Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Italic

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ This page is for entries in any Italic language, i.e. Latin, its sister languages (e.g., Oscan, Faliscan), and its descendants, including Romance languages (e.g., French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Catalan).
 * For English entries, see Requests for deletion/English.
 * For Chinese/Japanese/Korean entries, see Requests for deletion/CJK.
 * For reconstructed entries, see Requests for deletion/Reconstruction.
 * For all other entries, see Requests for deletion/Non-English.

= July 2020 =

latet anguis in herba
Is it lexicalised in Latin (if yes, should it possibly be moved to ?), or was it only created because it's the origin of the English idiom? . PUC – 15:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The phrase can be found in Latin texts, mostly literally as in Virgil, but sometimes with the verb in conjugated form. These, the oldest ones I found (apart from Virgil), are all from the 16th century. I also found an elliptic use, without the verb. --Lambiam 20:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like the idiomatic part is the noun phrase, while the verb can be omitted without loss of meaning, which seems to be the ultimate criterion for determining an idiom. It's obviously an allegory originally, and a good allegory is always ripe for becoming proverbial; nevertheless, I think this only happened after Erasmus, as it isn't found among his proverbial mountains of proverbs. Brutal Russian (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

= August 2020 =

-srice
French suffix, apparent alt form of but unused. Ultimateria (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the syllable onset sr- even possible in French? --Lambiam 19:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be possible as an onset cluster if it's preceded by a vowel. We have listing for six French nouns ending in -srice, all actually in -ssrice:, , , , , . —Mahāgaja · talk 19:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I find all of these jarring. I'd consider them nonstandard. PUC – 20:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding their jarringness, can they be attested? --Lambiam 14:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Only one is actually suffixed. I agree with your point below and suggest sticking with . Whose category, incidentally, has only 3 pages compared to 23 at -trice. Ultimateria (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If professrice is analyzed as profes + -srice, shouldn't we then not also have -drice (used in ambassadrice) and -trice (used in actrice and inspectrice)? --Lambiam 14:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There might be a mistake. Modern French doesn't allow such a cluster, in onset or between two syllables (with /s/ as coda and /r/ as onset), so if you're dealing with Middle French you should use "mfr". If they were used in Middle French, the fricative of the aforementioned cluster would have undergone a fortition leading to /tr/ in Modern French. Also the productive feminine agent noun-forming suffixes are, or , and the ones which forms standard feminines of the words above are definitely -eur (by far the most used, though indistinguishable from the masculine without context) and -eure (somewhat better according to the said Academy). Malku H₂n̥rés (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This all seems a little silly. The only attestations i can find for the words that end in ssrice are indications that they are incorrect forms for which correct forms already exist. The etymology proposed for them (based on the existence of a Latin form) looks sketchy, too, because they are almost certainly neologisms based on the existing masculine form. Finally, splitting ss in the middle doesn't make any sense when they always act as a single letter in French, so the suffix, if these terms are attested, would be -rice. (cf. masculine -eur).SteveGat (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I managed to find some attestations for some of the words, but the proposed suffix remains frivolous. French wiktionary doesn't have it, and the words there that end in ssrice are proposed to have the suffix -rice, based the -eur/-rice pair. In any case, this suffix should be deleted. SteveGat (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Btw, Wiktionary distinguishes between and, but Wiktionnaire doesn't: https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Mots_en_fran%C3%A7ais_suffix%C3%A9s_avec_-rice (only a sub-category for -cultrice). Thomas Linard (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

= September 2020 =

gangaba
There is no indication this is Latin, it is only known from one mention in 3, 13, 7 which is “Gangabas Persae vocant humeris onera portantes.” – “The Persians call those who carry burdens on their shoulders gangaba”. Fay Freak (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless the ancient Persians spoke a Latin dialect – but the historical linguistic evidence argues against this – the cited passage is actually a clear indication that this is not Latin. --Lambiam 08:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think current practice is to keep hapaxes mentioned as being from foreign languages in ancient languages, as there is no good alternative way of including them without tons of speculation on the base form and base language. The entry should, however, reflect that it is simply mentioned as a foreign word as opposed to being a word that was actually in use in Latin. If we delete entries like these, we miss out on some of the most interesting mentioned words from antiquity (my personal favorites are μέδος and haliurunna). So yeah, keep, please. I have edited the entry to reflect its foreignness to Latin. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure about such practice, the majority of comprehensive reference works omit them, being thus strict as including what really belongs to a language, like the I yesterday found and most of these names in Dioscourides – should we add those thousands of – often insecurely read – names from there? And I account for the space being unlimited here. I’d rather avoid this kind of entries, if feasible, without tons of speculation.  does it remind you of any word? Maybe we could mention it on some Neo-Persian word as its oldest attestation; also we need translations for  (I only know . These entries stay misleading and have properties of ghost words, if they are titled “Latin” and are in descendant lists as Latin, and even have pronunciation sections like normal Latin word as  has; maybe  should actually be presented as Gothic,  as Old Persian, while  as undetermined? That would be much truer. But in any case we also need to categorize such lacking entries somehow.
 * I mention that it seems like taxonomists have built moth names on this porter word:, . Fay Freak (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I added all I found, and couldn't found anything related in Middle Persian, though this is probably from some other Middle Iranian language. --Z 12:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The main point is that these words need some place to stay, and especially in antiquity it often is hard to determine what exactly was the donor language. We can't be sure how well the antique authors knew from which language a word really derives. For example, the haliurunna word may not be Gothic proper at all (what if it's Vandalic instead, or some other EGmc language? Antique authors regularly conflated them with Goths), the word medos I mentioned is of uncertain origin, etc.; their forms are determined by how respectively a Latin and Greek writer made sense of these words they heard, they are therefore in terms of form probably not (exactly) as they would have been in their source language. Thus, it is not a bad solution per se imo to just keep such words at the language of the text in which they are attested, while clarifying that they are supposed to represent words from some other language. Perhaps "Undetermined" could be a solution, I have not thought about that much. I mainly just want them to have entries, as they are often (etymologically and otherwise) very interesting words. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the pronunciation from haliurunna btw, you are right that it made little sense — Mnemosientje (t · c)
 * I've seen a dictionary (Dehkhoda Dictionary) that actually includes hapaxes. But also it's a good idea to include such pages in the categoriese of the language of origin: σπάκα is the only directly known Old Median word, mentioned in a Greek text. --Z 12:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Many dictionaries do; L&S for example, which is a Latin dictionary linked on the gangaba entry, includes it, as it does many other hapaxes of non-Latin origin. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add that we should use this occasion to remove that antiquated rule that says a hapax is only good if it comes from Festus, Nonius Marcellinus or Saint Isidore. It's obvious, as evidenced by this discussion, that nobody abides by it. Also a general cleanup of the dusty WT:ALA would be good. --Biolongvistul (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and move all such hapaxes to an appendix. &mdash; surjection &lang; &rang; 21:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Appendixes is where words go to die, it is much preferable to just have them in mainspace where they'll actually be found by people looking for them. Again, it's hardly unheard of for Latin dictionaries to list such Latinised foreign hapaxes among more standard words (with an appropriate disclaimer, ofc), and there is no reason why we shouldn't. They're far too interesting to relegate to an appendix, imo. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, appendix + then. &mdash; S URJECTION  / T / C / L / 05:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is even more useless than merely relegating it to an appendix, as the notice doesn't really fit the situation and would merely be confusing to the end user. Any solution that doesn't at the very least maintain good findability and contextual information in mainspace would be worse than just keeping it the way it currently is.
 * Also: I have no idea why what's good enough for Lewis & Short or Gaffiot shouldn't be good enough for us, especially given that these words tend to be among the most interesting ones attested in the corpus of classical texts. This kind of memory-holing is particularly egregious as Latin/Greek mentions of foreign words are often among the sole attestations of various Trümmersprachen; compare for example the Vandalic corpus, which consists more or less solely of a single Latinized sentence in a satirical poem. Even if we don't just keep it the way it is, we should at the very least maintain useful entries in mainspace to list possible etymologies and give other contextual information for these very interesting linguistic relics. (Might as well yeet off to the void.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to Mnemosientje's view, but I don't like at all having this under a Latin header. PUC – 11:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We could have some template scheme for L2 headers == word mentioned in language x claimed language y ==. Which would cause technical vagaries, and be a bit like “Wiktionary does not have an entry on …” while at the same time acknowledging people’s searching for it. It is clearly low priority to include these ancient word-lists in the mainspace. Fay Freak (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

= October 2020 =

M’, M’., M.’
Latin. Minor typographical variations. DTLHS (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to . --Lambiam 14:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I would certainly have thought a redirect was more appropriate than a delete for each.
 * M'. lists five variants. do you intend
 * M’, M.’ , M’. all redirect to M'. ? In which case shouldn't M' and M.' also redirect to M'. ?
 * I would say rather that M’ redirect to M', and M.’ to M.', with only M’. redirecting to M'..
 * As to what the typographical symbol is see this cited source:
 * One archaeologist asserts that the stroke after the M is a well-known abbreviation for the prænomen Manius; but this is generally M❜ ; a small comma-like figure being introduced after the M.
 * The "small comma-like figure" in the source is different from a comma and from an apostrophe, but I'm not sure what it is, how widespread the use of such a distinct symbol was, or whether it would matter to Wiktionary.
 * Jnestorius (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t know enough about the likelihood of various variants being used as search terms; my main point is that we should not just delete an entry if the term is a plausible search term that is an attested variant of an included term. If it is a “minor typographical variation”, I think a hard redirect is preferable to deletion. It depends on the specifics of each case whether a hard redirect is better than a soft redirect, but it is general practice (called “de facto acceptable” in WT:REDIR) to redirect terms with a curly apostrophe  ’  to the same with a straight apostrophe  ' , so it is fine to have M’ redirect to M' and M.’ to M.', as long as we do not create double soft redirects, which may be a source of irritation. The question what present-day character corresponds to the “small comma-like figure” found in Roman inscriptions appears anachronistic to me. Someone more familiar with this material should look at this, but I think these abbreviations in Roman texts did not use a period, but followed them by an interpunct as a general separator between words. Looking at some of the sources, I am not certain that the usage note at M'. is correct either.  --Lambiam 07:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The "small comma-like figure" was not in the Roman inscriptions; ꟿ was, as supported by the reference "M.' (for Manius) is purely modern". We are talking about 19/20C printed transcriptions. Jnestorius (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The author of “The recent discoveries of Roman remains found in repairing the north wall of the city of Chester” (linked to above) appears to believe that the “small comma-like figure” is found in Roman inscriptions as part of an abbreviation of “Manius”, since he discards the proposed interpretation of “ ꟿ ” seen in an inscription as abbreviating “Manius” by stating that this is generally “ M’  ”.  --Lambiam 11:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I get your point. I would be tempted to delete the source as unreliable on that basis, but that would be cherry-picking and/or circular reasoning on my part. I will defer to anyone with actual expertise instead. Jnestorius (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , citing various sources, says the name was originally abbreviated with the five-stroke M, and later abbreviated as M + the apostrophe-like thing. Given the source above and other sources I see when I search for things like "Manius, abbreviated" or "abbreviation of Manius" which say M' was the standard abbreviation of Manius (including ones talking about how that was easy to confuse with the abbreviation M. for Marcus), I take this to mean both abbreviations were found in period, whether in inscriptions or elsewhere. - -sche (discuss) 21:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Re “it is general practiceto redirect terms with a curly apostrophe”: compare I’m (etc.), deleted in 2019: “don't need redirects that only differ by curly quote -- the system does this automatically”. J3133 (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn’t for me. I see I’m as a red link; when I click on it the system tells me (among other things): “Wiktionary does not yet have an entry for I’m.”
 * That's just what I was going to say. When I click on the red link I’m I am not taken automatically to I'm. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You missed the point. It does not have an entry because it was deleted. J3133 (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But the point is (I think) that it was deleted under a false pre text mise. --Lambiam 21:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * care to explain your edit summary quoted above ("the system does this automatically")? Jnestorius (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the only automatic redirect is when using the search box. DTLHS (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't explain stuff I did in 2019. I can't remember what I did last Tuesday, mate. Equinox ◑ 09:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Lols -- 17:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Soft- or hard-redirect to whatever form(s) we decide to make the lemma (of this version of the abbreviation, as distinct from the five-stroke M version). - -sche (discuss) 21:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

= November 2020 =

Latin SOPs?
-12:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

tace tu
I dunno, the only other obvious variation on this is tacēte vōs, which can be treated as its plural version. It's not as idiomatic as "fuck you", but maybe like "shut it". Brutal Russian (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

vota vita mea
Are we treating mottoes as SOPs? There's a suckton of them in Latin, obviously, and I'm unsure of how to decide which ones to keep. Ditto for the next two below. Brutal Russian (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

vitam impendere vero

 * Delete all, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Additions:

I would suggest this be retained, if only because I had cause to look it up and found it useful. A book on the Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer uses the phrase, citing Juvenal, as an epigraph for the volume. It was translated by T. Bailey Saunders (New York; A.L. Burt Publishers), probably very early 1900s, for those interested in finding it. Seems like it has enough historical value to be worthwhile to keep. Sychonic (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

laus Deo
This one = thank God, I wouldn't want to cross the dude. Brutal Russian (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete all SOP Latin mottos. These belong in an appendix or in Wikipedia. This, that and the other (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep laus Deo, it is used as a formulaic phrase and an interjection (same as praise the Lord) in Medieval and Ecclesiastical Latin e.g., interjection. Delete others, though judging from sources (,, etc.) there might be an argument for an English entry at juniores ad labores since it's used as a maxim in ordinary writing and not just cited as a Latin motto (seemingly it's also specific to English as such). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting for the record that I've redone laus Deo as an interjection entry. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not reidentify them as Translingual rather than Latin? That seems to be the point of having these, after all. — 69.121.86.13 13:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete all except, per Al-Muqanna. Mottos are not lexical items per se. PUC – 11:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Commonly used phrases also have their place on Wiktionary. --Shoshin000 (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleted (except for ). PUC – 08:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

= December 2021 =

n&#39;y
Middle French. Tagged but not listed ( by ). --Fytcha (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

i&#39;ay
Middle French. Tagged but not listed ( by ). --Fytcha (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Some like this were kept in 2008 (Talk:j'ai) but I'm not really sure why. Delete as transparent, predictable contractions. This, that and the other (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

= March 2022 =

em se tratando de
Recently created by, but isn't this just a SOP? Furthermore, the definition is already included in. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I may have missed something, but I've never seen such a construction being used outside this phrase, at least not in Brazilian Portuguese. "Tratando-se de" would be a SOP, but the preposition at the beginning makes it all weird in my opinion. - Munmula (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you might indeed be right and some sources do refer it might be a Gallicism. But what about the similar construction "em que se trata de"? Would you say that too would be a preposition? - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It functions as one, just like . Is it idiomatic? It is far more common than em que trata-se de.
 * You forgot to sign. As for your comment, the first of your examples is more common because the second is not considered correct. Dependent clauses imply proclisis should be used instead of enclisis. I don't think commonness would be a good argument there, though that doesn't imply you aren't correct about it being idiomatic. Sarilho1 (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. In Portuguese, enclisis ("trata-se") is not used after relative pronouns like que or negative words like não or nunca, with the proclisis ("se trata") being used instead. I'm also unsure about what to do, but I think we can all agree we're not dealing with a mere SOP and this deserves some entry of its own. Munmula (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That might be the best option. - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

= May 2022 =

curvar-se
Portuguese. Reflexive form of curvar. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Question. We have quite a few such lemmas, such as, , . Should these all be deleted, or is there some deletion rationale that applies specifically to curvar-se? --Lambiam
 * . Sorry, I didn't noticed the question sooner. I do think that if one is deleted, all of them should. But maybe we should open a different discussion to fully set what policy should be set? - Sarilho1 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * . See a similar issue below for Italian: . I suppose a general discussion can be held on when to include and when not to include such cliticized forms. For a mesoclitic, see . I see that Spanish reflexive verbs such as are listed, but not as lemmas but as verb forms.  --Lambiam 14:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete this and the other . Ultimateria (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whatever we choose should match how we treat -rse verbs in Spanish. It's wildly inconsistent to delete curvar-se and others like it while leaving curvarse untouched. MedK1 (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: While I agree it's not relevant to document all reflexive forms of Portuguese verbs, some of them ( and listed above, as well as others like, , , , etc.) have specific meanings that are quite distinct from those of the corresponding base form, and therefore would benefit from stand-alone entries. In some cases the reflexive form is even the main one (e.g.  or ). Besides, I agree with the others above in that a any deletion should be accompanied by a consistent approach across all Portuguese  reflexive forms, as well as their close equivalents in e.g. Spanish. --Waldyrious (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Imetsia (talk (more ) ) 23:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. Although this does bring into question verbs like that were brought up above. Imetsia (talk (more ) ) 23:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Imetsia: It's generally frowned upon to vote "delete" on an entry and then delete in the same action. (no time passed) I agree with previous comments that there should be more discussion around this entry and others like it, and would highly suggest undeleting the entry until there's more consensus. AG202 (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for speaking up, @AG202. I agree on all counts. --Waldyrious (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There would have been a 2-1 consensus for deletion even without my vote (counting the nominator), and I don't agree that it's "generally frowned upon" to vote and delete in one fell swoop. This nomination has been pending for two years with minimal discussion, and we cannot allow nominations to stagnate and clutter RFD for such extended periods. I am willing to reopen the discussion and undelete the entry, but only if there is a concrete possibility of generating more meaningful discussion on this nomination. Imetsia (talk (more ) ) 00:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Even barring the issue of voting and deleting (I can look for prior comments on the matter later), I wouldn't have closed the discussion with comments like MedK1's & Lambiam's left unresolved. There should be a bigger discussion at somewhere like Beer Parlour before deletion, so yes, I'm requesting that the discussion be reopened and the entry be undeleted. AG202 (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Even the proponent acknowledged the potential need of a wider discussion to address the topic with the breadth it required. If anything, the RfD could have been closed as no consensus. Waldyrious (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * RFD-reopened. Hopefully this will generate more discussion around this nomination. Otherwise, we will be back to the same place a few months from now, with the same closing decision hanging in the balance. Imetsia (talk (more ) ) 19:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

= April 2023 =

Jeanne d&#39;Arc
French. This is a vote AGAINST deletion. I have added a descendant in the Japanese language which I believe holds relevance and significance.
 * Delete. The French (and likely also the Japanese) entry fails WT:NSE. It's a similar discussion to the one that decided the deletion of the literal sense of Joan of Arc. - Sarilho1 (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

-ação, -acção, -ização
Portuguese. Supposedly appended to nouns to form nouns indicating an action, the suffixes can simply be decomposed as +  or  +  (equivalently for the superseded ). They don't have any indicated derived terms. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like a matter of analysis that we could go both ways on. In at least some cases, the verbal root in -ar must be much rarer than the derived noun in -ação, right? Especially with loans and learned borrowings from Latin. — Soap — 11:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If -ação were an actual Portuguese suffix, then we should see examples of nouns denoting actions that are derived from nouns, but not from the corresponding verb. The only case I can think of is sensação and that's not even a suffixation occurring in Portuguese but a mere reanalysis of a learned borrowing. In fact, cases where terms cannot be reanalyzed as a noun+-ação are much more common. # Consider the following verbs that entered Portuguese as borrowings:

We have a large number of examples that prove -ção is an active suffix in Portuguese, independent of what would be described as -ação suffixation. However, we have very few cases where we can argue we are in the presence of -ação suffixation that cannot analyzed as -ar+-ção suffixation (furthermore, I can only think of learned borrowings). Finally, I would like to note that -ção is often registered in dictionaries and scientific works as a suffix, but -ação is not (Aulete, Priberam, Infopédia). - Sarilho1 (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) English to standardize > standardizar > standardização
 * 2) Latin mūtāre > mutar > mutação
 * 3) French graver > gravar > gravação
 * 4) Consider the following verbs that were formed in (Galician-)Portuguese with a prefix and suffix:
 * 5) bafo > abafar > abafação (not *bafação)
 * 6) plano > aplanar > aplanação (not *planação)
 * 7) cara > encarar > encaração (not *caração)


 * Support deletion. AG202 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If the corresponding Spanish terms are deleted as well, then support deletion. MedK1 (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , yes, but, no since it's also lemmatized by the RAE with this explanation at its entry for -ción: "Los creados en español toman la forma -ación, si el verbo del que derivan es de la primera conjugación. Grabación; -ición, si es de la tercera. Embutición. Si el sustantivo deriva de un verbo de la segunda, toma otro sufijo." Unsure if it's the most convincing, but it makes sense to me at least a bitl. AG202 (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It makes sense sure but it's really not the most convincing imo. It's listing -ación (and -ición!) as alternatives of "-ción" when dealing with first (and third) conjugation forms. They can still be analized as "-ar"+"-ción" or "-ir"+"-ción". Either way, regardless of how other dictionaries do it, "-ação" and "-ación" are perfect cognates and I can't see a reason to treat them any differently. MedK1 (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

= May 2023 =

cartão do cidadão
Portuguese. Was requested for speedy deletion as a misspelling of, but I find it at a Brazilian government website so I'm bringing it here. This, that and the other (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep as an alternative form. Portuguese grammar absolutely allows for constructions like this and carteira do motorista, though they're not exactly as common as the ones with "de" for these cases. MedK1 (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

= July 2023 =

avere freddo
Italian SOP. Just collocations of verbs with particular nouns, of the type similar to what you find in the English Appendix:Collocations of do, have, make, and take. Additionally, there is precedent for deleting entries of this type (see Vox's comment that "English entries with translation tables are the place to advise readers you give a look in Italian, have hunger in French, and so on"). Imetsia (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the Italian, but the French equivalents, , (+ , , , , , , ) are no longer the mere sum of  + noun but are clearly lexicalised and perceived as a single unit, as evidenced by the fact that people now say , , , which used to be considered ungrammatical 150 years ago -  cannot be used alongside a substantive outside of these phrases. PUC – 19:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Italian and French expressions are probably similar. and  are clearly grammatical, but  is used with substantives all the time outside of those phrases. Indeed, here it's inflected for gender, which would not happen if we were to use  as an adverb.
 * I'll add also that both the Devoto-Oli and the Zingarelli do not have these as standalone phrases in dictionary entries, but rather as usage examples under . Zingarelli has sense 4 of as "to feel," with the examples "avere sonno/freddo/dolore/compassione" (respectively, "to be tired/cold/pained/compassionate"). While the Devoto-Oli has sensed 3 as "to feel feelings, emotions, etc." with examples "avere speranza/fiducia/paura/timore/voglia/piacere" (respectively "to be hopeful/trustful/scared/fearful/wanting/glad"). With a subsense "to perceive a physical sensation;" examples being "avere fame/sete/caldo/freddo/dolore" (respectively "to be hungry/thirsty/hot/cold/pained"). Imetsia (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the approach of moving them to collocations. Similar for . - Sarilho1 (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

= August 2023 =

aspirador de pó
Portuguese SOP. - Sarilho1 (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Imetsia (talk (more ) ) 15:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete — Fenakhay ( حيطي · مساهماتي ) 15:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not SOP if you analyze "aspirador" as a clipping of "aspirador de pó". It makes sense when you consider that the term works like any regular term formed with -dor and possesses a few other meanings according to any other dictionary, like Priberam or Infopédia. MedK1 (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes the empty space test since "de pó" is redundant, and I suspect per MedK1's comment that it may pass the WT:JIFFY test as well, if aspirador was originally coined for exclusive use in the expression aspirador de pó. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

per quanto concerne
Italian SOP with. Equivalent to English "as far as ... is concerned." Imetsia (talk (more ) ) 23:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * do not delete this phrase. It is used often in spoken Italian. 108.18.231.67 14:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

= September 2023 =

încheietura mâinii
I’m torn on this. Here are the facts:, literally, ‘joint of the hand’, means ‘wrist’. In a vacuum this would rule out any SOPness (it’s the wrist and not any other joint found in the hand), but the catch is that itself can and most frequently does by itself mean ‘wrist’ by semantic narrowing. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * An option is to delete and add "încheietura mâinii" as a collocation, like it's done in Portuguese palma da mão in . - Sarilho1 (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WT:JIFFY. MedK1 (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Bósnia-Herzegóvina
Portuguese misspelling. Doesn't seem to be common. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. On what basis do you call it a misspelling? Ciberdúvidas clearly likes it. It's common enough to show up on BBC, in the UN, on random websites... I do concede that this was my first time seeing it, but I don't see any reason to delete it at all. There are plenty of hits on Google. MedK1 (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

louco e sonhador
. Portuguese, recently created. To me it just seems a SOP of and. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What if I put some attestations as an example of text in which this term was used?
 * Delete, doesn't seem idiomatic at all. Ultimateria (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

na velocidade da luz
Portuguese SOP. - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. PUC – 16:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Less convinced now. Compare 🇨🇬. PUC – 18:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I use it to mean 'quickly' or 'fast' all the time. It's just as much of an SOP as "o mais rápido possível" (which gets linked from as soon as possible). MedK1 (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The figurative sense is already at the noun velocidade da luz (as English speed of light). Ultimateria (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it used outside of this phrase though? 🇨🇬 doesn't have that sense outside of, AFAICT. PUC – 15:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Looking at English examples, I see variations "at the speed of light", "faster than the speed of light", "at nearly the speed of light", and "near the speed of light", all of which could be literal or figurative and convince me that "speed of light" should be the lemma for English at least. I've searched multiple phrases in Portuguese, but I'm turning up mostly literal results. I suspect that e.g. "mais rápido do que a velocidade da luz" can be used figuratively, but I'm not finding cites. I've decided to strike my vote because of this uncertainty. Ultimateria (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

quelle surprise
French. SOP. The existence of an English entry with an idiomatic definition does not require a French entry to make the same point. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - Sarilho1 (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - The pronunciation doesn't seem to be the same. The RedBurn (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What nonsense argument is that? PUC – 12:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * English:
 * French: /kɛl syʁ.pʁiz/ The RedBurn (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is only for the French entry which follows the standard French pronunciation... AG202 (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my bad. The RedBurn (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know wikionary rules, but I did come here to get this definition, so keep because it's a useful dictionary entry. 72.229.5.203 21:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SOP. It could only be useful to explain the English, but the English entry already explains it anyway. Nicodene (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. — Fenakhay ( حيطي · مساهماتي ) 01:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

quelle horreur
French SOP. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence about this and ... These almost feel lexicalised to me. But perhaps various collocations at would be enough.
 * This seems comparable to and, imo; I think these are strictly speaking SOP (compare , , , ) and we could content ourselves with a single entry (perhaps ?), but on account of their commonness I don't mind having entries for them. PUC – 09:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

= October 2023 =

procédé mnémotechnique
French. SOP. PUC – 19:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. — Fenakhay ( حيطي · مساهماتي ) 01:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

câine vagabond
Romanian. SOP. PUC – 09:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not such a flagrant SOP but more useful as a collocation. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. — Fenakhay ( حيطي · مساهماتي ) 01:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not just a sum of parts. It's the way to say "stray dog" (an ownerless dog) in Romanian. If you use any synonym of the word "vagabond", it just won't have this meaning. Bogdan (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What you're demonstrating is that it's a set phrase, not that it's not SOP. PUC – 09:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

perro callejero
Spanish. SOP. PUC – 09:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To elaborate on this: we (rightly) don't have entries for 🇨🇬 or 🇨🇬; these are collocations, we don't need entries for them even though we have one for (for the translations mostly). PUC – 22:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. — Fenakhay ( حيطي · مساهماتي ) 01:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

= November 2023 =

acabar de
Catalan and Spanish. Tagged but not listed by User:MedK1 who originally posted in the BP asking why these pages exist when Galician and Portuguese list this sense at acabar. Note that we also have and  (which is probably more idiomatic... compare the more developed 🇨🇬). I'm not sure where the line of idiomaticity lies here. Ultimateria (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

arroz crudo
Spanish. Unidiomatic translation of a translation hub. The same logic may apply to Ladino too, if anyone caresJewle V (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete both, SOP. Split the link in the translation box of . PUC – 18:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can crudo by itself be used to refer to other uncooked foods? We dont have it listed as such. (It says "raw" (uncooked)" but for some foods there is a difference; we also don't have crudo listed in the t-box at uncooked). If so then I dont object to deletion, but if there is some other word that is normally used to refer to certain foods in their uncooked state then I think this should stay as is.  — Soap — 04:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed Spanish. Ladino ain't my problem! Denazz (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

= December 2023 =

oricum ar fi
Romanian. Not the most common, economical or native-like way to say ‘either way’—one would simply say ‘’—but regardless of this, SOP. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

carros por puestos
Someone marked it "for imminent deletion" so I am making this post here to discuss. I think it can be a useful phrase to add but it is also my first entry so I don't know if/how it should be decided. RayScript (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't see any reason to delete it, at all. Previously, there was a header for the English language too. I thought they just wanted to delete the English sense and then when it did get deleted, people just forgot to remove the template, but I was wrong: the template was at the Spanish section from the very beginning, which actually makes no sense. With my knowledge of Spanish, I couldn't tell you for the life of me what it could mean. It's clearly not SOP: there's no sense at either or  meaning "seat".
 * While writing the above, I actually came to realize why they might've added the tag. The quotation says "carros por puesto", while the article is called "carros por puestos". Perhaps that's what's wrong with the page? In that case, I'd say move to . MedK1 (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

El Camino Real
Spanish. WT:NSE includes individual roads only if they have figurative senses, which we do not have for this road. I'm making a separate request for the English term with the same meaning. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (ta&middot;co) 23:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Spanish ciento uno and other multi-word higher-than-100 numbers
They break WT:CFI (see this formal vote). I gotta bring this up at Requests_for_deletion/English too for pages like one hundred one... MedK1 (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

ideia de jerico
Portuguese SOP. PUC – 16:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a set phrase. Protegmatic (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

=January 2024=

jì annànze
Neapolitan. Tagged by (“SOP?”) but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly SOP, yes. Delete. Nicodene (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more; si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi
Latin. Tagged by (“The effort is lovely and all, but does this meet the CFI?”) but not listed. Vuccᴀʟᴀ (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete unless it can be shown to pass CFI. Benwing2 (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete (as nominator). Nicodene (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

ca de obicei
Romanian. SOP addition motivated by existence of English entry. However, while the English phrase is entryworthy, as its form could not be obtained backwards from its meaning, the Romanian one is nothing but the sum of and the actually idiomatic.

The same scrutiny is needed for the Romance parallels. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree: 🇨🇬 is already a mere redirect to ; it's been suggested by to move 🇨🇬 to ; 🇨🇬 exists alongside ; 🇨🇬 can be redirected to  per . That leaves us with 🇨🇬 (?). So: redirect all. PUC – 11:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirecting is an interesting solution. It would help discoverability and, contrary to my expectations, is dogmatically correct. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

=February 2024=

Sardinian entries created by @AndreiLmb
This user has created an entire ecosystem of fictional words, generally by 'Sardinifying' Latin or Italian ones, as in 'ice-cream' <, going so far as to add made-up regional variants of made-up lemmas.

I have checked all the fictional words below against a combination of sources, such as the two official Sardinian dictionaries (1, 2), Wagner's Dizionario etimologico sardo, and—when available—the relevant AIS map.


 * , /, /,, , , //, , (Gallurese and Sassarese - not Sardinian), /, , , /, , , , , /,  (Gallurese - not Sardinian), , /, /, /, //,  (Gallurese - not Sardinian), , , , , , /, , /, , , , /, , , ,  (Ligurian - not Sardinian)/ (non-existent), , , , /, /, , , , ,

See also the previous RFD for faghe (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faghe), which as it turns out was only the tip of this iceberg.

-Nicodene (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Salude, no apo fatu una chirca funguda, ma bos cheria nàrrere chi tzertas paràulas inoghe subra inditadas bi sunt de a beru in sa limba sarda e s'usuàriu chi at insertadu totus cussos faeddos si bidet chi l'at leadu sa manu ebbia. Depent èssere atzertadas cun mètodu allegas che a "ibernu" o "chernere", ma: "culteddu" (pronuntziadu cun lambdacismu) est sardu de Tàtari e de sas biddas a curtzu; sardu est "produchere" (si chirchet cun CTRL+F in sos artìculos acapiados); "pomu de terra" est posca una variedade de "pumu de terra" (chi benit usadu in su ditzionàriu chi bois mentovades: "pumu (e fintzes fumu) de terra") e, si nos impunnaremus a subra de s'esistèntzia o mancu de "pomu" diamus bìdere chi si diat pòdere averiguare semper in Mario Puddu. A pustis, tenimus faeddos prus antigos chi si podent assentare in su Wiktionary, ancu s'iscriet dae ue benint, comente in su casu de "sine" chi acatamus in su corpus ATLiSOr. Bi cheret una chirca majore pro nàrrere chi totus cussos trèmenes sunt faddidos. Astore grogu (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Properly, it's a matter of attestion/verification, for which see WT:RFVI. --10:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

ségrégation raciale
French SOP. PUC – 13:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Imetsia (talk (<span style="cursor:help;" title="I strongly prefer messages on my talk page instead of article talk pages, Wiktionary discussion pages, or edit summaries. More information on my talk page.">more ) ) 15:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

alluminio nativo
Italian. NiSoP entry from SemperBlotto 2006. We have the definition of native explaining it. Fay Freak (talk) 10:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * was deleted: Talk:native aluminium. This, that and the other (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Imetsia (talk (<span style="cursor:help;" title="I strongly prefer messages on my talk page instead of article talk pages, Wiktionary discussion pages, or edit summaries. More information on my talk page.">more ) ) 15:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

=March 2024=

pluja radiactiva
Catalan. Notice added but never listed by. I assume it's a misspelling of. Theknightwho (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

tinnitus
Latin. The participle “1. rung, jingled, having been jingled. 2. cried, screamed, having been screamed in a shrill voice.” was removed by on 9 February. I was told on the talk page that the participle forms, , etc. should also be removed, but made this section here as we usually discuss deletions. J3133 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe an RFV would be a good idea. Lewis and Short says the verb is used both intransitive and transitively, so a passive participle seems like it should theoretically be possible. I could find no examples in the PHI classical corpus or the Corpus Corporum, but Google Books might have something (e.g. I see "tinnivit & tinnitam percepit rem" here).--Urszag (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

reducere de preț
Romanian. Literally, ‘discount of price’. No reason at all to exist—uncommon as a collocation, unnecessary as clarification ( is well enough understood to mean ‘discount’ without specifying anything). ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Imetsia (talk (<span style="cursor:help;" title="I strongly prefer messages on my talk page instead of article talk pages, Wiktionary discussion pages, or edit summaries. More information on my talk page.">more ) ) 15:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

=April 2024=

l&#39;espace d&#39;un instant
French SoP: l'espace de + un + instant.
 * Keep is a fixed expression, with its own page on the French wiktionary. --Shoshin000 (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I can confirm its use. Tim Utikal (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

gerundivus
The word is neuter and the adjective doesn't seem to have ever existed. If not consider this request as RFC. I will edit accordingly. Tim Utikal (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

grande dame
French SOP, has that sense ("great") in plenty other collocations: compare, , , , , , etc. I have no idea why the French Wiktionary has entries for fr:grand homme, fr:grande dame and fr:grand monsieur. PUC – 19:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I see it, the primary meaning of grand(e) in French is large size, not renown. When a two-word phrase relies on a secondary meaning of one of its content words, it is the very definition of idiomatic. Put another way, as I so often do .... how would a reader know that grande dame means "great woman" and not "large woman" as one would ordinarily expect?  — Soap — 06:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to expand on this, since I bring up nearly the same argument over and over, I'm quoting WT:SOP here:
 * An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components. Non-idiomatic expressions are called sum-of-parts (SOP).
 * Emphasis mine. If a word cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components, it's not sum of parts.  If the meaning is plain only to a native speaker or someone with full knowledge of the context in which it comes up, that means nothing, because such people would not be looking up the phrase in question in the first place.  You list six phrases which use a similar construction, but someone who doesnt know grande dame likely wont be familiar with the other six phrases either.  As for why the French wiktionary lists them, I dont know. Perhaps their policy is more permissive than ours, or perhaps it's similar but they do a better job of writing for young people and second-language learners than we do. — Soap — 06:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your ideas about SOPness and idiomaticity would have us create all the combinations I've mentioned and many more, which is just plain stupid. Don't bother replying, I'm not interested in reading any more of your nonsense. PUC – 10:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The purpose of RFD is to leave it up to the wider community to decide. If you don't want to talk to me about this, or for that matter anywhere at all on this website, that's fine with me, but you have no standing to tell me to stop talking in a group discussion. You clearly can't read minds, and you have no place telling me what my opinions are either. So, to the others present, I repeat my question from up above. If we delete this:
 * How would a reader know that grande dame means "great woman" and not "large woman" as one would ordinarily expect?
 * — Soap — 16:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd add that grande dame is idiomatic as can be. We can also compare it to the adjective's use as a title-part in the  (Grand Condé, Grand Électeur, etc...).  has thus a strong derivative meaning which I think grants compound-words based on it the idiom pass. Tim Utikal (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how any of this is relevant? is neither a compound (so it's not comparable to ) nor a title (so it's not comparable to ). PUC – 16:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If not honorific it is still a title of some sort, how would you ever describe it otherwise? "les grands hommes et grandes femmes de notre siècle" or some other generic sentence of the same taste likewise shows it being a title quite plainly: "An appellation given to a person or family to signify either veneration, official position, social rank, the possession of assets or properties, or a professional or academic qualification". So called SOP because not unique/relevant enough. Tim Utikal (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * grande dame is a positive descriptor/qualifier, a eulogistic term, but it is not a title, because being called one is entirely dependent on the judgment of the speaker. There's nothing official about it, there's no special status out there that exists regardless of the opinion of the speaker. It's exactly the same with ("les grands écrivains de notre siècle") or  ("les grands acteurs du XXIe siècle"): I can call someone a grand écrivain, but that's just a value judgment. That person would not go around presenting themselves as a "grand écrivain" as if it was some sort of official title comparable to that of "doctor". PUC – 11:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Deleted as obvious SOP. PUC – 16:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There was nobody voting here but you and me. That's not a consensus by any means. — Soap — 17:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

RFD reopened. See also PUC – 16:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Imetsia (talk (<span style="cursor:help;" title="I strongly prefer messages on my talk page instead of article talk pages, Wiktionary discussion pages, or edit summaries. More information on my talk page.">more ) ) 17:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, clear-cut SOP. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems idiomatic to me, mainly because it is dame instead of femme which is rather unusual (grande femme doesn't seem to be used). In the same spirit I would even create grand monsieur (also a somewhat unusual coinage) but not grand homme. - --Olybrius (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, maybe even grand homme is idiomatic precisely because one doesn't say grande femme. Olybrius (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You might be onto something with the dame - femme thing, but I don't think it's specific to, though: compare brave homme ~ brave dame ("brave femme" sounds weird).
 * Unrelatedly, should we have an entry for as a term of address? PUC – 18:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As brave femme didn't seem so unusual to me, I looked it up on Ngram Viewer and it is actually more frequent than brave dame! I am not familiar with Ngram Viewer, so I am not sure if I used it correctly or how meaningful the result is but well at least it is a funny tool! I also tried petite dame, petit monsieur and petit bonhomme (this last one being used with children) and the winner, by far, is petit bonhomme, yay! (I like this expression). I am not sure an entry is required for them but as they are very common phrases, they should definitely be mentioned somewhere. Olybrius (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SOP.
 * ‘Great’ is a perfectly ordinary sense for grand. Nobody would accept entries like “cool song” and “cool evening” on the grounds that “cool” has more than one meaning.
 * The dame part doesn’t change anything unless the overall combination has some sense that isn’t covered by “great” + “woman/lady”. Nicodene (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I fear I will never really understand what a SOP is. In fact I am not even sure if there is an actual boundary between words and nonwords. Isn't, say, folk medicine, medicine that is folk? Or rain water, water from the rain? I suppose this type of discussion is bound to resurface endlessly and I am sorry to contribute to this endlessness but to me a vieille dame and a grande dame are not the same thing, grande dame being a sort of unofficial honorific title that is not entirely set but still somewhat idiomatic. Otherwise, wouldn't it be rather strange that a term that doesn't exist would have a descendant in another language? Or was it merely the coinage of some indécrottable (and prominent) francophile? Are there other instances of this? Please note also that the TLFi mentions it at dame (along with belle dame and vraie dame). Although it doesn't bother to define these phrases, that is already a hint that they are considered somewhat idiomatic (trust the pros!). I also think that when there is a page for a suspected foreign SOP in the corresponding native wiktionary, it should be taken into consideration as well (trust the locals!) instead of being dismissed summarily (at least with the most active wiktionaries where the number of contributors is not too scarce). Somehow I can't help considering sopness as a convenient way to expedite things when one doesn't want to bother. I am also wondering if it wouldn't be applied more frequently to foreign languages while English, being the native language here and consequently more familiar to a majority of contributors, would more often be spared these procedures. Olybrius (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * fr.wiktionary should be taken with a big fat grain of salt. PUC – 11:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The precise sense of folk that is found in folk medicine is quite niche (the only comparison that comes to mind for me is folk etymology), whereas the sense of in grande dame is banal. Rainwater is debatably one word, and often written as such, like icecream. Nicodene (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

te casaste, la cagaste
Hello. Can we please check the inclusion criteria on this article? Here, seemingly, a non-native speaker of Spanish came across this phrase thinking it was common saying or proverb and wrote an article on it. Thanks. Schweinchen (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

"This is taken from the title of a rather unnotable song and not a set phrase of the Spanish language or anything like that. By the same logic, we might as well include 'The endeudaste, la cagaste', 'The hipotecaste, la cagaste' and 'Te compraste un coche, la cagaste'."


 * The phrase is perfectly cromulent in Spanish, just the definition "an anti-marriage proverb" is, well, shitty. Denazz (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The phrase occurs in books that predate the song by almost a century. --Lambiam 19:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

floare de măr, floare de cireș, floare de portocal
Otiose SOP’s conditioned by the equally meritless English equivalents, ,. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

shok samachar
Mauritian Creole. SOP? literally "mourning news". Protegmatic (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * In Hindi newspapers the Hindi etymon seems to be the title of "Deaths" sections. A better definition might be "sad news". --Lambiam 11:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

paco
Spanish, etym 5, sense "a cheap drug...". From my understanding of it, this is cocaine paste, and typical "paco" would have this stuff in it, in varying amounts.

(Also, is "paco" found in Spain? It's always mentioned in connection with Argentina and its neighbors, as far as I know.) CitationsFreak (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

patinete eléctrico, patinete elétrico
Galician, Portuguese, Spanish SOP’s. The common case of facile translation box link bluening. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

cludico
Forgot to mark it as a reconstruction, sorry Oigolue (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Fixed by moving it to . Nicodene (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

inzuppare il biscotto
Italian. This is just a euphemism, but I don't think it's lexical. Imetsia (talk (<span style="cursor:help;" title="I strongly prefer messages on my talk page instead of article talk pages, Wiktionary discussion pages, or edit summaries. More information on my talk page.">more ) ) 13:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Italian so I can't judge, but 🇨🇬 is lexicalised. PUC – 15:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

declarar guerra
Portuguese. A set phrase, but SOP. PUC – 14:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

declarar la guerra
Spanish. A set phrase, but SOP. PUC – 14:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

dêcliather la dgèrre
Norman. A set phrase, but SOP. PUC – 14:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)