We already strip the trema from Latin links anyway for precisely this reason, and this is currently the only Latin entry with a trema in the title anyway.
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Romanian, meaning ‘political party’. Now, I believe every entry consisting of the words for ‘political’ and ‘party’ should be reconsidered, but this here case is more unambiguously inexcusable: the characteristically European polysemy of the word ‘party’ is not an issue in Romanian, and the word partid has no other meaning than ‘political formation’. In consequence, the ‘political’ designation is redundant and optional, with the term being even less than the sum of its parts, and the entry should be demoted to a collocation. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
French. Rfd-sense: “a major boulevard in Paris”. WT:CFI says Most manmade structures, including individual roads and streets may only be attested through figurative use.. Even if there is figurative use, this wouldn't be the right definition, yes? Polomo47 (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Purplebackpack89 Your votes have no value without a rationale. You can't just vote keep on every single RFD entry, as you are wont to do, and not provide a reasoning; otherwise your votes will be ignored. That said, this particular street undoubtedly has a shit ton of figurative uses given its iconic status; but it needs an additional definition indicating this. Compare the entries on Rodeo Drive and Pennsylvania Avenue (and note that there are a lot of streets in Category:en:Named roads that need review whether they belong). Benwing2 (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Portuguese. I’m sitting here wondering if this was ever productive within Portuguese, or if it was productive in Old Galician-Portuguese... or if it was never productive at all! In the latter two cases, we wouldn't list it — and the two usage examples currently provided in the entriesare the third case, said to derive from reconstructed Vulgar Latin words.
One more useful piece of info: if I'm right, the prefix es- started being spelled that way after the reforms of 1911 and 1943, which standardized the spelling of words previously written either way... extender ~ estender. I assume there must have been some criteria, like looking at how Latin ex- descended in other contexts.
It's a prefix common to many romance languages, used in etym sections, so productivity is irrelevant for the argument; if you want to delete this, you'd have to delete all the other ones using the same logic, I honestly don't understand why was this even rfd'd, tu tá maluco, moleque?
the prefix es- started being spelled that way after the reforms of 1911 and 1943 In older Portuguese, they were spelled differently, since they were also pronounced differently, as is still the case for some people. Sérgio Santos (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I nominated this because a prefix can’t really be called a prefix if it was never productive within the language. If only words formed with the prefix — but not the prefix itself — were inherited, then we can’t have an entry for the prefix. Nevertheless, I’ve looked at some of the other entries in the derived terms category, and I guess it checks out. Polomo47 (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Wait, how were they spelled? Also, Polomo has a point. If the prefix wasn't ever productive in the language and words were simply inherited whilst already having it, then it's no prefix at all. To say otherwise is to argue for the inclusion of al- because of álcool and alface. MedK1 (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Not an apt comparison: the Arabic definite article was never interpreted as a prefix, as far as I'm aware. Plus, the prefix was clearly productive in Portuguese (and other romance languages): palma > espalmar; quente > esquentar; buraco > esburacar; some of these words can be derived directly from the Latin form, but many cannot. Sérgio Santos (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Those that weren’t inherited from Latin were still likely formed in OGP and inherited from there. I haven’t yet nominated the “not productive” sense of -ão, even tho I’ve wanted to do it for a while: all of the words with it are seemingly inherited from OGP, seeing as they have Galician cognates. Polomo (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Portuguese. You can "espalhar-se como" just about anything. If this says rare, how am I to think it's any more common than any such "anything"? Polomo47 (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm not used to SOP-solving and don't know if my demonstration would be enough: try saying "at the moment when I saw him, I shivered", it sounds off. Saumache (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
It is not clear to me what the point is you are trying to demonstrate. Here are some uses of "at the moment when I": , , ; they seem natural enough to me. Is the sense different from the French phrase? ‑‑Lambiam12:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I guess I had not realized "at the moment when" was a thing in English, the French sentence is at least as common, as "dès que" nowadays, perhaps even more (with a slight difference in meaning), with "aussitôt que" falling out of use in day-to-day conversations. I don't know if any of this weighs in on it being SOP or not, anyhow. Saumache (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Per our Discord discussion, I would keepci sono as it's such a common locution (compare English there are) and the kind of person who would look this up (someone knowing little about Italian) is unlikely to know to look under esserci. Likewise, it's the plural of c'è, which is a single word and so no SOP can apply. All the others should probably be deleted esp. the first-person and second-person ones, which can't have any existential meaning and are purely SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
esp. the first-person and second-person ones, which can't have any existential meaning and are purely SOP. Well, I don't think that is exactly true: where in English you would say "there's me", "there's me and Laura", in Italian it would be "ci sono io", "ci siamo io e Laura" with first-person singular/plural, same for second-person. You would never use something like ci sono noi/c'è noi for there's us: ci siamo noi. What there is is the subject of esserci, not the object/subject-complement to a dummy subject.
I guess esserci is different from the equivalents in the other Romance languages (e.g. Frenchy avoir) that are impersonal, and from third-person only Englishthere be; it is literally simply (t)here + to be inflected to the appropriate person. You could also use starci with stare instead of essere and get a pretty much equivalent meaning.
There is no real difference between "there be" and "to be there" except maybe preferred word order; I wasn't really even thinking of that possible meaning when proposing to delete those pages: I was simply thinking of them as "I am (t)here"/"I am present"; "They are (t)here"/"They are present"; etc.
@Ultimateria The discussion was already over before @Benwing2 commented in my opinion. They were tagged before there was any reply on this discussion. Since I thought it was pretty obvious there going to get deleted, I orphaned them manually and improved the pages that were linking to them in the process. Emanuele6 (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Also, after the comment, something is currently being discussed I think, so maybe we should wait and actually discuss it. "ci sono" is only a possible translation of "there are", the indicative mood present; for example: "I think there are" would be translated as "penso ci siano", and "I think there is" as "penso ci sia" with the subjunctive mood present. Maybe we think "ci siano" and "ci sia" subjunctive should also be kept? o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I mean formally, someone needs to strike out the title and say "RFD-passed" or "RFD-deleted", ideally after several votes. I'm going to change those pages for now to clear up Category:D.
Regarding ci sia / siano, I don't think they have the same Italian 101 ubiquity and simplicity as ci sono that make the page a good candidate to direct people to esserci. Ultimateria (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I guess I don't really see what is special about the third-person inflections specifically, but if you both think the third-person plural present indicative is worth keeping, you can keep it. Emanuele6 (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I agree with @Ultimateria here; c'è and ci sono are much more basic from a learner's perspective, and someone who encounters and can't find ci sia may well know enough Italian to look up c'è or ci sono and get directed to esserci. BTW we have no usage examples of defn #1 "there (to) be" of esserci; there definitely need to be such examples. Benwing2 (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 They are good! "in ..." at the end of the sentence rather than before "ci" sounds a bit weird/descriptive in speech, I think; and I personally tend to omit the optional che before a subjunctive, but it's fine.
Please note however that I believe defn #1 is supposed to include also
In quell'aula, c'eravamo solo io e Luca
In that classroom, it was just me and Luca
Where c'eravamo is first-person plural indicative imperfect because "io e Luca" are first-person plural.
I don't think that is any different from ci sono, c'è for what concerns Italian: we exist at ci (the place). But, when we are not dealing with third-person, in English, we tend to avoid "there be" as you pointed out on Discord (even though on reverso "c'eravamo io" about half of the results use it); and we tend to prefer "it be" over there be.
If I add examples that don't use the third-person to clarify it is not third-person only, as one may think, would you prefer if I add that as a separate definition? o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think it's fine to include them among definition #1, and add a usage note below that English often uses 'it was ...' instead of 'there was ...' when the grammatical object/logical subject is a pronoun (this also applies to third-person pronouns, "It was just him in the room" sounds better to me than "There was just him in the room"). Please do correct my Italian examples to make them more idiomatic. Benwing2 (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure I understand the issue here. If we generally keep inflected forms, as we do for Latin (stuff like animadvertistis) and Greek (like βαίνετε), then we should also keep the various ci sono, ci siete, ecc. The verb esserci is not an SOP. When I ask a friend or friends "ci sei/ci siete/ci siamo?" meaning "are you ready?" or "do you understand me?", that's not SOP. esserci is not the same as, say, scriverci ("to write there") in "Devi scriverci il tuo nome" ("You need to write your name there"), it's more like entrarci, in "Quello non c'entra nulla." ("That has nothing to do with it."). This would be a keep for me. — Sartma【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】12:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sono cazzi is an idiom formed by an inflected verb and a noun, not the inflected form of a verb. ci sei/ci siete ecc. are inflected forms of the verb esserci, which doesn't only mean "to be there", and therefore is not just essere + ci, in the same sense that scriverci is, and only is, scrivere + ci. Again, when I say "Ok, ci siamo.", that might mean "ok, we are there", given the right –extremely marked and therefore very unusual– context, but the vast majority of times it simply means "ok, we are ready" or "ok, (now) we got it". As for fregarsene: yes, we should have all inflected forms. That's clearly not an SOP (no-one in their right mind would understand fregarsene literally as "to fuck oneself of it", it just means "to care little about something". — Sartma【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】14:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
The personal forms of esserci (ci sono, ci sei etc.) have no existential meaning, as their use in phrases such as c'eravamo lui e io (“there was him and me”) conveys not the meaning of “to exist”, but rather of “to be present (in a given location)”; and, in that regard, they are merely sums-of-parts:
ci(“here/there”) + saremo(“ will be”) → “we will be there”
Therefore, I think there are grounds for deletion.
EDIT (after reading @Sartma's comment above): Nevermind, I think mine was a rushed judgement. In other non-impersonal meanings, esserci is a verb just like any other. Keep. — GianWiki (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Weak keep. They're so common that they've become essentially expressions in their own right. And we generally have separate subpages for individual verb inflections. Imetsia (talk (more)) 13:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
There's a fundamental difference everyone is overlooking between forms like animadvertistis, βαίνετε, etc. and ci siamo etc. which is that the former are one word and the latter is two. We generally don't include all inflections of multiword phrases; it's true that we often do this for English but I think this is a mistake and am going to propose we remove most of them. We don't, for example, include all inflections of Spanish reflexive verbs, even the ones that are idiomatic and reflexive-only, and I don't think we should do that here, either for esserci or fregarsene. Benwing2 (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I do see your point, but I would still argue that "me ne frego" is one word. It is phonetically. It's just a matter of orthography that in Italian clitics are spelled separately when in front of a verb, but together when they come after it.
"Me ne frego" (I don't care) looks like it's 3 words and "fregatene!" (don't care about ti!) one. But phonetically they are both one word: /me.neˈfre.ɡo/ and /ˈfre.ɡa.te.ne/. It's not different from German ausgehen that has gehe aus and ausgegangen. I'm fine with not having multiword phrases like "me ne frego", but then we should remove also sfuff like gehe aus and ausgegangen. — Sartma【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】15:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 28 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Portuguese. This is supposed to go at dar, and indeed one of the senses already is there. I’m not sure how to properly define the first sense, but I’d appreciate if we could look into it and then delete the page. Polomo47 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
By this is supposed to go at dar I mean that this is just regular verbgovernment, and thus gets lemmatized in the usual place. When an added preposition makes an auxiliary verb, I usually do agree with a separate entry, but it’s not the case here. Polomo47 (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Actually, it may be still copulative, e.g. "Ele está com joias na rua" = "Ele com joias na rua". And com may mean possession according to Michaelis. Davi6596 (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Looked. Found what appears to be scannos or once-in-a-document misspellings; some from Italian (see scetticismo), including in citations within Portuguese works. Some mistaken transcriptions from handwriting.
See this search across all publications in Rio de Janeiro. Very few results. I call misspelling.
Funnily enough, some of the results above appear to be using 1931 orthography, judging by the spelling possue. However, 1931 notably removed initial sc. Misspellings indeed. Polomo47 (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Like I pointed out earlier, this is a misspelling, and so it’s more fit for RfD. All but one of the attestations found are from after 1911/1943, where the appropriate spellings would be scepticismo, ceticismo, or, for post-1945 Portugal, cepticismo — look, e.g, here, and it’s an author trying to figure out post-reform orthography but failing to use accents and using many other misspellings, like “elle”. Attestations of sceticismo from in 1920s Brazilian newspapers are orders of magnitude less frequent than scepticismo (something like 15 vs. 1800), so in as much as there can be misspellings prior to 1911/1943 (or typos), I'd call this one. These are also my thoughts on the attestation from 1908. @MedK1, @Romanophile. Polomo47 (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 27 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Portuguese. I say this is a very rare and unfortunate old-timey misspelling. I searched in the BNDigital and found, for the 1860s, 0 concluhir and ~10k concluhir; for the 1920s, 0 concluhir and ~20k? concluir. So, firstly, this search is by no means extensive — if I searched for conjugations, I could definitely find one or two results. Secondly, there was no standardized spelling at the time, but people were still most definitely taught to spell things in certain ways, and a 2-in-20-thousand spelling must not have been it. Polomo47 (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, maybe moedor de pimenta does, but there are a thousand different types of moedor de café(“moedores de café”). I do get what you mean with the peppermill, though... I don't think there is anything like an industrial peppermill, and it's always that specific shape. Polomo47 (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
but there are a thousand different types of moedor de café - Yes, but there are also many types of watermills or windmills in terms of functioning and construction, but they all fulfill the same purpose, and so share a common name. Also I don't think there are "thousands" of coffee mills (although I didn't do research on that); there's the manual ones, - which naturally are rare these days -, the electric ones that are used in coffee shops (of which I am only aware because I fixed one some months ago), and then theres the industrial ones.
I don't think there is anything like an industrial peppermill - well, you can buy powdered pepper, so there must be one - I'm sure the companies aren't griding all that pepper by hand! Sérgio Santos (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I get it, but I think the word de means different things in each word, just like a camião do lixo is not a truck made of garbage (although that would be pretty cool!), but a monte de merda (the first example I could think of) is a mount made of shit (even though it's used figuratively).
I saw that you also added a request for deletion on pt.wikt; like I said above and as it was explained to you by an admin, we already had that discussion (and I think it was the same admin who started the discussion); I voted to keep all except moedor de pimenta preta and moedor de pimenta-do-reino, which I found redundant (I later abstained from moedor de pimenta-do-reino, since pimenta-do-reino is not used in Portugal); they all got kept, however.
I must confess that I only started editing pt.wikt at that time (mosly adding Coptic entries, which was what I was interested in during that time) because I got blocked in en.wikt, because I had the brilliant idea of insulting an admin (which I didn't know was an admin at the time), and I got the even more brilliant idea of pinging said admin while I was insulting him. Oh, I was so young and naïve! Or maybe just stupid. Sérgio Santos (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
What you mean by "not used in Portugal" is a WT:HOSPITAL argument in English Wiktionary terms. However, I don't see why there would've been value in keeping those instead of just pimenta-do-reino and pimenta-preta, which is where the difference in meaning lies. (of course, the entries don't exist here, so it's not especially relevant to this discussion)
And, yeah, de means something different in each entry, but I’m not sure "de" has a productive meaning like "à base de". On a different basis, caminhão de lixo would be idiomatic in my perception because it's less about what the truck carries and more about its shape. I see tons of smaller trucks with an open bed carrying garbage, but that doesn't make them a garbage truck. Polomo47 (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete all of them and expandmoedor and moinho to include a sense about specific types of grinders/mills. Words often have both broad and narrow senses, and they're graspable from context in these cases.
Keep all. en.wikt has all the equivalent entries, so I don't know why we can't have the pt ones as well. A lot of terms are not in any dictionary; secador de cabelo is only in Priberam, all other diccs giving it the same treatment as the terms above; I couldn't find caixote do lixo in any dicc, despite its ubiquitous usage; same with some expressions like é o que é or dialectal terms like miljangro. Sérgio Santos (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Italian. Defined as the past participle of multiword verb mettere al bando: I don't think that that qualifies for inclusion.
It probably only exists because a page for messa al bando exists since it is a multiword Noun (indeed a feminine past participle deverbal of that multiword verb), and someone wanted to add its literal meaning as feminine singular inflection of the past participle of mettere al bando.
Keep dias contados!!! I'm seriously baffled by how the vote's going here. How in the world is "dias contados" SoP? It's a completely different sense from "dinheiro contado" and this meaning is exclusive to when it's used with "dias". There's no shot it's SoP! Delete and redirect com os dias contados though. MedK1 (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@MedK1 The issue is that the components, dias and contados, can be separated, as in "Os teus dias estão contados". Perhaps we can add a sense to contado for when it's used with dias. Davi6596 (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am not sure how the meaning of dinheiro contado is different. Yeah, a primary meaning of contado is “in the exact required amount” — montei a mala prà viagem com as meias contadas — but I think the sense “having a limited amount“ is not exclusive to days either? When I mentioned dinheiro contado as a similar collocation, I associated it with the latter meaning (same as in dias contados), though it could definitely mean the former as well. Polomo (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I’d much rather lemmatize at dias contados than that. Davi mentioned above how being able to separate it — dias estão contados — makes it SoP, but I don't really see that. My argument for SoP is another, and if it turns out it does not hold, then I’d rather keep it at dias contados. Polomo (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Odd Romanian phrasebook entry added by user with a history of bizarre contributions. Gară feroviară(literally “railway station”) is a redundant formation which nobody would realistically use. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago7 comments6 people in discussion
Portuguese. This seems to me like an SoP construction: the invasion of Pindorama(“Brazil”). Of course, there’s been a change in nomenclature among academics, and the "discovery of Brazil" is widely being called an invasion nowadays. However, that has nothing to do with the definition of words; call it an invasion, call it a discovery, it’s sum-of-parts. @RodRabelo7, the creator. Polomo47 (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC) P.S.: isn't it awkward when politically correct terminology contradicts itself? Like the use of European Portuguese "em África" or the name "Pindorama", which was made up by white people?Reply
Yeah, I misworded it, but to be fair I think it’s nearly as bad. Such a blatant misinterpretation, in an attempt to make a nationalistic claim where there's none to be found. A raça barbara e a raça civilisada! Polomo47 (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the AO is generally disregarded in Portugal; some people are resistant to it, sometimes with good reasons, sometimes with stupid reasons. I my opinion, this is one of the least controversial (and one of the least stupid) parts of the agreement, since words ending in -oo and -oa have invariably closed vowels, making the circumflex 100% redundant. But, answering your question, yes, provided the information in the aforementioned talk page is accurate. Sérgio Santos (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Alright... A usage note can do wonders. By the way, this accent was for a different reason than those in vôo or vêem — it was the same type of accent as with pára, to indicate that the word was stressed; here, in distinction with the unstressed contraction coa, spelled without an accent. More at côa. Polomo47 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I just read about it in ciberdúvidas. Still an unnecessary accent IMO, since it is a toponymic and always spelled with inicial capital, and I don't even remember the last time (if ever) that I saw the contraction "coa" in written form. Would be almost impossible to confuse the two. But yeah, I was gonna suggest an usage note to explain all the mess! Sérgio Santos (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I’m going to check whether these misspellings are attested prior to 1943 in Brazil (which would make them not misspellings, at least not back them). As expected, I can’t find this one: I’m having trouble even finding instances of muçulmano that are not scannos of musulmano. Polomo47 (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep. This word show up a lot, including in the news (1, 2, 3). Maybe we don't want to keep/allow the creation of hundreds of misspellings due to this and other prefixes, but I think that we then should discuss a new rule to keep them out, because for sure plenty are attestable. - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
The rule exists and it’s WT:CFI#Misspellings. I don’t think I would normally request deletion of many misspellings (though I have done it a few times in the past, heh), but with prefixed terms, specifically, I think it’s less about the word than about the prefix, so I’d like the misspelling to be very common. Consider that we wouldn’t normally have an entry for anti-muçulmano as an SoP hyphenated term (barring anything related to WT:COALMINE). Though I don’t really mind these entries, so I won’t push too much for their deletion if there are some who want to keep them. Polomo47 (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
According to WT:CFI#Misspellings, this entry (and probably many others) would then survive (forget attestation, a quick web search would show common usage). As for interpreting it as a SOP, then we open another can of worms, which is why would the misspelling be considered an SOP, while the standard spelling is not? And if it can be considered an SOP for being hyphenized, wouldn't words like anti-inflamatório also be SOPs? - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think there are some good insights here, so I do want to get into this a little more. So, I mentioned SoP here, even though it does not apply in this case, because in my opinion it means there is an increased bias against these prefixed, hyphenated entries, seeing as they’re formulaic, and would require an additional degree of commonness. As far as I know, anti-inflamatório is not SoP because the noun sense is idiomatic: not only is the -ório ending not usual to nouns, but it is specifically medicine, not anything else. That reason aside, you might find that anti-inflamatório is kept by — and this is actually shocking! — WT:COALMINE, since antiinflamatório was an official spelling in Brazil for quite a while (though I think dictionaries started disregarding it after some time). Polomo47 (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, I'm not going to keep following this sort of circular reasoning. There are already unclosed discussions on the topic of hyphenated words being considered or not SOP. If you want to expose your reasoning there or open another one where you lay out your proposed rules, be my guest, but until such discussion is properly held, I don't see it affecting the CFI of this particular word. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Portuguese. All misspellings: pseudoprefixes not listed in the AO1945 and FO1943 texts did not take hyphens, as exemplified by the word hidroeléctrico, never spelled hidro-eléctrico, even though prefixes ending in vowels were hyphenated when added to words ending in vowels. Polomo47 (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Polomo47 According to the Portuguese Orthographic Vocabulary:
"Composition prefixes and stems (non-autonomous elements such as mini- or agro-) are not, as a general principle, separate through a hyphen from the words to which they are joined: antirrevolucionário, megaconcerto, minissaia, socioeconómico, ultraligeiro. The hyphen is used after these elements when:
the word to which they are joined is a borrowing, a proper name or an acronym: anti-apartheid, anti-Europa, mini-GPS."
Therefore it's a standard alt form in Portugal even post-1990 (but it's proscribed by ABL, which applies normal hyphenation rules to unadapted borrowings too). Davi6596 (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. I’m also just thinking that this word doesn’t really have a standardized spelling — it definitely doesn't appear in the ABL’s Vocabulary. I wonder if the form anarcho-punk can be attested in Portuguese. Polomo47 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
My affirmation is based on ABL's prescription of antidoping and antispam, despite hyphenated spellings surely existing in English. Davi6596 (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete. I can see the case for keeping the hyphenated forms as misspellings (except for auto-felação) because I've definitely spotted them before, but I'm not sure if they'd count under 'frequent' misspellings as they're technical terms. MedK1 (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I kind of want to keep this. It seems pretty common. Also, it is sorta attested prior to spelling reforms, though I wouldn’t want to categorize it as a pre-reform spelling (that’s panpsychismo). Polomo47 (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
So why did you use "Pre-reform spelling (used until 1990) of protogermânico. Still used in countries where the agreement hasn't come into effect; may occur as a sporadic misspelling"? RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, and it was previously tagged as “superseded”. Indeed, I was the one who changed the classification on some of these to what it is now, but they are misspellings nevertheless. Polomo47 (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Portuguese. Nominating these also as misspellings. They were originally created as pre-1990 spellings, which they of course are not, so I repurposed them; I don’t think they are common enough, though? Polomo47 (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Romanian SOP (“to throw a party”, literally “to give a party”). You wouldn’t know it’s SOP because our entry for da(“to give”) is embarassing, but it is one regardless. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Romanian SOP: ‘to grow up fast’, literally ‘to grow up seeing with the eyes’. The idiomatic part (creation pending) is văzând cu ochii(“(hyperbole) at a pace visible to the naked eye”, literally “seeing with the eyes”), which can be applied to a variety of other verbs. ―K(ə)tom (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Extremely likely to be a random typo with the I and the N inverted rather than being a misspelling, the word would be pronounced /gy.ʒi.nɔl/ instead of /gi.ɲɔl/ if spelt like that + @Io_Katai only found typos for this on English websites (from RFV). Sayoximethey/he(talk) 13:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Sayoxime: isn't that transposition of the "i" and the "g"? It would make sense as a misspelling of the English word borrowed from it, since the spelling is completely foreign to English. This may be a case of an English speaker having trouble keeping their languages straight (the IP that created it geolocates to the US). Chuck Entz (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply