PUC

I am uncertain whether my attempt to link you in the discussion page of POH got through to you. Please check it. JonRichfield (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Aha, ok??? Emm, like, ok? This is the most epic national anthem like EVER??????: Men - tyva men Shumkichi (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Guemwnxno Shumkichi (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I just wanted to thank you for your nomination! I really appreciate that :) Tashi (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that two lemmas lack the senses used in this little passage:

Tout à coup, alors qu'il franchissait une sorte de col, il aperçut à peu de distance, lovés dans une vallée qui s'amorçait devant lui, quelques bâtiments que ...

What do you think? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I want to add a Polish slang term sikalafą and I found out that it was allegedly borrowed from French. The source I found says it's from a French phrase si qu’a la font which itself is a slang. Could you confirm that such phrase exists in French? I'd really appreciate it :) Tashi (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Tashi: Sorry, doesn't ring any bell. See this: "Wydaje mi się, że z francuskim nie ma to jednak nic wspólnego. Chyba że to jakiś slang plemienia z małego, podparyskiego getta. Istnieje w j. francuskim coś takiego jak à fond - w wolnym tłumaczeniu "na maksa", ale poza tym, wydaje mi się, że ten zlepek, to radosny twór artysty w stylu "żelipapą"". @Fay Freak, any idea? PUC – 16:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wow. Dzieki za pomoc! Nie wiedziałem, że tak dobrze umiesz po polsku :) Tashi (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Maybe an individual whom Poles met had the habit of saying in French ce qu'ils font. There is no necessity that there ever was a common phrase beyond an idiolect in French. Fay Freak (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

If only because I did not know the Template:parasynonyms in it before or forgot it, desiring this at many an occasion.

My hack for finding equations of legal terms is referring to a legal instrument of the European Union or perhaps decision of the ECJ where I expect (or already know) terms to occur. Even for someone having no clue about insurance law (which is even law graduates in general in Germany as this particular subject is not examined), for the parties affected by an insurance policy, it was as easy as looking into the recast Brussels regulation where Article 11 intentionally enumerates them for defining the competent courts. The translators themselves of course use some database and probably somewhere make up protologisms and ideosyncrasies but if they have deployed their words in statutes we know that the terminology is in use and canonical, and also distinct in meaning, for figurative repetition of a term as found in the common language supposedly cannot occur in the opera of the legislator (Verschleifungsverbot)—if terms occur in the same sentence there, jurists are always compelled to have them interpreted distinctly. Fay Freak (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is maison publique still in current use? It appears in the 8th edition Dictionnaire de l'Académie française from 1932-1935. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vox Sciurorum: I'm not sure. I don't think I've heard it myself (maison de passe or maison close would be more usual), but on the other hand I don't think it would be too hard to scrape a few 21th-century quotes. PUC – 11:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I found out why it's uncommon now. It meant a licensed brothel. France stopped licensing brothels in 1946. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello ! I'm writing this message because I would like to know why you (PUC) reverted my changes to the following page : https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tomber_%C3%A0_l%27eau as I thought my contribution was beneficial.

I disagree with the revert of my edit because it was supposed to help english readers understand the meaning of this figurative expression from the french language as native english speakers do not use the same expression to express the failure of something.

I am a native french speaker and I know the subject well enough that I took the liberty to add a small paragraph. Be assured I am just here to learn from the potential mistakes I made as I am a new contributor. I will not re-edit the page until I get approval from you or if you do not respond in the next 3 weeks (Because I really see my edit as beneficial). Have a nice day ! Oxey405 (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Oxey405: Hello. I reverted your edit because it didn't really add anything that wasn't already there: the English translation fall through implies all that in a more concise form. Nevertheless I've added a gloss to make it clearer. Also "meaning" isn't a valid header. PUC – 18:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please nominate me as a Autopatrolled user. Advanced Thanks. Prinaki (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand the reasoning behind this rollback. The main page is enfoncer des portes ouvertes, as that's the most common form. You can also see the Dutch page listed there. Shadowmanwkp (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why you removed almost everything from the faire l’école buissonnière that I wrote. I corrected the formatting, but otherwise the information I added is correct. Also, the idiom is not dated at all, I still use and hear it on my daily life. I guess you gotta let the native speakers make entries about their own language! SimsimUE (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SimsimUE: You did not correct the formatting. dated does not mean nobody uses it, it means the idiom is quaint, which it is (do you hear many teenagers or young adults saying they "font l'école buissonnière"?). You're wasting my time dude. PUC – 08:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks you deleted those stuffs I recently created. That made me realized that what I had created was not eligible for wiktionary. Else, much of my time and efforts would have been wasted in future. Now, I will be aware of the eligibility for contents in this place and I hope to visit your talk page regularly whenever I need help. Thank you! :-) Haoreima (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I replaced apprendre à un vieux singe à faire des grimaces by ce n’est pas à un vieux singe qu’on apprend à faire des grimaces and you reverted my edit. Would it be OK for you if the first is a redirection to the latter ? Jona (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your changes. I agree it should be labelled as alternative spelling, but I think it actually should be the opposite, vervoersmiddel should be labelled as a form of vervoermiddel and not vice versa. For instance, Van Dale has the one without -s- but does not have the one with -s-, and pretty much every usage criterion (e.g. Google Trends) suggests the one without -s- is more common. Thus I was surprised not to see the more common form. Thanks! — NickK (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for reminding, do you have any arguments for or against this proposal? If you have no opinion, I will go ahead and make changes. Thanks — NickK (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@NickK: Sorry, I forgot about this. I think I myself am more familiar with the -s- variant, but: 1) this may be a Flemish trait (I live in Belgium); 2) I'm not a native speaker; 3) my memory may be failing me. Maybe we can ask @Mnemosientje and @Lingo Bingo Dingo about this.

In any case, no real objection on my part, you can go ahead and switch them. PUC – 15:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Vervoersmiddel comes much more naturally to me, but looking at the statistics, perhaps the form without -s- should indeed be the main lemma. I haven't a very strong opinion tbh. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Vervoermiddel ought to be the lemma form. I want to raise the possibility as well that the first compound element may have originally been vervoeren, which wold have subsequently been reanalysed as a noun, enabling the appearance of the -s- interfix later, albeit as early as the 1880s. That the interfixed form comes more naturally to Mnemosienthe is interesting, I wonder how widespread that intuition is. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Can you tell me what the message was from 88.156.138.252? If it was something insulting, tell me. If it was about my IRL persona, please don't share it P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, please stick to just one username P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just some horrendous pictures. Nothing about you. PUC – 21:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ooh, cool. P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

There was someone who did stuff like this a number of years ago. They would post really awful pictures of dead bodies on people's talk pages. My guess is that the idea of provoking strong emotions in someone against their will gave them a feeling of power. You really have to wonder how someone could have gotten to be like that. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I had the choice. Later I realised that deleting obsolete templates was enough of a feeling of power. P.S. I just re-read Zofloya: "Dark and dreadful are the intricacies of the human heart." The kind of writing that is (i) amusingly 1700s Catholic/pious, (ii) actually makes you think "yep", (iii) ... Can you imagine I used to hang around with Goths, I wish they had been Visigoths. Equinox ◑ 03:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Malheureusement, je nai plus lhabitude de parler français au quotidien, mais pour autant que je sache, ce mot exprime également un adjectif Stríðsdrengur (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Stríðsdrengur: Any evidence for that? Sounds totally wrong to me but if you have quotes we can add it back. PUC – 12:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Je nai malheureusement pas de citations dans lesquelles ce mot est utilisé, mais il existe un dictionnaire qui utilise ce mot comme adjectif, je ne sais pas si ce dictionnaire vous semble fiable https://www.wordreference.com/fren/caut%C3%A8le Stríðsdrengur (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not enough, wordreference is a collaborative project like ours. I like that dictionary and use it all the time, but imo they're completely mistaken about this word. I don't know where they got it from that it's an adjective or that it means "flattery". PUC – 12:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

daccord Stríðsdrengur (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Reason one is stress pattern. That it is kinderdagverblijf is slightly more suggestive of a tripartite compound formed at once than a stacked compound.

Reason two is semantics. I associate dagverblijf with a homeless shelter, a prison facility or a shelter or enclosure in a zoo. The correlation with a daycare seems... weak. It is there, but there seems to be some remove in the semantic field as well.

Neither of these is a clincher, admittedly, not in isolation and not as part of a cumulative case. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would say that it needs a label at the very, very least, but it may not even be the most apt term for a translation table. Vogelvrij more commonly means "outlawed". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: I've removed it from the translation table. PUC – 16:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pomusz mi znaleźć przyjaciuł ;( PatkaSsie (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Umm, like, today is Polish Independence Day? I need to be treated like a queen? PatkaSsie (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Tacit collusion is not SoP, see

Wikipedia:Tacit collusion,

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/101362/1/684816040.pdf

AP295 (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have not seen your entry, but more than for concerted practice (Article 101 TFEU and much secondary legislation), I doubt this for your term. It does not occur in EU law outside of recitals, and one also switches between explicit collusion and express collusion frequently. The distinction between it and tacit collusion does not have different legal consequences either, if I understand it correctly, only in practice that the tacit one is more difficult to prove, consequential to the continental law idea that contracts can be made both expressly and impliedly. Naturally no economic difference can be made out to justify separate treatment outside of law either, as your economics paper admits p. 3: “While the distinction between explicit and tacit collusion exists in practice and in the law, it is a distinction that is largely absent from economic theory.” Which you could translate as somebody is making up protologisms. The Wikipedia author was really confused, true to the encyclopedia’s repute of an all-seeing trash heap. In general, cartel law coverage is not great on any Wikipedia and does not give a good impression of anything. One would not write it this way on Wikibooks. Fay Freak (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

"While the distinction between explicit and tacit collusion exists in practice and in the law, it is a distinction that is largely absent from economic theory." The author's point being that it deserves a more complete theoretical treatment. Why would they write an entire treatise on tacit collusion and how to model it if they thought it wasn't a distinct mode of collusion? Read the section 'concluding remarks'. It is not a protologism. Also I do not live in the EU. AP295 (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

There are also at least half a dozen other references in the Wikipedia article having "tacit collusion" right in the title. The author of the paper I cited isn't trying to coin his own term. AP295 (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

You make answers fast and read inattentively. Is this collusion conceptually modulated in any other fashion than by being tacit rather than explicit? We have to make out the coinage at all yet, not to speak about whether it is more than one author using it in a particular idiomatic sense. One can also theoretically and comprehensively treat green grass. Conclusively, the paper does not postulate anything other: non-explicit forms of collusion. Likewise you were just reformulating a sum-of-parts idea. Count the amount of papers having “green grass” in the title? Fay Freak (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Horizontal Restraint Regulations in the EU and the US in the Era of Algorithmic Tacit Collusion". Journal of Law and Jurisprudence. 13 June 2018.

"Sustainable and Unchallenged Algorithmic Tacit Collusion". Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

Skrzypacz, Andrzej; Hopenhayn, Hugo (2001). "Tacit Collusion in Repeated Auctions"

Bajari, Patrick; Yeo, Jungwon (1 June 2009). "Auction design and tacit collusion in FCC spectrum auctions". Information Economics and Policy. 21 (2): 90–100.

Hutchinson, Christophe Samuel; Ruchkina, Gulnara Fliurovna; Pavlikov, Sergei Guerasimovich (2021). "Tacit Collusion on Steroids: The Potential Risks for Competition Resulting from the Use of Algorithm Technology by Companies". Sustainability. 13 (2): 951

Fonseca, Miguel A. and Hans-Theo Normann, “Explicit vs. Tacit Collusion - The Impact of Communication in Oligopoly Experiments,” Duesseldorf Institute for Competition Economics, January 2011

I could go on but you can read the bibliographies of these papers on your own if you like. Clearly it's an area of active research and has a greater relevance than SoP suggests. You'd not say that artificial intelligence is SoP. You could find hundreds of such terms in any given field of research. AP295 (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

At any rate, it meets WP:NOTE and there are dozens if not more academic papers about it. Like I've said, simply writing it off as SoP seems to ignore its relevance even if (like many extant multi-word entries) it could arguably be called a sum of its parts. I can quote or cite some of this material so that the entry reflects its salience beyond what is implied by the naive SoP interpretation. AP295 (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Could you verify the pronunciation and plural for this entry please? Acolyte of Ice (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, PUC, I hope you're well. I'm not sure why you undid this edit. Is there policy against including audio pronunciations on wiktionary? Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Cremastra: No, but this particular user has a speech defect (a lisp), which means many of his audio files are worthless for our purposes; see User talk:PUC/2022 § brucellose. @Derbeth, hadn't you blacklisted him? I've had to revert several edits: diff, diff, diff, and I may have missed some. PUC – 00:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, okay, thanks. I hadn't noticed the lisp on the c. Cremastra (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please let me know whenever wrong edits are made, so that I can react quickly. I don't have an easy way to blacklist a user, so I made a rule that no file named like Fr-Paris-- will be used. --Derbeth ^talk 07:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello PUC,

Should we delete "this is neither the time nor the place" from the list of derived terms for the entry "time"? (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/time#Derived_terms) Mynewfiles (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved to Talk:do#Latin compounds of dare. --Grufo (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Salut mon brave. I'm not going to fight this kind of thing [1] but doesn't it seem silly to manually write out "Borrowed from" (with all the risk of typos, and lack of localisation) when there's already a borrow template being used? Equinox ◑ 00:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm well aware that an entry with the same name was previously deleted, but that was years earlier. The entry that you created had several references and constructive information, including a scholarly paper and a linguistic organisation.

Can you really make the argument that the article you deleted today is comparable to the one deleted in the cited RFD? Rose Abrams (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I gave you a rationale. Courtesy requires that you at least respond to that, don't you think? 0DF (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@0DF: We're not Wikipedia, and you're inventing a new formatting that isn't used anywhere else here (or if it is it shouldn't be). PUC – 22:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because...? And I figured you'd recognise that some of those reasons would apply to the English Wiktionary (mutatis mutandis), even if not all of them would. Plus, {{lang}} skips the left-hand table of contents, which serves all readers, not just visually-impaired ones. 0DF (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because it has not been agreed upon and the overwhelming majority of our entries doesn't use it. You can open a discussion about this at the Beer Parlour and make your case there if you want. PUC – 22:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done. 0DF (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

it is indeed the idiomatic way to say sugar cube, never heard cube de sucre Diligent (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Diligent: sucre en morceau(x) (uncountable) translates as cube sugar (uncountable), not as sugar cube (countable). An individual sugar cube is a cube de sucre, a collocation that is plentily attested on Google books (I can also find hits for dé de sucre). PUC – 17:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've added sucre en morceau & morceau de sucre. This cube de sucre is indeed plentily attested but seems like the result of

• a bad Google traduction (you will notice that of this plentitude, none of them French in the top 20, phenomenon reinforced by websites like Lingee.com
• As far as Google books is concerned, I have checked and most of the occurence is a bad clipping of décimètre cube de sucre (a cubic decimeter of sugar) or pied cube de sucre (a cubic foot of sugar)

So, do as you want, but as a French native speaker, I maintain that the proper translation is NOT cube de sucre.

This said, I wanted to thank you for bringing my attention to the difference between sucre en morceau (uncountable) & morceau de sucre (countable). You are totally right. --Diligent (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Diligent: I'm also a native speaker, and I'm not particularly bothered by cube de sucre, although I would agree morceau de sucre is probably more common. See "un cube de sucre" or "cubes de sucre" + café for a few true hits on GB. PUC – 18:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

What was the rationale for banning that IP? All the edits looked fine, is there something I don’t know? ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Biolongvistul: Most of these edits are worthless and add no new information, and since I don't feel like wasting my time sorting the wheat from the chaff, I'm reverting them all. All the French idioms they've edited are already presented as negative polarity items, the IP is just obsessed about mentioning that in a label, which is completely unnecessary. Moreover, they're creating unwanted red links, like here for example. Another thing they're doing is adding "idiom" as a label, a practice I've opposed for many years. PUC – 21:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

diff
What is the rollback reason of the comment? Nyuhn (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings PUC,

I have added several citations to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Citations:magic_nigger. As an administrator, are you able to unlock this uncreated term so I can input it? It is widely used on the Internet and in newsgroups to refer to a "black person that acts or behaves outside the stereotypical norm". newfiles (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete the definition just in order to add a request for definition? Why did you add article working capital requirement without definition? Looks erratic to me. Hekaheka (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Hekaheka: Because the old definition at working capital didn't make sense to me (and the new one still doesn't, the second part at least). In my understanding working capital is the difference between equity and fixed assets (in other words the part of equity that hasn't been invested in fixed assets and can consequently be used to other ends; compare Cambridge definition: "the money belonging to a company that is immediately available for business use, rather than money it has in investments or property"). It is not "current assets minus current liabilities", which would be a definition for working capital requirement.

This should be cleared up, because if your current definition is correct (which I'm not sure it is), then the French translation I added some time ago isn't. PUC – 14:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

In that case also Wikipedia's definition is wrong. Here is Merriam-Webster's definition:

working capital

noun

capital actively turned over in or available for use in the course of business activity:

a: the excess of current assets over current liabilities

b: all capital of a business except that invested in capital assets

Collins:

Working capital is money which is available for use immediately, rather than money which is invested in land or equipment. [business]

Hekaheka (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Earlier today, you closed an RFD which you yourself had started, and in which not one person had voted to delete. This is an out of process closure. In the interest of the project, I ask that you restore the deleted content, and promise us today that you will forever refrain from closing RFD's in which there is no consensus for deletion. I want to add this is not a promise anyone should need to make explicitly; it is part and parcel of being an administrator on this project. Regards, —Soap— 13:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Almost six months have elapsed since I opened the RFD. Considering that, in all that time, no reasonable argument for keeping the entry was brought forward, I chose to exercise my admin prerogative and delete it, invoking one of the reasons that we have at our disposal to do so without resorting to an RFD: namely "non-idiomatic sum-of-parts term." If someone else wants to actually engage with what I wrote in my initial comment and show me that grande dame really is more idiomatic / less SOP and more deserving of an entry than grand homme, grand écrivain, grand général, grand compositeur, grand scientifique or grand peintre (or grand romancier, grand sculpteur, grande actrice, grand athlète, grande nageuse, and the list goes on), then I'll reopen the RFD.

In the meantime, I simply am incapable of taking seriously someone whose criteria for idiomaticity seem so absurdly lax; for whom, as a corollary, the threshold for entry creation is so absurdly low; that this person would be happy to have entries for all the aforementioned items. And no, I do not have to "read minds" to arrive at this conclusion: all I'm doing is reading what you've written and making an inference:

A: "When a two-word phrase relies on a secondary meaning of one of its content words, it is the very definition of idiomatic."

B: "the primary meaning of grand(e) in French is large size, not renown."

C: ergo, any two-word phrase that uses grand in another sense than "large" is idiomatic.

If you do not arrive at the same conclusion, then you're logically inconsistent and I cannot take you seriously either. Or maybe I'm just missing some other premise, in which case I invite you to clarify your position.

You (and others) might wonder why I did not ask you to do that earlier. I must admit I lost patience; after what I found to be a fruitless and frustrating exchange with you, I did not care to go through that experience again. Let me add that I didn't take you up on your offer there because it struck me as a copout on your part. I asked you straightforward questions about a few phrases, and you started pontificating about "core principles of layout"; this way of forgoing to deal with specifics by appealing to generalities is a practice I'm highly suspicious of. I'm not against taking a higher-level view of things (far from it; in fact I think one of the main problems of Wiktionary is that we haven't worked out a common vision for the project), but you don't do that in the middle of an RFD debate.

I will end by saying that by reverting me and restoring the entry, you reintroduced plainly false information, as French grande dame isn't a compound noun by any means. Whether you did not notice, did not know, or did not care, it does not encourage me to cease disregarding your opinion in this matter.

That being said, I realise this is all pretty borderline and I should not be acting unilaterally. For this reason I would like for a third person (maybe @Chuck Entz) to intervene. PUC – 20:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I chose to exercise my admin prerogative, hmmm. You did the same in Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#will to power, will-to-power as well, reverted my edit and refused to have an intercourse(given your incognizance of the word). Lastly, protecting the page indefinitely was also incautious. Word0151 (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

This looks like equivocation to me, where you're setting me up to look like the bad guy if I don't produce an equally long-winded response.

But I'm not the one who did something wrong here. I have done nothing that I need to explain, let alone apologize for.

You started an RFD, and after six months nobody supported you, so you closed it as delete out of process. This is clear-cut and I see no reason why this situation requires a third party's opinion. You can restore the content you deleted and reaffirm that will you no longer close RFD's out of process .... like every other administrator .... and we can move on. —Soap— 07:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit late, but I agree with PUC. RFD suffers from the problem that clearly SOP entries sit and collect dust for months or even years before anyone closes the discussion and deletes the entry. As a result, there is a burdensome backlog of entries at RFD, and we've come up with clunky solutions like splitting up RFDI, RFDCJK, RFDNE. (I've written on this issue before). To address this, admins are well within their rights to take executive action and summarily delete SOP entries. Imetsia (talk (more)) 18:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Some IP is adding these labels to a lot of French words currently tagged with "Quebec", in what looks like an automatic fashion. I'm not familiar with the use of French inside the US, but I find it doubtful that specific Quebec coinages/terms such as mot-clic would get wide adoption outside of Canada. What do you think? Jberkel 06:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jberkel: I saw this too, and I am equally skeptical... Unfortunately I'm not familiar with North American French either. I think the safest option would be to mass revert. PUC – 17:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are lots of French Canadians who live in New England, some of home may retain their culture, especially in northern New England. Cajun French (LouisianA) is well known. Missouri seems much more doubtful as a place with a notable Francophone community. Also, Quebec is not the only province in Canada that has Francophone communities. That said, I doubt that Cajun and Quebecoise should be merged or assumed to evolve in parallel. I find it hard to believe that we could document specific terms, except possibly slang proper nouns, that were distinctly 'New England French' or 'Missouri French' or, for that matter 'New Brunswick French'. DCDuring (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=if_you_want_peace%2C_prepare_for_war&oldid=prev&diff=80658678

It's a proverb, not a noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It still requires an English meaning, which was improved by my changes. WritersCramp (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Why did you do that? ПростаРечь (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Presumably, adding links to other Wiktionaries for reconstructions is a practice that requires a policy. I’d talk about it on WT:Beer Parlor if I cared enough about the situation. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 03:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings PUC,

Would you regard this term to be SoP? mynewfiles (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm no expert, but from what I see online it seems to be a specific medical term, so no? PUC – 20:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you kindly for the prompt response. mynewfiles (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply