View source for Testwiki:Requests for deletion/Non-English

<noinclude>{{Wiktionary:Request pages}}
{{shortcut|WT:RFDN}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
'''This page is for deletion of entries in any language for which there is no specialised RFD page''' according to this list:
* English, Middle English, Scots, Yola and Fingallian → [[Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English]]
* Chinese, Japanese, Korean → [[Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK]]
* Italic (Latin or Romance languages) → [[Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Italic]]
* Reconstructed languages → [[Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Reconstruction]]
* All other languages → '''this page'''

{{Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Header}}

{{request category page list|deletion}}
</noinclude>

= April 2018 =

== Yaghnobi entries of [[User:Rajkiandris]] ==

In my opinion these need to be all deleted as they were taken without credit to the author from: https://yaghnobi.wordpress.com/online-yaghnobi-lexicon/, unless someone wants to contact them and ask for retrospective permission. [[User:Kaixinguo~enwiktionary|Kaixinguo~enwiktionary]] ([[User talk:Kaixinguo~enwiktionary|talk]]) 00:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
: I spent a few minutes looking at the entries they made and comparing it to the source, for anyone interested. I'm inclined to say that they're innocent, or they at least didn't rip all of them. As for what to do, I think a more experienced editor should weigh in.
:: [[асп]] vs. "N. English: horse. Tojiki: асп. From: Tajik."
:: [[хоҳак]] vs. "V. English: want. Tojiki: хостан."
:: [[панир]] not in source
:: [[нун]] vs. "N. English: bread. Tojiki: нон. Etym: Tajik?."
:: [[хварак]] vs. "V. English: eat. Tojiki: хурдан. See: жавак."
:: [[тиреза]] vs. "N. English: window. Tojiki: тиреза. From: Tajik."
:: [[пун]] vs. "Adj. English: full. Tojiki: пур. Etym: Yaghnobi, from Tojiki?."
:: [[панч]] vs. [pantʃ] Quant. English: five. Tojiki: панҷ. Hom: панч2. / N. English: key. Tojiki: калид. Syn: калит; Hom: панч1.
:: [[зивок]] vs. "N. English: language. Tojiki: забон."
: – [[User:Gormflaith|Gormflaith]] ([[User talk:Gormflaith|talk]]) 01:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
:::The editor in question added a lot of bad entries and was quite uncareful; we know for a fact that some are copied from that site. We also don't have anyone equipped to assess whether they're correct. Unless such a person appears, I think we may have to delete them to be safe. —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 02:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
:::: I think they should all be deleted as well, but also because Yaghnobi should be written using more accurate Latin characters. Using Cyrillic is nationalist propaganda claiming that Yaghnobi as closely related to Tajik, which is unquestionably not at the case. --[[User:Victar|Victar]] ([[User talk:Victar|talk]]) 03:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
::::: After looking a bit more, I agree with you guys... I shouldn't have been so quick to judge (in favor). Side note: some of the etymologies had straight up zero links 😕 – [[User:Gormflaith|Gormflaith]] ([[User talk:Gormflaith|talk]]) 03:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
::::: Nationalist propaganda? Everything printed in Yaghnobi is in Cyrillic. [[User:Guldrelokk|Guldrelokk]] ([[User talk:Guldrelokk|talk]]) 02:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. [[User:Per utramque cavernam|Per utramque cavernam]] ([[User talk:Per utramque cavernam|talk]]) 18:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks [[User:Gormflaith]] for looking at the entries in more detail. If this is agreed upon then, then they ought to be deleted sooner rather than later, as once the data is re-used by Wikidata under a different licence I think it will be impossible to delete, won't it? {{ping|Metaknowledge}} [[User:Kaixinguo~enwiktionary|Kaixinguo~enwiktionary]] ([[User talk:Kaixinguo~enwiktionary|talk]]) 16:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

:If it's decided to delete all of this user's Yaghnobi entries, note that some Yaghnobi entries were not written by this user, so look at the edit history before deleting. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 20:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|Metaknowledge}} Could you take care of this please? It's months later and nothing has been done. [[User:Kaixinguo~enwiktionary|Kaixinguo~enwiktionary]] ([[User talk:Kaixinguo~enwiktionary|talk]]) 08:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
:{{ping|Kaixinguo~enwiktionary}}: I really don't have the time nor the energy nor the interest to do this all myself. I told [[User:Victar]] (and this applies to you too): if you go through and mark them all with, say, {{temp|delete|Mass deletion of entries per RFD}}, I will finish the job and delete them. —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 08:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
:: There has got to be a bot option for that. {{ping|DTLHS}}? --[[User:Victar|Victar]] ([[User talk:Victar|talk]]) 03:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
::: I don't know how easy it would be to program a bot to do that, and DTLHS may not have time to write one, but if we all look over a few entries a day we can get this knocked out in a month or so. I've started going through the entries in [[:Category:Yagnobi lemmas]], removing the ones I can't find evidence for in books (I am using Google Books to check for English or Russian books that contain the word and its gloss in those languages). [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 03:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
:::: I would have to look at the page histories of all Yagnobi entries to see that Rajkiandris actually touched the page, unless you have a list already. [[User:DTLHS|DTLHS]] ([[User talk:DTLHS|talk]]) 03:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
::::: To echo what I wrote before, all the Yaghnobi entries should be deleted. Using cyrillic is nationalist propaganda taken from the site Rajkiandris sourced. --[[User:Victar|Victar]] ([[User talk:Victar|talk]]) 07:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
:::::: I've found references attesting Yagnobi words in Cyrillic script from at least as early as the 1970s; based on that and Guldrelokk's statement above, your claim seems overbroad. I don't have a problem with romanizing those sources/entries if it is felt that the Latin script is preferable, though. I can go ahead and move/recreate the entries I've found attested in Latin script straight to Latin script entries. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 17:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
::::::: {{reply|-sche}} Mirzozoda from the Tajik Academy of Sciences is the spearhead behind spelling Yaghnobi using Cyrillic, an otherwise unwritten language. The modified Tajik Cyrillic alphabet he uses was invented by him, but it is completely inept at properly representing Yaghnobi phonology. He also asserts that Yaghnobi and Tajik are closely related, which is demonstrably false, harkening back to my nationalist political propaganda comment. --[[User:Victar|Victar]] ([[User talk:Victar|talk]]) 17:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
:I've gone through the ёs, аs, бs, вs, дs, еs, жs, гs, иs, яs, ғs, ӣs and ԝs and removed the ones I couldn't find other references for (which was most of them, about 50 entries so far). [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 05:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

== [[:-ающий#rfd-notice--|-ающий]], [[:-ающий#rfd-notice--|-яющий]], [[:-ающий#rfd-notice--|-ающийся]] ==

Russian. These are not suffixes: the preceding ''а'' is a part of the verbal stem. It can be a suffix on it’s own or another ''а''-final suffix like {{l|ru|-ывать}}, but in any case it will be present throughout the inflection. The participle suffix is just {{l|ru|-ущий}}, {{l|ru|-ющий}}. [[User:Guldrelokk|Guldrelokk]] ([[User talk:Guldrelokk|talk]]) 20:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
:'''Move''' to {{m|ru|-ущий|tr=-}}, {{m|ru|-ющий|tr=-}}. 
:Speaking of metanalysis, I've always wondered whether our analysis of nouns ending in {{m|ru|-ание|tr=-}} was right. Don't these always come from ''a''-stem verbs? If yes, I think we should consider parsing {{m|ru|описа́ние|tr=-}} as {{m|ru|описа́ть|tr=-}} + {{m|ru|-ние|tr=-}}, the same way we parse Latin words ending in {{m|la|-atio}} as "''a''-stem verb + {{m|la|-tio}}"; see {{m|la|interpretatio}} for example. I only know of two cases of a genuine ''-atio'' suffix: {{m|la|gradatio}} and {{m|la|*coratio}}; are there similar counterexamples in Russian?
:{{ping|Benwing2|Wikitiki89|Atitarev}}, what do you think? --[[User:Per utramque cavernam|Per utramque cavernam]] ([[User talk:Per utramque cavernam|talk]]) 20:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
:: IMO, they are suffixes, e.g. {{m|ru|ука́зывающий}} = {{m|ru|ука́зывать|ука́зыв}} + {{m|ru|-ающий}}. The stem is {{m|ru||-казыв-}}, not {{m|ru||-казыва-}}. And there are several forms of present participle active forming suffixes.--[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 04:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
::: {{reply|Atitarev}} Why do you think the stem is not {{m|ru||указыва-}}? It is present in '''all''' forms of the verb. [[User:Guldrelokk|Guldrelokk]] ([[User talk:Guldrelokk|talk]]) 04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
:::: For verbs yes, better examples are: {{m|ru|де́лающий}} = "дел-" + "-ающий", {{m|ru|призыва́ющий}} = "призыв-" + "-ающий". "-а(ть)" is part of the first class of verbs. -[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 04:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
::::: The stem of {{l|ru|делать}} is ''дела-'', the stem of {{l|ru|призывать}} is ''призыва-'': that’s why it is present throughout the inflection. [[User:Guldrelokk|Guldrelokk]] ([[User talk:Guldrelokk|talk]]) 05:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
:::::: I think the problem we're having is that native speakers tend to naturally think of the ''а'' being part of the ending and not the stem, when historically it's part of the stem. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 17:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
::::::: I don't think it's a problem unless/until it's being misapplied in word-formation (or, in this case, conjugation). Are there people who misconjugate non-''a''-stem verbs?
::::::: Or are you suggesting we should apply the {{w|principle of least astonishment|POLA}}? --[[User:Per utramque cavernam|Per]] [[User talk:Per utramque cavernam|utramque]] [[Special:Contributions/Per_utramque_cavernam|cavernam]] 12:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
::::::: This logic would require doubling all suffixes: for example, the agent noun of {{l|ru|призывать}} is {{l|ru|призыватель}}, which has a suffix {{l|ru|-тель}} with the same а in front of it. [[User:Guldrelokk|Guldrelokk]] ([[User talk:Guldrelokk|talk]]) 23:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
:: May I suggest moving it to {{m|ru|-щий|tr=-}}? The correct decomposition of such a participle is, for example указ-ыв-аю-щий. The stem is указ-, followed by a imperfective modifier -ыв-, followed by the infinitive suffix {{m|ru|-ать|tr=-}}, which is conjugated to 3rd person plural -ают and trimmed to -аю, followed by the participle ending -щий. Otherwise, all of the following would have to be created: -ащий, -ящий, -ущий, -ющий. These are not different forms of the same suffix, but different conjugation classes of the base verb. Nonetheless, I do agree that initial а/я is not part of the suffix. [[User:Quaijammer|Quaijammer]] ([[User talk:Quaijammer|talk]]) 18:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

* <s><span style="color:gray">'''Keep all''' (process forms. A-OK) - [[User:Dentonius|Dentonius]] ([[User:Dentonius/wiktionary|my politics]] | [[User_talk:Dentonius|talk]]) 19:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)</span></s>

== [[:-аемый#rfd-notice--|-аемый]] ==

Russian. Same goes for the passive participle. ''уваж-ать'', ''уваж-а-ю'', ''уваж-а-емый''. [[User:Guldrelokk|Guldrelokk]] ([[User talk:Guldrelokk|talk]]) 21:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

:{{ping|Guldrelokk}} Let's think this through before just deleting these suffixes. My motivation for ''-аемый'' is that for many verbs, the passive participle suffix clearly ''replaces'' the infinitive suffix, e.g. ''терп-е́ть'' -> ''терп-и́мый'', ''ма́зать'' -> ''ма́ж-емый'', hence the same could be said here, e.g. ''уваж-а́ть'' -> ''уваж-а́емый''. This is the same reason I prefer to treat {{m|ru|-ание}} as a suffix, parallel to {{m|ru|-ение}}, rather than having two suffixes {{m|ru|-ние}} and {{m|ru|-ение}} that behave in non-parallel ways. Since I've been the main person working on adding etymologies, you'll find lots of words with etymologies that reference {{m|ru|-ание}} , and so it's not so simple to just delete that suffix. -аемый doesn't have so many words referring to it but we should maintain consistency of analysis. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 03:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
:: '''Keep''', as per the topic above. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 04:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
::{{reply|Benwing2}} But compare ''терпим'' and ''уваж'''а'''ем''. Verbs that drop the stem-final ''а'', like {{l|ru|писать}}, {{l|ru|пишем}}, do not have this participle at all, so there is simply no way to treat ''а'' as part of the suffix: it would be plainly wrong. [[User:Guldrelokk|Guldrelokk]] ([[User talk:Guldrelokk|talk]]) 04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

{{l|ru|мажемый}} does not exist, for example, if only as an extreme occasionalism. It is not grammatical. [[User:Guldrelokk|Guldrelokk]] ([[User talk:Guldrelokk|talk]]) 04:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

To the active participle: note how {{l|ru|писать}}, {{l|ru|пишу}} has {{l|ru|пишущий}}. So to summarise: {{l|ru|-ющий}} only occurs after ''а'' when the stem invariably has it. Whenever it is possible to ‘replace’ the vowel, it does that. Thus, in уважа-ющий -ющий is clearly suffixed to the stem уважа-, which has no allomorphs altogether: if it could drop its ''а'' like {{l|ru|писать}}, it would be {{l|ru|уважущий}}. On the other hand, {{l|ru|-емый}} '''only''' occurs after those stems in ''а'' which have no allomorphs altogether: for other verbs of the first conjugation the corresponding participle does not exist. So again, уважаемый is clearly уважа-емый, because if {{l|ru|уважать}} could lose its final ''а'', it wouldn’t have a passive participle.

I think that {{l|ru|-ание}} is a way harder and a very different question. I’ll need to think a lot about it. But the participle suffixes I requested for deletion are unjustifiable: removing them will not change anything globally. [[User:Guldrelokk|Guldrelokk]] ([[User talk:Guldrelokk|talk]]) 06:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

: '''Move''' to {{m|ru|-емый}}; I favour correct segmentation over artificial consistency. --[[User:Per utramque cavernam|Per utramque cavernam]] ([[User talk:Per utramque cavernam|talk]]) 20:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
: As per my reasoning in the section above, I suggest '''Move''' to {{m|ru|-мый}}. The е/и is governed by the 2nd person plural conjugation of the verb (-ем/-им). It is not part of the participle suffix. [[User:Quaijammer|Quaijammer]] ([[User talk:Quaijammer|talk]]) 18:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

* <s><span style="color:gray">'''Keep'''. Consistent with what I learned when I learned this language's grammar. - [[User:Dentonius|Dentonius]] ([[User:Dentonius/wiktionary|my politics]] | [[User_talk:Dentonius|talk]]) 19:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)</span></s>

= October 2018 =

== [[:odiatus#rfd-notice--|odiatus]] ==

=== [[:odiandus#rfd-notice--|odiandus]] ===

Latin. This together with [[inodiatus]] and ''perodiatus'' are [http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=odiatus taken by L&S] from Forcellini (edit: on another look ''odiatus'' doesn't occur even there; the other two words do). However, in [http://lexica.linguax.com/forc2.php?searchedLG=odiatus Forcellini itself] it says "word to be removed from the Dictionary, occurs only in Not. Tir. p. 77." [https://archive.org/details/commentariinotar00schm/page/n213 This is what it's referring to]: as far as I can tell, it's a manuscript/codex of Tironian Notes shorthand, and is indeed the only place I've found those words in. I don't know if misreading or scribal mistake is more likely. The words themselves reflect presumable proto-Romance forms (e.g. [[odiato]]) based on the verb [[odiare]] which doesn't exist in Latin. Those forms cannot derive from [[odire|odīre]] - the perfect participle from that would have been *ōdītus or *ōssus. Unless someone can provide dictionary entries for those words from Medieval Latin dictionaries or cite examples from medieval texts, I think it's fair to conclude that the editors of Forcellini have mistakenly included them (forgot to remove them), whence they've found their way into L&S, but are not actual Latin words. Perhaps they have a place in the newly-emerging proto-Romance section.

--[[User:Brutal Russian|Brutal Russian]] ([[User talk:Brutal Russian|talk]]) 20:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:I just tried searching ''odiatorum'' and easily found a result; I haven't found anything legitimate for an inflected form of ''inodiatus'', however. I'm not sure whether we should reject something only found in the Tironian Notes in any case, and perhaps they would be better to keep with an appropriate label. Also, for the future, this is the wrong place to post this; [[WT:RFVN]] is the forum where you should post entries that you doubt the existence of. —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 21:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::I've found exactly 2 attestations of ''odiatorum'' in google: one is [https://books.google.ru/books?id=iLxQAAAAcAAJ&lpg=RA3-PA43&ots=G6952Zb9o6&dq=%22odiatorum%22&pg=RA3-PA43#v=onepage&q=%22odiatorum%22&f=false this 1591 edition] which is corrected to [[exosorum]] in [https://books.google.ru/books?id=xAllAAAAcAAJ&lpg=PA337&ots=sj3G8JkjkZ&dq=%22nota%20tria%20genera%20hominum%22&pg=PA337#v=onepage&q=%22nota%20tria%20genera%20hominum%22&f=false later editions]; the other I haven't found corrections of. archive.org has been somewhat more productive, showing for instance [https://archive.org/details/s3archiviostoricoi12depuuoft/page/296?q=odiatus a quote] from what I gather to be a book by a 19th century Italian historian Pietro Martini - which I haven't been able to find - quoting an unidentified parchment. Another is [https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_OZNCvPcWiPoC/page/n469?q=odiatus this from ~1700]. The word ''odiatus'', as I've made clear in an edit, is absent from the edition of Tironian Notes I've linked to (presumably corrected to ''odietas'' as a marginal gloss of ''odiosus''), the word ''inodiatus'' has 4 alternative readings, ''perodiatus'' one. [https://archive.org/details/DictionnaireEtymologiqueDeLaLangueLatine/page/n237 Ernout, Meillet] has this to say, marking ''odiatus'' with an asterisk. The words are not in De Vaan. [https://archive.org/details/granddictionnair23freu/page/632 This dictionary] follows Forcellini with the same single (and apparently false) reference, and so do some other minor dictionaries.
::Here's [https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_8JINAAAAYAAJ/#page/n181/mode/2up/search/odiare another article] conjecturing that the form ''odiare'' must have existed based on that same codex as well as the Romance forms - however, as we've seen, the form isn't truly attested even there, and Romance points to proto-Romance, not to Latin. [https://archive.org/details/formenlehrederla03neueuoft/page/642 "Neue Formenlehre..."] gives what seems to be a comprehensive list of all attested forms in pre-Medieval Latin, neither ''odiare'' nor ''odiatus'' are among them - the -ia- forms are presumably subjunctives, whose very existence by itself precludes a verb ''odiare'' from appearing. That said, ''inodiare'' at least does seem to have inscriptional evidence [https://archive.org/details/formenlehrederla04neueuoft/page/184?q=inodiatus and is listed]. Looking for ''perodiare'' will be a bit too much for me right now.

::I think this should be enough evidence from me. However, I'd also like to raise a methodological question: if a word that is expressly ungrammatical in Classical terms, is attested during or after the Medieval Period a couple of times with dubious manuscript authority, and corresponds to or is indistinguishable from a proto-Romance form, can be included on wiktionary as a properly Latin entry, then I have to wonder - firstly, what's the point of having the Vulgar Latin category (whose name I take a big issue with and whose link doesn't appear to be working, but never mind)? And secondly - does this mean that I can add a Latin word (naturally marking it as "contemporary Latin" or the like) found in the personalised dictionary, or simply in the writings or speech, of some modern Latin-speaking circle or internet venue? How about a random PDF file with computer vocabulary floating around the net? Is being found on the Latin wikipedia a solid enough ground for inclusion? Certainly it would be more useful for a modern Latinist. Do medieval Latinised Germanisms and Gallicisms such that abound in all those early medieval laws quality as Medieval Latin? What about their corruptions that are firmly-attested by several manuscripts? Last, but by no means least — does [http://www.ridere.it/index.php/racconti/10-nutella-nutellae Nutella Nutellae] and other macaronic Latin qualify? I know this might seem like it's going well beyond the scope of this discussion, but I suspect the answers to this latter part might instead be at the very core of our apparent disagreement over the inclusion of the words in question. By the way, I'm henceforth including the alternative conjugation of [[odio]] into this discussion. Also, should we continue this here, at RFVN or at some other place? Sorry, I'm very poorly familiar with community pages. {{unsigned|Brutal Russian|17:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)}}
:::Attestations from Vicipaedia or the like do not suffice. The question for mediaeval and modern Latin has been whether a single durably archived use or mention suffices (as it does for classical words), or whether three independent ones should be required. I support the latter position, and we have applied it with some success: it avoids words that just one person coined for, say, ''Harrius Potter'', but still allows in words that seem like "bad" Latin but occur in multiple manuscripts and might reasonably be something that someone would come across and want to know the meaning of (like {{m|la|sewera}}). My viewpoint therefore leads me to be very inclusive of anything that may be classical (if there are several proposed readings, we can include them all with explanatory labels), and exclusive of things written after the Late Latin period unless they meet our more stringent requirements. —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 20:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

:::* Regarding "WT:RFVN is the forum": If OP's opinion is that words only attested through Tironian notes should be deleted, it would be an RFD or BP and not an RFV matter.
:::* Regarding "random PDF file with computer vocabulary floating": That's probably not durably archived ([[WT:CFI]]). And even if it were, there would be the mentioning stuff (such as "should maintain a list of materials").
:::* Regarding CFI, types of sources (Tironian notes, manuscripts, editions) and types of Latin: 1. Tironian notes, manuscripts and older editions (if they aren't clear misprints or misspellings) should be okay for attestation. There can be labels and usage notes to note such things. 2. Even Contemporary Latin obiously is an LDL too like so many others languages and no constructed language as for example Esperanto. And why shouldn't Latin Harry Potter attest Latin words, when other Harry Potter versions can attest words for other LDLs (e.g. [http://www.itchy-coo.com/harrypotter.html Scots], [https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/harry-potter-and-the-philosophers-stone-welsh-9781408817674/ Cymric] or West Frisian)?
::-[[Special:Contributions/80.133.110.139|80.133.110.139]] 21:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

::: It’s a good question what we do with well-attested manuscript corruptions that have creeped into literature. {{m|la|fariō|t={{l|en|salmon trout}}}} (whencever people are so sure about the meaning of this hapax) has even been borrowed into English though in Meillet’s and Ernout’s words “sans doute graphie fautive de ''sariō''” (from long ſ to f as it seems). Imho using {{temp|n-g}} and saying what kind of corruption (with what likelihood, if applicable) a thing is is a good idea (even in Medieval Latin “odiatus” is a soloecism). There are lots of examples for ancient languages, considering Semitic languages too, where occurences of “holy” scriptures are corrupt but only later found to be so etc. Because why shouldn’t we if we include [[:Category:Misspellings by language|misspellings]]? Traditional dictionaries write things like “so in the Ms. XYZ” (funny if juxtaposed with the three-quotes criterion, and tricky with the templates). Or we need a layout similar to {{temp|no entry}} for ''corruptelae''. You need to let your creativity work. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 23:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

::: Interesting, I've checked the Latin misspellings category and only one item in there can be said to be a misspelling, the hypercorrection ''pariens'' for ''pariēs'' (the status of nasalisation/nasal in this environment and its timeline seem to be unclear). Other items that aren't abbreviations reflect genuine alternative morphophonetic forms, even if ''-acius'' for ''-aceus'' is likely to be at least in part a result of phonetic developments. What criterion defines those alternative forms as misspelings? In some non-literary corpora, the rate of omission of the final -M can be well over 50% (data from Adams 2013) - this hardly qualifies for a misspelling any more, but the language of those inscriptions is undeniably Latin. Late inscriptions and early Medieval texts still identified as Latin (even if with reservations) consistently fail to distinguish between the Accusative and the Ablative; Medieval Latin always spells -e- for -ae- in the 1st declension. Why do we not supply these and other things as alternative Late/Medieval forms? Certainly it looks like that's what has been dome in the case of the alternative conjugation of [[odio]], only there a whole paradigm has been made up, apparently on the barely-extant evidence of just the participle - one can walk away from wiktionary falsely convinced that all of those forms are good Latin. Even if we were to confirm that paradigm with more than the current 3 New Latin attestations (+1 emended one) of the participle, I think it's beyond doubt that the form is an erroneous back-conversion from a Romance language for the properly Latin ''invīsus'' — and it's in this connection that I've asked about macaronic language, because the only difference here is intention. Would 3 attestations of a macaronic word give it a pass?
:::It looks like the misspellings category is currently being used as the generic dump for any non-standard form that's either attested or doesn't foreshadow Romance forms, and thus cannot be filed under the reconstructed namespace. This doesn't seem like an optimal solution to me, but filing them under for instance "Medieval Latin" doesn't seem a much better option - indeed, hence my objection to the inclusion of ''odiatus'' etc under such a label. I think we need to somehow draw a clear distinction between forms current and accepted in some period and unambiguous corrigenda, non-literary (inscriptional etc), or as of yet unsettled or competing usage (modern Latin vocabulary). For entries currently residing under misspellings I would suggest "Non-literary form", an equivalent of "Dialectal form" in other languages, with a way to specify place and period. For solecisms like ''odiatus'', including those found in dictionaries on shaky or wrong evidence, as well as corruptions, I agree with the above proposal — there has to be a way to clearly indicate the non-acceptance of the former and the corrupted nature of the latter. And I don't think we can have an "alternative" conjugation like that without every form's page indicating its essentially fictional nature — unlike the 1st conjugation there are 2 pre-Medieval attested forms of the 3d conjugation ''odere'' - yet those aren't sufficient grounds to make up a whole new conjugation for the verb either. If anything, the reconstructed space seems like just the place for those. As for ''odiatus'', its most solid attestation is a species of midge called ''Culicoides odiatus'' — perhaps that's what the page should be provisionally reprofiled to. ♥[[User:Brutal Russian|Brutal Russian]] ([[User talk:Brutal Russian|talk]]) 21:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

=February 2019=

== Incorrect uncontracted forms of Ancient Greek verbs ==

I think the following uncontracted forms of {{m|grc|ἀγαθοεργέω}} created by [[User:RexPrincipum|RexPrincipum]], are incorrect. This is the fault of [[Module:grc-conj]], which currently gives some uncontracted forms if you set the dialect to Koine rather than Attic. But Koine contracts in the same way as Attic, thus {{m|grc|ἀγαθοεργοῦμεν}} not {{m|grc||*ἀγαθοεργέομεν}}, {{m|grc|ἀγαθοεργῶσι}} not {{m|grc||*ἀγαθοεργέωσι}}. 

{{box|title=list|content=
{{#invoke:grc-link|link_and_transliterate|
* [[ἀγαθοεργέοι]]
* [[ἀγαθοεργέοιεν]]
* [[ἀγαθοεργέοιμεν]]
* [[ἀγαθοεργέοιμι]]
* [[ἀγαθοεργέοις]]
* [[ἀγαθοεργέοιτε]]
* [[ἀγαθοεργέοιτον]]
* [[ἀγαθοεργέομεν]]
* [[ἀγαθοεργέον]]
* [[ἀγαθοεργέουσα]]
* [[ἀγαθοεργέουσι]]
* [[ἀγαθοεργέωμεν]]
* [[ἀγαθοεργέων]]
* [[ἀγαθοεργέωσι]]
* [[ἀγαθοεργεόντων]]
* [[ἀγαθοεργεοίτην]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέει]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέειν]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέεις]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέεσθαι]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέεσθε]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέεσθον]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέεται]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέετε]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέετον]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέῃ]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέῃς]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέησθε]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέησθον]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέηται]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέητε]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέητον]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέοι]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέοιεν]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέοιμεν]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέοιμι]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέοιντο]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέοιο]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέοις]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέοισθε]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέοισθον]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέοιτε]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέοιτο]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέοιτον]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέομαι]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέομεν]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέον]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέονται]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέου]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέουσα]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέουσι]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέω]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέωμαι]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέωμεν]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέων]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέωνται]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιέωσι]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιεέσθω]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιεέσθων]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιεέτω]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιεέτων]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιεόμεθα]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιεόμενον]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιεόμενος]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιεόντων]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιεοίμεθα]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιεοίμην]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιεοίσθην]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιεοίτην]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιεομένη]]
* [[ἀγαθοποιεώμεθα]]
* [[ἀγερέει]]
* [[ἀγερέειν]]
* [[ἀγερέεις]]
* [[ἀγερέεσθαι]]
* [[ἀγερέεσθε]]
* [[ἀγερέεσθον]]
* [[ἀγερέεται]]
* [[ἀγερέετε]]
* [[ἀγερέετον]]
* [[ἀγερέῃ]]
* [[ἀγερέοι]]
* [[ἀγερέοιεν]]
* [[ἀγερέοιμεν]]
* [[ἀγερέοιμι]]
* [[ἀγερέοιντο]]
* [[ἀγερέοιο]]
* [[ἀγερέοις]]
* [[ἀγερέοισθε]]
* [[ἀγερέοισθον]]
* [[ἀγερέοιτε]]
* [[ἀγερέοιτο]]
* [[ἀγερέοιτον]]
* [[ἀγερέομαι]]
* [[ἀγερέομεν]]
* [[ἀγερέον]]
* [[ἀγερέονται]]
* [[ἀγερέουσα]]
* [[ἀγερέουσι]]
* [[ἀγερέω]]
* [[ἀγερέων]]
* [[ἀγερεόμεθα]]
* [[ἀγερεόμενον]]
* [[ἀγερεόμενος]]
* [[ἀγερεοίμεθα]]
* [[ἀγερεοίμην]]
* [[ἀγερεοίσθην]]
* [[ἀγερεοίτην]]
* [[ἀγερεομένη]]
* [[ἠγαθοποιέεσθε]]
* [[ἠγαθοποιέεσθον]]
* [[ἠγαθοποιέετε]]
* [[ἠγαθοποιέετο]]
* [[ἠγαθοποιέετον]]
* [[ἠγαθοποιέομεν]]
* [[ἠγαθοποιέοντο]]
* [[ἠγαθοποιέου]]
* [[ἠγαθοποιεέσθην]]
* [[ἠγαθοποιεέτην]]
* [[ἠγαθοποιεόμεθα]]
* [[ἠγαθοποιεόμην]]
}}
}}

There might be other cases to deal with, so I named this thread generally. — [[User:Erutuon|Eru]]·[[User talk:Erutuon|tuon]] 21:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Added uncontracted forms of {{m|grc|ἀγαθοποιέω}}. <!-- retrieved from "all titles" file from dump with command: rg '[ἠἀ]γαθοποι' *all-titles* | uconv -x any-nfd | rg $'γαθοποιε[\u{300}-\u{36F}αεηουω]' --> To do: uncontracted forms of {{m|grc|ἀγαλλιάω}}, {{m|grc|ἀγανακτέω}}, {{m|grc|ἀγαπάω}} maybe, {{m|grc|ἀγείρω}}. — [[User:Erutuon|Eru]]·[[User talk:Erutuon|tuon]] 22:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've seen your comment, but the thing is that, as a rule, these verbs also contract in koine, they still appear in their uncontracted forms throughout the corpus of text, although rarely. But do correct me if I am incorrect, I am not the most experienced. [[User:RexPrincipum|RexPrincipum]] ([[User talk:RexPrincipum|talk]]) 01:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
: {{reply to|RexPrincipum}} I'm haven't heard of uncontracted forms ever being used in Koine (except in short verbs like {{m|grc|πλέω|tr=-}}), but if you can find any evidence of them, I'd be glad to see it. — [[User:Erutuon|Eru]]·[[User talk:Erutuon|tuon]] 01:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
:: {{reply to|User:Erutuon}} Eh, It's just something I remember my greek teacher saying, I may be wrong. [[User:RexPrincipum|RexPrincipum]] ([[User talk:RexPrincipum|talk]]) 02:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
: The dual was completely extinct by the time of Koine, wasn't it? If so, then setting the conjugation template to {{para|dial|koi}} should suppress the dual column, and all the entries for dual forms of Koine-only verbs should be deleted too. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 11:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
::In ἀγαθοεργέω, non-contracted -οε- in the middle of the word looks wrong in combination with contracted endings. My edition of the New Testament reads ἀγαθουργῶν (2x contracted) in Acta 14.17. [[User:Akletos|Akletos]] ([[User talk:Akletos|talk]]) 07:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
:::But ἀγαθοεργεῖν (non-contr - contr) in 1 Tim. 6.18. [[User:Akletos|Akletos]] ([[User talk:Akletos|talk]]) 08:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

=December 2019=

== <s>Old English pseudo-prefixes</s> ==

See [[WT:Beer parlour#Old-English-pseudo-prefixes]]. I went through all the Old English prefixes and identified those that I think aren't true prefixes, i.e. they're just the first part of a compound word. I identified two categories: (1) those I'm pretty sure aren't true prefixes, (2) those I think aren't true prefixes but I'm not totally sure. They are:

(1) Those I'm pretty sure aren't true prefixes:
{|class="wikitable"
! Prefix !! Corresponding free lemma !! Prefix category
|-
| {{m|ang|ang-||narrow, tight, vexed}} || {{m|ang|ange||narrow, tight}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with ang-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|Angel-||English}} || {{m|ang|Angel||Anglen {{i|district in Schleswig}}}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|Bryt-||British}} || {{m|ang|Bryt||Briton}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with Bryt-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|car-||sorrow, sadness}} || {{m|ang|caru||care, sorrow}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|carl-||male}} || {{m|ang|carl||man}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|eald-||old}} || {{m|ang|eald||old}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|ealdor-||origin}} || {{m|ang|ealdor||elder, parent; life, eternity}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|feoh-||cattle}} || {{m|ang|feoh||cattle}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|feor-||far}} || {{m|ang|feor||far}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|feorran-||from afar}} || {{m|ang|feorran||from afar}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|folc-||people}} || {{m|ang|folc||people}} || 
|-
| <s>{{m|ang|ful-||full}}</s> || <s>{{m|ang|ful||full}}, {{m|ang|full}}</s> || <s>[[:Category:Old English words prefixed with ful-]], [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with full-]]</s>
|-
| {{m|ang|fyrn-||ancient, former}} || {{m|ang|fyrn||former, formerly}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|fæderen-||paternal}} || {{m|ang|fæderen||paternal}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|fǣr-||sudden; hostile}} || {{m|ang|fǣr||sudden danger, peril}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|gador-||united}} || {{m|ang|gador||together, united}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|galdor-||magic}} || {{m|ang|galdor||magic song, enchantment}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|ġearu-||ready}} || {{m|ang|ġearu||ready}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|ġeō-||former}} || {{m|ang|ġeō||formerly}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|ġiestran-||yester-}} || {{m|ang|ġiestran||yesterday}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|hēafod-||head, main}} || {{m|ang|hēafod||head}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with heafod-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|hēah-||high, main}} || {{m|ang|hēah||high}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with heah-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|healf-||half}} || {{m|ang|healf||half}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with healf-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|hund-||hundred}} || {{m|ang|hund||hundred}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with hund-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|hund-||dog, hound}} || {{m|ang|hund||dog, hound}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with hund-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|īdel-||empty, vain}} || {{m|ang|īdel||empty, vain}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|lād-||leading}} || {{m|ang|lād||course, journey; leading, carrying}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|lah-||law}}, {{m|ang|lag-}} || {{m|ang|lagu||law}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|lang-||long}} || {{m|ang|lang||long}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|lēas-||false}} || {{m|ang|lēas||false}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|lēod-||people, nation}} || {{m|ang|lēod||people, nation}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|lēof-||dear}} || {{m|ang|lēof||dear}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|līġ-||fire}} || {{m|ang|līġ||fire}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|lyft-||air}} || {{m|ang|lyft||air}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|lȳt-||small, little}} || {{m|ang|lȳt||little, few}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with lyt-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|lȳtel-||small, little}} || {{m|ang|lȳtel||small, little}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|lǣċe-||doctor}} || {{m|ang|lǣċe||doctor}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|læt-||slow}} || {{m|ang|læt||slow}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|mēdren-||maternal}} || {{m|ang|mēdren||maternal}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|mere-||sea}} || {{m|ang|mere||sea}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with mere-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|met-||measurement}} || {{m|ang|met||measurement}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|mete-||food}} || {{m|ang|mete||food}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|middel-||middle}} || {{m|ang|middel||middle}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|mōnaþ-||month}} || {{m|ang|mōnaþ||month}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|morþ-||death}} || {{m|ang|morþ||death}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|mǣġ-||kin}} || {{m|ang|mǣġ||kinsman}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|mæġen-||strong}} || {{m|ang|mæġen-||strong}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|mæġþ-||kin}} || {{m|ang|mæġþ||family, clan, tribe}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|mǣl-||time}} || {{m|ang|mǣl||time}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|nēah-||near}} || {{m|ang|nēah||near}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|nīw-||new}}, {{m|ang|nīƿ-}} || {{m|ang|nīwe||new}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|oft-||often}} || {{m|ang|oft||often}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|riht-||right}} || {{m|ang|riht||right}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|rīm-||number}} || {{m|ang|rīm||number}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|rūm-||wide, spacious}} || {{m|ang|rūm||wide, spacious}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|sīd-||wide, spacious}} || {{m|ang|sīd||wide, spacious}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|simbel-||always}} || {{m|ang|simbel||always}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|singal-||continual, perpetual}} || {{m|ang|singal||continual, perpetual}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|stæl-||theft}} || {{m|ang|stalu||theft}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|wēa-||evil, woe}}, {{m|ang|ƿēa-}} || {{m|ang|wēa||misfortune, evil, woe}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|wēas-||chance}}, {{m|ang|ƿēas-}} || {{m|ang|wēas||by chance}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|wēden-||insanity}}, {{m|ang|ƿēden-}} || {{m|ang|wēde||raging, mad}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|wer-||man}}, {{m|ang|ƿer-}} || {{m|ang|wer||man}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|wīd-||widely}}, {{m|ang|ƿīd-}} || {{m|ang|wīd||wide}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|wīf-||woman}}, {{m|ang|ƿīf-}} || {{m|ang|wīf||woman}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|wīġ-||holy}}, {{m|ang|ƿīġ-}} || {{m|ang|wīġ||idol, image}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|will-||desire}}, {{m|ang|ƿill-}} || {{m|ang|willa||desire}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|yfel-||evil}} || {{m|ang|yfel||evil}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with yfel-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|þeġn-||service}} || {{m|ang|þeġn||servant}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|þēod-||public}} || {{m|ang|þēod||people, nation}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with þeod-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|þweorh-||cross, opposite}}, {{m|ang|þƿeorh-}} || {{m|ang|þweorh||cross, tranverse; adverse}} || 
|}

(2) Those I think aren't true prefixes but I'm not totally sure:
{|class="wikitable"
! Prefix !! Corresponding free lemma !! Prefix category
|-
| {{m|ang|aġēn-||again}} {{i|wrongly found at {{m|ang|aġēn}}, without hyphen}} || {{m|ang|āġēn||towards, against; again}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with agen-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|āweġ-||away}}, {{m|ang|āƿeġ-}} || {{m|ang|āweġ||away}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|betwēon-||between}}, {{m|ang|betƿēon-}} || {{m|ang|betwēonan||between}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|betwux-||between}}, {{m|ang|betƿux-}} || {{m|ang|betwux||between}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|dūne-||down}} || {{m|ang|dūne||down, downwards}} || 
|-
| <s>{{m|ang|eal-||all}}, {{m|ang|eall-}}</s> || {{m|ang|eal||all}}, {{m|ang|eall}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with eal-]]
|-
| <s>{{m|ang|efen-||equal, even}}</s> || {{m|ang|efen||equal, even}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with efen-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|eft-||again, back}} || {{m|ang|eft||again, anew; back}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with eft-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|fēa-||little; poor, lacking}} || {{m|ang|fēa||few}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with fea-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|fela-||many, multi-}} || {{m|ang|fela||many}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with fela-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|foran-||front}} || {{m|ang|foran||opposite, in front}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|hinder-||behind}} || {{m|ang|hinder||after, behind}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|maniġ-||many}} || {{m|ang|maniġ||many}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|miċel-||large, great}} || {{m|ang|miċel||large, great}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|middan-||middle}} || {{m|ang|midd||middle}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with middan-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|niþer-||below}} || {{m|ang|niþer||below}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|onġēan-||towards, against}} || {{m|ang|onġēan||towards, against; again}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with ongean-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|onweġ-||away}}, {{m|ang|onƿeġ-}} || {{m|ang|onweġ||away}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with onweg-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|samod-||together}} || {{m|ang|samod||together}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|sel-||rare}}, {{m|ang|seld-}} || {{m|ang|seldan||rare}} || 
|-
| <s>{{m|ang|self-||self}}</s> || {{m|ang|self||self}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with self-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|sundor-||apart}} || {{m|ang|sundor||apart}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|ūtan-||on the outside}} || {{m|ang|ūtan||on the outside}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|wan-||lacking}}, {{m|ang|ƿan-}} || {{m|ang|wana||lack}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with wan-]]
|-
| {{m|ang|wel-||good, well, very}}, {{m|ang|ƿel-}} || {{m|ang|wel||well}} || 
|-
| {{m|ang|ǣr-||before}} || {{m|ang|ǣr||before}} || [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with ær-]]
|-
| <s>{{m|ang|þri-||three}}</s> || <s>{{m|ang|þrī||three}}</s> || 
|-
| <s>{{m|ang|þrim-||three}}</s> || <s>{{m|ang|þrīm||dative of {{m|ang|þrī||three}}}}</s> || 
|}

{{wgping|ang|u1=Leasnam|u2=Lambiam|u3=Urszag|u4=Hundwine}} Please let me know what you think, esp. of the 2nd category. Few of these prefixes, esp. in the first group, have corresponding categories like [[:Category:Old English words prefixed with ful-]]; for those that do and we agree to delete, I will empty the categories before deleting the prefix. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 05:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
:I think "ful(l)-" exists as an uncommon verbal prefix (that is, it can behave like a prefix by being unstressed when attached to a verb). In present-day English "fulfill", at least, the main stress is on the second syllable, and this may also be the case for "fullfyllan" (I haven't found a reference yet for this specific word). Another "ful(l)-" prefixed verb is fuldōn. Some of the sources I've looked at distinguish between a few different types of elements that can be prefixed to verbs; e.g. [https://www.academia.edu/10059201/Minkova_D._2008_._Prefixation_and_stress_in_Old_English._Word_Structure_1_1_21-52._DOI_http_dx.doi.org_10.3366_E1750124508000056 Minkova 2008] says that niþer- is a "particle" (p. 24).--[[User:Urszag|Urszag]] ([[User talk:Urszag|talk]]) 07:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

:When the meaning of a combination ''H'' + ''T'' is a specialization of the meaning of ''T'', in which ''H'' serves as an attribute defining the specialization according to the meaning of free-standing ''H'', then this is almost certainly an ordinary compound. This is most obvious when ''H'' is a noun. Lacking a generally agreed-on definition of when a morpheme is bound, we cannot hope to have a watertight criterion for separating the wheat from the chaff, so we need to proceed with some boldness. Not deleting will mean we harbour very many false prefixes. Deleting will mean we perhaps lose a few – probably not a big deal since the analysis of ''HT'' = ''H'' + ''T'' is not wrong. So I advocate to '''Delete''' all except those ''H-'' for which an argument can be made – like for ''ful-'' above – that some term ''HT'' is not an ordinary compound. (Since {{m|ang|twi-}} is very likely a true prefix, it would not be surprising if an argument can be made that {{m|ang|þri-}} is actually also a prefix inherited from {{m+|gem-pro|*þri-}}.) &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 09:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
::OK, I struck out ''ful(l)-'', ''þri-'' and ''þrim-''. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 18:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
:::I have emptied the categories for the first group; there were only a few entries to change. If no one objects, I'll delete the first group of prefixes in a few days. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 00:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

:We have ''[[all-]]'' and ''[[even-]]'' and ''[[self-]]'' as prefixes in modern English, and some languages either predecessorial or related to Old English, which might suggest that ''eal-, eall-'' and ''efen-'' and ''self-'', at least, might be real prefixes. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 00:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Benwing2}}, can you please close this RFD as you see fit? —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 23:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

:I struck ''eal(l)-'', ''efen-'', and ''self-'' out of the list (as kept) per my rationale above. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 04:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
:For some reason in linguistics (Indo-European linguistics at least) adpositions and adverbs when compounded are considered affixes, but other wordtypes aren't. I don't know how that tradition arose, but changing it would certainly require a policy discussion. (It could be done for example the way it has been accidentally done under {{m|ang|aġēn}}, but that would require a lot of changes in a lot of languages.) In that context, @[[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] what you've done above seems sensible to me, as most remaining prefixes are considered prefixes in cognate languages. Anyway, this can be closed, no? —[[User:Caoimhin ceallach|Caoimhin ceallach]] ([[User talk:Caoimhin ceallach|talk]]) 13:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

'''RFD-partly deleted''' —[[User:Caoimhin ceallach|Caoimhin ceallach]] ([[User talk:Caoimhin ceallach|talk]]) 17:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

= March 2020 =

== [[:onca#rfd-notice-mul-|onca]] ==

Translingual. Sending this back to RFD. It can't be used on its own, and in fact it can only be used in {{m|mul|Panthera onca}}. We have deleted these before; see [[Talk:mume]]. —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 04:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
:I don’t see the benefit of deletion, neither for the collective of editors nor for the users. ''Panthera onca'' is not some obscure species that you only find mentioned in specialized scientific literature, and we can provide an etymology for the epithet to the curious user. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 12:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
:: All of which can be covered at the ''[[Panthera onca]]'' page. This is basically a [[cranberry morpheme]] that has no meaning outside of this one [[binomen]]. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 12:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
::: It is covered at {{m|mul|Panthera onca}}, but that is of no avail to a user who looks up “onca” (unless they are savvy and persistent enough to click [[Special:WhatLinksHere/onca|What, lynx here?]]). I still don’t see the benefit of deletion. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 13:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
::::{{only in|mul|Panthera onca}} ''({{temp|only in|mul|Panthera onca}})''? Then people can find the species (and etymology etc.) if they just search for the epithet. --[[User:Bakunla|Bakunla]] ([[User talk:Bakunla|talk]]) 09:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
:'''Soft redirect''' as suggested above. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 20:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. [[User:Vox Sciurorum|Vox Sciurorum]] ([[User talk:Vox Sciurorum|talk]]) 21:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
:'''Soft redirect''', this should discourage people from adding it again. [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 11:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
:Actually, it can also be found in the synonym [[Felis onca]]. --[[User:RichardW57|RichardW57]] ([[User talk:RichardW57|talk]]) 05:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
:: That's not separate: the species was first described by Linnaeus under the name [https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/10277#page/51/mode/1up ''Felis onca''], then was transfered to the [[genus]] [[Panthera]], which automatically changed the name to ''[[Panthera onca]]''. It would be like treating the name on someone's birth certificate and their married name as two different occurences of their given name. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 07:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

= April 2020 =

== [[:Category:Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi language|Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi]] ==

See {{w|Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages/Retired_language_articles/Sunda–Sulawesi_languages}}. This one was based on original research and has no verifiable sources. [[User:Kwékwlos|Kwékwlos]] ([[User talk:Kwékwlos|talk]]) 07:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. The subgroup is a spurious Wikipedia artifacts based on a misreading of Figure 2 (p. 431) in [http://dx.doi.org/10.15144/PL-518.405 this paper], so the corresponding proto-language is also spurious. And FWIW, most reconstructions in [[:Category:Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi_lemmas]] wouldn't even reproduce the correct reflexes in the putative descendants of "Sunda-Sulawesi" if the non-existent subgroup were taken at face value. See also my arguments here: [[Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2021/March#Sunda-Sulawesi_Language_Group]]. –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 12:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
::Related discussion: [[Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Category:Sunda-Sulawesi_languages_and_Category:Borneo-Philippines_languages]]. –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 12:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

= August 2020 =

== [[:⦙#rfd-notice-mul-|⦙]], [[:⧝#rfd-notice-mul-|⧝]], [[:⧜#rfd-notice-mul-|⧜]] ==

Translingual. Entered without any definition, just a description of what the glyph looks like, visually. In the wording of CFI, terms have to "convey meaning".__[[User:Gamren|Gamren]] ([[User talk:Gamren|talk]]) 07:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

:“Incomplete infinity” is a concept that is discussed in the literature.<sup>[https://books.google.com/books?id=LNnSBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA625&dq=%22incomplete+infinity%22&hl=en][https://books.google.com/books?id=nCnhVM7SPuwC&pg=PA107&dq=%22incomplete+infinity%22&hl=en][https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/e.pdf]</sup> I have no evidence,though, that the symbol <sub><span style="font-size:240%;">⧜</span></sub> is, or has been, in actual use with that meaning. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 13:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
:: Do we not have entries for all Unicode characters? Just wondering. — [[User:Sgconlaw|SGconlaw]] ([[User talk:Sgconlaw|talk]]) 17:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
::: I don't think so. {{ping|Erutuon}}? [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 21:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
:::: No; as of the July 20th dump, we have mainspace pages for for 42,300 code points (out of 143,859 according to Wikipedia). — [[User:Erutuon|Eru]]·[[User talk:Erutuon|tuon]] 04:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

: Requested by "STIX Project of the STIPUB Consortium", as documented at [[w:Miscellaneous_Mathematical_Symbols-B#History]] > 00-002 and 00-094. —[[User:Suzukaze-c|Suzukaze-c]] ([[User talk:Suzukaze-c|talk]]) 07:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

== [[:-lending#rfd-notice-nb-|-lending]] (Norwegian Bokmål) ==

As I said on the RFD for [[-lendingen]]: This isn't a suffix, it's just the result of applying {{m|nb|-ing}} (second sense) to a word that ends in {{m|nb|land}}, with attendant vowel change. It is silly to analyze {{m|nb|islending}} as ''is + -lending'' ("ice + -lander"); it's ''Island + -ing'' (Iceland + -er).__[[User:Gamren|Gamren]] ([[User talk:Gamren|talk]]) 17:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
: {{reply to|Gamren}} The reasoning for deletion seems incomplete to me. On the one hand, there is the question about whether ''-lending'' technically is a [[:w:suffix|suffix]]. On the other, the vowel change cannot be presumed to be trivial; it is not like vowels can be changed willy-nilly in Norwegian. The information that ''-lending'' rather than ''-landing'' is used in demonyms and similar words should be stored somewhere in the dictionary; and given that an official Norwegian dictionary has an [https://ordbok.uib.no/perl/ordbok.cgi?OPP=-lending&ant_bokmaal=5&ant_nynorsk=5&nynorsk=+&ordbok=nynorsk entry] for ''-lending'', my starting point is that we should have an entry for it here as well. --[[User:Njardarlogar|Njardarlogar]] ([[User talk:Njardarlogar|talk]]) 17:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

:The given sense (both for Bokmål and Nynorsk) does not cover all uses; see ''[[:no:innlending|innlending]]'' and ''[[utlending]]''. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 09:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

:I don't think it should be deleted either, the fact that it is in the dictionary is reason enough for me to keep it. Also it's pretty convenient to get all the derivatives containing -lending from this page. The Norwegian Academy Dictionary also states that it is in fact a suffix, as seen on the entry for "flamlending" on naob.no, though they don't actually have a separate entry page for it. I am in the process of sending them a list of words missing from their dictionary, and will include -lending. [[User:Supevan|Supevan]] ([[User talk:Supevan|talk]]) 13:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

== [[:-lending#rfd-notice-nn-|-lending]] (Norwegian Nynorsk) ==

As I said on the RFD for [[-lendingen]]: This isn't a suffix, it's just the result of applying {{m|nn|-ing}} (second sense) to a word that ends in {{m|nn|land}}, with attendant vowel change. It is silly to analyze {{m|nn|islending}} as ''is + -lending'' ("ice + -lander"); it's ''Island + -ing'' (Iceland + -er).__[[User:Gamren|Gamren]] ([[User talk:Gamren|talk]]) 17:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
: {{ping|Sgconlaw}} This isn't a duplicate; there are two entries. Don't delete it.__[[User:Gamren|Gamren]] ([[User talk:Gamren|talk]]) 08:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
:: Sorry, it looked identical so I thought it was a mistake. — [[User:Sgconlaw|SGconlaw]] ([[User talk:Sgconlaw|talk]]) 08:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
: '''Keep'''. It's an equivalent of {{m|nn|-bøgg}}, {{m|nn|-døl}} and {{m|nn|-væring}}, not just a duplicate of {{m|nn|-ing}}. [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 21:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

= September 2020 =

== [[:hîr#rfd-notice-nan-|hîr]] ==

Min Nan. Quanzhou dialect not actually used to write (full) POJ. —&nbsp;[[User:Justinrleung|justin(r)leung]]&nbsp;<sub>{&nbsp;[[User_talk:Justinrleung|(t...)]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Justinrleung|c=›]]&nbsp;}</sub> 07:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
: Deleted by {{ping|Fish bowl}} ({{diff|66146336|66517231}}) but reinstated (in another form) by {{ping|Wikijb}}. —&nbsp;[[User:Justinrleung|justin(r)leung]]&nbsp;<sub>{&nbsp;[[User_talk:Justinrleung|(t...)]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Justinrleung|c=›]]&nbsp;}</sub> 00:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
:Full POJ has been widely used in Taiwanese Hokkien (including Quanzhou-like and Zhangzhou-like subdialects). Literature can be found at http://ip194097.ntcu.edu.tw/nmtl/dadwt/pbk.asp. [[User:Wikijb|Wikijb]] ([[User talk:Wikijb|talk]]) 00:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
::{{re|Wikijb}} Can you show an instance of ''hîr'' in such literature? —&nbsp;[[User:Justinrleung|justin(r)leung]]&nbsp;<sub>{&nbsp;[[User_talk:Justinrleung|(t...)]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Justinrleung|c=›]]&nbsp;}</sub> 01:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes, ''hîr'' (魚) appears in some [[w:Koa-á books|Koa-á books]], such as [https://db.nmtl.gov.tw/site4/s5/chhehinfo?cid=4&pid=4 新選笑談俗語歌] (1841) and [https://db.nmtl.gov.tw/site4/s5/chhehinfo?cid=35&pid=59&mode=8&lmj=0&hj=0 新歌林投姉] (1955). [[User:Wikijb|Wikijb]] ([[User talk:Wikijb|talk]]) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
::::{{re|Wikijb}} Those are not POJ works, which means there is no attestation of the exact spelling of hîr in any POJ works so far. —&nbsp;[[User:Justinrleung|justin(r)leung]]&nbsp;<sub>{&nbsp;[[User_talk:Justinrleung|(t...)]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Justinrleung|c=›]]&nbsp;}</sub> 03:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
:::: Sorry, I spoke too fast. I should say that these works were not originally written in POJ, and the pronunciation is given after, as far as I can tell. —&nbsp;[[User:Justinrleung|justin(r)leung]]&nbsp;<sub>{&nbsp;[[User_talk:Justinrleung|(t...)]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Justinrleung|c=›]]&nbsp;}</sub> 03:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::That's right. There were written in Han characters and then transcripted into POJ works. [[User:Wikijb|Wikijb]] ([[User talk:Wikijb|talk]]) 04:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

== [[:degjôj#rfd-notice-sq-|degjôj]] ==

Albanian. Tagged but not listed nearly two years ago with the reason "It is misspelled; the correct spelling is {{m|sq|dëgjoj}}". We do have an entry for {{m|sq|dëgjoj}}, but {{m|sq|degjôj}} is labeled {{tl|lb|sq|Gheg}}, and there's a citation for the inflected form {{m|sq|degjôn}}, so I suspect this is a valid spelling for Gheg dialect if not for the standard language. But I know virtually nothing about Albanian, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. Pinging {{ping|HeliosX|PlatuerGashaj}} as the creator and deletion proposer respectively. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 10:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
: In Dhurata Ahmetaj's song, the verb is pronounced like this only the first time during the first minute. You can search the song online if you like to review its pronounciation. It can be noted that the rhyming word "preokupon" is pronounced here with the vowel [e] too but the pronunciation of the second verb can't be altered because of that only. [[User:HeliosX|HeliosX]] ([[User talk:HeliosX|talk]]) 12:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
::So is this spelling attested ''in writing'' anywhere? Or is only a presumed spelling of a ''pronounced'' form? —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 12:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
::: It will be highly difficult to establish this spelling in writing because Gheg is nearly always written without any circumflexes and often without the diacritic of the schwa letter. [[User:HeliosX|HeliosX]] ([[User talk:HeliosX|talk]]) 12:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

= October 2020 =

== [[:กลัวเหมือนหนูกลัวแมว#rfd-notice-th-|กลัวเหมือนหนูกลัวแมว]] ==

Thai. Tagged but not listed by {{ping|Octahedron80}} as "SOP". If it's a simile, can we get a literal translation?__[[User:Gamren|Gamren]] ([[User talk:Gamren|talk]]) 10:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

:Looking up the parts in Wiktionary, I arrive at “to be afraid like a mouse is afraid of a cat”. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 07:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

== [[:การชยันโต#rfd-notice-ชยันโต only used as verb in speaking-|การชยันโต]] ==

Thai. Tagged by {{ping|Octahedron80}} with the reasoning "ชยันโต only used as verb in speaking". Created by {{ping|Miwaki Sato}}.__[[User:Gamren|Gamren]] ([[User talk:Gamren|talk]]) 10:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to post here :P --[[User:Octahedron80|Octahedron80]] ([[User talk:Octahedron80|talk]]) 00:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

== Arabic possibly incorrectly hamzated forms ==

{{wgping|ar|u1=Atitarev|u2=Mahmudmasri|u3=Metaknowledge|u4=Wikitiki89|u5=Erutuon|u6=ZxxZxxZ|u7=عربي-٣١|u8=Fay Freak}} An IP marked the following forms for speedy deletion:
* [[تسائوا]]
* [[تسائون]]
* [[تسوئوا]]
* [[تسوئون]]
* [[تشائون]]
* [[سائوا]]
* [[سوئوا]]
* [[شائوا]]
* [[يسائوا]]
* [[يسائون]]
* [[يسوئوا]]
* [[يسوئون]]
* [[يشائون]]
All of them were created by my bot several years ago, based on [[Module:ar-verb]]. When I created that module, I did a careful analysis of hamza spellings based on several sources. I documented my findings in detail in [[w:Hamza]], where they still remain. I don't think I made any mistakes but you never know; this particular area of Arabic spelling is very hairy, and there are disagreements among different authors. The IP apparently thinks spellings like [[تسوءوا]] are more correct. If you look at what my module generates, you'll see it generates both spellings, and lists the IP's preferred spelling first. The dual spellings are intentional, since there is author disagreement in this case. Am I right or is the IP right? [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 05:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
:I was taught that following Quranic orthography, it was valid to write the hamza without a seat for e.g. {{m|ar|سَاءُوا}}, but that doesn't even seem to be one of the options presented. That would be to avoid two wāws in a row, but for MSA usage where that rule is not generally applied, the wāw should be used as a seat instead. I don't know of any justification for using a yā', but based on [[w:Hamza]], I would guess that it follows the trend of certain medial hamzas being typeset with yā' as the seat rather than seatless, even if not historically justified. So the IP is seemingly right from a prescriptivist perspective, but given that we're descriptivist, I don't see a problem with keeping anything attested (maybe labelled in some manner). —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 06:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
:: {{re|Benwing2}} The [[w:Hamza]] article mentions Barron's grammar books. I've got his ''501 Arabic Verbs''. The ''third-person masculine plural past active of'' {{m|ar|جَاءَ}} is given only as {{m|ar|جَاؤُوا}} (not {{m|ar|جَائُوا}}) but the ''third-person masculine plural non-past active indicative'' is given as {{m|ar|يَجِيؤُونَ}} (not {{m|ar|يَجِيئُونَ}}).
:: ''A Student Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic'' by Eckehard Schulz, however gives {{m|ar|يَجِيئُونَ}}.
:: I couldn't find the verb {{m|ar|سَاءَ}} but it has {{m|ar|أَسَاءَ}}. Barron: the ''third-person masculine plural past active'' is given as {{m|ar|أَسَاؤُوا}} and the ''third-person masculine plural non-past active indicative'' only as {{m|ar|يُسِيئُونَ}}. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 08:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
::: I've [[User talk:50.60.48.28|reached out]] to the IP user but I am not sure they will engage in a discussion. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 08:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
:As far as I recall I've seen the forms with {{l|ar|ء}} only in older Quranic writing. I've never seen hamzas preceding a short or long ''u'' in the form of {{l|ar|ئ}}, but {{l|fa|ؤ}}, as mentioned by Anatoli. --[[User:ZxxZxxZ|'''Z''']] 14:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
:It is {{m|ar|يَجِيئُونَ}}, because ''i'' takes precedences before ''u''. As no ''i'' vowel environs those third person male past plural forms they cannot be written with {{m|ar|ئ}}. If in some Arabic country the opposite is considered permissible, I plead ignorance; search engines even hardly find forms like {{m|ar|شائوا}} and correct to {{m|ar|شاؤوا}} even if in ASCII quotation marks. Forms like {{m|ar|شائوا}} should be removed from the conjugation tables at least owing to undue weight. Following experiences like on [[Talk:هذا]] we have to expect that Arabic grammars also contain wrong forms. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 14:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No kasra or ى around the glottal stop, then it can't be ـئـ. These are basics in Arabic orthography. No damma or و around the glottal stop, then it can't be ؤ. Some words are acceptable to be spelled with either, but in the eighties, one of the Arabic language academies (in Egypt?) favored the ء on the line for some words over ؤ that was commonly used, e.g. دؤوب (traditional style); دءوب (newer style). {{unsigned|Mahmudmasri|20:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)}}

:I have never seen an unseated Hamza in front of a non-vocalic letter, I must admit. Apart from that, I too prefer شاؤوا or شاءوا to those forms with a Yā'-seat, because they should only ever appear next to unrounded high vowels.
:Also, on a side note, this discussion is open since 2020. When is a good time, generally, to either close a RFD or act upon one? Who archives inactive discussions? -[[User:Konanen|Konanen]] ([[User talk:Konanen|talk]]) 15:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

= November 2020 =

== [[:an sein#rfd-notice-de-|an sein]] ==

German. SOP: just {{m|de|an}} (adjective, predicative only) + copula {{m|de|sein}}. --[[Special:Contributions/2003:DE:371B:BD06:1404:1693:E7A8:CED2|2003:DE:371B:BD06:1404:1693:E7A8:CED2]] 12:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
:'''Move''' to {{m|de|ansein}} with a usage note that this spelling has been superseded in the 1996 spelling reform by {{m|de|an}} {{m|de|sein}}. (Compare ''[[:de:ansein|ansein]]'' at the German Wiktionary.) -- {{unsigned|Lambiam|18:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)}}

* <del>'''Keep'''</del> -- The mere fact that it's possible to write it as [[ansein]] and then label it as superseded or historic or whatever means we should keep it. There's no need to play games with ourselves. -- [[User:Dentonius|Dentonius]] ([[User:Dentonius/wiktionary|my politics]] | [[User_talk:Dentonius|talk]]) 10:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
** <del>In light of IP editor's comments: send to '''RFV'''. &mdash; [[User:Dentonius|Dentonius]] 11:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)</del>
*** '''Keep''' &mdash; [[User:Dentonius|Dentonius]] 00:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

:Is [[ansein]] really valid, would it pass RFV? All I see in google books is this:
:* ''Ansein'' (n.),
:* ''ansein'' as OCR-error of ''an sein'' (preposition + pronoun),
:* mentionings (e.g. in Duden and a book about the spelling-reform),
:* 1 usage ("eine Lampe, die beim Fernsehen immer ansein mußte").
:--[[Special:Contributions/2003:DE:371B:BD12:6895:8452:AB79:88C1|2003:DE:371B:BD12:6895:8452:AB79:88C1]] 20:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

: '''Keep'''. This one is in [https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/an_sein Duden] with the definition "[[eingeschaltet]] [[sein]]" (to be on). --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 23:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. Literally "to be" + adjective. [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]] ([[User talk:Fytcha|talk]]) 11:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
: '''Keep'''. This is in my German textbook. [[User:RealIK17|RealIK17]] ([[User talk:RealIK17|talk]]) 07:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
:[[ansein]] doesn't quite look attestable. I also don't understand the argument that "it's in a learners' textbook so keep"? I'm sure [[pass me the salt]] is in some English learners' textbooks too. What's more, the adjective {{m|de|an}} can be used with other verbs too, like {{m|de|machen}}. How do we feel about creating [[an machen]], [[aus sein]], [[aus machen]] etc.? &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 16:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
::{{wgping|de|u1=Matthias Buchmeier|u2=-sche|u3=Atitarev|u4=Jberkel|u5=Mahagaja|u6=Fay Freak}} To have more natives' opinions. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
::{{ping|ChemPro|Skunkassociation}}: Can I have your opinion on this matter? &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 17:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

: '''Delete''', SOP. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 16:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
::Another example for the "to be + adjective" case is {{m|de|ab sein}}, which has an entry both in [https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/ab_sein Duden] and [https://www.dwds.de/wb/ab%20sein?o=an+sein DWDS] (even though no definition is given in the DWDS). --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 19:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

: '''Delete'''. If we kept {{m|de|an sein}} it would be hard to argue why we shouldn't allow lemmata like ''zufrieden sein'' ({{m|de|zufriedensein}} until 1996), ''vorhanden sein'' ({{m|de|vorhandensein}} until 1996) or ''fertig sein'' ({{m|de|fertigsein}} until 1996) (and countless more, like ''ab sein'', ''auf sein'', ''aus sein'', ''dabei sein'', ''weg sein'', ''zu sein''). I second user [[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]]'s suggestion to move to {{m|de|ansein}} and note the superseded spelling. [[User:Skunkassociation|Skunkassociation]] ([[User talk:Skunkassociation|talk]]) 21:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Move'''. I agree we might add the superseded version for posterity's sake with an explanation ("compounded from an + sein"), and maybe add that to either "sein" (or "an", or both?) under compounds? -[[User:Konanen|Konanen]] ([[User talk:Konanen|talk]]) 15:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

== Suyá ''ŋó'' ==

The entry [[ŋó#Suyá|ŋó]] is simply a rendition of [[ngô|Suyá]]. The spelling ''ŋó'' does not follow any established orthographic conventions for the language (it is taken from Guedes 1992, which uses its own ad hoc conventions and is in general not a very reliable source on the language). I was unable to move it because the page [[ngô]] already exists. [[User:Degoiabeira|Degoiabeira]] ([[User talk:Degoiabeira|talk]]) 02:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
:For a barely attested language like this, I feel like a single attestation in a single source might be enough for us to keep it at least as an {{tl|alternative spelling of}}. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 10:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
: '''Delete'''. I don't really see any value in keeping ad-hoc phonological transcriptions when we can lemmatise at the established orthography. [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 16:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
:'''Delete''' ... we have this same problem with a few other languages, like Abinomn, where in some cases it's not clear what the proper spelling should be because two transcription methods overlap.  But in this case, it's clear that ''ŋó'' is <ngô>, so I would move the word to the new spelling.  [[user:Soap|—]]<span style="background-color: #a6ffe0; padding: 3px; border-radius: 6px 6px 6px 6px;"><b>[[user talk:Soap|Soap]]</b></span>[[Special:Contributions/Soap|—]] 10:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

== [[:ანგელოზივით#rfd-notice-ka-|ანგელოზივით]] ==
=== [[:აღმოსავლეთისკენ#rfd-notice-ka-|აღმოსავლეთისკენ]] ===
=== [[:აღმოსავლეთისაკენ#rfd-notice-ka-|აღმოსავლეთისაკენ]] ===
=== [[:მათთვის#rfd-notice-ka-|მათთვის]] ===

So... I ask that these kinds of entries be deleted, because they contain a postposition, which is hard to translate in English as one word. Currently have found four words: [[ანგელოზივით|ანგელოზი-ვით]], [[აღმოსავლეთისკენ|აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ]], [[აღმოსავლეთისაკენ|აღმოსავლეთ-ის-ა-კენ]], [[მათთვის|მათ-თვის]]. Now 1st can be translated as "like an angel", second and third "towards east", fourth as "for them; by themselves..." and other nuances the postposition carries. I don't think it's proper to have these forms on Wiktionary, since the pages would pile up and bad translations would arise. Just study grammar... I haven't actually looked whether this qualifies at all by the Wiktionary rules, so I'mma ask y'all. For comparison to other languages, these forms are kinda like if Korean {{m|ko|미국에서|미국-에서|from America}} entry existed. I'll also ping {{ping|Dixtosa|Reordcraeft}}. Additional questions if we decide to delete them... would there be an easier way to actually find them? -[[User:Solarkoid|Solarkoid]] ([[User talk:Solarkoid|talk]]) 17:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
: Our concepts of SOP and words aren't all that good at dealing with agglutinative languages. A few precedents I can think of are "-que" in Latin and "'s" in English (forms with both of which are deleted as they're clitics that can go on syntactically-unrelated words), prefixed prepositions in Hebrew (prefixed forms excluded by Hebrew community consensus), and case endings in highly inflected languages such as Latin and Finnish. Latin accusative can be used for toward, ablative for away from, and locative for at. I'm not very familiar with Finnish cases, but there are a variety of cases with prepositional meaning. Then there are the long and complex German compounds that native speakers consider SOP, but that the overall community decided to keep. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 19:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
:: Ye that's understandable, to be honest. However, additionally the thing is, none of the postpositions listed there: 1) Can mean anything on their own 2) Aren't considered as cases by anyone; none of them were given names. Akaki Shanidze, a well-respected Georgian linguist, considered things like {{m|ka|-ში}} cases, since 1) they didn't show the case marker 2) they could be isolated as a case per meaning (like Locative case). Georgian, like any language, deals with postpositions like word-case marker-postposition, where pp can either be a isolated one or suffixed. {{m|ka|-ვით}} means "like (close to in shape, size, features...) for example, {{m|ka|შესახებ}} means 'about' and is spaced. But like, I don't know what to do with them. I guess since Hebrew excludes the prefixed prepositions and Korean also does that with their "markers", there should be no need for ones in Georgian, since they don't just change meaning for one word or another, they're systematic. I'll look at different responses, see what other people think. Also see if Dixtosa responds, he hasn't been active muchito. Thank you for your answer. -[[User:Solarkoid|Solarkoid]] ([[User talk:Solarkoid|talk]]) 22:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
: {{re|Solarkoid}} Why do you suggest deletion if the only problem is that the definitions are imprecise? We can treat them just like any other form-of entry. No? [[User:Dixtosa|Dixtosa]] ([[User talk:Dixtosa|talk]]) 10:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
:: I partially agree. Forms like [[ანგელოზივით|ანგელოზი-ვით]] can be deleted, but there are so many non-lemma forms for other languages, I doubt we should make it our priority at this point. When it comes to words like  [[აღმოსავლეთისკენ|აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ]] ([[eastward]], [[eastwards]]), I think we can keep them. These words are useful when it comes to navigation, whether on foot or by sailing a boat or flying a plane. All in all, we should look at the usefulness of each entry and not delete them in broad sweep. --[[User:Reordcraeft|Reordcraeft]] ([[User talk:Reordcraeft|talk]]) 10:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
::: Honestly just because it has a one word translation in English using -ward doesn't mean it should be an entry in Georgian. I have more problems than imprecision in definitions. Typically, inflection of would be used for cases or conjugations and others, but not postposition. What inflection are you going to specify აღმოსავლეთისკენ as? LOCATIVE? Locative is a case, so is Ablative and others, so unless proven or discussd to be a case (like in case of -shi, -ze cf. Shanidze), you can't just assign them values like that. As for further problems with აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ: It's like so unnecessary. -k'en is a suffix for movement towards something. ANYTHING at that. You can select any noun and damn straight it'll work because it's a postposition. It is suffixed to a noun in genitive case, so, imho, keeping cases is fine and is in good will, while keeping postpositions is just unnecessary UNLESS you have linguistic proof that it can be considered a case. Also for "These words are useful when it comes to navigation" Well they can be built as easily by a person learning even a little bit of grammar as useful it is. Since there is no exact rule on agglutinative languages here, I think it's for community's best interest to deem such entries impractical, because they are so easily guessable from the root word. Unless you prove me that every little bit has to be here in this dictionary, then let's add entries like მიკაქალ, პაკა, ბაი, ოკ, სახში, ტვალეჩი (ngl last one kinda deserves an entry) since they are so widely used. Also მხოლობითი which I've heard far more than მხოლოობითი but is not attested in a dictionary. However: for Mingrelian and Laz these are cases and should be treated as such, but that's for future and they are clearly cases, so I'm not going to bring that here. I feel like I'm in court. Nothing further, Your Honor. Also I'm partially going off from Korean entries here too. {{ping|Karaeng Matoaya}} In your expert opinion, should entries like 엄마처럼/엄마같이 (not saying sole, dictionary words like 쏜살같이) and 왼쪽으로 be created? I'm asking you because it's kind of the same matter here, though y'all view those as particles instead. But I kinda have that problem too with some entries having -ც. -[[User:Solarkoid|Solarkoid]] ([[User talk:Solarkoid|talk]]) 11:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
:::: I think what Solarkoid is trying to say here put very simply is that this is SOP, since these postpositions can be attributed to any noun by exactly the same method. This seems to me to be as SOP as any monoword compound can be, but with an enormous amount of entries to be created. Is there any point of ''not'' deleting them (for example Georgian speakers or learners not being able to recognize the suffix being a postposition)? If not, then a strong '''delete''' from my part. [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 12:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
::::: Yes, there are good reasons why we should not delete them. Someone may want to look it up, wow. That someone is probably neither a native speaker nor a learner though because it is pretty easy to guess any postpositional form from two basic forms (genitive and plural). But, have you ever looked up a word in a language you knew nothing about? 
::::: Now, is there any reason for deletion? [[User:Dixtosa|Dixtosa]] ([[User talk:Dixtosa|talk]]) 08:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::: I think WT's objective should not be to include any variant of any word that anyone could find anywhere. The reason to delete this is so that it doesn't fill up the mainspace with words that can be deducted very simply. This isn't different from any SOP except for the fact it doesn't use a whitespace. Why not add whole sentences in {{w|Scriptio continua}}? [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 11:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
::::: Dixtos, Wiktionary has this convenient little feature called "words containing..." under the search if the word you're looking up isn't an entry. We could even do redirects to the main entry where they can open the inflection table and see it for themselves. Like look up the word "დიდედისთვის", which doesn't exist, and it will tell you, that the word "დიდედა" contains the word, so I still stand by my opinion, that it doesn't matter. And if they can't find it that way still, let's just let them add it to entry requests, add main entry and add a redirect even. Redirect has to be discussed still, but we'll see. -[[User:Solarkoid|Solarkoid]] ([[User talk:Solarkoid|talk]]) 13:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
::::::: Given the small number of languages using this script and their being limited to a relatively small area, the risk of overlap with words in other languages seems pretty small, and the likelihood that at least some Georgian editors will be able to spot it seems pretty high. That means you can be much more liberal with redirects than for scripts that are widely used by lots of languages with no connection to each other. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 16:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

= January 2021 =

== [[forene#rfd-sense-notice-da-|forene]] ==

{{ping|Hk5183}} Sense "to have [[sexual intercourse]] with". It doesn't seem lexicalized to me, and AFAICT it's quite rare, too. Looking cursorily, I found one cite, and there is another on DDO, both of which seem like nonce euphemisms by romantic authors (Femina is a women's magazine). [https://ordnet.dk/ods/ordbog?query=forene&tab=rel ODS] lists a large number of minor semantic variations, but not this one.__[[User:Gamren|Gamren]] ([[User talk:Gamren|talk]]) 19:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
: I personally have never encountered this meaning in reading (only in DDO), so I cannot attest to it's usage. I agree that it is not at the core of the word's meaning, so  delete it if you think best. Thanks! [[User:Hk5183|Hk5183]] ([[User talk:Hk5183|talk]]) 19:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

:The English verb ''unite'' is also used as a euphemism for the sexual act: [https://books.google.com/books?id=AQMTBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT230&dq=unite&hl=en], [https://books.google.com/books?id=1srlwj-6UpsC&pg=PT21&dq=%22a+man+and+a+woman+unite%22&hl=en] – not a reason to add this as a new sense. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 13:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

= April 2021 =
== [[:посланець аллаха#rfd-notice-uk-|посланець аллаха]] ==

Seems as SOP as [[Allah's Messenger]] would be in English. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|'''s'''ur]][[Special:Contributions/Surjection|'''j'''ec]][[Special:Log/Surjection|'''t'''ion]] &lang;<code>[[User talk:Surjection|'''??''']]</code>&rang; 08:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
:Which isn't very SOP. Without real-world knowledge of Islam, how is anyone supposed to know who Allah's Messenger is? —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 09:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
:: The answer is easy: It’s always the one relevant in the narrative of the religion in question. '''Delete'''. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 13:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
: '''Lean delete''', which religious titles to include and which not can be difficult because there are many metaphors and allusions involved, but this one is rather straightforwardly descriptive. So it is closer to ''Holy One of God'' (imo excludible) than to ''Lamb of God'' (imo includible). <s>←₰-→</s> [[User:Lingo Bingo Dingo|<small>Lingo</small> <sup>Bingo</sup> <sub>Dingo</sub>]] ([[User talk:Lingo Bingo Dingo|talk]])  10:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
::<small>Is a lean delete more gentle than a fat delete? &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 12:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)</small>
::: {{small|I don't trust a delete with a lean and hungry look. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 08:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)}}
:* Speaking from a background that leaves me rather ignorant of much of Islam, I can only guess at what or who "Allah's Messenger" would refer to -- Might this be an angel?  Any of the prophets?  A specific prophet?  I don't know.
:: In other words, I agree with [[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]]'s point, and I cannot agree with Fay Freak's contention, that ''"[i]t's always the one relevant in the narrative of the religion in question"'' would mean any English speaker would perforce understand this in a sum-of-parts manner.
:: As such, '''keep''', and ideally also include [[Allah's Messenger]] (if that is indeed an often-used term).  ‑‑&nbsp;[[User:Eirikr|Eiríkr&nbsp;Útlendi]]&nbsp;│<sup>''[[User talk:Eirikr|Tala&nbsp;við&nbsp;mig]]''</sup> 08:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
: In fact, Muhammad is the main messenger of all messengers of Islam. {{unsigned|Adamdaniel864|06:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)}}

= May 2021 =

== [[:منتظر ... بودن#rfd-notice-fa-|منتظر ... بودن]] ==

This construction isn't really a word (not in Dehkhoda), and the attempt to treat it as a verb has produced the convoluted usage notes. The relevant information is now contained in [[منتظر#Usage notes]], which I think conveys the information rather more succinctly.

I propose a '''hard-redirect''' to [[منتظر]].--[[User:Tibidibi|Tibidibi]] ([[User talk:Tibidibi|talk]]) 17:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

= June 2021 =
== [[:kawu#rfd-notice-bjb-|kawu]] ==

All of the entries for Barngarla on Wiktionary follow the standardised spelling ([https://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/ghilad.zuckermann?dsn=directory.file;field=data;id=41076;m=view as specified here]), except for one entry {{l|bjb|kawu}}, and two other entries {{l|bjb|kauo}} and {{l|bjb|kawi}} that specify themselves as alternate spellings of {{l|bjb|kawu}}. The version of this word with standardised spelling can be found at {{l|bjb|gawoo}} (and possibly also {{l|bjb|gabi}}). The Barngarla Language Advisory Comittee prescibes that Barngarla should be written according to the modern standardised spelling. These other spellings are not part of any sort of obsolete spelling system, but rather are just arbitrary spellings that some linguists used to transcribe Barngarla words prior to the modern spelling standardisation. Therefore I propose that these entries be deleted. --[[User:AndreRD|AndreRD]] ([[User talk:AndreRD|talk]]) 09:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
:'''Delete''' as per [[User:AndreRD|AndreRD]]'s detailed explanation. ''Gawoo'' is the spelling and already appears in the Wiktionary. [[User:Native-title|Native-title]] ([[User talk:Native-title|talk]]) 05:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
::Please delete the Barngarla lemma [[warradya]] too, as the correct form is [[warraidya]]. [[User:Native-title|Native-title]] ([[User talk:Native-title|talk]]) 08:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
:I looked into the situation here. The Barngarla language fell out of use by 1964, but has recently been revived thanks to an effort spearheaded by Ghil'ad Zuckermann, a linguist. Apparently Zuckermann himself developed a new orthography for the language. There are plenty of old pre-1964 texts with attestations (at least mentions) of Barngarla words not written in Zuckermann's orthography, but the evidence suggests these writers were using ad-hoc orthographies and there was no written standard. I suppose the most logical thing to do is to delete these old ad-hoc spellings - otherwise we'd clutter the dictionary with all sorts of one-off spellings for all kinds of LDLs. Do we have a common practice in these situations? [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 02:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
::Of course, Wiktionary is not paper.  Incidentally, while we are at it, should we get these pre-1964 texts burnt? A sane compromise is to by default require 2 independent mentions with the same spelling if there are no examples of use. --[[User:RichardW57m|RichardW57m]] ([[User talk:RichardW57m|talk]]) 10:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

== [[sugata]] ==

The sense 'well-gone' (perpetrated by {{ping|咖喱饭}}) currently (26 June 2021) given for Pali {{m|pi|sugata}} is either covered by 'faring well' or needs separate senses.  "Well-gone" is not proper English in this context, but clearly a literal translation. --[[User:RichardW57|RichardW57]] ([[User talk:RichardW57|talk]]) 10:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I just removed the sense. '''RFD-resolved''' [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 09:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

= July 2021 =

== [[:การฆ่าช้างเอางา#rfd-notice-th-|การฆ่าช้างเอางา]] ==

This idiom does not add การ-. --[[User:Octahedron80|Octahedron80]] ([[User talk:Octahedron80|talk]]) 00:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

:This is a tricky one to analyse.  There are 784 raw Google hits, but the problem is that killing an elephant for its ivory is exactly what the poachers do, and examples referring to that would be straightforward SoPs. --[[User:RichardW57|RichardW57]] ([[User talk:RichardW57|talk]]) 12:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
::'''Keep'''. I've found a quotation that clearly isn't about elephants.  Unfortunately, it's about the killing of Rama VIII (the current king's uncle), from a book that's banned in Thailand.  It does, however, clearly show the use of the abstract 'noun' of the idiomatic phrase, so as with the request above we need a clearer explanation of why the abstract noun from the idiom should be excluded.  The example shows the noun as the object of a preposition, {{m|th|ถึง}} (or a verb acting like one, depending on your taste in grammar). --[[User:RichardW57|RichardW57]] ([[User talk:RichardW57|talk]]) 20:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

See my message above. --[[User:Octahedron80|Octahedron80]] ([[User talk:Octahedron80|talk]]) 07:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

== [[:ความกลัวดอกพิกุลจะร่วง#rfd-notice-th-|ความกลัวดอกพิกุลจะร่วง]] ==

=== [[:การกลัวดอกพิกุลจะร่วง#rfd-notice-th-|การกลัวดอกพิกุลจะร่วง]] ===

This idiom does not add การ- or ความ-. See ''การสีซอให้ควายฟัง'' --[[User:Octahedron80|Octahedron80]] ([[User talk:Octahedron80|talk]]) 02:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

== [[د هغۀ]], [[د هغې]], [[د هغوی]], [[د ... په منځ کې]], [[د ... وروسته]], [[خوځنده انځور]], [[دويم ځل]], [[بل ځل]], [[ورځ په ورځ]] ==

SOPs. Not sure about [[ورځ په ورځ]] though. [[User:SAb54iudwe1|SAb54iudwe1]] ([[User talk:SAb54iudwe1|talk]]) 12:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

= August 2021 =

== <s>[[:vier#rfd-notice-nl-|vier]]</s> ==

RFD of the noun section: "a sign for or representation of four", "the value four, e.g. as a score" and "(uncountable) a group of four". Unremarkable variations on the numeral definition that don't deserve a separate noun section. <s>←₰-→</s> [[User:Lingo Bingo Dingo|<small>Lingo</small> <sup>Bingo</sup> <sub>Dingo</sub>]] ([[User talk:Lingo Bingo Dingo|talk]])  18:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
:'''Comment'''. {{m+|en|four}}, {{m+|de|Vier}} and {{m+|it|quattro}} also have a listed noun sense. Deletion of the noun section will also remove the information that this is a ''de'' word that has a plural on ''-en''. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 19:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
:: I agree with Lambiam. [[User:Morgengave|Morgengave]] ([[User talk:Morgengave|talk]]) 15:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
:'''Keep''', edit the definitions if you will, but if it has a plural, then it is a countable noun and this section needs to exist. [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 12:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' per above.  It has a noun use that isn't likely to appear with large numbers, fractions, and the like. [[user:Soap|—]]<span style="background-color: #a6ffe0; padding: 3px; border-radius: 6px 6px 6px 6px;"><b>[[user talk:Soap|Soap]]</b></span>[[Special:Contributions/Soap|—]] 10:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
:'''Keep'''. I added examples, all three noun meanings are remarkable enough and frequently used. I don't think deleting them would be any useful — [[User:NickK|NickK]] ([[User talk:NickK|talk]]) 20:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
::I agree with Nick, here. Removing these can cause ambiguity when one comes upon the use cases that would otherwise be provided.
::'''Keep''' &mdash; [[User:Piperium|Piperium]] ([[User talk:Piperium|talk]]) 04:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
'''RFD-kept''' [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 13:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

== [[:apostolisch vicaris#rfd-notice-nl-|apostolisch vicaris]] ==

Dutch, "vicar apostolic", SOP of {{m|nl|apostolisch}} (sense 4) and {{m|nl|vicaris}} (sense 1). <s>←₰-→</s> [[User:Lingo Bingo Dingo|<small>Lingo</small> <sup>Bingo</sup> <sub>Dingo</sub>]] ([[User talk:Lingo Bingo Dingo|talk]])  19:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
:I don't think I'd understand the meaning from the components. A {{m|nl|vicaris}} is not, in general, a titular bishop, and {{m|nl|apostolisch}} also does not imply bishopric. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 07:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Lambiam}} But a vicar is often enough a substitute for a bishop, and a vicar apostolic in a sense is also a substitute for a bishop. I agree it's not a slam-dunk though. <s>←₰-→</s> [[User:Lingo Bingo Dingo|<small>Lingo</small> <sup>Bingo</sup> <sub>Dingo</sub>]] ([[User talk:Lingo Bingo Dingo|talk]])  15:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
::: A ''vicar apostolic'' has usually been ordained and consecrated as a bishop and stands as such in the [[apostolic succession]], so they may perform the sacrament of [[holy orders]]. They do not represent a bishop other than the Pope. A vicar acting as the representative of a Catholic diocesan bishop is usually not themselves a bishop; they have vicarious administrative or judicial powers, but not sacramental ones. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 15:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

= December 2021 =

== <s>[[:A0#rfd-notice-nb-|A0]]</s> ==

=== [[:A1#rfd-notice-nb-|A1]] ===
=== [[:A2#rfd-notice-nb-|A2]] ===
=== [[:A3#rfd-notice-nb-|A3]] ===
=== [[:A4#rfd-notice-nb-|A4]] ===
=== [[:A4#rfd-notice-nn-|A4]] ===
=== [[:A5#rfd-notice-nb-|A5]] ===
=== [[:A6#rfd-notice-nb-|A6]] ===
=== [[:A7#rfd-notice-nb-|A7]] ===
=== [[:A8#rfd-notice-nb-|A8]] ===
=== [[:A9#rfd-notice-nb-|A9]] ===
=== [[:A10#rfd-notice-nb-|A10]] ===
=== [[:2A0#rfd-notice-nb-|2A0]] ===

Note that all of these exist in the translingual section already. I see little to no value in having language-specific entries for these; the only language-specific data is the pronunciation which could surely be derived from the letter name and the number entry. See also [[Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup#A1]]. --[[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]] ([[User talk:Fytcha|talk]]) 18:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
: I created these entries while I was alphabetically creating entries from the Norwegian dictionary, where these are present. I think they are useful as they have the Norwegian pronunciation + some link to Bokmålsordboka, Riksmål dictionary, Norwegian lexicon and Wikipedia. Some of them even have other definitions, A4 has a definition unrelated to the paper size for example. [[User:Supevan|Supevan]] ([[User talk:Supevan|talk]]) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
::I didn't mean to nominate the non-paper-format-related definitions. I'll change that straight away. [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]] ([[User talk:Fytcha|talk]]) 20:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

:There may be language-specific aspects (pronunciation, inflections). We currently have no entry for Dutch, but note that the entry [[:nl:A4|A4]] at the Dutch Wiktionary gives a gender and [[:File:Nl-A4.ogg|a pronunciation]] and lists plural and diminutive forms as well as several derived terms. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 11:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
:Well, in practice these terms are attested in all modern languages in use by societies with a need for office supplies, so the entry could eventually become quite long, with endlessly repeated etymologies and definitions. The orthography, etymology, definitions, and related terms are common to all languages, while inflections, pronunciations (of little importance for this set of terms, as Fytcha says) and derived terms differ. There are good arguments for creating all the language entries as well for merging them up to a single Translingual entry; I tend to [[User:This, that and the other/translingual|prefer the latter approach]]. I like the way the pronunciation section is set up at {{m|mul|Homo sapiens}}, for example. [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 11:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
::'''Delete''' @[[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] I agree with this in principle. Is there a precedent for having things like gender and inflection in various languages in a table in the Translingual entry? A translation section is also desirable, as not all languages use ''A4''. In Dutch for instance, the common term is [[wikt:nl:A4'tje|''A4'tje'']]. @[[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]] Indeed, this should be discussed more extensively elsewhere (or has it already been?) —[[User:Caoimhin ceallach|Caoimhin ceallach]] ([[User talk:Caoimhin ceallach|talk]]) 16:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''Delete''' - these are covered by translingual. The pronunciation can be moved there. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 15:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
:{{ping|Fytcha|Supevan|Lambiam|Theknightwho}} I reformatted {{m|mul|A7}} along the lines of {{m|mul|Homo sapiens}}, as a pilot project before converting them all. Any thoughts? [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 06:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
::{{re|This, that and the other}} It's an interesting idea and I'm not per se opposed but I think the idea of allowing different pronunciations in a translingual entry should be discussed in a BP first because I can see why some would oppose it. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 11:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
:::{{re|This, that and the other|Fytcha}} I like it, but I think we should make such sections collapsible (in the same manner as translations). [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 11:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
'''No consensus.''' —[[User:Caoimhin ceallach|Caoimhin ceallach]] ([[User talk:Caoimhin ceallach|talk]]) 18:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

== [[سقى#rfd-sense-notice-ar-|سقى]] ==

RFD-sense "''(transitive) to give water to, to quench the thirst of, to hydrate''". Tagged but not listed ({{diff|62332565}}). --[[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]] ([[User talk:Fytcha|talk]]) 05:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
* Rationale not given, but it does appear redundant with the sense above.  An Arabic speaker should simply merge them.  [[User:Vox Sciurorum|Vox Sciurorum]] ([[User talk:Vox Sciurorum|talk]]) 15:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

== [[:леле мори мајко#rfd-notice-mk-|леле мори мајко]] ==
===[[мајко моја мила]]===
Macedonian, tagged but not listed. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 19:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

:{{wgping|mk|u1=Dimithrandir|u2=Горец|u3=Martin123xyz}} Any opinions on these? Are these [[WT:SOP]]s as is claimed in the RFD reason? &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 03:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
::"мајко моја мила" is SOP, but I'm not sure about "леле мори мајко". [[User:Горец|Gorec]] ([[User talk:Горец|talk]]) 14:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

== [[:баярлаа#rfd-notice-mn-|баярлаа]] ==

Tagged but not listed ({{diff|52528427}} by {{ping|Atitarev}}). Reason given: "''Phonetic respellings should be handled differently''". --[[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]] ([[User talk:Fytcha|talk]]) 23:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
: Created by {{ping|Crom daba}}. The inclusion should be based on the usage. We don't create entries for "phonetic respellings" but we have (frequent) misspellings, alternative forms, etc. If the usage can be verified, the entry can be kept but as {{temp|alt form|mn|баярлалаа}} or {{temp|misspelling of|mn|баярлалаа}} --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 06:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Crom daba|LibCae|Fytcha}}: Still unresolved. It may not be just a "phonetic respelling" but a "common misspelling" (because it's how it's how it's pronounced). If this spelling is attestable, then it should be kept but needs a change of the label. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 01:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
:::{{re|Atitarev}} Sorry, I have absolutely no knowledge of Mongolian. I was just listing the tagged entry. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 02:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

=== [[:-саан#rfd-notice-mn-|-саан]] ===
Tagged but not listed ({{diff|52528431}} by {{ping|Atitarev}}). --[[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]] ([[User talk:Fytcha|talk]]) 23:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
: Similar to above. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 06:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

=== [[:-наа#rfd-notice-mn-|-наа]] ===
Tagged but not listed ({{diff|52528430}} by {{ping|Atitarev}}). --[[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]] ([[User talk:Fytcha|talk]]) 23:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
: Similar to above. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 06:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

=== [[:-ноо#rfd-notice-mn-|-ноо]] ===

=== [[:-нээ#rfd-notice-mn-|-нээ]] ===

=== [[:-нөө#rfd-notice-mn-|-нөө]] ===

These are the unlinked vowel harmonic variants of {{m|mn|-наа}}, so should be deleted if that term is. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 02:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

= January 2022 =
== [[штири]] ==

{{ping|ZomBear|Russianrye|PetrGruko|Vedac13|Atitarev|Useigor|Tetromino|Fay Freak}} I don't know who the Rusyn editors are here so I am pinging the people who worked on [[штыри]] and [[штири]], along with a few other likely suspects. What seems to have happened is that [[User:Vedac13]], [[User:PetrGruko]] and [[User:Russianrye]] created {{m|rue|шти́ри||four}}, marking it as ''Prešov''. Recently, however, [[User:ZomBear]] created an entry under {{m|rue|шты́ри}} with the same meaning (marked as ''regional''), and marked {{m|rue|шти́ри}} for speedy deletion. I don't know much about Rusyn but this looks fishy; I suspect there are competing standards for Rusyn spelling, which may have political ramifications. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 18:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

:Kercha (2012) gives the forms четыри, четверо and штыри as forms of the numeral "four". AFAIK, Rusyn orthography is pretty phonemic, with a three-way contrast ы-и-і. I'd say '''send to RFV'''. [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 18:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

:: {{re|Benwing2|Thadh|ZomBear}} Sorry, can't help with this. I lost my Rusyn dictionary. On "четверо" I wonder if it's a noun with the sense "four people", rather than a numeral "four".
:: Trying to find what is right in Rusyn can be frustrating as different authors can use very different words and spellings. There are multiple standards but it seems to be no standard. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 02:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

::: Here is another source {{m|rue|шты́ри}} — {{R:rue:Horoszczak:1993|шты́ри|248|url=https://shron1.chtyvo.org.ua/Horoschak_Yaroslav/Pershyi_lemkivsko-polskii_slovnyk.pdf#page=248}}
::: I did not come across in Rusyn dictionaries {{m|rue|шти́ри}}. --[[User:ZomBear|ZomBear]] ([[User talk:ZomBear|talk]]) 04:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

= February 2022 =

== [[:ܐܬܘܪܝ#rfd-notice-syc-|ܐܬܘܪܝ]] ==

Classical Syriac. 

Tagged by {{ping|Antonklroberts}}, but not listed due to unfamiliarity with the template. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 17:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

:@[[User:Antonklroberts|Antonklroberts]] Could you please explain why you think this entry should be deleted? If the reason is "it doesn't exist", we deal with that through Requests for Verification: [[WT:RFVN]] and the {{tl|rfv|syc}} template. Thanks, [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 03:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

::It ''does'' exist in Classical Syriac but not as a lemma. I believe @[[User:Antonklroberts|Antonklroberts]] is referencing its non-existence in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, in which he would be correct. I'll clean the article up and remove the deletion template. --[[User:334a|334a]] ([[User talk:334a|talk]]) 05:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

== [[:दस करोड़#rfd-notice-hi-|दस करोड़]], [[:दस लाख#rfd-notice-hi-|दस लाख]] ==

Hindi. Not covered by CFI: [[WT:CFI#Numbers,_numerals,_and_ordinals]]. I usually speedy these SOP numbers per [[Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2022/January#Non-English_entries_that_don't_meet_WT:CFI#Numbers,_numerals,_and_ordinals]] but I didn't feel comfortable doing so this time because 1. the number system is markedly different from the languages that I'm familiar with and 2. the article was created by a sysop. {{wgping|hi|u1=AryamanA|u2=Atitarev|u3=Benwing2|u4=Smettems|u5=Kutchkutch|u6=Bhagadatta|u7=Msasag|u8=Svartava2|u9=Getsnoopy|u10=Rishabhbhat}}. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 08:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

: '''Delete''' if not '''speedy'''; different number system does not mean that it isn't decipherable by its components and it isn't one word. —[[Special:Contribs/Svartava|<u style="color:#E21F1F; font-size:120%;">Svārtava</u>]] (''[[User talk:Svartava2|t]]/[[User:Svartava|u]]'') • 09:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
: '''Delete''', unless there's proof of them being used figuratively as 'very large number'. --[[User:Rishabhbhat|Rishabhbhat]] ([[User talk:Rishabhbhat|talk]]) 10:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
: Normally I think CFI's allowance for deleting numbers is too strong, but in this case if you have any idea what a [[lakh]] and a [[crore]] are, the expressions "ten lakh" and "ten crore" are completely transparent, so I am not opposed to deletion. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 04:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

{{ping|Rishabhbhat|Svartava}} Would you consider any of the following uses to be idiomatic/figurative for 'very large number' rather than the SOP meaning?
<small>
: {{lang|hi|जानकारी के अनुसार आज जिले भर के बाजारों में लगभग '''दस करोड़ों की खरीदारी''' हुई।}}
: {{lang|hi|'''दस करोड़ों की लागत से''' बनाया आधुनिक तकनीक का डबल लेन ब्रिज में पांच सालों के भीतर ही दरारें पड़ गई।}}
: {{lang|hi|योरप में कितने ही ऐसे कला-प्रेमी पड़े हुए हैं जो उनमें की एक-एक तस्वीर के लिए '''दस-दस लाख पौण्ड तक''' देने को तैयार हैं।}}
: {{lang|hi|बाकी '''दस करोड़ों की आबादी में''' कितने ही बूढ़े, कितने ही मरीज, कितने ही डाकू, कितने ही भिखमंगे, कितने ही साधु शमिल हैं।}}
: {{lang|hi|ऐसा गोल्डन लिफाफा '''दस लाख लोगों को''' भेजा गया है।}}
: {{lang|hi|मारुति सुजुकी गुजरात प्लांट में '''दस लाखों कारों का उत्पादन''' हुआ पूरा}}
: {{lang|hi|सौ करोड़ रुपये से कम बिक्री-राशि की दशा में निकटतम '''सैकड़ों, हजारों, लाखों अथवा दस लाखों या उनके दशमलवांशों में''' पूरा करके दिया जा सकता है। (ii) सौ करोड़ रुपये या उससे अधिक बिक्री राशि की दशा में निकटतम '''लाखों, दस लाखों अथवा करोड़ों''' या उनके दशमलवांशों में पूरा करके दिया जा सकता है।}}
: {{lang|hi|ये कार्यकर्ता आने वाले नब्बे दिनों में हर दिन '''दस लाखों बिल्डिंग्स में''' जाकर लोगों के स्वास्थ्य की जानकारी लेंगे}}
: {{lang|hi|खत्म होगी मुसाफिरों की मुसीबत, हाईवे के लिए '''दस करोड़ों राशी''' स्वीकृत}}
</small>
Even if they are deleted as SOP, it may still be helpful to keep <nowiki>[[दस]] [[करोड़]]</nowiki > & <nowiki>[[दस]] [[लाख]]</nowiki> at [[Module:number list/data/hi]] and the translation tables at {{section link|one hundred million#Translations}} & {{section link|million#Translations}}. [[User:Kutchkutch|Kutchkutch]] ([[User talk:Kutchkutch|talk]]) 03:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

:@[[User:Kutchkutch|Kutchkutch]]: Even in these sentences, in the first one - ''लगभग '''दस करोड़ों''' की खरीदारी हुई'' - the use might not be figurative: it translates to ''nearly '''ten crores''' of purchasing''. I don't think that even the figurative use for "large number" should be enough to keep it because in any case it would translate to "''ten crore(s)''" even when figuratively and the meaning (from the components) and figurative use is obvious. —[[Special:Contribs/Svartava|<u style="color:#E21F1F; font-size:120%;">Svārtava</u>]] (''[[User talk:Svartava2|t]]/[[User:Svartava|u]]'') • 03:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
:{{re|Kutchkutch}} Yes, whenever a term is deleted as SOP, I always relink its translation to its parts (instead of removing it) as every sysop should, so nothing would be lost there. The question only is whether this term merits a full entry by itself. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 08:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

== {{l|he|:יום השבת#rfd-notice-he-|יום השבת}} ==

Hebrew. 

SOP. [[User:Sartma|Sartma]] ([[User talk:Sartma|talk]]) 01:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

== {{l|he|:יום שבת#rfd-notice-he-|יום שבת}} ==

Hebrew. 

SOP. [[User:Sartma|Sartma]] ([[User talk:Sartma|talk]]) 01:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
: '''Keep''' as a synonym. This reminds me of semantically redundant forms like {{m+|as|ৰৌ মাছ}} and {{m|as|অজগৰ সাপ}} that are useful & worth keeping as synonyms. Pinging the creator of the entry, {{ping|Ruakh}}. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User talk:Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">·~</span>]] [[User:Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">dictátor</span>]]·[[Special:Contribs/Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">mundꟾ</span>]]</span> 14:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
: '''Keep'''. It seems like a compound term hyperonymous to {{m|he|שבת}} with a slightly different meaning (more formal?). The Torah uses this word as a synonym to {{m|he|שבת}}. Correct me if am wrong on this one. [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 21:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

= March 2022 =

== <s>[[:wieder-#rfd-notice-de-|wieder-]]</s> ==

German, not a real prefix. Supposed derivations are instead compounds with [[wieder]]. Many compound verbs with ''wieder'' can actually be written with a space, even in the infinitive. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 12:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
:Also not a prefix in {{m|de|wiederholen}}, which is completely untrennbar? &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 08:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
::{{re|Lambiam}} No. By that token, [[fremd-]] would be a prefix too by the existence of the untrennbare conjugation of [[fremdschämen]], or [[recht-]] because of {{m|de|rechtfertigen}}. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 13:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

:'''Comment:''' On one hand, lemmings have this one: de.Wikt, DWDS and a number of books refer to the {{b.g.c.|"Präfix wieder-"}} / {{b.g.c.|"prefix wieder-"}}; I also see books which refer to its OHG predecessor as a {{b.g.c.|"Präfix widar"}} / {{b.g.c.|"prefix widar"}} (though some of these seem to have a different idea of what a "prefix" is than us). OTOH, analysing words formed with it as compounds seems to work. One book says there were cases where the semantics were different, at least in OHG, as in ''widerfahren'' vs ''widar fahren''=''zurückfahren'', but that seems to correspond to modern ''wider'' vs ''wieder'' so it's still not clear we need ''wieder-''. Meh. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 19:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
:{{ping|Mahagaja|Fay Freak|Jberkel}}: Any opinions on this and the ones above and below? I always appreciate your inputs. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 21:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
:: {{re|Fytcha}} The requirement for something written together is traditionally lexicalization, the having become an idiom. A circumstance to be memorized by input and hence occasionally to ponder about when writing if you are not sure whether you just invented an SOP combination or it is a rarer idiomatic combination, I have experienced specifically in using ''wieder''. So all of {{m|de|wiederentdecken}}, {{m|de|wiederkehren}}, {{m|de|wiedertaufen}} have been SOP terms of adverb plus verb at some point—until the point that people picked it up, which of course differs by centuries: you might see that that literal sense of {{m|de|kehren}} for instance is now tendentially archaic while {{m|de|wiederentdecken}} belongs to an era of oftener inventions. So none has been formed by prefixation. Correct is {{temp|univerbation}}. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' as it seems the meaning is more constrained when used as a bound morpheme.  Just as English [[out-]] is more constrained than [[out]]. [[user:Soap|—]]<span style="background-color: #a6ffe0; padding: 3px; border-radius: 6px 6px 6px 6px;"><b>[[user talk:Soap|Soap]]</b></span>[[Special:Contributions/Soap|—]] 10:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
:'''Keep'''. This is definitely a prefix in my opinion, it's pretty much synonymous with {{m|de|re-}}, which is pretty much only used with Latin-based loans, and ''wieder-'' is used instead with native words. It's not the same as just using "wieder" as a separate word, it can be pronounced differently (the prefix is stressed when separable) and can have a different connotation or meaning. {{m|de|wiederkäuen|Wiederkäuen}} ('ruminate') doesn't mean the same as ''wieder kauen'' ('chew again') (käuen doesn't exist on its own), {{m|de|wiederholen}} ('repeat' or 'bring back') doesn't mean the same as ''wieder holen'' ('bring again'), {{m|de|wiederherstellen}} ('restore') doesn't mean the same as ''wieder herstellen'' ('manufacture again'), {{m|de|wiedergeben}} ('render, portray, reproduce', also 'give back' which seems to be missing from the entry atm) doesn't mean the same as ''wieder geben'' ('give again'), etc. ''Wieder'' as a separate word can be 'back (to its original state)', but I believe this is only used with words like {{m|de|herunter}} or {{m|de|aus}} indicating the state to return to, and not used before verbs. There are some cases of separable ''wieder-'' verbs with the 'back' meaning, which can often end up with 'wieder' at the same place in the sentence as if it was ''wieder'' (with the meaning 'again') on its own, in these cases, when the latter is intended, it may be expressed like {{m|de|schon}} ''wieder'' or {{m|de|mal}} ''wieder'' to distinguish this. ''Er gab es mir wieder'' ('he gave it back to me') from ''wiedergeben'' vs ''Er gab es mir (schon) wieder'' ('ge gave it to me (yet) again') from ''wieder'' and {{m|de|geben}}. These separable verbs may sometimes be spelled with a space like ''wieder geben'', but I'd say it is rare, and usually these are spelled without a space; specifically with this meaning 'back', whereas the meaning 'again' is a separate word and not a separable prefix. And there are also words with ''wieder-'' that are inseperable, like ''wiederholen'' in the sense 'repeat', where ''wieder'' on its own would often be placed in a different position in the sentence and have a different meaning.  Just like words like {{m|de|um}} and {{m|de|über}}, it can be used on its own, as a separable prefix, and as an inseparable prefix, and we do consider {{m|de|um-}} for example a prefix. Unlike [[fremd-]] and [[recht-]], ''wieder-'' is commonly used, both in various established terms with specific meanings, and also productively attached to other verbs. A few uses of ''wieder'', such as {{m|de|wiederwählen}} may be considered a univerbation (is separable and has pretty much the same meaning (?) as ''wieder wählen''), but most are not in my opinion. [[User:Tajoshu|Tajoshu]] ([[User talk:Tajoshu|talk]]) 15:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

: '''Keep'''. Productivity and in many cases distinction in meaning between compound and seperate spelling is warrant enough for prefix status. [[User:Skunkassociation|Skunkassociation]] ([[User talk:Skunkassociation|talk]]) 22:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
'''RFD-kept''' - or at best no consensus [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 09:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

= April 2022 =

== [[:Јованка Орлеанка#rfd-notice-mk-|Јованка Орлеанка]] ==

=== <s>[[:Ioana d'Arc#rfd-notice-ro-|Ioana d'Arc]]</s> ===
=== [[:ジャンヌ・ダルク#rfd-notice-ja-|ジャンヌ・ダルク]] ===
=== [[:Jeanne d'Arc#rfd-notice-fr-|Jeanne d'Arc]] ===
=== [[:聖女貞德#rfd-notice-zh-|聖女貞德]] ===

Following the deletion of {{m+|en|Joan of Arc|pos=proper noun}}. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User talk:Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">·~</span>]] [[User:Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">dictátor</span>]]·[[Special:Contribs/Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">mundꟾ</span>]]</span> 07:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
: The Japanese term {{ja-r|^ジャンヌ・^ダルク}} has no other meaning than the name of the historical person.  As written in [[WT:NAMES]], particularly [[WT:NSE]], we must '''delete'''.  ‑‑&nbsp;[[User:Eirikr|Eiríkr&nbsp;Útlendi]]&nbsp;│<sup>''[[User talk:Eirikr|Tala&nbsp;við&nbsp;mig]]''</sup> 23:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
:'''RFV''' issue. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 12:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' and '''undelete''' the literal sense in [[Joan of Arc]]. The deletion of the person sense from [[Joan of Arc]] was incorrectly justified. In [[Talk:Joan of Arc]], we can read "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia" as the justification for deletion. But this does not mean there can be no senses for people, only that the senses should not describe the people in encyclopedic manner. The quoted sentence also refers to ''places'', and under the incorrect interpretation of the sentence, we would also need to delete senses for places from place names, which we do not want to do and have not been doing. It was further said that "Most terms in [[:Category:en:Individuals]] are not entries about individuals but about terms named after individuals", which is not obvious to me and even if it were true, ''many'' of the entries there are for specific individuals, e.g. [[Aristotle]]: "An ancient Greek philosopher, logician, and scientist (382–322 B.C.E.), student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great." We did see some efforts to get rid of senses for specific individuals in the past, but that never achieved anything like consensus; see e.g. [[Talk:Xenocrates]]. And in [[Talk:Joan of Arc]] I do not see 2/3-consensus for deleting the literal sense, so the closure does not appear correct as for consensus either. In [[Talk:George VI]] I do not see the required 2/3 supermajority for deletion either. [[WT:NSE]] does not require us to delete [[Joan of Arc]]'s literal sense, from what I can see. As pointed out elsewhere, we have other ''multi-word'' names such as [[Jesus Christ]], [[Alexander the Great]], [[Darwin's Bulldog]], [[Attila the Hun]], [[Genghis Khan]], [[Mary Magdalene]], [[Robin Hood]] and I have just checked that they contain senses for specific people. {{R:OneLook|Joan of Arc}} shows support of multiple lemmings, so we can even use [[WT:LEMMING]] as an arbitrary aid. Thus, the deletion of [[Joan of Arc]] person sense contradicts the usual interpretation of the part of CFI quoted for the support for deletion and contradicts common practice shown on very many of the entries in [[:Category:en:Individuals]] even if not all of them, and contradicts [[WT:LEMMING]], which can help us when we feel undecisive about what to do as part of [[WT:NSE]]. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 14:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
*: I now restored [[Joan of Arc]] person sense since I carefully verified there was no 2/3-consensus for the deletion of the literal sense and documented that in [[Talk:Joan of Arc]]. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 15:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
*: As for [[WT:NSE]]'s "No 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", "of Arc" is neither a family name nor a patronymic, so this does not apply. The notion that we exclude all person senses from multi-word person names was refuted above. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 15:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
::: Revisiting this a bit late.
::: From the WP article at [[:w:Joan of Arc]], particularly the [[:w:Joan_of_Arc#Name|#Name]] section, my understanding is that the ''of Arc'' or ''d'Arc'' portions of the name are in fact patronymic, at least as understood by the chroniclers who first recorded (something like) this version of her name roughly 24 years posthumously.
::: The EN entry at {{m|en|Joan of Arc}} currently has no proper noun sense, only the figurative sense -- which seems correct to me inasmuch as I understand the policy at [[WT:NSE]].
::: The JA entry at {{ja-r|^ジャンヌ・^ダルク}} currently has ''only'' the proper noun sense -- which seems like an entry we shouldn't have?
::: Bringing this back up in an effort to resolve the RFD still in place for the Japanese entry.  ‑‑&nbsp;[[User:Eirikr|Eiríkr&nbsp;Útlendi]]&nbsp;│<sup>''[[User talk:Eirikr|Tala&nbsp;við&nbsp;mig]]''</sup> 23:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
:'''Delete''' all unless figurative senses are attestable. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 18:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

: Added 3 quotations from some books to the Romanian entry. [[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] ([[User talk:Bogdan|talk]]) 20:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
:: I have struck {{m|ro|Ioana d'Arc}}. The quotations check out and the entry is thus outside the (intended) scope of this RFD. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 20:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' the figurative senses of these entries, at the very least (I'd have no objection to keeping the literal senses either but whatever approach we take should be consistent across entries). If attestability is in doubt then RFV is the appropriate forum to discuss that, so it's not relevant to discussions here. --[[User:Overlordnat1|Overlordnat1]] ([[User talk:Overlordnat1|talk]]) 23:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

== [[:abajurlu#rfd-notice-tr-|abajurlu]], [[:abajursuz#rfd-notice-tr-|abajursuz]] ==

The suffixes {{m|tr|-li|-li/-lı/-lu/-lü}} and {{m|tr|-siz|-siz/-sız/-suz/-süz}} can be added to any Turkish noun to form adjectives meaning “with ...” and “without ...”. For example: ''şekerli kahve'' = “coffee with sugar”; ''şekersiz kahve'' = “coffee without sugar”. IMO there has to be a specific reason to have entries for such adjectives, such as that they have a specific idiomatic meaning ({{m|tr|tatlı}} = “sweet”, not the regular “having taste”), or that there is a dedicated corresponding English adjective ({{m|tr|ünlü}} = “famous”). &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 17:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

:If we go based on these 2 rules we'd have to delete a lot of pages. Maybe mirror other dictionaries. {{tl|R:TDK}} has the +{{m|tr|-li}} form for some fruits, for example. Mainly those used as flavouring or in bakery. To my surprise they also have {{m|tr|abajurlu}} and {{m|tr|abajursuz}}. Then I came to discover that there's [[lampshaded]]. --[[User:Whitekiko|Whitekiko]] ([[User talk:Whitekiko|talk]]) 14:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

:'''Delete''' [[User:MhmtÖ|MhmtÖ]] ([[User talk:MhmtÖ|talk]]) 09:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' {{m|tr|abajurlu}}. '''Weak keep''' {{m|tr|abajursuz}} --[[User:Whitekiko|Whitekiko]] ([[User talk:Whitekiko|talk]]) 14:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

= May 2022 =

== <s>{{l|la|abambulō}}</s> ==

Latin. Perfect and supine forms are not attested in sources:
{{col3|la
|abambulāvī
|abambulāvistī
|abambulāvit
|abambulāvimus
|abambulāvistis
|abambulāvērunt
|abambulāvēre
|abambulāveram
|abambulāverās
|abambulāverat
|abambulāverāmus
|abambulāverātis
|abambulāverant
|abambulāverō
|abambulāveris
|abambulāverit
|abambulāverimus
|abambulāveritis
|abambulāverint
|abambulāverim
|abambulāverīs
|abambulāverit
|abambulāverīmus
|abambulāverītis
|abambulāverint
|abambulāvissem
|abambulāvissēs
|abambulāvisset
|abambulāvissēmus
|abambulāvissētis
|abambulāvissent
|abambulātum
|abambulātū
|abambulāvisse
|abambulāre
|abambulātor
}} [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 22:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

:I'm not supportive of the argument behind this deletion. Because Latin has such a well-understood morphology, we have a practice of including the complete set of inflections for Latin words even if some forms are not directly attested. In the case of {{m|la|abambulō}}, these are the only possible perfect and supine forms; if attestations were encountered, there is no doubt whatsoever that these would be the forms in use, not only in terms of this being a first-declension verb, but also as a compound of {{m|la|ambulō}}. Moreover, there's no semantic reason why the verb would lack a perfect or supine stem. Therefore, the forms should be '''kept'''. [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 03:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
:: '''keep'''. I agree with @[[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]]. [[User:Sartma|Sartma]] ([[User talk:Sartma|talk]]) 12:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' because, these being the expected forms as TTO says, they are also the forms that do get used when an author needs to use the verb in the perfect: here are three (1800s) cites of [[Citations:abambulo|abambulavit]]. (Many Google Books hits for forms of ''abambul-'' are actually scannos of ''obambul-'', but these works have ''ab-''.) [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 06:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
:'''Keep''', attested in post-Classical Latin. —[[User:Al-Muqanna|Al-Muqanna]] المقنع ([[User talk:Al-Muqanna|talk]]) 11:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
'''RFD-kept''' (also not sure why these weren't moved to [[WT:RFDI]]) [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 08:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

=={{l|la|abambulātūrus}}==
Fake participle formed from the fake supine of {{m|la|abambulō}} above:
{{col3|la
|abambulātūrus
|abambulātūrī
|abambulātūrō
|abambulātūrum
|abambulātūre
|abambulātūra
|abambulātūrae
|abambulātūram
|abambulātūrōrum
|abambulātūrīs
|abambulātūrōs
|abambulātūrārum
|abambulātūrās
}} [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 22:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

:Indeed, I can't find any uses of any of these forms, even in post-classical Latin. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 22:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

==<s>{{l|la|abnatō}}</s>==
Latin. Perfect forms are not attested in sources:
{{col3|la
|abnatāvī
|abnatāvistī
|abnatāvit
|abnatāvimus
|abnatāvistis
|abnatāvērunt
|abnatāvēre
|abnatāveram
|abnatāverās
|abnatāverat
|abnatāverāmus
|abnatāverātis
|abnatāverant
|abnatāverō
|abnatāveris
|abnatāverit
|abnatāverimus
|abnatāveritis
|abnatāverint
|abnatāverim
|abnatāverīs
|abnatāverit
|abnatāverīmus
|abnatāverītis
|abnatāverint
|abnatāvissem
|abnatāvissēs
|abnatāvisset
|abnatāvissēmus
|abnatāvissētis
|abnatāvissent
|abnatāvisse
|abnatāre
}} [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 22:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

:'''Keep''' as above [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 03:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' per TTO and because it does seem to be attested, I can find uses of [[Citations:abnato|abnatavit, abnataverat, abnatavi]] (starting in the 1600s, but that's in part because Google Books doesn't include much earlier stuff so one would have to search elsewhere for it) and dictionaries going back to at least the 1650s mention ''abnatavi'' when enumerating the forms of ''abnato''. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 05:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
'''RFD-kept''' [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 08:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

=={{l|la|abnatātūrus}}==
Fake participle formed from the fake supine of {{m|la|abnatō}} above:
{{col3|la
|abnatātūrus
|abnatātūrī
|abnatātūrō
|abnatātūrum
|abnatātūre
|abnatātūra
|abnatātūrae
|abnatātūram
|abnatātūrōrum
|abnatātūrīs
|abnatātūrōs
|abnatātūrārum
|abnatātūrās
}} [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 22:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

:Indeed, I can't find any uses of any of these forms, even in post-classical Latin. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 22:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

== [[:för sen#rfd-notice-sv-|för sen]] ==

(Swedish) SOP, just like its English translation. [[User:Glades12|Glades12]] ([[User talk:Glades12|talk]]) 11:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
:'''Delete''' [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 01:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

= June 2022 =

== {{l|mul|GBN}} ==

Translingual, supposedly meaning the ISO 3166-1 three-letter code for Great Britain (the island).

This is factually wrong, because <code>GBN</code> is not defined in ISO 3166-1 (which gives 2 and 3 letter codes to all countries). The codes for the UK are <code>GB</code> and <code>GBR</code>, and no mention is made of Great Britain the island anywhere.

It also can't be a member of the related standard ISO 3166-2, because those codes all refer to subdivisions of countries and follow a strict pattern, which in this case would be <code>GB-GBN</code>.

{{ping|Urhixidur}} - could you please let me know where you got this information from? [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 18:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

:'''Delete''', it's wrong. Perhaps the mention of "GBN" was seen [https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:GB here], not realising that this actually refers to GB-GBN. [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 10:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
::I spotted that (and the [[w:ISO 3166-2:GB#Included for completeness|table on Wikipedia]] that actually says <code>GB-GBN</code>) but didn't want to overcomplicate the original request because I have a feeling that Wikipedia's wrong. I think they mention the codes <code>EAW</code>, <code>GBN</code> and <code>UKM</code> in the remark "for completeness" because they're in the (now obsolete) UK standard BS 6879 that ISO 3166-2:GB is based on, but they haven't actually been incorporated into the ISO standard. In any event, <code>GBN</code> alone is clearly not correct. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 12:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
:::Ah, that makes sense. I found various uses of <code>GB-GBN</code> in the wild, but given the power of Wikipedia it's quite possible they all originated with a Wikipedia editor making the same misconstrual I made. [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 04:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

== [[:شابة#rfd-notice-ajp-|شابة]] ==

South Levantine Arabic. {{unsigned|AdrianAbdulBaha|13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)}}

== [[:صدغ#rfd-notice-ajp-|صدغ]] ==

South Levantine Arabic. {{unsigned|AdrianAbdulBaha|13:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)}}

== [[:ذراع#rfd-notice-ajp-|ذراع]] ==

South Levantine Arabic. {{unsigned|AdrianAbdulBaha|13:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)}}

== [[:قدح#rfd-notice-ajp-|قدح]] ==

South Levantine Arabic. {{unsigned|AdrianAbdulBaha|13:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)}}
:{{ping|AdrianAbdulBaha}} What is the reason you think these entries should be deleted? [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 06:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
::They're not used in any dialect I am personally familiar with, and they were added by a non-native speaker I know who was adding words from a vocabulary list that is somewhat dubious. The question of whether a word that is attested in Standard Arabic may be considered to be attested in the dialect is a difficult one with no clear answer, because Standard Arabic vocabulary may be borrowed when specificity is required, as in the case of "arm" and "temple (of the head)". But I argue that they don't have any currency outside of those settings. (Note that this is different from terms labeled as "formal", which may be borrowed from Standard Arabic but are valid in the dialect and have the function of elevating the register of speech.) I would basically argue that just as we have started using Arabic dialect language sections on Wiktionary to include dialectal terms (instead of trying to accommodate them within the Standard Arabic banner), it doesn't make sense to use the dialect sections to accommodate all Standard Arabic terms that could be conceivably used in the dialect, which is nearly an infinite list. [[User:AdrianAbdulBaha|AdrianAbdulBaha]] ([[User talk:AdrianAbdulBaha|talk]]) 10:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

== [[:extrem#rfd-notice-de-|extrem]] ==

{{wgping|de|u1=Matthias Buchmeier|u2=-sche|u3=Jberkel|u4=Mahagaja|u5=Fay Freak}} German '''adverb'''. I thought we don't have these null-morpheme, 100% predictable conversions. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 11:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
:Why wouldn't we? I see nothing at [[WT:ADE]] forbidding it. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 11:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
::{{re|Mahagaja}} Because every German {{small|(and Romanian)}} adjective can be used as an adverb without morphological change. It's not insightful and just needlessly clutters [[:Category:German adverbs]] as well as the adjective entries. It is also more or less de facto policy to not include these (seeing that we have 1.8k adverbs and 13.7k adjectives). Further, no major German {{small|(or Romanian)}} dictionary includes these conversions as separate adverb entries. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 11:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
:::[[WT:CFI]] is actual policy, and it says "all words in all languages"; this is a word in a language. On the other hand, CFI says nothing about excluding completely predictable derived forms without morphological change. We're not paper, so we don't have to worry about saving space like major German (and Romanian) dictionaries do. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 11:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
: I don't mind them being there, and it might be useful to add quotes under a more appropriate heading, instead of lumping everything together. –&nbsp;[[User:Jberkel|Jberkel]] 11:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

: I agree with this principle for German, but in this individual case I am not sure whether it has not sufficiently detached in development, for many sloppy speakers interchangeable with {{m|de|sehr|t=very}}. Rightly we also list {{m|de|derbe|pos=adverb}}, and also others linked on [[Thesaurus:sehr]]. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 12:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

:Worth noting that the majority view among grammarians is to not consider adverbially used adjectives to be adverbs but adverbials:
:* [[w:de:Adverb#Alternativen:_Das_„Adjektivadverb“]]: "Die soeben dargestellte Auffassung, dass die adverbielle Verwendung eines Adjektivs keinen Übergang in eine eigene Wortart Adverb bedeutet, ist in der Sprachwissenschaft heute deutlich die Mehrheitsmeinung.<sup>[11]</sup>"
:* [[w:de:Adjektiv#Syntaktische_Funktion]]: "Die Wortart Adjektiv ist unabhängig von ihrer syntaktischen Funktion.<sup>[4]</sup>"
: &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 12:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
::@[[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]] It's probably worth defining what {{m|en|adverbial}} means in this sense, because the current definition doesn't explain what distinguishes words like this from adverbs. There is also the separate question of whether all adjectives can be used this way. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 12:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
:::{{re|Theknightwho}} Usually, {{m|de|Adverb}} refers to a lexical and {{m|de|Adverbial}} to a syntactic category:
:::* {{quote-book|de
|url=https://books.google.ch/books?id=fvBFDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA204
|title=Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik
|author=Peter Eisenberg
|publisher=Springer
|isbn=9783476035462
|date=2016-12-17
|page=204
|section=6.1 Abgrenzung und Begriffliches
|passage=Kein terminologischer Glücksfall ist das Nebeneinander der Begriffe Adverb und Adverbial. Meistens - aber längst nicht immer - wird Adverb als kategorialer, Adverbial als relationaler Begriff verwendet. Wir folgen diesem Usus und gebrauchen ›Adverbial‹ synonym mit ›adverbiale Bestimmung‹ als Bezeichnung für eine syntaktische Relation (s.u.).
|t=
}}
::: As to whether all lexical adjectives can relationally be converted, the following book argues no:
:::* {{quote-book|de
|url=https://books.google.ch/books?id=F-5FDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA78&dq=%22nicht%20alle%20adjektive%22&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q=%22nicht%20alle%20adjektive%22&f=false
|title=Grammatik: Eine Einführung
|author=Wolfgang Imo
|publisher=Springer-Verlag
|isbn=9783476054319
|oclc=1004193912
|date=2016-02-16
|page=78
|passage=Dafür spricht auch, dass alle Adjektive attributiv verwendet werden können, aber nicht alle Adjektive auch adverbial oder prädikativ. Das Adjektiv ''klein'' kann z.B. nur attributiv (''das kleine Auto'', ''der kleine Junge'' etc.) oder prädikativ (''Das Auto ist klein. Der Junge ist klein.'') verwendet werden, nicht aber adverbial (*''Das Auto fährt klein. Der Junge läuft klein.'' etc.). Adjektive wie monatlich oder jährlich können nur attributiv (d''as monatliche Erscheinen der Zeitschrift; die jährliche Feier'') oder adverbial (''Die Zeitschrift erscheint monatlich. Die Feier findet jährlich statt.'') verwendet werden, nicht aber prädikativ (*''Die Zeitschrift ist monatlich. ?Die Feier ist jährlich.'').
|t=
}}
::: Maybe creating [[:Category:German adjectives that cannot be used predicatively]] and [[:Category:German adjectives that cannot be used adverbially]] is an idea worth considering. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 13:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
::::If such categories are necessary, then your original assertion that these adverbial forms are 100% predictable is no longer the case. The 2016 passage suggests that such exceptions are common. Am I right in thinking these generally correspond with English adjectives that can be suffixed with {{m|en|-ly}}, or are they far more common than that?
::::{{pb}}
::::To contrast, every English noun can be used attributively and every English verb has a gerundive form that conjugates in the same way as the present participle. That's why we exclude those forms, because they're inherent to what it means to be a noun or verb in English. That reasoning doesn't seem to apply here. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 13:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Theknightwho}} My first post was not that clear, apologies. What I wanted to get at with that part was semantic predictability: almost all adverbially used adjectives mean exactly what you'd expect them to mean (hence, they're predictable); the ones that have gained additional semantics in adverbial usage (e.g. {{m|de|schnell}}) are of course to be included.
:::::I did assert that every adjective can be used adverbially but, looking back, that's not even all that important of an argument. The most striking argument is that the majority of grammarians don't consider these forms (''adverbiale Adjektive'') to be adverbs.
:::::Also, contrary to what is claimed in Wolfgang Imo's book, I'm currently not convinced that {{m|de|klein}} cannot be used adverbially.
:::::*{{quote-book|de
|url=https://books.google.ch/books?id=WAR4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA97&dq=%22klein+gezeichnet%22
|title=Taking a Punch at the Queen?: Die Darstellung von Königin Victoria in den Karikaturen des Satiremagazins "Punch" 1841-1901
|author=Melanie Thomas
|publisher=Tectum Wissenschaftsverlag
|isbn=9783828857629
|oclc=1048255356
|date=2014-01-29
|page=97
|passage=Russell wird im ''Punch'' durchgehend winzig '''klein''' gezeichnet.
|t=
}}
:::::How is this not an adverbial use? The reason why his examples don't work is because they are semantically absurd. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 13:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::Now that I think about it, this usage exists in English as well, though it's generally informal: "eat healthy", "fit snug" etc. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 14:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::: Yes, none of these in either German or English are adverbs.
::::::: The manner specifically of eating has no bearing on it being healthy (you can eat like a pig and it would be equally healthy), rather it is the subject categorized as healthy, the one who eats has a healthy attitude towards nutrition and thus eats healthy food. In Latin it would be in the nominative, apparently covered for Latin by German Wikipedia as {{w|lang=de|Participium coniunctum}} and for German as {{w|lang=de|Prädikativum#Freie Prädikativa}}, leading us to the term {{m|en|depictive}} as correctly categorizing their syntactical function.
:::::::Where as in the German example “klein gezeichnet” it is a {{m|en|resultative}}, covered by {{w|lang=de|Prädikativum#Resultative Prädikativa}}. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 17:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::::I suppose the reason one cannot say *''Das Auto fährt klein. Der Junge läuft klein.'' etc. is the same as why one cannot say *''The car drives small. The boy runs small.'' – what would it mean? &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 08:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::::{{re|Fay Freak}} Thank you for the links, interesting. In that case, the book is probably right in asserting that ''klein'' cannot be used adverbially. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 10:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]] @[[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] Having looked at these again, they seem to be used with [[copulative]] verbs, so as Fay Freak says, the adjective describes the subject. Cars might not be able to drive small, but one can certainly drive unsteady, perhaps after [[go large|going large]]. As well as depictive and resultative, they can also be [[inchoative]]. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 16:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
:'''Delete''' – in general we do not include such entirely predictable uses. In Dutch and Turkish too, it is a property of the language that adjectives can be used adverbially without morphological change, meaning ''in a ... way''. For example, ''o <u>güzel</u> bir şeydir'' means “that is a <u>nice</u> thing”, and ''aferin, çok <u>güzel</u> yaptın'' means “bravo, you have done it very <u>nicely</u>”. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 08:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC) — PS. In English, adjectives can predictably be used as nouns for a collectivity of people: ''The people have three worries: that the <u>hungry</u> will not be fed, that the <u>cold</u> will not be clothed, and that the <u>tired</u> will not get rest.''<sup>[https://books.google.com/books?id=6vLsbZ-OFs4C&pg=PA90&dq=hungry+cold+tired+%22&hl=en]</sup> In almost all cases we do not have the corresponding noun entries for adjectives. (However, we do have this noun sense for ''[[rich#Noun|rich]]'' and ''[[poor#Noun|poor]]'', and also for ''[[hungry#Noun|hungry]]'', in the latter case without indication that it is grammatically plural. We do have a noun entry for ''[[cold#Noun|cold]]'', but it is not this collective sense.) At least for Turkish, several verb forms can predictably be used adjectivally: ''meyve <u>olgunlaşacak</u>'' “the fruit <u>will ripen</u>” next to ''<u>olgunlaşacak</u> meyve'' “the fruit <u>that will ripen</u>”; ''bu meyve <u>olgunlaşmaz</u>'' “this fruit <u>won’t ripen</u>” next to ''bu <u>olgunlaşmaz</u> meyve'' “this fruit <u>that won’t ripen</u>”. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 09:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
:<s>'''Keep'''. In general, I'm not a fan of the idea that predictable or formulaic (non-SOP) entries should be removed for that reason alone. The overwhelming majority of plural forms are easy to guess, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have entries. The same applies here. [[User:Binarystep|Binarystep]] ([[User talk:Binarystep|talk]]) 12:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)</s> '''Delete''' per Fytcha. [[User:Binarystep|Binarystep]] ([[User talk:Binarystep|talk]]) 00:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
:::May I take it then as a predictable that you’d support listing the entirely predictable noun sense<sup>[https://books.google.com/books?id=IJc6AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA22&dq=predictables&hl=en][https://books.google.com/books?id=HqU1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA215&dq=predictable&hl=en][https://books.google.com/books?id=yK2oQcQGcbQC&pg=PA175&dq=predictables&hl=en]</sup> of {{m|en|predictable}}? {{unsigned|Lambiam|15:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)}}
::::@[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] Bad example, because those show {{m|en|predictable}} being used as a noun, and we can even see the plural {{m|en|predictables}}. In fact, predictability is a total [[red herring]] here and should not be used as a basis for deletion: the real reason why {{m|de|extrem}} is not an adverb is because it never actually describes the manner in which a verb is done. If the water “runs red”, that doesn’t make “red” an adverb, because it refers to the water, not the manner of running. The same applies here, because it’s used with copulative verbs. This also applies to your Turkish example - {{m|en|ripen}} is a copulative verb in English, too. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 15:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::Maybe “regular” is a better term. But if the grammar rules of a language state that adjectives can be used adverbially without morphological change, then it is predictable that such regular uses can be attested. The point with ''predictable'' was that this is another example of the regular use of a term as another part-of-speech (here ''noun'') than the most typical one (here ''adjective''); that this boundary transgression is possible is not an exception but an instance of a general rule. The use of PoS labels on Wiktionary is a bit loose; we assign ''adverb'' to {{m|en|in brief}} and {{m|en|under the influence}}, while these are prepositional phrases most often (but not exclusively) used adverbially. And we label the verbal phrase {{m|en|come in from the cold}} as a verb, ''verb phrase'' being explicitly disallowed. I don’t get your point about ''[[:tr:olgunlaşmak|olgunlaşmak]]''; I don’t think it is copulative, and certainly not in these examples, where there is no complement. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 17:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::The example was poor because it doesn’t hold true for English. You cannot use every adjective that way, even if it might be obvious what it means in certain circumstances. In any event, you’re ignoring that these German examples are copulative uses, because they describe the subject.
::::::{{pb}}
::::::I read too quickly with the Turkish example - they seem like participles. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 17:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
::{{re|Binarystep}} It's not "that reason alone". The most important reason is that adverbially used adjectives aren't adverbs (i.e. don't belong to the lexical category of adverbs) per the majority view of German grammarians as I've already laid out above. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 12:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
:::{{re|Binarystep}} Are you going to address this point? Why exactly are you in favor of including something that doesn't exist per the majority of the experts? &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 13:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
::::Apologies, I don't always remember to check back on discussions. Reading over this again, it's pretty clear I was wrong. [[User:Binarystep|Binarystep]] ([[User talk:Binarystep|talk]]) 00:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
::That is terrible reasoning. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 16:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. To paraphrase others' arguments- if grammarians do not regard these forms as adverbs, and if they are entirely predictable adverbial uses of adjectives, it doesn't make sense to mark potentially several thousand adjectives as adverbs. An exception can be made for cases where the adverbial usage has developed new senses. [[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 21:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
:On a balance, '''delete''' per nom. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 17:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
* On one hand, Duden has it only as an adjective and I believe those who say that German grammars traditionally treat these only as adjectives. On the other hand, one needs an adverb if one wants to enter the near-synonym [[sehr]], which is never an adjective. Compare [[Thesaurus:sehr]], which lists pure adverbs such as [[äußerst]] and adjectives+adverbs such as [[ungeheuer]]. How do you enter an adverb-thesaurus link into an adjective-only entry [[extrem]] or adjective-only entry [[ungeheuer]]? [[:de:extrem]] lists [[äußerst]] as a synonym and even a definition of an adjective sense; that looks odd. And [[:de:extrem]] translation table is incomplete in so far as it does not include any -ly translation yet that is applicable if this also covers adverbial usage. Furthermore, if it is true that "nicht alle Adjektive auch adverbial [verwendet werden können]", then one cannot say this is an exact analogue of English attributive use of nouns: each noun and gerund can be used attributively without modification. I don't think we are listing English adjectives as synonyms of English nouns. As for "semantic predictability", that's not particularly relevant since -ly adverbs are perfectly semantically predictable from their base adjectives. As for English "the hungry", our [[poor]] entry does have a noun section for "the poor". Since not every adjective can be used adverbially and since true synonymy does not hold between adjectives and adverbs, having separate adverb sections contrary to German grammatical tradition has considerable merit. About adverb vs. adverbials, I would say that what these grammars are saying is that all adjectives are so readily used as adverbs that it makes no dictionary sense to document them as such. The question whether they "truly" are "adverbs" probably means almost nothing: they behave like adverbs, and the rest is a matter of conventional treatment. From looking at [[:Category:German adverbs]], what is being discussed here seems to be a proposed change to a widespread previous practice, impacting possibly hundreds of entries, and "we don't have these null-morpheme, 100% predictable conversions" seems contradicted by observation: we do have these and they are not 100% predictable since not all adjectives produce adverbial behavior. Some examples from "f": [[feige]], [[fachlich]], [[fassungslos]], [[figürlich]], [[fleißig]], [[förmlich]], [[fragend]], [[freudig]], and [[furchtbar]]. I say '''keep in RFD''': it makes no sense to delete hundreds of entries via individual RFDs. This needs to be adopted as a policy change via a proper channel so that one can then start removing these adverb sections in volume without RFDs. Our de facto policy so far has been to allow these adverb sections, and the nominated entry is no lone outlier. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 20:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
*: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/german-english/extrem is a German-English translation dictionary that shows extrem as both adjective and an adverb. This makes it possible to state extremely as a translation. So do https://en.pons.com/translate/german-english/extrem and https://www.dict.com/german-english/extrem. By contrast, https://www.wordreference.com/deen/extrem indicates German extrem only as an adj, but lists both adjectival and adverbial English translations. If we want to list adverb translations, these most naturally fit into an adverb section. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 21:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
*: If one dislikes categorizing them as adverbs, one can put them into a separate category such as "Adverbial adjectives" or "Adjectival adverbs" and use a dedicated template for the purpose. That's an easy fix. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 21:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

= July 2022 =

== [[ixil-ixila]] ==
Reduplication in Basque is a regular process which can be applied to virtually all adjectives. In all cases the reduplication of [adjective] means "very [adjective]", so this expression is certainly not idiomatic.--[[User:Santi2222|Santi2222]] ([[User talk:Santi2222|talk]]) 18:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

== <s>[[:gözlenebilmek#rfd-notice-tr-|gözlenebilmek]]</s> ==

Turkish. 100% regular feature of the language. The inclusion-worthy form is {{m|tr|gözlenmek}}. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 12:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. Any Turkish verb can be made into a potential “to be able to ...” by adding a suffix to the stem. This suffix can be combined with many other suffixes, such as for the passive and causative, giving a combinatorial explosion of completely regular potential forms. In this case the entry does not even have a definition, so I think it can be speedied, but in general I feel such words, formed in a highly synthetic and agglutinative language by regular suffixation, with completely predictable meanings, spelling and pronunciation, should not be included as separate entries. Ideally, we should instead have a “word decompiler” or “word study tool” (see {{section link|WT:Beer parlour/2022/January#Should we have entries for Turkish predicative forms?}}), which may be useful for many languages. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 14:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
*: I still remember a phonetics class at UCLA 35 years ago where {{w|William O. Bright|Dr. Bright}} gave a word from an American Indian language having 13 consonants and no vowels. He translated it as "I saw those two women come this way out of the water". If one only has experience with Indo-European languages, one can remain blissfully unaware of the lexical black hole that agglutinative languages represent. Basically, subjects, objects, adverbs, prepositions, auxiliaries, and a plethora of particles can all potentially be part of the same word, depending on the language. And these aren't languages with no spaces: although there are certainly a number of one-word sentences in such languages, they still have lots of multiword sentences in a structure that any European would recognize. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 15:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
*:{{re|Lambiam}} For reference, I am against deleting infinitives that have been derived with the reflexive, reciprocal, causative or passive interfixes. A Turkish grammar that I used to use had a special name to group these four together. The argument basically is that these are (sometimes) unpredictable. The causative is morphologically unpredictable whereas the reciprocal is sometimes semantically unpredictable (think {{m|tr|konuşmak}}), and an interfix -İn- is unpredictable in that it's not clear whether it is the reflexive or the passive. They also feel a lot more like new words to me (unlike the negative or potential infinitives). &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 16:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
*::I agree that these should in principle be includible, but we should discourage adding rarely seen verbs such as {{m|tr|öldürtülmek}} and {{m|tr|sahnelettirmek}} (which have incomprehensible definitions; and what is an “intrusive” form?). Where does it stop? Why not ''sahnelettirilmek'', ''sahnelettirilişmek'', ...? So to be included, they should still be attestable. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 17:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
*:::{{re|Lambiam}} Yes of course, attestability is a prerequisite. I am, however, in favor of retaining these forms so long as they're attestable because for me they don't fall into the same bucket as -Abil. And I don't think I've ever heard "intrusive form". &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 03:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
*::::These seem like they should be non-lemmas, without their own inflection tables. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 17:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

:'''Delete'''. The potential mode "-Abil-" is always predictable in construction and meaning, so I agree that the entry should be deleted. -[[User:Konanen|Konanen]] ([[User talk:Konanen|talk]]) 15:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
* '''RFD-deleted'''. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 19:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

== [[:kapı yapmamak#rfd-notice-tr-|kapı yapmamak]] ==

Turkish. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 03:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

:'''Delete'''. If deleted, a search will find the lemma {{m|tr|kapı yapmak}}, just like [[Special:Search/"kapı+yapmadı"|searching for]] {{m|tr|kapı yapmadı}} and other forms of the verb will do. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 11:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
::'''Delete''' per Lambiam. -[[User:Konanen|Konanen]] ([[User talk:Konanen|talk]]) 15:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

== [[m/s]], [[m/s²]] ==
{{movedfrom|Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English § m/s, m/s²|Special:PermanentLink/67761781#m/s, m/s²}}
Based on precedents above. Might be more controversial as they're more common and somewhat "standardised" for what use them. I'd prefer them '''delete'''d. —[[Special:Contribs/Svartava|Svārtava]] (''[[User talk:Svartava2|talk]]'') • 16:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

:Hmm, it seems a bit strange to delete terms as common as these while keeping stuff like [[YWb]]. Not saying we should delete YWb, but [[m/s]] in particular feels lexicalised. I can’t quite put my finger on why, though. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 19:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
:: YWb is an abbreviation and is entry-worthy (just like [[km]]), while the nominated terms are SoPs. '''Delete'''. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User talk:Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">·~</span>]] [[User:Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">dictátor</span>]]·[[Special:Contribs/Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">mundꟾ</span>]]</span> 05:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
:::[[YWb]] = {{compound|mul|Y|tr1=symbol for prefix [[yotta-]]|Wb|tr2=symbol for [[weber]]}}. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 09:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
::We find {{m|mul|m/s}} used without further explanation in articles written for a general audience, not just in the scientific literature or science magazines, so the unwashed masses are assumed to know its meaning. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 09:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
:What made [[User:Eyesnore]] ({{diff|52248130}}) and [[User:J3133]] ({{diff|59003343}}) think these are restricted to metrology? &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 11:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
:: I followed [[m/s]], which is Translingual and has a metrology label; I am not against removing it. [[User:J3133|J3133]] ([[User talk:J3133|talk]]) 11:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
:::I took it as a topic label in a broad sense - they can always be a bit fuzzy. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 14:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

:'''Delete'''. Maybe adding a note to [[WT:CFI]] somewhere is an idea at this point seeing how many of these compound units people have created. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 12:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
::It's almost like some people find them useful, or something... [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 00:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
: If these are deleted, the Unicode characters should be kept, which were redirected by {{ping|Octahedron80}} and {{ping|Mahagaja}}, respectively. [[User:J3133|J3133]] ([[User talk:J3133|talk]]) 02:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:: [[m/s²]] was originally at [[㎨]] (the single Unicode character); I moved it to [[m/s²]] because of the RFM now archived at [[Talk:㍹]]. If we want to keep the Unicode character but not the string, then maybe we should simply '''move''' it back to its old name and not delete anything. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 08:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' – m/s is the standard SI unit for speed, m/s² is the standard SI unit for acceleration. If you break up these symbols into smaller parts, they loose their meaning. -- [[User:Sloyment|Sloyment]] ([[User talk:Sloyment|talk]]) 07:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
:I don't know why this wasn't closed but a belated '''keep''' as per [[WT:FRIED]]. As above, m/s specifically as a unit of speed is arguably its own unit, with a meaning more specific than its constituents. [[User:Lunabunn|🌙🐇]]&#32;[[User talk:Lunabunn|<sup style="background:#594a78;color:#fff;border:1px solid #fff;">⠀talk⠀</sup>]]&#32;[[Special:Contributions/Lunabunn|<sup style="background:#594a78;color:#fff;border:1px solid #fff;">⠀contribs⠀</sup>]] 08:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
::(And same for m/s² as a unit of velocity.) [[User:Lunabunn|🌙🐇]]&#32;[[User talk:Lunabunn|<sup style="background:#594a78;color:#fff;border:1px solid #fff;">⠀talk⠀</sup>]]&#32;[[Special:Contributions/Lunabunn|<sup style="background:#594a78;color:#fff;border:1px solid #fff;">⠀contribs⠀</sup>]] 08:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:আমার সোনার বাংলা#rfd-notice-bn-|আমার সোনার বাংলা]] ==

Encyclopedic. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User talk:Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">·~</span>]] [[User:Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">dictátor</span>]]·[[Special:Contribs/Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">mundꟾ</span>]]</span> 16:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
: What about [[God Save the Queen]], [[O Canada]] or [[Hatikvah]]? [[User:Meghmollar2017|Meghmollar2017]] ([[User talk:Meghmollar2017|talk]]) 06:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
:: They have been nominated for deletion as well: see [[WT:RFDE#God Defend New Zealand]]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User talk:Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">·~</span>]] [[User:Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">dictátor</span>]]·[[Special:Contribs/Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">mundꟾ</span>]]</span> 09:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
:: If the name were a single term like *বঙ্গগীতি (compare [[Deutschlandlied]]), then it would be entry-worthy. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User talk:Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">·~</span>]] [[User:Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">dictátor</span>]]·[[Special:Contribs/Inqilābī|<span style="color:#000">mundꟾ</span>]]</span> 09:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
:::Presumably, a “single term” means here, “a term that is written without spaces”. This is obviously a problematic criterion for languages that are traditionally written without spaces. Is {{w|zh:中華民國國旗歌|中華民國國旗歌}} a single term? It also “favours” more agglutinating languages. IMO, ''{{w|fi:Tietoyhteiskuntapuolue|Tietoyhteiskuntapuolue}}'' is not part of the Finnish lexicon and should not have a dictionary entry. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 15:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

== [[peñizcar]] ==

This contradicts the etymology for [[pellizcar]] but the ll-ñ alteration is non-standard in Spanish. [[User:AztecWarrior28|AztecWarrior28]] ([[User talk:AztecWarrior28|talk]]) 00:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
:# I do not see a contradiction.
:# What is the rationale for the requested deletion?
:&nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 08:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
:There is, apparently, also a variant form ''peñiscar''.<sup>[http://blogs.peru21.pe/castellanoactual/2012/04/pellizcar-o-peniscar.html][https://www.fundeu.es/noticia/la-esquina-del-idioma-usted-pellizca-o-penizca/]</sup> &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 08:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
:This should be an RFV issue and am contemplating just moving it there. [[User:AG202|AG202]] ([[User talk:AG202|talk]]) 19:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
::The OP did not claim the term was not attested (which is what RFV is for), but solely that it contradicted an etymology in some unspecified way and that the alteration was non-standard. The latter point is not an issue arguing against inclusion – while there is no standard for alterations, many observed alterations are in some way anomalous, such as the unexplained shift from ''-o-'' to ''-e-'' in {{m+|eo|tendeno}}, borrowed from {{m+|en|tendon}}. That is not an RFV issue. We should try to avoid internal contradictions, but absent an indication of what the claimed contradiction is, it is difficult to discuss it, but this too is not an RFV issue; etymologies should be discussed in the Etymology scriptorium. I think we should close this for failing to present a rationale. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 12:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
:::Let's at least do the OP the courtesy of a ping: @[[User:AztecWarrior28|AztecWarrior28]] can you elaborate on your reason in light of Lambiam's comment? [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 09:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

= August 2022 =

== [[:𒆪𒋛#rfd-notice-akk-|𒆪𒋛]] ==

Akkadian. 
This is a misspelling. It should be spelled {{m|akk|𒆳𒆪𒋛}}. See [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/sig?%E2%98%A3%40rinap%2Frinap5%25akk%3A%7BKUR%7Dku-si%3DKusu%5BKush%2F%2FKush%5DGN%C2%B4GN%24Kusi Ashurbanipal 061] — [[User:Sartma|Sartma]] <sup>【[[User talk:Sartma|{{lang|akk|𒁾𒁉}}]] ● [[Special:Contributions/Sartma|{{lang|akk|𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲}}]]】</sup> 22:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

:'''Delete'''. — [[User:Sartma|Sartma]] <sup>【[[User talk:Sartma|{{lang|akk|𒁾𒁉}}]] ● [[Special:Contributions/Sartma|{{lang|akk|𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲}}]]】</sup> 23:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
::Isn't it better to <u>move</u> this to {{m|akk|𒆳𒆪𒋛}}? Also note that this cuneiform spelling is not listed at {{section link|Kūsu#Alternative forms}}. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 08:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]]: What do you mean with "move"? A redirect? I can't see the use of it. That entry is misspelled, why keep it?
:::That cuneiform spelling is not listed in [[Kūsu]] because I usually only give the nominative (which would correspond to the entry). Phonetic cuneiform spelling are just given as examples anyway, I don't try to be exhaustive. — [[User:Sartma|Sartma]] <sup>【[[User talk:Sartma|{{lang|akk|𒁾𒁉}}]] ● [[Special:Contributions/Sartma|{{lang|akk|𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲}}]]】</sup> 13:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
::::I mean, shouldn't the page {{m|akk|𒆳𒆪𒋛}} be created and the info ('''Proper noun''' {{alt sp|akk|Kūsu|from=Cuneiform|}}) be moved over to there? &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 18:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::Moving the entry preserves the edit history. Seems like a better option. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 18:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]], @[[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]]: {{m|akk|𒆳𒆪𒋛|tr=Kūsi}} is the genitive of {{m|akk|Kūsu|𒆳𒆪𒌑𒋢|tr=Kūsu}}. We don't even have inflected Akkadian entries at the moment, so it makes no sense to give their cuneiform spellings. We didn't even cover the basic vocabulary...! Akkadian cuneiform entries are not a priority at the moment, so I'm not creating them. But you're more than welcome to go ahead and do so yourselves.
:::::I'm just asking for the misspelled entry to be deleted. — [[User:Sartma|Sartma]] <sup>【[[User talk:Sartma|{{lang|akk|𒁾𒁉}}]] ● [[Special:Contributions/Sartma|{{lang|akk|𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲}}]]】</sup> 00:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
::::: I’ve added {{m|akk||𒆳𒆪𒋛|tr={{sup|kur}}ku-si}} to {{m|akk|Kūsu}}. — [[User:Sartma|Sartma]] <sup>【[[User talk:Sartma|{{lang|akk|𒁾𒁉}}]] ● [[Special:Contributions/Sartma|{{lang|akk|𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲}}]]】</sup> 17:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
::::::No problem. Might be worth adding acceleration for the Cuneiform spellings, so they're trivial to add. Up to you, of course. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 11:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]]: I'm not familiar with acceleration. How would it work? — [[User:Sartma|Sartma]] <sup>【[[User talk:Sartma|{{lang|akk|𒁾𒁉}}]] ● [[Special:Contributions/Sartma|{{lang|akk|𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲}}]]】</sup> 14:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Sartma|Sartma]] Do you have the gadget enabled in your preferences? It makes certain links go green, and if you click on them it automatically generates the page for inflected/alternative forms.
::::::::[[WT:ACCEL]] can explain much better than I can, but in essence it automatically generates the appropriate {{tl|form of}} on the definition line. Setting it up involves adding some extra parameters to the {{tl|l}} templates in the {{tl|cunsp}} template that tell it what to put. It's pretty straightforward once you've done in a couple of times, to be honest. Once it's done, it's literally a two-click process to create the page. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 14:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

= September 2022 =

== [[اکادمک]] ==

Hindi transliteration. [[User:نعم البدل|نعم البدل]] ([[User talk:نعم البدل|talk]]) 02:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

== [[اکادمی]] ==

Hindi transliteration - IP address adding new unreferenced terms for Urdu. [[User:نعم البدل|نعم البدل]] ([[User talk:نعم البدل|talk]]) 02:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

:https://rekhtadictionary.com/meaning-of-ikaidamii uses the word to explain the meaning of a different form of the same word. Rekhta Dictionary is still under development but I think this should be taken as a reference here. [[User:RonnieSingh|RonnieSingh]] ([[User talk:RonnieSingh|talk]]) 11:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

== [[انترم]] ==

Hindi transliteration - IP address adding new unreferenced terms for Urdu. [[User:نعم البدل|نعم البدل]] ([[User talk:نعم البدل|talk]]) 02:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

== [[:ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus#rfd-notice-fi-|ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus]] ==

{{ping|Surjection|Hekaheka}} What do you think? [[YYA-sopimus]] obviously qualifies, but this seems encyclopedic. I do not know of a site-wide policy on the names of deals and agreements. [[User:Brittletheories|brittletheories]] ([[User talk:Brittletheories|talk]]) 18:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
:I think this can be '''deleted''' as encyclopedic (it can be described under {{m|fi|YYA-sopimus}} if need be). &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 18:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
::I disagree. ''YYA-sopimus'' is short for ''ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus'', not the other way round. We have alternative spellings of many other terms even if they can be described somewhere else. A dictionary is made for users. If someone sees term A in a text, how helpful is it for them if the term is "described" under term B? '''Keep'''. --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 07:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
:::Also, it is labeled "historical". The term used to be quite common. --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 07:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Hekaheka}} Similar issues were discussed at length in [[Wiktionary:Votes/2022-06/Updating CFI for names of organizations]]. To me, linking to Wikipedia from the acronym is enough, but there is no consensus on this. However, the term is {{glossary|historical}}, as we define the word, and has been for 30 years. [[User:Brittletheories|brittletheories]] ([[User talk:Brittletheories|talk]]) 05:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
:::''YYA-sopimus'' being short for the full form is correct, but we can just link to Wikipedia from the template. This is done a lot in English entries (just one example: {{m|en|NBA}}). &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 05:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
:Did you know that the {{w|Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948}} wasn't the only agreement of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance the Soviet Union made. In fact it had similar agreements with many other countries. On top of bilateral agreements the {{w|Warsaw Pact}} was officially a Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. Thus, the term does not refer to individual agreement but to a type of agreement. I edited the text of the entry accordingly.--[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 18:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
::I don't think the term {{m|fi|ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus}} refers to any of those other agreements. The Warsaw Pact is "Sopimus ystävyydestä, yhteistyöstä ja keskinäisestä avunannosta". &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 18:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
:::That's its full name, yes. Which happens to be the full name of Finland's {{w|fi|YYA-sopimus}} as well. --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 19:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
::::Indeed, but I have never seen "ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus" used to refer to anything else than the Finno-Soviet pact and cannot find any such usage either. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 18:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
{{look}}
:Labeled "historical". --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 08:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::Found usage not related to Finland on Parliament of Finland's web page[https://www.eduskunta.fi/verkkoteos/valtiopolitiikan-pitka-kaari/case-23.html?TSPD_101_R0=0814c91602ab20000874613548370bb5a1594db9149a028fc1f44621adbc3f7a27fe23058bbd3cc5089b402aef143000422d4f89374a96a5bc491e5fcd19d422b49b085afd936ceb1abcce5db178eecc751c6710f9c41356519c69d17de487a4] and in YLE[https://yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2006/09/08/yya-neuvotteluista-paatos-suomessa]. --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 08:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

= October 2022 =

== [[:အကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ#rfd-notice-mnw-|အကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ]] ==

Old Mon. 

The essential problem is that the author misencoded repha in the page title as <RA, ASAT> instead of <RA, ASAT, VIRAMA>.  I have moved the file to the correct name, and am requesting removal of what was the residual redirect.  To show what was happening, I have copied the original content from {{m|omx|အကုသလကရ်္မ္မပထ}} to {{m|omx|အကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ}} before making further modifications. It is {{m|omx|အကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ}} whose deletion I am requesting. --[[User:RichardW57|RichardW57]] ([[User talk:RichardW57|talk]]) 23:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

An additional complication is that the author was [[User:우습게]], who has been banned as a 'sockpuppet' of [[User:咽頭べさ]] 'Dr Intobesa'.  Is there any point in opening communication with him via the Mon Wiktionary to seek his approval to the deletion?  Communication with him has not been entirely fruitless. --[[User:RichardW57|RichardW57]] ([[User talk:RichardW57|talk]]) 23:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

:{{re|RichardW57}} Both user accounts have not been blocked from editing their talkpage (yet), so you could try communicating with them there. At this point, I wouldn't presume they know much more on the topic than you do to be honest. [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 23:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
::I have asked his opinion of the deletion at [[User talk:咽頭べさ#အကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ]].  If he agrees, I believe the deletion can be speedied, without having to find someone else who knows enough about mediaeval Sanskrit spelling or even Old Mon. --[[User:RichardW57|RichardW57]] ([[User talk:RichardW57|talk]]) 00:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
:::He has replied, "Just do as you like". --[[User:RichardW57|RichardW57]] ([[User talk:RichardW57|talk]]) 23:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

== [[buah arbei]] ==

Indonesian. Tagged in 2021 but not listed. [[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 20:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. SOP. –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 21:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
*I'd be interested to know if the ''buah'' word meaning fruit is more often used with this than with others.  If not I'd say that we could just delete this and move on. [[user:Soap|—]]<span style="background-color: #a6ffe0; padding: 3px; border-radius: 6px 6px 6px 6px;"><b>[[user talk:Soap|Soap]]</b></span>[[Special:Contributions/Soap|—]] 09:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

= November 2022 =

== [[ychteccatetlatzontequiliani]] ==

A Nahuatl word for which our sole sample sentence spells it as two words, and which seems like it would be sum-of-parts even if the spaceless spelling was an acceptable alternative. Also, does Nahuatl have geminate stops? Thanks, [[user:Soap|—]]<span style="background-color: #a6ffe0; padding: 3px; border-radius: 6px 6px 6px 6px;"><b>[[user talk:Soap|Soap]]</b></span>[[Special:Contributions/Soap|—]] 20:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:It seems that the distinction between [[ichtequi]] and   [[ichtecqui]] is gemination, so I can believe the spelling is accurate, but this still seems like the very sum-of-parts thing we look for in other languages as a rationale for deletion. However, if we delete this, we probably need to point out on the [[ichtecqui]] page that the final vowel rotates to ''-a'' when it is juxtaposed in this fashion (maybe it's the genitive case marker?) Thanks, [[user:Soap|—]]<span style="background-color: #a6ffe0; padding: 3px; border-radius: 6px 6px 6px 6px;"><b>[[user talk:Soap|Soap]]</b></span>[[Special:Contributions/Soap|—]] 09:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

== [[:-nda#rfd-notice-tr-|-nda]] ==

Turkish. The definition is wrong but the correct interpretation is simply {{m|tr|-n-}} + {{m|tr|-de}}; {{m|tr|-n-}} also combines with the other case suffixes so this is best documented in just one location, at {{m|tr|-n-}}. {{ping|Anylai}} as the creator. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 13:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

:What about ''-y-''? I saw AZ suffixes with the postvocalic forms so I did the same but in TR schools ''-y'' is also taught as an interfix, a "glue letter". Should we delete the postvocalic forms and create {{m|tr|-y-}}?

:'''Delete''', also {{m|tr|-nde}}. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 23:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

== [[:obegränsa#rfd-notice-sv-|obegränsa]] ==

Swedish. 

The adjective {{m|sv|obegränsad||unlimited}} is formed as {{m|sv|o-||un-}} + {{m|sv|begränsad||limited}}. By surface analysis it can instead be interpreted as the [[past participle]] of the verb {{m|sv|obegränsa||to unlimit}}. However, that verb is seldom (if ever) attested. Most likely the page was created as a misunderstanding. I suggest that it to be deleted for that reason. [[User:Gabbe|Gabbe]] ([[User talk:Gabbe|talk]]) 18:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
:Go to [[WT:RFVN]].
::I think you are right. Seems to be missing in SAOB as well. --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 12:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
::: '''Support Deletion'''. ZERO hits in Corpus. [[User:Taylor 49|Taylor 49]] ([[User talk:Taylor 49|talk]]) 07:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

= December 2022 =

== Everything in [[:Category:az:Languages]] and [[:Category:uz:Languages]]  ==

See also [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?oldid=63740212#%D1%87%D3%91%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%88_%D1%87%D3%97%D0%BB%D1%85%D0%B8,_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D3%91%D1%81_%D1%87%D3%97%D0%BB%D1%85%D0%B8,_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B9-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80_%D1%87%D3%97%D0%BB%D1%85%D0%B8 this] discussion. [[User:Allahverdi Verdizade|Allahverdi Verdizade]] ([[User talk:Allahverdi Verdizade|talk]]) 19:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
:'''Delete''', and I'll volunteer to carry it out if (hopefully once) the RFD ends up for deleting too. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 19:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
:'''Delete''' as they seem to be transparent formations from the word for the nationality followed by the word for language. If there are any exceptions ... e.g. if ''fransuz'' can mean the French language by itself but ''ingliz'' cannot mean the English language by  itself ....  then we can handle that on the individual entry pages for the exceptions, so  i would still vote delete in that case. [[user:Soap|—]]<span style="background-color: #a6ffe0; padding: 3px; border-radius: 6px 6px 6px 6px;"><b>[[user talk:Soap|Soap]]</b></span>[[Special:Contributions/Soap|—]] 09:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

== Delete all pages under Category:Thai rhymes ==

Please delete all pages under [[:Category:Thai rhymes]] EXCEPT the page [[Rhymes:Thai]]. We will use rhyme categories instead that they do not need to be updated. Another reason is that Thai word list take lots of memory for transliteration; it cannot handle thousand words in one page. [[User:Octahedron80|Octahedron80]] ([[User talk:Octahedron80|talk]]) 06:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
:At this point we need to vote on keeping or deleting the Rhymes namespace entirely rather than decide on a language-by-language basis. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 18:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
::Well, considering that the rhymes template automatically creates templates, any rhymes pages that match the categories are obsolete. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 18:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
::Is it possible to generate a table with clickable links like [[Rhymes:Thai]] in the category namespace too? [[user:Soap|—]]<span style="background-color: #a6ffe0; padding: 3px; border-radius: 6px 6px 6px 6px;"><b>[[user talk:Soap|Soap]]</b></span>[[Special:Contributions/Soap|—]] 09:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

== [[:τρίπα αλά βενετσιάνα#rfd-notice-el-|τρίπα αλά βενετσιάνα]] ==

Greek. 

I cannot find any references. --[[User:FocalPoint|FocalPoint]] ([[User talk:FocalPoint|talk]]) 20:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

:The reference is from a guide to Egyptiot Dialect speech. https://www.sah.aegean.gr/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Αιγυπτιώτικα-Mυτιλήνη-22_10_2019.pdf. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 02:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
::Hi @[[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]], thank you for showing the reference. I put it in [[τρίπα αλά βενετσιάνα]]. I am trying to look for further instances, I found this in a tweet "όπως κ να το κανεις ακουγεται καλυτερα ετσι,σαν την τρυπα αλα βενετσιάνα που οπως λεει κ η αρωνη,ειναι πατσάς με σαλτσα ντοματα" (with υ instead of ι). [[User:FocalPoint|FocalPoint]] ([[User talk:FocalPoint|talk]]) 17:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
:::I also found a "τρίπα φιορεντίνα". [[User:FocalPoint|FocalPoint]] ([[User talk:FocalPoint|talk]]) 17:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
::Greek is not an [[WT:LDL|LDL]], but Egyptiot Greek might in my opinion qualify for the more lax attestation criterion. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 16:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]], this makes sense. Indeed Egyptiot Greek is not well documented. [[User:FocalPoint|FocalPoint]] ([[User talk:FocalPoint|talk]]) 10:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

: references/attestation is a matter for [[WT:RFVN]], and modern Greek is a [[WT:WDL]]. ([[:Category:Ancient Greek language]] doesn't even mention Egyptian Greek.) {{unsigned|93.221.41.136|17:15, 13 February 2023}}

Pretty old but since it hasn't been closed I'm commenting. It is mentioned in an academic publication regarding an endangered idiom, I think that's enough attestation in this case. [[User:Antondimak|Antondimak]] ([[User talk:Antondimak|talk]]) 09:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

= January 2023 =

== [[:триста, тридцать, три#rfd-notice-ru-|триста, тридцать, три]] ==

Russian. Entered by [[User:Xyzzyva]]. I doubt its entry-worthiness. '''Delete'''. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 03:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

:Per our criteria for numbers, '''delete'''. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 11:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 13:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
:''Comment'' – This is not a number, numeral or ordinal, but a phrase whose meaning (if it can be attested) is opaque. What, precisely, is a potentially valid rationale for its deletion? &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 17:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
::'''Keep''' – The usage of countdown phrases is language dependent, often opaque, and sometimes even in dispute (such as ''1-2-3'', whether to go on 1 or on the beat after)—the kind of phrases that need a dictionary entry to be understood correctly.  This one is in no way different than ''[[ready, aim, fire]]'', other than the constituent parts being numbers.  The numbers in this case don't even mean anything numerical, they're being used for sound and familiarity.  [[User:Xyzzyva|— ˈzɪzɨvə]] ([[User talk:Xyzzyva|talk]]) 02:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
: '''Keep''' on the same basis. It's not at all clear what this means without context, and it certainly isn't a number. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 02:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
: '''Keep''' per Lambiam; I don't know how I would feel about the Russian equivalent of "three, two, one" (which is at least obviously counting in a sequence), but "three hundred, thirty, three" is definitely opaque, the meaning/use is not guessable from the parts IMO. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 23:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

== [[:hiersum#rfd-notice-ang-|hiersum]] ==

Old English. To my knowledge, {{m|ang|hīersum}} isn't attested (cf {{m|ang|stīele}}). The old Leasnam would have loved to create {{m|ang|hīersum}}, and I almost did, but I've been converted. The WS {{m|ang|hȳrsum}} is the most common attested form, the other being {{m|ang|hērsum}}. [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 03:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
: Unless you feel the need to create a reconstruction entry, '''delete'''. <s>I don't think anyone would have cared either or.</s> -- [[User:Skiulinamo|Skiulinamo]] ([[User talk:Skiulinamo|talk]]) 04:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
: Ah, I see {{ping|Hundwine}} believes {{diff|71018405|71018157|normalizing spellings}} without marking them as reconstructions is the way to go. I disagree and find that practice outdated and misleading. --[[User:Skiulinamo|Skiulinamo]] ([[User talk:Skiulinamo|talk]]) 04:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
:: Normalizing spellings is not outdated at all. It's easy to find recent works that normalize spellings, e.g. Fulk's ''A Comparative Grammar of the Early Germanic Languages'' and Ringe & Taylor's ''The Development of Old English''. All dictionaries that I'm aware of do it, including wiktionary.

:: As far as it being "misleading": has anyone come out and said, "I was misled"? Or is this hypothetical? I talk to people who study Old English all the time, and no one has ever complained that the normalized spellings on wiktionary caused them any problems. In fact it makes looking up words easier, since you can often tell what the normalized spelling of a word will be by glancing it at, whereas idk how anyone's supposed to predict which alternative spelling is gonna be prioritized for each word if the normalization is done away with. Some words appear with dozens of different spellings.

:: In fact, requiring all spellings to be attested, and not just all words, would cause huge practical difficulties. Presumably this would have to go for every inflection of a word, since those are supposed to have pages too and they're automatically linked to on the mobile version of wiktionary. That greatly multiplies the number of spellings that have to be checked for attestation and the number of new reconstruction pages to be created, to the point where the category for reconstructed words will be unusable ''or'' the same declension tables will be full of different spellings from different dialects, depending on which ones are attested. It's a ton of work just to make the site inconsistent and unwieldy. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure there is no source that lists every attested spelling of every word, so the task is not just onerous but impossible. Much better to just keep the normalized spellings. [[User:Hundwine|Hundwine]] ([[User talk:Hundwine|talk]]) 05:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
::For the record this was relatively recently discussed at [[Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/October#Normalization of Umbrian]] ({{ping|Catonif}}), perhaps {{tl|normalized}} should be used for OE as well. —[[User:Al-Muqanna|Al-Muqanna]] المقنع ([[User talk:Al-Muqanna|talk]]) 05:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
:::I find normalizing the spelling of these types of vowels to be misleading or potentially misleading. (I certainly don't have an issue with normalizing the spelling of letters with the same pronunciation, such as ƿ > w, ð > þ). To give a specific example, even with the disclaimers at {{m|ang|ielf}}, I didn't realize that that form is alleged to be completely unattested until reading the following statement in [https://www.academia.edu/2977257/The_meanings_of_elf_and_elves_in_medieval_England ''The Meanings of Elf and Elves in Medieval England''] (by Alaric Timothy Peter Hall (2004): "Nor is *ielf, the i-mutated form of West Saxon */æ<sup>u</sup>lβi/, attested (the form <IELF> on coins being an epigraphic variant of <ÆLF>: Colman 1992, 161– 62; 1996, 22–23); the absence is worth noting because ''ielf'' is frequently cited in grammars and dictionaries" (page 212). I wonder whether the same applies to derivatives such as {{m|ang|ielfisċ}} or {{m|ang|ielfcynn}}, which do not even include any disclaimers. Even if this word is a special case, the fact that the form ''ælf'' could be "borrowed into West Saxon at an early date" indicates that this kind of inter-dialectal borrowing was possible. I wonder whether this kind of issue is particularly likely to occur with "ie", which seems to be pretty limited in terms of actual attestation (I think it only occurs in Early West Saxon)?
:::Aside from vowels, another point that I was misled on is the existence of infinitives of modal verbs such as {{m|ang|mōtan}} and {{m|ang|sculan}}: apparently they are not attested ("[https://www.academia.edu/40013334/The_evolution_of_surviving_English_preterite_present_verbs_āgan_cunnan_durran_magan_mōtan_sculan_a_corpus_based_study The evolution of surviving English preterite-present verbs (āgan, cunnan, *durran, *magan, *mōtan, *sculan): a corpus-based study]", Magdalena Tomaszewska, 2019) and it has been argued in some linguistic literature that this absence was not accidental, but grammatically determined ("[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259486144_Grammaticalization_of_modals_in_English_and_Dutch_uncontingent_change Grammaticalization of modals in Dutch: uncontingent change]", Griet Coupe and Ans Van Kemenade, March 2009, in ''Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory'' (pp.250-270), Editors: Paola Crisma, Giuseppe Longobardi; see page 4). There probably will not be many similar cases of defective verbs; although it's typical to cite verbs in the infinitive, maybe it would be worthwhile for us to add an asterisk or note to these verb's inflection tables?--[[User:Urszag|Urszag]] ([[User talk:Urszag|talk]]) 06:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
::::I don't mind normalised spellings either, but we need to decide one way or the other on this. There needs to be consensus. If there were simply ONE attested form as ''hīersum'' (and 10 of another spelling), I would have made the entry as ''hīersum'', heck that IS the most etymologically perfect form. But other editors have pulled me the other direction. Please, let us decide on one and stick with that. I edit across multiple languages, and I cannot keep track of micro-preferences for each. [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 06:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

= February 2023 =

== [[-zki#Polish|-zki]] ==
{{movedfrom|Wiktionary:Grease pit/2023/February}}
Please delate the page -zki (and it feminine version: -zka)
In Polish, there is one ending -ski, but it shifts some consonant cluster to -cki (when the last letter represents some voiceless consonants in our alphabet, e.g. Sopot + -ski = sopocki) or -dzki (when the last letter represents voiced consonant, e.g. Łódź + -ski = łódzki) -- both are pronounced the same.

The only reason that English Wiktionary has 3 forms, is because it has also 2 forms for -izna (-izna, -yzna) that also depends on the last consonant before it.

There is no "special" -zki ending in Polish language. And the link to the page should be for -dzki.
There is the difference (both pronounced the same) between: Francuzki 'French women' (Francuz 'French man') and francuski 'French' (adj.).

If your language has a word with -zki, you should add it as part of that language, because in Polish -z- here is a part of the digraph in -dzki.

Regards. [[User:Caslonc|Caslonc]] ([[User talk:Caslonc|talk]]) 13:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Keep'''; ''-d-'' is part of the stem; ''-zki'' is the voiced allomorph of ''-ski''. [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 18:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. I'm only now noticing we've had ''-zki'' instead of ''-dzki'' from the very beginning, but I'd be inclined to change it per the request if we're to analyze either as separate from ''-ski''. I don't really see how ''-zki'' can be the voiced allomorph of ''-ski''; the ''-k-'' devoices the preceding obstruent, so it never is actually voiced, and given together with the ''-d-'' stem it constitutes the digraph ''dz'', making it pronounced identically to ''-cki'', it makes no sense to analyze it as separate (nor have I seen others do so prior). [[User:Hythonia|Hythonia]] ([[User talk:Hythonia|talk]]) 06:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Delete''' per Hythonia, and considering there are many natives who see it this way, I'm inclined to speedy (but I won't). [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 12:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Move''' to ''-dzki'' and mark it as an alternative spelling of ''-ski''. But I think we should get rid of [[:Category:Polish terms suffixed with -cki]] and [[:Category:Polish terms suffixed with -zki]] and move all suffixed terms to [[:Category:Polish terms suffixed with -ski]].--[[User:Urszag|Urszag]] ([[User talk:Urszag|talk]]) 18:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
:Ok, I was wrong about the sonorization, but {{m|pl|-cki}} and {{m|pl|-dzki}} still aren't suffixes: in both cases the real, underlying suffix is {{m|pl|-ski}}. That ''-s-'' is written differently when next to a dental doesn't change that fact; it's simply a spelling feature. So: '''keep {{m|pl|-ski}}''', explain everything there, and '''delete the rest'''. [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 13:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
:FYI the general practice is to keep entries for allomorphs of suffixes and soft-redirect them to the canonical form. This is done in several languages. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 16:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|Benwing2}} The underlying suffix is "-ski", these are merely orthographical variants that shouldn't affect our analysis at all, jeez. '''Delete''' [[User:Shumkichi|Shumkichi]] ([[User talk:Shumkichi|talk]]) 14:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
:::also, who cares how other languages are treated? that's not a valid argument. change them too, here, problem solved. [[User:Shumkichi|Shumkichi]] ([[User talk:Shumkichi|talk]]) 14:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Shumkichi}} Being consistent across languages and esp. Slavic languages *IS* important IMO. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 20:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::tl;dr '''delete''' voices: 4 (sorry, 5, if we count the person who proposed it); '''keep''' voices: 1. '''delete''' [[User:Shumkichi|Shumkichi]] ([[User talk:Shumkichi|talk]]) 20:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
:'''Soft redirect''' from ''-dzki'' per Urszag and Benwing. —[[User:Al-Muqanna|Al-Muqanna]] المقنع ([[User talk:Al-Muqanna|talk]]) 22:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

== [[:mennä nukkumaan#rfd-notice-fi-|mennä nukkumaan]] ==

Finnish. Surjection suggested it be deleted. [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 13:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. I haven't changed my mind - you can replace {{m|fi|mennä}} with basically any synonym, and even terms that aren't synonyms, like {{m|fi|palata||to go back}} to form {{m|fi|[[palata]] [[nukkumaan]]||to go back to bed}}. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 21:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Why? We have [[go to bed]]. This is the Finnish equivalent to it. This is the type of saying one might want to look up in a dictionary - in other words it is a useful entry. It does not matter if many verbs can be combined with "nukkumaan": this is by far the most common way to express "go to bed" in Finnish. --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 21:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
::::The English entry is basically a [[WT:THUB|translation hub]] with some additional idiomatic meanings that the Finnish word does not have. Besides, {{m|fi|mennä nukkumaan}} is not the overwhelmingly most common way to express this concept. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 14:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::As we have ''mennä nukkumaan'' and ''laittaa nukkumaan'' as usage examples under {{m|fi|nukkua}} we might as well delete these two as separate entries - to get rid of the RFD's, if not for anything else. --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 17:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:'''Delete''', this and {{m|fi|laittaa nukkumaan}}, per consensus. [[User:Wikiuser815|Wikiuser815]] ([[User talk:Wikiuser815|talk]]) 14:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[:laittaa nukkumaan#rfd-notice-fi-|laittaa nukkumaan]] ==

Finnish. Like {{m|fi|mennä nukkumaan}} above. Better as a collocation. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 20:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Hekaheka}} as the creator of this and the one above &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 20:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Why? We have [[put to sleep]]. This is the Finnish equivalent to it. This is the type of saying one might want to look up in a dictionary - in other words it is a useful entry. It does not matter if many verbs can be combined with "nukkumaan": this is probably the most common way to express "put to sleep" in Finnish.--[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 21:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
::::As above. The English entry is basically a [[WT:THUB|translation hub]] and doesn't justify the existence of the Finnish entry. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 14:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

== Two unencoded entries ==

===[[:𐮱𐮵𐮿#rfd-notice-pal-|𐮱𐮵𐮿]]===

===[[:𐮼𐮵𐮹𐮵𐮵#rfd-notice-pal-|𐮼𐮵𐮹𐮵𐮵]]===

Middle Persian. These two terms are supposed to be in the Book Pahlavi script, but it hasn't been encoded in Unicode yet. As such, they're using codepoints that haven't been assigned. I ''suspect'' they're using suggested codepoints from some kind of application to encode the script, but the [https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21090-book-pahlavi-model.pdf document] Unicode link to from their [https://unicode.org/roadmaps/smp/ roadmap] doesn't have them. Not that it matters much, as we wouldn't be able to rely on mere applications anyway.

I should stress that this is very different to the situation we had a few months ago with some Kaktovik characters. Those were added a few months before Kaktovik was added in Unicode 15, but after the codepoints had been finalised (meaning they were very unlikely to change). Book Pahlavi hasn't even been accepted into Unicode yet - and may not be for several more years - so the whole block might end up somewhere totally different; nevermind the fact that the characters within it are very likely to change, too.

It's just not tenable for us to have entries like this, as they're essentially unusable.

Note: we also have [[Module:Phlv-translit]], which is a transliteration module for Book Pahlavi that suffers from the same problem. I've nominated it at [[Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Module:Phlv-translit|WT:RFDO]]. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 10:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
: '''Delete''', they ain’t much good. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 13:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
: Sadly, unicode approval of <code>Phlv</code> got derailed from when I created [[Module:Phlv-translit]], while communicating with Roozbeh Pournader. I would move it under my userspace but <code>"Scribunto" content is not allowed on page</code>, so please just '''keep''' for now. '''Delete''' the two entries though. -- [[User:Sokkjo|Sokkjō]] 21:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Sokkjo|Sokkjo]] You can put modules in your userspace by prefixing them with <code>User:Sokkjo:</code>. Technically it's still in the module namespace, but the software treats it like it's your userspace anyway. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 21:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
::: Feel free to try, but I get the error above. -- [[User:Sokkjo|Sokkjō]] 21:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
::::Derp - I meant <code>Module:User:Sokkjo:</code>. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 07:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

== [[:παρενδυσιομανής#rfd-notice-el-|παρενδυσιομανής]] ==

Greek. Not enough references. This seems to be a made-up word. --[[User:FocalPoint|FocalPoint]] ([[User talk:FocalPoint|talk]]) 05:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
:This and the one below should be handled at [[WT:RFVN]] if the problem is lack of attestation. —[[User:Al-Muqanna|Al-Muqanna]] المقنع ([[User talk:Al-Muqanna|talk]]) 12:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

== [[:παρενδυσιομανία#rfd-notice-el-|παρενδυσιομανία]] ==

Greek. 

I could not find enough references. It seems like a made up word. --[[User:FocalPoint|FocalPoint]] ([[User talk:FocalPoint|talk]]) 05:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

:I believe that correct term is [[παρενδυσία]], although I'm not experienced enough in Greek to say definitively that [[παρενδυσιομανία]] is indeed incorrect. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;"> <span style="font-weight:bold;"> [[User:Guitarmankev1|– Guitarmankev1]] </span> <sup>[[User talk:Guitarmankev1|(talk)]]</sup> </span> 13:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

= March 2023 =

== U+0085 and similar redirects ==

We have an entry at [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%C2%85&redirect=no] (not sure how else to link to it) that is a redirect to [[Appendix:Control characters#C1 set]]. This and other non-printing control chars in the C1 plane are listed in [[Appendix:Unicode/Latin-1 Supplement]]. Pywikibot actually chokes on the U+0085 entry, throwing an InvalidTitle error. I don't see the point of this at all and it creates technical issues, so delete it. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 16:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
: '''Delete and salt'''. That sounds like a bug in Pywikibot - my guess is that it’s set to assume all control characters are bad titles, when in fact that only applies to the C0 codes. That being said, allowing C1 codes as titles is probably a bug in the first place - this was flagged way back in 2006, and it’s still not fixed: [https://static-bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5732]. I’d normally be ambivalent about having them, but since they’re almost certainly useless, we should get rid of them to stop any technical problems they’re causing. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 16:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

== [[:Charta 77#rfd-notice-cs-|Charta 77]] ==

Czech. Encyclopedic material. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 20:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 03:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
:'''Keep''', names of political movements seem to be included in en.wikt, see e.g. [[New Labour]]. --[[User:Jan.Kamenicek|Jan Kameníček]] ([[User talk:Jan.Kamenicek|talk]]) 13:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

= April 2023 =
== [[:olla samaa mieltä#rfd-notice-fi-|olla samaa mieltä]] ==

=== [[:olla eri mieltä#rfd-notice-fi-|olla eri mieltä]] ===

=== <s>[[:olla sitä mieltä#rfd-notice-fi-|olla sitä mieltä]]</s> ===

Finnish. These are now SOP that {{m|fi|olla mieltä}} exists, and it's a better place to present these anyway. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 14:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
:I've redirected {{m|fi|olla sitä mieltä}} (I didn't notice I had created it). That only leaves the other two. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 20:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
::FWIW, I think instead of deleting it's better to redirect to {{m|fi|olla mieltä}}. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 08:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Redirect''' both to {{m|fi|olla jotain mieltä}}. [[User:Wikiuser815|Wikiuser815]] ([[User talk:Wikiuser815|talk]]) 14:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Just wondering if the lemma should be {{m|fi|olla jotakin mieltä}} because ''olla mieltä'' is hardly ever used independently. ''Olla mieltä'' should then be redirected to this. --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 10:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

:It is quite often used independently in e.g. questions ({{m|fi||mitä olet mieltä?}}). &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 10:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
::I don't think that's true. The correspondent of "jotakin" in your example is "mitä"? There's always a pronoun in partitive, except in case of "eri". --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 14:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
:::Arguably so. I'm not really sure which lemma would be better, but they should definitely at least point to each other. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 19:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

== [[:zne-#rfd-notice-cs-|zne-]] ==

Czech. This is imo incorrect, or at least unnecessary. Looking at the definition, it feels like someone took the English prefix {{m|en|mis-}} as a starting point and tried to make Czech fit it.
* {{m|cs|znečistit}} is not {{m|cs|zne-}} + {{m|cs|čistit}}, but {{m|cs|z-}} + {{m|cs|ne-}} + {{m|cs|čistit}} or {{m|cs|z-}} + {{m|cs|nečistý}} + {{m|cs|-it}} or {{m|cs|z-}} + {{m|cs|ne-}} + {{m|cs|čistý}} + {{m|cs|-it}}
* {{m|cs|znemravnit}} is not {{m|cs|zne-}} + {{m|cs|mravný}} + {{m|cs|-it}}, but {{m|cs|z-}} + {{m|cs|nemravný}} + {{m|cs|-it}} or {{m|cs|z-}} + {{m|cs|ne-}} + {{m|cs|mravný}} + {{m|cs|-it}}
* {{m|cs|zneškodnit}} is not {{m|cs|zne-}} + {{m|cs|škodný}} + {{m|cs|-it}}, but {{m|cs|z-}} + {{m|cs|neškodný}} + {{m|cs|-it}} or {{m|cs|z-}} + {{m|cs|ne-}} + {{m|cs|škodný}} + {{m|cs|-it}}
Etc. [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 11:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

:Voting '''delete''' but perhaps if someone more knowledgeable than me votes otherwise I might listen, but I am basing this on Polish ''niedo-'', which is a pseudo-affix. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 10:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
::I agree and this is good to know. I personally would be appreciative of having the option to know this is a misnomer. Perhaps listing it as a misnomer. Another aspect, if zne (actually 2 stacked prefixes) is removed as a (single) prefix, and then I search "czech words beginning with zne", would these "double prefix" words not populate? just a thought. [[Special:Contributions/75.201.24.4|75.201.24.4]] 15:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
::Don't know Czech remotely well enough, but this would appear to be a situation analogical to Polish ''za-'' + ''nie-''? In verbs like [[zanieczyścić]], [[zaniemówić]], [[zaniedbać]], [[zaniemóc]] and so on. [[User:Hythonia|Hythonia]] ([[User talk:Hythonia|talk]]) 11:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
::'''delete''' per nom. --[[User:Jan.Kamenicek|Jan Kameníček]] ([[User talk:Jan.Kamenicek|talk]]) 13:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
:'''delete''' [https://www.slovnikafixu.cz/heslar/z(e)-%20-et/-%C4%9Bt z(e)- -et/-ět], [https://www.slovnikafixu.cz/heslar/z-%20-it/-nit%20(se) z- -it/-nit (se)] [[User:ɶLerman|ɶLerman]] ([[User talk:ɶLerman|talk]]) 20:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

== [[Jansen van Vuuren]] ==

Cebuano. @[[User:Carl Francis|Carl Francis]]. If anything, it should be an Afrikaans name. It's equivalent to having, for example, a Guarani name labelled "van Helsing".  [[User:Kwékwlos|Kwékwlos]] ([[User talk:Kwékwlos|talk]]) 22:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

:We have {{m|en|Lomboy}} as an English surname from Cebuano, {{m|de|Leblanc}} as a German surname from French, and {{m|ceb|Zaldarriaga}} as a Cebuano surname from Basque. If these are possible, why not this one? It is more likely, though, if attestable as a Cebuano surname, that it should be defined as a Cebuano surname from Afrikaans. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 19:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
::Many non-canonical (i.e. not native or from Spain) family names permanently have made their way into the Philippines via migration or intermarriage. I have mentioned the well-known Tausug family name ''Schuck'' in a [[Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2023/April#Cebuano_names|related discussion]]. This is not a matter of "weil nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf", but we need solid ''attestations''. The creator of these entries ({{ping|Carl Francis}}) still owns us a proper explanation about what motivated them beyond their stupid comment ("This is stupid") in the Beer Parlour[https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary%3ABeer_parlour%2F2023%2FApril&diff=prev&oldid=72615034&diffmode=source].
::{{re|Kwékwlos}} Please take them to RfV, not here. It would be best to consolidate all into a single section. [[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 20:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

== [[:Sommerauer#rfd-notice-ceb-|Sommerauer]] ==

Cebuano. @[[User:Carl Francis|Carl Francis]]. Why did you add an Austrian name when this should be a German entry instead? [[User:Kwékwlos|Kwékwlos]] ([[User talk:Kwékwlos|talk]]) 22:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
: Take this to RFV. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 22:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

== [[:Unsupported titles/g tag#rfd-notice-mul-|Unsupported titles/g tag]] ==

Translingual. This is used in Internet slang to indicate that the user is grinning. However, the enclosing {{l|mul|{{unsupported|< >}}}} symbols can be replaced with {{l|mul|:* *}} or even {{l|mul|( )}}. Furthermore, any word (or sentence) can be used in a similar manner (common examples include the unabbreviated ''<grin>'', ''<facepalm>'' and ''<sarcasm>'', see also the list at {{l|mul|:* *}}). I've added an identical sense to [[g#Noun]], so this entry is now a sum of its parts ([[g]] + {{unsupported|< >}}). There is also German {{l|de|:*fg*|t=cheeky grin}}, which could probably be moved to {{l|de|fg}}. [[User:Einstein2|Einstein2]] ([[User talk:Einstein2|talk]]) 10:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
: Ok, '''delete''' and move. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 22:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

== [[:حقدا#rfd-notice-ar-|حقدا]] ==

Arabic. Any verbal noun can be used that way. It’s called {{l|ar|w:ar:مفعول لأجله|مَفْعُول لِأَجْلِهِ}}. --[[Special:Contributions/2001:16A2:EBBD:1F00:5C20:928E:3C40:C0FD|2001:16A2:EBBD:1F00:5C20:928E:3C40:C0FD]] 01:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

== [[یوگیہ]] ==
{{movedto|Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#یوگیہ}}

== [[:pojistná smlouva#rfd-notice-cs-|pojistná smlouva]], [[:nájemní smlouva#rfd-notice-cs-|nájemní smlouva]] ==

Czech. Respectively "insurance contract", "rental contract". Both seem SOP. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 12:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

:'''Delete'''. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 12:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
:'''Abstain''' for now, it's a grey area imo. 
:* We have an entry for {{m|en|insurance policy}} ({{m|en|insurance contract}} is a synonym-of entry), and there are several translations there themselves worthy of an entry. 
:* We don't have an entry for {{m|en|rental contract}} or {{m|en|lease agreement}}, but imo we could. Although they probably wouldn't be protected by THUB in its current version, gathering translations there ({{cog|fr|contrat de bail}} for example) could still be useful.
:* What about {{m|cs|kupní smlouva||[[contract of sale]]}} and {{m|cs|pracovní smlouva||[[employment contract]]}}? [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 09:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' per arguments by PUC. --[[User:Jan.Kamenicek|Jan Kameníček]] ([[User talk:Jan.Kamenicek|talk]]) 13:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

== [[:vedestä noutava lintukoira#rfd-notice-fi-|vedestä noutava lintukoira]] ==

Finnish. SOP: "a bird-hunting dog that fetches [birds] from the water". {{ping|Hekaheka}} as creator &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 17:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
:SOP - yeah, in Finnish it is, but it is not self-evident nor easily or in fact at all guessable that this is {{m|en|water dog}} in English and not a "bird dog that fetches from water" nor a "from-water-fetching bird dog". One important function for an interlingual dictionary is to help people find foreign-language equivalents for precise (even if they are SOP-) terms in their own language. Unless you can come up with a better way to tell to the users that this term actually translates as "water dog" into English, I would '''keep''' it. Are we writing the  dictionary for actual users or for some other purpose? --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 22:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
::We can have it as a [[WIktionary:Collocations|collocation]] and keep it as a translation for {{m|en|water dog}} - that ought to be enough. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 14:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Agreed. '''Delete''', move to collocation. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 14:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
::Besides, it's actually wrong. {{m|en|water dog}} is not technically restricted to dogs that hunt fowl. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 18:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

== [[:římské právo#rfd-notice-cs-|římské právo]] ==

Czech. SOP, meaning is "Ancient Roman law". (We could have any number of similar terms referring to specific cultures, and all would be SOP.) [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 03:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

:'''Delete.''' [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 14:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
:We do have {{m|en|Roman law}}, though. I don't know how I feel about {{cog|fr|droit romain}}. '''Abstain''' for now. {{ping|Fay Freak}}? [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 16:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' as it is corresponding to [[Roman law]]. --[[User:Jan.Kamenicek|Jan Kameníček]] ([[User talk:Jan.Kamenicek|talk]]) 13:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

= May 2023 =
== [[:kvalitativní ukazatel#rfd-notice-cs-|kvalitativní ukazatel]], [[:kvantitativní ukazatel#rfd-notice-cs-|kvantitativní ukazatel]] ==

Czech. Respectively "qualitative indicator", "quantitative indicator". Both SOP. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 22:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

:'''Delete''', unless someone thinks this is [[WT:PRIOR]], but I think if both entries are separately updated these could be turned into collocations. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 06:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
: '''Delete''', SOP. [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 17:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

== [[:ingen alls#rfd-notice-sv-|ingen alls]] ==

Swedish SOP: {{m|sv|ingen||nobody}} + {{m|sv|alls||whatsoever, at all}}. [[User:Glades12|Glades12]] ([[User talk:Glades12|talk]]) 06:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
: {{ping|Alla tajders|Mårtensås}} What do ya'll think, is "ingen alls" a valid term in Swedish?[[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 21:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
::That is not relevant. No one will dispute that {{m|en|none at all}} is a valid term in English, yet it does not meet our [[WT:CFI|criteria for inclusion|]]. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 13:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

== [[:účetní závěrka#rfd-notice-cs-|účetní závěrka]] ==

Czech. "Financial statement", for which we don't have an English equivalent in Wiktionary, which strongly suggests this is SOP. I have created [[závěrka]], and one of its meanings is "(financial) statement". [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 07:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

:Leaning '''delete''', however there might be a case for [[WT:PRIOR]]. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 07:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' per [[WT:PRIOR]]. --[[User:Jan.Kamenicek|Jan Kameníček]] ([[User talk:Jan.Kamenicek|talk]]) 13:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

== [[:Шизгара#rfd-notice-ru-|Шизгара]] ==

Russian. I'm not sure whether we should keep this, hence why I have put it to RfD rather than using {{temp|d}}. [[User:Acolyte of Ice|Acolyte of Ice]] ([[User talk:Acolyte of Ice|talk]]) 09:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
: It's not a dictionary material, IMO, even if if something may find it interesting. Lean on '''deleting'''. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 08:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[:ماديا#rfd-notice-ar-|ماديا]] ==

Arabic. SoP. Regular derivation of adverbs. — <span dir='ltr'>[[User:Fenakhay|Fenakhay]]</span> <sup>(<span dir='ltr'>[[User talk:Fenakhay|حيطي]]</span> · <span dir='ltr'>[[Special:Contributions/Fenakhay|مساهماتي]]</span>)</sup> 09:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

* We normally allow pages for inflected forms.  If the rule for Arabic is different then [[Wiktionary:About Arabic]] should have an explanation of the policy.  Or do you mean it should simply be defined as an accusative case and not as an adverb?  [[User:Vox Sciurorum|Vox Sciurorum]] ([[User talk:Vox Sciurorum|talk]]) 22:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

== [[:أدبيا#rfd-notice-ar-|أدبيا]] ==

Arabic. Same as above. — <span dir='ltr'>[[User:Fenakhay|Fenakhay]]</span> <sup>(<span dir='ltr'>[[User talk:Fenakhay|حيطي]]</span> · <span dir='ltr'>[[Special:Contributions/Fenakhay|مساهماتي]]</span>)</sup> 09:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

== [[:بەيلە#rfd-notice-kk-|بەيلە]] ==

Kazakh. Misspelling of {{m|kk|بەلە}}. [[User:LibCae|LibCae]] ([[User talk:LibCae|talk]]) 06:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

== <s>[[:somor#rfd-notice-xpc-|somor]]</s> ==

Pecheneg. Tagged by an IP. — <span dir='ltr'>[[User:Fenakhay|Fenakhay]]</span> <sup>(<span dir='ltr'>[[User talk:Fenakhay|حيطي]]</span> · <span dir='ltr'>[[Special:Contributions/Fenakhay|مساهماتي]]</span>)</sup> 22:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

*'''Failed''' [[User:Vipgame321|Vipgame321]] ([[User talk:Vipgame321|talk]]) 23:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[:elĉifrigilo#rfd-notice-eo-|elĉifrigilo]] ==

Esperanto. No sources, hardly any usable Google results. {{User:Robin van der Vliet/Signature}} 15:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

== [[:liepota#rfd-notice-sh-|liepota]] ==

Whoever created this page was probably imitating the orthographic norms of 19th century Croatian and NDH (1942—1945). The problem is that in this word 'ie' is not correct according to those norms, cf. the [https://archive.org/details/koriensko_pisanje_1942-hrvatski_drzavni_ured_za_jezik/koriensko_pisanje_1942-hrvatski_drzavni_ured_za_jezik/page/n85/mode/2up?view=theater NDH orthographic manual] – it's just ''ljepota''. The form may have been used somewhere before the 19th century, but without an attestation that's just speculation, there's no attestation even in the JAZU dictionary. — [[User:Phazd|Phazd]] ([[User_talk:Phazd|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Phazd|contribs]]) 01:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
: {{re|Phazd}} This is incorrect. I have no difficulties finding mid- and late-19th century texts having this word, and others of the same stem, [https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22liepotom%22 in this spelling]. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 03:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] Fair enough. I must however question whether noting the endless variety of pre-Vuk/-Broz spellings of BCMS has any value at all, even for professional linguists. — [[User:Phazd|Phazd]] ([[User_talk:Phazd|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Phazd|contribs]]) 18:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

= June 2023 =

== [[:Category:Ubykh_language]] ==

It appears that some 1,350 words in this language use a transcription system that is, to put it lightly, completely made up. The guide for the transliteration (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Ubykh_transliteration) given has no basis in Ubykh literature and in the [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Apsaros1921#Ubykh_%22%D1%85%22 user talk pages] you can see these editors discuss what letters are used for the transliteration.

The only writing system this language has used in recorded history was the ''Turkish Latin'' alphabet and a transcription system based off of this snippet is in the back of A Grammar of Ubykh (ISBN-10: 3862880508) [https://web.archive.org/web/20120507212817im_/https://omniglot.com/images/writing/ubykh_latin2.gif which can be visually shown here]. ~ [[User:Burned Toast|Burned Toast]] ([[User talk:Burned Toast|talk]])
:You’re not wrong. This was done on the basis that it’s used by Ubykh revivalists, as it’s an extended form of the Abkhaz alphabet, but I’ve not actually seen anything that suggests it’s actually in use. {{ping|Thadh|Apsaros1921}}? [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 00:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

:{{ping|Vahagn Petrosyan}}. [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 07:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
::This is an unwritten, extinct language. The language is attested in scholarly works, each using a different transcription system. There is no standard. We can choose whichever system we want and even devise our own one as long as the spelling normalization rules are clearly documented. [[User:Vahagn Petrosyan|Vahag]] ([[User talk:Vahagn Petrosyan|talk]]) 07:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Piggybacking on this comment, since Russia generally doesn't generally have a high tolerance of non-Cyrillic writing systems (to put it mildly), most languages will eventually develop a Cyrillic orthography one way or the other, if any is developed at all. The only exceptions to this I can think of are Finnic languages and communities in Siberia whose mainstream counterparts live outside of Russia. Hence, if we are to create a writing system based on the fact that the language is undocumented, since Ubykh was spoken on the territory of Russia, I indeed believe it's best to devise a Cyrillic-based orthography. [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 08:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
::::However, most ethnic Ubykhs live in Turkey since the Caucasian war with the Russians (1864). Sure, it could make sense to base it off of Cyrillic since their native land is modern day Sochi but most of them live Turkey or other places that use a non-Cyrillic writing system. [[User:Burned Toast|Burned Toast]] ([[User talk:Burned Toast|talk]]) [[User:Burned Toast|Burned Toast]] ([[User talk:Burned Toast|talk]]) 08:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::In that case I don't see any problem in adopting a different kind of orthography. I was making general statements more than anything else, since I'm not familiar with Ubykh myself. [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 14:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::The ethnic Ubykhs have forgotten their language. We can choose Latin to make it easier for them to study their ancestral language. Or we can choose Cyrillic for consistency with all the other Northwest Caucasian languages. It doesn't really matter. These things are usually decided by the active editors of the language. Our only active editor is Apsaros1921 and he prefers Cyrillic. [[User:Vahagn Petrosyan|Vahag]] ([[User talk:Vahagn Petrosyan|talk]]) 14:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::That is not an acceptable answer. [[User:Burned Toast|Burned Toast]] ([[User talk:Burned Toast|talk]]) 22:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Is it ''solely'' attested in scholar's works? [[User:CitationsFreak|CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01]] ([[User talk:CitationsFreak|talk]]) 13:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
::::As far as I can tell, yes. [[User:Vahagn Petrosyan|Vahag]] ([[User talk:Vahagn Petrosyan|talk]]) 14:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
:::The issue in this case is that the most recent publication of Ubykh literature has Fenwick state that the language has three vowels, which contrast in quality not length: [ɐ ɜ ɨ]. The entries use a very old dictionary with a transcription system (which the user has based his off of) which can't accurately describe the language as it includes vowels that don't exist - such as /oː/ which has been rejected by everyone else in the field - or excludes consonants from words that should exist. So none of the entries are correct on two points. If we are going to include any Ubykh at all, we should include a citation to A Grammar of Ubykh since it is the most up-to-date work in the field. [[User:Burned Toast|Burned Toast]] ([[User talk:Burned Toast|talk]]) 22:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Expand [[Wiktionary:Ubykh transliteration]] by adding columns for all available transcription systems for Ubykh like I did for Laz at [[Wiktionary:Laz transliteration]]. Choose one of the columns as Wiktionary standard. Convince Apsaros1921 to use it. Describe the normalization rules from all other systems to your system. [[User:Vahagn Petrosyan|Vahag]] ([[User talk:Vahagn Petrosyan|talk]]) 10:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

== [[:تو را#rfd-notice-fa-|تو را]] ==

Just {{m|fa|تو}} + {{m|fa|را}}. Not in any dictionary I can find.--[[User:Saranamd|Saranamd]] ([[User talk:Saranamd|talk]]) 23:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

== [[মীর জাফর]] ==

Bengali sense: {{w|Mir Jafar}}. The meaning of the specific person is clearly out of scope by virtue of [[WT:NSE]].[[User:廣九直通車|廣九直通車]] ([[User talk:廣九直通車|talk]]) 09:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

== <s> [[:cz#rfd-notice-pl-|cz]] </s> ==
=== [[:ch#rfd-notice-pl-|ch]] ===
=== [[:sz#rfd-notice-pl-|sz]] ===
=== [[:rz#rfd-notice-pl-|rz]] ===
=== [[:dz#rfd-notice-pl-|dz]] ===
=== [[:dż#rfd-notice-pl-|dż]] ===
=== [[:dź#rfd-notice-pl-|dź]] ===

Polish. In some languages such as Hungarian digraphs are considered letters, but in Polish they are not.
: {{ping|Kwamikagami}} as the creator.  [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 11:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

:Yes, we should call them digraphs. As soon as the template supports that option, they should be corrected. But that's not reason for deletion. (I started a tech request on how to deal with this, but there haven't been any responses.)
:Before I discovered the template, I'd write "A digraph in X orthography", but for consistency the template should be used. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 11:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|Kwamikagami}} If someone creates a separate template for digraphs, then I'll support their addition (together with "dzi" which is considered a trigraph by some authors; also, e.g. PWN counts them as separate lemmas and provides definitions for them), but for now let's delete them. [[User:Shumkichi|Shumkichi]] ([[User talk:Shumkichi|talk]]) 12:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
:::It doesn't need to be a separate template, just add 'digraph' as a keyword like 'letter'. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 12:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
::::if we just change the name of the header, the entries will still be categorised as letters. [[User:Shumkichi|Shumkichi]] ([[User talk:Shumkichi|talk]]) 12:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::I changed to 'symbol', and the cats changed as well. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 19:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::'Digraph' now generates categories appropriately. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 04:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. We have no tradition of having entries for digraphs. Even for English, we have no entries for such common digraphs as [[ch]], [[gh]], [[ph]], [[sh]] and [[th]]. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 12:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
*:Yes, though for English (and Irish), 'digraph' is a fuzzy category, and not all cases are as clear-cut as ''ph''. (''ti'', for example.) Things are clearer in most other languages that have them. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 04:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

'''RFD-deleted'''. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 09:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

== [[:saliʔ#rfd-notice-lut-|saliʔ]] ==

Lushootseed. Converting {{temp|d}} to {{temp|rfd}} since I don't know, comment from the nominator: "[[sáliʔ]] is the correct spelling -[[User:PersusjCP|PersusjCP]]" - [[User:TheDaveRoss|<span class="mysig">TheDaveRoss</span>]] 12:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

:{{ping|CedarForest14}} as someone who probably knows something about this. [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 16:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
:Lushootseed uses accents over vowels to mark stress in dictionaries and such, but are omitted during regular writing. For example the entry for saliʔ in the dictionary (Bates et al. 435) is sáliʔ rather than saliʔ. I am fine with Lushootseed entries on Wiktionary either incorporating accents (which is proper, but potentially misleading for those not educated in Lushootseed) or dropping them (which is less proper for a dictionary), as long as there is consistency. I guess it depends on the precedent set by other languages with optional academic stress markers (like Hebrew?) but I don't know what that is here on Wiktionary. [[User:PersusjCP|PersusjCP]] ([[User talk:PersusjCP|talk]]) 18:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
::I'm also happy to follow whatever seems to be in suit with other such projects, but can say that the vast majority of Lushootseed entries so far have been made without stress markers. When I started adding Lushootseed entries, I did my best to follow what the majority of the pre-existing entries seemed to go with beforehand. 
::<br>
::I'll also add that stress is different from dialect to dialect. The Bates-Hess-Hilbert dictionary doesn't mark the difference between Northern & Southern dialects in terms of stress, & while we can try to determine based off the speakers cited in the example usages, it's hard to say which the markers usually follow (although much of the dictionary treats Northern as the standard, we can't assume, & it isn't clearly stated). The inconsistency of stress, & the fact that we don't currently make the clearest distinctions between Northern & Southern except as marked in entry text, leads me to think that the accents might be overly misleading & best dropped. [[User:CedarForest14|CedarForest14]] ([[User talk:CedarForest14|talk]]) 23:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
:::My personal preference would be to omit stress markers, like you I agree it is misleading, as I often see people copy-paste Lushootseed with the markers included. Sadly there isn't much precedent for either online, however in my personal experience working with the language, the stress markers were omitted. I think either works as long as there is consistency. I'm fine with moving all the Lushootseed entries to not have stress markers. Like you said, I think they could have a place wherever dialectical differences might be marked, which really isn't part of many entries as of now. [[User:PersusjCP|PersusjCP]] ([[User talk:PersusjCP|talk]]) 00:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:PersusjCP|PersusjCP]]@[[User:CedarForest14|CedarForest14]] Hey folks, I also agree that accents should probably be dropped in page names for the same reasons. Although, maybe we should include them in the pages themselves somehow? They may differ across dialects, but recording the accents from the Bates et al. dictionary would be really valuable.
::::Looking forward to contributing more to Lushootseed on wiktionary with you all in the future! [[User:AdJHu|AdJHu]] ([[User talk:AdJHu|talk]]) 15:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::The pronunciation section has that information as part of the IPA, so there is really no need. We can make different entries in the pronunciation section for different pronunciations, if it is spelled the same. Different spellings should probably be their own pages though, under alternate forms. I'm going to start moving pages to have no stress markers based on this discussion. [[saliʔ]] should not be deleted, either. [[User:PersusjCP|PersusjCP]] ([[User talk:PersusjCP|talk]]) 22:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

== [[:ônamaq#rfd-notice-klj-|ônamaq]] ==

Khalaj. Tagged {{temp|d}} by [[User:Xenos melophilos]], no rationale given. - [[User:TheDaveRoss|<span class="mysig">TheDaveRoss</span>]] 15:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

:Here's why: what I have seen is that in a word where a vowel is followed by "y" (for example [[bôyun]] and [[oynamaq]]), the "y" is dropped and replaced with vowel length (so oynamaq becomes "ônamaq" and "bôyun" becomes "bôun"). In the case of "bôun", this becomes"bûun" because of diphthongization. [[User:Xenos melophilos|Xenos melophilos]] ([[User talk:Xenos melophilos|talk]]) 15:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

== User:TheDaveRoss edit-warring over removing deletion tags, refuses to follow procedure ==

Rather than contributing to the edit-war, I'm reporting it here. 

The instructions on the deletion tag are that, if DR contests the deletion, ''they'' should file an {rfd} or {rfv} and ask for review here. 

The reason for the nomination is that there is no content apart from the Unicode data. DR agrees that is reason for quick deletion, but argues that mathematical symbols should be exempt. They give no reason why there should be an exemption.

These entries may actually be harmful, as many Unicode names are misnomers. If the "definition" blindly repeats the Unicode name, we risk mis-defining the symbol. At the very least, if we can't devise a definition ourselves, there should be a link to the WP article that covers the usage. If we can't identify usage, we have no way of knowing if the Unicode name is accurate as a definition. Also, if the name is e.g. "circulation function", as one of them is, and we independently link 'circulation' and 'function', then we have a fake definition, because this mathematical usage is not covered under our entry for 'circulation'.

(In fact, when I changed the link to the phrase 'circulation function', making it clear (by being a red link) that we don't actually have a definition for this symbol, DR reverted it to the fake definition.)

All of which means these articles should be deleted, unless someone is able to verify/correct/cite them. 

They are [[⫛]] [[⨼]] [[⨝]] [[⨖]] [[⨑]] [[⨐]]  [[⨋]]  [[⨋]] [[⨊]] [[⧧]] [[⅄]]. 

[[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 21:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

:So if they can be verified, we shouldn't delete them? I sure wish we had an established process that other editors could use to verify... and if only there were a template to request verification... [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 22:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
::Even if they can be verified, they're not intelligible definitions. They provide the reader no understanding of what the symbol is actually for. I've cleaned up a few, but I've never seen most of them. If we have an article with an empty/fake definition, it should be deleted. RfV templates sit for months with no action. There would be almost zero effort involved in recreating these articles, and meanwhile we haven't lost any information (the Unicode name is visible when you check a character with a red link). [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 22:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
:::So that gives you the right to subvert the entire process, instead of trying to rewrite a definition to make it better/check if it's real? We don't do that for anything else, I don't see why these should get special permission. Stick to the process like the rest of us. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 22:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
::::I *was* following process. DR is the one subverting it, by refusing to follow the straightforward instructions on the {d} tag. I'm already doing their work for them. 
::::As I said, I have rewritten definitions in some cases. But in most I have no idea what I'm talking about, so it would not be appropriate for me to add some garbage and pretend it's a definition. That's the problem I'm trying to fix. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 23:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::There is a long-standing custom to not use {{tl|d}} if the matter is not clear and has to be discussed. You were told numerous times that this was the case here, yet you continue to use the template. Stop making others do your work for you and start using {{tl|rfv}} and {{tl|rfd}} yourself! [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 10:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Um, this thread is from a month ago. Where have I done this in the past month? 
::::::Also, if the instructions for how to use {d} are wrong (as multiple people have now said they are), you might consider  correcting them so they do not mislead people who do not have inside knowledge. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 10:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::The documentation seems straightforward and accurate to me? "If there is any possibility that the entry should maybe be retained for any reason whatsoever, then use {{tl|rfd}} instead." —[[User:Al-Muqanna|Al-Muqanna]] المقنع ([[User talk:Al-Muqanna|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::The template itself says that if you believe it should be kept, then ''you'' should change it to rfd. Evidently that is incorrect, or at least that is what people have been saying. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 10:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't see what is incorrect or misleading here. The notice on the template serves to inform anyone who comes across it that they can change it to an RFD if they challenge it. That does not contradict, and rather reinforces, the convention noted in the documentation that if you perceive any chance of it being challenged in the first place you should save people's time by not using it in the first place. —[[User:Al-Muqanna|Al-Muqanna]] المقنع ([[User talk:Al-Muqanna|talk]]) 11:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Ah, I see, sorry, Richard adding a new thread threw me off. [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 11:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::{{re|Thadh}} I'm sorry, but I think they're going to have to be picked off one-by-one.  I suspect that even the three path integrals ([[⨖]] [[⨑]] [[⨐]]) are not going to be bunchable, and the Southfork symbol ([[⅄]]) is probably on its own.  The modulo two sum [[⨊]] is probably exactly what it says, but finding evidence may be difficult.  (I think it comes from a use of [[⊕]] as sum modulo 2.) --[[User:RichardW57m|RichardW57m]] ([[User talk:RichardW57m|talk]]) 11:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

===[[:⫛#rfd-notice-mul-|⫛]]===
'Keep'. The definition '[[transverse]] [[intersection]]' works fine for the intersection of one-dimensional submanifolds of a two-dimensional manifold.  I've referenced the general definition under [[transverse]].  We ought to add the verbal meaning <nowiki>'to [[intersect]] [[traverse]]ly'</nowiki>, but I can't find an acceptable quotation for that either. --[[User:RichardW57m|RichardW57m]] ([[User talk:RichardW57m|talk]]) 10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

:I added a 'geometry' tag and your definition. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 11:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{re|Kwamikagami}}
::# The moratorium on editing these has not been li<s>s</s>fted.
::# You mangled my definition.  I said that looking up the words of the definition worked in one case, which I suppose is the prototypical case.  It should actually work well now - those who need the definition should have enough background to at least vaguely understand the definition in Wikipedia.  The term is not limited to one-dimensional submanifolds of a two-dimensional manifold.
::At least we're now mainly into {{tl|rfc}} territory: {{tl|rfv}} would be disruptive. --[[User:RichardW57m|RichardW57m]] ([[User talk:RichardW57m|talk]]) 11:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

===[[:⧧#rfd-notice-mul-|⧧]]===
I've found some examples of use - Quiet Quentin delivers some, and Google yielded https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01166.  They're a bit esoteric, but they're showing usage, and it looks as thought the meaning is indeed as non-specific as 'thermodynamic'.  So here are three quotations from Quiet Quentin, to be added when the moratorium is lifted:

* {{quote-book|en|date=2020-03-04|author=Gary A. Mabbott|title=Electroanalytical Chemistry: Principles, Best Practices, and Case Studies|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=9781119538592|page=165
|text=CONTROLLED POTENTIAL METHODS 165 Equilibrium conditions Net reduction Ox + ne Red Ox + ne Red y g ren e Reactants Products e e r F ΔG f ⧧ = ΔG b ⧧ = ΔG o ⧧ ΔGf⧧ = ΔGo⧧–αnF(E–E°ʹ) ΔGb ⧧ = ΔGo ⧧ +(1–α)nF(E–E°ʹ) Reaction coordinate{{nb...}}}}
* {{quote-book|en|date=2020-11-22|author=J. Chris Slootweg; Andrew R. Jupp|title=Frustrated Lewis Pairs|publisher=Springer Nature|isbn=9783030588885|page=147
|text=The kinetic C6H4 (AH⧧ parameters extracted for the formation of 1-NMe2 -2-B(Ar)(thiophenyl)- AG298 = 19.9 ± 1.1 kcal‧mol–1; AS⧧ = − 30.9 ± 3.1 cal‧mol −1 K−1; ⧧ = 28.4 ± 2.0 kcal‧mol–1) are in agreement with the computational data{{nb...}}}}
* {{quote-book|en|date=2022-04-17|author=Jianwei Xu; Ming Hui Chua; Ben Zhong Tang|title=Aggregation-Induced Emission (AIE): A Practical Guide|publisher=Elsevier|isbn=9780128243367|page=649
|text=6 Schematic graph of the two nonradiative decay channels NR-VR and NR-MECP (A) BDP-1A and (B) BDP1G with the Gibbs free energy of activation ΔG⧧, the nonradiative decay rate constants, and the corrected quantum efficiency.}}

Not the nicest of quotes, but I think we need a thermodynamicist to make the improvements, if possible. --[[User:RichardW57m|RichardW57m]] ([[User talk:RichardW57m|talk]]) 10:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[:ledamot av Europeiska kommissionen#rfd-notice-sv-|ledamot av Europeiska kommissionen]] ==

Swedish SOP, meaning "member of the European Commission". [[User:Glades12|Glades12]] ([[User talk:Glades12|talk]]) 15:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
:'''Delete''', SOP. [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 15:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 21:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

== [[:ledamot av Europaparlamentet#rfd-notice-sv-|ledamot av Europaparlamentet]] ==

Swedish SOP, meaning "member of the European Parliament". [[User:Glades12|Glades12]] ([[User talk:Glades12|talk]]) 15:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
:'''Delete''', SOP. [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 15:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 21:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

== [[:ไปสู่สรวงสวรรค์#rfd-notice-th-|ไปสู่สรวงสวรรค์]] ==

Thai. A sum-of-parts. --[[User:Miwako Sato|Miwako Sato]] ([[User talk:Miwako Sato|talk]]) 23:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

== [[:muntra upp sig#rfd-notice-sv-|muntra upp sig]] ==

Swedish. 

The term is simply the [[WT:SOP|sum of parts]] ({{m|sv|muntra upp}} + {{m|sv|sig}}). Unlike other [[reflexive verb]]s with {{m|sv|sig}}, this does not have a distinct meaning. [[User:Gabbe|Gabbe]] ([[User talk:Gabbe|talk]]) 17:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
:Same goes for:
:*{{m|sv|klä av sig}} = {{m|sv|klä av}} + {{m|sv|sig}}
:*{{m|sv|klä på sig}} = {{m|sv|klä på}} + {{m|sv|sig}}
:*{{m|sv|ta av sig}} = {{m|sv|ta av}} + {{m|sv|sig}}
:*{{m|sv|ta på sig}} = {{m|sv|ta på}} + {{m|sv|sig}}
:The argument is identical. Compare ''modern klädde av barnet'' ("the mother undressed the child") versus ''barnet klädde av sig'' ("the child undressed itself"). No fundamental change in meaning. [[User:Gabbe|Gabbe]] ([[User talk:Gabbe|talk]]) 08:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

= July 2023 =
== [[:one-piecee#rfd-notice-cpi-|one-piecee]] ==

Chinese Pidgin English. SoP: [[one]] (=English [[one]]) + [[piecee]] (classifier). The same construction is valid for other numerals, for example:
{{box-top|examples}}
* {{RQ:cpi:Instructor|volume=4|page=65}}
*: {{cpi-q|米其地快'''都卑士'''|mai5 ki4 di6 faai3 '''du1 bi1 si4'''|makee divide '''two piecee'''|divide this into '''two'''}}
* {{RQ:cpi:Instructor|volume=6|page=43}}
*: {{cpi-q|合吉'''地⿱竹厘卑時'''毡地文甘顚拿|hap6 gat1 '''di6 li1 bi1 si4''' zin1 di6 man4 gam1 din1 naa4|hap got '''three piecee''' gentleman come dinner|'''3''' gentlemen dine with me}}
* {{RQ:cpi:Instructor|volume=6|page=33}}
*: {{cpi-q|合吉'''昔士卑士'''林安黎'''科卑士'''𠲟忒記巴臣治|hap6 gat1 '''sik1 si6 bi1 si4''' lam4 on1 lai4 '''fo1 bi1 si4''' gen6 tik1 gi3 baa1 seon4 zi6|hap got '''sixee piecee''' room only '''four piecee''' can takee passenger|'''6''' rooms but only '''4''' to spare}}
* {{RQ:cpi:Instructor|volume=6|page=32}}
*: {{cpi-q|昔'''士地卑士'''文'''輝卑士'''烏文|sik1 '''si6 di6 bi1 si4''' man4 '''fai1 bi1 si4''' wu1 man4|'''sixty piecee''' man '''five piecee''' woman|'''60''' males and '''5''' females}}
{{box-bottom}}
I think the reference (Gow) is correct in interpretating this as "one" for the purposes of a guide book, but from a linguistic point of view it's simply sum of parts. – [[User:Wpi|Wpi]] ([[User talk:Wpi|talk]]) 15:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

== [[:ႊ#rfd-notice-shn-|ႊ]] ==

Shan. {{ping|Kwamikagami}} complained it had no content.  I'll add some soon. --[[User:RichardW57|RichardW57]] ([[User talk:RichardW57|talk]]) 23:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

:I'm going to go through and remove the 'delete' tags that I added for the articles that, thanks to you, now have some content, but per above I don't see any problem in you doing that yourself. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 23:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
::{{re|Kwamikagami}} Have you not read the top of this page?  It takes a month from adding to removing an {{tl|rfd}} tag! --[[User:RichardW57m|RichardW57m]] ([[User talk:RichardW57m|talk]]) 12:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
:'''Keep'''.  I've added content, but I can't find anything better than a mention.  It looks as though it not a character that would occur in a standard Shan lexicon - see [[w:Shan language#Tones]]. --[[User:RichardW57m|RichardW57m]] ([[User talk:RichardW57m|talk]]) 13:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

== [[:ႌ#rfd-notice-shn-|ႌ]] ==

Shan. {{ping|Kwamikagami}} complained it had no content.  I'll add some soon. --[[User:RichardW57|RichardW57]] ([[User talk:RichardW57|talk]]) 23:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

:BTW, IMO the definitions and examples you're giving are perfect. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 23:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
:'''Keep'''.  I've added a definition and a quotation, though I can't work out what it means. --[[User:RichardW57|RichardW57]] ([[User talk:RichardW57|talk]]) 22:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

== <s>[[:ႍ#rfd-notice-shn-|ႍ]]</s> ==

Shan. {{ping|Kwamikagami}} complained it had no content.  I'll add some soon. --[[User:RichardW57|RichardW57]] ([[User talk:RichardW57|talk]]) 23:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

:'''Keep'''.  Content and quotation added.  The quotation demonstrates the mark, but it's translation and transliteration need some expert attention. --[[User:RichardW57|RichardW57]] ([[User talk:RichardW57|talk]]) 22:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
'''RFD-kept''', has content [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 11:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[:ႋ#rfd-notice-shn-|ႋ]] ==

Shan. {{ping|Kwamikagami}} requested deletion on the grounds of 'no comment'.

'''Keep'''.  I've added a comment.  I've found the same text in several orthographies on p315 of Sai Kam Mong's 'the History and Development of the Shan Scripts', and I may be able to use that for quotations if the need arises.  Unfortunately, I don't have much faith in the typesetting of the book. --[[User:RichardW57|RichardW57]] ([[User talk:RichardW57|talk]]) 23:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

:'''Correction:''' The grounds were 'no content', and I added ''content'', not a mere ''comment''.  My verdict stands. [[User:RichardW57m|RichardW57m]] ([[User talk:RichardW57m|talk]]) 09:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

== [[:ဇ#rfd-notice-mul-|ဇ]] ==
(Translingual section)

Supposedly translingual when the entry is actually for Burmese. RichardW57m asked about this kind of edit at the Beer Parlor, and was told that the 'translingual' header is for translingual items, and that words/letters of specific languages need to be under the header for that language. Yet he continues to edit-war over the issue, calling for a "ban" of anyone who attempt to correct his abuse. 

Burmese belongs under 'Burmese'. Since this entry already has a Burmese section, the 'translingual' section should either be deleted as redundant or turned into a translingual section. Easiest to delete it and let someone create a proper translingual section in the future if they wish. 

BTW, I have tried changing these bogus sections to proper translingual ones, only for RichardW57m to revert me. This isn't a confusion over what "Burmese" means, e.g. of the country of Burma or of the Mon-Burmese script -- he admits that means specifically the Burmese language and alphabet (ဇ is the 8th letter of the Burmese alphabet, but may have a different sorting order in other Mon-script alphabets.) These are supposedly "translingual" because of the Burmese Army. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 01:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

:'''Keep'''.  It is the Burmese script representative of the 8th letter of the Brahmi alphabet, which originally represented a voiced unmurmured oral stop (and its descendants prototypically still do) and we are confident that it is the 8th consonant letter of the Burmese, Mon, Pali and Sanskrit alphabets.  As there is currently a moratorium on editing single character entries, here are some examples for its translinguality:
:{{m+|my|ဇစ်|t=zip}}
:{{m+|mnw|ဇၞော်|t=big|tr='''j'''nok}}
:{{m+|pi|ဇယ|t=victory}}
:{{m+|rki|ဇာလောက်|t=how many}}
:These languages are using the same letter!  The letter is best known for its rôle in the Burmese alphabet because the Burmese conquered Burma prior to its conquest by the British, with a massive dimunition in the rôle of Mon.  The domination is also demonstrated by the use of the ethnic name of the [[Burma]]ns to denote the territory in English (and Thai {{m|th|พม่า}}, for that matter). --[[User:RichardW57m|RichardW57m]] ([[User talk:RichardW57m|talk]]) 09:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[:hyvällä tuulella#rfd-notice-fi-|hyvällä tuulella]] ==

Finnish. Sum-of-parts, see {{m|fi|tuuli}} (2), there's also "hyvälle tuulelle", "huonolla tuulella", etc. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 20:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

:'''Delete''', or redirect to "tuuli". [[User:Wikiuser815|Wikiuser815]] ([[User talk:Wikiuser815|talk]]) 13:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[общественное мнение]] ==
{{movedfrom|WT:RFDE}}
Sum of parts. [[User:Dylanvt|Dylanvt]] ([[User talk:Dylanvt|talk]]) 13:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

* Entered in the wrong section. ''[[User:Donnanz|DonnanZ]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 20:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)'''

:Not a Russian-speaker but if [[public opinion]] (+ [[opinion publique]] etc.) isn't SOP it seems unlikely that this one is. —[[User:Al-Muqanna|Al-Muqanna]] المقنع ([[User talk:Al-Muqanna|talk]]) 22:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
::Is there any reason to believe those other ones aren't SOP? They seem to be to me. [[User:Dylanvt|Dylanvt]] ([[User talk:Dylanvt|talk]]) 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
:::[[public opinion]] arguably involves an idiomatic expansion of [[opinion]] (senses 1 and 2), given that strictly speaking an opinion can only be formed and held in the mind of an individual. [[public opinion]] is a shorthand for the opinions of individuals considered in aggregate. [[User:Voltaigne|Voltaigne]] ([[User talk:Voltaigne|talk]]) 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
::::Lean on '''keeping '''per Voltaigne, also for the terms in other languages. I have expanded translations on [[public opinion]]. [[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 02:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::At the very least it involves [[WT:FRIED]] since "public opinion" does not just mean "an opinion that is public". —[[User:Al-Muqanna|Al-Muqanna]] المقنع ([[User talk:Al-Muqanna|talk]]) 15:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

== <s> [[:-żerca#rfd-notice-pl-|-żerca]] </s> ==

Polish. Not a suffix, see {{m|pl|żerca}}. [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 18:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

:'''Delete'''. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 18:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
:'''RFD-deleted'''. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 06:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

== [[:strona internetowa#rfd-notice-pl-|strona internetowa]] ==

Polish. 
SOP. Better as a collocation, which WSJP has. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 20:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

= August 2023 =

== [[:kafaz lepujsh#rfd-notice-sq-|kafaz lepujsh]] ==

Albanian. SOP. Moved to the collocations of [[kafaz]]. [[User:Catonif|Catonif]] ([[User talk:Catonif|talk]]) 15:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Delete''', SOP. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 21:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

== [[:англо-российский#rfd-notice-ru-|англо-российский]] ==

Russian. SoP. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 08:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

:Should {{m|ru|англо-америка́нский}} and {{m|ru|а́нгло-еги́петский}} also be taken into consideration here? [[User:Voltaigne|Voltaigne]] ([[User talk:Voltaigne|talk]]) 00:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Voltaigne|Voltaigne]]: Yes. [[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 06:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 09:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[:stopień sprężania#rfd-notice-pl-|stopień sprężania]] ==

Polish. SOP, collocation in WSJP, not even in PWN. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 21:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[:stosunek płciowy #rfd-notice-pl-|stosunek płciowy]] ==

Polish. 
SOP. The term '''stosunek''' by itself can mean this. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 09:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
:Not saying it's not SOP (I'm on the fence; let's add it as a collocation at least), but I think your argument isn't good; if anything, it would seem to indicate that ''stosunek płciowy'' and ''stosunek seksualny'' are pleonastic. I suspect that sense of {{m|pl|stosunek}} arose by ellipsis from ''stosunek płciowy'' / ''stosunek seksualny''. [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 10:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
:As far as I know, the full designations are shortened in speech because it has been perceived as indecent to talk about sex, so the noun without attribute could only mean the same as the noun with attribute after the wieldy term has been established. Thus German [[Verkehr]] is entered in dictionaries as “euphemism” and the like. This one though claim to not stand for ''[[sexual intercourse]]'' but for ''sexual relation'' in general, so you hear [[Verhältnis]] in old films said with a certain tone for [[Liebesbeziehung]], and even English [[affair]] apparently also shortened “euphemistically”. So why do we even have ''[[sexual relation]]''? Or as another obvious example, French [[fille]], of which not the most transparent compound term would be SOP to mean “prostitute”, likewise German [[Dirne]] if one opines that written-together terms can still be SOP, because the shorter term in this meaning is only secondary. ([[WT:JIFFY]].) [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 15:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
::I believe it might depend language to language - one can see evidence of stosunek being the original metaphor and later collocations being added - I wouldn't exclude it being under influence of other languages however. Agree with PUC it should at least be a collocation. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 15:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
:In English one can say that two people are “having a relation”, which is usually understood to be romantic and to include (probably, but not necessarily) sex, but also hanging out together socially. This also applies to “having a long-term relation” but not to “having a good relation”; when someone states they have a good relation with their boss, there is no romantic connotation. If one says two people are “having a sexual relation”, it implies that this is not just “sexual intercourse” (the first definition given at {{m|pl|stosunek płciowy}}), but repeated sexual intercourse during an extended period. The connotation that they are hanging out together socially is absent. I don’t know how this is for Polish, but if it is similar, the term is a SOP. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 06:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

== [[:stosunek seksualny#rfd-notice-pl-|stosunek seksualny]] ==

Polish. 
SOP. The term '''stosunek''' can mean this by itself. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 09:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[:كهذا#rfd-notice-ar-|كهذا]] ==

Arabic. SOP. --[[Special:Contributions/2A02:9B0:405B:196:F13E:9AD8:6C42:C3C6|2A02:9B0:405B:196:F13E:9AD8:6C42:C3C6]] 17:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

:'''Delete''' — <span dir='ltr'>[[User:Fenakhay|Fenakhay]]</span> <sup>(<span dir='ltr'>[[User talk:Fenakhay|حيطي]]</span> · <span dir='ltr'>[[Special:Contributions/Fenakhay|مساهماتي]]</span>)</sup> 04:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
::Hello, I thought if would be a good idea to create the page كهذا, as you can also find [[هكذا]], [[كما]], [[كمن]] . Why should it be deleted? [[User:Mbursar|Mbursar]] ([[User talk:Mbursar|talk]]) 11:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[bigarren solairu]] ==

Basque. SOP. [[User:Santi2222|Santi2222]] ([[User talk:Santi2222|talk]]) 19:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''. Interesting cultural difference but this is pure SOP. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 02:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
:: I wouldn't trust what it says about cultural differences: this was created by an Indonesian IP who was convinced that finding ads in any language with floor listings made them qualified to add translations and entries for those languages.  To give you an idea, {{diff|39506446|text=here}} they're explaining Finnish floor numbering to a native speaker. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 06:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

== [[:بمن#rfd-notice-ar-|بمن]] ==

Arabic. SoP. — <span dir='ltr'>[[User:Fenakhay|Fenakhay]]</span> <sup>(<span dir='ltr'>[[User talk:Fenakhay|حيطي]]</span> · <span dir='ltr'>[[Special:Contributions/Fenakhay|مساهماتي]]</span>)</sup> 04:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

:Hello, I thought if would be a good idea to create the page بمن, as you can also find لمن, عمن, ممن. Why should it be deleted? [[User:Mbursar|Mbursar]] ([[User talk:Mbursar|talk]]) 11:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[:كمن#rfd-notice-ar-|كمن]] ==

Arabic. Determiner. SoP. — <span dir='ltr'>[[User:Fenakhay|Fenakhay]]</span> <sup>(<span dir='ltr'>[[User talk:Fenakhay|حيطي]]</span> · <span dir='ltr'>[[Special:Contributions/Fenakhay|مساهماتي]]</span>)</sup> 04:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

:Hello, I thought if would be a good idea to create the entry كمن, as you can also find [[لمن]], [[عمن]], [[ممن]] . Why should it be deleted? [[User:Mbursar|Mbursar]] ([[User talk:Mbursar|talk]]) 11:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

= September 2023 =

== [[:myśli samobójcze#rfd-notice-pl-|myśli samobójcze]] ==

Polish SOP; compare {{m|en|suicidal thoughts}} (I'm not sure {{m|en|suicidal ideation}} deserves an entry either.) [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 10:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

:I have mixed feelings on this one - on one hand it seems SOP, on the other it seems lexicalized. Furthermore, I suspect that it's usage in psychology might mean it has a specialized meaning? Unsure. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 09:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

= October 2023 =

== <s>[[:buzsa#rfd-notice-tr-|buzsa]]</s> ==

For all I could find, this isn't even an idiom with a particular meaning, but literally just the phrase "if it is ice", which I doubt needs its own entry. Similarly, I would've requested the deletion of the entry {{l|tr|buzla}} (whose definition was given as "with [a/the] [piece of] ice"), if the word didn't also have the meaning of "sea ice", which is why I simply rewrote it.

If someone like {{u|Orexan}} could give their opinion or enlighten me on usages of the word which would make it worthy of an entry, I would appreciate it. {{unsigned|Trimpulot|09:30, 15 October 2023}}
:{{ping|Orexan}}, for the supposedly missped ping. [[User:Catonif|Catonif]] ([[User talk:Catonif|talk]]) 09:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. You can do this for every Turkish noun and adjective: ''[[su#Turkish|su]]sa'' = “if it is water”; ''[[peynir#Turkish|peynir]]se'' = “if it is cheese”; ''[[para#Turkish|para]]sa'' = “if it is money”; ''[[iyi#Turkish|iyi]]se'' = “if it is good”; ... You can do this with countless other suffixes: ''[[su#Turkish|su]]muş'' = “it is apparently water”; ''[[peynir#Turkish|peynir]]miş'' = “it is apparently cheese”; ''[[para#Turkish|para]]mış'' = “it is apparently money”; ''[[iyi#Turkish|iyi]]miş'' = “it is apparently good”; ... Or: ''[[su#Turkish|su]]ydu'' = “it was water”; ''[[peynir#Turkish|peynir]]di'' = “it was cheese”; ''[[para#Turkish|para]]ydı'' = “it was money”; ''[[iyi#Turkish|iyi]]di'' = “it was good”; ... These suffixes can be combined in many ways: ''[[su#Turkish|su]]muşsa'' = “if it is apparently water”; ''[[peynir#Turkish|peynir]]mişse'' = “if it is apparently cheese”; ''[[para#Turkish|para]]mışsa'' = “if it is apparently money”; ''[[iyi#Turkish|iyi]]mişse'' = “if it is apparently good”; ... ''[[su#Turkish|su]]muşsaydı'' = “if it was apparently water”; ... And: ''[[su#Turkish|su]]dasa'' = “if it is in the water”; ''[[su#Turkish|su]]dasaydı'' = “if it was in the water”; ''[[su#Turkish|su]]yumdasaydı'' = “if it was in my water”; ... There is no end to it; just take a look at how many [[:Category:Turkish suffixes|Turkish suffixes]] there are. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 10:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Strong Delete''' en masse. And not just {{m|tr|buzsa}} and the other meaningless entries in the [[:CAT:Turkish terms suffixed with -sa]] like {{m|tr|asteroitse}}, {{m|tr|başsa}}, {{m|tr|bilgisayarsa}}, {{m|tr|bluzsa}}, {{m|tr|evse}}, {{m|tr|memnuniyetse}}, {{m|tr|psikozsa}}, {{m|tr|tabansızsa}}, {{m|tr|testse}}, but also the equally meaningless entries in [[:CAT:Turkish terms suffixed with -le]] like {{m|tr|bluzla}}, {{m|tr|evle}}, {{m|tr|gafla}}, {{m|tr|kapsamla}}, {{m|tr|kapsamsa}} (suffixed with -sa, but categorized in -la), {{m|tr|kefaletle}}, {{m|tr|kitapla}}, {{m|tr|kombinasyonla}}, {{m|tr|kuruşla}}, {{m|tr|lirayla}}, {{m|tr|matematikle}}, {{m|tr|permütasyonla}}, {{m|tr|programsa}} (wrong categorization again), {{m|tr|psikozla}}, {{m|tr|tabansızla}}, {{m|tr|taklitle}}, {{m|tr|testle}}, {{m|tr|psikozla}}. They're non-idiomatic, -sa/-se is a mood suffix and any word (noun, adjective, verb) can be inflected with it. Even having a non-lemma "Noun form" page for them is unnecessary (because then what about all the other derivative suffixes?) but labeling them "Phrase" and giving them definitions is an unfunny joke. Similarly -la/-le is the instrumental suffix, short form of the conjugation {{m|tr|ile}}. Turkish doesn't have a dedicated "instrumental case" and again literally any noun can be inflected. {{unsigned|Orexan|21:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)}}
** {{ping|Orexan}} Yes, unfortunately the user who created this had no common sense and systematically created entries (and templates!) for just about everything that popped into their head (they created English and German entries, too). Over 900 of the pages they created have been deleted, and I suspect many, many more will be once someone can manage to go through their contributions [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Sae1962&namespace=all&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=1000]. Between this user and an IP who insisted on making up unattested replacements for the loanwords that normal speakers use all the time, based on words from other Turkic languages, there are no doubt mountains of garbage scattered all over the place among our Turkish entries. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 23:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
*** A little more context: {{diff|25462199|text=RFDO, 2013}} (the section titled "A Bunch of Turkish Inflected-Form Categories") [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 00:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*I '''support''' the proposed '''mass deletion''' <s>{{color|#888|as well as the deletion of the corresponding categories}}</s>. I'd like to allow, though, for retaining the occasional term that just by itself is not inclusion-worthy but is a homograph of a Turkish terms that is. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 13:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
**{{ping|Orexan|Lambiam}} A) Should everything in the -sa and -le categories be deleted and B) are there any other endings with similarly SOP entries? [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 11:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
**:A) No, this has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, {{m|tr|yoksa}} is an idiomatic conjunction, and {{m|tr|kesinlikle}} is an idiomatic adverb. Many members in these categories are not just a suffixed noun with the expected meaning.
**:B) There are 164 [[:Category:Turkish terms by suffix|“Turkish terms suffixed with -...” categories]] and another 13 “Turkish verbs suffixed with -...” categories. Probably, some members of these categories suffer from the same problem, but there is no general ready way of spotting them. However, [[:Category:Turkish terms suffixed with -siz|Category:Turkish terms suffixed with ''-siz'']] – the antonym of ''-le'' – is rife with prime candidates (such as {{m|tr|buzsuz}}). &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 13:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
* '''RFD-deleted'''. I've deleted the terms indicated here and about 20 others with various "if"/"with" suffixes. If any more are identified I can delete them on precedent. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

== [[:सहीफ़ा ख़्वाँ#rfd-notice-hi-|सहीफ़ा ख़्वाँ]] ==

Hindi. Possibly SOP.  [[User:Kutchkutch|Kutchkutch]] ([[User talk:Kutchkutch|talk]]) 02:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:'''Delete''' can't find any instance of use except by rekhta dictionary. SOP as, सहीफ़ा(originally: book/writing; in islam: divine scripture) + ख़्वाँ (reader) [[User:कालमैत्री|कालमैत्री]] ([[User talk:कालमैत्री|talk]]) 03:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== [[:ja ci pokażę#rfd-notice-pl-|ja ci pokażę]] ==

Polish. 
I'm RFD'ing this to open a broader discussion in general - I feel this definition is already covered in [[pokazać]]. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 19:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:What is the topic of the wider discussion? &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 10:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
::Namely if you look at the usage notes/alt forms of the Polish entry, you'll see that the pronouns can vary widely, meaning we can "boil" them away, leaving us only with "pokazać". I believe this is the same for English. Furthermore, English "show" as in "threaten" can be in the past tense as well. So the broader subject is "the Polish and English forms should just be at the verb". [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 10:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

= November 2023 =

== [[:يەھۇدى دىنى#rfd-notice-ug-|يەھۇدى دىنى]] ==

Uyghur. SoP — <span dir='ltr'>[[User:Fenakhay|Fenakhay]]</span> <sup>(<span dir='ltr'>[[User talk:Fenakhay|حيطي]]</span> · <span dir='ltr'>[[Special:Contributions/Fenakhay|مساهماتي]]</span>)</sup> 01:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

== [[:μ#rfd-sense-notice-mul-|μ]] ==

Translingual. Sense: “{{lb|en|sciences}} [[micro-]]”, with the usage example “'''''μs''': microsecond''”. Added by [[User:Equinox|Equinox]]. A duplicate of {{m|mul|μ-}}. [[User:J3133|J3133]] ([[User talk:J3133|talk]]) 17:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

: Oh, I thought it was the micro sign. Guess not. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 18:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
:'''Delete.''' It's a prefix, so it should be entered with a hyphen, as it already is. And [[µ-]] (micro sign hyphen) redirects to [[μ-]] (mu hyphen). [[User:PierreAbbat|PierreAbbat]] ([[User talk:PierreAbbat|talk]]) 03:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

=December 2023=
==[[:треш стример#rfd-notice-ru-|треш стример]]==
Russian "trash streamer". Few contributions of [[User:PulauKakatua19]] have linguistic value. I can see he also started making Russian/Ukrainian romanised entries and transliterations into Cyrillic. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 11:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

===[[:треш стрим#rfd-notice-ru-|треш стрим]]===
As above. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 11:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
: I deleted [[trash streamer]] and [[trash stream]] (entered as '''Russian''' terms!) on sight. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 11:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Atitarev|Atitarev]] This is a matter for [[WT:RFVN]]. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 06:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm sure these are verifiable, the question is are these Russian or transliterations/pronunciations of English? [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 09:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Оставить [[User:Bortkastningskonto|Bortkastningskonto]] ([[User talk:Bortkastningskonto|talk]]) 06:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

'''Kept''', given this was the wrong forum and no-one's voted delete apart from the nominator. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 13:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

==djakwo==
Acehnese. Not a real word or a lemma. It’s a combination of the lemmas (obsolete spelling of ‘jak’) ‘djak’ + ‘wo’ (or woë). [[User:Monarchatto|Monarchatto]] ([[User talk:Monarchatto|talk]]) 17:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

==Bulgarian malformed verbal nouns==
In Bulgarian, a verb can have a verbal noun derived from it, which in turn can form its own plurals and behave like a noun in its own right. Some of these, such as the ones that end in {{m|bg|-е}}, are able to form the plural form by adding {{m|bg|-та}}, e.g. {{suffixusex|bg|бране|-та|бранета|nointerp=1|t1=picking, gathering|pos2=plural suffix|t3=pickings, gatherings}}. In some cases, they can further be made ''definite'', with the prefixed meaning "the", by suffixing {{m|bg|-та}} again, e.g. {{suffixusex|bg|бранета|-та|бранетата|nointerp=1|t3=the pickings}}.

However, sometimes, forming the plural is done with the {{m|bg|-ния}} suffix instead, and the {{m|bg|-та}} suffix is invalid or rare. In the majority of cases, it's {{m|bg||-ния}}, although there are also times when only {{m|bg||-та}} is acceptable. Now, we have recently discovered that there are a lot of entries that were created by mistake using the {{m|bg||-та}} rule, many of which by [[User:ArathVerbFormBot]] (see [[бушуванетата]]) once upon a time. [[User:Chernorizets]] sifted through many of these candidates, and we found almost all of them were not worth keeping. As a result, the following ~800 pages, all malformed {{m|bg||-та}} plurals and their definite forms, have been found to be in need of deletion (all are totally empty besides the bad Bulgarian content.): [[User:Kiril kovachev/RFD BG Verbal nouns]]. If you need to delete these using a bot, I also have them listed in plain text (no wiki formatting, each word on its own line) at [[User:Kiril kovachev/RFD BG Verbal nouns/plain]]. Thanks very much, [[User:Kiril kovachev|Kiril kovachev]] ([[User talk:Kiril kovachev|talk]]・[[Special:Contributions/Kiril kovachev|contribs]]) 23:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

:P.S. For discussions and to see how we arrived at this conclusion, please see [[Module talk:bg-verb#Verbal nouns are not handled correctly in several ways]] and [[User talk:Kiril kovachev/Verbal nouns to check]]. [[User:Kiril kovachev|Kiril kovachev]] ([[User talk:Kiril kovachev|talk]]・[[Special:Contributions/Kiril kovachev|contribs]]) 20:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

==[[:apragod#rfd-notice-gd-|apragod]]==
Scottish Gaelic. No uses found. Colin Mark's dictionary appears to be the source of the spelling, with all successive mentions likely able to be traced back either to it, or to Wiktionary itself. Several other dictionaries mention {{l|gd|apracot}} as the correct spelling; a move may be preferable to a deletion. [[User:Qwertygiy|Qwertygiy]] ([[User talk:Qwertygiy|talk]]) 22:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
:How about adding labels (like ''rare''), usage notes, and making it an alternative form of a more common form? --05:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

==[[סאמעט]]==
Misspelled, and {{m|yi|סאַמעט}} already exists. [[User:Insaneguy1083|Insaneguy1083]] ([[User talk:Insaneguy1083|talk]]) 20:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

:'''Keep''' now. I marked it {{tl|yi-unpointed form of}} a day after this RFD was listed but forgot to say so here. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 08:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

==Every Egyptian hieroglyph entry by [[User:Loukus999]]==
These entries are riddled with so many errors (in formatting, matters of fact, referencing, transliteration, and other matters) that it would take more work to fix them than to nuke them all and start from scratch. See comments by various users at [[User talk:Loukus999]]. In my opinion, not worth trying to salvage. — [[User:Vorziblix|Vorziblix]] ([[User_talk:Vorziblix|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vorziblix|contribs]]) 09:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

:If the consensus is to delete, I can carry it out. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 10:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Surjection}} Hi! It’s been a month, and it doesn’t seem like further discussion is likely. Would you do the needed deletions? Many thanks! — [[User:Vorziblix|Vorziblix]] ([[User_talk:Vorziblix|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vorziblix|contribs]]) 07:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
:::I can, but the RFD should be closed in that case. Where would it be archived, though? &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 07:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
::::Maybe [[Appendix talk:Unicode/Egyptian Hieroglyphs]]? [[:Category talk:Egyptian symbols]] could also make sense. — [[User:Vorziblix|Vorziblix]] ([[User_talk:Vorziblix|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vorziblix|contribs]]) 07:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::Well, in any case, I'll get to this once I have the time (later today): &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 14:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
:Pragmatic solution. '''Delete'''. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 13:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Vorziblix|Surjection|Fay Freak}} Where was the {{temp|rfd}} warning to hint that repair work should not be started?  As a partial aid to anyone else tempted to start fixing them, an at least partial list is:
:[[𓎨]] [[𓏞]] [[𓃖]] [[𓄯]] [[𓏋]] [[𓊨]] [[𓏘]] [[𓃒]] [[𓏎]]
:[[𓐮]] [[𓄮]] [[𓃮]] [[𓊩]] [[𓃄]] [[𓁴]] [[𓐩]] [[𓂺]] [[𓊰]] [[𓃓]] [[𓏁]]
:[[𓐡]] [[𓃁]] [[𓐫]] [[𓎾]] [[𓃯]] [[𓎿]] [[𓏂]] [[𓇾]] [[𓏠]] [[𓏗]] [[𓁜]]
:[[𓉴]] [[𓁮]] [[𓈔]] [[𓊚]] [[𓃟]] [[𓏢]] [[𓏙]] [[𓃙]] [[𓊹]] [[𓎽]] [[𓉳]]
:[[𓉹]] [[𓁿]] [[𓐓]] [[𓐗]] [[𓐘]] [[𓊮]] [[𓂇]] [[𓃡]] [[𓐬]] [[𓊢]] [[𓊭]] [[𓊀]] [[𓏜]] [[𓉻]] [[𓐪]]
:[[𓃴]] [[𓐐]] [[𓃕]] [[𓏈]] [[𓃷]] [[𓏍]] [[𓐨]] [[𓁧]] [[𓂿]] [[𓃃]] [[𓃛]] [[𓂹]] [[𓁭]] [[𓃔]]
:[[𓊫]] [[𓏟]] [[𓃢]] [[𓃱]] [[𓊽]] [[𓁝]] [[𓊦]] [[𓃫]] [[𓈈]] [[𓃲]] [[𓏄]] [[𓐖]] [[𓃞]] [[𓊄]]
:[[𓐏]] [[𓄦]] [[𓊵]] [[𓏡]] [[𓃸]] [[𓃅]] [[𓄂]] [[𓃩]] [[𓃵]] [[𓏚]] [[𓇶]]
:[[𓃠]] [[𓂾]] [[𓃚]] [[𓇵]] [[𓊯]] [[𓂊]] [[𓏉]] [[𓊑]] [[𓊓]] [[𓐤]] [[𓐎]] [[𓃪]] [[𓃂]]
:[[𓊕]] [[𓏇]] [[𓈞]] [[𓏊]] [[𓁲]] [[𓎟]] [[𓄒]] [[𓎬]] [[𓐧]] [[𓊬]] [[𓐒]] [[𓃘]]
:[[𓉶]] [[𓐕]] [[𓉸]] [[𓁯]] [[𓄁]] [[𓃬]] [[𓈒]] [[𓊤]] [[𓐭]] [[𓄢]] [[𓂈]] [[𓐔]] [[𓈜]] [[𓏣]]
:[[𓃜]] [[𓏖]] [[𓊔]] [[𓄟]] [[𓃝]] [[𓊝]] [[𓊧]] [[𓈃]] [[𓂉]] [[𓉽]] [[𓇿]]
:This was was prepared as a list of entries with language ':Egyptian:'.  Formally, the countdown to deletion has not started yet, though they were vanishing as I typed. --[[User:RichardW57m|RichardW57m]] ([[User talk:RichardW57m|talk]]) 17:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
::If someone competent in Egyptian wants to create valid entries with correct content, that would be great, but as pointed out above and as I (unaware of this RFD) independently noticed [[Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup#Loukus999's_"Egyptian:"_headers|and posted at RFC]], the entries Loukus999 created had so many errors in formatting/layout and content/notation that it'd be about as easy to create good entries from scratch as to fix everything wrong with the entries that existed. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 20:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|RichardW57m}} Hi! I concur with -sche above; also see my response at [[Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2024/January#Bulk_Deletion_of_Hieroglyphs]]. From sheer practical considerations, putting a warning on every single one of the entries in question (there are literally hundreds of them) would be impractical, and at least in my opinion a waste of time that could be better spent on building actual content, considering how little time and effort the original creator of these pages spent on them — almost all the material is just crudely copy/pasted out of Egyptian lexical entries that I made, and often doesn’t belong at the hieroglyph entry in question at all (e.g. all the references are wrong, all the descendants sections are wrong, most of the definitions are misformatted or outright wrong because they’re mindless copy/paste jobs, all the ‘transliterations’ are wrong...). I recognize that it’s not ideal and could be seen as out-of-process; if you want any of the entries in question restored, or want to discuss further before any more deletions take place, we certainly can. I just don’t think there’s anything to be gained from trying to fix these entries when practically everything in them needs to be totally rewritten anyway. — [[User:Vorziblix|Vorziblix]] ([[User_talk:Vorziblix|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vorziblix|contribs]]) 20:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
::::{{re|Vorziblix}} What was wrong with the new headings?  I agree that most of the descendants sections  would need rewriting or deleting on a subsequent pass (there are Meroitic descendants for a few of them), and the statuses as phonogram needed massive revision, for which I was at least sorting out the biliterals as I fixed the headers.
::::As there were less than 200 entries with the colons in the language, it looks as though the headings were at least getting better as Loukus999 progressed.
::::Are you going to plead enforcement of your copyright for the deletions? --[[User:RichardW57m|RichardW57m]] ([[User talk:RichardW57m|talk]]) 09:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
::::: {{reply to|RichardW57m}} Nothing was wrong with the new headings; unfortunately, the same cannot be said for all the other content ''under'' the headings, which would still need to be totally rewritten. The problem with the copy-pasting wasn’t copyright (as mentioned on my userpage, all content I add is released into the public domain, and I claim no copyright whatsoever over it); rather, the problem is that no effort was put into making sure the copied content belonged on the new entries being created. For instance, all the references in each hieroglyph entry were good references for the particular Egyptian ''words'' they were originally copied from, but often had no relevance whatsoever for the ''hieroglyphs'' they were being copied to. The descendants sections are another such case; none of them belonged on the hieroglyph entries, since they were listing descendants for particular ''words'', not ''hieroglyphs''. This confusion of words and hieroglyphs ran through the entirety of Loukus999’s entries and is also visible in such things as the misconceived ‘transliterations’  present in many of these entries.
::::: If you’d be willing to fix all these entries thoroughly, rewriting them with reference to actual scholarly sources, I could certainly restore the deleted content for you; just let me know. Again, though, I really don’t see what you would gain compared to just re-creating the entires from scratch. — [[User:Vorziblix|Vorziblix]] ([[User_talk:Vorziblix|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vorziblix|contribs]]) 13:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Vorziblix}} I was planning incremental fixes, so the headword lines would probably be fixed in one pass, and the descendants (largely by deletion) in another.  It is arguable that there should be an explicit redirect from the words to the transliterations, though again the descendants as words would belong at the main lemma.
::::::The main references I would be using are those I know have access to, Gardiner and Allen, and templates were already set up, but not filled in.   Additionally, the headings seemed to be free of typos, apart from the inappropriate colons.  I hadn't worked out what to use for the biliterals - I was considering just using a Wikipedia list, though fleshing them out with examples appealed to me.
::::::Unfortunately, I don't think I can commit to reworking about 150 hieroglyphs - I have too many stalled Wiktionary projects - fixing Mon entries, Welsh numbers, Sinhala script Sanskrit, Tai Tham Visuddhimagga, and I'm currently trying to set up Tamil script Sanskrit, which is currently mired in an unresponsive Unicode Technical Committee - there's an issue with the Unicode non-Standard.  --[[User:RichardW57m|RichardW57m]] ([[User talk:RichardW57m|talk]]) 15:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

=January 2024=
==Old English "phrasebook" entries==
===[[hu mæg beon butan]]===
===[[hu mæg þæt beon]]===
===[[hwænne bið he acenned]]===
===[[hwænne mot ic hine geseon]]===
===[[ic beo mid eow]]===
===[[wuna mid me]]===
===[[þær ys an to lafe]]===
Tagged by {{u|YthedeGengo}} but not listed. The deletion reasons on each entry are slightly different, but all boil down to "not a common expression" (not phrasebook material) and [[WT:SOP]]. [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 22:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 22:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

:Sorry, first time rfd and I forgot about this step. Thank you for adding for me! A couple of those are also not properly normalized to academic Early West Saxon [[User:YthedeGengo|<span style="font-family:'Times New Roman';color:#48765d; text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em">Ythede Gengo</span>]] ([[User talk:YthedeGengo|talk]]) 17:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

==<s>[[okinawa]]</s>==
Wrong romanization (linked to [[ちょうかく]]("choukaku")) and proper entry already exists at [[Okinawa]] [[User:YthedeGengo|<span style="font-family:'Times New Roman';color:#48765d; text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em">Ythede Gengo</span>]] ([[User talk:YthedeGengo|talk]]) 16:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:Maybe it could just be moved instead? [[User:YthedeGengo|<span style="font-family:'Times New Roman';color:#48765d; text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em">Ythede Gengo</span>]] ([[User talk:YthedeGengo|talk]]) 18:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
::We already have a page [[chōkaku]]. I’ve simply changed the definition to read “{{ja-romanization of|おきなわ}}”. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 12:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
:::I forgot to check "chōkaku" instead of "choukaku"; but in that case, as I said before, [[おきなわ]] already has a rōmaji transcription page at [[Okinawa]], so this page should just be deleted after all, I think [[User:YthedeGengo|<span style="font-family:'Times New Roman';color:#48765d; text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em">Ythede Gengo</span>]] ([[User talk:YthedeGengo|talk]]) 16:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
* '''RFD-resolved'''. Was deleted and recreated. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

==[[:تبادلۂ خیال#rfd-notice-ur-|تبادلۂ خیال]]==
Urdu. SOP: exchange of ideas/thoughts [[User:Word0151|Word0151]] ([[User talk:Word0151|talk]]) 04:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

==[[:sweordes ecg#rfd-notice-ang-|sweordes ecg]]==
Old English: "sword's edge"

This seems SOP, even though it's used metaphorically/poetically- more of a collocation than something lexical. This is just one of many possibly-SOP phrase entries that {{ping|Wuduweard}} has created in Old English, Old Saxon and Proto-West-Germanic. I'm nominating just this one to make sure there's consensus in order to avoid disruption if I'm mistaken. If we do decide to delete, there are many more where this came from. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 06:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

:Yeah, the reason I created these is that these collocations seem to be reconstructable formulae often limited to poetic contexts, though that is definitely debatable. I'm fine with them being deleted if there's consensus. [[User:Wuduweard|wuduweard]] ([[User talk:Wuduweard|talk]]) 06:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

==[[:djakwo#rfd-notice-ace-|djakwo]]==
Acehnese. Nominated for speedy deletion with rationale "not a lemma, it’s two being combined. From ‘jak’ (obsolete spelling: djak) and ‘woë’". [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 21:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

:{{re|Ultimateria}} In general, I don't see how this automatically stops it also being a word.  Additionally, will a user automatically recognise it as two words?  '''Keep''', but open to dissuasion. --[[User:RichardW57m|RichardW57m]] ([[User talk:RichardW57m|talk]]) 10:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

==[[:Vojska Jugoslavije#rfd-notice-sh-|Vojska Jugoslavije]]==
Serbo-Croatian for RFD-failed [[Talk:Yugoslav Army]]. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 21:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

===[[Југословенска народна армија]]===
===[[Jugoslawische Volksarmee]]===
And two translations of [[Talk:Yugoslav People's Army]]. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 21:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

==[[:at kveldi skal dag leyfa#rfd-notice-non-|at kveldi skal dag leyfa]]==
This is a half-line from the Hávamál and only attested there ([https://onp.ku.dk/onp/onp.php?o49093 source]). It is sort-of idomatic, but it's not a fixed expression. Nor is it semantically complete, the poem continues listing other things and when one should praise them (e.g. a woman when she is married-off, a frozen river when one has crossed it and so on). {{ping|Mnemosientje}} [[User:Mårtensås|ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ]] ᛭ [[Special:Contributions/M%C3%A5rtens%C3%A5s|Proto-Norsing]] ᛭ [[User talk:Mårtensås|Ask me anything]] 03:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
: '''Delete''', had assumed the phrase recurred elsewhere but if it only occurs there then the entry should not have been created. A big part of the Edda is gnomic, doesn't mean that all of those verses should be added as proverbs. — [[User:Mnemosientje|Mnemosientje]] ([[User talk:Mnemosientje|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Mnemosientje|c]]) 08:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
:I disagree. The expression is well documented as an extant idiom in Icelandic. "Að kveldi skal dag lofa" [[User:Vettlingr|Vettlingr]] ([[User talk:Vettlingr|talk]]) 21:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Vettlingr|Vettlingr]] that can justify the creation of an Icelandic entry {{m|is|að kveldi skal dag lofa}} but has no bearing on whether an Old Norse entry should exist. [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 11:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

==[[:funkcja podcałkowa#rfd-notice-pl-|funkcja podcałkowa]]==
Polish. Potentially SOP. The adjective ''podcałkowy'' is used with ''funkcja podcałkowa'' most likely the most, but ''wyrażenie podcałkowe'' is also used often in the same meaning. Aside from that I was able to find ''dodajnik podcałkowy'' [https://www.google.pl/books/edition/Prace_Wroc%C5%82awskiego_Towarzystwa_Naukowe/HURDAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22dodajnik+podca%C5%82kowy%22&dq=%22dodajnik+podca%C5%82kowy%22&printsec=frontcover], ''element podcałkowy'' [https://www.google.pl/books/edition/Analiza_matemtyczna/2jvvAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22elementy+podca%C5%82kowe%22&dq=%22elementy+podca%C5%82kowe%22&printsec=frontcover], ''iloczyn podcałkowy'' [https://www.google.pl/books/edition/Archiwum_elektrotechniki/wzIWAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22iloczyn+podca%C5%82kowy%22&dq=%22iloczyn+podca%C5%82kowy%22&printsec=frontcover], and a couple of others. [[User:Hythonia|Hythonia]] ([[User talk:Hythonia|talk]]) 23:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

:I have mixed feelings - I'm not sure how much [[WT:PRIOR]] applies here. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 14:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

* '''Failed''' all. Keep the quotes pls [[User:Denazz|Denazz]] ([[User talk:Denazz|talk]]) 15:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Kinda hard to call it failed when one person says potentially SOP and the  other says potentially [[WT:PRIOR]]. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 15:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

=February 2024=
==[[:как обычно#rfd-notice-ru-|как обычно]]==
SOP innit [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 14:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

==[[:як звичайно#rfd-notice-uk-|як звичайно]]==
SOP innit [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 14:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

==[[barúg]]==
{{movedfrom|WT:RFDE}}
This isn't a Welsh word. The creator of this entry misunderstood the initial element of the compound form {{m|en|barúg-wallt}} as being a stand-alone word when in fact, the acute accent is solely a consequence of its being part of a compound. (Modern spelling would dispense with the hyphen, which in turn would obviate the use of the acute, to give ''barugwallt''.) [[User:Llusiduonbach|Llusiduonbach]] ([[User talk:Llusiduonbach|talk]]) 18:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:Llusiduonbach|Llusiduonbach]] This is a matter for [[WT:RFVN]]. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 03:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

==[[:Κιωουία#rfd-notice-grc-|Κιωουία]]==
:: <small>Copied at [[Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#Κιωουία]] at the request of administrator. Please delete. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Sarri.greek|Sarri.greek]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Sarri.greek|&#9835;]]</sup>&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Sarri.greek|I]] 18:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)</small>

Unknown word in Greek script by anon. It also appears at [[Kyiv#Translations]]. Discussed at [[Talk:Κιωουία]] Thank you. ++ And who is the Medieval author of Med.Latin {{m|la|Kiovia}}?  &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Sarri.greek|Sarri.greek]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Sarri.greek|&#9835;]]</sup>&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Sarri.greek|I]] 14:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)<br>
Could the text (Latin) of the [[w:Council_of_Florence|Ferrara-Florence Council]] be examined? And a Greek translation of it? Also, the texts for the creation of [[w:Metropolitanate_of_Kyiv]]?  &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Sarri.greek|Sarri.greek]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Sarri.greek|&#9835;]]</sup>&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Sarri.greek|I]] 15:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:Sarri.greek|Sarri.greek]] This belongs at [[WT:RFVN]], not here. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 13:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
::There is no mention of this word at all, anywhere. It should have been speedy deleted. [[User:FocalPoint|FocalPoint]] ([[User talk:FocalPoint|talk]]) 05:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:FocalPoint|FocalPoint]] That's precisely why we list them at [[WT:RFV]], and RFD is explicitly ''not'' for claims that terms don't exist. Even if it was we wouldn't speedy delete it, because the whole point is that we give people time to find attestations. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 02:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

==Khowar entries==
[[لىٔک]]

[[رأىک]]

[[بوۨشىک]]

[[رےۨشُو]]

[[اڑى]]

All these entries must be deleted, they are all misspelled variations of the actual term, which I have replaced with the correct entries. [[User:Akhaeron|Akhaeron]] ([[User talk:Akhaeron|talk]]) 11:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:Akhaeron|Akhaeron]] This belongs at [[WT:RFVN]], not here. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 13:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
::What do I there? Because that's for verfication of a page but I'm requesting for these entries to be deleted. [[User:Akhaeron|Akhaeron]] ([[User talk:Akhaeron|talk]]) 14:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
::: {{ping|Akhaeron}}: RFV is for verifying whether the term exists in the language in question. We have entries for misspellings, but only if they've actually been in use and people might find it somewhere- that's a matter for RFV. For [[WT:WDL|Well-Documented Languages]] we don't bother with rare misspellings, but this is a [[WT:LDL|Less-Documented Language]]. RFD is for cases where it may exist, but issues like [[WT:SOP]] or [[WT:BRAND]] mean it would inherently not be suitable for an entry whether it esists or not. If no one finds sufficient evidence of usage that meets [[:WT:CFI]], it gets deleted. Also, there's no need to put an {{tl|rfv}} template here (I removed it)- that goes in the entry so people know it's been challenged. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 14:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

==[[365]]==
{{movedfrom|Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English}}

What's the reason of keeping this number? Literally it has no definition other than it being a number. So it doesn't meet WT:CFI then. [[User:Heyandwhoa|Heyandwhoa]] ([[User talk:Heyandwhoa|talk]]) 00:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' for non-compliance with [[WT:CFI]], unless there is some idiomatic sense which has not yet been added to the entry. — [[User:Sgconlaw|Sgconlaw]] ([[User talk:Sgconlaw|talk]]) 04:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': what about as part of expressions such as (but not necessarily limited to) [[24/7/365]]?  I've never seen it written like this, but I've heard it, and I can certainly imagine someone wondering what "365" means out of context.  Specifying it as shorthand for "every day of the year" might be useful, and we do have a separate entry just for [[24/7]], so I think perhaps an entry for "365" is justified, although the current entry doesn't really explain why.  Of course, ''this'' year it could be 366—but nobody uses "366" to mean "every day of the year", and I think that helps explain what distinguishes "365" from other numbers that could, but don't usually possess lexical meaning.  [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 18:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
* '''Update''': I've supplied a basic definition along those lines, modeling it after the one at 24/7.  [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 13:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

: Entry needs fixing up first. Currently it has definitions outside of any language (not Translingual, English, or anything). [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 15:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
::Fixed, sorry!  Missed that.  Anything else obviously need to be corrected?  [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 17:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
: '''Delete'''. [[User:Inqilābī|Inqilābī]] 18:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

==unattested ota term==
{{movedto|Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English}}

==[[:&#45;lteen#rfd-notice-fi-|&#45;lteen]]==
Finnish. 

I don't think we should have entries for nonstandard suffixes. I'm not opposed to entries for words that are actually used, like {{m|fi|tahalteen}} if properly labelled. But we should not give a non-suspecting user the possibility for misunderstanding that this suffix could be used generally as replacement for {{m|fi|-llaan}} (which we don't even have). --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 14:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

:"Nonstandard suffixes" are fine IMO. No opinion on whether we should have this as an entry, though, but we should probably either have this and {{m|fi|-llaan}}, {{m|fi|-lleen}}, etc. or none of them. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 13:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

::I don't think we need {{m|fi|-llaan}} because it is just {{m|fi|-lla}} + {{m|fi|-an}}. Likewise for {{m|fi|-lleen}}.--[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 10:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

: [[WT:CFI]] states:
:: "All natural languages are acceptable."
: Wiktionary isn't a dollar store Kielitoimisto. ''-lteen'' is a common and productive suffix, and should be included. ''-llaan'' is SOP, in my opinion. [[User:Brittletheories|brittletheories]] ([[User talk:Brittletheories|talk]]) 13:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

==[[teẏrn]]==
Unless anyone can point to any source for ''ẏ'' being considered a separate letter from ''y'' in any form of Welsh (I don't believe it is), this really should be deleted. Also [[User_talk:LlywelynII/2#te%E1%BA%8Frn|if the editor is using the Laws of Hywel Dda/Howell the Good on Wikisource]], this is Middle Welsh (wlm) not Modern Welsh (cy). [[User:Arafsymudwr|Arafsymudwr]] ([[User talk:Arafsymudwr|talk]]) 03:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:Arafsymudwr|Arafsymudwr]] Would it not be better to convert this to Middle Welsh? Also, this belongs at [[WT:RFVN]], not here. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 13:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] thanks, I'll remember that. It should be deleted rather than converted (which I have already done for other Middle Welsh mistakenly marked as Welsh), for the same reason that Latin {{m|la|amō}} goes on the page [[amo]] rather than getting a separate page. [[User:Arafsymudwr|Arafsymudwr]] ([[User talk:Arafsymudwr|talk]]) 14:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Arafsymudwr|Arafsymudwr]] Makes sense, and that ''is'' a valid reason to request deletion here. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 14:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

==<s>[[:ei milloinkaan#rfd-notice-fi-|ei milloinkaan]]</s>==

===<s>[[:ei mitenkään#rfd-notice-fi-|ei mitenkään]]</s>===

===<s>[[:ei vielä#rfd-notice-fi-|ei vielä]]</s>===
Finnish. All of them should be redirected to {{m|fi|milloinkaan}}, {{m|fi|mitenkään}} and {{m|fi|vielä}}, respectively, like {{m|fi|ei kukaan}} and {{m|fi|ei mikään}}. The {{m|fi||ei}} is not part of the phrase proper (e.g. {{m|fi||**hän on ei vielä tullut}} is completely ungrammatical), and can be inflected according to person. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 13:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
:Redirected. I felt free to do so because two of them were my creations. But why don't some of their English equivalents go down the same drain? I can clearly see why {{m|en|never}} is there: it's a single word - but {{m|en|not yet}}? --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 10:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
::I think it is because it is one word in some languages, and thus we need the English entry to place the translations under. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 23:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

=March 2024=
==[[:don on#rfd-notice-ang-|don on]]==
Sorry to put this up, but this is SoP {{m|ang|dōn|t=to put}} + {{m|ang|on|t=on}}. :( [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 04:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

==[[:القرآن والسنة#rfd-notice-ar-|القرآن والسنة]]==
Arabic. SOP --[[User:Etisop|Etisop]] ([[User talk:Etisop|talk]]) 14:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
: '''Delete''', SOP, inasmuch as the English version that occurs. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 03:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

==[[:kawi#rfd-notice-bjb-|kawi]]==
Barngarla. 
See [[Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#kawu|kawu]].  Request for deletion was added in june 2021. --[[User:RichardW57m|RichardW57m]] ([[User talk:RichardW57m|talk]]) 10:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

==[[:taakse poistu#rfd-notice-fi-|taakse poistu]]==
Finnish. I've learned about SOP since adding this entry, and I see now it's clearly just "{{l|fi|taakse}}" + "{{l|fi|poistu#interjection|poistu}}"--[[User:Wikiuser4815162342|Wikiuser4815162342]] ([[User talk:Wikiuser4815162342|talk]]) 19:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC).

:'''Delete''' &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 19:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
::This seems like a set phrase to me. There's no other way to communicate the same command to a formation of soldiers. The English transmission is missing, though. '''Keep'''. --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 19:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
:::shouldn't there then be a page for "vasemalle - poistu", "eteen - poistu" and "oikealle - poistu"? [[User:Wikiuser4815162342|Wikiuser4815162342]] ([[User talk:Wikiuser4815162342|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Do these commands exist? I did my military service 50 years ago and only remember ''taakse poistu''. --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 20:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::I believe they do, they're just barely ever issued. See page 34 of [https://puolustusvoimat.fi/documents/1948673/2258487/PEVIESTOS_sulkeisj%C3%A4rjestysopas2016.pdf/ this pdf] of the 2016 ''sulkeisjärjestysopas'', under 2.15 ''Poistuminen ja järjestyminen''. [[User:Wikiuser4815162342|Wikiuser4815162342]] ([[User talk:Wikiuser4815162342|talk]]) 20:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

==[[:درپں#rfd-notice-ur-|درپں]]==
Urdu. Tagged by @[[User:Rodrigo5260|Rodrigo5260]] but not listed. '''Delete'''. The correct form is at {{m|ur|دَرْپَن}}, former redirect.

==[[:அஃது#rfd-notice-ta-|அஃது]]==
[Middle] Tamil. 

I have no clue whether we should treat Middle Tamil as a separate language from Tamil and Old Tamil, but this isn't the way one would do it. All the language codes are "ta", so all the categories say "Tamil". As it stands now, Middle Tamil is treated on Wiktionary as a variety of Tamil, so we shouldn't have entries under a separate Middle Tamil header [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 13:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

==[[slyva#rfd-sense-notice-lt-|slyva]]==
Lithuanian. Rfd-sense: Vocative singular (slỹva) of 'slyvà'.

The lemma, which we name using the nominative singular, 'slyvà', and the vocative singular, 'slỹva', have the same orthogragraphic form, 'slyva'.  Therefore, we should not give the vocative singular and the lemma entires in the same section, just as we have no entry for Latin ablative singular {{m|la|mēnsā}} next to its lemma {{m|la|mēnsa|t=table}}. --[[User:RichardW57|RichardW57]] ([[User talk:RichardW57|talk]]) 00:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

==[[eshte]]==
I disagree that this page should be deleted because it is an orthographical error; omitting the trema on ë in written Albanian is certainly informal, but it is very common and not any more wrong than it is in Russian, yet alternative spellings of words with ë in Russian are maintained on Wiktionary [[User:MaxenceLE|MaxenceLE]] ([[User talk:MaxenceLE|talk]]) 04:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

==[[:begej#rfd-notice-ms-|begej]]==
Malay.

This and many other {{w|Malay language|Malay}} entries created by [[User:Pgrasie]] such as {{m|ms|imejinesyen}} and {{m|ms|federesen}}, while made in good faith, have clearly been made up by said user. This is most obvious when one googles for any of these supposed terms whereupon no relevant results in the Malay language would pop up. --[[User:GinormousBuildings|GinormousBuildings]] ([[User talk:GinormousBuildings|talk]]) 18:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

:Don't forget that if they're ever used, Malay speakers would likely spell them unadapted. [[User:Rodrigo5260|Rodrigo5260]] ([[User talk:Rodrigo5260|talk]]) 16:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

=April 2024=
==[[הראשון]]==
This is not really a definite ''form''. It's essentially some of parts: an adjective with the definite article, "the first". They are just written as one word. In Hebrew, the definite article [[ה]] can be added to almost every noun and adjective, it's mostly consistent in orthography, and it's not considered a grammatical form.

(The same could apply to all or almost all entries in [[:Category:Hebrew adjective definite forms]], of which there are very few. This is just the first one I encountered.) [[User:Amire80|Amir E. Aharoni]] ([[User talk:Amire80|talk]]) 15:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:'''Delete'''. ―⁠[[User:Biolongvistul|Biolongvistul]] ([[User talk:Biolongvistul|talk]]) 18:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

==[[:abajurlu#rfd-notice-tr-|abajurlu]]==
Turkish. 
To me it makes very little sense if any. Correct: many nationalists would like to clean up loanwords in some specific language. Pretty soon we may decide to kick "'''PUTIN''''" out of Russian. Rational? Not necessarily! {{unsignedip|64.114.129.169|02:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)}}
:See {{section link|#abajurlu, abajursuz}}. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 23:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

== <s> [[:lista zakupów#rfd-notice-pl-|lista zakupów]] </s> ==
Polish. 

Seems SOP to me. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 10:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

:Obvious SOP [[User:Tashi|Tashi]] ([[User talk:Tashi|talk]]) 18:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

:Creator here. Why isn't [[shopping list]] SOP? [[User:Jonashtand|Jonashtand]] ([[User talk:Jonashtand|talk]]) 15:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Jonashtand|Jonashtand]] First of all, it arguably could be. See [[WT:IDIOM]]. Second of all, the Polish translation is {list of purchases", which to me clearly means "list things that need to be bought". [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 15:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
:::You just explained why it isn't SOP, didn't you? Anyway, I just added "lista zakupów" as usex under {{m|pl|zakup}}. [[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 10:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
::::How so? [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 10:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:::I think it passes [[WT:FRIED]]. A ''lista zakupów'' or a shopping list is, in its most typical sense, not a list of things that have been purchased, or a list of things that can be purchased, but a list of things that are to be purchased. [[User:Jonashtand|Jonashtand]] ([[User talk:Jonashtand|talk]]) 05:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
::::That could be a potential argument for keeping it. Though personally I'm not a fan of [[WT:FRIED]], however, that's a discussion probably for the BP. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 07:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
:'''Delete''', SOP. [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 10:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:'''RFD-deleted'''. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 06:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

==[[калонь кундама]], [[калонь кундай]]==
Moksha. Can't find a reason not to consider them SOP. [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 11:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

==[[:abô-abô#rfd-notice-zlw-slv-|abô-abô]]==
Slovincian. 

Not a noun but a construction akin to German "entweder ... oder", as denoted by Lorentz. Should be converted to a collocation. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 07:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

:It is identical to {{cog|pl|albo-albo}} which also is translated as "entweder - oder", no reason to delete. [[User:Sławobóg|Sławobóg]] ([[User talk:Sławobóg|talk]]) 08:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
::I'm fairly certain that was not the intention of the entry in Lorentz's dictionary. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 11:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

==[[:Svenskar äro vi inte längre, ryssar vilja vi inte bli, låt oss alltså bli finnar.#rfd-notice-sv-|Svenskar äro vi inte längre, ryssar vilja vi inte bli, låt oss alltså bli finnar.]]==
A Swedish quote arguing for Finnish independence. Good material for [[q:Adolf Ivar Arwidsson|Wikiquote]] but not for a dictionary. [[User:Glades12|Glades12]] ([[User talk:Glades12|talk]]) 10:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

:It could also be converted into a [[WT:QUOTE|quotation]], but I'd agree that it's not entryworthy. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 16:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
::What entries would we put the quotation in then? Almost all of the words in it are well-known and in general use today as well as in Ivarsson's time. The only exception to the latter is [[äro]], an archaic but formerly standard verb form. [[User:Glades12|Glades12]] ([[User talk:Glades12|talk]]) 19:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
:::{{m|sv|finne}} is a good candidate. And in fact, it seems it's already there. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 19:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. —[[User:Caoimhin ceallach|Caoimhin ceallach]] ([[User talk:Caoimhin ceallach|talk]]) 01:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 20:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

==[[önümüzdeki]]==
Turkish, SoP, not recognized by {{tl|R:tr:TDK}}. [[User:Orexan|Orexan]] ([[User talk:Orexan|talk]]) 20:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

:The synonymous term {{m|tr|sonraki}} is far and far more common. The literal meaning of the term ''önümüzdeki'' is “that is in front of us”. In English it is much more common to use “next week” than ”the week that is in front of us”, and Turkish is not different. However, the term is easily attested. The question is whether it is a transparent sum of parts, for which we do not have a satisfactory criterion in the case of agglutinative languages. Note that the person can be varied, as in ''ön<u>ünüz</u>deki yıl'', “the year that is in front <u>of you</u>, which IMO shows the form is transparent. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
::Hi, I think your arguments are pretty valid but I just want to clarify that Turkish is way more different than English. If we go by literary translation Turkish doesn't have a proper word for "next" since {{m|tr|sonraki}} also literally means "which is after" and in English we wouldn't say "week which is after". I also don't think that person variability matters since the meaning of "next" is usually lost when the person is changed as in "önümüzdeki yıl" being "upcoming/next year" while "önünüzdeki yıl" being "the year that is in front of you" and not "the next year". So I think its an entry we should have. [[User:Kakaeater|Kakaeater]] ([[User talk:Kakaeater|talk]]) 15:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

==Hajksenmeista==
This looks like a misspelling of [[Hakjsenmeista]]. Note the spelling of the source word [[Hakjs]].[[User:Linguoboy|Linguoboy]] ([[User talk:Linguoboy|talk]]) 22:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

==अववर्जति [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF&redirect=no]==
Sanskrit. Currently a redirect, this form was a pure invention by the original creator of the page (a class 1 verb instead of a class 7 verb from {{m|sa|अववृज्}}). [[User:Exarchus|Exarchus]] ([[User talk:Exarchus|talk]]) 12:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

==[[:itakysé#rfd-notice-tpw-|itakysé]]==
Sum-of-parts. [[User:Trooper57|Trooper57]] ([[User talk:Trooper57|talk]]) 03:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

==[[:lūt#rfd-notice-odt-|lūt]]==
Old Dutch. Moved to {{l|odt|lut}}, shouldn't use a macron. [[User:Preupellor|Preupellor]] ([[User talk:Preupellor|talk]]) 17:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

=May 2024=
==[[:&#45;óg#rfd-notice-pl-|&#45;óg]]==
Polish. This also concerns [[-óg#Kashubian]] and [[-óg#Old_Polish]]. These stopped being productive in these languages and only exist in inherited forms. Do we want non-productive affixes? Why not include non-productive affixes from PIE as well? [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 12:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

:'''Keep''' all three. There is no rule against having unproductive suffixes. They are still morphemes and people might want to know what they mean(/meant) and where they come from. There are many entries for unproductive suffixes, e.g. {{m+|en|-en|pos=feminine|id=feminine}}, {{m+|hu|-ű|pos=present participle}}. —[[User:Caoimhin ceallach|Caoimhin ceallach]] ([[User talk:Caoimhin ceallach|talk]]) 17:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

===[[:&#45;óg#rfd-notice-csb-|&#45;óg]]===
Kashubian, same as above. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 02:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

===[[:&#45;óg#rfd-notice-zlw-opl-|&#45;óg]]===
Old Polish, same as above. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 02:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

==<s>[[:1#rfd-sense-notice-sv-|1]]</s>==
Swedish, symbol: “The [[number]] [[one]] ([[1#Translingual|1]]).” Redundant to Translingual; identical English sense was removed per [[Talk:1#RFD discussion: November 2023–April 2024|RfD]] in April. [[User:J3133|J3133]] ([[User talk:J3133|talk]]) 00:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

'''RFD-deleted''', no need to discuss this one further [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 09:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

==[[:ფრანგული ენა#rfd-notice-ka-|ფრანგული ენა]]==
Georgian. Tagged but not listed by {{ping|Fenakhay}}.

It's an SoP as any other language name with {{m|ka|ენა}}. It is more standard to use language names this way, with {{m|ka|ენა}}, they are still SoP. '''Delete''' all such terms in [[:Category:ka:Language]]. {{ping|Dixtosa}}. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 04:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

:I agree. '''Delete''' [[User:Dixtosa|Dixtosa]] ([[User talk:Dixtosa|talk]]) 05:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 01:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:Yep. '''Delete'''. [[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 01:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

==[[:niiet#rfd-notice-et-|niiet]]==
Estonian. Tagged but not listed as "incorrect" by [[User:Joonas07]]. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 01:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

==[[:pärit olema#rfd-notice-et-|pärit olema]]==
Estonian. Potentially SOP, but page [[pärit]] doesn't exist yet. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 01:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

:It should exist because [[come from]] exists, it also has its own entry in the Estonian dictionary Sõnaveeb. From a learner's point of view, it is very helpful to see the conjugation as it is not clear that the words change order when conjugated, and which case the verb governs ("olema" and "pärit olema" governs different cases). Honestly this is the kind of entry that a learner of Estonian would realistically search for on this website. [[User:Supevan|Supevan]] ([[User talk:Supevan|talk]]) 11:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
::Sõnaveeb isn't a great source. [[pärit]] should be a separate entry and the usage can be illustrated in the examples. Including 'olema' in the entry is redundant. [[User:Joonas07|Joonas07]] ([[User talk:Joonas07|talk]]) 17:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

==[[:silmadega õgima#rfd-notice-et-|silmadega õgima]]==
Estonian. Tagged but not listed. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 01:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

:This literally means "devour with one's eyes" and is glossed in our entry as "to stare at someone or something very single-eyed, greedily, longingly". 
:The {{m|et|õgima}} entry has an example: "{{uxi|et|Naine '''õgib''' meest etteheitva pilguga.|The woman '''is devouring''' the man with a reproachful look.}}" If this is a typical way of using that verb, then it is SOP (and should be added more explicitly to the verb's entry).
:This really needs input from an Estonian speaker. [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 09:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

=June 2024=
==[[:забони форсӣ#rfd-notice-tg-|забони форсӣ]]==
Tajik. SoP. — <span dir='ltr'>[[User:Fenakhay|Fenakhay]]</span> <sup>(<span dir='ltr'>[[User talk:Fenakhay|حيطي]]</span> · <span dir='ltr'>[[Special:Contributions/Fenakhay|مساهماتي]]</span>)</sup> 12:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

:{{support|Delete}} — [[User:Sameerhameedy | S<small>AMEER</small>]] <small><span lang="ur">([[Special:Contributions/Sameerhameedy|'''؂''']]・[[User talk:Sameerhameedy|'''؄''']]・[[Special:Logs/Sameerhameedy|'''؏''']])</span></small> 21:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

==[[:golvanek#rfd-notice-kw-|golvanek]]==
Cornish. Given in a list of birds on [https://kernewek.yolasite.com/Ydhyn-a-Gernow.php this site] as a suggested term to be used. However, the Akademi Kernewek's "Terminology Panel" has already opted to borrow [[Welsh]] {{m|cy|bras}} instead. There also does not seem to be any consistent or widespread use of this term (see [https://glosbe.com/kw/en/golvanek these] [https://www.skeulantavas.com/vocabulary/kescows-nebes-moy-2nd-edition-cornish-english-section sites]). 

[[User:Người mang giấm|Người mang giấm]] ([[User talk:Người mang giấm|talk]]) 05:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

==[[:5-DM-Banknote#rfd-notice-de-|5-DM-Banknote]]==
===[[10-DM-Banknote]]===
===[[20-DM-Banknote]]===
===[[50-DM-Banknote]]===
===[[100-DM-Banknote]]===
===[[500-DM-Banknote]]===
===[[1000-DM-Banknote]]===
===[[5-Euro-Banknote]]===
===[[10-Euro-Banknote]]===
===[[20-Euro-Banknote]]===
===[[50-Euro-Banknote]]===
===[[100-Euro-Banknote]]===
===[[Fünf-Euro-Banknote]]===
===[[Zehn-Euro-Banknote]]===
===[[Zwanzig-Euro-Banknote]]===
===[[Fünfzig-Euro-Banknote]]===
===[[Hundert-Euro-Banknote]]===
German.

Big pile of completely SOP, non-lexical entries created by an IP (they have no more meaning than "five euro banknote" would in English). They also created a lot of synonymous entries along the lines of [[Zehnmarkschein]], but since those are more debatable as one word terms I'll leave them for now. [[User:Smurrayinchester|Smurrayinchester]] ([[User talk:Smurrayinchester|talk]]) 07:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
: {{re|Smurrayinchester}} Must be kept due to [[WT:COALMINE]]. 😆 IP put the coalmines under hyponyms at {{m|de|Eurobanknote}}, and even with amounts in words and the whole terms without hyphens they are all valid spellings, as [https://www.faz.net/aktuell/rhein-main/frankfurt/show-der-ehrlich-brothers-magische-tricks-aber-keine-magie-19413006.html seen edited] in {{w|Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung|FAZ}} writing {{m|de|Hunderteurobanknote}}. It is only a question of time till they all have more hits, journalists have a habit of not wasting too much space so far, so {{m|de|100-€-Banknote}} wins and in tabloids {{m|de|100-€-Schein}}, since the colloquial prefers {{m|de|Schein}} for {{m|de|Banknote}}, so start at {{m|de|Fünfeuroschein}}, more readable than {{m|de|Fünfeurobanknote}}, yet of equal validity, which in German does not depend so much on actual usage as the English one does. The IP had systematic considerations here. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 11:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
::I think German should be treated like Chinese, i.e. an SoP term is not automatically accepted if it is written without spaces and adequately attested. -- [[User:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red">King of ♥</b>]][[User talk:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red"> ♦</b>]][[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♣</b>]][[Special:EmailUser/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♠</b>]] 22:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::: {{re|King of Hearts}} Preferably. Editors make analogical considerations when deciding whether an entry is even useful, which the IP apparently didn’t, mechanically applying the coalmine rule, which was enacted with an unclear set of languages in mind. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 03:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
::: {{re|King of Hearts}} I'd be strongly opposed to that. Luckily, there's long precedent to keep these solidly-written SOPs, see [[WT:ADE]]. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 10:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

==[[:cirkumflektirani a#rfd-notice-sl-|cirkumflektirani a]]==
Slovene. The name of the symbol {{tq|The name of the symbol {{m|sl|ȃ}}.}}

Isn't this just "circumflexed a"? Seems SOP. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 16:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

==[[:လ်ုဆီ့#rfd-notice-kjp-|လ်ုဆီ့]]==
Eastern Pwo. SOP: Just "one" + "ten". [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 15:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

==[[:က်ုဆင့်ထီႋ#rfd-notice-kjp-|က်ုဆင့်ထီႋ]]==
Eastern Pwo. SOP: "elephant + male" = "male elephant". Eastern Pwo has scriptio continua, so it's not a situation like in German. [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 11:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

=July 2024=
==[[Министерство внутренних дел]]==
Russian. SoP of {{l|ru|министерство|t=[[ministry]]}} + {{l|ru|внутренний|внутренних|[[interior]]; [[domestic]]}} + {{l|ru|дело|дел|t=[[affair]]}}. Also cf. the RFD discussion of [[Talk:ministry of education]].[[User:廣九直通車|廣九直通車]] ([[User talk:廣九直通車|talk]]) 10:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

: '''Keep.''' It is clearly idiomatic. [[Special:Contributions/178.49.152.129|178.49.152.129]] 16:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:'''Delete''' as SOP. Nothing idiomatic about it. [[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 19:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::: 'Внутренние дела' is an idiom which is not used in any other context. [[Special:Contributions/178.49.152.129|178.49.152.129]] 04:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's not what an idiom is. It's precisely as trivial as “internal affairs” in English, of which it is a calque (or both calqued from some other European language). [[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 04:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::: There is no way to deduce the sense of that expression from its constituent words. [[Special:Contributions/178.49.152.129|178.49.152.129]] 08:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I suppose that's possible if someone is illiterate and can't make sense of the shapes in front of them. [[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 06:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Delete''', obvious SOP. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 01:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

==[[Krvatkondre#rfv-notice-srn-|Krvatkondre]]==
{{movedto|Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#Krvatkondre}}

==[[:biliþe#rfd-notice-ang-|biliþe]]==
Old English. 

The instance of ⟨biliþe⟩ in the Daniel poem is now regarded as a corrupt spelling of {{l|ang|blīþe||happy}}. 

Alternatively it could be made into an alternative spelling page for the aforementioned word, with perhaps a note regarding the abnormality and its widely perpetuated misidentification. {{unsigned|YthedeGengo|05:59, 20 July 2024}}

==All terms in [[:Category:mul:File formats]]==
Are we going to include everything in [[w:List of filename extensions]]? How does CFI even apply for "words" used by computers? [[User:Ioaxxere|Ioaxxere]] ([[User talk:Ioaxxere|talk]]) 03:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

:'''Delete'''. This are not lexical terms. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 11:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

==[[:des te meer#rfd-notice-nl-|des te meer]]==
SOP: {{l|nl|des te}} + {{l|nl|meer}}
[[User:Stujul|Stujul]] ([[User talk:Stujul|talk]]) 12:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

:Note that, from an etymological point of view, the bracketing is not {{compound|nl|des te|meer}} but {{compound|nl|des|temeer|alt2=te meer}}. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 11:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::True, but my point is more that [[meer]] can be substituted with any comparative adjective.
::[[User:Stujul|Stujul]] ([[User talk:Stujul|talk]]) 13:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. —[[User:Caoimhin ceallach|Caoimhin ceallach]] ([[User talk:Caoimhin ceallach|talk]]) 01:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

==[[:tanamp chito aiisht hushsa achaffa#rfd-notice-cho-|tanamp chito aiisht hushsa achaffa]]==
Choctaw. Ignoring the misspelling for now, [[User:Kmack]] says "unsure if merits its own entry regardless", which sounds like [[WT:SOP|SOP]]. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 16:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

=August 2024=
==[[:kolme varttia#rfd-notice-fi-|kolme varttia]]==
Finnish. "three quarters of an hour" is naturally 45 minutes and is not idiomatic. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 14:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:I'm not so sure. 1) One never uses any other number as specifier together with ''vartti'' in the sense "15 minutes". 2) We have the equivalent English expression [[three-quarters]] as entry. 3) In other context than time "quarter" is translated into Finnish as {{m|fi|neljäsosa}}. --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 08:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::1) is because there are more natural ways to express the same concept. Nevertheless, the others are fully understandable and occasionally used; {{m|fi||kaksi varttia}} is probably attestable from BGC. 2) IMO does not mean much, and I'd rather say the English entry should also be deleted. 3) is irrelevant, as {{m|fi|vartti}} itself already means "quarter of an hour", and it is not really possible to interpret {{m|fi||kolme varttia}} any other way. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 14:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

==[[:mɔ̀#rfd-notice-yo-|mɔ̀]]==
Yoruba. Rationale was "This page is to be deleted for not following the rules of Yoruba languages entires, in addition to the fact that Ṣábẹ̀ẹ́ has its own ISO code making it its own language". [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 19:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

:'''Delete.''' It should be moved to [[mɔ]] and put under the Ede Cabe header with proper orthographic rules. I can get to it sometime later if no one else does. [[User:AG202|AG202]] ([[User talk:AG202|talk]]) 15:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

==[[:Mĩ nguỵ#rfd-notice-vi-|Mĩ nguỵ]]==
Vietnamese. Tagged with edit summary, “False understanding of the term, as the correct form is Mỹ - Nguỵ or Mỹ, Nguỵ. Meaning Americans and puppets. Nguỵ (僞; illegitimate, pseudo-) here is short for Nguỵ quyền and Nguỵ quân, referring to VNCH forces.”  [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

:Delete it! [[User:Erminwin|Erminwin]] ([[User talk:Erminwin|talk]]) 17:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:Sounds like we have enough information to replace this entry the correct definition at the correct title? [[User:Mxn|Minh <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Nguyễn</span>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Mxn|<span style="display: inline-block;">&#x1f4ac;</span>]]</sup> 06:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::I re-etymologized and re-glossed it. So should it be kept? {{ping|MuDavid}}
::Still, "Mĩ - nguỵ" or "Mĩ, ngụy" (& each form's alternatively spellings) are much more frequently attested. Those entries need created.[[User:Erminwin|Erminwin]] ([[User talk:Erminwin|talk]]) 21:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I think it’s still SoP. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 00:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
::::So do I. Still, I can imagine an advocate for "Mĩ - nguỵ ~ Mĩ ngụy" being full-fledged compound, not just SoP by adducing the fact that the somewhat well-attested form "Mĩ, ngụy" defies the punctuation rule (in Vietnamese) that comma should be used to separate items in a list having three or more ("Khi nào nên dùng dấu phẩy? - Khi danh sách có nhiều hơn ba mục, để phân tách rõ ràng giữa các thành phần: [...]" source: https://mytour.vn/vi/blog/bai-viet/chuc-nang-cua-dau-phay-va-vi-du-minh-hoa-ngu-van-lop-6.html ) [[User:Erminwin|Erminwin]] ([[User talk:Erminwin|talk]]) 05:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I’m not sure I follow you there. The fact that people blatantly ignore punctuation rules doesn’t mean much, as a great many Vietnamese people are blissfully unaware of the existence of punctuation (and many other) rules. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{reply|MuDavid}} Well, I constructed a hypothetical scenario where somebody claimed that 'Mĩ, nguỵ' is not merely a SoP, but is a full-fledged compound because whoever coining 'Mĩ, nguỵ' violated the punctuation rule regarding how to use comma in a list, therefore, in the coiner's mental grammar, "Mĩ, nguỵ" was a compound word - just one lexical item -, instead of a SoP - a list of two lexical items -; had the coiner (aware and mindful of that rule) intended to coin a mere list consisting of two lexical items "Mĩ" and "nguỵ", they would not have violated that rule. However, you correctly objected that many Vietnamese are not aware of punctuation (& many other) rules, so whoever coining "Mĩ, nguỵ" might also not know that rule at all and might have intended "Mĩ, nguỵ" to be just a SoP, a list of two lexical items. [[User:Erminwin|Erminwin]] ([[User talk:Erminwin|talk]]) 08:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:So, I will not change my vote to '''delete''' this entry (see above discussion). Anyone else? [[User:Erminwin|Erminwin]] ([[User talk:Erminwin|talk]]) 23:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:Doing some more thinking + Googling, I think this may, indeed, be more like a compound than like a juxtaposition, with the following arguments:
:*Many sources write ''Mỹ-ngụy'', as if it were a full compound for them.
:*Some write “''CIA và Mỹ-Ngụy''”, as if “''Mĩ, nguỵ''” were not just Americans + puppet government but rather ''a subset of Americans'' + puppet government. Furthermore, if “''Mĩ, nguỵ''” were a juxtaposition, it would be “''CIA, Mỹ và Ngụy''” (or more probably something like “''CIA, Mỹ, Ngụy''” or “''CIA, Mỹ, Ngụy…''”); nobody ever puts ''và'' in between the first and second element of a three-element list, do they?
:*Some write “''Mỹ-Ngụy, Mỹ-Diệm, Mỹ-Thiệu''” as if these were three separate entities rather than four (''Mỹ, ngụy, Diệm, Thiệu'').
:Therefore, I vote '''keep''', but move to a form with hyphen. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

==[[द्रोग्धि]]==
Sanskrit. Isn't mentioned anywhere, not even as theoretical form. [[User:Exarchus|Exarchus]] ([[User talk:Exarchus|talk]]) 23:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:Exarchus|Exarchus]] Send it to RFV please. You know the score. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 23:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

==[[:ဗှေ်#rfd-notice-mnw-|ဗှေ်]]==
Mon. Currently entered as a "non-standard encoding of" {{m|mnw|ဗှ်ေ}}, pulled from the SEAlang Library Mon Dictionary, apparently. This feels even worse than including a typo, to be honest: the fact that the SEAlang Library Mon Dictionary didn't encode the term properly isn't meaningful, and certainly isn't something we should care about recording. It doesn't even render properly. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 01:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

==[[:kementerian pendidikan dan kebudayaan#rfd-notice-id-|kementerian pendidikan dan kebudayaan]]==

===[[menteri pendidikan dan kebudayaan]]===
Indonesian for "ministry of education and culture" and "minister of education and culture". Probably SOP to clear redlinks from acronyms(?) {{m|id|Kemendikbud}} and {{m|id|Mendikbud}}. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 17:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

==[[:&#45;einander#rfd-notice-de-|&#45;einander]]==
German. 

I could be wrong, but this doesn't seem like a true suffix- just [[einander]] in cases where something gets tacked on in front. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 05:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

: I have the same impression. Pinging {{ping|Tajoshu}}. &mdash; [[User:Fytcha|Fytcha]]〈[[User talk:Fytcha| T ]]|[[Special:Log/Fytcha| L ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fytcha| C ]]〉 10:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
:It could be seen as just a clitic rather than a true suffix, but there are many formations with -einander that are treated as lemmas by Duden and have their own entries on Wiktionary. Ssome potential -einander formations are rare compared to the standard ones. So I think there is a degree of lexicalisation here, it acts like a productive suffix in my opinion. Some other arguable clitics also have entries like this, such as {{m|de|-e}} (etym. 3) and {{m|en|-n't}}, as well as all of German's "separable prefixes" (e.g. {{m|de|auf-}} vs {{m|de|auf}} have separate articles), which are also more like clitics, but have lexicalised combinations; I think the latter are in a similar situation. There are even combinations of separable prefixes and -einander acting as a separable prefix themselves, like {{m|de|aufeinander}} ({{m|de|aufeinanderfolgen}} etc), which could also be seen as just auf + einander + folgen that happens to be spelled without spaces. In my opinion, it makes sense to distinguish between einander used without a preposition, and einander used with a preposition (the latter spelled as a suffix in standard orthography), so it's not like it's a complete duplicate. Of course, they are essentially the same in form and there is still a lot of things shared between them that doesn't need to be duplicated (hence why I said to refer to the usage notes of {{m|de|einander}} in the {{m|de|-einander}} entry). 
:So this is basically what my line of reasoning was. [[User:Tajoshu|Tajoshu]] ([[User talk:Tajoshu|talk]]) 00:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

==[[:ⲙⲉⲛⲣⲉ-#rfd-notice-cop-|ⲙⲉⲛⲣⲉ-]]==

===[[ⲥϧⲉ-]]===
===[[ⲭⲁ-]]===
===[[ϣⲑⲉⲣⲧⲉⲣ]]===
Coptic nominal states. The latter is currently formatted as a lemma which is incorrect according to [[User:Sérgio R R Santos]]. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 17:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
: '''Keep''' all, but reformat the last one appropriately. These should not be lemmas, but they should exist, just as we have inflected form-of entries in any language (the relevant policy is at [[Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Inflections]]). — [[User:Vorziblix|Vorziblix]] ([[User_talk:Vorziblix|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vorziblix|contribs]]) 18:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
::Is this a discussion or is it already settled? - i dont know, it's my first time in this space. [[User:Sérgio R R Santos|Sérgio R R Santos]] ([[User talk:Sérgio R R Santos|talk]]) 21:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
::: {{reply to|Sérgio R R Santos}} Hi! It’s basically a discussion over whether or not to delete on the basis of our current policies/practices. A change to our policies themselves would take a little more work, but can be done through creating a discussion at the [[WT:Beer Parlour]] and getting community consensus there, if you so wish. — [[User:Vorziblix|Vorziblix]] ([[User_talk:Vorziblix|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vorziblix|contribs]]) 00:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Sérgio R R Santos|Sérgio R R Santos]] If you feel these are unattested, [[WT:RFVN]] would be better. There are descriptions of the use of these fora at the top of their respective pages. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 02:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::::well, in my opinion the policy of criteria for inclusion mentioned by @[[User:Vorziblix|Vorziblix]] that wiktionary currently has always annoyed me a little bit: what is the point of having a whole page that just says "this is an inflexion of such and such" - that's basicaly a full fledged redirect page. Even if a user is searching a non lemma form of a word, and that secific form doesnt have its own page, as long as that word is mentioned in the lemma page they'll ultimatly get to that page, even if indirectly, in the search results.
::::Now having said all that, regarding the current discussion, i thing they should be deleted if all they say is "this is a particular form of x", which like i said just sounds like a redirect page to me, but i think they should be kept when they provide further information, like usage examples or quotation of that form beig used.I dont know how difficult that distinction would be able to be put in practice, but I gess in this particular case we're just talking about half a dozen cases. Sorry for the long and meandering response, i'm incapable of going straight to the point. [[User:Sérgio R R Santos|Sérgio R R Santos]] ([[User talk:Sérgio R R Santos|talk]]) 09:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::As mentioned, if you wish to change that policy, please go to the beer parlour. As it stands, if these forms are attested, then they pass RFV and would need to be sent back here for RFD if you somehow manage to convince everyone to not include pages for inflections. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 09:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::then do what the policy sais.i for now am just entertained with adding and improving coptic pages; if semeone wants to create non lema pages, good for them, it doesnt bother me. I might some day ending up going to the beer parlour, but it better have some beer! [[User:Sérgio R R Santos|Sérgio R R Santos]] ([[User talk:Sérgio R R Santos|talk]]) 12:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::coincidently, i just made a search in my coptic dictionary and the very first (unrelated) entry that came up includes pretty much all verb forms for all dialects - except the absolute form for bohairic. so i gess in certain cases having a page for a non lemma form is unavoidable. or... ''inevitable''. [[User:Sérgio R R Santos|Sérgio R R Santos]] ([[User talk:Sérgio R R Santos|talk]]) 13:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Ok, I'll reformate the page in question appropriately. [[User:Sérgio R R Santos|Sérgio R R Santos]] ([[User talk:Sérgio R R Santos|talk]]) 19:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

=September 2024=
==[[:&#45;eso#rfd-notice-cs-|&#45;eso]]==
Czech suffix. The three words which use this purported suffix ({{m|cs|koleso}} ← {{m|cs|kolo}}, {{m|cs|sloveso}} ← {{m|cs|slovo}}, {{m|cs|těleso}} ← {{m|cs|tělo}}, to which we can add {{m|cs|nebesa}} (pl.) ← {{m|cs|nebo}}) come from Proto-Slavic words with a ''-s-'' in their paradigm ({{m|sla-pro|*kolo}}, {{m|sla-pro|*slovo}}, {{m|sla-pro|*tělo}}, {{m|sla-pro|*nebo}}), so it's simply analogical levelling at play. As can be seen at {{m|sla-pro|*kolo}}, Czech is not the only language where this happened. [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 07:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

:If these are our only words, then delete and change etymologies to say "relevelling" somehow. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 16:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

==Translations at [[gold medal]], [[silver medal]], [[bronze medal]]==
The reason for the existence of these English entries, as I understand, is their figurative use as (I assume) appositions to denote ‘(''by extension'') Finishing in first position, winning’ (‘the gold medal project’, ‘the gold medal runner’).

That every language grammatically allows such use is unlikely, and the majority of the corresponding entries only give the literal meaning. I presume all others to be SOP and in need of deletion. ―⁠[[User:Biolongvistul|Biolongvistul]] ([[User talk:Biolongvistul|talk]]) 18:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

== [[:бетке жасалган косметикалык операция#rfd-notice-ky-|бетке жасалган косметикалык операция]] ==

Kyrgyz. {{tq|facelift}}.

This is self-evidently sum of parts: "cosmetic surgery on the face". It's not even defined correctly, either. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 23:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

== [[:радиоактивдүү заттардын жаашы#rfd-notice-ky-|радиоактивдүү заттардын жаашы]] ==

Kyrgyz. {{tq|fallout}}

Self-evidently sum of parts: "fallout of radioactive substances". [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 23:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

== [[:бир таңгак куурай#rfd-notice-ky-|бир таңгак куурай]] ==
One bag of hemp? Is it any attested usage examples of it? Sounds kinda legit, but the user who added it seems to not be a native speaker. [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 11:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
=== [[:бир байлам чыбык#rfd-notice-ky-|бир байлам чыбык]] ===
One bunch of brushwood? [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 11:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
=== [[:ак ниет менен#rfd-notice-ky-|ак ниет менен]] ===

=== [[:ак ниеттик менен#rfd-notice-ky-|ак ниеттик менен]] ===

=== [[:адилеттик менен#rfd-notice-ky-|адилеттик менен]] ===

=== [[:адилеттик кылып#rfd-notice-ky-|адилеттик кылып]] ===

=== [[:ыраазы болуп#rfd-notice-ky-|ыраазы болуп]] ===

=== [[:кыраан куштарды алып чыгуу#rfd-notice-ky-|кыраан куштарды алып чыгуу]] ===

=== [[:авария режимине өтүү#rfd-notice-ky-|авария режимине өтүү]] ===

=== [[:ишенген кызматкер#rfd-notice-ky-|ишенген кызматкер]] ===

=== [[:косметикалык ремонт#rfd-notice-ky-|косметикалык ремонт]] ===

=== [[:жумшак майлык#rfd-notice-ky-|жумшак майлык]] ===

=== [[:жумшак жуугуч#rfd-notice-ky-|жумшак жуугуч]] ===

Kyrgyz. Sum of parts. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 23:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

== <s>[[:phần mềm xấu#rfd-notice-vi-|phần mềm xấu]]</s> ==

Vietnamese. This seems to be in widespread use. {{ping|PhanAnh123}}, what exactly was your reason for nominating this? [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 02:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
: Possibility of being SOP, plus I don't feel like lexicalization has done much work on this one, still sounds like translated English phrase, which probably adds to the feel of SOP-ness. The listed synonym {{m|vi|phần mềm độc hại}} is more lexicalized and sounds less SOP. [[User:PhanAnh123|PhanAnh123]] ([[User talk:PhanAnh123|talk]]) 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

{{movedfrom|Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English}}

I’d vote '''keep''' in this case, as a literal interpretation would be more like “ugly software” (not following style conventions?) or “evil software” (viruses? not just malware). The fact that all the use I find is restricted to malware makes this a candidate for the [[WT:FRIED|''fried egg'' test]], no? [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 01:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Almost half a year and no-one cares either way. So '''no consensus''', keep for now. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 02:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

== <s> Polish Cyrillic </s> ==

Polish. Another case of [[User:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] having no idea what they are doing, doing essentially no research and only checking a poorly sourced Wikipedia article without actually checking if this was widely used (clue, it was not). This user is only making further messes. I think a permanent ban is in order soon, as well. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 07:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

:No, it was not widely used. We could add 'rare' to 'obsolete'. But I went to the original source to verify that the coverage is correct, and we have lots of things on Wiktionary that are/were not widely used. The only criterion I'm aware of is rather minimal. Is there something more stringent for obsolete usage? And how is this creating a 'mess' that can't be handled with simple deletion? It doesn't impact anything else, and plenty of words are deleted for not meeting attestation requirements without calls to ban the editor.
:I like contributing obscure things that are under-covered. I think Wikt should be as complete as possible, and AFAIK that is not a problem. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 09:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::The calls for the ban are in reference to the fact you have been warned multiple times about low-quality entries like this without fact checking anything. You are leaving major messes and never take responsibility, which is so clearly demonstrated by your response in this thread. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 10:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::That's an assumption on your part, one that you've made before, and an incorrect one. I did fact-check, and AFAICT the entries are accurate. Your objection above was that they're not notable. How are they 'low quality'? There's not much to say other than what's there. There's no 'major mess' here: if they're deleted, ''nothing else'' needs to be changed. If they do not meet eligibility criteria, fine, but AFAICT there is no factual problem with them. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 10:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::No, it's not. Cyrillic for Polish was never widely used at all, simply by a small group of especially non-natives trying to Russify Poland. But that's not in the Wikipedia article, is it? [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 10:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::If it was never used for publication, only in proposals that were never implemented, then I would agree these are not notable. Rather like the Cyrillic script for Esperanto. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 10:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::But you didn't check, did you? And you never do. This is why I'm calling for a ban, something like this has happened too many times. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 10:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I found that it was at least used for scripture. That would seem to be adequate use; many orthographies are not used for anything more than that. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 10:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Can you provide the actual texts where it was used, instead of just claiming it? And if it was written by non-natives, I see no further point in including it. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 10:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The only thing I'm pulling up now, with the first words in Matthew, is in a series of texts under the heading Общеславянская азбука [Common slavic alphabet] from 1892, a few decades after the WP alphabet ref. That may be the same thing I found earlier. I can't judge if it was written by natives, but since it's just a transliteration of the Latin, there's no reason to think it was. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 11:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::This really demonstrates how little entryworthy these are and how little research you did, and how low-quality these edits are. Time and time again you have repeated this. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 11:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::That may be fair about them not being noteworthy. There's also Лаврентiй Iванович Похилевич (1864) ''Сказания о населенных мѣстностях Киевской губернии или статистическия, историческия и церковныя заметки о всѣх деревнях, селах, мѣстечках и городах, в предѣлах губернии находящихся'', fn p 97-98. I can't tell if that's quoted or transliterated for the help of readers who only know Cyrillic, but it uses the same orthography. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 11:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::The author is Russian, not Polish. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 11:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::"Felician Wołodkowicz Arcybiskup M.C.R." looked Polish to me. Though, again, it might have been transliterated for the footnote. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 11:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::So we have one person who was from the Ruthenian part of that region - very noteworthy indeed. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 12:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::I really support the initiative, but maybe we need more examples from documentation. There are runic inscriptions of modern Norwegian and Swedish, but I usually avoid to mention them, because they are often very short and useless. But Polish Cyrillic has hundreds of examples with long sentences and consistent spelling. So its a project to go for, but it needs a good quotation. [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 19:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] That's the problem. If you read the log, you'd see there weren't enough uses. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 19:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::But there are? Like, the Bible and mathematics and Christian songs. [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 19:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Oh, I see, it seems completely imposibble to find any normal PDF. [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 19:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] Not in this particular alphabet. There's a Polish Cyrillic used in Belarus that is very different from this set of letters brought up. The letters made here were made without checking how used they were. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 19:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::No, am talking about this concrete alphabet. The problem is that there are many private photos of it with all kinda texts, but no independent source or a pdf-document. Some examples are to find on Wikipedia, but thats all. The only solution is to order scans from Poland, Russia and Belarus, but its hard to do without even knowing which libraries to ask. [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 19:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{re|Vininn126}} I think Polish Cyrillic ''words'' should be kept if attestable (three times!) in non-descriptive works, but letter entries are pretty useless anyway, and in this case, I don't see the point of them at all. This seems better suited for Wikipedia. [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 13:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::I would agree with that. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 13:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:: I think the main issue is determining whether this is some kind of {{w|Pan-Slavic language|conlang}}. I'm not sure how to differentiate a constructed ''orthography'' for a natural language from a constructed ''language''. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 14:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::: Orthographies are usually constructed; we're actually more likely to reject an ad hoc orthography, like texting Latin script for Arabic or Hindi.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 16:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I think our Polish editors will be able to distinguish between a Polish text and an Interslavic/Pan-Slavic one - those are quite different in both morphology, phonology, and much more. [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
: What does a native speaker have to do with anything? Is the writing out there, is the question we should be asking.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 16:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::Should we document other non-native forms of communication? [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 17:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::We do. In English, [[pertussal]] has only a quote from non-native English speaker Vladimir Nabokov, who, like non-native English speaker Joseph Conrad, is one of English's great authors. Also, Indian English is mostly written by non-native English speakers, and it's a large body of text that is important to document. Post-Roman Latin, 19th century Hebrew, and Esperanto are other bodies of text that we at least in theory try to cover, but is written by non-native speakers.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 05:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::That's not something practiced by most of the rest of the site and most people are generally against that. Those are also somewhat exceptional situations - a few Russians trying to convert a group of people that never accepted a script isn't really the same. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 08:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I mostly agree with Vinn here. If this is just a proposal that was never used for independent Polish texts, then I agree it's trivia and [I would expect] does not meet our inclusion criteria. If in practice it was only ever used as a transliteration scheme for Russian-speakers, as is possibly the case in my last example [I can't tell for certain], then even if notable in that usage it would IMO need to be identified as Cyrillic transliteration in practice if not in intent. On the other hand, if there was publication in it independent of the Russian language, then IMO it wouldn't matter if the publishers were Russian, any more than it matters for orthographies of other languages of the Russian empire, where we don't apply a native-speaker test. [I say this as a hypothetical.] [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 17:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::(agreement or aside, I prefer Vin over Vinn :P)
::::::I think the creators do definitely matter. If I were to create my own alphabet and publish 2-3 books in it while something was already established, I'm not sure that would be noteworthy.
::::::All this is to say that some Polish speakers use Cyrillic nowadays in Belarus, but that's completely separated from the letters in the given thread. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 18:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::''That's not something practiced by most of the rest of the site and most people are generally against that.'' That's not an argument; even if it's true, which there's no evidence of, it doesn't mean we should do that.
:::::If it's in "use in durably archived media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year"[[WT:CFI]], then it doesn't matter if it's Poles or Russians or what their motives are. I don't think this is exceptional; nobody checks to see who is a native speaker or not, and it would be a lot of work for the random non-notable English or Spanish author. We include abhorrent slurs created and used for evil motives.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 19:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Good luck convincing people to document X language used by Y language learners. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 19:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::: That's not really the issue on RfD, is it? You can pick and choose what you want to work on, and there are scholars who work on contact dialects all the time, so the interest is there.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 23:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Ah the issue of keeping something or not is not the issue of "request for deletion." [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 23:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:Am against deletion of such stuff, because it may be usefull for reading Polish Cyrillic. There are muuuuch more Polish Cyrillic texts than Swedish Dalecarlian Runic. Also, even if some crazy priests and wizards in the Swedish and Norwegian forests used runes in modern times, most of Scandinavians didn't. Polish Cyrillic is also obscure and wasn't liked by Polish people, but it has historical value. Just some weeks ago i accidentally found a photo of a paper with Polish Cyrillic and was pretty surprised by it before I understood what language it was. Also, Polish Cyrillic was a state-supported writing system, while runes were not. Compare now Lacinka for Belarussian, which also was state supported during the both German occupations of Belarus, and wasnt supported by all people, but we still do have it on Wiktionary. [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 19:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::"because it may be usefull for reading Polish Cyrillic" except the crux of the issue is there isn't enough of that for the given letters. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 19:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

===А̨===
[[:А̨#rfd-notice-pl-|А̨]]
===Е̨===
[[:Е̨#rfd-notice-pl-|Е̨]]
===е̨===
[[:е̨#rfd-notice-pl-|е̨]]
===О̂===
[[:О̂#rfd-notice-pl-|О̂]]
===Э̨===
[[:Э̨#rfd-notice-pl-|Э̨]]
===Ю̂===
[[:Ю̂#rfd-notice-pl-|Ю̂]]
===ю̂===
[[:ю̂#rfd-notice-pl-|ю̂]]
===я̨===
[[:я̨#rfd-notice-pl-|я̨]]
===Я̨===
[[:Я̨#rfd-notice-pl-|Я̨]]
===Р̌===
[[:Р̌#rfd-notice-pl-|Р̌]]
===э̨===
[[:э̨#rfd-notice-pl-|э̨]]
===а̨===
[[:а̨#rfd-notice-pl-|а̨]]
===х̾===
[[:х̾#rfd-notice-pl-|х̾]]
===р̌===
[[:р̌#rfd-notice-pl-|р̌]]
===о̂===
[[:о̂#rfd-notice-pl-|о̂]]

:'''RFD-deleted'''. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 06:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

== [[:لا يزال#rfd-notice-ar-|لا يزال]] ==

Arabic. We have an entry for the verb at [[زال]]. I don’t think we need this. --[[User:Etisop|Etisop]] ([[User talk:Etisop|talk]]) 10:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

: '''Delete''', not helpful, not likely looked up, though even if unlikely we ''may'' have hard redirects for all possible forms. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 13:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

== [[:яблуков сок#rfd-notice-rsk-|яблуков сок]] ==

Pannonian Rusyn. SOP. {{ping|Vininn126|Insaneguy1083}} [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 14:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

:'''Delete'''. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 14:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:You can delete it if you two agree to it. I just made the entry because it appears as a separate entry in English as well. Same goes for мачанка. [[User:Insaneguy1083|Insaneguy1083]] ([[User talk:Insaneguy1083|talk]]) 23:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:In this vein you could also look into whether {{m|rsk|ноцни живот}} and {{m|rsk|ноцни клуб}} are SOP. [[User:Insaneguy1083|Insaneguy1083]] ([[User talk:Insaneguy1083|talk]]) 23:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. Just sending it again in case you missed it. [[User:Insaneguy1083|Insaneguy1083]] ([[User talk:Insaneguy1083|talk]]) 16:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

== [[:яблукова мачанка#rfd-notice-rsk-|яблукова мачанка]] ==

Pannonian Rusyn. SOP. {{ping|Vininn126|Insaneguy1083}} [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 14:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

:'''Delete'''. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 14:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

= October 2024 =
== [[амарантовый цвет]] ==

Russian; SOP. [[User:Tetromino|Tetromino]] ([[User talk:Tetromino|talk]]) 19:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

== [[:𒋤𒀭𒀀𒀀#rfd-notice-akk-|𒋤𒀭𒀀𒀀]] ==

Akkadian. Wrong cuneiform.

==[[:biện chứng duy vật#rfd-notice-vi-|biện chứng duy vật]]==
Vietnamese. This results from misanalyzing such expressions as {{lang|vi|phép biện chứng duy vật}}, whose components are "{{l|vi|phép biện chứng||dialectic|pos= n}}" (head) and "{{l|vi|duy vật||materialist|pos= a}}" (modifier).

A few example quotations to prove my point that that such expressions as {{lang|vi|[Vietnamese nominalizer] biện chứng duy vật}} are composed of "[Vietnamese nominalizer] biện chứng (n.)" (head) and  "duy vật (adj.)" (modifier):

{{l|vi|phép biện chứng}}, unmodified & modified:

{{blockquote|Die Mystifikation, welche die '''Dialektik''' in Hegels Händen erleidet, verhindert in keiner Weise, daß er '''ihre''' allgemeinen Bewegungsformen zuerst in umfassender und bewußter Weise dargestellt hat. '''Sie''' steht bei ihm auf dem Kopf. Man muß '''sie''' umstülpen, um den rationellen Kern in der mystischen Hülle zu entdecken.<br><br>The mystification which '''dialectic''' suffers in Hegel's hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present '''its''' ['''dialectic’s'''] general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him '''it''' ['''dialectic'''] is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.<br><br>Tính chất thần bí mà '''phép biện chứng''' đã mắc phải ở trong tay Hê-ghen tuyệt nhiên không ngăn cản Hê-ghen trở thành người đầu tiên trình bày một cách bao quát và có ý thức những hình thái vận động của '''phép biện chứng''' ấy. Ở Hê-ghen '''phép biện chứng''' bị lộn ngược xuống đất. Chỉ cần dựng nó lại là sẽ phát hiện được cái hạt nhân hợp lý của nó ở đằng sau lớp vỏ thần bí.
|
{{cite-book|year= '''1968'''|origyear= 1873|author= w:Karl Marx|chapter= Nachwort zur zweiten Auflage|trans-chapter= Afterword to the Second German Edition|url= http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me23/me23_018.htm|title= {{lw|de|Das Kapital}}|trans-title= {{w|Das Kapital|Capital}}|series= {{lw|de|Marx-Engels-Werke}}|volume= 23}}<!--- p. 27 --->; English translation from '''1996''' ''{{w|Marx/Engels Collected Works}}'', volume 35<!--- p. 19 --->; Vietnamese translation from '''2002''' ''C. Mác Và Ph. Ăng-ghen Toàn Tập'', volume 23<!--- p. 40 --->}}

{{blockquote
|''''Phép biện chứng''' đã phát triển qua ba hình thức cơ bản: '''phép biện chứng''' chất phác thời cổ đại, '''phép biện chứng''' duy tâm cổ điển Đức và '''phép biện chứng''' duy vật trong chủ nghĩa Mác-Lênin.<br><br>'''Dialectic''' has developed through these basic forms: pure '''dialectic''' during [[classical antiquity]], classical German idealist '''dialectic''' and materialist '''dialectic''' in Marxism-Leninism.
|{{cite-web|year= 2023|work= Công Ty Luật TNHH Minh Khuê|trans-work= Minh Khuê Law Firm Co., Ltd.|author= Bùi Tuấn An|coauthors= Lê Minh Trường (adviser)|title= Biện chứng là gì? Lịch sử hình thành và nội dung biện chứng?| trans-title= What Is Dialectic? How Was Dialectic Formed and Developed Historically<!--- More lit. "[What is] the History of Formalization and Development of Dialectic?" --->?|url= https://luatminhkhue.vn/bien-chung-la-gi.aspx}}
}}

'''sự {{l|vi|biện chứng}}''': unmodified & modified
{{blockquote
|'''Sự biện chứng''' của ý thức, đúng trong '''sự biện chứng''' của con người, dĩ nhiên tiến hành theo quy luật chung của '''sự biện chứng''' duy vật, và như thế là giải quyết vấn đề bế tắc trong phép siêu hình: hoặc là vật chất, hoặc là ý thức – hoặc là con vật, hoặc là con người.<br><br>'''Dialectic''' in consciousness, as true as in humans' '''dialetic''', often proceeds according to the general rule of materialist '''dialetic''', and hence resolves the dead end in metaphysics: whether matter, or consciousness – or animals – or humans. 
|{{cite-book|year= 2012|origyear= 1989|author= {{w|Tran Duc Thao|Trần Đức Thảo}}|coauthors= Cù Huy Chử, Cù Huy Song Hà|chapter= Hồi Ký|title= Giáo sư Trần Đức Thảo- Biển quê hương dạt dào và trầm tư triết học|url= https://staff.hnue.edu.vn/Tintuc-Sukien/Trangtintonghop/tabid/260/news/1701/HanhtrinhtriethocTranDucThao-HoiKyTriethoccuaTranDucThao.aspx}}}}

({{ping|PhanAnh123}}, {{ping|Billcipher123}}, {{ping|mxn}} {{ping|ChemPro}}, {{ping|MuDavid}}) 

[[User:Erminwin|Erminwin]] ([[User talk:Erminwin|talk]]) 19:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC) 19:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Erminwin}} Yeah, it seems to me to be a misconstruction as well, where the term has been decomposed incorrectly into {{m|vi|phép}} {{qual|n. (head)}} + {{m|vi|biện chứng duy vật}} {{qual|adj. (modifier)}}. And also, it's a SoP (or very close to being one). --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 20:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
:You’re probably right, but it isn’t hard to find authors who don’t care. Vietnamese is very cavalier about parts of speech, and so {{m|vi|biện chứng}} (modified or not) is often used as a noun without nominaliser (like {{m|vi|phép}}, {{m|vi|tư duy}}, {{m|vi|phương pháp}}, etc.) One example:
:: [https://luatminhkhue.vn/bien-chung-la-gi.aspx#:~:text=coi%20bi%E1%BB%87n%20ch%E1%BB%A9ng%20ch%E1%BB%A7%20quan%20l%C3%A0%20c%C6%A1%20s%E1%BB%9F%20c%E1%BB%A7a%20bi%E1%BB%87n%20ch%E1%BB%A9ng%20kh%C3%A1ch%20quan. […&#93; coi '''biện chứng''' chủ quan là cơ sở của '''biện chứng''' khách quan.]
:I think the entry {{m|vi|biện chứng duy vật}} is okay the way it is, even if grammatically not really orthodox. We aren’t a grammar book but a dictionary, and “''biện chứng duy vật''” may not be a unit grammatically, but it is lexically. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 02:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
::[[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]]: {{tq|biện chứng (modified or not) is often used as a noun without nominaliser}}. In that case, I will (not now or in the near future tho') re-classify {{m|vi|biện chứng duy vật}} as a noun & will back up that classification with quotes. Thanks! [[User:Erminwin|Erminwin]] ([[User talk:Erminwin|talk]]) 19:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[:Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/Alamann-#rfd-notice-gem-pro-|Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/Alamann-]] ==

This should be merged with {{l|gem-pro|*alamann-}}. There's no need for a separate page. Ethnonyms in this language are also generally not capitalised. {{unsigned|Haimariks Wandilaz|16:00, 11 October 2024}}
: '''Keep'''. Proper nouns are intended to be capitalized. --<code>&#123;&#123;[[User:Victar|victar]]|[[User talk:Victar|talk]]&#125;&#125;</code> 03:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
: '''Merge'''. [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 18:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

== [[Øresundsbron]] ==
Is it only me who find this entry being weird? Especially the part mentioning some company. [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 20:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
: "being weird" is not grounds for deletion (so in the absence of a rationale for deletion, my vote is '''keep''' - it looks keepable enough in its current state). 
: If you think the entry could use some work, feel free to improve it (or slap an {{temp|attention}} or {{temp|rfc}} on it and hope for the best). 
: If you are unsure if the term is attested, the proper venue is [[WT:Requests for verification/Non-English]]. — [[User:Mnemosientje|Mnemosientje]] ([[User talk:Mnemosientje|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Mnemosientje|c]]) 15:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

== [[:akutirani a#rfd-notice-sl-|akutirani a]] ==

Slovene. It's just a phrase formation, the same as saying in English "acute a" [[User:Linyker¹²³|Linyker¹²³]] ([[User talk:Linyker¹²³|talk]])

== [[:Ross und Reiter#rfd-notice-de-|Ross und Reiter]] ==

German. 

Doesn't seem to have any meaning beyond the literal SOP "horse and rider", although I'm willing to be corrected on this if there's an additional definition we need. Not to be confused with [[Ross und Reiter nennen]] ("call a spade a spade"), which is idiomatic. [[User:Smurrayinchester|Smurrayinchester]] ([[User talk:Smurrayinchester|talk]]) 13:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

:'''Delete''' as is. Can be recreated later if an idiomatic sense is found. [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 09:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[রাঁধুনি#rfd-sense-notice-bn-|রাঁধুনি]] ==

Bengali. Rfd-sense: Proper noun: "{{lb|bn|trademark}} [[Radhuni]] {{gl|a particular [[food]]-[[products]] [[company]]}}"
:[[WT:BRAND]] applies. [[User:DCDuring|DCDuring]] ([[User talk:DCDuring|talk]]) 12:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

== [[:чорный#rfd-notice-ru-|чорный]] ==

Russian. A hoax. The pre-1917 spelling is чёрный. If [http://www.dorev.ru/ru-index.html?l=d7 this] is not enough, one can consult any pre-1917 book (as scanned on Google Books) for verification. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]] ([[User talk:Ghirlandajo|talk]]) 19:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

:I'd '''take to RFV'''. It's conceivable this is an alternative/nonstandard spelling encountered both before and after 1917. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 21:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:It may be pre-1917, but long before 1917. Not common spelling in the last centuries anyway. [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 12:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

= November 2024 =
== <s>SoP adverbs in Welsh</s> ==
In Welsh, any adjective (sometimes verb) can become an adverb with the preposition {{m|cy|yn}}. In the past, [[Talk:yn_unig|yn unig]] has been deleted as a SoP for this reason. Given this, I am nominating the following for deletion as SoP:
{{col|cy|yn achlysurol|yn aml|yn anaml|yn barod|yn dal|yn enw.|yn enwedig|yn fuan|yn gwmws|yn gymwys|yn union|yn wreiddiol}}

Terms that I wouldn't consider SoP:
{{col|cy|yn hwyr neu'n hwyrach|yn oes oesoedd|yn ôl}}

On the fence about this one:
* {{l|cy|yn lle}}

For SoP terms that are commonly used as equivalents of non-SoP in other languages, I would suggest adding a sense to the "mother" lemma, e.g.:
===Adjective===
{{cy-adj|head=parod|stem=parot|ach}}

# [[ready]]
# {{lb|cy|adverbially|as {{l|cy|yn}} '''barod'''}} [[readily]]

===Verb===
{{cy-verb|head=dal}}

# to [[catch]]
# to [[continue]]
## {{lb|cy|adverbially|as {{l|cy|yn}} '''dal'''}} [[continuing]], [[still]], [[yet]]

I appreciate some terms may survive due to reasons not to remove SOP [[Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Idiomaticity|here]].

This is a matter for the Greasepit, but maybe adverb forms should part of the template for adjectives, alongside plural, comparative, superlative equative.

[[User:Arafsymudwr|Arafsymudwr]] ([[User talk:Arafsymudwr|talk]]) 16:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

:*'''Delete''' the ones nominated for deletion above as SOP.
:—[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 18:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Deleted''' entries in the top table. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 17:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I do want to keep {{m|cy|yn oes oesoedd}}, {{m|cy|yn ôl}}, and {{m|cy|yn lle}}, as they are not using the adverb-forming {{m|cy|yn}} at all but rather the preposition {{m|cy|yn|t=in}}. Also, {{m|cy||yn dal}} does not use the adverb-forming {{m|cy|yn}} but rather the progressive marker {{m|cy|yn}}, but it's still SOP as any verb can be made into the functional equivalent of a present participle by preposing {{m|cy|yn}} to the verbal noun. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 22:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[:min-#rfd-notice-nl-|min-]] ==

Dutch. Not really a prefix; listed derived terms can be easily explained as deriving from {{m|nl|min}}. — [[User:Mnemosientje|Mnemosientje]] ([[User talk:Mnemosientje|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Mnemosientje|c]]) 10:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

== <s>[[insensible à la casse]]</s> ==

The phrase [[sensible à la casse]] was deleted because of SOP. The reason given for the deletion is rather dubious, but more important is: [[insensible à la casse]] has not been deleted, which is incoherent. Both should be either be deleted or be kept, but not one deleted and not the other. [[Special:Contributions/87.88.155.126|87.88.155.126]] 20:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''RFD-resolved'''; was deleted as SOP. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 20:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

== <s>[[:kim tiêm#rfd-notice-vi-|kim tiêm]]</s> ==

Vietnamese. Tagged but not listed as "SOP". [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 02:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:<s>'''Delete'''</s>. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 20:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
::The question is whether {{m|vi|kim tiêm}} also refers to a {{m|en|hypodermic needle}}, which, per definition, can also be used to ''extract'' fluids from the body, which the term {{m|vi|tiêm||to inject}} doesn't cover. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 21:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It has to be attested that {{m|vi|kim tiêm}} is a short form of {{m|vi|kim tiêm dưới da}} in order for that entry to be included. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 09:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
::::'''Keep''' per [[WT:FRIED]], as it is not only used for injections but for extractions as well. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 17:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
:'''Keep'''. Is used for extraction as well, so not SoP. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 02:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

After [[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] changing their mind a great many times, we have 2&ndash;0, so '''RfD kept'''. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 02:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

== <s>[[:cỏ hoang#rfd-notice-vi-|cỏ hoang]]</s> ==

Vietnamese. Tagged but not listed as "SOP". [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 02:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

:'''Delete''' [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 10:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::<s>In its current form, {{m|vi|cỏ hoang}} can also mean “weeds”. {{m|vi|cỏ}} just means “grass”, but a weed can refer to ''any'' type of wild plant. If its true that {{m|vi|cỏ hoang}} also refers to any type of wild plant and not just wild grass, then I'd vote '''keep'''.</s> --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 13:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't think it does? I think they would use '''cây dại''' or '''cỏ dại''' instead.
:::But now that you mention it, I think the definition of [[cỏ]] itself encompasses "weeds". Example: [[nhổ cỏ]] means removing weeds. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 15:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I added this sense for [[cỏ]]. Please take a look. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 16:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Irrespective of {{m|vi|cỏ hoang}} being restricted to only grass or not, it's a SoP either way now. '''Delete'''. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 16:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::'''Delete'''. I agree with [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]]'s reasoning. [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 23:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Including the nominator, this ends up 4&ndash;0 for deletion, so '''RfD delete'''. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 02:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

==[[:עברא כדברא#rfd-notice-arc-|עברא כדברא]]==
===[[:עבדא כדברא#rfd-notice-arc-|עבדא כדברא]]===

Aramaic. 

These were mistakenly created as badly-formatted Hebrew entries (Hebrew wouldn't end these words with "א"), by someone who obviously has no clue. 

You can find these in the etymology for [[abracadabra]] as a theoretically-possible/hypothetical origin for the Latin word. As Aramaic, however, they just mean something like "what has been said has been done"- nothing idiomatic. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 06:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
: Update: I have now added a second entry that was created at the same time and edited my explanation above to reflect the change from one to two entries. The first one is a spelling variant of the second (they differ in only one letter, a common type of variation because the letters look almost identical). The first one is a closer match to "abracadabra", but the second matches the "what has been said has been done" translation. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 00:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::'''Delete''' theoretical coinages for the origin of [[abracadabra|a word whose origin is still unknown]] that has already been published for too long. [[User:Hftf|Hftf]] ([[User talk:Hftf|talk]]) 10:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

== [[:einræða persónu#rfd-notice-is-|einræða persónu]] ==

Icelandic. Literally, "soliloquy of a person", SOP. Created by [[User:BiT]]. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 08:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 20:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. —[[User:Caoimhin ceallach|Caoimhin ceallach]] ([[User talk:Caoimhin ceallach|talk]]) 13:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

== <s>[[:andlangs herra#rfd-notice-is-|andlangs herra]]</s> ==

Icelandic. Probably SOP. Said to mean "God", but appears an unidiomatic rendering of "lord of the sky". Created by [[User:BiT]].  [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 08:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

:This is a 14th century skaldic ''[[w:kenning|kenning]]'' nonce word [https://skaldic.org/m.php?p=verse&i=1723&v=i]. Included in the Dictionary of Icelandic but nowhere else. [[Special:Contributions/130.208.182.103|130.208.182.103]] 09:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::'''RFD-failed'''. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 00:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

== <s>[[:vẽ kiểu#rfd-notice-vi-|vẽ kiểu]]</s> ==

Vietnamese, tagged last year as SoP. I lean towards '''keep''', as this can easily be misinterpreted as “draw in the style of”. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:Unless valid examples are found, I say '''delete'''. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 10:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::What do you mean with “valid examples”? [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 02:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I mean examples where the word can be misinterpreted. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 09:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::[https://www.instagram.com/truongcgartist/p/COdOWJLjSt9/ Vẽ kiểu này là kiểu j?], [https://thegioitranhsondau.com/tranh-son-dau-phong-canh-ho-guom-ve-kieu-hien-dai.html?srsltid=AfmBOooMZdrLT8_Au0yfSGcX652bwhD-H3kzHpH9UNG7KfXNJJRJjlH2 Phong Cảnh Hồ Gươm Vẽ Kiểu Hiện Đại]
::::Another issue is whether this word actually means “design”. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 02:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Both examples mean "draw in the style of". I'm asking for examples where this word means "to design/model" but people read it as "draw in the style of". As a side note I have never seen this word used to mean "to design/model". Most usage nowadays means "draw in the style of". [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 10:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Now I don’t understand you at all. The claim by [[User:Agamemenon|Agamemenon]] is that {{m|vi|vẽ kiểu}} means “design, model”; the counterclaim by [[User:PhanAnh123|PhanAnh123]] is that this is SoP. My opinion is that, given the fact that {{m|vi|vẽ kiểu}} often means “draw in the style of”, the entry should be kept with meaning “design, model” (plus a {{temp|&lit}} meaning) provided the meaning “design, model” does indeed exist. What now is your opinion? That it does not mean “design, model”? [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I'm saying that as of now, we haven't found any trusted sources/examples for this word to mean "design, model", but rather the dominant sense of "to draw in the style of". It should be moved to Request for Verification instead. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 16:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with that. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 01:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

'''RfD kept''', but nominate for RfV. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 02:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

== <s>[[fjórtán dagar]], [[hálfur mánuður]]</s> ==

Icelandic, SOP entries meaning "fourteen days", "half a month" created by [[User:BiT]] [[User:Anarhistička Maca|Anarhistička Maca]] ([[User talk:Anarhistička Maca|talk]]) 03:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:'''Delete''', clearly SOP. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 04:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

: '''Deleted'''; failed RFD. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 08:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

= December 2024 =

== <s>[[:нөлеу#rfd-notice-kk-|нөлеу]]</s> ==

Kazakh, this word doesn't exist. The user that made this page is banned. [[User:Rttle1|Rttle1]] ([[User talk:Rttle1|talk]]) 18:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:<b>speedy delete</b> author was known to make up words and was indef blocked for doing so. — [[User:Babr| B<small>ABR</small>]]・<i>[[User talk:Babr|talk]]</i> 07:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
* '''Speedied'''. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 19:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

== <s>[[:ngồi không#rfd-notice-vi-|ngồi không]]</s> ==

Vietnamese, SoP. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 07:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

:<s>'''Keep ''' since it seems like the only instance [[không]] is used with "idle" meaning. </s>[[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 10:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::You have a point. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{m|vi|đứng không||to stand around}} would be another instance where {{m|vi|không||idly}} is used. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 10:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Is there attestation though? Another instance could be '''ăn không''' in '''ăn không ngồi rồi/rỗi'''. I thought again and say '''delete'''. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 15:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: I vote for '''delete''' as well. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 16:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Is {{m|vi|đứng không||to stand around}} a thing, though? I did Google for it, but couldn’t find anything. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::Try the phrase "đừng đứng không". There is also "nằm không". [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 10:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] I've known that ''không'' in those cases mean ''only'', is that correct? [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 23:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::That's the second definition of the adverb. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 03:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Apologies, I did not view the definitions of [[idly]]. Using the word ''[[idly]]'' in sense seems to me now that it is more favorable than using ''[[only]]'' (more appropriate meaning). [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 14:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

That gives three of us in favor of deletion, so '''RfD delete'''. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 02:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

== <s>[[:Imánál#rfd-notice-ga-|Imánál]]</s> ==

It is both not sourced or an Irish from of Emmanuel. [[Special:Contributions/2001:BB6:B817:800:B83C:13E2:6A44:556C|2001:BB6:B817:800:B83C:13E2:6A44:556C]] 17:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

:'''Move to RFV'''. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 11:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

::'''Moved''' (I forgot I made this request). [[User:Saighneánach|Saighneánach]] ([[User talk:Saighneánach|talk]]) 14:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

== <s>[[ukondu]]</s> ==

Basque: erroneous form of {{m|eu|ukondo||elbow}}. This form with -u was created by a now-renamed user, and does not occur as a variant in any of EH, OEH, or EDB, and does not have a hit on eu-WP. --[[User:Hiztegilari|Hiztegilari]] ([[User talk:Hiztegilari|talk]]) 10:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
: '''Delete''' seems to be a misspelling of {{m|eu|ukondo}}. [[User:Santi2222|Santi2222]] ([[User talk:Santi2222|talk]]) 16:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''RFD-deleted'''. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 20:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

== <s> [[:женские тапочки#rfd-notice-ru-|женские тапочки]] </s> ==

Russian. 
Does not appear to refer to the flower, and as such is SOP. Second of all, I doubt this is a pluralia tantum noun. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 10:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Nominkhana arslang}} has informed me on Discord this does not refer to the flower. I will '''speedy''' this later today if nothing else happens in this thread. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 10:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::Confirm. Zero Google hits for both "растение" and "женские тапочки". SOP. [[User:Nominkhana arslang|Nominkhana arslang]] ([[User talk:Nominkhana arslang|talk]]) 14:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:'''RFD-speedied.''' [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 17:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[:garip#rfd-notice-tr-|garip]] ==

Turkish adjective meaning “weird”. The deletion request is only for its listing as an interjection. Using an adjective by way of a full sentence (as in “&thinsp;‘Weird,’ he said”) does not an interjection make. For Turkish, ''garip'' is in fact a grammatically standard one-word full sentence, meaning “he/she/it is weird”. (See [[garip#Declension|garip § Declension]].) A much more common similarly uttered Turkish one-word sentence is {{m|tr|inanılmaz||he/she/it is incredible}}, which must, of course, also not be lexically categorized as an interjection. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 10:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[:pembayar cukai#rfd-notice-id-|pembayar cukai]] ==

Indonesian. An [[WT:SOP]] entry, also not listed in KBBI. [[User:Alfarizi Mokoginta|Alfarizi Mokoginta]] ([[User talk:Alfarizi Mokoginta|talk]]) 04:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 20:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

== [[:toistaiseksi voimassa oleva#rfd-notice-fi-|toistaiseksi voimassa oleva]] ==

Finnish. Not idiomatic; this should be a collocation. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 14:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:I edited this today according to how it's stated in the Finlex Data Bank, for example [https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2001/en20010055.pdf]. Should this be edited akin to [[voimassa oleva]]? [[Special:Contributions/86.50.68.196|86.50.68.196]] 16:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

== <s>[[:nói sõi#rfd-notice-vi-|nói sõi]]</s> ==

Vietnamese, SoP. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 02:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
: '''Delete'''. [[User:Billcipher123|Billcipher123]] ([[User talk:Billcipher123|talk]]) 04:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::According to its label,  its a term used when speaking of children, but neither {{m|vi|nói}} nor {{m|vi|sõi}} indicates that. In its current state, I'd vote '''keep'''. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 14:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
:::A quick Google search will unearth plenty of uses of {{m|vi|nói sõi}} concerning people who are not children at all. I’m quite sure that label is wrong. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
::::'''Delete'''. I'm pretty sure that ''nói sõi'' refers to both children and adult being fluent in a language, which should be defined in the entry "sõi" itself. [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 14:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

3&ndahs;1 in favor of deletion, so '''RfD delete'''. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:vách đá#rfd-notice-vi-|vách đá]] ==

Vietnamese, SoP. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 01:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
: '''Delete'''. [[User:Billcipher123|Billcipher123]] ([[User talk:Billcipher123|talk]]) 04:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:<s>'''Keep'''</s>. "Rock wall" does not immediately translate to "bluff" or "cliff". A quick Google image search reveals two different things. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 10:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::But does {{m|vi|vách đá}} really mean “bluff”? Creator [[User:Minhandsomely|Minhandsomely]] is very bad at English (in spite of his self-declared level 3 on his user page). “Cliff” would be a better translation.
::Sandstone cliffs can be called “''vách sa thạch''”, cliffs in the mountains can be “''vách núi''”, etc. This shows that {{m|vi|vách}} also means “cliff”, not just wall. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::<s>'''Detete''' then in light of this information, </s>[[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 05:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
::::<s>'''Delete'''</s>. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 13:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Per the fried egg test, "vách sa thạch" should be added too because vách here means a [[cliff]] and not a [[wall]]? [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 09:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
::'''Keep''' again because I thought about the fried egg test and think that '''vách [[đá]]''' refers specifically to a stone cliff, not an ice cliff. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 07:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yeah, you're right. I've withdrawn my vote. I still have one question though. A {{m|en|bluff#Etymology_2}} can also mean "a cliff with a broad face". Does this also apply to a {{m|vi|vách đá}}? --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 11:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I think cliffs are strictly vertical (like [[vách đá]]), while bluffs '''seem''' to be anywhere from 45-70 degree, so no. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 11:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::: '''Keep''' with a change of its definition to "stone cliff". --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 12:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
:::'''Keep''' same as above. [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 23:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:'''Keep''', ever since you can see substantial differences between the two words in question just via their illustrative images beside, namely concerned with ''cliff'' and ''bluff''. [[User:Minhandsomely|Minhandsomely]] ([[User talk:Minhandsomely|talk]]) 13:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
::Hey, so, I opened the Vietnamese Wikipedia of '''vách đá''' and opened it English equivalent. It's '''cliff'''. Please explain why it's a '''bluff''', and not a '''cliff'''? [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 13:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:::The definitions are probably messed up. I think that ''vực'' should mean "bluff" (because it's near a watercourse) and ''vách đá'' (or even simply ''vách'') should mean "cliff" (on land and near watercourse). [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 14:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Oh, I just recalled the word from a movies somewhere, so I think my previous definition isn't realistic much enough. [[User:Minhandsomely|Minhandsomely]] ([[User talk:Minhandsomely|talk]]) 14:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Please don't make any more change to the entry UNLESS you can give us proofs that are more convincing than "just recalled the word from a movies somewhere". [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 15:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[:of mikill#rfd-notice-is-|of mikill]] ==

Icelandic. Yes, [[User:BiT]] created this too. Also nominating {{m|is|of mikið}}. Seems transparently "too" + "much". [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 06:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:'''Delete''' both. —[[User:Caoimhin ceallach|Caoimhin ceallach]] ([[User talk:Caoimhin ceallach|talk]]) 13:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

== [[Template:vrd-ī]] ==

I don't think this Sanskrit template should have been created (by blocked user). The [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:vrd-ī|3 pages that link to it]] are just feminine forms of the vriddhied adjective on -a. [[User:Exarchus|Exarchus]] ([[User talk:Exarchus|talk]]) 18:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[:eitthvað annað#rfd-notice-is-|eitthvað annað]] ==

Icelandic. Created in 2005 by [[User:Schneelocke]]. This is glossed as "something else" and looks like a transparent SOP to me. I strongly suspect the masculine and feminine equivalents "someone else" exist as well. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 06:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:'''Delete'''. Could be listed as a collocation at one of the constituent terms. —[[User:Caoimhin ceallach|Caoimhin ceallach]] ([[User talk:Caoimhin ceallach|talk]]) 13:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

== [[:banda sa#rfd-notice-tl-|banda sa]] ==

Tagalog. SOP.

: '''Delete'''. <span style="color:#330005; font-size:1.65em; vertical-align:middle">𝄽</span> [[User:Ysrael214|ysrael214]] ([[User talk:Ysrael214|talk]])

== [[:galing sa#rfd-notice-tl-|galing sa]] ==

Tagalog. SOP.

: '''Delete'''. <span style="color:#330005; font-size:1.65em; vertical-align:middle">𝄽</span> [[User:Ysrael214|ysrael214]] ([[User talk:Ysrael214|talk]])

= January 2025 =

== [[:phải cái#rfd-notice-vi-|phải cái]] ==

Vietnamese: “{{m|vi|phải}} + {{m|vi|cái}} from the beginning of the adjacent noun phrase. With the example provided, not a construction, maybe someone can provide an example where grammaticalization has progressed further?” [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 02:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:"cái" doesn't always have to be followed with a noun. "Phải cái là X" should also work I think? The phrase probably has the same grammar as {{l|vi|được cái}}. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 05:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
::I disagree with @[[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] of his opinion on the usage of [[phải cái]]. What I've seen people are using is that the phrase go with verb or adjective, but never before seen anyone using it with nouns. There are also examples on the Internet about the phrase: [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ph%E1%BA%A3i+c%C3%A1i+n%C3%B3i%22 phải cái nói], [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ph%E1%BA%A3i+c%C3%A1i+ngh%E1%BB%8Bch%22 phải cái nghịch], [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ph%E1%BA%A3i+c%C3%A1i+k%C3%AAu%22 phải cái kêu], [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ph%E1%BA%A3i+c%C3%A1i+ng%E1%BB%AF%22 phải cái ngữ] <small>(may be idiomatic)</small> [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ph%E1%BA%A3i+c%C3%A1i+ngh%C4%A9%22 phải cái nghĩ], [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ph%E1%BA%A3i+c%C3%A1i+l%C6%B0%C6%A1ng%22 phải cái lương] <small>(seems to be using with a clause)</small>.
::About the own entry itself, I don't think the authors of [[phải cái]] do really consider how it is really used ("Used to introduce a negative statement or clause"). IMO it should be introducing someone's personality trait or some event deemed undesirable (not vaguely as negative statement or clause). [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 04:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Thinking back, I judge that the term should be merged into {{m|vi|cái}} because people also use ''có cái'', ''được cái'', ''bị cái'' with verbs and adjectives, which I think is to emphasize what is said. [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 21:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm confused, why should it be merged because there are other '''idiomatic forms''' being use? [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 09:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::I think that they are all of the same <s>sense/</s>usage (to emphasize an info), so maybe a merge would be a better idea than to split them all in different pages? [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 10:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::Not sure about that. Where does one go to if they want to find info about one of these above terms? Intuitively (and hopefully), not "cái". A usage note in the entry for '''cái''' would be nice, but seperate entries for these terms are needed. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 10:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[dahil sa]], [[dahil kay]] ==

Tagalog. SOP

dahil sa = due to, because of

All usages involving the sense "to; of", will involve {{m|tl|sa}} (for nonpersonal names) or {{m|tl|kay}} (for personal names). Papunta sa tao (going to the man), papunta kay Manny (going to Manny)

Usage notes is enough, which it already is included in sa and kay pages. <span style="color:#330005; font-size:1.65em; vertical-align:middle">𝄽</span> [[User:Ysrael214|ysrael214]] ([[User talk:Ysrael214|talk]]) 11:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

== [[:Asasara#rfd-notice-ecr-|Asasara]] ==

Eteocretan. Nominated for speedy deletion by {{ping|Kumwawa}}, but this is clearly a matter for RFD. Reason given is: "Asasara(me) is a suggested Minoan god found in Linear A, not Eteocretan inscriptions. Maybe put it in the Minoan or Linear A Category (with lab signs not grc)."

In any event, the [https://etruscans1.tripod.com/Language/EtruscanAA.html source on the entry] is an Etruscan dictionary which merely states {{tq|see Cretan '''asasara''' divine name [dep]}}, which is not enough to justify this entry, in my view, and I see no compelling reason to have Latin-script entries for Eteocretan. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 15:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

== [[:على سيرة#rfd-notice-ajp-|على سيرة]] ==

South Levantine Arabic. Marked as SOP, "speaking of". [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 18:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

===[[قليل ما]]===
===[[قطع الإشارة]]===
Unrelated terms but all tagged as SOP and not listed, recently nominated for speedy deletion. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 19:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

== <s>[[:बड़ा भाई#rfd-notice-hi-|बड़ा भाई]] and [[:बड़ी बहन#rfd-notice-hi-|बड़ी बहन]]</s> ==
along with Hindi {{m|hi|ज्येष्ठ भ्राता}}. SoP as 
* {{m|hi|बड़ा}} + {{m|hi|भाई}}
* {{m|hi|बड़ी}} + {{m|hi|बहन}}
* {{m|hi|ज्येष्ठ}} + {{m|hi|भ्राता}}
[[User:Kutchkutch|Kutchkutch]] ([[User talk:Kutchkutch|talk]]) 08:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

* '''Speedied'''. [[User:Svartava|Svartava]] ([[User talk:Svartava2|talk]]) 14:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

== [[:ᛝྀིྀི#rfd-notice-mul-|ᛝྀིྀི]] ==

Translingual. To judge by its "etymology" and description, it has no meaning and is therefore unsuited for a dictionary. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 10:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:It etymology because it’s 3 random letters stuck together to from a symbol. And in “Symbol” it says wat it’s used for and its meaning. I made the page because I randomly found it and there was no data but by the symbol I fond data to make the page. Don’t delete it. [[User:Atlas Þə Biologist|Atlas Þə Biologist]] ([[User talk:Atlas Þə Biologist|talk]]) 01:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Delete''' - no real meaning. There is a limitless number of these combinations that look 'aesthetically pleasing'. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 11:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

: '''Save''' — this is the ONLY data about it, and if it’s the only data this is the only information people could get about the symbol. [[User:Atlas Þə Biologist|Atlas Þə Biologist]] ([[User talk:Atlas Þə Biologist|talk]]) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:: /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
:: There are all kinds of decoration that aren't dictionary material
::  [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 22:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:: \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

::[[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]] &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 00:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. Theoretically, this should be at rfv, but if this symbol is not associated with a specific meaning, there is no hope of finding uses in durably archived media conveying meaning. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 00:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Indeed, that's why I decided to bring it here instead of to RFV (which I did consider until coming to the conclusion you just mentioned). —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 07:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 20:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Delete''', extralinguistic content. Its bearing no meaning is not strictly the reason since [[interfix]]es also bear no meaning. But this is just not treated as language, and we desist from describing sentiments beyond it. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 13:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

== <s> [[:światło-#rfd-notice-szl-|światło-]] </s> ==

Silesian. 
Not a prefix, but common compound element. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 08:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''RFD-deleted''' [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 17:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

===  <s>[[:ćmawo-#rfd-notice-szl-|ćmawo-]] </s> ===

Silesian. 
Not a prefix, but common compound element. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 08:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' both of these 2, but re-label them ===Combining form=== rather than ===Prefix===, and use {{tl|combining form of}} in the definition line. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 11:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:But why? We don't do this with other Lechitic languages or other common compound elements, and we also don't have things like [[light-]] or [[dark-]]. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 11:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::We do it with other languages (e.g. [[:CAT:Ancient Greek combining forms]], [[:CAT:Sanskrit combining forms]]), and [[light-]] and [[dark-]] aren't linguistically different from their freestanding forms {{m|en|light}} and {{m|en|dark}}. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 11:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Then we would have to undo many other deletions and go against a precedent set for these languages, which other editors, including @[[User:PUC|PUC]] agree with. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 11:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Frankly, I wasn't sure myself how to submit this entry.
*::::I'm fine with sorting this out whichever way Wiktionary sees fit, I'd just need to know how exactly what to do, but there seems to be a dilemma here. I'll hold off until this conversation is resolved. [[User:Vxern|Vxern]] ([[User talk:Vxern|talk]]) 15:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Wiktionary is an open democratic project, so your vote matters. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 15:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::I think that the solution with displaying this as a combining form, rather than a prefix, is a sound one. It would draw enough of a distinction between the adverbial forms of 'światło'/'ćmawo'. [[User:Vxern|Vxern]] ([[User talk:Vxern|talk]]) 15:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Delete''', not useful and this would open the door to creating thousands of similar entries. [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 19:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Where should I place the entry instead? [[User:Vxern|Vxern]] ([[User talk:Vxern|talk]]) 19:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::[[światły]]. Similarly, [[jasnoniebieski]] would go to [[jasny#Polish]]. If we wanted, we could also use a {{temp|col}} template with a title such as <code>compounds</code> or something. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 19:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. — <span dir='ltr'>[[User:Fenakhay|Fenakhay]]</span> <sup>(<span dir='ltr'>[[User talk:Fenakhay|حيطي]]</span> · <span dir='ltr'>[[Special:Contributions/Fenakhay|مساهماتي]]</span>)</sup> 23:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 13:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''RFD-deleted''' [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 17:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:Vietnamflagge#rfd-notice-de-|Vietnamflagge]] ==

Egregious German SOP. ―⁠[[User:Ktom|K<sub>(ə)</sub>tom]] ([[User talk:Ktom|talk]]) 11:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
: '''Keep''', single-word compounds do not fall under [[WT:SOP]] by long-standing Wiktionary practice (hence criteria like [[WT:COALMINE]]). See also [[WT:Criteria for inclusion#General rule]]: "This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a '''single word''' or it is idiomatic.". (Changing this would be quite the can of worms.) — [[User:Mnemosientje|Mnemosientje]] ([[User talk:Mnemosientje|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Mnemosientje|c]]) 10:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
* Agreed, '''keep''' per Mnemosientje. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 11:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

== [[:Mậu Tuất#rfd-notice-vi-|Mậu Tuất]] ==

Vietnamese SoP. Just the name of the heavenly stem + the name of the earthly branch. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 08:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

=== [[:Quý Mão#rfd-notice-vi-|Quý Mão]] ===
Same. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 08:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

=== [[:Giáp Thìn#rfd-notice-vi-|Giáp Thìn]] ===
Same. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 08:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

=== [[:Canh Tuất#rfd-notice-vi-|Canh Tuất]] ===
Same. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 08:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

=== [[:Ất Tỵ#rfd-notice-vi-|Ất Tỵ]] ===
Same. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 08:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|MuDavid}} Each of these terms constitute one of the sixty years of the Vietnamese {{w|sexagenary cycle}}. If they were SoPs, then how did the Vietnamese, and ultimately, the Chinese calendar emerge then? --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 09:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Edit: Because each of these terms correspond to one year of the sexagenary cycle, they must be greater than the sum of their parts. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 11:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::There's the cycle of the ten heavenly stems and then there's the cycle of the twelve earthly branches. The lowest common multiple of ten and twelve being sixty, the combined cycle is sixty years. That's how the sexagenary cycle emerged: as a sum of two parts. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 14:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|MuDavid}} That's not how the sexagenary cycle emerged. If the sexagenary cycle were be a mere sum (or rather a combination) of two parts (or cycles), then the number of possible combinations would be 10 * 12 = 120, leading to a 120-years cycle. The reason why only half of the number of possible combinations are used is the following:

:::Five of the ten heavenly stems have a yang property. The other five have a yin property. The same goes for the earthly branches. Six of them have a yang property. The other six have a yin property. According to the principle that yang heavenly stems can only combine with yang earthly branches and yin heavenly stems only with yin earthly branches, we get a total of 5 * 6 + 5 * 6 = 60 possible combinations. 

:::It's therefore a summation of the two parts '''according to a principle''' (here the yin-yang principle), which makes the actual sum less than the theoretical sum. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Guy, don’t you know the least common multiple? That’s basic math, mate. {{w|Least common multiple|Here, look it up on Wikipedia}}. That yin&ndash;yang principle of yours was probably just slapped onto it post hoc. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 01:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, I've already looked it up. In my view, it's rather a coincedence that the sexagenary cycle concludes at the 60th term, which happens to be the least common multiple of 10 and 12. I'm pretty sure that the inventor(s) of the sexagenary cycle didn't purposefully construct the cycle based on the mathematical notion of the least common multiple. But if its true though (meaning the inventor(s) did create the sexagenary cycle based on the notion of the least common multiple and not on the principle of yin and yang or some other principle), then yeah, the sexagenary cycle would be, indeed, just be the least common multiple of 10 and 12 and therefore a sum of parts. But, after all, it's just an assumption. You'll have to prove it. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 09:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Why the heck is it a coincidence? It’s just basic math. Why do you think anybody “created” the sexagenary cycle? They created the branches and the stems and out came a cycle of 60, end of story. If there’s anything else behind it, it’s up to ''you'' to prove it. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 09:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I did some research and came across an enlightening image, which might resolve our differences. You can view it in ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20200211152143/https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8959Q4F/download#page=4 The Chinese Sexagenary Cycle and the Ritual Foundations of the Calendar by Adam Smith (2010), p. 3]''. I'll quote the description of that image here:
:::::::: „The 60-cycle envisaged as a pair of toothed wheels representing the 10-cycle and the 12-cycle. ''Even-numbered positions never engage with odd-numbered positions''. Six turns of the 10-cycle correspond to five turns of the 12-cycle, after which the system has returned to its original state. [...]”

:::::::Given two cycles, if each of their positions have been numbered and a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity%20(mathematics) parity] assigned to it, then a summation of these two cycles leads to the emergence of exactly two larger cycles where each of these larger cycles is the result of one particular way of pairing. There are only two ways of pairing: Each position of the two smaller cycles can be paired with each other with positions of either the same or the opposite parity. This leads to the conclusion that the sexagenary cycle is the result of one kind of pairing, where each position of the two smaller cycles haven been paired with each other with positions of the same parity. Which proves my point I made earlier: It's a summation of two parts according to some principle which makes its actual sum less than its theoretical sum. [[∎]] --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 12:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::The greatest common divisor of ten and twelve is two, so there’s two ways to get a cycle of sixty out of one of ten and one of twelve. Your “enlightening image” is nothing but that. And out of the two possible sexagenary cycles, an accident of history chose one. Don’t go searching for more principles.
::::::::All that doesn’t change anything to the fact that an ''Ất Tị'' year is just one that is both ''Ất'' and ''Tị'', no more no less. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::It's all due to ''parity'' (or yin-yang in the Sinosphere). Yes, the greatest common divisor (gcd) of ten and twelve equals two. But the number two also ''happens'' to be the number of parities an integer can have: even or odd. Also yes, the lowest common multiple (lcm) of ten and twelve is 60. But the number sixty also ''happens'' to be the number of possible combinations after the even and odd numbers of ten and twelve have been paired based on the same parity. I question whether there is any correlation between the sexagenary cycle and the gcd/lcm at all, and whether the gcd/lcm are just post hoc mathematical descriptions of it. Now coming to the crucial question: How come that the combination of Ất and Tị leads specifically to one Ất Tị ''year'' and not an Ất Tị ''day'', Ất Tị ''month'', or Ất Tị ''something else''? --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 09:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Generally, concepts like the gcd and the lcm, which work pretty well for numbers on a linear number line, don't really work well for the sexagenary cycle due to its cyclical nature. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 11:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::(Sigh.) You really don’t know basic math do you? And apparently you don’t know the Chinese calendar either. There are ''Ất Tị'' days: the 5th of February this year will be an ''Ất Tị'' day. There are ''Ất Tị'' months: on the 6th of May 2027 an ''Ất Tị'' month will start. Given that you obviously don’t have the faintest idea of what you’re talking about, I’m not going to continue to argue with you. When you understand how the Chinese calendar works, we can continue the discussion. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 02:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::: For someone like me who reads the forums one diff at a time, this has gotten really, really old: 40+ revisions to make 6 replies. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 05:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Damn, you guys got me. Seems like I have to go back to primary school and review some basic addition. Let's see if I can get this straight: {{m|vi|Ất}} + {{m|vi|Tị}} = {{m|vi|Ất Tị}}. Okay, that wasn't too bad... Wait a minute. An {{m|vi|Ất Tị}} can be either a day, month, or year. How does one proceed from here? --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 17:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Keep''' for now. The entry {{m|en|heavenly stem}} only mentions it in its usage notes that they are used as the first component of each of the sixty terms of the Chinese sexagenary cycle. If this section can be somehow included into one of its definitions (the same applies for the entry {{m|en|earthly branch}}), then I'd vote for possibly SoP. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 11:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
:In addition, the number ''n'' of its ''n''th term cannot be easily derived by combining the heavenly stem and the earthly branch without knowing the underlying pairing principle of the sexagenary cycle. An explanation of how to number ''n'' can be obtained might be provided in the usage notes of the entries {{m|en|heavenly stem}} and {{m|en|earthly branch}}. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 08:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

== <s>[[:kì nghỉ#rfd-notice-vi-|kì nghỉ]]</s> ==

Vietnamese, SoP like ''kì thi'' and ''kì họp'' (which failed RfD). [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 02:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

=== <s>[[:cuộc thi#rfd-notice-vi-|cuộc thi]]</s> ===
SoP like ''kì thi'' (which failed RfD). [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 02:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:I don't know. These words are quite specific compounds. “Kì” or "cuộc" don't just go with any verb. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 04:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
::You confidently voted to delete ''kì thi'' and ''kì họp'' though. ☺ [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 09:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Did I 😂 Maybe I had some retrospection (we could re-add those words again). [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 15:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
::::'''Delete''' since they do look SoP. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 15:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::'''Delete'''. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 14:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

3&ndash;0, so '''RfD delete'''. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

== <s>[[:dziędzioł#rfd-notice-szl-|dziędzioł]]</s> ==

'dziędzioł' is not a Silesian spelling; Silesian does not have 'ę' in neither of the two common orthograhpies, Ślabikŏrz nor Steuer, nor even in approximations using the Polish orthography given the wide lack of nasal vowels in Silesian dialects. {{unsigned|Vxern|23:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}

:'''Delete'''. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 10:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
'''RFD-failed''' — <span dir='ltr'>[[User:Fenakhay|Fenakhay]]</span> <sup>(<span dir='ltr'>[[User talk:Fenakhay|حيطي]]</span> · <span dir='ltr'>[[Special:Contributions/Fenakhay|مساهماتي]]</span>)</sup>

== [[:nói gì thì nói#rfd-notice-vi-|nói gì thì nói]] ==

Vietnamese SoP: the structure “X gì thì X” is not limited to ''nói''. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 06:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:'''Delete''' [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 04:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think the word functions more idiomatic/figurative than literal ("nói gì thì nói" isn't understood literally as "whatever [person specified] say", even there are cases which it does not need any people to speak, somewhat akin to ''[[be that as it may]]''). It is also used ''a lot'' (in colloquial contexts) as compared to other forms of "X gì thì X". [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 06:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
::Can you give some examples? [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 06:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I also encountered this term a lot in colloquial contexts. Would that be a case for [[WT:FRIED]]? --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 14:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Still, can you give some examples? [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 15:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{uxi|vi|'''Nói gì thì nói''', ông ấy vẫn là người rất tốt.|t='''Anyway''', he's still a very good person.}} --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 19:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm thinking it still means "whatever I/you/they (might) say". If anyone can pinpoint the idiomatic sense, I'll withdraw my vote. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 19:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I cannot confirm its idiomaticity, but its pretty much a colloquialism. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 19:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I've added the relevant examples. Hope it can clear things up. [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 12:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[:tệ nạn xã hội#rfd-notice-vi-|tệ nạn xã hội]] ==

Vietnamese SoP: {{m|vi|tệ nạn}} + {{m|vi|xã hội}}. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 06:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:<s>'''Delete'''</s> [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 04:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
::<s>'''Delete'''</s>. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 19:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The term is really in [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22t%E1%BB%87+n%E1%BA%A1n+x%C3%A3+h%E1%BB%99i%22 widespread use] though. Should we keep it per [[WT:IDIOM#Empty space test]]? [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 23:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
::::How does that test applies here? Where's the redundant word(s)? [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 10:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::I've never seen "tệ nạn" being used with any adjective outside of "xã hội" (to create the word "tệ nạn xã hội"). Also "tệ nạn" is currently used to mean "an evil that is pervasive in society" (as what I've known) so "xã hội" is redundant in the word, that's why I think the ''empty space test'' can be applied here. [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 07:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::"xã hội" is not an adjective. Also, I think you misunderstood what ''empty space test'' mean. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 13:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::The rule outlines that "''frequent'' use of terms appearing to contain elements of ''redundancy''" can be used in a RFD argument. ''[[apricot tree|Apricot tree]]'', ''[[empty space]]'', ''[[HIV virus]]'' are cited as examples: ''[[apricot]]'' already have the sense "apricot tree", ''[[space]]'' already have the sense "vacuum" (space that contains no matter), ''[[HIV]]'' already have the sense "virus"<sup>[[Talk:empty space|[reference]]]</sup>. In that matter, people may be adding ''tree'', ''empty'', ''virus'' to those words to narrow down to some (or just 1) specific senses, thus rendering the them "redundant" (it could have ambiguities otherwise, such as a standalone ''space'' could be understood as ''parking space'' etc.). About its application to ''tệ nạn xã hội'', there is ''xã hội'' being the redundant part (newspapers nowadays uses ''tệ nạn'' standalone in the context of the whole society, though old publication(s) may narrow the scope of where ''tệ nạn'' happens (?)<sup>[[tệ nạn|[refer to one of the quotations on entry ''tệ nạn'']]]</sup>, which should also match the case of "narrowing down" stated above).
:::::::I would also argue that ''xã hội'' should be an [[adjective]] in certain situations because it "describes a noun's referent" (refer to its Wiktionary entry), such that seen in these examples: [[chủ nghĩa xã hội]], [[khoa học xã hội]], [[vấn đề xã hội]], etc. I also see that some dictionaries (as I suppose from info on [https://chunom.net/Tu-dien/Y-nghia-cua-tu-xa-hoi-74791.html this webpage]) which also attest the word as an adjective. [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 16:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::What I think you are saying is, any noun that follows "vấn đề", "khoa học", or "chủ nghĩa" is an adjective? Then we would have a lot of adjectives. Is "máy tính" in "khoa học máy tính" an adjective? Is "dữ liệu" in "khoa học dữ liệu" an adjective?
::::::::[[noun|Noun]] can "describes a noun's referent" too (refer to its Wiktionary entry). While that usage might be rare in English, it does not have to be in Vietnamese.
::::::::But your explanation of the ''empty space test'' is great. Thanks! [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 01:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::'''Keep'''. English and Chinese both have similar entries.[[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 00:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
:::'''Keep'''. Both the English and Chinese entries have the meaning of {{m|en|social issue}} (which is not a SOP), while the Vietnamese entry translates to {{m|en|social}} {{m|en|ill}} (which is a SOP). {{m|vi|tệ nạn|Tệ nạn}} translates to English {{m|en|ill}} rather than {{m|en|issue}}, turning it into a SOP hypothetically. Nonetheless, I've changed my vote to "keep" as well because of the application of the ''empty space test'' mentioned by Hung Khanh. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 08:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Why is [[social issue]] not an SOP, while [[social ill]] is? [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 08:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::The reason why {{m|en|social issue}} is not an SOP comes down to the difference between an {{m|en|issue}} and a {{m|en|problem}}. An {{m|en|issue}} is "any question or situation to be resolved", whereas a {{m|en|problem}} is specifically a "difficulty that has to be resolved or dealt with". Because {{m|en|social issue}} refers, per definition, to a {{m|en|problem}}, [[WT:FRIED]] can be applied. 

:::::I thought about {{m|en|social ill}} for quite a while and whether it's an SOP or not, it really depends on whether it is used in the same way as {{m|en|social issue}} or not. If it can be attested that {{m|en|social ill}} is synonymous to {{m|en|social issue}}, then that would make both {{m|en|social ill}} and {{m|vi|tệ nạn xã hội}} ''not'' an SOP. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 10:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::Are you saying that a [[social issue]] is not an... [[issue]], but a [[problem]]? By that logic [[social ill]] probably qualifies too because of [http://www.wordnet-online.com/social_ill.shtml this] and [https://www.classace.io/answers/meaning-of-social-ill this]. There are sources that say it IS synonymous to [[social issue]] too! And while I'm at it, what about other instances where [[issue]] might be defined as [[problem]] ([[global warming issue]], [[global issue]], [[personal issue]]?
::::::The only reason I'm accepting is that the word itself serves as a '''translation hub''', but then again there's the Chinese entry. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 10:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] I think "social issue" refers to specifically "a problem" (e.g. immigration, racism, unemployment, etc.[https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_issue]<sup>the page is unsourced, but I think it can also be verifiable via Google</sup>), but ''[[tệ nạn xã hội]]'' here have a more specific meaning, to mean specifically "ills/evils" ("moral wickedness"), not just any problem (e.g. prostitution, gambling, narcotics, etc.). [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 22:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I think [[tệ nạn xã hội]] is used to refer to the problems (e.g. prostitution, gambling, narcotics, etc.) also? Like when you say "đẩy lùi tệ nạn xã hội", what exactly is being alleviated (if not problems)? I don't think the word means "moral wickedness". [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 03:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Sorry for the confusion, but what am I doing here is pointing out precisely that ''tệ nạn xã hội'' refers to specific problems (that includes prostitution, gambling, narcotics, etc.) that have negative effects on the society, that should akin to "moral wickedness". "Social issue" should refer to broader topics (such as immigration, racism, unemployment, etc. - as {{w|simple:Social issue|Simple English Wikipedia pointed out}}). Google also returns results that indicate that those are "social issues". [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 07:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

== <s> incorrect inflected forms of [[większość absolutna]] </s> ==

* {{l|pl|większość absolutny}}
* {{l|pl|większość absolutnie}}
* {{l|pl|większość absolutnę}}
* {{l|pl|większość absolutno}}
* {{l|pl|większość absolutn}}
* {{l|pl|większość absolutnom}}
* {{l|pl|większość absolutnami}}
* {{l|pl|większość absolutnach}}

All of these are entries for non-existent inflected forms of {{m|pl|większość absolutna}}. [[User:Ryēkī|Ryēkī]] ([[User talk:Ryēkī|talk]]) 11:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:'''Speedy'''. Not even a case for RFV. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 11:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Delete.''' The inflections of 'absolutny' are invalid, and the general phrase is unsound. [[User:Vxern|Vxern]] ([[User talk:Vxern|talk]]) 12:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

== <s> [[:Ǒ#rfd-notice-szl-|Ǒ]] </s> ==

This is o-caret, not o-breve as used in [https://szl.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Alabik%C5%8Frzowy_szrajb%C5%8Dnek Ślabikŏrz]. [[User:Vxern|Vxern]] ([[User talk:Vxern|talk]]) 10:51, 25 January 2025 (GMT)

:'''RFD-deleted'''. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 07:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[trái tim ngón tay]] ==

SoP. Does not exist. Author does not even speak Vietnamese.[[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 15:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
:It is indeed being used, though very rarely. Here's one attestion I could find [https://vietnamese.korea.net/NewsFocus/HonoraryReporters/view?articleId=224569]. It's no SoP per [[WT:FRIED]] since it is exclusively used to refer to a specific hand gesture. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 16:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
::Oh this one is my bad. I should have done some research. However, I feel like the word order is kind of weird for a Vietnamese word. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 19:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

=== [[trái tim bàn tay]] ===
Same.--[[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 15:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
:Even though it's no SoP per [[WT:FRIED]], I couldn't find any attestion for this term at all. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 16:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

'''RFD-kept'''.[[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 15:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

== <s>[[:kim tiêm dưới da#rfd-notice-vi-|kim tiêm dưới da]]</s> ==

Vietnamese. The skin is composed of the {{m|en|epidermis}} and the {{m|en|dermis}}. The layer lying beneath the skin (therefore beneath the dermis as well) would be the {{m|en|hypodermis}}, hence {{m|vi|dưới}} {{m|vi|da}} refers unequivocally to the hypodermis. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 21:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
: The difficulty lies in its first part. {{m|vi|kim tiêm||injection needle}} allows only an injection of fluids, whereas a {{m|en|hypodermic needle}} allows both injection and extraction of fluids. Is this a case of [[WT:FRIED]]? --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 11:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
::'''Keep''' per [[WT:FRIED]]. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 13:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] I don't really know much about the term ''[[kim tiêm dưới da]]'', but this webpage[https://memart.vn/tin-tuc/suc-khoe-5/cac-thong-tin-co-ban-ve-cac-loai-kim-tiem-y-te-ma-ban-can-biet-vi-cb.html] says that it's used to inject fluids into "under the skin and blood veins" (''tiêm dưới da và tiêm tĩnh mạch'').
:::About the entry ''[[kim tiêm]]'', maybe the sense should be clarified? I think the term broadly refers to needles used in medical treatments, not just "injection needle". It also seems to be used colloquially to mean ''syringe'' in medical settings (I call it "[[ống tiêm]]"). [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 22:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ping|HungKhanh0106}} I just added the senses you've mentioned to {{m|vi|kim tiêm}}. Could you take a look? --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 09:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::I think I misunderstood of the term ''kim tiêm'' as also means ''syringe'', because a reasonable native speaker would think of morpheme ''[[kim]]'' as "needle" in the context. There are also other forms of "kim tiêm" outside of "kim tiêm dưới da" as well, so I just put "(medicine) needle" as its sense. [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 11:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::Are the needles in the medical context only used for injection or could they be used for something else, like extraction? --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 12:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I still do reckon that it can be used for extraction, you can find the the results on Google of "kim tiêm" being used with "rút máu" ("withdrawing blood").[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22kim+ti%C3%AAm%22+%22r%C3%BAt+m%C3%A1u%22] [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 13:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Nomination retracted. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

== <s>[[:bức xạ điện từ#rfd-notice-vi-|bức xạ điện từ]]</s> ==

Vietnamese. SOP. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 12:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
: '''Keep''' per [[WT:FRIED]]. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 13:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ping|ChemPro}}, you create this entry, then you nominate to delete it, and then you vote to keep it. Why? Do you want the entry kept or deleted? [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|MuDavid}} Initially, I nominated for deletion under the assumption it was an SOP term, where the meaning ("electromagnetic radiation") derives straightforwardly from its components. However, upon reflection, "electromagnetic radiation" refers specifically to a self-propagating transverse wave of oscillating electric and magnetic fields, a concept distinct from its literal parts. This meets the [[WT:FRIED|fried egg test]], as the term denotes a particular kind of radiation, not just "radiation" that happens to be electromagnetic. I therefore revised my vote to '''keep'''. Apologies for the confusion—my final stance is to retain the entry. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 09:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
::You could just retract your nomination. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 07:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Nomination retracted. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

== <s>[[:sóng điện từ#rfd-notice-vi-|sóng điện từ]]</s> ==

Vietnamese. SOP. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 12:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
: '''Keep''' per [[WT:FRIED]]. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 13:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Nomination retracted. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:đạo Do Thái#rfd-notice-vi-|đạo Do Thái]] ==

Vietnamese. SOP. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 10:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm note sure whether {{m|vi|Do Thái}} here means "following the religion of Judaism" or "of or relating to Jews". The former would make it a SoP, the latter not. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 10:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
::It means both to me. [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 23:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
:::'''Keep''' because there's no indication given that the part {{m|vi|Do Thái}} of the compound {{m|vi|đạo Do Thái}} means exlusively "following the religion of Judaism", which would make it an SOP. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 08:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[ᮙᮧᮊᮤᮃ]] ==

Sundanese. Misspelling of {{m|su|ᮙᮧᮊᮣ|tr=mokla}}. The above is transliterated as (''mokia''), which is not attested in any Sundanese dictionary. [[User:Udaradingin|Udaradingin]] ([[User talk:Udaradingin|talk]]) 23:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

= February 2025 =
== <s>[[:vật cản#rfd-notice-vi-|vật cản]]</s> ==

Vietnamese. SOP. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 14:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:'''Keep''' because this word refers to both physical & figurative obstacles while [[vật chắn]] refers specifically to physical obstacles. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 00:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
::<s>'''Delete''' because the English term {{m|en|obstacle}} refers to both physical and figurative obstacles as well, making {{m|vi|vật cản}} a SOP while {{m|vi|vật chắn}} would be kept per [[WT:FRIED]]</s>. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 08:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Sorry, not the English term {{m|en|obstacle}}, but I assume that the Vietnamese term {{m|vi|vật}} refers to both physical and figurative things or objects, making {{m|vi|vật cản}} an SOP (I added it {{diff|83857573||here}} afterwards). --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 09:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
::::After {{diff|83857573||that}} edit, that would also make {{m|vi|vật chắn}} an SOP because {{m|vi|vật}} now covers each of both cases, physical or figurative, specifically (due to the function of the English conjunction {{m|en|or}}, thus making [[WT:FRIED]] futile. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 09:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::I think it's just a popular word choice for "obstacle". I can think of alternatives like ''vật chắn'', ''vật ngáng đường'', ''vật chặn'', etc. In other words, I judge that it's an SoP? [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 13:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::<s>I mean, if any of these alternatives refer to a physical or figurative object ''specifically'' (like {{m|vi|vật chắn}}), then they can be included. If there's no specification, like in {{m|vi|vật cản}} because it refers to either a physical or figurative obstacle but makes no choice between those two (only upon usage), then it is an SOP, as already indicated by the nonspecification of {{m|vi|vật}}</s>. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 14:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
'''Keep'''. The term {{m|vi|vật}} refers to either an abstract or concrete object (quotations have been added). I couldn't attest a figurative usage of {{m|vi|vật}}, making {{m|vi|vật cản}} (in its figurative sense) not an SOP anymore. Unless someone can attest a figurative usage of {{m|vi|vật}}.--[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 09:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with you that ''[[vật cản]]'' means both "obstacle" in a physical and abstract way. There are also quotations of the senses, and I'll try to add those. [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 14:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
:I believe [[vật]] only refers to concrete object, based on my experience and based on the word {{l|zh|物}} from which the word was borrow. And the fact that you have yet to find an attestation. Therefore, I'm undoing your edit for now. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 10:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] I don't find any attestations of "vật" being an abstract object apart from ''vật cản'', so I do agree with your point in some ways. ''Vật'' in ''vật cản'' seems to refer to a concrete as well as an abstract object. [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 11:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Even the nominator voted keep, so '''RfD kept'''. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:Ix-ra-en#rfd-notice-vi-|Ix-ra-en]] ==

Seems to be a typo, should be [[I-xra-en]] instead. [[Module talk:vi-pron#Ix-ra-en - Lua error in Module:vi-pron at line 389: Unrecognised final: "ix"|Even the entry's creator themself wasn't certain about its attestability]].
:[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ix-ra-en%22&uact=5 There seems to plenty of attestations], even the Vietnamese government uses this form. I guess the author wasn't quite sure about its pronunciation, assuming that both {{m|vi|Ix-ra-en}} and {{m|vi|I-xra-en}} would be pronounced in the same way, which I don't think so. IMO, Ix-ra-en is pronounced the same way it is hyphenated, meaning the initial "ix" should be added to [[Module:vi-pron]].  --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 13:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::I have never seen the word before, but I do doubt that we Vietnamese can actually pronounce the final "x" (/s/) when syllabifying lol. [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 23:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Well, I have no doubt about the attestability of [[Ix-ra-en]], but would you pronounce these two forms in the same way (meaning {{IPAfont|[ʔi˧˧ sɹaː˧˧ ʔɛn˧˧]}} (Hanoi dialect)) as well? --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 08:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes I do. [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 13:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::Should we still keep the attention tag in the entry {{m|vi|Ix-ra-en}} or should we remove it? --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 14:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::I don't think so. The term seems so recent, yet I've found no occurences of it in textbooks (in both old (around 2006) and {{lw|vi|Chương trình giáo dục phổ thông 2018|new ones}} (>2018), except ''[[I-xra-en]]''). It also seems common that Vietnamese transliterations just keep all the clusters together in 1 morpheme, such as ''Lép Tôn-'''xt'''ôi'', ''Cô-'''xch'''i-a Lùn'' (in a 1985 book of mine), ''Lê-nin-'''gr'''át'', ''Mát-'''xc'''ơ-va'' (both city names are in a 1986 book of mine), etc. and my Google searches returns dissappointing results, so I do doubt that the term really have little or even any documentations on its pronunciation. [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 00:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|HungKhanh0106}} While attestations for "Ix-ra-en" do exist (including governmental usage), I agree the term appears far less common than "I-xra-en" in authoritative texts like textbooks, as you noted. Given its apparent rarity, adding a <nowiki>{{lb|vi|rare}}</nowiki> label to the entry seems appropriate to reflect its limited usage.

:::::::Regarding the pronunciation: The final "x" in "Ix-ra-en" still raises valid uncertainty, as Vietnamese phonotactics rarely permit syllable-final /s/. Until clearer evidence emerges, retaining the <nowiki>{{attention|vi|Final -x…}}</nowiki> tag seems prudent to flag this unresolved issue. --[[User:ChemPro|ChemPro]] ([[User talk:ChemPro|talk]]) 09:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

== <s>[[:उज़बेक#rfd-notice-hi-|उज़बेक]]</s> ==

Hindi. Many citations are available for this particular spelling. [[User:Kutchkutch|Kutchkutch]] ([[User talk:Kutchkutch|talk]]) 11:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

* '''Speedy kept'''. [[User:Svartava|<b style="color:#4682B4; font-size:105%;">Svārtava</b>]] ([[User talk:Svartava|t]][[Special:Contributions/Svartava|ɕ]]) 12:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[:@admin#rfd-notice-mul-|@admin]] ==

Translingual. Telegram message syntax. [[User:Catonif|Catonif]] ([[User talk:Catonif|talk]]) 17:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[:маашинка#rfd-notice-rsk-|маашинка]] ==

Pannonian Rusyn. I started this page to ensure I wouldn't accidentally override any ongoing edits (if there had been any), but accidentally published this page instead. My intended new entry went to {{m|rsk|машинка}}. Would've deleted by myself if I had the perms.
:{{ping|User:Insaneguy1083}}: for obvious cases like this (you're the only one who's edited it and you're the one requesting deletion) that require no guessing by the deleting admin, you can use {{tl|delete}} or one of its aliases with an explanation in the first parameter). If it really is a no-brainer, it will then be speedily deleted by any admin who sees it without having to  post it here. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 01:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[bȩ̃rs]] ==

Seems to be a misspeling of [[bērs]]. [[User:Burzuchius|Burzuchius]] ([[User talk:Burzuchius|talk]]) 14:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[доӏахк]] ==

Possibly an error from [[доӏах]]. There is nothing similar in the dictionaries. [[User:ɶLerman|ɶLerman]] ([[User talk:ɶLerman|talk]]) 20:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[дихк]] ==

Possibly an error from [[дийхк]]. There is nothing similar in the dictionaries. [[User:ɶLerman|ɶLerman]] ([[User talk:ɶLerman|talk]]) 20:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[:&#45;vuus#rfd-notice-fi-|&#45;vuus]] ==

=== [[:&#45;mattomuus#rfd-notice-fi-|&#45;mattomuus]] ===

Finnish; simply a combination of two suffixes which will never be used in etymology sections, because the corresponding ''-va''/''-maton'' also always exists. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 14:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[siebë]] ==

There is no source indicated, and I doubt that there is an Alemannic dialect that diphthongized short /i/, as implied by the spelling. [[User:Flœœru|Flœœru]] ([[User talk:Flœœru|talk]]) 07:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[kilobit per detik]] ==

SOP [[User:Suku Melayu|Suku Melayu]] ([[User talk:Suku Melayu|talk]]) 00:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[си́вка]] ==

Misspelling of Russian [[сивка]], with an undesired accent-marking diacritic. [[User:JimiYoru|<b style="color:crimson;font:small-caps bold 15px 'Reem Kufi', sans-serif">Jimi</b>]][[User talk:JimiYoru|<b style="color:#333;font:small-caps bold 15px 'Reem Kufi', sans-serif">Y<span style="font-size:80%">☽</span>ru</b>]] 08:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:'''Speedied''' as bad entry title. It isn't exactly a misspelling, but indeed we don't include stress marks in Russian entries. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 08:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

== mathematical symbols with no definition ==

The definitions of these characters are no more than a fleshed-out version of their Unicode names. No indication of what they mean or how they're used.  

[[ℼ]], [[ℽ]], [[ℾ]], [[ℿ]], [[ⅅ]], [[ⅆ]], [[ⅇ]], [[ⅈ]]. 

Two of these, [[⅀]] and [[ⅉ]], have already been deleted  [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 07:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
::[⅀ has now been recreated, again without a definition]

:So why not just add their definitions then? The latter four at least have "sometimes used for…" descriptions in the [https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2100.pdf Unicode charts]. I know Wolfram Mathematica at least uses double-struck symbols as default representations of some constants in its interface, and probably provides the alternate symbols to not clash with variable-name usage needs while allowing natural-looking code (e.g. in interactive [https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/TraditionalForm.html TraditionalForm]). Online docs: [https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/DifferentialD.html ⅆ] [https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/CapitalDifferentialD.html ⅅ] [https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/character/ExponentialE.html ⅇ] [https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/character/ImaginaryI.html ⅈ]; [https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/character/ImaginaryJ.html ⅉ] (same as previous) [https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/character/DoubledGamma.html ℽ] ([[Euler–Mascheroni constant]]) [https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/character/DoubledPi.html ℼ] (no default assignment). That leaves ⅀, ℿ (likely just [[n-ary]] sum/product) and ℾ (likely the [[gamma function]]). [[User:Hftf|Hftf]] ([[User talk:Hftf|talk]]) 09:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
::If someone who knows what they're doing is willing to do that, that would be great. 
::The mathematicians I know say that double-struck letters have no real mathematical use -- they're just handwritten substitutes for bold letters, which is how they should be typeset in print. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 09:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
:::The symbols <math>\mathbb N</math> and <math>\mathbf N,</math> meaning the set of the {{w|natural numbers}}, are used without distinction in meaning. The open typeface is called “mathbb“ in the widely used AMSFonts package for LaTeX, where “bb” abbreviates {{w|blackboard bold}}. It found its way into typesetting because some authors appreciated the aesthetic appearance. I don't think I've seen uses of blackboard bold symbols with another meaning than the plain bold version. In only a few and rare cases is a bold letter used in mathematical publications with a specific commonly understood meaning (as opposed to an ephemeral meaning defined for local use in one publication). The use in Wolfram Mathematica is interesting, but not sufficient for the criterion of attestation of use in at least three independent instances, as given by our [[WT:CFI|CFI]]. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 21:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Many symbols, especially in math, are used without distinction in meaning – so therefore, they can be synonyms/alt forms, just like {{unsupported|less than equal}} and [[≤]].
::::I respect the attestation criteria. I'm not one to say Wiktionary should mirror Unicode, and I don't think Unicode does nearly enough to define characters much of the time. Unicode already has its own attestation/whatever requirements and these must have met already it some time ago (25 years). We read that major math publishers asked to encode them [https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2000/00119-math.pdf#page=19 [1, with original meaningful character names&#93;] [https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2000/00234-n2203m.pdf#page=42 [2&#93;]. Lots of our symbol entries have no citations sadly. Has anyone at least tried googling "mathbb d" or "mathbb gamma" or "mathbb sigma"?
::::At this stage in time, regarding blackboard-bold/double-struck letters, both "they're just handwritten substitutes" ''and'' "they have real mathematical use" are true. Rarely are they distinct in meaning (ignoring nonce usages so common in math), but sometimes they are the preferred form. It is at least definitely the case that today, if looking at an 𝐍 with no context and a ℕ with no context, the latter is going to have less ambiguity; if you "ask mathematicians" to close their eyes and see in their mind the symbol for natural numbers, they will imagine ''just'' "the letter ℕ", ''not'' a composite lexicon entry like {printed <math>\mathbb N</math>, handwritten drawing of N on blackboard like [[File:Blackboard bold on a blackboard.jpg|24px|A definition of the complex numbers in terms of the real numbers.]]} or {printed 𝐍, handwritten ℕ} or anything like that. Which isn't surprising – this is no different from how new full-fledged words and meanings are gained, e.g. {{unsupported|#}}.
::::By the way, your recent additions of "A handwritten form of" at [[ℕ]] etc. and "The original print form" at [[𝐍]] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22original+print+form%22&ns0=1 etc.] really make no sense, especially not inside the definition/gloss. Perhaps in an etymology, but I would rather just link to Wikipedia's [[w:blackboard bold|blackboard bold]] which is going to do a better job with that information. We don't define [[&]] as "the handwritten form of [[and]]" – it's not true, it's not its meaning, and it's not relevant. If you admit you don't know what you're doing, why do you keep doing it? And "mathematicians I know say…" doesn't do us much good. [[User:Hftf|Hftf]] ([[User talk:Hftf|talk]]) 13:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, moving it to the etymology section would work well. I'll do that.
:::::I'm doing it because no-one else is. But that's also why I'm here.
:::::Many many of our articles were created by people who didn't know what they were doing, with no more reason than that they are characters in Unicode. Consensus has been that's not enough. We don't create an article for every emoji, for example.
:::::Unfortunately, Unicode often does not have adequate attestation for their characters. An example offhand is the letter 'oi', which is really 'gh'. The proposal didn't even get the distinction between vowel and consonant right. For another, the alchemical block has duplicate Latin letters 'C' and 'T', which isn't supposed to happen. They've been replaced with poorly attested composite forms to avoid the duplication, but they weren't justified to begin with. There are also numerous allographs in that block, which again isn't supposed to happen, because the proposers at the Newton Chymistry Project didn't understand Unicode criteria, and Unicode didn't understand alchemical symbols. There are also blocks of early symbols that were added for compatibility with other computer encoding systems, with little reasoning preserved in the documentation.
:::::The mathematician I'm speaking of, who is a prof at a major university, witnessed the addition of the alphanumeric block to Unicode, and says that the person drawing up that proposal was ignorant of actual mathematical usage, and that the people at Unicode were unable to judge. Two series of script letters should've been added, for example [they're now handled with variation selectors, with poor font support], and the four sans-serif series have no basis in mathematics. I'm not asking you to make decisions based on my sourceless reporting of second-hand accounts, but I do think we should follow Wk attestation criteria for math symbols the same as we do for English words. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 16:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::But back to the deletion request -- those characters have no definition, and so shouldn't be on Wk. They can always be recreated if someone can attest to a meaning to give them. They shouldn't remain just because someone who didn't know what they were doing created them. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 16:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::: I think some kind of indication that these are unused duplicates of other characters and linking to the correct ones would be useful enough to keep the entries- basically like a "misspelling of" definition. It might prevent someone from using them by accident, or help them to recognize and correct bad OCR artifacts. The part about how they got into Unicode by mistake might go in the etymology, I suppose. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 22:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I agree, but sourcing might be a problem. The mathematician I talked to has very strong opinions on this but wanted to remain anonymous because he knows the people involved. But his source is 3+ decades of experience in the field, nothing we could cite even if he was willing to share publicly. 
:::::::The blackboard bold characters C N P Q R Z are frequently used in print as alts to regular bold, and the undefined ones above presumably are as well. None of the sans-serif characters or monospace currently have articles, and if we wanted to preemptively warn people about them, I don't know what we'd say they're equivalent to. I suppose roman sans-serif and monospace = ASCII and bold and italic sans-serif = regular mathematical bold and italic. But I don't know how I'd defend doing that if challenged. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 23:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Of these blackboard bold characters, <math>\mathbb P</math> is the only one that (as far as I’m aware) is not a standin or alternative for the plain bold letter. &nbsp;&ZeroWidthSpace;‑‑[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 21:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Do you mean for probability? Is that only ℙ and not 𝐏? I'm actually only finding italic ''P''. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 00:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:thừa biết#rfd-notice-vi-|thừa biết]] ==

Vietnamese SoP. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 09:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[:nước Lào#rfd-notice-vi-|nước Lào]] ==

Vietnamese. SoP: {{m|vi|nước}} + {{m|vi|Lào}}. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:'''Delete''' as above. [[User:HungKhanh0106|HungKhanh0106]] ([[User talk:HungKhanh0106|talk]]) 14:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[:staro-#rfd-notice-pl-|staro-]] ==

Polish. 
Just a common compound element. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 13:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as a combining form, per [[#światło-]] and [[#ćmawo-]] above. There probably needs to be a wider discussion about combining forms in Slavic languages in general rather than nominating individual entries in individual languages, which will inevitably lead to more inconsistency and confusion. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 15:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
*:I can agree a broader discussion would be useful. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 15:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
:'''Delete'''. [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 15:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[:&#45;sja#rfd-notice-pl-|&#45;sja]], [[:&#45;zja#rfd-notice-pl-|&#45;zja]] ==

Polish. 
Created as "non-productive" meaning these aren't really suffixes in Polish. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 16:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:'''Delete''' - These are outcomes of Latinate borrowings undergoing naturalisation. [[User:Vxern|vxern (Dorian M. Oszczęda)]] ([[User talk:Vxern|talk]]) 14:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:&#45;istka#rfd-notice-pl-|&#45;istka]] ==

Polish. 
All -istka nouns are just -ista +  -ka, it's not a unique suffix. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 16:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[:&#45;ystka#rfd-notice-pl-|&#45;ystka]] ==

Polish. 
All -ystka words are just -ysta + -ka, not a unique suffix. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 16:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[:&#45;istka#rfd-notice-cs-|&#45;istka]] ==

Czech. Same thing as above in Polish. [[User:F. V. Lorenz|F. V. Lorenz]] ([[User talk:F. V. Lorenz|talk]])

== [[:Heldin#rfd-notice-goh-|Heldin]] ==

Old High German. 
appears to be a simple typo or misread, the listed source in the entry (Schatz) iists a name "Helidin", not Heldin. Inummerable citations of Heldin, but none appear to be OHG

== delete rd's from digits in the [[Appendix:Unicode/Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols]] ==

Clarification: the appendix is correct as it is. I'm only proposing that we delete some of the redirects and thus turn blue links into red links, when the blue links don't lead the reader to a definition of the symbol. 

These symbols have specific mathematical definitions, at least theoretically,* and are not simply digits. They should therefore not be redirects to the articles for the basic digits. For example, [[𝟏]] [or equivalently [[𝟙]]] is the indicator function in set theory, not the number/digit 1. The two characters 𝟏 and 𝟙 are the only ones that we give definitions for; the others are just rd's and should be deleted. I haven't tagged them since there are so many. 

I think we're justified in treating numerical characters from other blocks, i.e. superscript, subscript, fullwidth and segmented [digital clock form] digits, as mere graphic variants and therefore appropriate as redirects and in the character variant info boxes where they are now. The monospace variants are probably justified as well; AFAICT they are not defined mathematically, and good fonts provide monospace digits as character variants for column alignment.

BTW, italic C, D and beta should be deleted for the same reason, but I tagged them individually because there's only the three of them.

 *I say 'theoretically' because, AFAICT from talking to mathematicians, the four sets of sans-serif letters and digits in the alphanumeric block have no definition, and were encoded into Unicode in error. 

[[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 21:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:Can you explain the meaning of “rd” in this context? AFAICT the page presents a faithful listing of the “Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols” (Range: 1D400–1D7FF) of ''The Unicode Standard'', version 16.0. If we decide to change it, we should make it very clear that this is a modified listing. &nbsp;&ZeroWidthSpace;‑‑[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 11:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
::I didn't mean to modify the appendix, which is correct as it is, but to delete the redirects from it. We have for example a redirect from [[𝟑]] to [[3]]. But those characters don't mean the same thing -- 𝟑 is intended as a mathematical symbol, possibly for a function or something, not as the digit 3 -- and we don't explain the symbol 𝟑 at the article for digit 3. Including it would be like redirecting 'honeybadger' to 'honey' and then not explaining what a honeybadger was on the honey article. The only one of this series we get right is [[𝟏]], which has its own article. But we can't create an article for 𝟑 without knowing what it means. Even if we hope to figure out what it means in the future, the rd is inappropriate as we don't explain it now. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 20:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
::: So the answer to the question actually asked would be "in this context, an 'rd' is a 'redirect' ", or more precisely: "a link to a redirect"... [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 01:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:&#45;cka#rfd-notice-pl-|&#45;cka]] ==

Polish. 
All are formed from the masculine. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 13:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

= March 2025 =

== [[:&#45;ęcie#rfd-notice-pl-|&#45;ęcie]] ==

Polish. 
Just [[-cie]] with regular alternation of ą and ę. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 15:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:&#45;ęcy#rfd-notice-pl-|&#45;ęcy]] ==

Polish. 
The emerging -ęc- is from the stem. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 15:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

== <s> [[:&#45;niak#rfd-notice-pl-|&#45;niak]] </s> ==

This is not a separate suffix, but -ak appended to -nąć (kopnąć + -ak yields kopniak), -ny (chrzestny + -ak yields chrześniak) or a final -n (azotan + -ak yields azotniak) --[[User:Vxern|vxern (Dorian M. Oszczęda)]] ([[User talk:Vxern|talk]]) 14:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:azotan + -ak does not yield azotniak but azotaniak. I have removed many from the category but plenty of pages remain that cannot be explained without the suffix. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 14:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
::That's fair enough, let's leave it and just address whichever words can be explained as not coming from -niak in that case. [[User:Vxern|vxern (Dorian M. Oszczęda)]] ([[User talk:Vxern|talk]]) 17:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
:::So shall I remove the rfd request? [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 17:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes [[User:Vxern|vxern (Dorian M. Oszczęda)]] ([[User talk:Vxern|talk]]) 20:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
:'''RFD-kept'''. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 20:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:&#45;iczek#rfd-notice-pl-|&#45;iczek]] ==

Polish. 
Not an actually productive suffix. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 10:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:Affixes do not need to be productive to have entries at Wiktionary. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 11:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
::Would you mind pointing me to where this is stated? There's a few problems with making such a general statement: 1) there's a difference between no-longer productive and never productive. 2) We can in theory create compound affix entries ad-nauseum if we allow ones that have never been productive. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 11:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Also did you look at the entry in question, or are you just making contrary general statements for the sake of it? [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 11:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
::::I don't know whether it's stated in black and white anywhere, but you only have to peruse [[:CAT:English suffixes]] to see that the current practice is that we ''do'' allow nonproductive affixes. And the entry in question says nothing at all about the current or former productivity of {{m|pl|-iczek}}, so of course my comment was made in response to your argument for deletion. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 22:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[روباه#rfd-sense-notice-fa-|روباه]] ==

Persian. Rfd-sense: "the UK or England." I would like evidence that this specific sense is lexicalized separate from the sense of "fox, cunning person."--[[User:Saranamd|Saranamd]] ([[User talk:Saranamd|talk]]) 08:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:<b>delete</b> — [[User:Babr| B<small>ABR</small>]]・<i>[[User talk:Babr|talk]]</i> 06:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:&#45;ska#rfd-notice-pl-|&#45;ska]] ==

Polish. 
All of the feminine forms here are formed from the masculine. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 10:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:&#45;zka#rfd-notice-pl-|&#45;zka]] ==

Polish. 
All of the feminine forms are formed from masculine. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 15:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:&#45;c#rfd-notice-pl-|&#45;c]] ==

Polish. 
Inflectional ending. Not a suffix. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 15:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:&#45;źć#rfd-notice-pl-|&#45;źć]] ==

Polish. 
Inflectional ending. Not a suffix. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 15:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:&#45;ść#rfd-notice-pl-|&#45;ść]] ==

Polish. 
Inflectional ending. Not a suffix. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 15:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[ruterfordijs]] ==

Only 4 usages
https://goaravetisyan.ru/lv/chto-takoe-kislotnye-svoistva-kislorodnye-i-vodorodnye-soedineniya/
https://forums.dieviete.lv/forums/topic/82334-suna-vards/
https://winplast.ru/lv/serebristo-belyi-radioaktivnyi-metall-radioaktivnyi-metall-i/
https://lv.alegsaonline.com/art/84907 [[User:Sayoxime|Sayoxime]] ([[User talk:Sayoxime|talk]]) 11:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:ƿulfhelm#rfd-notice-ang-|ƿulfhelm]] ==

Old English.
moved to alternative form under normalized  spelling Wulfhelm

== [[:hooratama#rfd-notice-et-|hooratama]] ==

Estonian. I've never heard this word before and I can't even find it in books or dictionaries, besides the fact that this entry was created by an IP (91.129.103.10) with no idea what they were doing (based on their other edits). [[User:Auringonlasku|Auringonlasku]] ([[User talk:Auringonlasku|talk]]) 21:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:otsi „hooratamine“:
:* https://www.emakeeleselts.ee/omakeel/2014_1/OK_2014-1_04.pdf
:Kirmuses oli mingi luuletusgi veel, aga ma ei saanud seda linki lahti.
:enamasti on tegu selgelt madalkeelse väljendiga, ning avalikus kõneruumis pigem välditud ning kirjakeeles kõvasti haruldasem kui kõnekeeles (sealgi pigem teatud ehitajate ja masinistide pruugis).
:Pigem leiad selliseid otsesemas tähenduses erootilisest kirjandusest ja mingitest seksfoorumitest (sageli avalikkusele suletud) — ning pigem teatud trükimeedias kui avalikus veebis (kuna digar kasutab enamasti OCR-i, siis on mõningaid asju raskem leida sõltuvalt kuidas poolitatud või kas tähetuvastuses esines vigu). 
:kaudsemas tähenduses kasutavad mingid masinistide ja tuunijad mootorite kohta, nt: "ära hoorata mootorit", samas kus teised kasutavad selleks "hoorama".
:Rohkem vasteid leiad pööretes, nt: „hooratavad“.
:see pole minu väljamõeldis ning on täitsa olemas, seda ka küllalt kaua - küll on ta üsna haruldane ning selgelt madalkeelne. Küsi laiemalt ringilt üle kuskil, redditis või Facebookis näiteks.
:ise suurem asi keelemees pole, seepärast ka raskusi selgitamise ja muu säärasega — tean ainult et olemas ta on. Mul oli tarvis peamiselt tabeleid, sest üks keelt alles õpiv inimene koperdas nendele otsa ning tal tekkis küsimus, et mismoodi küll eestlased neil üldse vahet teevad, näiteks: hooratas (hoo-ratas ja hoora-tas) või hooaja (hoo-raja vs hoora-ja). Kirjapildis üksikuna on need kõik ju üks-ühele samad, ent häälduses neid segi ei aeta (küll võib mõnele õppijale tekitada raskusi tema aksent), jne.
:Puhtalt "abiks ikka" põhimõttel ma neid ei eemaldaks — abiks neile kes nendele veel otsa komistada võivad. Ka näide mis vahet häälduses, ning tegusõna ja nimisõna erinevast kasutusest, ning selle olulisusest - ehkki mitte just kõikse esinduslikum. [[Special:Contributions/91.129.103.10|91.129.103.10]] 00:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
::Ma saan sust aru, ent teostus on pehmelt öeldes ütlemata lohakas.
::Pealegi, ingliskeelses wikis peaksid siiski katsuma inglise keeles toime tulla. [[Special:Contributions/87.119.177.73|87.119.177.73]] 06:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:„hooratamine“: https://foorum.naistekas.delfi.ee/read.php?15,10704143 [[Special:Contributions/91.129.103.10|91.129.103.10]] 01:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
:This is for RFV, not for RFD. &mdash; [[User:Surjection|S<small>URJECTION</small>]] <sup>/''[[User talk:Surjection| T ]]''/''[[Special:Contributions/Surjection| C ]]''/''[[Special:Log/Surjection| L ]]''/</sup> 07:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:sr-#rfd-notice-pl-|sr-]] ==

Polish. 
None of the mentioned forms are actually affixed, they are blends. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 13:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:Spotifajo#rfd-notice-eo-|Spotifajo]] ==

Esperanto. Fails [[WT:BRAND]] just like English did. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 19:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:lũ nhóc#rfd-notice-vi-|lũ nhóc]] ==

Vietnamese, SoP. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

=== [[:lũ trẻ#rfd-notice-vi-|lũ trẻ]] ===
Same. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:tảng băng#rfd-notice-vi-|tảng băng]] ==

Vietnamese, tagged as SoP. A literal interpretation would give any big slab of ice though, not just those floating on the ocean. It’s true that many sources use {{m|vi|tảng băng [[trôi]]}} (which is obviously SoP), but many leave out the {{m|vi|trôi}}, making it idiomatic. [[User:MuDavid|MuDavid]] 栘𩿠 ([[User Talk:MuDavid|talk]]) 03:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

== jaꞑь ==

Bashkir. It uses the long-obsolete [[Yañalif]] orthography, and there are only 5 words in the orthography in Bashkir lemmas category: [[jaꞑь]], [[jьl]], [[Jaꞑь jьl]] (this one could even be falling under [[WT:SOP]]), [[ʙajram]], [[ʙəjge]]. If really wanted to be kept, it's probably better to make an orthography template, like the [[Template:fa-regional|Persian regional spellings]] template, or the [[Template:kk-regional|Kazakh spellings template]]. 

Also, it's important to note that much unlike Persian or even Kazakh, Bashkir isn't official anywhere outside Bashkortostan, which doesn't necessitate any other spelling at all, let alone the long-obsolete Yañalif. If we are to keep the 5 words, then we are to duplicate everything else too. If we are to delete one, then we are to delete the rest too. [[User:Bababashqort|Bababashqort]] ([[User talk:Bababashqort|talk]]) 15:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:@[[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] tagging you here for the rationale for my earlier page deletion. I thought it was a no-brainer/obvious page to be qualified for deletion, I'm sorry if it wasn't the case. [[User:Bababashqort|Bababashqort]] ([[User talk:Bababashqort|talk]]) 15:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
::{{re|Bababashqort}} Thank you for opening this discussion in the right place. I didn't see a reason to speedy delete because I know absolutely nothing about the language and I doubted that anyone else who patrols the deletion nominations would be qualified to make that decision. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 16:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
:::So I guess it's a yes? [[User:Bababashqort|Bababashqort]] ([[User talk:Bababashqort|talk]]) 21:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

A chart in [https://kitaptar.bashkort.org/files/Башҡорт%20яҙыуы%20тарихынан.pdf#page=69 «Башҡорт яҙыуы тарихынан»] places the number of Latinized Bashkir books as 284 from 1928&ndash;1932, and [[w:ru:Башкирская письменность]] states that Latinization was used for a full decade (1930&ndash;1940). As the official orthography used by Soviet materials as part of a campaign against illiteracy, I doubt that Yañalif is too insignificant for inclusion in Wiktionary.

Speaking entirely personally, I would not put the effort into actively creating such entries, but I also do not believe there is sufficient reason to ban Yañalif entries entirely. «Башҡорт яҙыуы тарихынан» (as well as https://bashkort-tele.livejournal.com/tag/латиница) describes fluctuation of spelling rules, but I doubt that it is severe enough to disregard Yañalif. Although I am not familiar with Bashkir, I believe that I'm familiar with what type of content is typically in Wiktionary, and Yañalif is not out-of-place.

(As for templates like [[Template:fa-regional]], note that these always output links, and that some types of editor have an obsession with eliminating any such red links; creating such a template is not much of a solution, although it would definitely be useful for containing Arabic, parallel to {{temp|tt-variant}}.) —[[User:Fish bowl|Fish bowl]] ([[User talk:Fish bowl|talk]]) 08:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

: What Fish bowl says. Ignore them. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 11:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
:As someone who is familiar with Bashkir (a native speaker), I would disagree. No Russian entries contain the pre-Peter orthography lemmas, let alone the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Latin_alphabet#Soviet_project| Soviet Latin] lemmas. 
:On top of that, by this logic, it would be much, much more reasonable to add [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_T%C3%BCrki| Volga Türki] lemmas, since the literary language was used, quite literally, for hundreds of years before the Yañalif. And it did eventually transform into a Bashkir-specific variant, which poets like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaikhzada_Babich| Shaykhzada Babich], in fact [https://sun9-74.userapi.com/s/v1/ig2/8bzpXi-_f7dtOSH8_H7x7pbiBtUrLMe-lInaRo3HutStlY2TVNvkfj5jj5pAfpa1A7S6_HOjQnKAA8unoqapv1lN.jpg?quality=96&as=32x17,48x26,72x38,108x58,160x85,240x128,360x192,480x256,540x288,640x341,720x384,960x512&from=bu&u=x_-iQTiHwZ-BjAVgMj2hPT6m_M2lx4abGb5Qw7jJOso&cs=807x430 did use] for more than a decade. 
:Regarding the spelling rule fluctuation — such adaptation of foreign words was actually a practice in almost every latinized language (which is common knowledge to those familiar with the surface level knowledge of Turkic historical linguistics), including significant examples like Kazakh. The only reason modern Cyrillic lacks such adaptiveness is the language regulation institutes' policies, that are also the reason why we use the hard sign (ъ) in words like [[донъя]], instead of writing it as "доня" (compare with Uzbek Cyrillic [[дунё]], which didn't adopt such policy), or why the Udmurts write "эшъёс" instead of "эшёс" when there's nothing preventing this in the practical sense. 
:'''In conclusion''': the Yañalif is in fact not significant enough for inclusion in Wiktionary. In fact, so insignificant, that even Unicode didn't include the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_with_bowl| I with bowl], which is present in the alphabet. These 5 lemmas are simply out of place, and if we keep them, then we have to duplicate every other lemma too. There is absolutely no reason to keep them alone, and absolutely no reason to not delete them. Keeping the lemmas would lead to duplicating the whole lemma list in Yañalif — the same reason why Unicode didn't accept inclusion of I with bowl: [http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2008/08404r-janalif.pdf| 1], [http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2010/10356-n3916-janalif.pdf| 2], [http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11360-soviet-latin.pdf| 3], [https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2022/22118-latin-i-with-bowl.pdf| 4].
:On top of that, a significant part of the contributions of the user who created the page, [[Special:Contributions/139.194.37.72|139.194.37.72]], seem to consist of simply creating such spelling variants, such as [[Teajikistan]], or [[altьn]] (which is tagged by [[WT:NORM]] too), or creating non-lemma forms, such as [[metin dosya]], [[metin dosyası]], for which (not specifically, but same kind of entries) [[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] had [[User talk:139.194.37.72 | warned him]]. This fact about the page creator also contributes to the insignificance of these lemmas. 
:There shouldn't even be much thinking in this regard. As I had said previously, this is a no-brainer. I don't understand why this discussion even should have been made — it hadn't been started to create these pages in the first place. 
:I would also kindly request @[[User:Atitarev|Atitarev]] to finally proceed with mass-deletion of [[Special:Contributions/139.194.37.72|139.194.37.72]] entries, since practically none of those pose any significant contribution, the user hadn't been active since 2020 (or at least the IP hasn't), and as you have already stated, it's much easier to mass-delete than to fix the mess they have created (the mess also being an (in?)direct cause of this discussion as well). Thank you in advance. [[User:Bababashqort|Bababashqort]] ([[User talk:Bababashqort|talk]]) 00:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:mieć prawo#rfd-notice-pl-|mieć prawo]] ==

Polish. 
SOP. [[prawo#Polish]] sense 4. Listed as a collocation by WSJP. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 10:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
: '''Delete'''. Not used like German {{m|de|Recht haben|t=to be [[in the right]]}}. Create ''[[mieć słuszność]]''. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 11:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
::I think you mean [[mieć rację]]... [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 11:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[SbH₃]] ==

and the vast majority in [[:Category:mul:Chemical formulae]], per [[WT:CHEM]]. [[User:Hftf|Hftf]] ([[User talk:Hftf|talk]]) 21:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:po francusku#rfd-notice-pl-|po francusku]] ==

Polish. 
SOP. All such adjectives can use po + this Old archaic ending. No idiomatic definition present. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 09:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[:po niemiecku#rfd-notice-pl-|po niemiecku]] ==

Polish. 
SOP. All such adjectives can use po + this Old archaic ending. No idiomatic definition present. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 09:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
:'''Speedy delete''' for me. Best regards. {{unsigned|Kelawaikas|11:29, 16 March 2025}}

== <s>[[:fakyo#rfd-notice-id-|fakyo]]</s> ==

Indonesian. Was created with the meaning [[fukyo]] (a Japanese word meaning "not permitting"). It's most likely a gibberish/nonsense. [[User:Alfarizi M|Alfarizi M]] ([[User talk:Alfarizi M|talk]]) 06:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
* '''Speedied'''. [[User:Ultimateria|Ultimateria]] ([[User talk:Ultimateria|talk]]) 02:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)