Wiktionary: Requests for deletion

From open-dictionary.com - the free dictionary.

This page is one of the Wiktionary:Utilities.

The current policy governing the use of this page is at Wiktionary:Page deletion guidelines. The requests themselves belong on this page.
Some key discussions of deleted items are saved at Wiktionary:Deletion archive
Would sysops who delete pages that have been listed here PLEASE show and date this on the list when they do it. A simple **Deleted. ~~~~ is enough. The items affected are almost always properly deleted, but acknowledging that you have done this is good for building community confidence. Eclecticology 11:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page lists all articles / entries / pages that have been nominated for Deletion in one of two ways.

Check the alphabetical AUTOMATED LIST of all those entries / pages tagged with the code [[category:Requests for Deletion]].

The tagging is usually effected by editing the code {{rfd}} into the page to invoke the {{rfd}} template - the "Requests for deletion" template.

Entries are automatically withdrawn from this list if/when the {{rfd}} and/or [[category:Requests for deletion]] code is deleted from the entry.

These entries may have the discussion of why the entry needs deletion within the Talk: (Discussion) page of the article itself, or in this page. Both should be checked.

There is a manually created and maintained list within this page, below. You can use the Make a new nomination link below to add your nomination to the list, and a brief explanation of your reason for nominating the page for deletion. Please put any extensive discussion in the Talk: (Discussion) page of the article.

For help on how to do a good nomination, see Help:Nominating_an_article_for_cleanup_or_deletion

For an overview see Cleanup and deletion process, including how to remove a nomination after cleanup is done.

Make a new nomination

Special Nominations for Deletion

Permanent deletion list

Links exist for special reasons; they may be deleted at any time the link is not red.

Unwritten article

Alert list

Mostly items that have persistently reappeared. They probably need to be shot on sight.

General Nominations for Deletion

Hierarchical

Hierarchical - possible copyvio (in numerous online copyright sources, although this might suggest it is not copyright material). — Paul G 09:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Looks more like a cleanup issue than a deletion issue. Eclecticology 21:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pulse

Pulse - Not the whole entry, just the music entry, which I have commented out. It has been quoted from a 1975 source, which makes it a likely copyvio. — Paul G 10:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- ibid. Eclecticology 21:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - What does ibid. mean? Polyglot 14:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adumbrations

Adumbrations nice enough to link to where material was stolen from --Eean 05:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Color, colour

color, colour Nonsense. — 219.173.119.31 06:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

no, please refer to discussion in beer parlor. --Eean 16:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pro Bono

Pro bono - "From Miriam-Webster," says the poster. Is that the 1913 one an edition that is still in copyright? If the latter, we'll need to rewrite the article. — Paul G 18:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Savable; needs cleaning up. Eclecticology 19:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-pedia

-pedia - doesn't give a definition, and is for a different spelling; does this suffix exist in any case?
- Probably acceptable as a suffix giving the idea of inbstruction in whatever it's attached to. Needs cleaning up. Eclecticology 18:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merf

merf - query authenticity; clean up if legitimate. — Paul G 10:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- (BTW, Paul, that's a very nice way to phrase these sorts of entries!) This one smells like MUD-speak. Google for "merf" with "MUD" turns up some possibilities, but I don't have time now to chase them down. To anticipate the next question, I would treat MUD-isms in general as something like (MUD slang), under ==English==. I don't see great harm in including them — there are probably not more than a few dozen even in common MUD-use, much less general use. MUDders will tend to use these outside the MUD world as well. Some have probably escaped the lab and thus deserve entries no matter what. I wouldn't say "merf" is one of those, though. (note that, unlike L33T and Pig Latin, there is not a general formula for producing arbitrarily many MUD-isms. They are coinages within a specialized community.) -dmh 16:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think its a reference to something Pinky as in w:Pinky and the Brain says routinely IIRC. Its phrased in a smart-ass way to obscure that, if I'm right. --Eean 07:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- What's MUD? Eclecticology 18:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - Eean: Pinky's pet word is "narf!". Eclecticology: I'll add MUD and then everyone will know :->. -dmh 18:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    - I can't get heads or tails to this discussion. Please advice what needs to happen with merf

Womps

womps - query authenticity; clean up if legitimate. — Paul G 10:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The entry is accurate as far as it goes. The word was very explicitly a nonce. T.J. made it up so he would have an expletive that wouldn't get him in trouble (but of course it does anyway). The question is whether it has found use outside the context of the show. Google for "this womps" suggests it may be. If the entry stays, it should move to the uninflected form "womp" (which is what TJ actually invented). The other question is whether it's "womp" or "whomp". I had got the idea it was "whomp" except everyone knows that's already a word. So "womp" is probably correct -dmh 16:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Who's T.J.? If spelling is an issue the authority for that would be the show's script. Eclecticology 18:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - T.J. Dettweiler is a character on the show. "This whomps" gets twice as many hits as "this womps", so whomp seems like the better spelling. I'm not sure the script would be so relevant. The word is a nonce in the context of the show — I don't believe it's even used in other episodes. The point is that it's been picked up outside the context of the show, and there it tends to be spelled with the h, regardless of what the original script may have had. -dmh 18:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    - I've moved the whole thing to whomp, which needed an entry regardless of the Recess sense, and added a few related terms (related to the old sense). In the TV show, TJ explains that the word doesn't mean anything at all and so can mean whatever you want, but in actual usage outside the show it seems to be mainly or exclusively a replacement for suck. Actual spelling appears to favor whomp over womp in both the old and new senses. The original womps can be deleted or simply left as a redirect to whomp. -dmh 18:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      - I guess we're keeping it as a redirect then. Next time around I'll move this discussion to whomp.

Semantopoeic, Semantopeic

Semantopoeic, Semantopeic - made-up word (won't give it a justifaction of an ism). Wikipedia doesn't allow folks to make stuff up (or even create legitimate new knowledge) don't see why we should. --Eean 06:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Validity of this is doubtful even though its well described. Eclecticology 08:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - At the very least we should strip out everything but the definition and move the rest to either the discussion page or the Beer Parlour. The poster is digging at an interesting concept, but as far as I can tell it's a very subjective call what's "semantopoeic" and what's not. I didn't find any of the examples particularly convincing. Sidebar: Can anyone dig up the exchange between two (early 20th-century?) literary critics, in which one puts forth a particular line as illustrating the power of onomatopoeia, and the other responds with a very similar-sounding line including "crumpets" and "brats" that somehow just isn't quite as evocative? Not a lot to go on, I admit, but it's a fairly famous example. -dmh 15:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    - I confirm that I made this word up after reading Neologisms:unstable which seemed to suggest that was allowed. Endymion303 21:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      - I would tend to concur that, if protologisms are legitimate at all, terms like these seem like valid examples. I would, however, want to see the definition trimmed a bit. The motivation section is interesting, though. -63.86.210.252 17:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) (dmh)

Phontograph

phontograph, phontos - made up words for photos taken with mobiles. A)they're pretend. B)we don't need a seperate word for it and C)if we were to have a seperate word, it would probably be mophoto, following the example of moblog. --Eean 00:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Marked as a protologism, and moved "phontos" to "phonto" (deleting the plural page). This is legitimate Wiktionary practice, even if the word looks as if it unnecessary (there are plenty of words in English that might be considered "unnecessary"). — Paul G 11:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - Protologisms are no longer supported. --Blade Hirato 11:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - That's a little strong. Whether to delete them out right or quarantine them, and if so how to quarantine them, is still under discussion. -dmh 15:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can we please keep the discussion of how we treat Protologisms to one place. The main discussion for this is on Wiktionary:Beer parlour/Protologisms.
Requesting deletions for Protologisms when there is no consensus that that is the way to treat Protologisms is not really helpful.

British Territory and Spanish Territory

British Territory and Spanish Territory --Eean 08:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No basis in fact. Eclecticology 01:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - The particular definition may be wrong (though it may possibly have been correct at some point in history), but these terms have been used in historical accounts. For that matter here is a page from the University of South Floridy showing Spanish territory in Florida as defined by a treaty made in 1670. The problem here is that there appears to be no particular idiomatic sense or senses of these terms. They simply mean "British/Spanish territory in the applicable historic and geographic context," or in other words, just what you think they'd mean. The complete information on what that meant over time is more a Wikipedia matter than a Wiktionary matter. We should probably either delete these, or just make them minimal entries with links to the appropriate Wikipedia articles. The latter approach is a bit redundant, but could be useful for someone who runs across "British Territory" in an account and wants to know what it means (and if it means anything non-obvious) -dmh 15:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - So what do we do with it? Do we keep it nominated here forever? Polyglot 10:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hogie

hogie - i spelled it wrong...twice
Deleted Polyglot 10:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jack Aubrey

Jack Aubrey --Eean 08:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can this be deleted? Polyglot 10:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bamidele A. Ojo

Bamidele A. Ojo - encyclopedic - migrate to Wikipedia. — Paul G 18:01, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- moved to w:Transwiki:Bamidele_Ojo --Eean 05:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - Deleted Polyglot 10:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

“protologisms”

I've removed this section, after checking that none of the attested words is marked "rfd" and all of the unattested words are marked "protologism". I note that some, but not all, of the unattested words are also in the rfd category. I would recommend against this, until such time as we come to consensus on protologisms in general -dmh 17:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) -: Thank you! Polyglot 10:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

\'Tis

\'Tis
The problem that created this entry has been solved, n'est pas? 'tis exists now. -- Tormod (160.36.157.13 04:45, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC))
Deleted Polyglot 10:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wiktionarist and Wiktionaut

These words do not seem to be in use in Wiktionary. The term Wiktionarian seems to be the term in use. The sole reference to these words is in Wiktionary. These references will need to be removed.--Richardb 23:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Personal arrest records

Personal arrest records newbie test? \Mike 10:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Deleted Polyglot 10:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Acatharsy

acatharsy - No content except for headers. Not listed at dictionary.com. Anyone know whether this is an existing word, and if so, what this means, and whether it is correctly spelled? Note - if you delete this term, remember to edit the pages that link to it, in particular the related rhymes page. — Paul G 12:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Open Dictionary