Wiktionary talk:Requested entries (German)

Can the bluelinks be removed? 71.66.97.228 02:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the German words that have been created meanwhile can be removed i think. Mutante 06:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Since occasionally there are "words" added to the list of requested entries that don't exist or are not citable, I'd like to have a list of entries here that are nominated for removal from the page. Each nomination must have a reason with it and can then be commented on by others. If there's no objection for one month, the item will be removed. Longtrend 17:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Abwechselbarkeit
  • While this is a possible word derived from abwechselbar (which in turn is derived from abwechseln + -bar) + -keit, it simply isn't really used. It doesn't appear to be citable. Just an ad-hoc formation. Longtrend 17:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
• À-conto-Zahlung
  • Does not appear to be citable with this spelling (note that it's marked with "(?)" on the list). There are many different spellings on Google Books (including Akontozahlung which is also requested), but I can't find a single one with capital À and lowercase c. Longtrend 17:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Bienenhüterin
  • Title of a book and of a film, but just an ad-hoc formation otherwise. Doesn't appear to be citable. Longtrend 17:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
• biomorphal
  • This clearly doesn't exist, proper form is biomorph. Longtrend 17:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
• b.ü.b.
  • I have no idea what this is supposed to stand for, and there are no relevant Google (Books) hits. Longtrend 17:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Buchabholbereich
  • Ad-hoc compound (formed from Buch + abholen + Bereich) with no Google Books hits. Longtrend 17:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • This word actually exists. It is used in book shops or public libraries. They commonly have a specific area where ordered books can be picked up. Gruselwusel 08:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • I doubt it can be attested though. Feel free to prove me wrong. Longtrend 20:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
        • No, being a linguist and much longer in this project you probably know a lot better how a word actually qualifies as a word. It does appear regularly in libraries but is not listed in any dictionary as far as I can see. I can live without an entry here. Gruselwusel 10:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
• Edelgitarrenfirma
  • Ad-hoc compound (formed from edel + Gitarre + Firma) with no Google Books hits. Longtrend 16:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Eroffnung
  • Apparently typo of Eröffnung (all the Google Books hits appear to be scannos). Longtrend 16:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
• ge-hegemannt / ge-Hegemannt
  • Does not appear to be citable. It was coined almost two years ago (see here for examples), but doesn't seem to have appeared in durably archived sources and usage probably did not span a year or more. Longtrend 17:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Gesundheitswiederherstellungsmittelzusammenmischungsverhaeltniskundiger / Gesundheitswiederherstellungsmittelzusammenmischungsverhältniskundiger
  • Does not appear to be citable. Weird name of a law apparently coined by Otto von Bismarck but no sources that use this term rather than just mention it (cf. the failed RFV process for the similar case of Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz. Longtrend 17:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
• altalphabetisch
  • Not citable. No Google Books hits and not even a single Google hit. It's a possible word, though, from the phrase altes Alphabet plus the suffix -isch. Longtrend (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
• Goropismus
  • Not enough citable sources, thus not attestable. There's only one Google Books hit (the one at Citations:Goropismus). Longtrend (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
• judenlaim
  • Only two Google Books hits for the capitalized form Judenlaim, none for the non-capitalized form. Longtrend (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • I can offer one citation for it, but it's a Latin text that mentions it along with judenpech as translations of the Latin bitūmen. Does that help? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • I don't think so if it's just a mention. Thanks anyway. Longtrend (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
        • OK. Well, there's this hit for Judenlaim (and this one which mentions a use of the same elsewhere), these two are for Juden-Laim, and this one is for Juden laim. Can all those together justify an entry of some kind for one or more of those spellings? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
          • I would think we need three citations (in German texts, not mentions) for one and the same form (judenlaim in this case), but I'm really no expert on citing. Longtrend (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
            • That's how I interpret WT:CFI too, but I'm no expert (when it comes to anything here) either. I've added the three decent citations from Google Book Search (the ones in German texts, and not the one in a dictionary) to Citations:Judenlaim. I hope they can, all together, justify an entry for at least one of those forms (my choice would be Judenlaim); it would seem absurd if they couldn't. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
              • If you really want to know it, you can always ask at Wiktionary:Information desk, that would be great. Longtrend (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
                • Done; see WT:ID#Request for clarification: How strict is WT:CFI regarding attestation of spellings which vary slightly?. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
• n.ü.b.
  • It's difficult to search for it, but Google Books doesn't seem to turn out any relevant hits, and I have no idea what this might stand for. Longtrend (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
• Aufgerufen
  • False capitalization of aufgerufen. Longtrend (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
• gekliedet sein
  • Only one Google Books hit for gekliedet; probably typo of gekleidet (+ sein). Longtrend (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
• plasmaspiegel
  • Obviously capitalization error (should be Plasmaspiegel). Longtrend (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
• Fuas
  • All Google Books hits I can find seem to be scannos of Fuss (= Fuß). Longtrend (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
• Kulturgesch
  • Obviously supposed to be an abbreviation of Kulturgeschichte, but most likely it's not citable without the dot. The only place where the abbreviation appears without the dot seems to be the cover of this book (is this even the actual cover of the book or just some placeholder cover given to it by Google?). Longtrend (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • The version with the dot was created. Longtrend (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
• Cocktil
  • Can't attest it. I suspect it's only a typo of Cocktail. Longtrend (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
• ausgeprügt
  • All Google Books hits seem to be scannos of ausgeprägt. Longtrend (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• I've removed Flins (from Low Prussian dialect), which I commented at 07:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC) was "just a rare, possibly unattested form of Plinse". - -sche (discuss) 20:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Sternenrichter
  • Lit. "star judge", could refer to God. Should be a poetic creation, just used in one poem by F. Schiller.
• nachpatzen
  • google has just 5 results (including wt) for "nachpatzen" and none is reliable. Though "patzen" exists:
• oft (Adj.)
  • doesn't/shouldn't exist ("öfter" is the comparative of the adverb "oft")
• Handschuhschneeballwerfer, lit. one who wears gloves to throw snowballs, but generally used to mean 'coward'
  • 6 google book results, 4 in English - also google web search has rather English than German results for this.
• Vorführ
  • Mentioned besides Vorführeffekt, but should erroneously be derived from Vorführeffekt which should come from vorführen and Effekt. (20:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC))

Some more German terms Wiktionary lacks can be found here. (I can't be arsed to alphabetise them into the main list at the moment.) - -sche (discuss) 23:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Huh, I stumbled onto another list today: User:Beobach972/A. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is this worth having, i.e. does it see attestable use? See the article Bundespräsidentenstichwahlwiederholungsverschiebung. Equinox ◑ 05:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

By google books it doesn't seem to be attestable (for now - it might change in years to come).
de:Bundespräsidentenstichwahlwiederholungsverschiebung has three usages (and one mentioning in contradiction to de:Hilfe:Beispiele#Inhalte, die unter „Beispiele“ einzutragen sind), but they aren't "spanning at least a year" (WT:CFI), and maybe aren't durably archived. -84.161.35.125 06:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I’ve compiled a list of common German verbs that currently have no entry. It’s probably not appropriate to dump 20+ words onto the Requested Entries page, so I’m just leaving the link here: User:Zundark/Missing German verbs. --Zundark (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's useful, I also noticed that we miss a lot of prefixed/combined verbs (there are many of them, and they're often not so interesting to create, with specialised meanings). – Jberkel 10:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply