万维词典

主题:Requests for deletion/English


Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

Requests for verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for verification/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5


This page is for entries in English. For entries in other languages, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English.

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”
  • Out-of-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use

Templates:

Shortcuts:

See also:

Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. One of the reasons for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "green leaf". It is occasionally used for undeletion requests, requests to restore entries that may have been wrongly deleted.

Out of scope: This page is not for requests for deletion in other namespaces such as "Category:" or "Template:", for which see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others. It is also not for requests for attestation. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.

Adding a request: To add a request for deletion, place the template {{rfd}} or {{rfd-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. The section title should be exactly the wikified entry title such as "[[green leaf]]". The deletion of just part of a page may also be proposed here. If an entire section is being proposed for deletion, the tag {{rfd}} should be placed at the top; if only a sense is, the tag {{rfd-sense}} should be used, or the more precise {{rfd-redundant}} if it applies. In any of these cases, any editor including non-admins may act on the discussion.

Closing a request: A request can be closed when a decision to delete, keep, or transwiki has been reached, or after the request has expired. Closing a request normally consists of the following actions:

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it was deleted), or de-tagging it (if it was kept). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFD deleted or RFD kept, indicating what action was taken.
  • Striking out the discussion header.

(Note: The above is typical. However, in many cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply "RFD deleted" or "RFD kept".)

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk page using {{archive-top|rfd}} + {{archive-bottom}}. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:piffle, Talk:good job. Note that talk pages containing such discussions are preserved even if the associated article is deleted.

Time and expiration: Entries and senses should not normally be deleted in less than seven days after nomination. When there is no consensus after some time, the template {{look}} should be added to the bottom of the discussion. If there is no consensus for more than a month, the entry should be kept as a 'no consensus'.


Oldest tagged RFDs


September 2018

fortnight

I think "fortnight" in "Wednesday fortnight" is either a noun or an adjective, but not an adverb. If it is an adverb, that PoS should be added to "week" Helenpaws (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

If evening isn’t an adverb this is neither. It is to be understood as an accusativus mensurae, adverbial accusative Indo-European languages use often for time and space. Sometimes one creates these for Arabic but I tend to do not because it is regular use and not lexical, no kind of conversion has taken place usually. Remove because of the analogy. We could add adverb senses to night etc. else. Also remove in the other day, Friday, Tuesday and everywhere else where it can be spotted. I have been surprised to find that it is found as an adverb sense in Tuesday. Now I find mid-March … oh no. Nobody ascribes adverb quality to März despite German uses the month names without “in” (not “in March 2018” but “März 2018”; and we can also say “den März 2018” though this is usually too much to be said; but point is these all aren’t adverbs lexically). Fay Freak (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
If you're making an analogy between "Wednesday fortnight" and "Wednesday night/evening", I see these as rather different. The latter is a night/evening, while the former is not a fortnight. This makes the classification as a noun more straightforward in the latter, in my opinion. Mihia (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Not an adverb nor an adjective, delete. I moved the quote. DonnanZ (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I can see why these may appear to be adverbs. "I'll see you Wednesday fortnight" is elliptical for "I'll see you on Wednesday in a fortnight", where "on Wednesday" and "in a fortnight" are prep phrases that modify the verb "see", making them adverbial. I am leaning towards keep, since there seems to be a contained set of such words, i.e. this pattern doesn't work for all nouns (you can say "I'll see you on my birthday" but not *"I'll see you (my) birthday", and I don't think you can say "I'll see you June" or "I'll see you September" - they kinda sounds weird to me). Certainly, I wouldn't want to delete the other day meaning "recently". - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

ride the ... train

Uuuuggghhh. Serious WTF-age. Meh, we cooouuuld move this to train. --XY3999 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn’t this first go to rfv? The WTF-ness does not determine the idiomaticity. BTW, you’ll also find surf the AI wave and jump on the AI bandwagon.  --Lambiam 07:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I think there is no doubt that the expression "ride the ~ train" is verifiably in reasonably common use (though I question how precisely the present definition captures its meaning). I guess the question is more whether it deserves to be a dictionary lemma in itself, and, if so, how it should be presented. Do we normally allow lemmas to contain "..."? Mihia (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This is more of a metaphor than anything fixed and lexical. You can {be on|be on board|board|catch|get on|get on board|ride|take}(or {get off|miss|skip}) the {huge variety of nouns/proper nouns- e.g. w:Peace Train} {bandwagon|train|? possibly others}. I'd call it a snowclone, but it's a bit looser than that. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Move to Appendix:Snowclones/ride the X train. That's how we normally deal with these. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
"snowclone" is a word that I had never heard of until I heard it here, but our definition says "A type of cliché which uses an old idiom formulaically placed in a new context", so for it to be one of those, would there not need to be an original or prototype idiom of the form "ride the ~ train", which the others copy? Is there one? Mihia (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Could the old idiom be ride the gravy train?  --Lambiam 16:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
That seems more likely than ride the crazy train or any other alternative, yes. Move per MK. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Not a term I'm familiar with, is it American? I also think the pro-Trump usex should be deleted, even if tne entry survives. DonnanZ (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep where it is unless existence is in doubt, which is for RFV. I don't like Appendix:Snowclones; let's keep items in mainspace for maximum convenience. We have I'm ... year(s) old, although I prefer I'm twenty years old. An alternative would be to find a high-frequency representative term of the pattern, create an entry for that term to host the snowclone, and redirect other terms matching the pattern to it. The entry to host the whole snowclone could be ride the gravy train (now redirect); see also ride the * train at Google Ngram Viewer. If that approach would be chosen, the nominated entry ride the ... train could be redirected to it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Move to the snowclones appendix. Per utramque cavernam 21:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

come out ahead

I think this is SOP: come out + ahead. It's just a common collocation. You can also end up ahead ([1]), which looks more or less synonymous; or come out first. Per utramque cavernam 09:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. I think (in case this doesn’t get deleted) that the def conflates two distinct sense, both of them SOP. First, you can come out ahead of where you started – you made a profit; never mind how others did – maybe there even aren’t any. Second, you can come out ahead of everyone else – maybe you suffered a net loss, like everyone else, but still, you did better than the rest.  --Lambiam 17:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A person can also come out on top. John Cross (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete SOP - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: present in three idiom dictionaries[2]. Note that this is not strictly per WT:LEMMING since that only allows general dictionaries. I would not know how to obtain the meaning from come out and ahead. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dan Polansky. I think there is a gloss here where it applies to a silver lining coming from what could be expected to be a bad situation. bd2412 T 03:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thames River

Sum of parts. Seems to have been created only to tell people not to use it. Equinox 18:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

River Thames is a redirect to Thames. We could do likewise for Thames River. On Wikipedia, Thames and Thames River are redirects to River Thames.  --Lambiam 21:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Redirect. The usage note can go to Thames. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I don’t know what it means to claim that it is “technically incorrect” – and who is the arbiter regarding correctness?  --Lambiam 08:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
In the case of a geographic feature, those who live on, in, or beside it generally get to set the naming rules. No matter how many people read "Reading" off the map as reed-ing, if the inhabitants insist it's red-ing, red-ing it is. Local or national geographic boards also may have legal power to name things. If the English, particularly Londoners, agree "Thames River" is incorrect, I'd say it's reasonable to call it incorrect.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's technically incorrect, just incorrect in language usage in Great Britain and Ireland. In New Zealand and Australia "River" follows the name, e.g. Clutha River. DonnanZ (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
It generally does in the US as well. But if the English insist that it's the "River Thames", most other English speakers are going to respect that as correct. (Likewise "Kolkata", "Côte d’Ivoire", and "Bejing", and only the first nation has any English-speaking tradition.) Maybe "technically correct" isn't the best way to write it, but I do think that most English speakers, if told that the English use the River Thames, would accept that as the correct name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I had a go at rewording it. DonnanZ (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Looks good.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
As for diff, where can I verify the following: "(nonstandard, not the customary language usage in Great Britain and Ireland)"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
You might be able to find evidence for it with a clever Google Ngrams search, or you could look for prescriptions in reference works. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Google Ngram did not show Thames River to be dispreferred by language users (River Thames, Thames River at Google Ngram Viewer); it probably was not clever enough. And as for the reference works, I would have thought it is the task of people entering that kind of information to tell us which reference work they used. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Local knowledge helps. I live near the River Thames, as well as a tributary, the River Crane. You can also refer to River Shannon and River Liffey, two Irish rivers. DonnanZ (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
River Thames, or R Thames, or River Thames or Isis in the Oxford area, is the name which appears on Ordnance Survey (OS) maps (published under Crown copyright). The same applies to other rivers; there are exceptions such as the Longford River, which is not a natural river. DonnanZ (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Is it possible to do a Google Ngrams search that excludes hits that include the word "Connecticut"? Or exclude hits with American spellings like "center"? Many of the "Thames River" hits seem to be talking about the river in Connecticut. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: Thames River:eng_us_2012,River Thames:eng_us_2012,Thames River:eng_gb_2012,River Thames:eng_gb_2012 at Google Ngram Viewer. Per utramque cavernam 16:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I modified the above GNV: (Thames River:eng_gb_2012*10),River Thames:eng_gb_2012 at Google Ngram Viewer, and I get frequency ratio of 10. That does not suggest "non-standard" to me; "much less common", sure. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Some facts: Thames River,River Thames,(Thames*0.07) at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. A river in Connecticut has this name. DonnanZ (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Most rivers are entered without "River", but this can be a grey area, e.g. Red River, Orange River. Seas are usually entered in full, Black Sea, North Sea, Mediterranean Sea, but there is also Mediterranean. I think there is a case for retaining "River" in certain entries at least. DonnanZ (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The Grey River in NZ was derived from the surname, not the colour (see Grey), but may be worth an entry all the same. The same sort of thing applies to the Orange River. DonnanZ (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Meh. What to do with things like this that also exist without the "River" (or "Creek", etc) component is a grey area. I say redirect per Lambiam and FF, as is done for River Thames. I would do the same with Mississippi River. - -sche (discuss) 09:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Japan Socialist Party

Doesn't seem to fall within our purview. We don't have entries for Democratic Party and Republican Party; see Talk:Republican Party and Talk:Democratic Party. Per utramque cavernam 19:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep. The nomination does not refer to any item of WT:CFI. This could be deleted via editor discretion, per WT:NSE. Rereading now Talk:Democratic Party, I now realize that the claims of SOP made in support of the deletion were wrong: both Democratic Party and Republican Party are democratic, but only one of them is called Democratic. Anyone remembers German Democratic Republic or Holy Roman Empire, about the latter of which Quine opined that it was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire? Is the Japan Socialist Party socialist? Who knows. As for WT:COMPANY, it does not have a consensus support, and it is questionable that political parties are companies--not in my universe. The same talk page shows that other political parties have not been deleted yet, e.g. Conservative Party and Labour Party. A 2015 keeping is at Talk:Transhumanist Party. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Democratic Party and Republican Party could have been kept via WT:LEMMING, per Democratic Party at OneLook Dictionary Search and Republican Party at OneLook Dictionary Search; it is a pity I did not realize that in the deletion discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we should have entries for specific political or corporate entities, books, buildings, people, etc. except in some very rare circumstances. That's stuff for Wikipedia. Equinox 06:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Single-word names of companies have pronunciation, and in non-English languages inflection, both classes of lexicographical information. A related question is whether we should have species names and whether that is a job for Wikispecies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Having lexicographical information is not (IMO) sufficient to argue for inclusion. That way we could include every Pokémon, every (single-named) character from literature ever, every product made by a company. To me (perhaps someone who doesn't belong to this modern pop-culture world) it's absurd even to contemplate. Equinox 07:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
There's a point in what you say, and I'm not keen on covering every Pokémon either. That said, Tesco (redlink) is not part of any pop-culture world; it is part of everyday experience of shoppers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
CFI has no notability criteria, so Tesco is no different from (to give some hypothetical examples) Sam's Hardware, Al's Pizza, Joe's Diner, etc in various small towns. There's also no time limit, so a business that used to be on a corner that's now a subway station would be fair game. The main objection I have, however, is that it leaves an opening for people to use our dictionary to promote their own businesses- we won't know who they are if they didn't tell us. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
They would need to meet WT:ATTEST for their Joe's Diner, and there would not be much to state for promotion in a dictionary definition. By contrast, Wikipedia is a real venue for business promotion; indeed, companies are not excluded from Wikipedia. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
If their local paper is archived, attestation isn't much of an obstacle. As for motivation: anyone who does much first-line patrolling sees people trying to sneak in references to their businesses all the time (not to mention spambots). Wikipedia can handle promotional edits because it has notability and referencing requirements- we don't. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate that you know better than I do what you are talking about as for people trying to promote their business. We might create notability guidelines for companies. Current CFI basically forbids companies, even though there is no consensus for that (cca 50:50). where there is a will. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think this is the sort of thing someone should expect to find in a dictionary as opposed to an encyclopedia. Tesco is at least a single short opaque word, but this is (not a single word and) transparently the name of a political party. - -sche (discuss) 08:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Iceland is also a UK supermarket chain that specialises in frozen food, but it doesn't get a mention. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not saying Tesco merits inclusion, only that Japan Socialist Party has even less merit than Tesco. - -sche (discuss) 18:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the Iceland supermarket deserves a mention either … DonnanZ (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I have only just discovered the {{no entry}} template, which is used for Walmart. Could it be used for Japan Socialist Party? DonnanZ (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Keep, as Dan notes editor discretion is allowed, this seems unusual as there was a fierce factional dispute about what English translation to use (this is the former name). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Delete as encyclopedic; I don't see how the name dispute brings lexicographical significance. — surjection?〉 10:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

January 2019

funeral store

What do we think about this one? - TheDaveRoss 14:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Obvious SOP. KevinUp (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Something I have never heard of. Is it an American thing? I would say keep it. In Britain an undertaker has an office where one can arrange a funeral, show a death certificate, and choose a coffin from a catalogue. It ain't no "store". DonnanZ (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
This puts a funeral store right in the middle of 1927 Swansea.  --Lambiam 20:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is meant there, it appears to be a mortuary. Is that the only British link to be found? DonnanZ (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Possibly a store for storage, not for selling things. DonnanZ (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Some more: [3]; [4]; [5]; [6].  --Lambiam 16:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
A couple of those are for "mortuary and funeral equipment", which doesn't fit the definition of the entry. The other two may be isolated copycats. DonnanZ (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
In the good ol' U-S-of-A you might not get free health care, but you can absolutely accessorize your coffin. - TheDaveRoss 16:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete – a fūnus-related store. Fay Freak (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, do we speak Latin all of a sudden? I think there is a good case for keeping this for the benefit of non-American users. DonnanZ (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep. They don't sell funerals. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Pace User:Tooironic, they sell things for funerals just like a google books:"Christmas shop" sells Christmas-themed things (without selling the holiday itself somehow), a google books:"wedding store" sells things for weddings, a google books:"party rental" store rents tuxedos etc for parties, etc, etc... and it's not even a set phrase, "funeral shop" and "funeral shoppe" are also attested, as is "mortuary store" (about half the hits I see are for a store selling things, with the other half referring to storage spaces). (And pace Donnanz, I don't get the impression that it's common in American English and absent from other dialects; as Lambiam points out, they exist in the UK and other places; it just seems they're not very common anywhere — because it seems like funeral homes usually handle the sale of urns, etc.) - -sche (discuss) 09:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete per -sche. Per utramque cavernam 10:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I would be happy to keep this but do not know which card to play. I sometimes like things explicitly disambiguated: having a def like "A store selling products and services for funerals, such as caskets or urns" is nice. In Czech, we don't seem to have *"pohřební obchod" so the entry also clarifies the term exists in the first place, SOP or not SOP. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't necessarily think that we need to keep this entry, but I do feel that our entry for store does not adequately convey that a "[foo] store" can mean a store that specializes in selling products in the [foo] category. bd2412 T 00:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    If anyone comes up with wording to convey this, note that the same general thing is true of "shop" (as in "Christmas shop") and probably some other words ("business"?) and could also be added there. - -sche (discuss) 01:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Advanced Encryption Standard

This is purely encyclopedic. - TheDaveRoss 14:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A long time ago I nominated Twofish? (or Bluefish? or some such "named crypto algorithm") on the same grounds, and it was kept: I felt it was something like a trademark, and not quite a dictionary term. I will say delete because I still feel that way and this one is pretty much an SoP phrase, even though there could theoretically be other "advanced encryption standards" that aren't AES. Equinox 05:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Governed by WT:NSE. What makes it different from Twofish is that it is a capitalized space-separated phrase consisting of words that are not proper nouns. It is not a sum of parts, yet open to editor discretion as per WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

prison gang

SoP, a gang in prison. Ultimateria (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Could it also mean a prison work gang? (that's a term that should have an entry). DonnanZ (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Seems SOP to me, delete unless there is some more specific sense. Re work gang, I have not seen it used in that way, and we do have chain gang, beyond that specific term I have seen a few different formulations related to groups of prisoners working outside of the prison, work gang, work crew and work detail among them. - TheDaveRoss 14:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Oxford has an entry for work gang. DonnanZ (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I think work crew and work detail occur with equal facility in non-prison contexts, with work detail appearing in military contexts. bd2412 T 02:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I don’t think a conscientious writer would use the term “prison gang” for a work gang of prisoners, for the simple reason it would surely be misunderstood by almost every reader, just like one wouldn’t use the term “kitchen table” for a table of weights and measures used in a kitchen.  --Lambiam 14:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
In fact, that was the first meaning I thought of when I read the thread title. Of course, I understand the other meaning well enough too. Mihia (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Here is a question that has come up before with arguably SoPpy terms: How should an ESL learner know which of the many senses of gang is the one to choose for understanding the term prison gang? I think sense 6, but that may not be obvious – and, moreover, that sense does not impart the persistence of prison gangs. Therefore I’m leaning towards Keep. (BTW, the somewhat figurative sense for a group of politicians – which I think could also be high-level executives or officials in a non-political organization – ought to be a sense on its own, rather than being lump together with criminal gangs, which tend to be more structured and have a longer lifespan.)  --Lambiam 14:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
If quality of definition were the criteria, I would say delete. As it is now, it looks like it is defining a Hollywood prison gang. An internet search for "what is a prison gang" would give better answers. -Mike (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. Pppery (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

aab

Lowercase form of AAB, I am sure FBI has been written fbi on many occasions, I don't believe that makes it a distinct term. - TheDaveRoss 16:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

aacp

Same as above. - TheDaveRoss 16:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

aac

Same as above. - TheDaveRoss 16:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

OTOH, if these are written in lowercase, it would make them even less intelligible because they would look like words... if I read "the aab fired on the approaching jet", how am I to figure out that "jet" is a word and "aab" is only an acronym (and for what?) if there's no entry for "aab"? IMO keep if attested, although I wouldn't object to converting it to a soft redirect like {{altcaps|AAB}} or {{altcaps|AAB||anti-aircraft battery}}. - -sche (discuss) 18:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. My initial instinct was to send these to RfV to see if they ever are attested, but if they are, they are merely a miscapitalization of the acronym. I'm sure it would be just as easy to find sources where ELEPHANT or COMBUSTION is spelled in all-caps, but this doesn't make these different words. bd2412 T 04:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

by one's own admission

I could fulfil the {{rfdef}}, but it's just by one's own admission, by an admission one oneself made AFAICT, including per the Merriam-Webster link. Is it enough of a set phrase to keep? - -sche (discuss) 20:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Abstain as the creator, with a weak inclination to delete. That's one of my weaker English entries. Per utramque cavernam 18:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I would be happy to keep the entry but which card to play? We don't say this in Czech, but it can be just a difference in a larger pattern. There is a reference to M-W in the entry, but the lemming vote does not fare well: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-12/Lemming principle into CFI. One might argue that the use of "by" is peculiar; when something is true by one's admission, it means that one admits it is true, not that the means by which it is true is an admission, one's or otherwise. Compare by one's lights. A definition could be as one admits. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-idiomatic sum of parts. bd2412 T 04:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 05:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 09:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

astern of

It is not necessary to have a page for astern of defined as a preposition as astern is an adjective and of is the preposition, and each of those are separately defined. In the usage example on the page ("a wake astern of her") the usage of astern is akin to east in "a mile east of here", and we wouldn't define east of as a preposition with its own page. Mike (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Doesn’t the argument equally apply to ahead of? Also, don’t you mean adverb? In these uses, astern and east are not serving as attributes, so a more likely part-of-speech assignment is that they are adverbs.  --Lambiam 07:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Usage such as following shows that astern fits in the adjective word class:
  • 1872, Hunt's Yachting Magazine[7], volume 21, page 288:
    Every yachtsman knows that if the ballast of a ship be too afore or too astern.
  • 1883, Lieutenant J. Menteith Brebner, RETURN WRECKS AND CASUALTIES IN INDIAN WATERS[8], page 140:
    The chief engineer's evidence of the S.S. Lennox was the best given; but, as will be seen, he asserted that from the orders he received the Lennox's course was more astern than ahead.
  • 1883, Alexander George Findlay, A Sailing Directory for the Ethiopic Or South Atlantic Ocean[9]:
    but when near Cape Palmas the wind will perhaps be more astern
  • 1966, Peter Padfield, The Titanic and the Californian[10], page 233:
    The steamer was more than ahead of us, just on our quarter as we say, and the light was more astern.
It appears as a predicate (unlike an adverb) and is gradable (unlike a noun). Other usage shows that in can appear attributively (unlike an adverb) in phrases like astern power/thrust. DCDuring (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I do not disagree, but observe that all of that equally applies to ahead, which is now classified solely as an adverb:
  • 1909, The American Review of Reviews[11], volume 39, page 633:
    Whether in the case of industries other than railroads, the contraction is more ahead than behind, is the question now.
  • 1920, J. W. M. Sothern, The Marine Steam Turbine[12], D. Van Nostrand, page 496:
    In this arrangement only two ahead turbines and two astern turbines are fitted, or four in all, the astern turbines being contained in the same casings as the ahead.
And this use of astern looks more adverbial to me:
  • 1911, James Connolly, The Magic of the Sea[13], B. Herder, page 511:
    Then on looking astern we saw that the severed parts of the Speedwell were filling with water, the midship ends settling and the men scrambling up on the bow and stern that were cocking up in the air.
 --Lambiam 10:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
When pondering questions of definition and usage, I like to go back to see what others have done previously. My modern (1980s) A.H. collegiate, the 1918 Webster's Collegiate, and the 1910 Webster's New Intl. only refer to ahead as an adverb. The 1914 Century Dictionary defines it as "prep. phr. as adv. or adj." while the 1919 Concise Oxford says it is an adverb and predicate adjective.
In your quote from 1920, ahead is being used attributively, and perhaps in being a nautical sense of the word it is a reflection of how it was historically used. (Compare "two ahead turbines and two astern turbines" vs. "two forward turbines and two backward turbines".) I assume that Wiktionary would include any such historical usage.
Returning to "astern of", I can see how it would be comparable to "ahead of". -Mike (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

kin

Adjective. This doesn't meet the usual tests that would distinguish it from a noun. DCDuring (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless it can be demonstrated that kin in the usex is a clipping of akin then it's a noun. Leasnam (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, delete and probably wouldn't hurt to add a usex at the noun that shows this usage. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. The first four dictionaries that I checked all list an adjective sense, and a couple also include a "kin to" example similar to ours. [14][15][16][17] Mihia (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The use in this sentence, ‘Chopin, “subtle-souled psychologist,” is more kin to Keats than Shelley, he is a greater artist than thinker.’,[18] indicates an adjective.  --Lambiam 21:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
You may be right. However, even in this pattern it could be interpreted as a noun; cf. "She is more mother to him than to her own children". Mihia (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Some faint evidence: The word “mother” is far more common than ”kin” (GBS 183M : 24.7M), yet “more mother to” is less common than “more kin to” (GBS 2,060 : 5,140). The Ngram Viewer gives a nice graphical representation. Expressed in proportions (assuming these counts are right): about 11 in a million uses of “mother” occur in a collocation “more mother to”, whereas about 208 in a million uses of “kin” occur in a collocation “more kin to”.  --Lambiam 09:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right in this case. I guess I was just making a general point that "more" does not inevitably signify an adjective. Mihia (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep - I would interpret such uses (e.g. "He is kin to Frank") as an adjective. It is in Century Dict as an adj, with etymology that says "partly from the noun" and "partly by apheresis from akin". - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Weak keep: the citations are ambiguous (kin could be an adjective or it could be a noun), but the fact that so many other dictionaries (mentioned above) consider them adjectival is persuasive. - -sche (discuss) 09:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • RFD kept: no consensus for deletion after a year. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA

Some kinda Creative Commons licence, a trendy Internet thing so of course it got an entry here. But is it an abbreviation? Not exactly. Is it a word? Not exactly. It's more like a code, like an accounting system where "34" means "donations". Equinox 06:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It is categorized as a proper noun. What about uses as in “The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site ...”,[19] and “I did not reflect the CC-BY-SA terms on my board for clarity ...”[20]?  --Lambiam 08:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Incoterms are included too though. This is not different in essence. Seems like abbrevations of licenses being around should be included. They are nouns (“license”). Fay Freak (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
It's a code of sort, used nominally, and we have kept that kind of thing before (e.g. E100). I guess I lean to a weak keep. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

CLAF

Doesn't seem to exist. --Pious Eterino (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A tentative delete, I'm not sure of its significance. It's been here since 2005. DonnanZ (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Some of Oracle’s applications have a feature variously called “Customize Look-and-Feel” or “Custom Look-and-Feel”. This short text (an excerpt from a printed book) manages to use both. I am fairly sure that this is what is meant. Other uses in print: [21], [22]. I’m not convinced that an acronym that is particular to just one company’s applications is worthy of inclusion, though.  --Lambiam 21:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
But this one says "change look and feel", not custom or customize. DonnanZ (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
This appeared in the entry in the beginning, but was removed: "CLAF is an acronym created by Xanga.com to designate a page for changing appearance settings for a specific blog site. CLAF stands for Change Look And Feel." diff I think it can be put out of its misery and deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I say, Delete. If we think of these software suites as creating a fictional universe – which in a way they do – we have terms here that are only used in reference to that universe.  --Lambiam 22:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep in RFD: existence doubt is for RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. This should be an RfV. DCDuring (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

go hard

Good title, but the definition is completely wrong. i.e. "Go hard" means "make a great effort; put into your endeavor your all". PrussianOwl (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}}, don't delete the page. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it can mean that, but it does not follow that in some contexts the term cannot mean something else. Before requesting deletion of the disputed sense, the usual procedure is to first issue a request for verification.  --Lambiam 21:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Is that all? It has other meanings. DonnanZ (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the disputed sense is basically an SOP: the verb go as the copula meaning “to become” plus one of the senses of hard. Many things can go hard: “His face went hard”, “his tone went hard”. Or go can be a verb of motion: a racecar driver can “go hard through the bend”. There is also the idiom go hard on (as in, “This is the first poem I ever wrote, so please don't go hard on me.”)  --Lambiam 21:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
And concrete goes hard when it sets. Anyway, I have better things to do, RFDing everything is not one of them. DonnanZ (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree, current definition is non-idiomatic, but the usage in go hard or go home is idiomatic. - TheDaveRoss 13:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Have added def. of most common sense. But agree the "erection" sense is non-idiomatic (so delete).-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The sense "To get an erection", which was the one present in the entry when it was RFDed, has been deleted (a while ago, by someone, see these changes). I do not see a consensus above to delete the current sense, "To strive to one's utmost; to give one's all in an endeavour, at sport, etc." I think this RFD is resolved, but please start a fresh RFD if you want the current sense/entry deleted. - -sche (discuss) 09:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

sext-

This doesn't seem like an English suffix, just a morphological element that appears in several borrowed terms. —Rua (mew) 10:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is either, just an adaptation from Latin in the given words. DonnanZ (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)'
  • Keep and fix — (Firstly, it's not a suffix at all, but a prefix.  I digress.)  Sext- is the Latin ordinal prefix for 'sixth.'  The page should be fixed to reflect this.  That said, with the exception of sextus, every word on the page is an English word.  Sextus should be removed from the English section of the page and added to the Latin section (that is, once you go and fix the page to reflect that sext- is also Latin).  allixpeeke (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I still think this "prefix" can be deleted. Latin sextus, which is included, but shouldn't be, is the root; sextuplet comes from sextuple apparently. DonnanZ (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Allixpeeke If it is an English prefix, which English words has it been prefixed to, then? —Rua (mew) 16:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rua, sextillion is a number in the English language, combining the prefix sext- and the suffix -illion, and sextate is an English word, combining the prefix sext- and the suffix -ateallixpeeke (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Sextillion was apparently first coined in French with a Latin root. And the given etymology for sextate says it comes from Latin sextus. The sext- prefix has just been added by Allixpeeke, diff. DonnanZ (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Question 1 — Does being-first-coined-in-French make a word not English?  Does having-a-Latin-root make a word not English?  If the answer to those two questions is yes, that would seem to imply that the word decade should be removed from this category.  I genuinely do not understand what makes sextillion's relationship to sext- different than decade's relationship to deca-.  Please explain, so that I may eschew making errors in my future edits.

Question 2 — If sext- can be objectively said to not be both an English prefix and a Latin prefix, if it can be objectively said to be only a Latin prefix, wouldn't that mean that the appropriate course of action is to edit the page to reflect that it is a Latin prefix.  It appears to me that it only makes sense to delete the page if it is not a prefix at all.  Is that the case?  Is sect- neither an English nor a Latin prefix?

Thanks in advance.  allixpeeke (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

If a word is coined in French and then borrowed in its entirety into English, it cannot be used to support the idea of an English prefix on that word. (If you prepare and cook a dish from French meat and French cheese in France, and then import the whole thing to England to eat it, you can't then meaningfully say it was prepared and cooked in England...) Equinox 13:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The stem of Latin animus is anim-, found back in words like animal, animate, animism and animosity. That is no reason to declare it a prefix. Precisely the same holds for sext-: it is the stem of Latin sextus found back in some words, but it is not a prefix. Ergo, delete.  --Lambiam 17:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete per proponent and Lambiam. Per utramque cavernam 17:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Keep Based on my subjective assessment as a native English speaker with a GRE Reading score in the 96th percentile, sext- is a prefix that is used in words that are used in English. I would recommend keeping this page. I consider sext- a prefix in the language that I use. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC) (modified)
Do you also consider anim- a prefix?  --Lambiam 19:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Boasting about your reading score means nothing. You must prove that words were formed in English with this prefix. You don't see scientists saying "I'm cool, therefore the superhadron exists". Equinox 00:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, except for Feynman, but he can't weigh in here. - TheDaveRoss 13:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. We'll still have to count it as a "keep". Sigh. ChignonПучок 22:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Harking back to sextuplet, we have sextuple as derived from sextus, although Oxford says it comes from Medieval Latin sextuplus. But there seems to be confusion amongst some users over words that begin with something which isn't a true prefix. DonnanZ (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I imagine professional lexicographers have an extremely high reading score. Me? I'm just an amateur. DonnanZ (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 13:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Would people be willing to keep this if it were not labelled a prefix or presented as ever having been productive in English, but were instead labelled e.g. a "morpheme" or "element" or something and presented solely as a kind of aid to understanding words that contain it? Would an approach like that, which someone proposed in a discussion of another word which I can't find at the moment, be of use/interest for other cases, like [never-productive] English instances of various Latin "prefix variants" like Talk:sug-? ... Eh. Delete the prefix per nom. We can revisit if we decide it'd be useful to present "elements" like that. - -sche (discuss) 10:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Pharma Bro

DTLHS (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The term can be attested, and not just as “Internet slang”: [23], [24], [25]. We also have other nicknames (for instance, Woz). What would be the rationale for deletion?  --Lambiam 18:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Were those in print? Send to RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep in RFD absent rationale for deletion. Governed by WT:NSE. Entered as a nickname of a certain businessman. Nicknames of specific people that we currently include: Becks, Dubya, Dutchman, Gazza, Giggsy, Governator, Hef, Hoff, Petrarch, Sarko (French) Scholesy, and Voltaire (rather a pen name?); also 鳥叔 (PSY - Korean entertainer). Some nicnames passed RFD in Talk:J-Lo: J-Lo, K-Stew, Scar-Jo, Sam-Cam, Li-Lo, Le-Le, Ri-Ri, Su-Bo, A-Rod, K-Rod, and R-Pattz. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how Petrarch is a nickname. ChignonПучок 12:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

lord over

NISoP: lord#Verb + over#Preposition, in contrast to the idiom lord it over.

Among OneLook references only Urban Dictionary has lord over, whereas several have lord it over. DCDuring (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW: Someone should work over [[over]]. DCDuring (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
lord in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 has "to play the lord" as one of the definitions, which would seem to be the right sense to make this NISoP. DCDuring (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
MWOnline has "to act like a lord especially: to put on airs — usually used with it
I haven't found a definition like "brag". But the best shot at that would be the OED. DCDuring (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Is this intended to apply to all senses? If so, keep sense three. Claiming something as evidence of superiority is different from any sense of asserting rulership. bd2412 T 20:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This was challenged when there was only the first definition. The other two were added when it went to RFV, looking for more idiomatic senses. If we keep the more idiomatic senses, we should probably also keep the first definition, although we should probably mark it as non-idiomatic. Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
If this RfD is only directed to one sense (or to the first two senses), then it should be marked RfD-sense in the entry. I have no opinion either way on the other senses. bd2412 T 03:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The third def seems idiomatic to me. 173.72.213.190 01:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

big dumper

It just looks like a "dumper" ("A small one-man diesel-powered vehicle often used to carry loads and material around, often on building sites") that is big. DTLHS (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It says it's a synonym of dump truck, which I imagine is a large road vehicle rather than a smaller vehicle for moving stuff around building sites. A possible delete, but I honestly don't know. DonnanZ (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 02:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I wondered if it might be a set phrase like big rig, but the first few GBooks cites just suggest a normal Adj+N combination: "The big dumper, the largest built in Britain..."; "Here's a nimble, big dumper: the Model LMSWM..." Equinox 11:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

rote

Sense: "The process of learning or committing something to memory through mechanical repetition, usually by hearing and repeating aloud, often without full attention to comprehension or thought for the meaning."

But one can also perform, speak, play by rote.

Aren't both the learning and the performing covered by the other definition: "Mechanical routine; a fixed, habitual, repetitive, or mechanical course of procedure."? Usage examples seem better for conveying the collocations with the verbs learn, play, perform, speak.

What gives me pause is the abundant attestation for what seems to me is a pleonasm: rote repetition. DCDuring (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that fundamentally there is only one meaning, and that the current first sense is a special case of the second "mechanical routine" sense. I wouldn't remove the information about committing to memory completely, though, as it is probably the most common use, but I would be inclined to present it as an "especially" sub-case of the general sense. Mihia (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
By the way, we may also want to look at whether the purported adjective sense of "rote" is a true adjective. Mihia (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Most dictionaries give the word in this sense only as a noun, but M-W sees it also as an adjective. A phrase like “her knowledge was not rote” strikes me as weird but is found e.g. here.  --Lambiam 09:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The OED has it as an adjective:- "Occurring in a mechanical and repetitious manner; routine." with a few examples given. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

horse steroid

"Large quadrupeds" as in... horses? DTLHS (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The point seems to be that it may be used on any large quadruped, and therefore the term is not simply self-evident SOP? Mihia (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Most uses in news sources appear to refer to the use on athletic bipeds.  --Lambiam 09:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, appears to be used metaphorically to suggest very strong or high dose steroids that are dangerous but used by body builders, etc., rather than necessarily steroids specifically designed for equines. I searched for "on horse steroids" in Google Books and it seems common enough. (I don't know if humans can actually take horse steroids.) So, should be 2 defs, an SOP one, and a metaphorical one. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Boldenone undecylenate, sold under the trade name Equipoise (after the famous race horse Equipoise, a Thoroughbred), is meant to be used in veterinary medicine on large quadrupeds (whence the choice of trade name) and is accordingly known as a “horse steroid”[26][27][28]; it is even identified as the primary horse steroid, transferring the moniker to other veterinarian-grade steroids. There are many documented cases of doping with Equipoise in sports by athletes: see List of doping cases in sport by substance#Boldenone undecylenate on Wikipedia. It is also the one identified the most in a Google News Search for “horse steroid”, for which almost all results are about athletes getting caught.  --Lambiam 06:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Compare French remède de cheval, Spanish de caballo, Italian febbre da cavallo. Per utramque cavernam 09:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
And also Dutch paardenmiddel. These terms are much older than horse steroid.[29][30] I also found a use from 1715 of the Latin term equinum remedium, which turns out to consist of the use of the dung of a stallion as a remedy against pleurisy. I wonder if perhaps this literal use (not as a remedy for horses but one based on a natural product thereof, to be applied on humans) lies at the root of the metaphorical use.  --Lambiam 12:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
As a veterinarian I can say that the contemporary expression "horse steroids" has absolutely nothing to do with classic expressions. Some equine drugs do work on humans, some actually being preferred by athletes over the human brands, because they are more powerful (some times, it's just a matter of concentration of the active agent, but, other times, the agent itself is different and may be more effective, and more unsafe, on humans). That created an urban legend that all medicines for horses (and for other large animals) are more powerful than those approved for human use. Specifically on steroids, the more different the agent is from the naturally occurring hormones, the more likely it is to have an enhanced effect on the subject. For example, testosterone has a big effect on women, as they usually have very little of it circulating in their bodies, and although natural estrogen has no effect on men, because they have both circulating (testosterone is produced from estrogen conversion in the man's body), synthetic estrogen-like agents are usually very effective on men (which is the cause of many users to get "beefy", but less "manly"). Besides, those carelessly using such drugs are, usually, not the kind one could imagine reading old books without pictures on them. --Cyberknight

can be able

A cursory Google search for "can be able" didn't yield any results about Indian English, mostly just people commenting how "can be able to do sth." is grammatically correct but obviously redundant semantically. Without a proper source I don't think this entry should be included. Wyverald (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Indeed, a news search found uses by a speaker from Papua New Guinea, by a Somalia-born Canadese minister and by the Korean president of Samsung Electronics, but nothing related to India. GBS yields some uses by Indian authors but many more from others, including native English speakers, going back to at least the 16th century (the trial of John Philpot, quoted as saying, “So that if you can be able to prove that ...”). So that I can be able to support the request.  --Lambiam 09:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • weak Keep. I found some uses that are neither Indian nor African. I've labelled it as non-standard. It now looks very SoPpy to me...any other thoughts ? Leasnam (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. SoP, for sure. Otherwise we would be able to open pages for any and all modal doublets, triplets etc. If this entry is allowed we might have to, mightn't we? -- However, the logical answer here is that the collocation of can with be able is in no way any different from the collocations of will, could (!), would, may, might, mightn't, wouldn't, couldn't (!), can't (!), and won't with be able. All these doublets indicate degrees of possibility to have the ability. The issue with "can be able" and "can't be able" and "could be able" is that they are less usually encountered due to them being a juxtaposition of two modal verbs where one is the infinite equivalent of the other. We find a similar situation with must have to. None of these doublets merit a special entry for any reason that I can fathom. ALGRIF talk 22:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

nary a

NISoP. nary + a, synonymous with nary one. One can find nary two and nary three. DCDuring (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It is strange that nary is classified as an adjective, while each of its listed senses is an adverb.  --Lambiam 20:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
With many a, the strange thing is that the structure is followed by a singular noun (as the article ensures), whereas many is usually followed by a plural, so the creator of the entry presumably sees these are the same or similar. But, I don't think these are comparable structures, despite their superficial similarity, as nary is not always followed by plural. Can't see any reason to necessarily classify "nary a" as a determiner, either. -Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to nary, I think (or delete, but a redirect is cheap/affordable here). Other dictionaries seem to handle it via mention in their entries on "nary", rather than as a separate entry (like some do have for "many a"), and as noted, "nary" can be used with other words; "nary a" also doesn't seem to pass the WT:JIFFY test. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep. "Nary" seems generally to be used as a constituent of the expression "nary a(n)". It would be a shame to lose direct access to the expression. I just looked it up, myself, to confirm my understanding of it before using it in a composition.
Nihil novi (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

race traitor

gender traitor

Aren't these SOP? One could also be google books:"a company traitor", google books:"government traitor", google books:"group traitor" (including "in-group traitor"), etc. - -sche (discuss) 21:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The only non-SOP part that I can see is contextual, that is that they are primarily used by bigots of one stripe or another. This is fairly well implied by the definition, since treason implies opposing sides, but that part isn't clearly SOP. I do think that bigots use these terms, so maybe we want to keep and label/usage note them instead? I am ambivalent. - TheDaveRoss 22:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep as to "race traitor" and delete as to "gender traitor". The phrase, "race traitor" appears to have some interesting etymological history. The earliest use I can find is of the similar phrase, "racial traitor", in these cites: Oscar Grow, The Antagonism of Races: Or the Functions of Human Institutions in the Struggle for Existence (1912), p. 49: "Alexander proved to be a racial traitor; he endeavored by immigration to Hellanize his new territorial acquisitions and to that end encouraged his soldiers to take nonHellanic wives; he favored the intermingling of the divergent races of his empire and devoted his energies to the eradication of all racial distinctions"; Charles Willis Thompson, The New Voter: Things He and She Ought to Know about Politics and Citizenship (1918), p. 329: "A man was a racial traitor if he voted the Republican ticket; that was the feeling". The first use I find of "race traitor" is hyphenated: Frederic William Wile, The Assault: Germany Before the Outbreak and England in War-time (1916), p. 187: "Beneath the British Ambassador's car-windows, I was told, some one had chalked a John Bull drooping ignominiously from the gallows, with “Race-Traitor” for an epitaph!" It seems like "race traitor" may have originated as an abbreviated form of "racial traitor". This Ngram paints a surprising picture of their relative development. bd2412 T 01:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The fact that you're being a traitor to your own race (and not some other where you perhaps have a stake or are trusted) might not be obvious. Equinox 07:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Isn't that just part of treason? I wouldn't call Klaus Fuchs a traitor to the US, but maybe a traitor to the UK whose citizenship he took. And race isn't malleable in the same way that citizenship is. Traitor implies a level of connection to a group that, when that group is defined (pseudo-)biologically, can't be achieved except by birth.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The set of things that earn the sobriquet with respect to race seems much broader than those for political treason. bd2412 T 21:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know about that... on one hand, yes, racists are quick to call a lot of things "treason" to the race, or to call someone a "traitor to their race" or a "race traitor" or any of a number of other such phrases. OTOH, political hacks call people traitors a lot, too. Googling "Obama a traitor (because|for)", some things I see that Obama was called a traitor for include meeting Cuban leaders, letting BP help clean up their oil spill, signing executive orders (both specific ones and the general practice of them), decrying a speech Ahmadinejad gave, ordering an atypical mustard on his food, passing a healthcare law, and accepting the Presidency. In general people who use terms as insults often use them broadly. (Btw, I also don't see how the phrase possibly being preceded by a longer phrase like "racial traitor" would have any bearing on its idiomaticity or entry-worthiness. I mean, "trans rights" is a shortening of "transgender rights" / "transsexual rights" but I don't think it's any more or less idiomatic because of that.) - -sche (discuss) 00:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I suppose "race traitor" just feels like the origin of "foo traitor" appellations, and I am trying to figure out where that feeling comes from. It does appear to precede "class traitor", which is the next one to develop. bd2412 T 01:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Remark. Until recently, class traitor was far more common than race traitor. Wikipedia has both Class traitor and Race traitor.  --Lambiam 19:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems a fair and gender equitable term that should be kept within the language because it doesn’t specify the gender being the traitor or against whom. Is it the word gender or the word traitor that is offensive? Neither I contend and therefore it must be maintained.

We don't add words based on what an unsigned IP user "contends". Show us real printed newspapers with usage. Equinox 10:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I can wait

Er, sum of parts really isn't it? Equinox 07:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. @PseudoSkullΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete. ChignonПучок 13:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Sum of parts. Not lexical. Not dictionary material. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 02:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
What does it mean? The definition suggests it is a negation of can't wait, in the sense of "I am eagerly looking forward to". Does it mean "Unlike you, I am not eagerly looking forward to and would be happy to skip (the event, etc.)"? If that's what it means, I would not know you can use the phrase like this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
A: "I can't wait for the film to come out!" B (who dislikes these films): "I can wait." B is in no hurry to see the film and has no interest in it. Equinox 18:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. In Czech, character A would say "Nemůžu se dočkat až ten film poběží v kinech" or the like. Character B would not be able to say "Já se můžu dočkat". From my standpoint, the entry is worth keeping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
More in the way of argument: the usual phrase is the negative one, can't wait. The use of the positive I can wait is at least somewhat surprising, I would argue, which lends the phrase its sarcastic tone. I can wait is labeled informal, while can't wait not so. Therefore, I can wait is peculiar at least a little. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: I would think that the literal meaning would be useful as a translation hub, but there are no translations in the entry. bd2412 T 21:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    I don't know how to translate this to Czech: when one person says nemůžu se dočkat, it is not idiomatic Czech to reply *já se můžu dočkat and mean by it "I could not care less". That reinforces my impression that this is a worthwhile entry to keep. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

armchair linguist

Also armchair general, armchair generals, armchair hawk, armchair hawks, armchair linguistics.
Armchair already has the appropriate sense, and there are myriad professions which equally accept the adjective. This is distinct from Monday morning quarterback since armchair is generic to all (public, decision making) professions while Monday morning applies only to Football (and perhaps preaching). - TheDaveRoss 13:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't armchair general the basis for that figurative use of armchair? If yes I think that one should be kept. The others can go. ChignonПучок 13:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Good question, this n-grams search has armchair critic arising earlier, but that doesn't prove the case. Here is a cite from 1888 for armchair critic, the earliest I see for armchair general is in the WWI era. - TheDaveRoss 13:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SoP. Equinox 13:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete as SOP (or just redirect them to armchair, if you like), unless we're sure one of them if the source of this use of "armchair", in which case JIFFY would suggest keeping that one. - -sche (discuss) 10:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep. First, there is a value in having armchair linguist and opposing it to field linguist. Or is the antonym of armchair general a field general as well? Second, armchair linguist is a thing, whereas armchair farmer is not. Therefore, I think we should list it somehow. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
There are many professions which armchair does not often modify, although farmer isn't one of them. There are many professions which armchair does modify, just as one would probably not use hypersexual to modify cupboard that does not mean that hypersexual person is idiomatic. I wouldn't think that field linguist should be included either, since field already contains the relevant sense (noun 4.2.2), and one can be a field scientist of many stripes. - TheDaveRoss 15:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Point taken. However, armchair linguist isn't a linguist who is "remote from actual involvement" with linguistics, or a "linguist retired from previously active involvement", which sense 1 would suggest. Neither does the word designate a linguist who is "unqualified or uninformed but yet giving advice", as suggested by sense two. Armchair linguist is, very specifically, a lightly derogatory term for an adherent of the generative approach within linguistics. Does that follow from the sum of parts? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
If it is much more specific than the standard usage of armchair, then it might merit inclusion. The current cite does point to your narrower meaning, if you can track down two more which are equally narrow I would be happy to change my vote on that one. - TheDaveRoss 02:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know; armchair linguist sounds like armchair general; they may have a serious position, but they're sitting at a desk and they're making decisions based on paperwork instead of going out into the field and learning first hand. I question whether "armchair linguist" refers to "an adherent of the generative approach" as opposed to, well, an armchair linguist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep. There is a sense that generative/Chomskyan linguists as a group, fixated as they are on the ideal speaker irrespective of what goes on in the real world linguistically, are (derogatorially) "armchair" linguists, as opposed to other linguists (e.g. phoneticians, sociolinguists) that are not. Not sure that this is covered in the "armchair" entry. -Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Rep. (Rep. of Iraq, etc)

Rep. of Iraq, Rep. of Korea, Rep. of Nicaragua, and so on… the meanings are probably obvious enough. I guess that the entries might still work as redirects but I’m fine with somebody deleting them. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 16:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Should it be in RFDO? DonnanZ (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
"Special:WhatLinksHere" is just a way of linking to the entries considered for deletion, not something to be deleted itself. Besides, it's a feature of the system, so it couldn't be deleted, anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. In that case, perhaps they should be individual RFDs. DonnanZ (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
There are 30 such entries. Deleting some and leaving some others does not make much sense. Either we delete all, or we keep all.  --Lambiam 18:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
IMO this seems comparable to Talk:eatin' for two (2011) and Talk:eatin' like a bird (2018), which were both deleted. Redirect or delete, IMO: personally I don't see the harm in leaving redirects, though consistency would have us delete them altogether. - -sche (discuss) 21:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

limber

2 senses:

2. (obsolete) A two-wheeled, horse-drawn vehicle used to pull an artillery piece into battle.
3. (military) The detachable fore part of a gun carriage, consisting of two wheels, an axle, and a shaft to which the horses are attached. On top is an ammunition box upon which the cannoneers sit.

I believe these definitions, themselves mostly duplicative, are included in a more general (and modernized) definition:

1. (military) A two-wheeled vehicle to which a wheeled artillery piece or caisson may be attached for transport. DCDuring (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

floopy

"Misspelling" of floppy. But more like a typo, I'd say. Imagine how this would be pronounced! I'm not sure we really serve anybody by being a collection of miscellaneous typing and scanning errors (rather than legit misspellings like miniscule). Equinox 22:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. The [o] key is next to the [p] on keyboards, so this typo is very likely the result of sloopy typing (and proofreading).  --Lambiam 05:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe do a search for quotations for floopy to see if it has a proper meaning rather than just being a misspelling? It seems plausible that it might be a slang term. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I would expect this to exist as a silly, intentional derivative of floppy like floofy (which I see we have some surprisingly detailed /elaborate definitions for) from fluffy, even though other uses are a misspelling/typo. For example, these two seem intentional, but OTOH one uses it as a dog's(?) name and the other as a nonsense word.
  • 2010, Clive Cussler, The Adventures of Hotsy Totsy, Philomel
    “Floopy!” Lacey burst out. “That can only be Floopyl” It was true--Floopy had a very distinctive woof, low and almost musical. “Here, Floopy!” Casey shouted. “Up here!” “Hurry, Floopy!” cried Lacey. Floopy's tail began wagging wildly ...
  • 2005, Douglas Adams, The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide: Five Complete Novels and One Story, Gramercy
    Strangely enough, the dictionary omits the word "floopily," which simply means "in the manner of something which is floopy." The mattress globbered again. "I sense a deep dejectedness in your diodes," [...]
Well, if we RFD-delete the misspelling sense, that doesn't prejudice adding a different sense if one does exist with better citations than those two... - -sche (discuss) 06:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete, not a misspelling. Also delete all misspellings. - TheDaveRoss 14:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
If this is not a misspelling, then there is no WT:CFI-based rationale for deleting the entry, and the above is a CFI override. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss, Dan Polansky, Equinox: Please see my draft: Wiktionary:Votes/2019-03/Excluding typos and scannos. Comments and improvements are welcome. ChignonПучок 18:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The sole current example appears to be a typo, scanno or printing error. The only misspellings we should include are ones that people commonly use believing to be correct. I believe that "floopy" fails this on both counts -- it is neither common nor believed to be a correct spelling of "floppy" -- so TheDaveRoss is right: it is not a "misspelling" in the relevant sense. I couldn't say for sure that no one uses "floopy" deliberately as a word, or a deliberate variation, but we need examples of this, not just typos. Failing that, delete. Mihia (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
    I now think the word is occasionally used as a portmanteau of floppy and droopy. Some examples where this is clearly not a typo: [31], [32], [33]. Here it’s used in the sense of having butterflies in one’s stomach. Here it is used in another sense, "pleasantly numb" – probably a nonce use.  --Lambiam 09:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

auxiliary power unit

Standard definition of auxiliary + power unit; hence SoP. We need to add power unit though. - TheDaveRoss 12:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
What, then, is your definition of power unit? That would help us see whether this really is a sum of parts. Compare to power unit at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, on further reading, I was wrong. This is a unit which provides auxiliary power, more specifically power to auxiliary systems; it probably isn't SOP. My mistake. The power unit I was referring to is another term for a generator. @Lingo Bingo Dingo do you mind if I strike this as a keep? - TheDaveRoss 14:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss Feel free to close it, though I think this might still be SOP (can't power unit be used more generally for any device that provides electrical power to something?). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The definition is too restrictive. As Wikipedia says, "An auxiliary power unit (APU) is a device on a vehicle that provides energy for functions other than propulsion. They are commonly found on large aircraft and naval ships as well as some large land vehicles." -Mike (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

wait a minute

Sense 2: "Listen to me; pay attention". That is arguably the pragmatic intent, but I don't see it as a separate sense. It's more like "literally wait a minute [and don't go away yet]" because you have more to tell them. It's the same "wait a minute" as a warning when you want to stop somebody walking into the trap you just spotted, etc. etc. Equinox 22:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Not a separate sense to what? Do you mean it is the same sense as sense #1, or that it is a SOP? In these uses “wait” is an urgent advice to suspend action until further notice (sense 2 of wait), and "a minute” clearly stands for an unspecified period of time (sense 2 of minute). Aside: I think this is actually an informal sense of the two-word term “a minute”. Pragmatics aside, this would indeed appear to be a sum of parts. The difference with sense 1 given for wait a minute, I think, is that there the speaker is addressing themselves, interrupting their spoken-out-loud thought process. But that is, ultimately, also not more than a pragmatic difference with the underlying literal meaning, the action to be suspended being the ongoing uttering of the train of thought. With a little further effort I expect we can also argue away the third sense.  --Lambiam 22:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

explanable

Discussion moved from WT:TR.
The creator must've thought it was a valid/intentional derivation of Latin explanabilis, like explanation from Latin explanatio, but I think it only exists as a misspelling. It's rare: COCA has 134 uses of "explainable" vs none of this; BNC has 12 of "explainable", none of this; Ngrams has "explainable" ~200x more common. Pulling all Google Books hits with QQ and counting only ones where the snippet used "explanable", discounting 29 duplicate copies, only ~244 books use "explanable"; many if not most or all only use it once, making it impossible to be sure if it's a one-off misspelling or one the author would use consistently, but 14 (5.7%) also use "explainable", suggesting that in those books, it is a typo.
The only dictionaries I see it in are two old German-English translation dictionaries, one old Persian-English one, and an old copy of Samuel Johnson's English dictionary, but in all four the alphabetization of "explain, explanable, explainer, explanation" suggests it was meant to have an "i" (which other copies of Johnon's do have; indeed, the same copy of Johnson which has an entry for "explanable" uses "explainable" later in a definition), and the German dictionaries also have "inexplainable". No books I saw give it as a derivative of (or even mention it near) "explanabilis", whereas at least one copy of Webster's does connect "explainable" to "explanabilis". So, I think it's a rare misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 07:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Seems pretty clear to me. Delete.  --Lambiam 19:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I've converted it into a misspelling. There are lots of hits on Google Ngram viewer - so, now, keep. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete, rare misspelling. ChignonПучок 11:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete per above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@- -sche: Could you clarify whether concieve is a common or rare misspelling, and why, in reference to whatever calibration you used above? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
It looks like a relatively rare misspelling: less than 1/500th as common as the "ei" spelling in Google Books' Ngrams, and found only once in both COCA and the BNC, where the usual spelling is found 2275 times in COCA and 449 in the BNC. OTOH, in its defence, it seems more likely to be an intentional spelling: people often can't remember how -ieve/-eive words are spelled, and excluding books which are lists of misspellings next to their correct spellings, google books:"concieve" "conceive" turns up few books using both, meaning works that use "concieve" use it consistently. (Whereas, "explanable" is sometimes clearly the result of unintentional omission of the "i", based on e.g. where it occurs in the alphabetical lists mentioned above; OTOH, the etymon and related words you mention below mean it may be intentional in other cases.) (FWIW there also seem to be more books using "concieve" than using "explanable", so someone is more likely to "run across" the former.) - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@- -sche: Could it be that you have not performed a calibration of ratio thresholds that you are using? Or is there a calibration that you have performed and that I can have a look at? What was the testing set that you used for calibration? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep as a common misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings: explainable, explicable, (explanable * 1000) at Google Ngram Viewer shows a frequency ratio that suggests this is common for a misspelling; compare concieve. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
There is now Wiktionary:Votes/2019-03/Excluding typos and scannos that it going to pass soon and that excludes typos. Then, we could try to figure out whether explanable is a typo. It is at least plausible to be a non-typo given explanatory and explanation, that is, something that can appear in writing no less than in a typed text. In fact, the spelling explanable has some intuitive force; why explainable but explanatory? These are the considerations that suggest it could be non-typo. We would not need to have these very uncertain deliberations if the vote were not adopted, but now we have to do with the policies that we have or will soon have, leaving the world of British empiricism in favor of the continental speculationism. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it is likely that "explanable" for "explainable" is often not a typo. I guess to substantiate this we would need examples where "explanable" was used multiple times. (I am not necessarily supporting keeping it even it is a non-typo misspelling, depending on how widespread it is thought to be.) Mihia (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

jpg

As defined: filename extensions are not specifically English and in fact are not words in any human language. Equinox 15:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Should it be Translingual then? It is used on Commons images, e.g. on this one at cutting I took. DonnanZ (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not a word in a human language. Every file type has one (vbs = Visual Basic script, xls = Excel spreadsheet, etc.): they are computer codes. Equinox 19:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Things which are not human language words have been known to become human language words; various numbers (phone numbers, police codes), equations, formulas, dates, product names, etc. have all had members enter English, no reason to suppose that filetypes cannot do the same. If you search for "any old jpg" you can see people using it to refer to an image of the type, no idea if it has been adopted to a CFI compliant degree, but I can't rule it out by virtue of its origin. - TheDaveRoss 20:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
If kept, should we rename it (them) to include the dot? SemperBlotto (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
If there are sources using the term without the dot, I would consider that an alternative spelling. bd2412 T 01:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
There are sources without the dot:
  • "Note that even if the quality value of 1000 is used for saving jpg file ..."[34]
  • "But you can also use your own jpg file."[35]
  • "The first block reads a jpg file format image called webcampix."[36]
  • "Murphy had also drawn a map of the camp, which he sent as a jpg file."
  • "The RGB can be used not only for visualization but it may also be saved as a new image in a jpg file ..."
However, "JPG file" seems much more common than "jpg file". Thus, jpg could be changed to alternative capitalization of JPG. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems to be used often attributively in the collocation jpg file (also JPG file), but also otherwise as a noun, as in "a flattened, smaller image (like a jpg)" and "She sent me a jpg", "how to resize a jpg". I note also that .jpg is used similarly. DCDuring (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have redefined it as a noun, defined as "A file of JPEG file format; i.e., a digital picture." without removing the RfD tag. DCDuring (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: I don't see why file extensions shouldn't be kept any less than any other abbreviation. Regardless of whether or not it's a word, it still has a meaning Purplebackpack89 21:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Our definition of dictionary reads thus: "A reference work with a list of words from one or more languages" (emphasis mine). You can't sweep the question of whether or not it's a word under the carpet like that; this is central to the debate we're having here. Its having a meaning is not enough. Canonicalization (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but that's not what the CFI (the rules for this page) say. They say, "A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense. Any of these are also acceptable...Abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms". I believe this is one such abbreviation, acronym or initialism. Purplebackpack89 21:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as it's certainly used as a noun: "a jpg", a sort of alternative form of JPEG. (Sort of because it seems to be derived through the filename extension, not directly as a shortening of JPEG.) But I don't at the moment support English entries for all filename extensions, and I'm not even sure if every extension that is be put in the construction "a(n) <extension> file" should have an English entry (partly because I consider that a compound, but that's a separate debate). — Eru·tuon 21:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Do the keepers think that we should keep any "attestable" filename extension? (I assume this would mean any that is published in a book. I am a programmer and have invented three-letter file extensions for my own applications since the 1990s.) Idiots. Equinox 05:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

bamboo suit

The suit of the bamboo tiles in mahjong. We also have bamboo tile, character suit, character tile, circle suit, circle tile, dragon tile, flower tile, season tile, wind tile. Are any of these idiomatic? In the world of playing cards these sorts of formations are totally constructable, seems to be the case in mahjong as well. - TheDaveRoss 12:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

band sectional

Most of the usage I am seeing for this term is in the form of "band sectional rehearsals", "band sectional practices", etc. or even "sectional rehearsals/practices". This indicates to me that this isn't a set phrase, and is just a common usage of the term "sectional" as used by bands. - TheDaveRoss 12:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I can think of two competing origin theories. (1) The noun sense of sectional in the sense of a practice session came first, and then was compounded with the adjunct noun band to form the compound noun band sectional. (2) The noun sense of band sectional came first, and gave rise to the shortening sectional. If theory (1) is correct, I think we can agree that band sectional is a sum of parts. But if theory (2) is correct, it is an original formation.  --Lambiam 14:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

burst out laughing

SoP: burst out (sense 2) + laughing. Ultimateria (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, SOP. There is also “burst out crying” ([37], [38], [39]), “burst out guffawing” ([40], [41], [42]), “burst out shrieking” ([43], [44], [45]), and many more.  --Lambiam 13:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Definitely SOP, but I think it could be a useful translation hub. Abstain for now. (by the way, I created the French translation éclater de rire some time ago, but I remember not being convinced of what I was doing at the time. It sounds quite SOP too) ChignonПучок 10:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep set phrase. Mihia (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Barmacide feast

Should be Barmecide feast per everyone else, n-grams, trends, search results, etc. etc. - TheDaveRoss 19:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss Quite a few uses of Barmacide, so I would call it an alternate spelling. -Mike (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Converted into an alternative form. Feel free to convert into a misspelling. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

borogrove

Listed as an alt form, how can a nonce have an alt form? At best this is a misspelling. - TheDaveRoss 19:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It is, nevertheless, a common ([46][47]) misspelling (presumably influenced by mangrove).  --Lambiam 23:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought it had an r in it too until now, to be honest. :) —Rua (mew) 16:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Me too. Mihia (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep - common misspelling.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

George Foreman grill

Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That brand is sold here too. Any generic use? (Not that I'm aware of.) Equinox 22:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The lean mean grilling machine! “George Foreman” is a registered trademark. Uses are not required to be generic, but must be be independent of, and not identify, the manufacturer or other interested parties. So “Steinway” is fine, but not if the quotation refers to Steinway & Sons rather than just the piano. The use here counts as a proper attestation. I guess this one as well, although it uses a different capitalization. And we can finish with number three.  --Lambiam 23:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
As I understand the policy if you could attest George Foreman as a standalone noun, that would be comparable to Steinway, but Steinway grand piano does not have an entry, and George Foreman grill should not either. -Mike (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
That is not particularly hard: [48][49][50][51][52][53][54].  --Lambiam 19:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Frankenstein

Rfd-sense: the novel. We are not Wikipedia. 2600:1000:B121:73E2:8DE5:B945:4762:BF79 10:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I would delete (but mention it of course, e.g. in the etymology). We are inconsistent: e.g. Dracula does not have a sense line for the novel but Cinderella does have one for the fairy tale. Equinox 10:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I am okay with deleting the sense provided we keep the sense "The creator of Frankenstein's monster in Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus." I checked Frankenstein at OneLook Dictionary Search, and especially M-W[55]. Governed by WT:NSE. However, the nomination does not provide any applicable rationale, from my standpoint; we do have multiple single-word names of literary works. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is all fair enough. Should we also mention that the monster itself is a rather common error? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    Definitely. I would say it's the main sense, and the one used in allusions like google books:"Frankenstein food", etc. (I see the sense has been added.) - -sche (discuss) 21:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
We do have some (usually single-word) titles of works, like the Iliad, the Havamal, the Bible, etc, but in my experience we (de facto) exclude modern works. Would we include, say, Divergent? Delete sense, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 21:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Is two hundred years ago (197, to be pedantic) really modern? If it is deleted, as Equinox says, it's just going to move around the page, into the etymology.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

May 2019

troop train

SOP. 2600:1000:B110:6EDE:B572:7DB8:6078:59FD 18:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep, has a lemming and a quote. Besides that, there are probably not many people now who have ever seen a troop train, let alone know what it was. DonnanZ (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I hesitated to see this as entirely SOP (something felt odd about the use of troop), but I notice that e.g. "troop column", "troop( )ship", "troop transport" exist, so it does indeed seem entirely SOP. Delete. - -sche (discuss) 10:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

intensive-care

Delete another unnecessary hyphenated attributive form. (For a separate issue with this entry, see Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2019/May#.22attributive_form_of.22_template.) Mihia (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ChignonПучок 22:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see that there is much harm done including these forms, in this case to illustrate that intensive care shouldn't have a hyphen. DonnanZ (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Isn't the fact that we list intensive care without a hyphen enough to illustrate that it should not have a hyphen? Mihia (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete on what grounds? It's no more SOP than intensive care. You say it's "unnecessary", but fail to explain why, Mihia. Pending satisfactory explanation, I'll say keep.​—msh210 (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Hyphenated compound modifiers can be created in arbitrary and virtually limitless combinations, and their construction is obvious and transparent once the simple underlying principle is understood. I do not see any need to create potentially vast numbers of individual entries defining "X-Y" as "attributive form of X Y", while including only selected examples gives the false impression that there is something special about the ones we do include. Mihia (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
To reply to your points one at a time:
  • Hyphenated compound modifiers can be created in combinations neither arbitrary nor limitless but only when attested.
  • Their construction (given the version with the space in it) is obvious, as you say; but we're not writing a dictionary for those who write dictionaries: we're writing a dictionary for those who look up words, as the "general rule" of CFI makes clear ("A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means"). That's not construction. And it's likely someone will run across intensive-care and want to know what it means, no less than intensive care. (Arguably, more than intensive care, which has a greater chance than intensive-care does of being mistakenly looked up under its components.)
  • That only some examples are included and people may think they're special is not an argument for deletion of those. First of all, people won't think they're special, as users of the dictionary (as opposed to its editors) won't know how many such terms we have. Second, that argument can be applied to all sorts of categories but is not (e.g., we don't delete our one Wawa word just because people will think it's special).
This is a definite keep.​—msh210 (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
"Can be created in arbitrary and virtually limitless combinations" was clearly meant to refer to general English language, not to what can be created on Wiktionary. And it's true. I would delete these. As said before, it's like the normal language rule where you capitalise the first word in a sentence: you hyphenate an NP to make it an adjective. Equinox 19:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I would keep it - and any others that meet CfI. We are not short of space. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ahh, if I were king, Wiktionary would put the entries for the hyphenated form onto the same page as the non-hyphenated form to keep things simple and not break up word entries so unnecessarily. Doing so wouldn't affect the search because, as an example, typing "fruit-tree" in the search box causes "fruit tree" to appear in the drop-down, and searching for "fruit-tree" yields results with "fruit tree" listed first. But I'm not king. -Mike (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I would delete all attributive form entries which are merely compounds connected by hyphens, they are a transparent construction. There is no more reason to have these than to have entries such as a book, the book. That said, it should probably be done via vote. - TheDaveRoss 19:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. I have created a vote here. Mihia (talk)
Deleted per the vote (whether I like it or not, as Dan says). - -sche (discuss) 21:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

rathering

It is cited, but is clearly a typing error for "rather". Sort of an occasionally encountered brain fart. Equinox 22:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ChignonПучок 09:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
If there are legitimate occurrences of the present participle of the verb "to rather", this should be kept. ChignonПучок 13:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, two of the four quotations for the verb sense use this verb form, one as a present participle (adjectivally), one as a gerund (nominally).
Note that rather also has a (nonstandard) verb sense, so occurrences of rathering may be a legit present participle or gerund. While I believe that in almost all cases it is a (weird) error in which a neighbouring -ing proved infectious, both GBS and GNS show it is a rather common error (search for "rathering than"), so readers are not unlikely to encounter it and try to look it up. I found an occurrence from as far back as 1919. If the “rather” sense is kept, we should label it bluntly a common typing error, not “possibly” and not a “mistake”, and certainly not call it an {{alternative form of}}.  --Lambiam 10:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The verb examples at rather look kosher to me, also given that the verb is labelled "nonstandard or dialectal". On this basis I have added an entry at rathering for the present participle. The examples presently at adverb rathering are plain weird to my eye. I find it hard to see how "rathering" could be an accidental typo or printing error for "rather", but maybe (as Lambiam suggests) it could just be the case that a neighbouring "ing" was in the writer's mind and they accidentally added it to the wrong word? Mihia (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Now that the verb sense has been added, I think it's clearer that most hits are of it, and I've deleted the adverb sense as a rare misspelling: compare reconditing (recently discussed in the Tea Room, where a syllable has erroneously been left out in typing, instead of added, as here) or Talk:licensize and its discussion of Citations:licencise. Regarding it being hard to see how it could be an accidental typo: -ing and -ed are very different sequences of letters and sounds and have rather different effects on verbs, but I not infrequently have brain farts and write or type one when I mean another (and, in copyediting Wikipedia, I've seen that other people do to). Errors of this sort are not as unheard of as people think, even if they are still too rare relative to the massively common usual spelling to merit entries. - -sche (discuss) 21:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

none the

May be sum-of-parts: none + the (adverb) (see etymology 2). I'm nominating the entry as there is uncertainty as to whether this entry should remain, and if so, whether it should be categorized as a "Phrase": see "Wiktionary:Tea room/2019/May#none the". — SGconlaw (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hard redirect to the adverb section in the. ChignonПучок 18:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
SoP, yes, but only to serious students of language. There is nothing about the as an adverb that is familiar to normal folks, though native speakers can use it adverbially in a variety of collocations. If we would like to ensure that Wiktionary will lose normal folks as users, we should probably delete this. If the would like to have normal folks as users, we should keep it and probably add some of the other common collocations, like all the, much the, any the, more the, little the, somewhat the, never the, ever the. I don't think our current Adverb PoS section is worded clearly enough to be comprehensible to a normal user. I am very skeptical that we can write good glosses or non-gloss definitions for such function words. Usage notes in all of these could direct those normal users with an admixture of abnormal curiosity to the#Adverb, where they could get a grammar lesson, at least if that section is improved. DCDuring (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, other uses of this sense of "the" include "(so|not) much the (wiser, better, etc)", "a bit the (wiser, etc)" etc. Do we want them all? I admit they could be opaque to someone trying to parse them with no prior knowledge, but I think redirects to the relevant sense of the and usexes there could cover them well. It's curious that other dictionaries at OneLook have entries for this but not any of the other "X the" phrases I checked. I don't know on what other basis we could justify having an entry for this one but only redirects for the others, or on what basis we could justify having entries for all the others ([[little the]], [[bit the]], etc) besides caprice. - -sche (discuss) 19:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I suppose you could argue that "none the" is doubly difficult in that it involves unusual or specialised uses of both words. In something like "much the wiser", adverbial "much" is recognisable from general use, including use in "much wiser" itself, whereas "none" in "none the wiser" is not so obvious. Mihia (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw : Since none the has been nominated for deletion, other entries such as must needs should also follow suit, with a hard redirect to the adverb needs. Now you would argue that must needs is so popular in literature that it should have an independent entry. I also agree therewith, and the same reasoning goes for none the as well. —Lbdñk()·(????????????) 19:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC).
"Must needs" was kept on a different rationale, one focused on its archaic sound, and intentional usage to invoke this sense. bd2412 T 21:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand what that means. I agree with Lbdñk; the rationale is exactly the same to me. Canonicalization (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect per Chignon. - -sche (discuss) 21:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

refiddle with

DTLHS (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

keep. We have both fiddle with and fiddle, so why not both refiddle with and refiddle? Kiwima (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to refiddle, and redirect fiddle with to fiddle. Canonicalization (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

lingot

Rfd-sense "The virtual currency of Duolingo, an online language-learning platform". Do we really need this? — surjection?〉 17:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Surjection: This seems like a matter for RFV, no? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
No, I did check and it would pass RFV if passed through there, and I believe this is an RFD matter anyway. — surjection?〉 17:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer to delete this along the lines of WT:FICTION, like made-up currencies from specific video games (but unlike, say, zorkmid, which occurs in many different games). But I can see how it doesn't strictly apply here. It also feels a bit brand-like. A lot of sites have or had their own currencies; many of the sites and currencies are defunct (remember Banana Bux?) Equinox 19:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep since it is already a word in many other cases, it's interesting to have it and I feel like it will stick aroundNdołkah (talk)

shoop

"interjection" Exclaimed or posted to make the accusation that the image in question has been manipulated to produce a misleading and false impression.

This is merely a use of the noun. In principle any English word can function in this way. In practice very many do so function. DCDuring (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this usage myself, but assuming it's essentially similar to exclaiming "Fake!", for example, then delete. Mihia (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is like crying "fake!". I note we have an interjection at out, for example. Equinox 19:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete, period!  --Lambiam 23:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 21:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

do a, pull a

These do not exist as phrases, or as anything. The entries seem to have been created based on a mistaken division of "do/pull a name" into "[do/pull a] name" rather than "do/pull [a name]". Any meanings not already covered at "do" and "pull" should be moved there and these deleted (or redirected if thought necessary). Mihia (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Mh, isn't this a problem with all the members of that category?
Another option could be to move them to Appendix:Snowclones/do a X, Appendix:Snowclones/pull a X.
Otherwise, I guess I would support a redirect. Canonicalization (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

abstract away

Isn't this just NISOP? Kiwima (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

-cycle

Not a suffix, in my opinion. It doesn't form new words by attaching to existing words. —Rua (mew) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Cycle is the root anyway, so I would say delete. What staggers me is that it has survived since 2005. DonnanZ (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Julia 17:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Probably delete the entry as it stands now, defined as "circle"(!). Someone might be able to find enough citations to recreate it with a bicycle/tricycle/motorcycle-related sense, see e.g. google books:"jetcycle", google books:"ponycycle", google books:"horsecycle", google books:"ride my catcycle". ("Forming compounds for conveyances which are like bicycles or motorcycles combined with or intended for the other element of the compound."?) That kind of use seems like -gate ("Emailgate", etc) to me, i.e. it seems like a suffix. (Do we have tests to distinguish suffixes like that from compounds, as with cycle?) - -sche (discuss) 02:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Those compounds, jetcycle and catcycle (even Batcycle) could as well be blends of X + motorcycle Leasnam (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

a great deal

We have an entry at great deal.

As a noun (not as an adverb) great deal can be found with other determiners, including the, this, that, no, any.

At their entries for a great deal other dictionaries characterize and define it as an adverb. Many of these also have noun entries at great deal.

The citations can be merged, but we should have citations with some of the other determiners as well. DCDuring (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete per proponent. Canonicalization (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

as good as dead

SOP: as good as + dead. Canonicalization (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Two questions:
  • Does as good as have good as as an alternative form (in the sense of "almost, practically", I mean)? I see some occurrences for "is good as dead" ([56], [57], [58]), "are good as dead", etc., but I suspect it's not common.
  • Should as good as gold and as good as new be construed as SOP too? The former sounds more lexicalised than the latter. Canonicalization (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    The page as good as gold is a hard redirect to good as gold, which I think is wrong; the meaning of the adjective good as gold is totally different from that of the adverb as good as gold. The latter is a non-transparent idiom, clearly not a SOP. Both as good as new and as good as dead, on the other hand, are (IMO) SOP and deletable. My guess is that in phrases such as “are good as dead” the collocation “good as dead” is a variant of “as good as dead” arising from sloppiness; if it becomes widespread, we should record it, just like I could care less. Does it perhaps belong to a particular idiolect, like phrases such as he done what he could?  --Lambiam 22:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I would consider it "sloppy", though maybe colloquial, but yes "they are good as dead" is just an instance of the broader phenomenon of "as" being deleted from comparisons. One can also say cliches (etc) google books:"are old as dirt", "are ugly as sin", etc. I agree that "(as) good as dead" could be considered SOP. Certainly, it is but one of a large number of similar phrases, which are google books:"as numerous as trees in a forest" / google books:"are as many as the grains of sand on the seashore" / as not-exactly-literal-but-still-SOPpy as the average such construction. - -sche (discuss) 01:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
You may not find it sloppy, but in fact I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!  --Lambiam 23:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, to make my position explicit, delete. - -sche (discuss) 19:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

in transition

An old Luciferwildcat creation. It seems rather SOP to me. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but all three senses are present at transition:

  • "The process of change from one form, state, style or place to another."
  • "The process or act of changing from one gender role to another, or of bringing one's outward appearance in line with one's internal gender identity."
  • "(some sports) A change from defense to attack, or attack to defense."

- -sche (discuss) 06:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Weak keep. Weakly a set phrase. Mihia (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Anyone else want to comment? Regarding its "set"-ness, one can say someone is "transitioning" just as well as one can say they're "in transition" (and in the gender sense, "transitioning" sounds more natural to me). Perhaps we should keep the first sense but delete the subsenses as being SOP-ily redundant to it. - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Kaul festival

Seems rather NISOPpy. Compare Notting Hill festival, Carling Weekend --I learned some phrases (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep. This seems more like Ghost Festival or Mid-Autumn Festival. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep, but Kaul Festival could be the more common form. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Chinese school

You can work this out. I can't see any idiomaticity here. Compare English school, French school, language school --I learned some phrases (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete, 100% SOP (unlike Chinese room).  --Lambiam 23:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Weak delete. This is SOP, but it has the stress pattern of a single word when used in this sense. (That is, I say "Chinese school" differently in "John can't come because he has to go to Chinese school" and "John grew up in China and went to a Chinese school".) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
But how is it different from “My son really enjoyed going to Hebrew school”? Note that “Chinese” is a noun (the Chinese language) in one sentence, and an adjective (pertaining to China) in the other.  --Lambiam 23:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not. I also see Hebrew school as being SOP but stressed as if a single word (and it's surely a factor of where I grew up, but those are the only two examples besides Sunday school that I know to belong in that class). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Latin school – an endangered species, but not yet quite extinct.  --Lambiam 13:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, I have to disagree. If it is pronounced (used) as a compound noun, then it must be one despite what anyone may want it to be. -Mike (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete for nominator's reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete - it's like Chinese class, Chinese lesson, Chinese teacher...-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

One of the more obvious deletes I've seen lately. Equinox 03:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Stricken out. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

hangover soup

SOP. 2600:1000:B126:33DA:E908:783B:2D42:593D 18:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Is this just a Korean custom, or is this phrase used across different cultures to refer to soup eaten to cure a hangover? If it is the former, then it should be deleted as SOP; if it is the latter, then it would be idiomatic since you can't tell from the name that the soup must be Korean. bd2412 T 01:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Googling the term I find many non-Korean recipes for something advertized as “hangover soup”.  --Lambiam 18:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • This is sounding more SOP, then. bd2412 T 20:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Commons

RFD for the specific UK and Canadian senses — the first sense should cover this for all Westminster systems. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I think senses 1 & 2 can be merged, they are virtually the same. DonnanZ (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Simply merge the three senses. I think only the UK and Canada call the lower House “the [House of] Commons”. Even simpler: define this as “Short for House of Commons”.  --Lambiam 19:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
This was resolved by merging the senses last July. - -sche (discuss) 22:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Yankee go home

A mess of an entry, which may well simply be SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete, I'm astonished that it has been around for so long. You can pretty much replace the word "Yankee" with any racial slur and get the gist of it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS?  --Lambiam 13:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: not idiomatic, despite the assertion in the entry. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I‘m not so sure it is a simple sum of parts. The ethnic senses of the noun “Yankee” as we define the term denote in all cases an individual, but in the political sense of this slogan it refers to American imperialism.  --Lambiam 11:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Can that be established from citations? I have a feeling that much of the time it’s just used to mean “American citizens and companies, go back to your own country”, which would be SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The Iranians certainly used the slogan in that sense when the US orchestrated a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government and reinstalled a ruthless autocrat in its place.[59] To argue this is a SOP would at the very least require adding a new sense “American citizens and companies” at Yankee.  --Lambiam 13:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm suspecting they didn't; the Shah would have cracked down hard on that. "A native or inhabitant of the United States" seems to cover the phrase, with companies generally being an extension thereof; if I can find examples of "Japanese go home" signs at openings of Toyota dealerships or factories, will you insist on adding companies to the noun meaning of Japanese? I object to "citizens"; it's not a word of precision, and if it's getting slung against an American the fine details of citizenship would be irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Widespread long-term use. Idiomatic in the sense that it refers to anti-American sentiment, usually against US foreign policy and its military.--Dmol (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. It may have some interesting use for Wikipedia, but it's linguistically uninteresting. One could add to Yankee the mass definition; it seems surprising that it's not plural (though note the only citation is using it correctly as singular). But other than that, "Krauts go home", "Arabs go home", etc. etc.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    “Yankee go home” is clearly the original, the others are clones.  --Lambiam 15:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    Clearly? Why? In searching for it, I find "Szwaby do domu" (Krauts go home) was written on Polish walls (Language, Discourse and Identity in Central Europe, page 66); is that a clone, or just because this is the normal way to convey this message?--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep not just because it's used often in anti-Americanist discourse and protests, but also because Yankee in that phrase is used as a slur. -Mardus (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yank is often a slur; is Yankee not? Equinox 12:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think the singular/plural distinction is not very interesting here, it could simply be addressing the addressees individually or a poor command of English. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

triple rinse

DTLHS (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, transparent NISOP that is completely interchangeable with any convenient synonym - triple wash, rinse three times, wash three times. bd2412 T 01:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

test entry

A low-effort WT:COALMINE test case? I don't see the utility. Equinox 16:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete, and delete testaccount with it. This is a great example of how Usenet is a good source to find out how people are using words, and an awful source to find attribution for CFI compliance. You can find "attribution" of myriad pairs of words with spaces missing between them because people don't spend much time editing posts, and because people post code. Things like "firstname", "lastname", "nullvalue", etc. are easily citable using Usenet, but utter garbage if you are trying to create a dictionary of the English language. - TheDaveRoss 17:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I suppose you meant to write testentry.  --Lambiam 09:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, delete - clearly SoP. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. I thought it was Wonderfool who created this entry, and all of his/her entries should be deleted. --I learned some phrases (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess this was created as a test entry to see how long it would take before it was deleted.  --Lambiam 09:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
-sche is Wonderfool! - TheDaveRoss 13:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I created testentry to test a certain template function that only worked in mainspace at that time, and was going to delete it (as my "definition" said, haha), but Liliana turned it into a real entry, so I created this more common (spaced) spelling per COALMINE. - -sche (discuss) 22:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete per Dave Ross. Also delete testentry. What he said, all manner of garbage variable-name-style "words" such as "firstname", "lastname" etc. can no doubt be attested in prose use. It doesn't mean we need to trouble ourselves with them. With no offence intended to the creator, this has to be one of my favourite ever definitions:
test entry
  1. A test entry.
Well I never ... Mihia (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Abstain. The definition is not a definition. DonnanZ (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Describing the purpose of a test entry would be more helpful perhaps. DonnanZ (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

all better

"(especially of one's health) Returned to a completely normal or improved state. John had a scar on his left arm, but it's all better now." I think this is SoP, like "I had ink on my face, but [after a wash] it's all gone now." Equinox 18:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete: "When I saw you last week you had a cold- I hope you're you're better". "She turned me into a newt! ... I got better..." Chuck Entz (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Not even really a set phrase, just two words that can occur together with their normal meanings. Mihia (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

believe

Sense 4: "To consider likely. I believe it might rain tomorrow. (Here, the speaker merely accepts the accuracy of the conditional.)" This is the same as sense 1, "to accept as true". The only difference is that the thing being accepted as true ("it might...") is not a statement of complete certainty. Equinox 20:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The definition may not be written well enough. This sense should be like "I expect, suppose, think, understand, am of the opinion of," etc. Whereas the first sense of believe is like "I have a belief" (using the first sense of belief). -Mike (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I still don't get the difference. Equinox 15:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I've changed the usex at sense 4. I think the old one was possibly too close to sense 1. Leasnam (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

height-fear

Despite being lemmatized with a hyphen, none of only one of the examples are hyphenated. Furthermore it's just a noun+noun quasicompound that you could find a million examples of, like "clown fear". DTLHS (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The 2013 cite: From this point of view we shall more readily understand many cases of height-dizziness and height-fear. is hyphenated. I've added a few more. I wasn't able to find any hits on Google Books for clown-fear, which might approximate a similar construction. clown fear however is a thing. Leasnam (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I suspect the standard form is fear of heights, but no entry alas. DonnanZ (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe because that can be fear of + <anything>, but height fear seems to be a psychology term. Leasnam (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Is this resolved? Tharthan (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep. The term is attested with the hyphen. Leasnam (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

punch

Another video game button, like the recently discussed kick. Equinox 19:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. This merely describes a button with the command to engage in punching, as already defined. bd2412 T 00:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

claret jug

SOP. 2600:1000:B10B:C764:FCB2:6E98:4771:BB11 10:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It is a type of jug, though, as "teacup" is a type of cup (even when holding something other than tea). Found in Google Books: "Do you really wish for Madeira, Charley? Do not expect to find it in a claret jug." Equinox 12:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this does appear to be a specific thing, not just any jug that happens to be used to hold claret.
I suspect the entry would benefit from more detail, such as an image and links to any relevant WP content. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I added a photo and Wikipedia link. FYI... Although it doesn't exist here, Claret Jug is also a specific thing. -Mike (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • RFD kept: no consensus for deletion, no boldfaced delete, pro-keeping arguments seem to be made. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

elo boost

This is a boost of one's Elo rating. The rest is just details and poor wording in the definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the rationale for this request? SoP? If I understand the definition, this is a way of rigging the system that requires enlisting a player with a higher rating as part of the scheme. This is not by itself implied by the term, so then it is not a SoP. Is the argument that the definition is incorrect and that the term does not actually have this rather specific meaning? Then an RfV would seem to be indicated.  --Lambiam 21:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems like this was a promotional entry, I removed a lot of the promotional content and cleaned it up a bit. - TheDaveRoss 14:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

take a spin

SOP, from take (to undertake, do, or perform) + a + spin (a short trip, informally); same form as take a walk, take a swim, etc. -Mike (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete, per above. Leasnam (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Wiktionary is the only OneLook reference with this. DCDuring (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
This strikes me as AmE, I would say go for a spin. DonnanZ (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

any more

sense: "Adverb" To a greater extent or in a greater amount (than).

I don't like Braque any more than I like Picasso.

This seems not adverbial and transparent, ie, NISoP. The problem is not well addressed by a definition using {{&lit|any|more}} because we would need a Determiner PoS that just contained {{&lit}}, not a practice that we engage in AFAICT. DCDuring (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I would say that the "to a greater extent" sense, as used in the example sentence, is adverbial. How do you see the "in a greater amount (than)" sense being used? What would be an example? Mihia (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete as SOP, like "I don't want my coffee any hotter than x degrees". Equinox 19:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

are you threatening me

Not a useful phrasebook entry; no translations. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain any reasons? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Actually, maybe the phrase could be used for the sake of one's personal safety. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Lo Ximiendo: User:Metaknowledge's two reasons: Not a useful phrasebook entry; no translations. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be a useful phrasebook entry - delete SemperBlotto (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete – how can one use it for one’s personal safety? If one is threatened, or possibly not threatened, one does not become safer by asking that. Fay Freak (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Just a note that I added a translation because I went through the phrasebook entries indiscriminately, and me adding the translation isn't any kind of endorsement by me to keep the entry. — surjection?〉 10:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't like the fact that we are presenting this as a neutral "phrase" whereas in reality saying this would often escalate a potential conflict. Equinox 19:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I can imagine a situation where raising the stakes from a low-level, but potentially deteriorating conflict by asking this question can actually cool down the aggressor, as it makes clear that the interlocutor isn't afraid of confrontation, but is ready to skip directly to the open conflict part! Ketiga123 (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
And you think that translates cleanly into every language? How do we distinguish the two meanings (raising and lowering aggression)? That's going to be one mother of a usage note. Equinox 06:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete, there do not seem to be any hits for this in phrase books and it doesn't seem very useful. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

frumious

Sense: frequently used in placeholders for computer programming - not a word, not relevant, not of use. - TheDaveRoss 17:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that foo and bar as variables merit inclusion, I know that frumious as a variable name does not. i is extremely common as the variable being incremented in for-loops, but that does not make it an English word. Variable names aren't words in a language, they are arbitrary. They do not convey any meaning, you could replace them with literally anything else and not change what is being said. - TheDaveRoss 18:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The second quote is not even a use. If this is not deleted, I would RFV it. Canonicalization (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    • This is a use. It is a directive to use the word. How more use can it be? If your definition of a mention is lavish you can also call the first a use because it refers to what someone wants without appropriating it. And the third one is a test. Is a test containing a word list a use? Now I have given you a riddle to ruminate. Fay Freak (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      • "It is a directive to use the word. How more use can it be?". A lot more. One could substitute "aqxgydfji" for "frumious" and not change the "meaning" at all- it's just an arbitrary string of characters that was chosen to make the example easy to remember. You could do the same with any expression that can be divided into recognizable pieces, e.g., "Klaatu" and "barada nikto". re: "Is a test containing a word list a use?". No. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
        • One can do that anywhere. Not everything spammers send has a meaning. If the directive is to use a word with a meaning, then it is used. If the directive is to use a word with no meaning, then it isn’t used. For example if someone writes to his secretary to compose a letter for him and mention a certain thing, then we have a use at that point already. Then when the letter is composed it might not be an independent use. Though here I tend to assume that this “sense” “frumious” has no meaning. Which has nothing to do with whether the second quote is a mention or use. Fay Freak (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
To me this still has the normal Carrollian meaning (and indeed is often used in his phrase "frumious bandersnatch"). Suppose that the phrase "hot pancakes" was often used in computer programming: should we then have a separate sense at "hot", saying used as a programming placeholder? No. It's still pancakes that are very warm: the whole phrase just happens to be quoted in this context. (BTW I've never heard of this "frumious" in my programming career.) Equinox 18:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree. It could be moved down to the usage notes if desired, but there is no additional sense of this word beyond the first one. And the first one is very difficult to attest outside of references to Carroll. -Mike (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. It is not hard to find examples where the name “Bilbo” (or in full “Bilbo Baggins”) is used as an example string (like in 1,$s/Bilbo/Frodo/g and $_ = "Bilbo Baggins's birthday is September 22";) or as an example variable or user name. This is probably equally true for many other names from works of fiction that have attracted a somewhat nerdish cult following, like “Voldemort” or “Neo”. Such uses are not lexical; they have no inherent semantics.  --Lambiam 19:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Weak delete. It seems to strain the “no specific persons rule”, and also it’s true that there are many nonce words in programming manuals not intended to be found in a dictionary nor suitable for a dictionary. On the other hand I wot not how to deal with names like John Doe, Eva Mustermann (w:Talk:John Doe#List is extremely unencyclopedic for more). Fay Freak (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

monitorize

This is not a word in Cambridge, OED or MW dictionaries. "monitor" is probably the closest correct word. Tobeineradicable (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep in RFD; if you want to question the existence of the word, I suggest you use RFV instead. — surjection?〉 11:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Mercifully there is no entry for monitorise (please don't enter!). DonnanZ (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems like this would easily pass RFV. 68.194.56.54 13:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Move to RFV. Definitely exists. Whether it means "watch by means of a monitor/screen" or just "monitor something" I haven't checked. Equinox 14:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
If kept, this probably needs to have a label put on it. Doing a search of news articles, I only find it in the comments sections. When people use it, they probably really just intend to use the verb sense of monitor. -Mike (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Kept at RFD Purplebackpack89 03:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

evil spirit

I have self-nominated because I believe we should keep this. It was deleted as sop back in 2014. My reasons: a) it is a "thing"; b) very common expression; c) some lemmings exist; d) not straight SOP, since it is not a spirit that is evil (i.e. it is not analogous to evil person), but rather one that causes evil or is an embodiment of evil. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Where is the previous RFD discussion? Canonicalization (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I would delete: you can find people invoking "O kind spirits!" and suchlike too. Equinox 19:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I would be inclined to delete as well. You can find malevolent spirit, lustful spirit, wicked spirit, demonic spirit, hateful spirit, prideful spirit and so on Leasnam (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, do not know how to go about finding prev discussion (it came up as an alert when I first created the page, but now I cannot find it.). Also, respectfully, I do not think evil spirit' is the same as kind spirit, 'malevolent spirit, lustful spirit, wicked spirit, demonic spirit, hateful spirit, prideful spirit, which is precisely why I created it. Amongst Christians I know there is a belief that there is such as thing as an "evil spirit" - a specific type of entity that does work for Satan and is known by this name - as opposed to any old spirit that is simply wicked or prideful or whatever. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The current definition does not describe a specific Christian spirit: it just says any evil spirit basically. I think you need to change the entry before you use that argument (but please let this discussion finish first). Equinox 03:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
To take your points individually: (a) it is a "thing"; [well, so is a "brown leaf" but that's the specific type of sum-of-parts entry we list as what we want to avoid]; (b) very common expression; [so is "brown leaf"]; (c) some lemmings exist; [okay, please cite them]; (d) not straight SOP, since it is not a spirit that is evil (i.e. it is not analogous to evil person), but rather one that causes evil or is an embodiment of evil. [I think this is a misunderstanding: you can live in "evil times", and the times themselves are not evil, but just full of it. Words aren't always 100% direct.] Equinox 03:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually what I meant by saying _it is a "thing"_ (and putting the word thing in inverted commas) was to invoke that new meaning of this expression. Like when someone says, "Is medical grade tea a thing?" (https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/144171/the-idiom-be-a-thing) Yes, a brown leaf is a thing, but it is not a "thing". Anyhow, I fear I am muddying the waters here, so shall desist. In any case, I think among Christians the term "evil spirit" is directly synonymous with "demon", as opposed to other adj+noun (SoP) combos such as wicked spirit, demonic spirit, hateful spirit, prideful spirit which are not directly synonymous with "demon".
As for lemmings, I found these two: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/evil-spirit , https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/evil%20spirit - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Recreating a deleted entry like that is dishonest. Delete for the time being, and introduce a proper request for undeletion. Canonicalization (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The entry never failed a RFD--or so the records suggest--so I do not see anything dishonest. The 2014 deletion of evil spirit entry was a speedy deletion; in the present 2019 RFD, the author of the entry wanted to ensure that, if the entry is going to be deleted again, it will be via a process rather than with zero discussion. Collins has the term, so this is one WT:LEMMING, and it makes the entry at least worth discussing and examining rather than speedy deleting it. I see nothing dishonest or shady on Sonofcawdrey's part. There is no basis for deleting the entry on process grounds alone; the entry can only be deleted on substance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I wrote that on the assumption that it was RFDed. If that's not the case, I apologise. Canonicalization (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

K.

I really wanna redirect this to K, just to simplify things, you know. But I haven't the courage. --I learned some phrases (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I updated the definition to include that is a possible abbreviation of every word which begins with a k, and some which begin with other things. - TheDaveRoss 22:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I imagine that was intended as a humorous comment. BTW, Y. is the same case, and I already deleted the English section from O. as it was just an "alternative form" --Pious Eterino (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
So WF became brave. Redirected --Vealhurl (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

oceanic abyss

The definition is inaccurate; were it to be corrected, it would be SOP with the new sense at abyss. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Here the term is used in the sense of abyssal zone, but here the term refers to the Challenger Deep, so there is used in the sense as currently defined. I haven’t examined what uses can be found in permanently recorded media, but I suspect either sense can be attested, in which case the ambiguity implies this is, apparently, not a simple SOP.  --Lambiam 20:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam Do you realize that your first link is to a Minecraft mod? I don't think that qualifies for attesting. -Mike (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I implied in my second sentence that these uses are not suitable for attestation and that further examination is needed to settle the issue. The second link – in spite of it not qualifying for attesting – generates some doubt regarding the assertion in the rationale that the definition is inaccurate.  --Lambiam 20:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The countable, non-specialist use of oceanic abyss as in your second link seems to be a mildly different SOP, with a more general use of abyss. How does ambiguity between SOP usages merit keeping an entry? Brown leaf can sometimes also refer to a page from an old book, but that isn't a reason to keep it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, I’m not contesting the request. Twice SOP, so let’s delete it twice then.  --Lambiam 20:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

come on home

SOP. 2600:1000:B113:1DB8:7D57:6B6:88CA:5247 12:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure how to parse this collocation. Is it come + on home? If it is a sum of parts, can the parts be used independently, like in return on home?  --Lambiam 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's "come + on home". I'd say it's "come on + home". "return on home" does not seem idiomatic. Sense 9 of come on presently reads:
(intransitive, informal, Southern, US, always used with a preposition: in, by, round, over, up, down) To visit.
Don't just stand there on the doorstep, come on in!
Next time you're in the area, come on by.
Don't leave without coming on round to see the baby.
You said to come on over whenever I get the chance, and here I am!
Come on up to my place on the third floor.
Come on down to see me if you're in my neck of the woods.
Even though many of the examples given do have a "visit" sense, to me the definition "To visit" seems dubious. Perhaps fixing this could allow us to incorporate "come on home"? I would say that these supposed prepositions are more adverbial. Also, the label "Southern US" seems weird to me. Aren't these expressions universal English? Mihia (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, home is not a preposition – but the “prepositions” in the examples for sense 9 are actually adverbs.  --Lambiam 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I had a go at fixing the relevant sense of come on, but it is quite hard to define or identify exactly what the word "on" is doing, so if anyone sees a way to improve it, please go ahead. Anyway, the intention is that the new definition should accommodate "come on home", which I have now added as an example. On this basis that this is achieved, I vote delete as SoP for come on home. Mihia (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The def "elaboration of come" seems right to me; as for " emphasising motion or progress, or conveying a nuance of familiarity or encouragement" - I really think it is just "encouragement" (based on the common Come on! encouragement). At any rate, that effectively deals with "come one home" as SoP. Perhaps a hard redirect would be best. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd delete: the numerous constructions listed by Mihia above are clearly the same basic thing. Equinox 17:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

way out

NISoP (= way#Noun + out). Just like way in, way across, way under, way over, way around, way through, way back, way forward, way home. DCDuring (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Currently it reads:
  1. An exit.
  2. (figuratively) A solution; an escape.
    This is a real mess. I need a way out.
  3. A distance far from shore, home, or other familiar place.
    We're quite a way out now.
I vote to delete sense 3, which seems misconceived. There is no such thing as "a way out" in that sense. I am leaning keep for the figurative sense 2, which I think would also justify our including the literal sense. Mihia (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Del sense 3 - not a lexical item, and not a noun. If senses 1 and 2 are nouns, then we should be able to find plurals "way outs" or "ways out" and hyphenated spellings to support their existence, without which evidence, I think they just SoP. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Sonofcawdrey I'm not sure that's the case. There are plenty of nouns that are only used in the singular, plenty more that are almost always used in the singular. Purplebackpack89 14:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
You obviously haven't done a Google search for "ways out". My main problem with the first two senses is that there are lots of prepositional phrases that can be substituted for "out", depending on the context: "he was looking for a way [over the pass|through the rest of the maze|outside|free of the responsibility|to the exit|past the guards|around the obstacle in the only road leaving the valley|etc.]. It seems like out is just a prepositional phase with an unspecified object, and there are a number of others that could be used for parallel constructions: around, down, east, in, north, over, past, south, through, under, up, west, etc.
As for the third sense, as noted, the example sentence is really "We're quite a way out now.". It's just a phrase that happens to end in "way" that's modifying "out". You could substitute "a good distance" for "quite a way". Chuck Entz (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we are agreed that sense 3 is due to a misunderstanding or misgrouping of words, so I have deleted it. Mihia (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Btw, I assume that this RFD is only for the noun sense, so I have moved the notice accordingly. I mean, there is no problem with the Adj. sense, right? Mihia (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • keep 1 and 2. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

deputy mayor

and deputy primer minister and deputy first minister and probably deputy head. Looks like deputy + mayor from where I'm standing --I learned some phrases (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I do question the statement "often empowered to assume the position of president on his death or absence". DonnanZ (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Is it word president you object to? It is a poor choice as in each case the headword would be a better choice. There is a sense of president that would fit, but in these contexts it seems to be poor diction, which would seem to be a serious matter in a dictionary. DCDuring (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Looking at it again, if "mayor" was substituted for "president" it would actually make sense. DonnanZ (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
"president" must just be a copy-paste error, mustn't it? Probably from vice president. Anyway, I changed it to "mayor". Mihia (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

get ahead of

sole definition: "To reveal information that is disadvantageous to oneself in order to spin it in public before one's opponents have a chance to do so."

= get + ahead of ("in advance of")

Even if you think the definition is not just an application of an SoP collocation, it has no cites that suggest this is an accurate definition. DCDuring (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what kind of object our definition is supposed to take. The definition seems miswritten, I would say. Sense #5 at https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/get+ahead+of seems somewhat related:
5. To take preemptive action before something is revealed or becomes well-known.
We need to get ahead of this scandal before it breaks to the public.
Mihia (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The Fairlex definition doesn't seem bad, but I don't think get ahead is the right headword for either their def 1 or def 5. If we think we should have an entry, then I'd like it as get ahead of because I believe ahead of is a compound preposition and the definitions of get ahead (with ahead an adverb, the combination intransitive) seem semantically not very closely related to get ahead of (with ahead of a preposition, the combination transitive). DCDuring (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Mihia get ahead of should be an entry. It means 'to take take preemptive action before a foreseen development becomes reality'. But the def "going public with information before the story breaks" is merely descriptive of one way to get ahead of something in a specific case - it is not a separate meaning. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

ex-Christian

SoP - you can add ex- to literally anything. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

There is also ex-Jew, ex-Muslim, ex-gay, ex-wife; need I go on? DonnanZ (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Is that in support of, or in opposition to, the proposed deletion? Also, is it impolite to ask an ex-pirate for their ex-piration date?  --Lambiam 09:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Good point Donnanz! They should be deleted too, IMO ;-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
How about "ex-statistician", "ex-organ grinder", "ex-mugwump"... ? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete all. At least the Muslim and Jew versions were created by a troll. - TheDaveRoss 13:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I think anything "ex-whatever religion" can go; and possibly ex-gay; I have no plans to be gay just to find out what it's like to be ex-gay; but I would keep ex-wife and ex-husband - these have lemmings and are translation targets. Just imagine the question "How many ex-wives do you have?" DonnanZ (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed that ex-wife was in there, that should stay. Lemming alone would allow it, but I agree that it is a worthy translation target as well. - TheDaveRoss 20:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Same: I'd keep ex-wife and ex-husband and delete the rest. Canonicalization (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
We should keep those ex-es in which the prefix does not have the meaning of “former”: ex-aequo and ex-æquo; ex-ante; ex-communication and ex-communications; ex-directory; ex-lax fish; ex-libris; ex-pat and ex-pats; ex-post; ex-stock and ex-stocks; and ex-voto and ex-votos.
I’d also keep the adjectival sense of ex-gay.  --Lambiam 08:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I would of course keep ex-wife/ex-husband and the terms mentioned by Lambiam where the prefix has another meaning. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: I agree with Lambiam’s views. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It gets worse: there is another entry, ex-ex-gay, which should be considered alongside ex-gay - I have reservations about both. DonnanZ (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment: in previous discussions like Talk:ex-stepfather (kept), Talk:ex-pilot (kept), Talk:ex-Scientologist (kept), some editors have argued hyphenated words are single words and thus un-SOP.
I abstain on most ex- entries, though I obviously agree that ones where "ex-" has another meaning should be kept, and I also think ex-wife, ex-husband and ex-gay (maybe even ex-ex-gay) have enough possible merits (translation targets, idiomatically specific definitions, etc) that they should probably be kept pending their own individual discussions-on-the-merits. - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I tend to regard hyphenated "ex-", "pro-", "anti-" etc. as SoP. Equinox 18:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I was forgetting the single-word view, which is an argument I tend to follow. DonnanZ (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Note that that view would lead to the inclusion-worthiness of ex-Ace, ex-Aggie, ex-Anteater, ex-Antelope, ex-Argonaut, ex-Athena, ex-Aztec, ..., many with several definitions (20 kinds of ex-Lions, 24 ex-Bulldogs, 27 ex-Tigers and 33 ex-Eagles). And that is just college sports teams. There are ex-CEO’s, ex-CFO’s, ex-CTO’s, ..., ex-mayors, ex-councillors, ex-eldermen, ..., ex-artists, ex-bakers, ex-chefs, ...; the list is virtually endless.  --Lambiam 08:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
And the list of -ness nouns is virtually endless. So what? That is not an inclusion or exclusion criterion per WT:CFI. I for one find it interesting that ex- is so productive in English, and am happy to find the evidence in the dictionary, in the proper category; ex- is not so hugely productive in Czech. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I prefer to keep this as long as attested. The nomination does not refer to WT:CFI; it says "you can add ex- to literally anything", which is demonstrably wrong and its analogue "you can add -ness to virtually any adjective" has no force as for term exclusion, e.g. of wrongheadedness. The term is not a compound but rather a prefixed word. In Czech, the similar forms are exmanželka, exprezident, exšéf, etc., where there is no hyphen, so these are going to be kept anyway, and will contribute to WT:THUB argument for some entries, like for ex-wife; I have not found *exkřesťan in Google books, so no contribution from Czech to ex-Christian. I do admit that the use of the hyphen suggests sum of parts, but I feel this argument is less compelling for prefixed entries, and ex- is a prefix. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all "ex-X" entries where the definition is nothing more than "a former X" or "formerly X" (excepting "translation hubs"). Mihia (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as SOP; ex-Christian. Pppery (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, in English, you can add ex- to anything- the question is, has the English language done so yet? I would vote in the affirmative in this case. Adding ex- to anything is one of the ways English generates new words. I would call it neologism maybe? [60] [61] [62] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Stridently pro-hyphen I am in the pro-hyphen camp. I believe that written English used to have a lot more hyphens in it. Yeah, you can make words up on the spot with the "ex-" prefix, but if enough people make up the same word and it gets into popular usage, then a legitimate word can be born. Once established, the anti-hyphen people will start working on the removal of the hyphen- you can see some 'exchristian' examples out there. I, for one, still have an abiding faith in the majesty of the glorious hyphen. At first glance, you would probably consider 'sun-hat' as SOP, right? 。。。 But there is a form of this word without the hyphen- sunhat. Sun-hat used to have a hyphen in some contexts- see my edit on the sunhat page. So did to-morrow. Hyphens can be parts of words, yesterday, today and to-morrow. The word ex-Christian exists and is used in popular media outside of linguistically experimental or jocular contexts. That's my two-cents for ya. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll put it to you this way- deletion of this entry doesn't mean that the word doesn't exist in English, it just means Wiktionary won't be documenting it. If you have to delete it just because of anti-hyphen sentiment, that's up to you. But it's still a word, regardless of our dictates from on high. English doesn't have a politburo that decides what shall and what shall not be a word. I am pretty sure that this is a word exists. It's not something I came up with yesterday like "ex-ghost" or "ex-marble" or something silly like that. Deleting this entry would mean Wiktionary could never quite be on the cutting edge of what English is. I can't stop you, but I have seen 'ex-Christian' enough that it has passed my test to reach the threshold for being a word. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If the policies of this website are against my position, then they are dead wrong in terms of the way English should be understood. But I don't think SOP is really against me- just a gang of well-meaning people with radical anti-hyphen bias.--Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Geographyinitiative: What if the term in question was "former Christian", would that merit inclusion? Why is a hyphen magical when a space is not? ex- means former, so ex-parrot is an identical term to former parrot, both mean that the parrot has ceased to be (a parrot). You would include the ex- version because it has a hyphen, but not the former version because it does not?
    Hyphens can be used in many ways, and can form things which are clearly not atomic words (here is a reasonable-if-not-ideal example). Your position seems to be that spaces are the only form of word break which unambiguously delineate words, but that is clearly not the case. I don't think I have seen anyone advocate for removing all terms with hyphens in them, anyway. - TheDaveRoss 12:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I won't continue here with my autistic screeching, but I will give you a few links: Ex-gay movement Ex-ex-gay Ex-Muslims of North America Bertell Ollman These are words, don't ignore them (IMO). I am not a scholar on the issue, I'm just telling you my feelings. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep all. The only difference as far as I can see linguistically is that certain affixes have hyphens (e.g. ex-) while others do not (e.g. un-), then there are others that sometimes take hyphens and sometimes not (e.g. semi-, non-). If we are going to not admit ex-Christian then we shouldn't admit unchristian, which essentially just means 'not Christian'. Words with "non-", "anti-", "un-", "semi", "half-" all seem equally SoPish. If they all meet CFI, then by the ethos of every word in every language, they should be in. One way English creates new words is to add "ex-" at the front, ex-Christian is just as much a word as ex-wife. The great thing about Wiktionary, as a dictionary, is that it does include trivial compounds/formations, more so than any other dictionary. It's a strength. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep all. At the very least, we should be considering these on a case-by-case basis rather than wholesale. "Ex-Christian", "ex-gay" and the like have more subtle meanings beyond just "formerly ...". "Ex-gay", in particular, does not merely mean "formerly gay" because it's questionable whether that's possible. It's also part of the phrase ex-gay movement, which is noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia entry. By the way, Chuck Entz, your examples are whataboutism. They are not relevant because they don't exist and we don't have entries for them. If we did, we'd recognise them as SoP and remove them. — Paul G (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Paul G Actually, they were relevant, as a counter to Donnanz' typical "we should keep it because I like it"/inverse w:WP:I DON'T LIKE IT argumentation. As for whether they exist: ex-statistician 1, 2, 3 and 4. Ex-organ-grinder 1, 2, 3 and 4. Ex-mugwump 1, 2, 3. I'm pretty sure these would all pass an rfv (and yes, I did check before I chose those examples). As for rfd: how exactly would we recognize those as SOP? What objective criteria are there that would apply to those that wouldn't apply to the nominated ones? A notability requirement would filter out trivial examples such as mine- but we don't have a notability requirement. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all that are cited. Ƿidsiþ 08:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all not included by lemmings. DCDuring (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Another factor that I just realized: ex- seems to act more like a clitic in many cases, modifying the whole phrase rather than the word it's attached to. There are examples like ex-Christian Scientist, ex-Christian Democrat and ex-Christian Brother (not to mention things like "ex-Baltimore mayor"). We don't include possessives in -'s and Latin forms in -cum or -que because of this characteristic. That doesn't automatically exclude this entry, but it needs to be considered. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    One can check e.g. ex-Christians, ex-Jews, ex-wives, ex-husbands, ex-boyfriends, ex-girlfriends, ex-ministers at Google Ngram Viewer to look only at cases that do not clearly show the clitic phenomenon. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete ex-Christian, ex-Muslim, ex-Jew and ex-Scientologist; keep ex-wife, ex-husband, ex-boyfriend and ex-girlfriend (these have lemmings and are likely jiffies for ex). Also keep ex-gay, although without any lemmings this should not be analysed as simply meaning "former gay", the current definition agrees with that. Delete ex-ex-gay. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep and delete according to Lingo's list above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

space science

SOP. 2600:1000:B147:57C5:D469:C832:6DF1:64A2 13:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Well sorta...it's really a compound word spelt with an added space (--why do we do that ?). I'm not disputing that it's SOP by consensus, but we do have street artist... Leasnam (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per WT:LEMMING: In AHD[63] and Collins[64]. On a non-lemming side, I am not sure this is a sum of parts: it would have to be a science concerned with outer space, and that would be astronomy? It seems to be an umbrella term to cover sciences and investigations instrumental to outer space exploration, especially putting humans in space, including space medicine. See also W:Outline of space science, which says that "space science encompasses all of the scientific disciplines that involve space exploration and study natural phenomena and physical bodies occurring in outer space, such as space medicine and astrobiology". --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • RFD kept: no consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Kappa

Kappa may turn out to be attestable as a noun, a proper noun, an "interjection", but it is not what we would call a symbol any more than Pieta is a symbol of the famous sculpture (w:Pieta). DCDuring (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete the "symbol" bit. Equinox 19:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep hi, i think that the Kappa symbol is by far the most widely attested part-of-speech of Kappa — much more than the noun, the proper noun, and the interjection combined — and it should not be deleted.
since its creation, Kappa has been hit with almost every mechanism possible on wiktionary — an RFC, four RFVs, a GP discussion, and now an RFD — and none have reached any conclusion. this Pieta example seems identical to the "white house" example that DCDuring brought up on june 27th, which i refuted in Special:Diff/53470517 to no response.
to rephrase myself — the Kappa symbol is used inline with text and refers to a clearly defined image like ????, and this specific part of speech is attested more than enough times on Citations:Kappa along with a link to over one million archived attestations of the Kappa symbol being used in sentences. unlike any random image of the White House or an image of Pieta, Kappa is a specific symbol that conveys meaning (that is, to negate the meaning of a sentence or to indicate trolling) and is not simply a reference to Josh DeSeno — most people using Kappa probably do not know who Josh DeSeno is. images of the WH or Pieta are only references to the objects they depict, without conveying any contextual meaning like the Kappa symbol does. in fact, "Kappa" is most widely referred to as a symbol in the Wiktionary sense of the term (as in an emote, like the hundreds of emoji already listed on wiktionary as symbols), while "Pieta" is almost never referred to as such.
just because Wiktionary doesn't allow us to have non-Unicode images in titles doesn't mean that these terms don't belong on Wiktionary. i think twitch emotes should be treated Ancient Egyptian or sign languages on Wiktionary — terms like sḏꜣ appear in the title like the latin characters "SD3" in my encoding, but the word actually represented on that page is a picture of a cylinder seal. i don't see why we can't do the same for terms like Kappa, and i would be willing to edit pages like MediaWiki:UnsupportedTitles.js to achieve whatever the community decides is the optimal user presentation for terms like these.
my biggest fear is losing the most important sense of Kappa — that is, this picture. i am open to new ideas that offer an alternative, such as a new page to move this sense to, but so far no alternative has been offered to keep this sense on Wiktionary, despite a number of derivatives (the latin-text forms) being allowed to stay. if we can't find any alternatives but agree the symbol part-of-speech is by far well-enough attested, then why remove it? --Habst (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Kappa has been hit with many requests for cleanup, deletion, and verification because it is a highly problematic entry. So pull up your socks, make cogent arguments, and act like a Wiktionarian instead of a POV entry advocate.
The way we deal with words that are used as the name of symbols is the way we deal with hash and kappa. If the symbol does not have a Unicode representation, then we try to find an image of the symbol. If that is not possible, then we verbally characterize or describe the symbol and its function. Kappa seems obviously to be the name of a symbol, but maybe not.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't some PoS heading that was appropriate, but we have a limited number available. Is it a Proper noun, the name of a unique work, ie, a specific image of a certain person? (We don't usually allow titles of works.) Is it a (common) Noun? (What does it refer to?) It seems to have been (rarely) used as a Verb. It seems to function on Twitch in much the same way as a template like our {{done}}. (We don't include such computer (or oither device) commands.) When used elsewhere it seems intended to be a metonym, evoking among the cognescenti the sarcasm-/irony-/falsehood-signalling function of the image that it causes to be inserted on Twitch. It certainly isn't an interjection (sensu stricto). Though I personally think we overuse the PoS header Interjection, that header might be appropriate. Another possibility is that we could call it a Particle. Could it be an Adverb indicating sarcasm, irony, and falsehood, in the manner of a sentence adverb? It can't be a conjunction, determiner, preposition, or an adjective. DCDuring (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
DCDuring, yes, Kappa is one of many entries that is controversial, but not in my opinion problematic. similar to how the English phrasebook and its entries have been contested so many times over the years — just because it is contested, does not mean it should be deleted. and those arguing in favor of the phrasebook entries aren't POV entry advocates, but fellow good-faith wiktionarians trying to improve Wiktionary. the vast majority of my edits have been on improving the dictionary's coverage of Swahili and have nothing at all to do with Kappa.
the difference between the Kappa symbol and hash/kappa is that hash and kappa are only used as references to objects, and they do not convey any contextual meaning, per w:sense and reference. the Kappa symbol is much more like ???? than it is hash or kappa, because it is a symbol that has semantic meaning and a function when used inline with text -- you can't say the same with hash or kappa, which are like saying "The White House" or "Pieta".
there may be other parts-of-speech appropriate for the word Kappa, but for the Kappa symbol, there is only one that is appropriate as i see it, the symbol part-of-speech like we use for emoji. as for the comparison with {{done}}, i agree it is worth considering because it looks similar at first, but again i explained why the two are different on june 29th here Special:Diff/53481216 to no response. {{done}} is a wiki-specific term that certainly does not pass any tests for attestation like the Kappa symbol does, and we would not create a Wiki entry for {{done}} because it would be rightly deleted. as i explained before, Kappa is not a command but a symbol — but even if it was a command, there are commands on wiktionary like cat#Etymology 3. in fact, based on web searches it appears Kappa is referred to as a symbol far more often than a command, and wiktionary as a descriptive dictionary should reflect that.
i think the reason we are having so much trouble finding an alternative part-of-speech header for the Kappa symbol is because it is a symbol and that is the most appropriate header to use. i'm not 100% attached to using the Kappa page name as the house of the symbol part-of-speech per see, but without some site back-end work it is the best place to put it, just like sḏꜣ is the best place to put the Egyptian hieroglyph because we can't have Wiktionary titles that are e.g. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/<picture of cylinder seal>. this discussion is really good but we do need to work these things out to find the best home for the Kappa symbol on Wiktionary. --Habst (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
If I was completely new to Wiktionary, I would probably overturn all the known rules of parts of speech and do a ton of wiki-lawyering. Just to make sure they liked me. God, can we ban this joker already? Equinox 13:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I had a look at the citations. Seems in most cases that "kappa" is added to indicate sarcasm. The cites have some noun and verb uses, and some attributive noun uses. Can't really see that it is an interjection though, as that part of speech refers to spoken words (unless, of course, people actually say "kappa" out loud to indicate sarcasm, which the evidence offered does not support, so I doubt it). I don't know if Wiktionary excludes symbols or includes them. They aren't "words" in a language, strictly speaking, but they increasingly function like words on social media, and other places. Language is changing and so perhaps Wiktionary needs to keep up to date with that. Mostly the entry seems okay to me, but needs a bit of a clean up and probably just the noun sense is worth keep (and maybe the symbol one, if that is allowable according to Wiktionary's dictates). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thank you for your input, sonofcawdrew and equinox. i agree with your assessment of Kappa, and especially your comments about wiktionary adapting to changing language. when i created the entry, i only added a symbol part-of-speech because i thought it was the most appropriate PoS, all of the others were added later. symbols are allowed on wiktionary and that's what i modeled the entry after -- for an example of an uncontested symbol entry see ???? or you can look in the symbol categories. the word "Kappa" is indeed often spoken aloud by Twitch streamers (keep in mind many of these people stream themselves speaking and reading Twitch chat for 4+ hours per day so this is just a consequence of it being commonly used in twitch chat) or at gaming-related conventions and the like, but you're right that the spoken usage is less common than the written symbol usage. i'm not sure the best way to indicate spoken usage on Citations:Kappa -- i've found some CC-BY YouTube videos that use Kappa, so maybe i should try transferring them over to Commons to be cited?
i'm very appreciative of equinox's contributions here at wiktionary and all the times he has helped with my entries, but i'm confused about his response here. around the same time equinox's comment was posted here, i got a notification that i was "thanked" by equinox for an embarrassing edit i made over 7 years ago on the english wikipedia when i was still learning how to edit, even though to my knowledge we've never interacted on wikipedia before. if these two actions weren't so close together i would have laughed it off, but in combination with this comment calling me a joker it makes me feel like i am being targeted. i also don't see how i've ever done anything wrong or worthy of a ban -- even though some of the topics i edit are entertainment-related i'm not a "joker" and i'm here to edit in good faith, and that includes working with Equinox who for the most part i tend to agree with. --Habst (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh well, technically in linguistics “symbol” or letter aren’t parts of speech, right, we only include “letter”s and “symbol”s because historically there was lacking regulation and people just added all they could and nobody has yet moved them even though the letter entries eat up the RAM and as I remember at least therefore there is consensus they need to get out of the mainspace. We also had the header “abbreviation” but they now should be “noun”, “verb” and so on. Maybe your Kappa symbol is of the same category like the emojis, in fact I truly deem it just a proprietary variety of it, but the problem is that it is proprietary and not encoded in Unicode, so you took a substitute. You include “Kappa” as a symbol while you actually want to include the face of Josh DeSeno as a dictionary entry. I have to inform you that the exact thing that you actually want is not possible. Though “Kappa” is also a an interjection as spoken, this is a separate phenomenon. Fay Freak (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
hi Fay Freak, thanks for your response. i had heard abut the "abbreviation" PoS controversy and i agree that in the long run we should assign things like that to more appropriate categories like noun, verb, etc. while also denoting that they are abbreviations in their definitions. if we can denote the "symbol-ness" of Kappa in the definition, i think that would be the best thing to do for symbol entries like Kappa as well.
however, according to a petscan count of Category:Symbols by language, it looks like there are over 100,000 symbol pages on wiktionary right now, so evidently reaching that goal with symbols might be very hard and long. and i couldn't find any proscription of the Symbol PoS on any of its official templates or categories. so if we're going to go about converting symbols to other parts of speech, we should first of all officially note that templates like {{en-symbol}} are deprecated or proscribed and make notes of it both on and off the mainspace.
aside from this issue, if what you are saying is that it isn't technically possible with MediaWiki to create a page for the Kappa symbol itself due to the fact that it isn't in Unicode -- isn't that exactly what Appendix:Unsupported titles is supposed to be about? and surely it would be possible to edit MediaWiki:UnsupportedTitles.js so that the Kappa symbol displays as the page title, if that is the desired outcome? --Habst (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete the symbol. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

common parlance

In the parlance of our times, "this is just, like, SOP, man." - TheDaveRoss 12:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete - this is a common collocation, but not a lexical item. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete, pure SoP, like "everyday speech". Equinox 06:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)]
Keep set phrase. Mihia (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

cream in one's jeans

SOP. 2600:1000:B15C:5C0C:5459:6738:C41:65ED 17:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep - It is idiomatic as you don't have to be wearing jeans to cream in your jeans. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Is this expression definitely used over a more generic version such as e.g. "cream in one's pants" when it is known that the person is not wearing jeans? Mihia (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep, seems like the cream needn't be deposited into jeans for one to cream in one's jeans. Which I suppose is explained by the assonance and by the fact that it sounds funnier than cream in one's pants. Also, one of the quotes provided has a woman creaming her jeans, which (unless the woman in question is pre-op trans) suggests that the cream here is not to be taken literally, further supporting the entry. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
cream specifically mentions that it is applied to both genders, so that's nothing specific to this definition. I lean a bit against keeping this, but not that strongly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP with the sense covered at cream. Other variants are also used (even if not as frequently). - TheDaveRoss 12:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that the first def (to ejaculate while wearing one's trousers) is SOP, and the second def (to be thoroughly excited or delighted) is idiomatic. So, what I mean to vote is: keep idiomatic def, delete non-idiomatic one - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

React

DTLHS (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 13:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Def: a JavaScript library to create user interfaces. A capitalization of react, a verb. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

FD&C Yellow No. 5

Previously survived an unsatisfactory RFD after one person (Luciferwildcat) voted to keep. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Mmmmmphhh there was a time I voted to keep all the "E numbers". Now I wouldn't. Still, what is this? Not a trademark, I suppose? Is it the normal name for the thing? Are there other names for it? I would prefer us to make the decision based on policy. Equinox 06:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The term is in use: [65], [66], [67]. Although our definition calls it a “color additive composed principally of tartrazine”, all sources that I saw suggest it is just tartrazine.  --Lambiam 12:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually if you read the FD&C Act, you will find that it is defined as a mixture containing certain limited amounts of impurities.[68] My understanding is that tartrazine is just the name of the trisodium salt which is the primary constituent of Yellow 5. But I am no expert on this. -Mike (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
What is the reason for deleting? I see it is in use, we may need to change the definition slightly but that isn't grounds for removal. Stephen G. Brown said in the original discussion: "I ran across these things frequently in my long translating career. American foods, drugs and cosmetics are full of them. They’re important. If a company is going to export its products to Europe or Asia, these terms have to be translated to "E" numbers." There were two explicit keep votes and no explicit delete votes in that discussion. --Habst (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Add the missing reds, blues. Dream up a category for them. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
FD&C Blue No. 1; FD&C Blue No. 2; FD&C Green No. 3; FD&C Red No. 3; FD&C Red No. 40 (sic); FD&C Yellow No. 5; FD&C Yellow No. 6. Category:FD&C certified color additives?  --Lambiam 07:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete the forms with FD&C at the start, I can imagine terms such as yellow no. 5 or yellow 5 surviving, but the full term is purely encyclopedic. This is no more lexical than, say, 21 USC § 841. - TheDaveRoss 12:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

PSS

A misconstruction of PPS. I don't see why we would want any misconstructions. --Pious Eterino (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

We should want them included if they are common enough (see WT:CFI) that users may plausibly look them up – precisely as for common misspellings. Send to RfV?  --Lambiam 07:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Misconstruction. Maybe it is just a typo and you should just delete it according to the recend motion about misspellings that are typos, for it is not motivated by certain considerations but by a slip. I would ask how you would even see that if somebody writes PSS he actuallly means PPS and it is not just a typo. Most people here cannot even understand texts of the field to distinguish the chemicals, I think. Maybe ask @Romanophile who created it. Fay Freak (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
If someone adds a postscript labelled “PS”, and then adds a second postscript labelled “PSS”, and this happens just once, it can be a typo; but if an author makes a habit of this, it is a misabbreviation. The recent proposal sadly failed, so it is not a strong ground for deletion.  --Lambiam 19:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
back when people used to write paper letters, i definitely learned the acronym as "PSS", "PSSS", etc. and evidently my friends did too. i remember reading online a few years ago that it was "correctly" supposed to be "PPS" and was quite surprised as i had never heard that form. i don't think it's a typo so much as a common misconception, or perhaps a correct form given how often it is used. --Habst (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
keep very famous alternative form of PPS. per the doctrine of descriptivism, if a mistake or "misconstruct" is repeated enough then it becomes an alternative form, and this is one i've seen (and used) many times: [69] [70] (search for "pss pps" for more).
interestingly, the wiki page w:Postscript states that PSS stands for "post-super-scriptum" without a reference. it could be a backronym, but it's worth looking into. either way, definitely not a delete. --Habst (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

VLT

Initialism of Valletta (postal code of Malta)

I don't think we want postcodes. --Pious Eterino (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Is there anything at CFI to exclude postal abbreviations? We have the two-letter abbrevs for each U.S. state. Purplebackpack89 13:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Potential grey area. Some of the UK ones are abbreviations (RG = Reading, S = South London etc.) but others are codes that don't "stand for" anything as an abbreviation. Similar case with Internet domain codes. Equinox 09:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

taboo name

By no means restricted to Chinese culture, and probably not to people's given names either. Equinox 09:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the definition is unclear. It is not a name that should not be given, but a name that should not be uttered; see Naming taboo on Wikipedia. Japanese emperors also had taboo names, so this is not confined to Chinese culture.  --Lambiam 10:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
By chance, I was just reading about Ishi. Fascinating. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I see name taboos in descriptions of a number of American Indian cultures. Along with taboos on mentioning dead people, they're a real problem for preservation of endangered languages and cultures: most of the people who know anything are old and have no living relatives in their own generation and before. It's hard to get information about kinship terminology from people who can/t mention their relatives.
The question here is whether Chinese taboo names are a specific thing or just a name that's taboo, with encyclopedic information about Chinese culture determining the details of the taboos. As an analogy, cultures differ as to what a spouse is: it might be an adult of the opposite sex in one culture, while in other cultures it might include child brides or people of the same sex- but it's all referred to by the same term in English. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me like an RFV issue. — SGconlaw (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete. No need to bulk up RFV with this when it's clearly not restricted to that use. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

KDDI

"A Japanese telecommunication company." Generic usage is not possible; we don't have for example Vodafone or Orange; see also Talk:Verizon (a failed entry). Equinox 18:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

let's try to cite it first i disagree that generic usage is not possible just because it's a telecommunication company. for example, we do have entries like AT&T which is a telecommunication company, and given how much the industry has changed (and the way we talk about it) the last four years i think that Verizon would not be deleted if it were to be recreated today. --Habst (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
"We have AT&T" is not an argument to keep "KDDI" but rather an argument to delete "AT&T" which has exactly the same problem. Why does "how the industry has changed" in four years have anything to do with what is a dictionary word, and what is a company name? Who is paying you? Equinox 20:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
as i parenthesized, the reason why i mentioned how the industry has changed was because it also changed how we talk about telecom companies, specifically with regards to WT:BRAND and their defining qualities / "stereotypes" if you will. my editing topics on wiktionary have been very diverse, and i don't appreciate the insinuation that i'm a shill. nobody has ever paid me to edit nor do i have any conflicts of interest. i disagree with painting any class of lemmas, including companies, as unattestable or un-CFIable until we've rigorously examined the cites on a case-by-case basis. --Habst (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep in RFD absent consensus on company names; not a company name with a space. WT:CFI#Company names does not have consensual support. As for initialism company names, we have ABC, AEC, ALCO, ATA, BBC, CBC, CRC, CTC, BMW, GE, HP, IBM, ITV, MTC, NBC, PBR, SABC, SAS, SKG, TI, and TOC. Talk:Verizon was first kept in RFD since there was no consensus for deletion; then it failed in RFV since in RFV, the non-consensual WT:CFI#Company names was applied. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

sabermatics

"Misspelling" of sabermetrics. Except it isn't even the same word and would be pronounced nothing like. Can we do anything to stop this rising tide of nutso SB misspellings? Equinox 20:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

  • 400 Google hits and even two pages of Google book hits. So what's the problem? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    • If I enclose it in quotes, I get 141 Google hits and 13 Google Books hits. "Sabermatics" in quotes gets 406 Google hits (it starts by saying 800,000, but paging through ends with a 5th page that says 406). "Sabermetrics" in quotes gets gets 370 Google Books hits. There are exactly 2 Books hits where the term can be seen in a snippet or a page view (page view, snippet. There's also one for "sabermatic". There are actually better Books results for "sabermetics", with 61 hits and 5 viewable. "Sabremetrics", "SABRmetrics" and "sabermatrics" do pretty well, too. While one could probably find a third valid cite in the non-book hits, it's debatable whether sabermatics is a common-enough misspelling to be worth the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Different 'suffix' and too different to really be a misspelling. And I haven't seen more than the two durable attestions mentioned by Chuck Entz. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: What about misconstruction? (just to make the entry a bit more accurate) PseudoSkull (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Cavalier-Smith

The first sense should be deleted because we have previously determined that hyphenated double-barreled surnames should not be included. The second sense is for a specific individual of moderate notability, whom I do not think rises to the level of inclusion in a dictionary. bd2412 T 01:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete both. - TheDaveRoss 12:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Double-barrelled names are SoP; the specific individual is not a "sense of the word" and if anywhere should be in a see-also or something, but really is Wikipedia material. Equinox 12:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete both per nom: Thomas Cavalier-Smith, Charles Darwin, Winston Churchill, Galileo Galilei, Karl Popper at Google Ngram Viewer suggests not the kind of notability that would lead to inclusion: Thomas Cavalier-Smith not found. (I am not saying each person found in GNV should be included, but when a person is not there, they are probably not notable enough.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

xanthocroic

Incorrect spelled - see xanthochroic (and Xanthochroi). — Paul G (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I would rather consider it an alternative form, given how common it is in even academic work on Google Books. Ƿidsiþ 08:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Converted into a misspelling, and kept. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Unstriken: this is not an obvious keeper per WT:CFI#Spellings, and therefore, a super fast closure faster than the normal length seems inappropriate. xanthocroic, xanthochroic at Google Ngram Viewer does not find the spelling; google books:"xanthocroic" does not find that many occurrences, and in lowercase "x" I am not even sure it is attested. Arguably, this is a relatively rare misspelling, and per WT:CFI#Spellings, "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as a rare misspelling given xanthocroic, xanthochroic, Xanthocroic, Xanthochroic at Google Ngram Viewer does not find the spelling. As for the possible objection that it is rare but not a misspelling, the mis- is hinted at by "ch" being expected based on χρώς (khrṓs), from which the term is derived. google books:xanthocroic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

August 2019

Tardis-like and spelling variations

It's rather SOPpy to me. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep all. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. It makes sense to collect “shapes”. This is unlike the SOP meaning of -like as here the meaning has a lexical restriction to shape, and even allegedly used by estate agents to mean lodgments that are larger than they look from the outside (“unexpectedly capacious”). In other languages, one would write these things together anyway. telefonzellenartig, volksmäßig etc. Fay Freak (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep "Tardis-like" as it has specific meanings, especially "unexpectedly capacious", that are not necessarily obvious. Generally speaking, delete all "X-like" where the explanation is no more than, essentially, "like X", and where, in usage, the resemblance is based only on obvious features or is ad hoc context-related. Mihia (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
It occurred to me later that this "keep" rationale is largely bollocks. If the aim of the dictionary is to document characteristic features of a Tardis, so that people may understand what it means for something to be likened to it, then this information should go at Tardis, since those people could just as easily encounter "like a Tardis" or some other multi-word paraphrase. Mihia (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
But then we would add this detail to the definition of “Tardis”/“TARDIS” only because this is an implication in “Tardis-like” and “like a tardis”? Fay Freak (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is a bit of a head-scratcher, but I think that if something has a non-obvious characteristic that is widely referenced in comparisons or likenings, then this should be mentioned under the main headword. I think that a Tardis being unexpectedly capacious is a good example of this. In fact, this characteristic is already mentioned at "Tardis", though the situation there is complicated by the fact that there is both a proper noun and a common noun section. I think this sort of thing should be strictly limited, though, according to the principles of "non-obvious" and "widely referenced", otherwise it could get silly. Mihia (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tardislike exists, and can't be SOP because it is a single word. The rest are WT:COALMINE to it. bd2412 T 12:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC) [Equinox note: I tweaked the broken link because it's clear what BD intended.]
  • Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would never reject any -like derivative where a hyphen is inserted; I would prefer angel-like to angellike, which looks awful because of the double L where the two halves are joined. DonnanZ (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
LOL... oh no... keep and revisit WT:COALMINE. Equinox 03:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
There is an opportunity to do so. Mihia (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep per BD. - -sche (discuss) 23:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

public record

Rfd adjective sense: "Being a matter of public record; being in the public record." I suppose it's been added to accommodate a sentence such as "What I have done is public record", but isn't it still a noun there? Canonicalization (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete or merge, it ain't an adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Just like “what I have done will become history”, this is a use of the (uncountable) noun. BTW, I’m not sure that the noun is usually uncountable; Public Record laws typically define what is and what is not a public record, and describe how requests for a copy of a public record should be handled.  --Lambiam 10:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete, wrong POS, even when used attributively this would still be a noun (phrase) — which aren't kept anyway. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

b*tches

Curiously, b*tch was deleted and this wasn't. We should probably be consistent one way or another. --Pious Eterino (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

both the singular and the plural are (very) well attested in durable media. there are only a small handful of words that we do this with and only a limited number of forms, so we should keep all durably attested forms and recreate deleted forms that were attested. plus there are many such forms already in Category:English terms spelled with *. --Habst (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Why the f*ck was the singular deleted? It should be restored.  --Lambiam 23:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Should we keep all variations of vulgar terms with intermediate letters replaced by various punctuation? I don't think we should. f---, f–, f*ck, f**k, fu*k, f***, and on and on. At most these should redirect to an actual word rather than a partially redacted one. It is a bit akin to keeping all attested variants of using non-letter characters to denote a swear e.g. $@#%!. Habst's assertion that there are a limited number and a few forms is not true, there are many such terms and many variations of them. - TheDaveRoss 12:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. They are not distinct words: it's a stylistic flourish that can be done with any rude or secret word. What next: including SP-D-RS because it was in an unfinished game of hangman? Equinox 12:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete as unfinished business. DonnanZ (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete, if necessary the singular could be turned into a hard redirect. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Redirect. This obviously doesn't warrant its own article, but I think it would be fine to just have it redirect to the entry for 'bitch'. TheTechnician27 (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Voc.

  1. Alternative spelling of voc. No need for capitalization --Pious Eterino (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
A request for verification of this form seems more appropriate to me. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

wind

Verb sense: "(reflexive) To exhaust oneself to the point of being short of breath."

usage example: I can’t run another step — I’m winded.

The usage example would seem to be at least as well be said to illustrate use of the adjective winded. DCDuring (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

In addition, the immediately preceding transitive definition would seem to include the reflexive one under challenge. DCDuring (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
If nothing else, the "reflexive" label needs to go- either that or change the usex to I've winded myself. 13:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete The usage example is clearly an adj. And the reflexive meaning is simply the transitive sense with oneself as object. You can hurt yourself, wound yourself, etc., we don't need separate reflexive defs. That said, the preceding def doesn't mention getting exhausted by running or other exertion, so I will add that. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

........

  • There is one (British) sense which seems to be missing, mentioned in Oxford/Lexico: Make (a baby) bring up wind after feeding by patting its back. ‘Paddy's wife handed him their six-month-old daughter to be winded’. DonnanZ (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Added it, been there and done that many moons ago. DonnanZ (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

seed

"(Minecraft) An initial value assigned to world generation." 1. I don't see why we should have words that only apply to one single video game, even if they refer to the workings of the game rather than the fictional world. 2. As any programmer knows, a seed can be the initial value used to generate anything; this is in no way a Minecraft-specific term. Equinox 13:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete. - TheDaveRoss 14:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete -Mike (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

serial texter

Sum of parts: a "serial Xer" is someone who does a lot of Xing. Equinox 13:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I was going to delete it out of hand, but got sidetracked. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
split into two definitions and keep if it's defined accurately, because the definition of "one who is antisocial" makes it not SOP. --Habst (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The term barely seems to be used in durable media, and none of the usage I have encountered implies an anti-social person (as opposed to preferring one mode of communication to another). - TheDaveRoss 14:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Habst, if your keep is conditional ("keep if it's defined accurately") could you bold the whole condition, or at least bold "keep if"? Just to make sure nobody reads the bold stuff when closing the discussion and fails to note your proviso. Thanks! Equinox 06:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 10:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

one thousand origami cranes

DTLHS (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks SoP to me. I would remark that it's defined as "a tradition" and not as the resulting cranes themselves, but that doesn't necessarily say much. It seems more like cultural than lexical information, hence something for Wikipedia...? Equinox 06:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Definitely SOP. But where to put {{t|ja|千羽鶴|tr=senbazuru}} after deletion? ~ POKéTalker) 09:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Sadly, there are zillions of foreign-language words entered which don't have English counterpart entries, because they fail the SoP argument. Abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's very tragic that we don't have entries for hungry dog and packed train. Do you seriously think that all the SoP people are absolute logic-less drooling morons? Equinox 12:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Tragic? I think we have to apply reason in those examples, which can be reversed - " The dog was hungry so I fed it", "The train was packed, my back was aching and I had to stand all the way." Any translations would probably consist of two words or more. But that doesn't answer this problem (and I can't read Japanese). DonnanZ (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. No need to transfer 千羽鶴 anywhere; it already appears as a derived term of . — SGconlaw (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the far more common phrasing is one thousand paper cranes anyway. Delete. - TheDaveRoss 15:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Abstain for me. Let's see what the creator @Timwi has to say... ~ POKéTalker) 22:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • My reasons for adding it was that Wikipedia's article is named “w:One thousand origami cranes” as opposed to “Senbazuru”, so I assumed it's an established term. But I don't care, if you want to trample on people's contributions, go ahead. — Timwi (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless evidence can be found for use beyond the obvious, literal meaning. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

flux capacitor

Deleted once after an awesome RFD campaign by Keene (talkcontribs). Annoyingly got back in. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete ephemeral pop culture. This only exists in the one film so WT:FICTION. Equinox 00:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews

Smartly, we deleted Wikibooks. To follow suit...--Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It was deleted in 2009 having failed RFV, this should be an RFV not an RFD. I wouldn't be shocked if Wikibooks would be citable now. - TheDaveRoss 02:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Sigh, really, move to RFV. Equinox 03:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The question is whether the citations in Wikinews and Citations:Wikinews meet WT:BRAND. The quotation "... Wikinews, an online news site ..." fails WT:BRAND's "The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product or service to which the brand name applies, whether by stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product or service from which its type and purpose may be surmised, or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent" since the type of the product is seen from the quotation. As an aside, Wikinews entry was created by Wonderfool and is here nominated for deletion by Wonderfool. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

piano key

"Any of the black or white keys on the keyboard of a piano" -- excluding the blue and green ones? OH WAIT, no, it's just any piano + key. SoP> Equinox 06:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a keep, it has at least one lemming, believe it or not. DonnanZ (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't find any lemming in piano key at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Not piano keys :)  --Lambiam 12:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete despite LEMMING in this case, sometimes SOP trumps LEMMING. Especially since we have a sense at key which is for piano key specifically. - TheDaveRoss 13:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. How are piano keys different from the keys for everything else in w:List of keyboard instruments? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think I have ever hear the "foo key" construction used with any of them other than a piano. bd2412 T 03:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    "Organ key" is one common example. Equinox 10:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete, the definition is silly anyway. Donnanz, I didn't see any lemmings on OneLook. Where did you find one? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Key" has two meanings relevant to pianos, one being the physical object pressed to make a sound, and the other being the actual register of that sound (e.g., in the key of A minor). However, the phrase seems to actually be used for only one of these meanings. There is also, of course, the piano key necktie, claimed to have been invented by Dr. Mugatu. bd2412 T 03:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Some pianos have lids that lock and seemingly the key used to unlock a piano is also called a 'piano key'. John Cross (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

sclenchyma

I think this is a mistake for sclerenchyma; it's not etymologically parseable (or is it a portmanteau word?). See also this ngram. Canonicalization (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

In principle, wouldn't it be better as an RfV? There are lots of malformed words that actually exist. Though I do expect this to fail RfV. DCDuring (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not that hard to find a few uses, so rfv would accomplish nothing. I find it hard to believe there would a term with definition and usage identical to sclerenchyma and only differing by the absence of two letters. This isn't casual conversation, where everyone has their own way of saying things- it's technical terminology, the kind of terminology everybody learns in introductory botany courses. I wouldn't even call this a misspelling: it's an obvious typo- the kind of mistake that's very easy to make, but hard to spot because of the repeated letter. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete, very rare typo.  --Lambiam 08:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete as a rare misspelling: sclenchyma, sclerenchyma at Google Ngram Viewer does not find "sclenchyma". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

H+

the mobile phone icon for HSPA --Mélange a trois (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete, phone icons are a bridge too far. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

wet through

SOP. See also soaked through. Canonicalization (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep, found one lemming, there may be others. It could be idiomatic anyway, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I've been trying to find usage to test the issue, but this one is all over the map. There at least three ways to analyze this, and there are examples of usage that support all of them.
  1. Wet through (adjective)
    There are examples of modifiers such as almost and quite before "wet through", and "more or less wet through" is suggestive as well.
  2. Wet (adjective) + through
    There are examples of modifiers such as almost and quite between "wet" and "through"
  3. Wet (verb) + through
    This is tricky because the most common form of the past and past participle is identical to the present and infinitive. There are, however a few examples of "wetted through" and "wetted quite through". There are also examples of "wet it through".
Then there's the issue of whether "wet through" is an absolute as if it were "through and through" or the end of a directional progression, as if it were "to the surface or "to the other side".
That said, I find the examples supporting "wet through" as a single adjective are inconclusive and less convincing than the others. It looks to me like the verb + through and adjective + through probably both exist, but I'm not sure about the single-adjective option. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I can certainly relate to the adjective after a recent event: "The heavens opened just as I got off the bus, and by the time I got home I was wet through." This is more emphatic than just wet, and as far as I'm aware there is no such word as superwet. I am not so sure about the verb though - to soak or saturate could be used instead. DonnanZ (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Narrator: "There was such a word as superwet". bd2412 T 04:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, in a different sense. I sometimes find I shouldn't mention a term, as some bright spark thinks it is SoP and RFDs it. DonnanZ (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, if soaked through is not allowed, I don't see the difference. -Mike (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Has soaked through ever been an entry? I can't find a deletion record. DonnanZ (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep adjective as set phrase. Delete verb. Mihia (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep - set phrase. John Cross (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

clustersize

Moved from Requests for Verification. The relevant parts of the discussion appear below:

::I feel unhappy about these kinds of entries that seem to me more like authors either referencing a variable name or being unable to distinguish the writing of a variable name from proper English. Mihia (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
: Wiktionary would be a better dictionary without this entry. - TheDaveRoss 13:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
::: I agree, but I also feel that is more a matter for requests for deletion than for requests for verification.  I am calling this RFV-passed, but am moving this to requests for deletion. Kiwima (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per my comment above. Variable name, not a proper word. Mihia (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    What makes you think so? Citations:clustersize suggest otherwise, e.g. a quotation from Journal of the Physical Society of Japan: "The clustersize increases by the addition of salt." --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Not everything ever committed to print is correct English. We need to apply editorial judgement too. There are any number of these variable-name-style compounds citable in running text: "edgelength", "linesize", "sampleweight", etc. etc. Mostly these are written by people who do not understand how to spell, and do not understand the difference between writing e.g. "edgelength" in computer code and "edge length" in normal English. We are not helping anyone by recognising or legitimising these people's spelling errors. Mihia (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Even if so, "Variable name" has been refuted, as far as I can tell. "Sometimes used as a variable name" was not refuted, but that can hardly be relevant.
As for whether this is a misspelling, it seems to be one given (clustersize*500),cluster size at Google Ngram Viewer. However, this frequency ratio would suggest it is a common misspelling, and therefore keepable one (WT:CFI#Spellings). --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I am in favour of including "useful" and "important" spelling errors. I am not in favour of including a million™ entries along the lines of "clustersize: misspelling of cluster size". Mihia (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok; do you have some exampels of these "useful" spelling errors, for calibration? (The policy in WT:CFI does not speak of "useful" or "important", so that would be a CFI override.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I mean things like "alot" or "miniscule" or "i" for "I" or "it's" for "its". Mihia (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
And how many of the uses in your comparison are variable names or named parameters? It's hard to trust frequency ratios in the absence of such information. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
That's a good point. When I was looking at this before, I think I searched for phrases such as "the clustersize is" which it seems could only be (IMO) errors, not legitimate uses of or references to variable names. This does not have sufficient frequency to show up on 'Ngrams', however. Mihia (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
A better comparison would be the plural, which is rarely used for variables and parameter names. I just did a Google Books search on "cluster sizes" and got 55,000 raw hits. The same search for "clustersizes" came up with 38 raw hits. Of those, a number were really "cluster sizes" when you looked at the page image, and there were a couple where the snippet was selectable text and contained things like "Wealsomeasured distributions oftwo clustersizes". Out of the 38 raw hits, I found 5 where one could look at the page image or snippet image and verify that there was no space. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
(outdent) cluster sizes, clustersizes at Google Ngram Viewer: the solid form not found. google books:"cluster sizes", google books:"clustersizes" confirms your (Chuck's) observations that the solid forms are often variable names or scannos, although not always. google books:"clustersize" confirms there are many variable names counted in the results, which should probably be taken into account together with the frequency ratio of 500. I do not know how to deal with this, and I abstain for now. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

bid size

NISoP, as above. "Size of bid" is the effective definition after the erroneous limitation of the definition to shares, excluding bonds, currency, futures contracts, current commodities, etc. DCDuring (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
This must be one of the oldest entries, created in 2003. It is a question of what this term is used for, what about bids at an auction? DonnanZ (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems to have been an early reject at WP, transferred here. We've been a dumping ground from the beginning. DCDuring (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless this is shown to have some unique cache in the parlance of the relevant industry. bd2412 T 03:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not sure deleting this entry will make the dictionary better. The term is in Investopedia[71], investinganswers.com[72], businessdictionary.com[73], thelawdictionary.org[74]. As for sum of parts, how would you know that the size is the number of shares rather than the total price paid for the shares, which is the price per share times number of shares? One source even tells us that "For bond trading, bid size is measured in dollars." If I were collecting an investing glossary, I would probably include the term. Unlikely to be protected by WT:COALMINE: bid size,bidsize at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep set phrase; cf. bid price. Mihia (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

only too well

"very"? Sounds SOP in this specific meaning, at least. — surjection?〉 20:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"Very" doesn't capture it at all — way too broad. Anyway SoP; delete. Equinox 20:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep but probably move to know only too well. Agreed that "very" is a lame definition. BTW, Collins has an entry for only too, others for know only too well --Mélange a trois (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I added some citations. We should at least make a note that know is the verb it most commonly collocated with. --Mélange a trois (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
We have all too (a synonym?). Equinox 01:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
It is not only only too well. Something unpleasant may come only too soon. Satire may ring only too true. And one can be only too familiar with something you’d rather wish it ain’t so.  --Lambiam 23:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Is all too a synonym of only too? In the cases I listed above it is: all too well, all too soon, all too true, all too familiar. In other cases it is not. One can say that one should be only too happy to receive some treatment, or do something, but if one is all too happy it sounds as if something is wrong with that happiness: one is all too eager – not good. I don’t know if we can catch all theses nuances, but in only too [X] it seems to make a difference whether the X-ness already has become reality – in which case only weakly intensifies the too and can be omitted (“his death came only too soon”; “the joke rings only too true”; “the story is only too familiar”) – or still has to transpire – in which case the collocation only too means “very” (“We’ll be only too happy to host the event” = “We’ll be very happy to host the event”). I am not sure whether the temporal aspect is really determinative; there also seems to be a difference in whether, in the context, the situation or event to which the X-ness is ascribed is considered positive or negative. A difference with all too is that the latter always appears to imply that the X-ness is ascribed to something unpleasant. I hope that this analysis makes some sense. In any case, it seems to me that we need an entry only too, with two senses, one of which is synonymous with all too. And I think we should make the negativity of the latter explicit in the definition: “More than desirable” instead of a neutral “Very” – while “excessively” overdoes the intensity.  --Lambiam 10:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

financial institution

Request to 'undelete'. Deleted as sum-of-parts. In my opinion, its full and exact meaning acannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components. Also we already have acquiring financial institution, acquiring financial institutions, financial conglomerate, etc. Likewise covered by multiple dictionaries - see https://www.onelook.com/?w=financial+institution&ls=a. --Jklamo (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Undelete. Basically a set phrase. bd2412 T 17:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Not clear what it means...many institutions are heavily involved in finance in one way or another, but only some of them are "financial institutions". Also there are lemmings - Cambridge, Macquarie Dict., Webs. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia starts by giving a much broader definition than these lemmings (but then, curiously, effectively narrows it to “bank”, even as it has an article Non-bank financial institution). Investopedia also has a much laxer definition. This is considered a sufficiently authoritative source that at least one bank links to it. It is not particularly hard to find uses of the term “financial institution” that are outside the scope of the narrow lemming definition (e.g. here). The recently proposed draft bill [”Keep Big Tech Out Of Finance Act“] says “A large platform utility may not be, and may not be affiliated with any person that is, a financial institution”, but strangely without defining the term. Presumably it would be interpreted as the definition given in US Code Title 15 § 6809, which is very broad again (essentially: any institution the business of which is engaging in activities that are financial in nature). If the lemma is restored with the narrow sense as a definition, we will also need a broad (basically {{&lit}}) sense.  --Lambiam 16:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there any way to view the Wiktionary definition as it was before it was deleted? Mihia (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    The definition was "[a]n institution, such as a bank, insurance company or fund, that provides financial services for its clients or members". — surjection?〉 21:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Can anyone retrieve that definition (if so, how), or are you able to do it only because you have a special privilege? Mihia (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Any admin can see the full history of deleted pages. DTLHS (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@DTLHS: ... and by implication non-Admins have no way to retrieve deleted entries ... is that what you mean? Mihia (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
They can certainly ask an administrator. DTLHS (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The definition that was deleted is very much sum-of-parts. It is slightly less general than the definition in US Code Title 15 § 6809, in which the financial activities of the institution need not be “services for its clients or members”. It is much more general than the definitions of several financial dictionaries, in which these services are, specifically, “collecting funds from the public and/or other organisations with the intention of investing these funds into financial assets” (e.g. ABC Accounting Dictionary), or serving “as a channel between savers and borrowers of funds” (BusinessDictionary). Unless we can find three actual uses that count as attestations in which the term is used in this narrow sense, we should (IMO) not include it as a separate sense (just as we would not give “a hoofed mammal, of the genus Equus, used to draw a coach” as a separate sense of horse). Then we are left with the SoP sense that was rightly deleted.  --Lambiam 09:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Undelete. In Talk:financial institution, I voted to keep. It still is not obvious to me that money is not a financial institution and that the practice of lending is not a financial institution, or the practice of lending on interest. "Money" would be a financial institution under a different sense of "institution", the one used in the phrase "the institution of marrigage". financial institution at OneLook Dictionary Search found lemmings (WT:LEMMING). I still think that the reader is better off with out having the entry. I still think that a label "sum of parts" or a usage note to the effect of "This term can be considered to be a sum of parts" would not harm. The notes made above by Lambiam are alone interesting material to read for the user of a dictionary, a tool that helps reader to engage in clarification of ideas, disambiguation of terms, research into possible meanings and uses of terms and related intellectually demanding activities usually undertaken by highly paid professionals. The interesting notes and facts collected by Lambiam will end up on the entry talk page anyway; now we need an entry for the talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Money clearly is a financial institution, in that it's a thing that was instituted and belongs to finance. It's not the commonest usage of that phrase, but certainly that would work. I still feel this is SoP: schools, universities and colleges are educational institutions, obviously, but so is e.g. the subject of English Literature. Don't undelete. Equinox 21:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    If that's the case, then the entry is actually even more useful in disambiguating the phrase than I thought. It captures lexical knowledge users of the language acquire: that the phrase "financial institution" is nearly always used in reference to organizations although it might as well be plausibly used to refer to the other kinds of institutions such as money. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    A water pitcher isn't someone/something that throws water nor is it made out of water, and pigeon droppings aren't instances of allowing pigeons(birds or people that have been duped) to fall. That doesn't mean it requires a dictionary entry (which has nothing to do with books coming into a place) to figure out the meaning of the phrases (which has nothing to do with arithmetic averages or music). The mere existence of multiple senses for a word does not make all phrases using it idiomatic. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    There is zero plausibility that "water pitcher" could be someone to throw water. What matters is how easy it is for the reader to perform the disambiguation of possible senses without help of the dictionary. My point is that the entry helps avoid an actual confusion on part of the language users, maybe non-native speakers. And lemmings seem to agree (M-W[75], dictionary.cambridge.org[76]), or have a different reason for keeping. I admit that the phrase may still be a sum of parts, but that is not the only thing that matters. On another note, the fact that the phrase is subject to various operational definitions is also of note; a quote: 'The High Court has confirmed it will adopt a broad definition of a “financial institution” for the purposes of the transferability provisions [...]'. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't undelete. Canonicalization (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

aye man

Georgie, meaning yes. I'd say it's Georgie for "yes, man" or "yeah, dude" or whatever. SOP? --Mélange a trois (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Or an alternative spelling of “Amen!” (/eɪˈmɛn/)?  --Lambiam 16:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I would think it is SoP and should be deleted, yes. Equinox 16:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, it does Google, often in the form "why aye man" or "whey aye man". Should it be considered a stock phrase used by Geordies? Some Geordies tend to use "man" as a form of address which can be added to any sentence, I hear them when listening to BBC radio. One can imagine "I'll have a brown ale, man." being said. DonnanZ (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
These collocations also get many hits without the “man” ending: [77]. We have an entry for why aye, but not for the more common spelling whey aye.  --Lambiam 23:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

All "euphemistic spellings" with asterisks or other character placeholders

[78].

Rationale: there are unending permutations of these depending on the whims of the author, making these sum of parts. DTLHS (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

What are the “parts” of “f*der”? A speaker who is not well-versed in the street language of a language they are not that familiar with anyway may not know how to fill in the asterisks in some of these disemvoweled spellings. They may be wondering, what the h*ll is a w****r? A whorlflower? A woodpecker? A woolgrower? A wisecracker?  --Lambiam 23:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep. I've used Wiktionary to figure out what word an asterisked spelling was supposed to be, and I suspect I'm not the only one. They aren't SOP because asterisks do not carry any fixed meaning (i.e., they aren't a placeholder for a certain letter). And there aren't an infinite number of permutations, because the number of asterisks will never exceed the number of letters in a given piece of profanity (minus one, since the first letter is (almost?) never replaced). I see no harm in having them. They will only be attestable for a tiny fraction of a given language's lexicon, since relatively few words get this treatment. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Then you should just use a list of words that are commonly censored or are common and avoided. Fay Freak (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Your math is off, there are many more combinations since you can choose what set of letters you want to replace. For example there are at least 15 ways to bowlderize "fuck", just with asterisks. If we allow more characters the number grows. DTLHS (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
And what’s with all those replacements to circumvent word filters? I mean nibber, niqqer etc. People use these and actually wanna use nigger etc. If you are not acquainted: For example Youtube filters words in the chats of livestreams. So people use such hacks. Maybe this is also found on Usenet for imitation, like imageboards created weeaboo (but not thus lexicalized). What would be the difference from some Unicode hack? Is it includable if fullwidth characters (U+FF21 seqq.) are used for replacement? Everything that spammers use? There is also spam sold as books. Fay Freak (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, since we already have "[u]sed to censor sections of obscene or profane words" as one of the punctuation senses of the asterisk symbol. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I remove any that I find, but haven't made a serious attempt to find them all. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I am seeing the asterisk as standing in for the 'missing' character - almost like using a specific font or format rather than a new word. There are fonts that render all letters in uppercase, I don't think that creates a new version of every word. John Cross (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In my opinion it is helpful for people to have some way of looking up common asterisked words, but I feel unhappy at these being treated as full-fledged distinct words with full separate entries. I suggest that these asterisked lookups could be redirected to an entry on a special page that that lists common asterisked words and their unasterisked equivalents in a simple list format. Mihia (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I prefer the idea of having a list as Mihia suggests above. See also my earlier comment above. John Cross (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, no objection to that. (Also, maybe we should get an improved search box that allows people to use single-character wildcards like "d??n".) — SGconlaw (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Some time ago, I created Appendix:English censored words with the idea you could look up any variation of a censored word by the first letter, last letter and possibly length. It didn't get huge appreciation. One way or the other, I think offering these censorships are more useful than a lot of standard entries, like cat or human being, where if you don't know what they mean, you should probably be using a dictionary in your language, or even cheetah, where w:cheetah is just more useful if you don't know what it means. People actually look up some of these words looking for their meanings, so one way or the other, we should help them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Abstain - seems we don't have a clear policy for these, but we should. I myself think that it would be useful for the users to include the especially common ones (the "w***e" example is a good one, and that was a very common way of printing the word whore in the 18th century); but I suggest that we set a higher benchmark for commonality than the usual 3 instances, setting at something like 100 instances ... of course the problem with this is who is going to do the prohibitive amount of work it would take to verify that there are 100 independent instances? Perhaps some of the available corpora could be used, such as the "Glowbe" corpus. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. - TheDaveRoss 22:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I propose to cancel this RFD: out of scope of RFD. You can also read this as keep in RFD, although I may be open to conviction in a proper channel discussing the group of entries, ideally a vote that modifies CFI. Talk:f**k shows a 2008 keeper; pro-keeping editors included Ruakh, Atelaes, Bequw, Rodasmith, and Thryduulf. As for the rationale, these are not sum of parts in the sense of WT:CFI#Idiomaticity since the components have to be separate, as per CFI, and letters of spelling are not considered separate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
In general delete. Possibly we could redirect any really common ones like f**k but I don't think they should ever have entries of their own. They are not IMO separate lexical items in the language, but rather a sort of affectation applied to items, like turning hello into heeeeellooooo to indicate it's being spoken slowly. Equinox 13:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
As for heeeeellooooo, if attested it would be included as a redirect, per WT:CFI#Repetitions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Each such terms deserves a RfV to find unambiguous uses.
    Also we might consider how users could be direct to a gadget that does regex searches in page titles to find the less common uses of this kind of euphemism. DCDuring (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam: Should I count your posts as abstain, keep or delete? You seem to be making pro-keeping arguments, with no bold vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
It was not meant to be a vote, but mainly to challenge the given rationale for deletion, which I deemed (and deem) to be invalid. I am also against a blanket vote, so count this as Oppose (mass deletion), which is not quite the same as "Keep". A reasonable alternative, in unambiguous and sufficiently attested cases, would be to redirect them to the expanded terms.  --Lambiam 10:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

porcelanid

Rare misspelling. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

neobiotic

Trade name. DTLHS (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I have never heard of it. What evidence is there? DonnanZ (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
[79] for the adjective. [80] for the noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

-lingual

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Tea_room#-lingual.

As I see it, there is no need for this so-called suffix, terms that are using it are derivatives of lingual, and can be moved there. DonnanZ (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. trilingual can be analyzed as tri- + lingual or tri- + lingua + -al. Not in -lingual at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

squash player

I have a feeling we had an epic discussion about these kind of entries before. Still seems SOP to me. --Mélange a trois (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I think we keep them if they have translations that are not SoP. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
tennis player was discussed. Supposedly it's not SoP because it's someone who plays professionally (which is not true at all: "I'm a bad tennis player" doesn't mean I'm a pro, just that I play). Apparently people want to keep them so whatever. Equinox 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, it relates to the sport, not the vegetable or a drink of squash. DonnanZ (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Are you saying I can't play with my squash? -Mike (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Hula dancers play the gourd. You should learn to play the squash.  --Lambiam 11:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is useful to distinguish between sports where the participant is known as a Foo player, and those where the participant is known as a fooer (e.g., golfer and bowler, not golf player and bowling player). In some cases, this distinction has real implications - for example, a footballer plays association football (i.e. soccer), while a football player plays American football. bd2412 T 01:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    I doubt that the distinction is that sharp: [81], [82], [83].  --Lambiam 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    Informal instances rare enough that they wouldn't count as a common misspelling are of minimal lexicological value. Find me a "bowling player", though. Then we'll be talking. bd2412 T 03:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • WT:THUB would protect it if we can find reliably attested supporting terms. Czech squashista would contribute to THUB but seems sub-attested (not 3 quotations, Citations:squashista). German Squashspieler would not contribute to THUB as currently drafted. Also of interest is squasher, squash player at Google Ngram Viewer; an unvoted-on analogue of COALMINE would have us include squash player as a much more common synonym of an attested single-word term. (As an aside, Talk:tennis player#RFD 2 often invoked "translation target" as the keeping rationale.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    I spoke too soon: squasher does exist, but does not seem to mean squash player. Then, the argument by bd2412 is of note: this is the term actually used while another term could have been used (squasher). --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    Czech squashista is now attested in Citations:squashista. Can we find one more language to support WT:THUB? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per WT:THUB via Czech squashista and German Squasher; if someone could show Dutch squasher is attested, that would be a third item, but two are enough per current WT:THUB. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Commercial Resupply Services

Doesn't strike me as dictionary content. Equinox 08:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • A quick delete I would think. (And I hope I'm not infringing on your trademark.) -Mike (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I don’t think this is trademarked. There is no TESS record for the term. Some uses: [84], [85], [86]. The definition is not very good; it is the name of the program in general, not just the contracts awarded under the program’s competition. I don’t see how our CFI apply for cases like this; we do not have generic guidelines for proper nouns, and none of the more specific ones (such as WT:BRAND) fit this case. We do include proper nouns of organizations such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and of holidays like International Talk Like a Pirate Day, but what about programs or campaigns?  --Lambiam 11:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. DCDuring (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

stopgap

The adjective section: not an adjective. 31.173.85.103 18:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Whatever is decided here should also apply to stop-gap. -Mike (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete the adjective, but keep the usex and put it in the noun section. Incidentally, stop-gap is less common than stopgap in the UK, so that statement is wrong. DonnanZ (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I've almost never seen it hyphenated; that would look quite dated to me. The statements might still be correct with some really sneaky interpretation, i.e. "stopgap is more common in the US" (...than stop-gap is), while "stop-gap is more common in the UK" (...than it is in the US). Perhaps best just to remove. Equinox 23:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Is this 'Ngram' syntax correct? I'm really not sure. If it is, it shows "stopgap" now significantly more common than "stop-gap" in the US, and the two now roughly equal in the UK. Mihia (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep adjective. M-W indicates "stopgap" as "noun, often attributive"[87]; AHD has an adjective[88], Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition at collinsdictionary.com has an adjective[89]. stopgap at OneLook Dictionary Search. Searching for "is stopgap" finds the following predicative adjectival uses:
  • "It is stopgap in the sense that it is intended to continue in force until the complete ..."
  • "Their income is stopgap until a transition can be made ..."
  • "The trouble with the mechanism is that it is stopgap and piecemeal."
  • "Hand pallet and powered pallet trucks are needed for use in aircraft Skate conveyor can be used in the plane, but I feel that this is stopgap and that the way to ..."
  • "Welfare or unearned income (at the lower end of the economy, not the higher end) is stopgap and stigmatized."
  • "Everything else in the U.S. aid package is stopgap ..."
While attributive uses can be explained away as attributive uses of a noun, predicative uses not so.
--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
In GoogleBooks you can also find a few examples like "more stopgap than imaginative", "more stopgap than sustainable", or "the most stop-gap [whatever]". -Mike (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Mike: Good finds. So is that a keep from you? Or abstain? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I would keep. -Mike (talk) 19:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

snap

The adjective section: not an adjective. 31.173.85.103 18:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

What part of speech is it, then, in "a snap judgment or decision; a snap political convention"? Equinox 18:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Your judgement is snap, but is it snap enough for this day and age? It can be argued that it is the noun snap, sense 10 (“a very short period of time (figuratively, the time taken to snap one's fingers), or a task that can be accomplished in such a period”). See also Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#snap election.  --Lambiam 20:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
"Guitarist Scott Smith writes the snappest songs, but other members of the Surfdusters are not bad song writers." DTLHS (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
That seems tenuous. How are readers to know that the noun snap can be used in these constructions when moment, jiffy, sec, etc. cannot? Equinox 21:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Not saying it is necessarily applicable here, but in cases where a noun can be used attributively in a distinct or not-very-predictable way, we can always add a separate noun definition labelled "attributive". Mihia (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep. According to Oxford it is also an attributive adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In my opinion this is very technically not a true adjective, but is "de facto" enough of an adjective to keep. It is a highly borderline case. Mihia (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
An argument in favour of adjectivality (when used as an attribute of a noun) is the relative lack of stress. An attributive noun is stressed in English. Compare square form /ˌskwɛə ˈfɔːm/ (adjective) with square formula /ˈskwɛə ˌfɔːmjʊlə/ (attributive noun).  --Lambiam 11:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per WT:LEMMING (not a policy): an adjective section is found in M-W, AHD, Collins, Lexico, Macmillan, dictionary.cambridge.org. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Gonna say keep, by the way, because of commonness in adjective position and apparently not quite the same meaning (or not easily derivable from the noun), oh and lemmings. Equinox 18:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move the adjective to a new Etymology with "Ellipsis of in a snap" as it's origin. Leasnam (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't seem very likely to me that that is the origin. Mihia (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The sense evolution is snap "clicky sound" > "snap (with one's fingers)" = making a snap-sound with your fingers > snapping sound associated with quick motion of the fingers > 'in a snap' = quickly, in an instant > snap = instant. It's easy to see with terms like 'snap election' "an election that happens as fast as the snap of the fingers" Leasnam (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, the meanings of "snap" in "in a snap" and "snap election" are of course related, having a common ancestor in the idea that a "snap" is some kind of short, sharp event. However, my view is that the attributive/adjectival use of "snap" in e.g. "snap election" is unlikely to directly derive from a shortening of the expression "in a snap" as your proposed etymology would suggest. I don't see that it would even make grammatical sense for it to do so. I don't see any reason to think that the idea of "snap" in "snap election" came specifically through that phrase. Mihia (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with your point: not directly from "in a snap", but that type of usage has back-fed into 'snap' to produce the attributive sense. Leasnam (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

-gonal

This is just a word ending. Words ending in -gonal are adjectives made from nouns ending in -gon that are suffixed with -al. Ultimateria (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Could become productive on its own. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    Is that meant as an argument for retention? Crystal ball meets many-worlds.  --Lambiam 11:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
It looks like delete to me, including diagonal is wrong for a start. DonnanZ (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Or else we should include suffixes like -ousness: Used to form nouns describing related adjectives ending in -ous. seriousness.  --Lambiam 11:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete or possibly redirect to -gon. Compare Talk:-lessness. Equinox 13:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to -gon sounds like an excellent solution. bd2412 T 03:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    Even a redirect seems wrong unless there is evidence of productivity, which has not been forthcoming. DCDuring (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    If someone looks up this exact construction, it would be better to take them to the proper form than to leave them to the vagaries of the search engine (which, as it stands, would give them these results). bd2412 T 05:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Leasnam (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like what the drunk geometrist said late on a Saturday night, "I-so-gonal rearrange your obtuse face!"
But seriously isn't this just -gon + -al? Delete if so. -Mike (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

only to

"Conjunction" with non-gloss definition.

I think this should be a redirect to a sense of only (using {{senseid}}). DCDuring (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment. The relevant sense at only appears to be:
Used to express surprise or consternation at an action.
She's only gone and run off with the milkman!
They rallied from a three-goal deficit only to lose in the final two minutes of play.
Are we quite sure that it is the same sense -- even PoS -- of "only" in both these usage examples? Mihia (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Three observations. (1) It seems to me that the sense is not so much to express surprise or consternation, as to mark a definitive reversal of fortune. (2) The collocation is always followed by an infinitive, which is not particularly an action, but rather a state change by which all hopes are dashed. (3) There is an action involved, which is in vain, but it is the action of the main clause of which the “only to” clause is a dependent clause. (“He rushed to the hospital, only to learn that his mother had already died.”)  --Lambiam 11:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
And, of course it is only too easy to confuse it with "only too". SemperBlotto (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Not to mention only two.
Oxford has only to as part of a phrase, and only too -. I'm undecided on this at the moment. DonnanZ (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Looking at a definition of only in the likes of Century provides a multitude of semicolon-separated items that take the form "(in, for, by) but one (purpose, means, result); (in, at, for, with) no other (manner, respect, place, direction, circumstances, condition, time, way, purpose, result) than". So Lambian's example (above) might be defined as "with no other result than". One could also say "I stood only to ask a question" where it would mean "for but one purpose". The insertion of only in the verb-infinitive structure emphasizes the singular result of the infinitive with respect to the verb.
I do think this is a question of how to properly define only and that only to should be deleted (or redirected). -Mike (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
One more observation: (4) only to announcing a reversal of fortune is preceded by a pause in speaking, often reflected in the punctuation when written, like a comma here and an em dash here. That is particular to this sense; one would not write, *“we don’t want to punish; we want, only to help”, or, *“I stood—only to ask a question”.  --Lambiam 22:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

evening meal

I have created an entry for evening meal - I think it is a useful entry and I don't want it to be deleted. I can see an argument that it is 'sum of parts'. I have added 'usage notes' which may help explain why I think it is a useful entry. John Cross (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

But you posted this here to elicit a critical examination? Perhaps this can be defended as a useful addition to our Category:English phrasebook/Food and drink – although it has not been categorized as such – but only if we can populate the Translations section, for which the translations of dinner that identify the meaning as the evening meal form a good start. (Several others, such as Danish aftensmad, are also specifically the evening meal, even though not explicitly so identified.)  --Lambiam 14:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection to the entry. DonnanZ (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Possibly good phrasebook material as it is always a meal in the evening but might have implications varying by culture. But of course SoP and I am not a fan of having a general (non-phrasebook) entry. Equinox 15:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

mg/dl

Looks pretty much SOP from where I'm lying. --Vealhurl (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete all X/Y in which X and Y are units in some metrological standard, such as the SI, or NIST Handbook 44 (2012), Appendix C: “General Tables of Units of Measurement”. If kept, this should be under an L2 of Translingual.  --Lambiam 12:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 13:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete, but there might conceivably be some 'X/Y' entries of this type worth saving, as unlikely as it may seem. Any that we have should be RfDed. DCDuring (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

scope resolutor

This is a rare EN-1/2/3 error for scope + resolver or, possibly and document-specific term with an ad-doc definition. DCDuring (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Is ad-doc Cockney for haddock?  --Lambiam 00:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

moisture-resistant

NISoP. We would need to find attestation for moistureresistant to save this via WT:COALMINE. DCDuring (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's hope that someone finds three instances of "moistureresistant". Then we can keep "moisture-resistant" too. Mihia (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep. It's just a compound word with a hyphen in the middle (which makes sense). DonnanZ (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep "all words in all languages" SemperBlotto (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete not a word, not idiomatic. - TheDaveRoss 14:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete. "-resistant" can be added to any word where it makes sense, with obvious SoP meaning. Mihia (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Some hyphenated terms are includable, but ones like this are SOP, in my view: for any X, something can be X-resistant, and the meaning is obvious ('resistant to X'), there isn't even the difficulty in deciding where to 'break up' the word when parsing it that arises from 'solidspelled' compounds (e.g., is under to be looked up as un-+der? no), because the hyphen shows what the parts are that one should look up individually. - -sche (discuss) 01:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

call one on one's shit

SOP: call on (sense 5) + shit. Canonicalization (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete as SoP: you can call people on many things. (I suppose this derived from call out, did it? I knew that phrase earlier; call alone seems like modern American or Twitter-type usage.) Equinox 01:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep It may be similar to call out but it's a unique verb "call you on your shit" being the most frequent form, it's definitely AmericanNdołkah (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
A very hasty Twitter search indicates that people are also being "called" on their bullshit, sin, stuff, transphobia, and "terrible record". Equinox 09:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Lord knows Twitter users like berating each other. Anyway, delete per nom. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense, delete. DonnanZ (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
See Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2019/October#Suppressing_verb_inflections for separate issue with this entry. Mihia (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete in absence of any idiomatic meaning (e.g. "to address a babyfur"). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Church

"(used with the) A specific church (Christian religious denomination), such as the Church of England or the Catholic Church." This is just a normal capitalisation rule in proper nouns: we do not have comparable entries at Bank (Bank of England, Bank of America), Man (the Michelin Man) or Sea (Aral Sea). If this sense isn't already at lower-case church then we could of course move it there, noting "often capitalised" if we must. Equinox 09:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It is capitalized as expected when used as part of a proper noun, just like Association and Brotherhood, so there is no need for a special note.  --Lambiam 22:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete for nominator’s reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete this sense, Oxford has an entry for Church Army which is more specific. DonnanZ (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • But Church Army is an entire proper noun and cannot be written lower-cased. The logic does not apply here. This case is more like having capital City or capital Tower because of New York City, Eiffel Tower. Equinox 13:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep or move to the Church. There have been many times where I've heard "the Church" used by non-Catholics to refer to the Catholic Church in places where one would expect further specification if it was merely SOP. If you saw a headline that said something like “President Joe Blow Criticizes the Church's Stance on Abortion,” would you be confused, or would you understand a specific church? (Although I don't exclude the possibility that my interpretation of the way I've seen it used is somewhat warped due to my own bias.) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Moving it to "the Church" is IMO even worse. We don't usually put the on entries (cf. Eiffel Tower). We can always use en-noun to display the word "the" inside the entry: it needn't be in the page title. Equinox 13:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep but if we do keep we need separate senses for each organisation. There are cases where "the Church" is used without enough context to tell you which organisation it is but the fact the term used is "the Church" together with the limited context provided is enough for you to know. I think that is distinguishable from, for example "the Committee" where the full name of the Committee is used earlier in the text. John Cross (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah. It would be a shame to lose the quotations that someone took the trouble to enter. I could go along with both Andrew Sheedy and John Cross, Equinox is also flexible, or have (as an organisation) Alternative form of church (or similar) instead. DonnanZ (talk) 09:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm inclined to keep this one. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Move/merge to church, with label noting capitalisation and article. However, for me, the present definition somewhat misses the main point of "the Church" as a separate sense. The fact that "the Church" can be used to mean some specific church, such as "the Church of England", does not in itself seem very entry-worthy. It seems more an ordinary feature of English that can apply to arbitrary cases. As Equinox points out, we may as well have an entry for "(the) Sea" on the basis that this could be used to refer to a specific sea. In the case of "the Church", yes, a specific church is meant, but the point of the separate sense is more that "the Church" has extra connotations, e.g. that it is recognised or understood as the main or established institution within the context. Mihia (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Abstain. It could be reworked, I think that it is more commonly used of the Catholic Church than of other churches anyway as noted by Andrew Sheedy, but more importantly there is no sense "mainstream (non-Arian, non-Unitarian) Christianity". Perhaps if this fails it could be resolved to include that here. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The most commonly intended church is probably region- or community-specific. In some places it may be the Catholic Church. In an English context, with no other information, "the Church" is probably understood as CofE. Mihia (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete. These uses are exactly analogous to the uses of capitalized Association, Brotherhood, and so on, as short forms of the proper noun denoting some institution in a context in which it is understood which institution is referenced. A few examples: “Prior to each annual meeting the Association shall elect the Officers as provided for in Article 3”; “The aim of the Association is to support and strengthen comparative literature studies”; “The Association may maintain affiliation with other societies if the Governing Board determines that the affiliation would further the purposes of the Association; “The objector shall keep the Brotherhood informed of any change in address”; “The Brotherhood is controlled in each domination by a council elected by its members”; “The salary of the G E.B. when employed by the Brotherhood shall be $3.00 per day and $2.50 per day for expenses, exclusive of railroad fare.” All refer to completely different associations and brotherhoods, such as the Washington City/County Management Association and the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America; the terms have no intrinsic meaning.  --Lambiam 09:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The difference, as I see it, is that someone may refer to "the Church" with no prior context or information, and expect that it will be understood. This is not likely with "Association" or "Brotherhood". "the Church" seems to be a "thing" that exists other than merely as a shortened form of "the Church of X" used to reduce repetition or wordage, unlike these other examples that have been given. Mihia (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It is my duty to inform you that the Church finds your attitude problematic. You cannot say you have not been warned. How can the recipient of a message be supposed to understand what “the Church” refers to with no prior context or information? That does not make sense. In the two example quotations the first is from a Catechism of the Catholic Church, so there it is obvious from the context that this is not the Church of Satan. In the second, the reference to Salt Lake Valley gives away that this is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; also without that hint, the audience to the speech by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints of which this was a fragment were attendees of a worldwide priesthood gathering of the LDS Church, so the Brethren understood the speaker was not referring to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Show me an example of use of “the Church” without any context in which there is a reasonable expectation that the audience will understand which Church this refers to.  --Lambiam 20:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
An example would be “Mindful of the Church’s teaching that Christian marriage is indissoluble, and conscious of my duty to the Commonwealth, I have resolved to put these considerations before any others.” [90] No specific "Church of X" has been mentioned. It is just assumed that the reader will understand "the Church" as an institution. It is hard to think of a case where e.g. "the Association" would be mentioned out of the blue with no reference to which association is meant. Mihia (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Without context I could not know which church this referred to, but upon finding out the statement was issued by the sister of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England (and daughter of its previous Supreme Governor), one tends to develop a hunch as to which church may have been referenced here.  --Lambiam 21:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
It is not really important whether the reader/listener actually knows which specific church is meant. The important thing is that "the Church" is used and understood to mean the relevant established religious institution/authority, without further explanation. This is what makes it different from e.g. "the Association". Mihia (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Put that way, that's exactly the same as the X, for any X. "The College", "the University", "the State", "the Department" often goes without explanation, and I suspect in certain circles "the Association" is used the same way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree. "the Church" is expected to have a broader and wider understanding, with no further explanation, than any of those other things, except "the State", in my opinion. I think there is a qualitative difference. "the State" is similar to "the Church". Mihia (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I think part of this distinctive use of "the Church" might have to do with the fact that members of a given church will typically see their church as the one true church, not simply a church among many. Given the predominance of the Catholic Church globally and certain other churches locally, this usage among members of the church in question could easily have bled over into usage by people outside of that church. This reminds me of phrases like "the Faith", used by Christians to refer to the Christian (and often specifically the Catholic) faith. The same does not hold for "the Association", "the Committee", etc. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
As a Catholic who cares very much about his faith, I would agree with that analysis. I certainly think of the Church in the way that you describe in your first sentence there. It's funny that you bring this up, by the way, as many early Christians called the faith "the Way". "Christian" appears to have been either originally intended as a pejorative of some sort, or was otherwise an exonym of some sort. In any case, I suppose that we reclaimed the word fairly swiftly. Tharthan (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Having a strong Christian belief doesn't make "church" and "Church" separate words. Equinox 00:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say "I am a Catholic, thus 'church' and 'Church' are objectively distinct". I was expressing concurrence with Mr. Sheedy's analysis, and noting that it is Catholic belief (and, as a Catholic, I hold the belief) that the Church is the subsistence of what was founded by Christ and initially headed by the apostles. And, furthermore, the usage of "the Church" for "the Catholic Church" is very typical in my experience, even when speaking to non-Catholics. So, again, I was concurring with (and giving personal witness to the veracity of) Mr. Sheedy's analysis.
Do keep in mind that I haven't voted either way on this RfD. I personally don't care whether we mark them as distinct or not. I can see justification for both positions, and I really think that this matter is more related to preference than anything else. I don't think that Wiktionary users would be missing out either way, because (taking as a given that those using this dictionary understand the concept of proper nouns) I cannot really reckon how someone would not be able to discern the meaning of "the Church" in a scenario (that "the Church" means what our current definition for it in the challenged entry describes). If it is contained within an article, the article would probably contain enough information for a reader to read between the lines. If there is not enough information for a person to figure out what "the Church" is referring to in the article (or what have you), I highly doubt that our entry would do much with regard to clearing things up. Tharthan (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
If you flip the case of a word (dog, DOG, Dog, dOG) is it really a different word? Hopefully not. If a noun is very important because of cultural reasons (the Church...)... I know we're not supposed to argue from imaginary hellscapes that haven't happened yet, but it seems so dumb. It makes me think of how Christians refer to God, with a capital H-"He". So: He, Him, His. Should we have separate entries for those? Probably not, bc they mean the exact same thing as he, him, his, and the purpose of the capital H is respect to God (like how Muslims say that special little mantra "peace be upon him"), it's not grammatical. Equinox 02:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Just pointing this out, but we have an entry for He, as well as an entry for peace be upon him. Tharthan (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
1. whataboutism. 2. Maybe I'll come for "He" later! (foot-in-the-door technique). I hope we won't keep this entry purely because "there are other similar entries" lol. Equinox 21:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
No need to mis-extrapolate my intentions. I have already told you that I don't care how this RfD goes. I was simply mentioning that, because I recalled that we had an entry for He. Tharthan (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 12:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete per Lambiam and per nom. I notice we also have a sense like this at "Court", which I would also delete (at the very least, the (US) label must be wrong, no?). - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

miss the point

Sum of parts surely? ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak keep; just about enough of an idiomatic set phrase, I would say. Mihia (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, per Mihia; besides, it's found in other dictionaries. Canonicalization (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

-'re

I am not seeing how this can be both a suffix and a contraction but I may be wrong. John Cross (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Not a suffix IMO. Mihia (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep. 're links to this article. I'll leave what it is exactly to the grammar geeks, but that's pedantry at RfD; whatever the headword is, whether we call it a suffix or contraction, there should be a page on 're as something tacked onto the end of words.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I would call it an alternative form of "are", or a combining form. It functions grammatically as a verb, even if it does fuse completely with the preceding word (you can't hear the difference between "their" and "they're" in most people's speech). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Simply not a suffix. Delete this and -'s, -'d. Ultimateria (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
At worst, this (and the others) could be moved to the forms without the hyphen ('re, etc). But the content should be kept somewhere. Do other dictionaries and grammars prefer to include these things with hyphens, or without? @DCDuring, what do you think? - -sche (discuss) 22:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
AFAICT, no OneLook dictionary has an entry for -'re, but some MW, Collins, Cambridge have an entry for 're. That seems like where our main entry should be. We could keep a redirect so templates like {{af}} don't have to be rewritten immediately. But categories including -'re in their name would have to be deleted, which might mean that templates would have to be rewritten pretty soon.
Move to 're. DCDuring (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I would support moving as proposed by DCDuring above. John Cross (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Move to 're with a usage note explaining it's a clitic and can't be used on its own, which I assume is what the hyphen is trying to convey. Julia 06:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Cross-linking a related discussion: Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup#'ve,_'m,_-'s (which will be found after archiving at Talk:-'ve). - -sche (discuss) 22:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I moved the entry to 're. Other related entries, some of which I also moved some senses of: -'ve/'ve, -'s/'s, -'m/'m, -'ll/'ll; see also -', '. - -sche (discuss) 09:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I think this has now been resolved. - -sche (discuss) 01:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

knee high sock

SOP. 31.173.83.28 17:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 12:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment. If kept, should be moved to knee-high sock. Mihia (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep Useful for translations and they only go near the knee not to the knee on most.Ndołkah (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
What translations? Canonicalization (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

over the knee sock

SOP. 31.173.83.28 17:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 12:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment. If kept, should be moved to over-the-knee sock. Mihia (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

cowtastrophe

"A catastrophe involving cattle" - this is just an obvious pun which has been used a few times over the years. I don't think we want all nonce puns which have arisen independently over the years. - TheDaveRoss 12:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Not too bothered either way but I am almost tempted to say keep: I would want to see adequate citations without the hyphen, though. This search finds some possibly similar existing entries: [91]. Equinox 12:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
And I believe that a cat-astrophe is a disaster involving cats, right? Mihia (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep - stupid words are still words. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
That's not the problem. The problem is that this word is not a real "trend": it's not being picked up by a speaker, then another, etc. We're simply lumping quotes together to fulfil the CFI, but this is artificial. Canonicalization (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep I'd say it's the opposite; it's saying that this is a fundamental part of the language, not just a random artificial trend. It's like when the first Nintendo Wii came out, people probably talked of Wiis without asking what the plural of Wii should be. That a catastrophe involving cows is a cowtastrophe isn't quite as fundamental, but it's still a real aspect of the language as it is used.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of the Wii, Wiimote is also a user-created "pun" and not an official name. The only difference I feel about this "cowtastrophe" is that it's very vague: it could be any kind of cow catastrophe, probably quite different in each situation where the word is used. Equinox 18:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: cowtastrophe is a fundamental part of the English language? Clearly fundamental has a very different meaning for you than it does for me. Nonce terms should be excluded because they are not fundamental, the usage of this term is both random and artificial, it arose a few times independently for humorous purposes. I use puns all of the time in my daily life, and most of them are dumb and obvious and highly likely to have been used many times before, even though I am inventing them for my own situation. They don't, for the most part, deserve to be recorded in the dictionary.
@Sonofcawdrey: Sure, but that argument is meaningless until you have defined what a word is, if you have a broad enough definition there is nothing which shouldn't be included. - TheDaveRoss 12:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Like other words, cowtastrophe has a spelling, a pronunciation, a semantic sense, a grammatical category, and (as evidenced by the citations in this case) is used by language users in conjunction with other words to create meaningful sentences. I don't think this is an unwarrantedly broad meaning of word. The fact that cowtastrophe is formed via simple punning does not disqualify it as a word. As Trench said way back in 1857, a dictionary is not a delectus verborum and it is not the job of the lexicographer to pick and choose those words that do or do not please him or her. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss: The formation of the word "cowtastrophe" is a fundamental part of the English language; if it wasn't, it couldn't have arisen a few times independently in the same sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
That makes no sense at all. There are plenty of towns named Essex, and many of them probably have a water department, so the fact that more than one place has called their water department the "Essex Water Department" does not mean that the name didn't arise independently in each of those cases. It isn't like they all named their departments after the first one, it is just an obvious construction. - TheDaveRoss 12:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
And Place Type "Department" is a pretty fundamental form of phrase construction in English, and if it formed one spaceless word, it would get an entry at Wiktionary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
There are any number of similar reused puns and wordplays, both in the animal realm and other realms: amoosing, on porpoise, paw-fect, purr-fect, panda-monium, just for the halibut, and so on and so on. I don't know what our policy on these is or should be. Mihia (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
As long as we keep eye dialect and similar non-standard spellings, certainly at least alternate spellings for words should be kept. Google Books reveals endless citations for purrfect; deleting it and not alwuz seems weird.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Keep per Sonofcawdrey. I know other words have scraped by at RFV even though it seems clear that each of the three users was forming it anew based on e.g. an Ancient Greek term (as in the case of gyneconome, which I am a little surprised I can't find an RFV discussion of, maybe I am just remembering having trouble citing it myself without RFV being involved). AFAICT this is what we have {{label|en|nonce}} for; add it to the hundreds of words in Category:English nonce terms. If it meets CFI, I don't see a basis for deleting it just because uses are humourous or repeated nonces. - -sche (discuss) 22:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Found the discussion I was looking for: Talk:cœnæsthesiæ#gynæconome. - -sche (discuss) 09:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

read through

SoP. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Also from the same anon:

tie off

Pretty transparent meaning. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep - not transparent to me - why a vein is tied off rather than tied up is not at all clear; such "phrasal verbs" are always difficult for learners to master. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep per Sonofcawdrey. Mihia (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

go before

Figuratively - can't see why this should be a separate entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

fine-ass-looking

Websearch mostly yields pornographic material. — Eru·tuon 22:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep --this is REAL English. This is commonly heard in very informal speech everywhere. Leasnam (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep - commonly heard everywhere. 70.24.109.163 22:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete, non-idiomatic sum-of-parts. We have fine, ass and looking. Re it being "real" and "commonly heard", so is nice butt, but that doesn't mean we ought to have an entry for nice butt. - TheDaveRoss 12:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks like sum of parts to me: fine-ass + looking. 12:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep - this is an individual adjective (as opposed to nice butt which is a phrase), and the meaning is not at all clear to me. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
fine-ass is an adjective using the -ass suffix. It's not the noun "a fine ass", like "nice butt". Equinox 18:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I was unable to parse this until I saw your comment. Canonicalization (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Isn't this just fine-looking with "-ass" as an infix? It seems to me that you could add "-ass" in this sense to any adjective. Blue-ass-looking sky. Tall-ass basketball player. Big-ass football hero. Etc. bd2412 T 20:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Funnily enough, forgetting about this, I just created fine-looking. DonnanZ (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Can you also nominate that for deletion as even more patently SoP than the entry under consideration here? - TheDaveRoss 12:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, delete as SoP. Ultimateria (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, there are also plenty of hits for good-ass looking or cool-ass looking confirming this is the -ass suffix. Ergo, Delete.  --Lambiam 21:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP per Equinox. Canonicalization (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm an ESL learner. I have never seen this word before in my life. Does it mean [fine] & [ass-looking] or [fine-ass] & looking ? I need Wiktionary to help me. Thank you kindly. —This unsigned comment was added by Leasnam (talkcontribs).
Nice try. But I can totally believe you're an ESL learner, given your history here. Equinox 05:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete; SOP per BD. - -sche (discuss) 01:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Akihito

"A Japanese male given name". This isn't really English. — surjection?〉 08:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. We also do not list Alistair under the L2 Finnish, in spite of attestations like “Kun Englannin työväenpuolue voitti vaalit 1997 Alistair Darlingista tuli Tony Blairin hallituksen toinen valtiovarainministeri.”  --Lambiam 11:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It's English as much as Düsseldorf is English. Proof: It's USED in English. --Damn Polski (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Düsseldorf is an English toponym borrowed from German. If you look at the translation table, different languages have different spellings for the toponym. However, the same does not apply for Akihito because it is a romanization of Japanese あきひと. The romanized form does not qualify it as an English lemma. See discussion here.
English entries can be created for toponyms such as Kagawa or surnames such as Tamura that are backed up by statistical evidence. However, there are no plans to lemmatize all romanized forms of Japanese surnames and given names as English entries. Delete. KevinUp (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

On HMS

SOP on + HMS. I don't know much about overprints, so this may be wrong --Vealhurl (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I would tend to keep it because HMS has multiple meanings. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

TDMGe

"Tetrakis-Dimethylamino-Germane, the metalorganic source for Germanium Nitride (GeN) in MOCVD of semiconductors. It grows GeN instead of Ge, and is used at either high temperatures (600-800 C) or with plasma because of its very low vapor pressure and higher decomposition temperature. Also known as TDMAGe and pronounced as T-Damage." Either some extremely obscure term or the weirdest made-up phrase ever. --Vealhurl (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I find some mentions (not uses) of “TDMAGe” (e.g. here) but none of “TDMGe”. But doesn’t this belong at RfV?  --Lambiam 08:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

DIPTe

"Di-isopropyltellurium, the most preferred metalorganic source of Tellurium used in MOCVD of compound semiconductors for opto-electronics applications." --Vealhurl (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

light

I'm not sure this really is an adverb. I had second thoughts after creating travel light (the usex was already there), I think this is actually adjectival. Consider also make light of, make light work of, and light engine which is a locomotive travelling light, without a load in the form of a train. DonnanZ (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how feasible it is to describe someone as "light" in this sense, which seems to be the consequence of it being adjectival. If we saw someone at an airport with only one very small bag, would we say that s/he was "light"? "light" in "travel light" also seems to answer a "how" question, though unfortunately this is not always 100% conclusive. M-W dictionary lists it as an adverb. Another question is whether the purported adverbial sense exists in any context other than the phrase "travel light". If it doesn't, maybe we could avoid the question and treat "travel light" as an idiomatic set phrase without troubling over its grammatical explanation. I can think of perhaps "run light", as in "The locomotive is pulling well" / "Ah, that's because we're running light today". In this case "light" does seem adjectival, as we can say that the train (or load) is light. Hmmm. Mihia (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I can easily see these as being ellipses of "travel (with) light (luggage/baggage)" and "we're running (with a) light (load/workload/cargo/weight) today" = adjectival Leasnam (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
My feeling is that if "travel light" means "travel with light luggage/baggage" then "light" is adverbial. This is because the "with ~" phrase is adverbial, and, if you like, the adjectivity cannot "transfer out of this". The only way I see "light" as being adjectival is if e.g. "He travels light" means that he is light. Mihia (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have entered several citations for adverb senses (with help from Century). Also, travel light should probably be deleted since it is just SOP. -Mike (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

fine-looking

Seems SoP. Raised above under #must-see. Compounds like "fine-looking" can be created in fairly arbitrary combinations according to standard rules of English: tired-looking, indistinct-looking, harsh-sounding, clever-seeming etc. etc. I don't believe that we need to list all possible combinations separately. On the other hand, I would support keeping good-looking. As much as anything, I am listing this to see if there are any objective criteria, other than frequency of use (which I believe we should not take into account, provided a minimum threshhold is reached), that would allow us to keep good-looking, and possibly also fine-looking if desired, while disallowing e.g. indistinct-looking and a million™ others similar. Mihia (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It would depend on how common it is. I came across the term when extracting some quotes from an old magazine, and thought it merited an entry, having found enough usage. There is no problem with good-looking, which probably has lemmas anywhere you look. However, this entry is infinitely more preferable to fine-ass-looking. DonnanZ (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but my understanding is that we don't include or exclude entries based on how common they are, provided only that the minimum threshold for CFI is met. Mihia (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'd delete as meaning nothing more than "it looks fine". Equinox 21:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
If it was spelt finelooking nobody would bat an eyelid, but it isn't. I would keep it as a synonym - there may be times when one would prefer to use fine-looking instead of good-looking, as the author of the quote did. DonnanZ (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
To refresh your memory, you created bad-looking a few months ago. DonnanZ (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
See also good-looking, foul-smelling, gutaussehend, etc. Note that while in German this gutaussehend is quite lexical one can quite arbitrarily mash together participles with adverbs and other parts of speech, writing together. Fay Freak (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah, so this is the first victim of your brainchild. DonnanZ (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Donnanz, your only rule seems to be that you hate anything being deleted. Other people actually apply coherent rules to what they think is keepable or deletable, even though those rules differ from user to user. For you to accuse people (repeatedly) of being rabid/unprincipled deletionists is silly since you're a more rabid/unprincipled "keepist" than anyone. Equinox 15:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
No, his only rule is whether he likes a term or that to which it refers. He'd vote to delete dog if one bit him, but he'd vote to keep "I like trains" if he could do it without people laughing at him (I'm exaggerating, of course, but at times it's not that far from the truth). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Both of you are being unfair. You never see terms I reject, and there's plenty of those; today, for example, I looked at transport hub and single-bore and passed over both. DonnanZ (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Imagine a non-native speaker – let’s call him Deniz – trying to grasp the meaning of fine-looking after he overhears an attractive woman saying of him that he is a “fine-looking man”. Naturally, he will consult Wikipedia. Assume now that in the meantime we have deleted the entry, so he sees on the discussion page that it was deleted as being a sum-of-parts. All he has to do now is to decipher the meaning of fine-looking from its parts. Naturally he proceeds from the assumption that the overheard comment is equivalent to the statement that he looks fine. The first meaning of look is “to try to see, to pay attention to with one’s eyes”. This requires an adverb; skipping the definition “Expression of (typically) reluctant agreement”, which he suspects does not apply, he hits upon “well, nicely, in a positive way”. So did the commenter express the opinion that Deniz tries, in a positive way, to see (or that he pays nicely attention with his eyes)? Somehow feeling that this was not the utterer’s intention, he looks further. What about look meaning “to appear, to seem”? And perhaps nice = “being acceptable, adequate, passable, or satisfactory”? (Deniz is humble and does not consider himself to be of superior quality.) This results in the meaning ”to seem passable”. This meaning appears satisfactory to Deniz; satisfied with this answer and unaware of a missed opportunity, he concludes his semantic quest.  --Lambiam 18:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Don't give up your day job, Jonathan Swift. "Fine-looking" may in fact mean "looking fine" in pretty much any sense, not just one. So the mistake that you would blame on our not indicating which sense of "fine" is intended (hello, "brown leaf") could equally go badly the other way if we did have, say, the AAVE-style sense ("that's one fine-looking honey!") but omitted others. Equinox 18:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Three examples: "Damn baby, I don't know if I want to let your fine looking ass go, cause I know damn well muthafucka's gon be all over my tender white thickness" (Davine 2014; "fine" = attractive, sexy); "Glancing over the crowd, I noticed a fine-looking carriage and horses" (McLean 1886; "fine" = handsome, elegant); "the inside of the teeth will peel, and by rubbing coke or a piece of grindstone over the teeth's face, it will result in fine-looking teeth" (Dyson West 1882; "fine" = narrowly spaced). Equinox 19:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
You could always add those quotes to the entry... I did find "fine-looking cricketer" and "fine-looking goalie" (admittedly very few hits) where fine-looking seems to refer to the fact they appear to be good at their job. But looking at fine#Etymology 1#Adjective I'm not convinced that fine-looking is covered, the closest is sense 3, good-looking, attractive, but I'm not entirely convinced by the examples. In Oxford (1.6) is the closest, I think, (1.6 Imposing or impressive in appearance. ‘Donleavy was a fine figure of a man’). But I think "fine-looking" is not properly covered here either, and is something else again. DonnanZ (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
If you take the argument that including SOP terms because their components have multiple meanings, but then you also include all permutations of those meanings on the SOP terms page, how have you helped Deniz know which sense was meant? He was just as well off looking up the component terms and deciding among their meanings. Better off, really, since we are more likely to have things like translations on the component terms. - TheDaveRoss 12:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Adding those citations to the entry suggests I am validating the entry, whereas I actually think it is fucking stupid and should be deleted. I specifically found those cites to prove that "fine-looking" just means "looking fine IN ANY SENSE OF FINE". Why does it still exist? Equinox 05:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
In this case looking is really just taking on the old obsolete noun sense of "appearance". And because fine is an adjective that modifies looking, you really have an adjective-noun combination being used attributively to modify the man (in Lambiam's example). (Of course participles being what they are, you could analyse it as adverb-verb, but you should get the same result.) One from a previous era could have probably called Deniz "a man with a fine looking". -Mike (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
At the moment this compound sense of looking is not covered (yes, these are compound words, which some users prefer to overlook, probably because of the hyphen). It isn't regarded as a suffix, but there was a suffix entry once, before it was redirected as the result of an RFD. To be fair, Oxford doesn't deal with it either. DonnanZ (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I made an attempt at explaining this at looking. DonnanZ (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you can complete this by adding a sense at fine: “in relation to the visual appearance of a person: physically attractive”.  --Lambiam 22:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
As with bad-looking below, I think we should keep: does fine-looking also mean "slender/thin-looking" ? fine means "slender/thin". Does it mean "powdery-looking" ? fine can mean "consisting of minute particulate" ? We need to provide the accurate definition. Leasnam (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It can mean slender/thin-looking, and other things too, yes; see my three examples above. Equinox 23:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Equinox ! I only lightly glanced over the entirety of the conversation. My bad :\ Leasnam (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Leasnam: So, will you maintain your keep anyway? Canonicalization (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

bad-looking

SOP. See also Wiktionary:Tea room/2019/June § bad-looking. Canonicalization (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

My only objection with deleting this entry is that the bad in bad-looking really only ever refers to one specific sense of bad apart from all of the others--the one being "unfavourable, not good" as it pertains to appearance. Thus bad-looking means "not good-looking/unattractive". It never means "appearing as though one would be mischievous or inclined to misbehave (i.e. "be bad")" as in "I don't want to adopt that child...that child is bad-looking" (= that child looks as though he/she would never listen to me, i.e. that child looks like they're always going to act like a bad kid). Nor does it ever mean "appearing evil" as in "yeah, that guy is a really bad-looking guy" (= that guy looks as though he would do you harm due to his hateful or evil nature); same with bad-looking food, it's not food that is evidently unhealthy to the eye, it's food that is simply unattractive and unappealing. So although bad-looking is technically SoP, one wouldn't know instinctively which sense of bad is meant, and thus would not know the meaning without the entry to expound on it. We need to keep it for that reason alone imo. Leasnam (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, keep, although I looked askance at it. DonnanZ (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

time's up

Tagged by WF but not listed. — surjection?〉 13:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added a reference to Merriam-Webster, which I found rather tricky because of the hyphen. I would think it refers to allotted time, such as in an exam room, more than a deadline. I would keep this anyway, it's potentially idiomatic. DonnanZ (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn’t see a hyphen at M–W, so I have removed it. The fact that the phrase is used by way of a full sentence, without determiner, underlines its idiomaticity. Keep.  --Lambiam 12:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I meant apostrophe, my mistake. Thanks for fixing it. DonnanZ (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep. Canonicalization (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Kept. WF was probably trolling when RFD'ing the entry. Or possibly when creating the entry. Unlikely, though now impossible, also trolling when closing the RFD...--ReloadtheMatrix (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

rooftop

Um, it's used attributively, and not an adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete per Donnanz. Canonicalization (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

bars

Imprisonment; prison.

I know of no expression using bars in which these terms are substitutable. Taking the usage example: *"behind imprisonment"; *"behind prison". DCDuring (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

As there is an entry for behind bars, which I would keep, it can be redirected or referred to that. I think sense 4 also needs to be looked at. DonnanZ (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I will RFD sense 4. Mihia (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Per the Tea Room discussion, this definition isn't quite right IMO, but I believe that there is a figurative usage beyond just the expression "behind bars". For example, in the expression "prison bars", which was at one point also given as an example of this sense, "bars" is usually more-or-less figurative. "bars" is also used figuratively to mean something that constrains one in e.g. "The bars that imprison you can be walked through by having faith in God's promises"[94] and similar uses. More ideally, we can find some examples similar to this where the full figurative burden falls on "bars", without helpers like "imprison". I think this kind of usage probably deserves an entry, either under "bars", or under "bar" labelled "plural", but not with the definition that we presently have. Mihia (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Bars can naturally be used as a pars pro toto for an assemblage in which bars play a prominent role, so “prison bars” is not simply the plural of “prison bar”, but is formed by applying the attribute “prison” to the plural form “bars”. I think that in the idiom “behind bars” this is understood to be specifically short for “behind prison bars”, which longer form is also occasionally found. And then “behind (prison) bars” is used more figuratively for “being imprisoned”. (For similar figurative uses of a prepositional phrase, see on the rails and on wheels.) I do not think this justifies the sense “imprisonment; prison” here; that is too much of a jump. Likewise, the French idiom derrière les barreaux and the German idiom hinter Gittern have not given rise to assigning such a sense to barreaux and Gittern. Ergo, Delete.  --Lambiam 11:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom and per Lambiam, unless this can be used generally, outside of the set phrase mentioned (which is perhaps an RFV matter), like *"the judge sentenced him to eight years of bars". IN that case, I would reconsider, but not automatically switch to keep, since as Lambiam suggests, some pars pro toto use can be expected of most terms. - -sche (discuss) 22:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

public wiki

DTLHS (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 16:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 23:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

private wiki

DTLHS (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 16:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 23:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

protected wiki

DTLHS (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see this as a really specialised sense of protected like in object-oriented programming. It's just that the nature of "protecting" a wiki tends to be limiting its editorship. Equinox 16:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 23:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

bars (2)

Sense 4:

Grating, grid (if crossed), grill (on a door or window)

Not a separate sense, just the usual plural of appropriate sense of "bar". The present usage example "prison bars" is typically an example of a more-or-less figurative use of "bars"; see #bars above. See also Wiktionary:Tea_room/2019/October#bars. Mihia (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete, not a separate sense.  --Lambiam 09:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete per proponent. Canonicalization (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

dear sir

SOP.​—msh210 (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep. I do not think combining the meanings of the parts allows one to conclude that this is a dated formal salutation used in letters.  --Lambiam 10:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Move to the appendix called "How we used to write letters before Twitter". Equinox 10:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear Sir Equinox, maybe Twitter should be scrapped. I'm inclined to keep this. And "Dear sir or madam" is/was used when you don't know who is going to read the letter. DonnanZ (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
You're an idiot. And Twitter should definitely be scrapped. Equinox 05:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete. There are lots of common phrases which are not words, and thus not the domain of a dictionary. If we wanted to document all sentences and sentence fragments this might have a place here. - TheDaveRoss 16:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 ? We have lots of entries that are common phrases which are not words (e.g. I told you so, and your little dog too, beware of the dog, bowler hat out, cooking with gas, could have fooled me, dot or feather, down with, fair is fair, goose is cooked, in love with, leave me alone, mother of all, not your father's, one thing led to another, rumor has it, that'll be the day, what's up with, who knew, you're telling me).  --Lambiam 18:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
This is not a noun. It's a phrase --Vealhurl (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
For me, this is an obvious keep. John Cross (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Inclined to keep per Lambiam. Falls in the same category as other conventional formulas largely restricted to particular narrow usage contexts, like once upon a time, to whom it may concern, etc. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 05:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

wine bottle

SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Definition made me cry laughing. Are bottles normally made of glass? and not wood? well fuck me. Delete. Equinox 10:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I’ve seen plastic wine bottles.  --Lambiam 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
And you will see plenty of (full) plastic cider bottles in an off-licence. DonnanZ (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep due to typical characteristic shape/appearance/material. Mihia (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
If using that criteria, then there should be Alsace bottle, Bordeaux bottle, Burgundy bottle, Champagne bottle, Port bottle, and Provence bottle (with or without capitals as appropriate), each of which has its own distinctive shape.[95] -Mike (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not personally familiar with all of those, but if the regional ones have some distinctive or recognisable characteristic besides merely coming from that region, and the type-of-drink ones have a distinctive or recognisable characteristic besides just containing the stated type of drink, then they are eligible for inclusion IMO. Mihia (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
comment: a wine bottle is not a bottle of wine. --Vealhurl (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep as translation target. Also have edited def to incorporate some of the characteristic features of a wine bottle. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

beer bottle

SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 10:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Beer bottles generally have a different size and shape to wine bottles, and not forgetting milk bottles which are also different. Maybe some images would be useful. DonnanZ (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I could see this and the abovementioned entry meeting the fried egg test. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep due to typical characteristic shape/appearance/material. I would say that water bottle probably has less claim than either wine bottle or beer bottle, since AFAIK there is nothing distinctive about a water bottle except that it contains water (or, as the entry helpfully informs us, "other drinks"). Mihia (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I ought to add, of course, that the present definition, "A bottle designed to contain beer", is pure SoP and does not explain any additional distinguishing characteristics that might make it otherwise. Mihia (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

for fun

Deleted per previous RFD. I'd like to restore/undelete this. It seems sufficiently idiomatic, it's found in several other dictionaries, and it would be useful for hosting translations. See also for a laugh / for laughs (which I've created, admittedly), Talk:for kicks. Canonicalization (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

From a translation viewpoint I can see that this is valuable. It is a unit. Doing something "for fun". So at the very least it should be in phrasebook. Regarding the entry I will boringly abstain. Equinox 10:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I note it is included in the OED: for fun (or for the fun of it) - in order to amuse oneself and not for any more serious purpose: I paint a bit for fun. Let's keep it. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    • A keep for me. --Vealhurl (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Undelete (=Keep) per WT:LEMMING: M-W[96], Lexico[97]. As for translations and WT:THUB, none were mentioned so I can't tell; some uses would be translated into Czech as pro zábavu, other uses probably as z legrace, none of which is terribly supportive of WT:THUB. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

opening

"Pertaining to the start or beginning of a series of events." This is arguably just the present participle of open (to enter upon, begin). — surjection?〉 16:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Surjection, very true. I added this sense, though, because it can be used adjectivally, as the example that I have provided illustrates, and not just as a verbal participle, as in: "The venue doors were just opening as I arrived." I am no expert here, and am eager to have feedback on this point of grammar.
The quote which is provided for the sense begins, "The opening act of the battle for Fort Sumter". In that case 'opening' can be defined simply as 'that which opens' which is the same form of definition that every participle has when used as an adjective. So I would delete the sense as being normal non-idiomatic usage of a participle. -Mike (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
It fails the usual (but not definitive) adjectivality test of being gradable: whereas you can say, “his statement was very eye-opening”, you can’t say, *“his statement was very opening”. I’m not too sure about the cricket senses either; isn‘t the opening batsman simply the batsman who opens (the innings), just like the starting quarterback is the quarterback who starts (the play)? Inasmuch as this is idiomatic, it is the participle–noun combination, not the participle by itself, just like we have an entry for opening statement.  --Lambiam 07:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added three references where it is listed as an adjective. It fails Lambiam's test because it's attributive, and that type of adjective doesn't have to be gradable. There is an entry for eye-opening, by the way. DonnanZ (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If examples were no more than "opening door" = "door that is/was opening", I would say delete per Mike, but my view is that uses such as "opening remarks" or "opening act" are just about distinct or non-generic enough to warrant this entry, so keep.
    I will add that there is an Adjective pos entry for closing, and logicially if one exists then the other should too. -Mike (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

100s

"Temperatures ranging from 100 to 109 degrees Fahrenheit." Delete on the grounds that (i) "100s" can refer to any hundred-something values, not just temperature, and not just Fahrenheit temperature; (ii) the 100-109 range isn't even accurate (see high hundreds = "towards 200" not "towards 109"); (iii) furthermore, any round number can take the -s to indicate a range between that round number and the next one of comparable scale (e.g. "the population of this city is in the hundreds of thousands"): it's a general rule of language/grammar more than a lexical item. Equinox 03:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

We have the same temperature-related sense for 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s etc. I'm wondering if the thinking may be that these are idiomatic as they can be used without direct reference to the type of quantity, e.g. "It reached the 90s today", whereas we do not say e.g. "This village is in the hundreds" to refer to population. Whether this is sufficient to justify the entries, I'm not sure. Also, the same argument applies to any individual number in a sensible range, e.g. "It reached 95 today". Mihia (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom (the phrase is misdefined) and per Mihia's point that this also applies to the singular numbers like 95. - -sche (discuss) 20:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

hushed culture

SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it the culture that is being hushed (like an oppressed or subdued culture), or is it a culture in which some taboo topic is hushed, so that a more appropriate term would have been hushing culture (like an oppressive culture)? In the former case, the definition is not quite right. In the latter case, I don’t think this is a clear SOP.  --Lambiam 14:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe I would have correctly guessed what this meant without the definition. I might have thought it was about e.g. censorship rather than taboos. Equinox 01:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, provided verified. Non-obvious from parts. Mihia (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. It looks obvious to me in the context of contemporary social science writing. DCDuring (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Should we assume that Wiktionary users are so familiar with contemporary social science writing? Mihia (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mihia: I myself am not, but I'm sure if you read that in context (and I mean completely in context, without having Wiktionary in mind), you wouldn't bat an eyelid, and wouldn't ever think of checking it in a dictionary.
It doesn't even seem to be a state-of-the-art term (there's exactly one Google books hit for "'hushed' culture"). Where the author got his definition, I don't know. It seems to me we're making it sound like more than it is, and that this 'term' is simply not all it's cracked up to be.
Also, sorry to indulge in ad hominem, but I advise you to check his other contributions, for example here or here.
All of this is making me very queasy. @Lambiam, Equinox, Andrew Sheedy. Canonicalization (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The passage from that one GBS hit is as follows:
“From an Aboriginal perspective, the library appears to be almost a ‘whitefella sacred site’. When people go inside it is as if they are going into a church. There is a ‘hushed’ culture, where everyone is very quiet. It has a spiritual atmosphere, a place of meditative contemplation. There are a lot of ‘secrets’ which some people know about (the catalogue systems, the ways of placing books, how people take notes), and others from outside have great difficulty understanding and entering this sacred cosmology.”
This has virtually nothing to do with the definition of the entry. It just means a cultural convention that is in force in a place where, by that convention, one doesn’t speak with a loud voice. So the situation is that we have not even a single book hit. From the quotations on the page I cannot distill a clear meaning. In the first one, I interpret “hushed culture” much like “oppressed culture’ – a culture that is forced to remain hidden. In the second and third there are taboo topics, but in the last one I think the taboo topic is not “sexual violence” but a “culture of sexual violence”, which is both complicated and hushed, so then this does not fit the definition either. I am not at all convinced that the term is commonly used and understood in certain circles to mean what we are told it means; the uses we see seem to be the result of somewhat accidental juxtapositions of the terms hushed and culture in a variety of meanings.  --Lambiam 17:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
When I say keep "provided verified", I mean keep if it is verified that this is a known phrase with the defined meaning, not merely (per Lambiam) an ad hoc juxtaposition of words that one makes sense of as best one can within a context. Mihia (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, we can send it back to RFV (and likely get a scolding from User:Kiwima). Canonicalization (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't scold, do I? The three cites in the entry were chosen because they support the definition. Yes, there is a variety of other meanings as well. That is not definitive one way or the other - lots of idiomatic phrases include other, literal uses. All that aside, I am abstaining from this discussion, as I don't have strong feelings either way. Kiwima (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per above. It's meaning doesn't seem immediately clear to me. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    Changed to delete per more recent edits. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The citation given by Lambiam says ‘hushed’ culture (note the quote marks), suggesting the author feels he/she is coining a phrase rather than using an established one. Equinox 01:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete, no fixed established meaning.  --Lambiam 01:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

O for

"Preposition" defined as a sentence, with a non-gloss supplemental definition: "I wish that I had; may there be granted; elliptically expressing desire or prayer."

It seems transparently O + for. DCDuring (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how it is SoP. You can't say it without O, can you? You can't just say "for a horse"! — Note we also have oh for, but without this sense (!). Equinox 01:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Any idea what the etymology of the sports senses of oh for is? For the wish, there are also the variants O! for and Oh! for. Webster 1913 glosses O for as “would that I had; may there be granted; — elliptically expressing desire or prayer”. The collocation is not really a preposition in the grammatical sense.  --Lambiam 07:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Presumably "oh" means zero (as in phone numbers etc.). It reminds me of the cricketing phrase "X for Y" (X runs for Y wickets). Apparently "X for Y" means "X successes out of Y attempts" generally. Equinox 15:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Grammatically, "O for" does not seem to me to be a single phrase or unit of meaning, yet, as Equinox points out, "O for X" does not seem to merely mean "O" + "for x". It is a bit of a puzzle. Mihia (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Anyone remember that song: Oh To Be In Love? --Vealhurl (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Weak delete, since "ah for" ("Ah! for wings to soar") and "oh but for" ("Oh! but for a message from thee, dear love, Oh! but for a word, one word") and other variations exist. If we don't just view it as simple ellipsis of "I wish" prior to "for", and instead wanted to cover it somewhere, we could cover it in "for". - -sche (discuss) 20:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • FYI, I have added a new sense at for:
Indicating something desired or anticipated.
O for the wings of a dove.
And now for a slap-up meal!
Mihia (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Carriage and Insurance Paid to

So, it's an incoterm. For some reason, it doesn't seem like I want this in my dictionary. Plus, it was made by Wonderfool pretending to be someone who knew something about international business (he had no idea). Also, we could probably delete and/or revise a few other incoterms on WT - probably some mistakes in them. --Vealhurl (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Carriage Paid To

SOPpy Incoterm --Vealhurl (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep syntax of use not transparent. Object of to is a destination, not a payee. DCDuring (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding:

Delivered Duty Paid

Keep Syntax of use not transparent. Supposed to be followed by a place. DCDuring (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Ex Works

Keep Syntax of use not transparent. Supposed to be followed by a place. DCDuring (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Free Carrier

Keep Not obvious what either component term means DCDuring (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete all. It is sufficient that we have the abbreviations (CIP etc.).  --Lambiam 14:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Equinox 15:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete all. Canonicalization (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • These votes appear to be arbitrary expressions of dislike for commercial activity. Applying normal lexicographic tests should be how we determine inclusion. DCDuring (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep all per DCDuring. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

risk one's life and limb

SOP: risk + life and limb. risk one's life or risk one's neck could be used as a translation target, though. Canonicalization (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete. It doesn't strike me as even a set phrase- that would be "risk life and limb". Perhaps a move would be in order. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
There are occasional uses of risk one’s life and limb ([98], [99], [100]), which I think is a mildly distorted variant of risk life and limb. The simplest solution is to move the current entry to the more proper term risk life and limb and redefine the entry under discussion as an alternative form.  --Lambiam 19:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I've done just that, though I've labeled risk one's life and limb as a misconstruction rather than a mere alternative form; if you think that's too strong, feel free to edit.
I still think it's a bit silly to have both life and limb and risk life and limb, but fair enough; there are many other cases like this one (sometimes of my doing, even). Canonicalization (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Moving/merging with risk life and limb is fine, but I'd like to point out this kind of phrase is often not literal. Astronauts for example, who actually risk life and limb are rarely said to be doing so. The example on life and limb is "Those kids are risking life and limb when they go inside that old abandoned house: it might collapse on their heads." which doesn't seem very literal either. The phrase is more of a deterrent to stop the children. They could cut themselves, fall or get bitten by a raccoon or something, but it's unlikely the house will actually collapse and kill them. They are much more likely to fall down the stairs at home. (that's a comforting thought, isn't it?) The phrase is generally used as a deterrent or to emphasize how heroic someone's actions are or were. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Kept. Canonicalization (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

stuff (2)

RFD sense 12:

1. (transitive) To fill by packing or crowding something into; to cram with something; to load to excess.
I'm going to stuff this pillow with feathers.
2. (transitive) To fill a space with (something) in a compressed manner.
He stuffed his clothes into the closet and shut the door.
....
12. (transitive) To form or fashion by packing with the necessary material.
  • Jonathan Swift
An Eastern king put a judge to death for an iniquitous sentence, and ordered his hide to be stuffed into a cushion, and placed upon the tribunal.

Sense 12 quotation and definition are mismatched, but whichever way round it's supposed to be, it seems redundant to senses 1/2 ... unless we want to make a distinction between forming/fashioning something by stuffing and other types of stuffing?? If deleted, quotation can be moved to sense 2. Mihia (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The quotation is ambiguous; the judge’s skin could have been used as the filling of a cushion, or it could have served as the cushion case, to be stuffed with horse hair or whatever. I assume that Swift, in his letter to the Right Honourable the Lord Viscount Molesworth, meant the latter, which is confirmed by the original account of Herodotus in Histories 5.25.2 (and Samuel Johnson agrees). So then poor Sisamnes’s hide was indeed fashioned into a cushion, meaning there is no mismatch. I think it does make sense to make a distinction between the senses of “forming/fashioning by stuffing” and of stuffing without the objective of giving form.  --Lambiam 12:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, looking again, I think you may be correct. In ordinary modern usage, if something is "stuffed into a cushion" it means that that thing becomes the stuffing, but it seems that this may not be the intended meaning in this quotation. Mihia (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Further to the above, it seems to me that, if the quotation read "stuffed and made into a cushion", it would be the usual sense 1. The pillow is stuffed with feathers; his hide is stuffed with whatever. So the distinctiveness of this usage is perhaps the phrase "stuffed into" rather than the verb "stuff" per se. Mihia (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

indolent lesion of epithelial origin

SoP? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  • How is it SOP? lesions are not just cancers, whereas this term only applies to cancers. It also dosen't use the sense listed as medical at indolent (it is not "slowly healing"). -- 67.70.33.184 07:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    In the article in which the use of this term (together with its acronym IDLE) as new diagnostic terminology was recommended, it was proposed to be used not only for indolent lesions that are cancerous disorders of epithelial origin – currently classified as carcinomas – but also their precursors, among which the article specifically mentions Barrett’s oesophagus and atypical naevi. So it is not quite correct to state that this term “only applies to cancers”. The sense of indolent here, often used in the combination indolent lesion in medical terminology, is of course sense 3, “(medicine) causing little or no physical pain; progressing slowly; inactive (of an ulcer, etc.)”. The meaning of the term per se is not in any way new or surprising; what is new is the recommendation to use it in order to avoid unnecessary interventions and patient worrying.  --Lambiam 08:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    Though that still does not cover "lesion", as it only covers some conditions that can lead to cancers, and that are cancers, and not say, TBI lesions of the dura mater, parasitic worm skin lesions, and such. -- 67.70.33.184 05:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    Which, to my non-medically trained eye, don't seem to be lesions "of epithelial origin".--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    The skin is epithelial tissue, and dura mater is epithelial tissue, so the original tissue concerned with the lesion is epithelial. Though if a cancer was caused by a toxin or a virus, and classified as an IDLE, it would under your interpretation, also not be of epithelial origin, either? -- 67.70.33.184 06:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that IDLE should be treated the same as a term such as DCIS. There isn't an entry for ductal carcinoma in situ, and I think it is better handled as an encyclopedia article. The abbreviation links to the individual words (though I think it could link to the Wikipedia article instead, or in addition). When I do a Google search for "indolent lesion of epithelial origin", I only get 102 results, and they mostly seem to be discussing the proposed term. I guess I would just pose this question: Is it actually wide-spread in usage enough to justify its inclusion in a dictionary? And is the mere proposal of a term enough justification? -Mike (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC) [an amusing sidebar]
    • Well, but people do not want to edit on Wikipedia, they just want a definition on Wiktionary according to its dynamics, and I don’t see a harm in it much more than in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, oral mucositis. Original creator thought about it being SOP but he decided that it isn’t, tenably. Fay Freak (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
      These are all term commonly used by doctors for diagnoses. It is not clear doctors actually use the term indolent lesion of epithelial origin (or IDLE) for that purpose.  --Lambiam 22:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
      Keep. Lack of attestation is an RfV matter. How could we delete this without seeing whether and how it is used? If the attestation shows it to be NISoP, then we can delete it. DCDuring (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Harlequin romance

The entry tries to make this sound like a generic term, but in fact all the citations could be about romances actually published by the Harlequin company. Equinox 22:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

They could be, but they're not. DTLHS (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, for all of the citations. It's true that "looks like the heroine on a Harlequin Romance cover" isn't referring to any specific H~ romance in existence, but it still means "a romance actually published by Harlequin". Compare "this sounds like a Beatles album" (not a specific named existing one, but still SoP meaning a real album the Beatles would produce). Equinox 00:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I have heard this used as a generic term on several occasions, and see no reason to believe that the quotations are referring to a specific publisher. Keep. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
There are many GBS hits for “straight out of a Dickens novel” in which Dickens novel should not be taken literally – one shouldn’t ask, “Oh, which one?” – but, nevertheless, we should not have an entry defining this as a generic term with the sense “a novel set in the Victorian era characterized by realism, humor, satire, and keen observation of character and society”. If Harlequin romance truly has a generic meaning that merits inclusion, it should be attestable by actual references of use in an unambiguously generic sense. If such are not forthcoming, Delete.  --Lambiam 08:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
My feeling, generally speaking, is that we should include definitions of terms that are commonly used for their associations, where these associations may be non-obvious. How far this applies to Harlequin romance / Dickens novel is a matter of judgement. Mihia (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Many collocations (such as British politeness, Christmas morning, Florida swamp, Siberian winter) are commonly used and evoke associations; yet their meanings, although evocative, remain literal and SOP. Only when their meanings become figurative or generic should we include these.  --Lambiam 13:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
If any of those examples have conventional associations that are non-obvious from the literal words, then we should include them as entries, in my opinion. For example, I do not know any non-obvious associations for "Florida swamp". If any such exist, and I were to read such, for example in a US publication, then I would wish to be able to look this up. Mihia (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
So what you're basically asking for is for every single cultural reference to be a dictionary entry: "this is a Bill Clinton-style policy", "this is a Franz Kafka-like plot twist", etc. etc. No, we can't go that far. That is not lexical. There is a point where you need to have some understanding of the world around you. Equinox 05:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm only talking about fixed, conventional associations that may not be clear with ordinary knowledge of the subject. For example, I can guess that a "Siberian winter" is very cold, arduous, dismal etc. from common knowledge. I wouldn't expect that to need mentioning in a dictionary. However, if something is commonly described as a "Siberian winter" to mean something non-obvious from common knowledge about Siberia and winter then I would wish to be able to look that up. Obviously judgement is required as to where to draw the line, but that is true of almost all aspects of our entries. Mihia (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
There is some "creep" going on here. Suppose that we agree to include "Harlequin romance" because that particular romance is very famous. Fine. But my point still stands: it doesn't have a generic sense; rather we are talking about it in the specific sense (ACTUAL real romances published by Harlequin) and expecting readers to know what those are. Equinox 05:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Weak delete, per Equinox. I think the comparison to "sounds like a [such-and-such band] song" is apt; looking at the citations in the entry, "looks like the heroine on a Harlequin Romance cover" is clearly of the same sort (looks like the heroine on one of Harlequin's romance covers), "She might as well have written a Harlequin romance" again means she could've written a romance for Harlequin, because she wrote romances of their type. Possibly we could solve this by creating an entry at Harlequin (noting that they typically publish romances of type X) and redirecting the entry thither. - -sche (discuss)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

retiring

Adjective: "About to retire from work. Today is the party for our retiring co-workers."

This seems to me to be the participle of retire. I don't believe that this sense unambiguously meets the adjectivity criteria. DCDuring (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Delete. The same can be said of the first two senses given for dying#Adjective, while the third one is the attributive use of the gerund.  --Lambiam 08:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it does not meet the criteria for a "true" adjective, but I wonder whether a case could be made for keeping it anyway, to contrast with the other, true-adjective sense. For example, someone (possibly a non-native speaker) encounters the phrase "our retiring co-workers", concludes that "retiring" is an adjective, looks up the adjective, and finds that it means "introverted, liking privacy and seclusion". On the other hand, I suppose this logic would potentially require us to include entries corresponding to various other senses of "retire", so perhaps it is not such a good idea after all. Mihia (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Where we mention the sense as present participle, as we do at abiding, consenting, disheartening, exciting, hissing, hunting, overpowering, revealing, yielding, ..., we present this separately under the POS heading Verb. This also solves the issue of multiple senses of the verb.  --Lambiam 08:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, yes, of course. However that wasn't my point. My point was to do with present participle potentially appearing adjectival. Mihia (talk)
My point is that, rather in general, grammatically challenged native and non-native speakers alike may misconstrue such present participles, in particular when used attributively (like consenting here), as adjectives; yet this is IMO not a valid argument to list that sense under an erroneous POS. Listing it under Verb may help to enlighten such users.  --Lambiam 12:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

singular they

Is this SOP? Many (any?) pronouns which are commonly used in both the singular and the plural can be distinguished this way, like also google books:"the singular you" and "the plural you"; in another vein one can speak of google books:"the formal you" and "the informal you". I can even find a hit for "Equality's use of the “singular 'we'” has long since become familiar to the reader" (2005, Robert Mayhew, Essays on Ayn Rand's Anthem (→ISBN), page 109), although that seems to be more often referred to by phrases like "royal we"/"editorial we"/"authorial we", which I'm not RFDing because they seem more opaque. - -sche (discuss) 06:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep for me. Since "they" is traditionally plural, its use for singular referents is something that is commonly discussed in grammar/ling/education etc. If one doesn't know this lexical history, the term is pretty opaque. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Keep I still run into people who mistakenly think that singular usage is erroneous. Tharthan (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. Would the two of you want to have singular you as well? (Citations at the Google Books link in my earlier comment.) Do you find singular you opaque? - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
On further investigation, it seems that the pronoun in such cases (whether you, they, we, or whatever) is marked by being in quotes or italics or something like that (e.g. "the singular they"), so this seems to indicates that it is not a compound noun. So, I change my vote to Delete. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I just realised that this is an RfD for singular they, and not one for the singular sense of they. I, too, change my vote to Delete. Tharthan (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Noteworthy set phrase that people are likely to want to look up. Should strictly be listed as singular they or singular "they", but I don't know whether we can accommodate this at Wiktionary. Mihia (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

ghost corridor

"A corridor of a building that has been connected to supposed ghostly activity." Sum of parts. Note that the given citation is for "ghost's corridor". Equinox 14:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Per "retiring" above, I do feel there is a possible case for including a potentially SoP entry when a non-SoP entry is also listed. Someone could look up a "ghost corridor" that was intended in the "haunted house" sense, and get terribly confused. The logic for keeping this is IMO just as strong as the "coalmine" argument. Mihia (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I believe the way we usually handle this is with {{&lit}}, as on dead president. Delete and add {{&lit}} in its place. - -sche (discuss) 04:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Per dead president, the entry would then read "Used other than with a figurative or idiomatic meaning: see ghost, corridor". I am not completely sure that users would readily understand from this the meaning "A corridor of a building that has been connected to supposed ghostly activity". Mihia (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

hiring spree

SOP. I'd argue that the other sprees (spending spree, shooting spree, killing spree) are SOP too, but at least they have the lemming and translation hub arguments going for them. Canonicalization (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete. - TheDaveRoss 16:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

take it like a man

SOP: take + like a man. Also, "it" can be substituted with a variety of objects ("he took the news like a man"). Canonicalization (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Also, “he bore the pain like a man” and so on.  --Lambiam 09:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete, DCDuring (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

-town

This is merely town used as a combining form in place names. In fact it is separable, as in Canning Town, Kentish Town. However, I think the form -ton is acceptable as a suffix. DonnanZ (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete once -town no longer appears in etymology tempates. —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talkcontribs) at 19:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC).

vertuuus

Only passed RfV because it was allegedly used in a well-known work (though that well known work is not explicitly in the citations). We have removed the "well-known work" exception to our attestation standards. DCDuring (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Next to the theory of the second u being an o unclosed at the top (see the earlier deletion discussion), this source notes (on page 338) that the u–o spelling variant is common. Can’t we simply treat this as an obsolete variant spelling of obsolete vertuous?  --Lambiam 21:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
This seems like an RFV matter. Old Man Consequences (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I see now that the entry has an L2 of English, while the text in which the word is attested, Sir Gawayn and þe Grene Knyȝt, is actually Middle English. Does Middle English qualify as an LDL? The passage in the poem is as followeth:
Whyle þe wlonkeſt wedes he warp on hȳ ſeluen,
His cote, wyth þe conyſaūce of þe clere werkeʒ
Ennurned vpon veluet vˀtuuꝰ ſtoneʒ
Aboute beten, & boūden, enbrauded ſemeʒ,
& fayre furred wt īne wyth fayre pelures.
The first smaller superscript that looks like a small ʔ is a scribal abbreviation for “er”, and the second, , is a scribal abbreviation for “us”. Some editors (e.g. Tolkien) have assumed that this was miswritten for “vˀtuꝰ” – the scribe had already written the second “u” before they realized they should use an abbreviation. So in that case it is a misspelling of vertuus.  --Lambiam 19:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Middle English is not on the list of Well documented languages, so it is a LDL.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Then Keep, but change L2 to Middle English.  --Lambiam 13:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Sonic SatAM

Not sure I've done this right, but I don't think this should be in a dictionary —This unsigned comment was added by Snizzbut (talk • contribs) at 03:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC).

Dictionary entries in a dictionary? That's way past cool. Entries for random television shows in a dictionary? That's no good.
In all seriousness, though: I agree with the nominator, per Equinox's comment a few RfDs above this one. Delete. I am only speaking for myself on this, of course. Perhaps Equinox (and/or someone else) feel(s) that this merits inclusion purely because it is slang terminology used in the Sonic the Hedgehog fan community. Even if it is deemed to indeed merit inclusion, it ought to have two more durably-archived citations. I would think that that wouldn't be too difficult, as it appears to have been used for a fairly long time in that community. Tharthan (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I can see a case for having it as an abbreviation. (It's not an "in-universe" term of course.) I don't have very strong feelings about it! Possibly comparable: TNG (Star Trek: The Next Generation), NuWho (recent revival of Doctor Who series). Equinox 01:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete, of course. Canonicalization (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

point of no return

"The moment when orgasm is felt to be inevitable."

This seems to be a direct application of one of the general senses. There are plenty of citations to refer to. DCDuring (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete, just sense 2 applied to some specific situation. Examples of the term meaning “inevitability of war” rather than “inevitability of orgasm” by its application to the path leading from peace to war can be found in the discussion at Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English#point of no return. Here we see the term applied to the complete gravitational collapse of a star, becoming a black hole. Here it is the inevitability of the wrath of the Lord strafing those who persist in their folly. Here it is the inevitable decline of civilization brought about by our collective ecological folly. Many of such specialized applications are attested through three or more uses, much like the term cup can be attested as used for a tea cup, a coffee cup, and so on. Yet these are not senses that warrant separate definitions. Sense 1 is worth retaining because it is the original, literal sense; the others are a figure of speech.  --Lambiam 09:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with Lambiam. This may be a cliche in porn, but it is still just a case of definition 1. Kiwima (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Sense 2 seems sufficient for everything and could be argued to be SoP... Equinox 23:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@Equinox: Do you mean we could delete the aviation sense too (I agree, or at least I don't see why it should get a pass if this doesn't... unless it's the source of the figurative generic sense, but I have my doubts), and possibly the whole entry (that seems a bit much)? Canonicalization (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't know enough about aviation to say, but yeah, it does just seem to be the point at which return is no longer possible. Couldn't one use the same term about (say) a car journey, when one has gone so far beyond the last petrol station that it is impossible to drive back for more petrol? Equinox 03:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I vote to keep the aviation-specific sense as it is non-obvious that the reason one cannot return is because of fuel. I abstain on the "orgasm" sense. I never look at pornography, so I don't know anything about that. Mihia (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete if the aviation sense is deleted too, keep if not. Canonicalization (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

continental Europe

SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  • There are at least two large islands in Europe which aren't continental, namely Britain and Ireland, although we have Brexiteers who seemingly want to deny all knowledge of continental Europe. Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Please explain how what you've just written is a reason for keeping, or indeed has anything to do with the issue at hand. Canonicalization (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
You shouldn't need to ask. It has a different meaning to plain old Europe, Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, Southern Europe and Western Europe. DonnanZ (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete per Donnanz. I think his justification illustrates that this is simply SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Um, I said keep. DonnanZ (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe "per" was the wrong word. But I meant that your comment convinced me that it was SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to keep this. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks SOP to me. As to the one quote on the 2nd definition, I don't know how anyone can really assume it means something more than what is in the first definition. -Mike (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
So you think that the author of the quotation at sense 2 meant to exclude the leaders of Cyprus, Malta and the Republic of Ireland from the leaders of Europe who concur with Juncker.  --Lambiam 09:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
This is sloppy language, but do we really need to record that? Canonicalization (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not even sure about that. Maybe he didn't mean to exclude those countries; he simply didn't pay them any mind. Canonicalization (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Besides Ireland, Malta and Cyprus being islands and therefore not continental, it can be argued that Cyprus is not actually in Europe. DonnanZ (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
What I think is there is a possibility that loosely it could be defined as political Europe led by the larger continental countries as distinct from Great Britain, and maybe others, but it isn't really obvious by that quotation, especially since it then mentions Angela Merkel. I think there would need to be more citations to prove it isn't just a single writer's lone instance of usage. -Mike (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I am inclined to keep this, at least for the sense used in the UK, provided we can agree exactly what that sense is. At the moment the definition reads "The European countries excepting Great Britain", but is Ireland really considered part of "continental Europe"? My feeling is that it means Europe excepting the British Isles, and whether it strictly includes other European islands is unknown/undefined/unimportant. Also, "Great Britain" is not a country anyway. Mihia (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

DDMMYYYY

As I'm not happy about how the discussion for DDMMYY turned out, I'm gonna RFD this one too. --Vealhurl (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Commonly used in running text in collocations such as "DDMMYYYY format". Probably best defined as a noun. DCDuring (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The non-gloss definition gives the example of 02/04/2011, presumably for 2 April 2011, but that format is usually denoted as “DD/MM/YYYY”. This is utterly confusing; look at the question posed here. In DDMMYYYY format it should be “02042011”; for more examples see the inset with the heading “References in periodicals archive” here. It looks like this is also the dominant meaning in the sparse durably archived uses, such as e.g. here. Where can we find the discussion for DDMMYY?  --Lambiam 08:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 11:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I must admin my nomination was a form of mild trolling - I was a little drunk when editing last night...--Vealhurl (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete - not a word. - TheDaveRoss 13:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep - I'm not sure what it is, but it definitely exists in various texts. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Treat the same as DDMMYY, however that one came out. bd2412 T 05:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • In case that is too oblique to parse, I mean keep. bd2412 T 04:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons laid out at DDMMYY Purplebackpack89 22:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Ludgate Hill

No reason in the entry to suggest this is dictionary material. It has an interesting etymology, perhaps... But so does "Bob Avenue" - a street in my neighbourhood named for Bob, who got run over by a truck on the street. --Vealhurl (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I thought all street names are to be included too, like all place names. Every hill in Rome, Madison Avenue, etc. Only that we do not have sufficient means to disambiguate often-used names as with coordinates (there would be hundreds or thousands of Schillerstraße). Fay Freak (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Street names are not listed in the section Names of specific entities of WT:CFI as a kind of names to be included or excluded. Therefore the following sentence applies: “The editors have not yet reached a consensus as to whether or not the names of places and geographic features other than those listed above should be included in Wiktionary.” I give the term more chance of being kept as being not only the name of a street, but also (and more originally) of the mound on which St. Paul’s Cathedral was built, considered “one of London’s three most ancient hills”, the other two being Cornhill and Tower Hill. As to the etymology, the name comes from the historical Ludgate, an actual gate in the defensive wall around (the City of) London first built by the Romans; it was demolished in 1760.  --Lambiam 08:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The problem is, we don't have a notability criterion and there are enough street names in the world to crowd out just about everything else. For every Ludgate Hill, there are thousands of Main Streets and Third Streets, and countless variations on Oak, Elm, Maple, Hill, Valley, Lake, Central, West, East, etc. If you're ever bored, try typing random English words into Google followed by "road" or "street", and see what comes up. Some of my favorites: Dork Street, Flounder Road, Peuse Road, Pancake Road, Sponge Road, Peep Road, Carrot Road, Plotz Road, Weasel Road, Drain Road, Sprat St... All of these bring up a Google Maps display (at least in the US, they do). As for Bob Avenue: there are at least four of those- in Rosedale, California (not far from Calamity Lane), Wichita Falls, Texas, Muskegan, Michigan and Canal Fulton, Ohio. I'm sure many of these also have some kind of interesting story, but the information that makes Third Street distinct from Lemming Street (which is in Lakewood, California, by the way) is all encyclopedic. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
My favourites are Warning Tongue(s) Lane, in Bessacarr near Doncaster, and There and Back Again Lane in Bristol. Oh, and Powder Mill Lane, in Whitton near here, was named after the gunpowder mills that used to be nearby until they blew up. DonnanZ (talk) 10:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Ludgate Hill is not the name of the area it's in, just a thoroughfare, unlike Muswell Hill and Denmark Hill which are both suburbs and thoroughfares. I would keep this anyway, like Broadway, Downing Street, Fleet Street, Main Street and other entries of this genre. DonnanZ (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
All the examples of streets you gave have figurative senses, but this one doesn't. Delete. Old Man Consequences (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes the use of hill is a misnomer corresponding to a rise in the ground which is hardly a hill; this certainly applies to three places in my neighbourhood, Hampton Hill, Strawberry Hill and Marble Hill. However, Richmond Hill on the other side of the Thames is a true hill. DonnanZ (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I would delete it just for the presumptuousness of using "the City" instead of "London" in the definition. - TheDaveRoss 13:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
That was easily fixed. DonnanZ (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete absent any reason why this has anything to do with a dictionary. Mihia (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Despite there being no entry for Ludgate? There is in Wikipedia though: see Ludgate. DonnanZ (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Why would the lack of an entry for "Ludgate" be a reason to keep "Ludgate Hill"? Mihia (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Etymology, my dear Watson. DonnanZ (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, all of the world's billion street names and place names have an etymology. If we are to decide to keep some such entries as being notable despite their definitions having no traditional lexicographical content, I'm not sure that having an etymology, even an "interesting" etymology, should be part of the notability criteria. Mihia (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I daresay more users would want to know about Ludgate Hill than about millions of other streets; I used to live in Ythan Street (named after a Scottish river), but I wouldn't create an entry for it. But even that name has a little story that I didn't know about [101]. DonnanZ (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I would keep this and other similar entries - but not go out of my way to add further similar entries. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep all. We are not a normal, paper dictionary and we have plenty of room for these. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep per Semper and because it isn't an SOP name. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

kidney-shaped

SOP, right? --Vealhurl (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It has at least one lemming. I was quite proud of a kidney-shaped table I made in woodwork at school (many moons ago). I would say keep. DonnanZ (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wow. That seems completely SOP to me, but then I also noticed that we have a lot of other XYZ-shaped terms as entries.
While I can see idiomatic grounds for keeping pear-shaped, we can have just about anything-shaped as a collocation. How is it not SOP? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Just checked and saw that we don't even have the figurative meaning(s?) listed at pear-shaped, as in, "things have gone pear-shaped". Hmm. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
We do have go pear-shaped, though. Canonicalization (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
People seem to like these entries:
I'm really not fond of those entries, but they were kept in a previous RFD discussion: Talk:H-shaped#RFD_discussion:_September–November_2017. Canonicalization (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
See also
  • almond-shaped - banana-shaped - bell-shaped - brickshaped - cone-shaped - cross-shaped - cup-shaped - domeshaped - egg-shaped - funnelshaped - heart-shaped - hourglass-shaped - leaf-shaped - mushroom-shaped - needle-shaped - pear-shaped - ring-shaped - rod-shaped - spindle-shaped - top-shaped - wedge-shaped. Canonicalization (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ostensibly SOP, but the questions we need to ask ourselves are: (1) If one knows (from our definition?) what a kidney is, then is its characteristic shape obvious? (2) If its characteristic shape is not obvious, then should this be explained at "kidney" or at "kidney-shaped"? What if someone reads that something is "shaped like a kidney"? Where do they look in that case? Mihia (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Good questions. Something called heart-shaped does not have the shape of an actual heart (the organ), but of the heart symbol , so that is clearly not SOP. I also expect that a significant fraction of people have no idea of the characteristic shape of a kidney. IMO its should be explained at the lexical item that contains the component “shaped”. When expressions are used like “shaped like a kidney“ or “having the shape of a kidney”, you can’t expect a dictionary to avail the reader, any more than you would hope to find a description of the sound of “howling like a frenzied mob of ravenous Black Friday bargain-hunters” in your trusted dictionary. However, howl like a banshee is an idiomatic expression that deserves inclusion and a helpful definition. One more thing: X-shaped can also mean “shaped by (an/the) X”. For example, in this book cross-shaped is used in the sense “shaped by the cross”, where “the cross” means something like the spiritual Christian sense of being reborn. Should this be noted somewhere, like at shaped?  --Lambiam 09:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
If we are saying that "kidney-shaped" is SoP in the sense that readers are expected to understand that it means "shaped like a kidney", then the missing information that we need to provide is "What shape is a kidney?". It seems to me that this information logically belongs under "kidney". Mihia (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Reniform apparently, just nominated for WOTD. But maybe not a lot of people know that. DonnanZ (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I will just point out that, though not very common, kidneyshaped exists. -Mike (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh super. Mihia (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

break a law

This sounds SOP to me: break sense 7 ("To violate, to not adhere to"; compare "break one's vow", "break one's word", "break one's promise") + law. break the law (currently a hard redirect) would seem slightly more acceptable. See also Wiktionary:Tea room/2014/January § break a law, break the law. Canonicalization (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete -Mike (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as NISoP. bd2412 T 05:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 05:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Juliet

"One of the main characters of William Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet." Encyclopaedic material, not dictionary material. (We can keep the figurative senses derived from this, like "a great lover", and explain the character in the etymology, as we do for many other words derived from character names.) Equinox 05:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see much sense in removing it; this sense (2) ties in with sense 4. DonnanZ (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
The relation between the character of the play and senses 3 and 4 can be presented in the etymology section; then an entry for the fictional character is superfluous.  --Lambiam 14:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed with Lambiam and Equinox. This is etymological, not lexical, information. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete, move relevant info to the etymology section. Canonicalization (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep consistent with WT:NSE and WT:LEMMING, for which see below. This is the name of a fictional character, and the policy is probably WT:CFI#Names of specific entities; WT:CFI#Fictional universes does not seem to apply since Julia is a fictional character but not from fictional universe. For comparison, Cinderella has a fairy tale and a dedicated character sense; there is Category:en:Fictional characters featuring such items, having 139 entries. Some fictional characters were deleted, e.g. Talk:Uncle Scrooge, but there, one RFD first was kept, and only second lead to deletion, with mere two supporters. As for WT:LEMMING, Shakespeare's Juliet is in M-W[102] and Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition at collinsdictionary.com[103]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

nude scene

SOP. This seems to be nothing more than nude + scene. Old Man Consequences (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I note it says "the characters are fully or partially naked", which doesn't seem very accurate. Partially naked might mean e.g. merely shirtless, which is not a nude scene. Equinox 21:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
With our definition of naked, the attribute partially naked is oxymoronic (“partially not wearing any clothes”). To me this suggests more a deficiency in the definition of naked than in the very common collocation partially naked. What about Bare, not covered by clothing.? Then it can also apply to uses in which merely someone’s arms or legs are said to be naked.[104][105][106] Currently none of the definitions fit such uses.  --Lambiam 09:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
There is a sense missing in the definitions for the term nude, namely: “Characterized by the nudity of people concerned or to whom the described noun is attributed”; compare sense 4 at naked. This then will also cover uses such as nude appearance and nude role.[107][108][109] If the definition of nude scene is furthermore adjusted, as it should if the entry is kept, to say “the characters are nude” – note that the definition of nude does not imply full nudity – it becomes very evident that this is another SOP. However, such adjustment will not be needed if we just Delete it.  --Lambiam 09:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP and comparable to nude role etc per Lambiam. - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

gonnegtion

Nonce word only in Gatsby; see Talk:gonnegtion. Equinox 10:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete. The conclusion of a prior RfV that usage is widespread is bogus; there is no lack of mentions, but just one use – to imitate a mobster’s accent. The criterion of the term occurring in “a well-known work” has since been retracted. If we allow including nonce spelling pronunciations we also need to allow ozer, vateffer and vonce.  --Lambiam 18:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. This is an RFV matter. Old Man Consequences (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to RFV, where quotations supporting WT:ATTEST as currently written can be sought. Talk:gonnegtion has a RFV closed in 2008, where the "well-known work" card was pulled, and as Lambiam says, '“a well-known work” has since been retracted'. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Autonomous Oblast

We already have autonomous oblast. This capitalisation isn't an alternate form, just the usual rules of language, where individual words in proper nouns are capitalised ("the Disney Company", "Buckingham Palace" etc.). Equinox 16:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete as unnecessary and superfluous. DonnanZ (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with deleteNdołkah (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Old Man Consequences (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete, don’t see why it should be kept as per the reason given above. ArbDardh (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)ArbDardh

Mediawiki

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English#Mediawiki.
Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#Mediawiki.
  • Unreferenced "misspelling" of an internally used word, should we include linggots too?Ndołkah (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what this is doing here. If it is a misspelling, it doesn't matter whether we can find three attesting quotes. Other misspellings with lots more than that have been deleted as too rare. Kiwima (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
    Can’t we simply make this a hard redirect to MediaWiki?  --Lambiam 11:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings. MediaWiki, Mediawiki at Google Ngram Viewer does not find the spelling, and therefore, frequency ratio cannot be determined. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

monkey puzzle

should be at monkey puzzle tree, it's a fragment of a word hereNdołkah (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

This was originally marked for speedy deletion; I converted it to a RFD. — surjection?〉 11:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The tree is also sometimes referred to as just monkey puzzle: [110], [111], [112].  --Lambiam 16:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Lambiam. There's one just down the road from here, but no monkeys to be puzzled by it. Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Well then maybe it doesn't need to be deleted if that is indeed the case, Wal-Mart apparently is selling them for 17.99 online I want to get one this Spring for the community garden nearby! Still no word on the monkeys or puzzles! Also is monkey-puzzle attestable? Ndołkah (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. With the hyphen can be attested. And so can monkey-puzzle tree, but maybe the hyphenation fans haven't noticed it yet. And I won't tell them if you don't. -Mike (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
A word of caution: araucarias have huge cones that are hard to see up in the upper branches and that can come crashing down like cannonballs without warning. They've caused damage to houses under them, and people have been hurt and even killed. They should never be planted where people would walk or spend time under them (the odds of someone happening to be under a cone when it falls aren't great, but the risk is there). Chuck Entz (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Like reported here, but according to other reports this was a cone from a related species, the bunya pine, aka “false monkey puzzle tree”.  --Lambiam 11:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
According to the data from Wikipedia, the diameter of the seed-bearing cones of Araucaria bidwillii, the bunya pine, is about 70% larger than that of Araucaria araucana, the monkey puzzle tree. That would make the cones of the former – assuming a similar shape and consistency – about five times heavier.  --Lambiam 12:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
We have one in our yard. It's young enough that it doesn't have any cones yet, but it's super painful just to bump into. Caveat hortulānus. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
If you wait long enough, the whole tree may come crashing down, even without anyone bumping into it.[113]  --Lambiam 11:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I have enough trees and bushes already, so I'm not tempted to plant a monkey puzzle, unusual as they are. I do get "bombed" by falling figs though. DonnanZ (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Old Man Consequences (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. The literati have embraced it, as an apparently unmaimed word. Fay Freak (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

work like a charm

SOP: work + like a charm. The definition isn't terrible either. Redirect to like a charm. Canonicalization (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Redirect.  --Lambiam 21:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Does "like a charm" collocate in other ways? I note the OED includes "work like a charm", but not "like a charm". ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
"run/play/fly/drive/start/pivot/operate?/trot/gallop/survive/speak/go off/dispell/allay like a charm" can all be found at Google Books. Some uses of "work like a charm" are more or less literal. "How does the amulet work?" "It works like a charm.". But "work like a charm" seems to represent more than 80% of the total figurative use of "like a charm". DCDuring (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Until about 1900 act like a charm was more popular: [114]. (I expect the more literal uses to use the simple present; sentences like “The amulet worked like a charm until last year, when it lost its power” will be exceedingly rare.)  --Lambiam 11:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. "work like a charm" and "works like a charm" and so on are so much more common than any other use of "like a charm", plus readers are likely to want an explanation of where the phrase came from, which makes more sense in the case of "acts like a charm" becoming "works like a charm" than trying to explain "like a charm" meaning "effectively" (presumably a back-formation?). Maitchy (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Redirect -Mike (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep: (work like a charm + works like a charm + worked like a charm), like a charm at Google Ngram Viewer suggests this is the predominant use of "like a charm". If not that, at least redirect and don't delete. work like a charm at OneLook Dictionary Search finds the phrase in M-W, Oxford Dictionaries (now Lexico), and Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, so much for WT:LEMMING. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

footnote in history

This came through requests for validation. Validation check reveals nothing more than a sum-of-parts definition. Kiwima (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

No OneLook reference has an entry for this phrase. DCDuring (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to keep it as a metaphor (not an actual footnote)). SemperBlotto (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep as a set expression, similar constructions exists in other languages, e.g. German "Fußnote der Geschichte". – Jberkel 09:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Similarly in French, note en bas de page de l’histoire. I also lean towards Keep. Interestingly, until recently the variant footnote to history was far more common: Google Ngrams Viewer. The phrase may have been popularized by Robert Louis Stevenson’s 1892 book A Footnote to History: Eight Years of Trouble in Samoa; as a book title it was more common than in running text: [115]. (Google Ngrams Viewer shows blips at 1864 and 1882; I have not found corresponding book cites, though.)  --Lambiam 10:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete, sense 2 at footnote covers it. Not a set phrase in my opinion, just a common use of that sense of "footnote". Found in Google Books by searching "a mere footnote" (it's easier to find idiomatic uses with the "mere"):
Julia 06:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • My feeling is that this is a borderline case, in terms of whether or not it is sufficiently a set phrase. On balance I think probably not, so I vote weak delete. Mihia (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

have a mind like a sieve

Delete entry content and redirect to mind like a sieve. You can have pretty much anything: skeletons in the closet, bats in the belfry, etc. The have isn't the important part, nor is it mandatory ("I've got a mind like..." is possible). We already redirect the similar have a memory like a sieve. We'll have to do something with the translations though (just delete them if also SoP?). Equinox 23:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete DCDuring (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
If GBS results can be trusted, the original simile is the one with memory: 1812: “here is a corrupt memory, like a cage of unclean birds; or like a sieve which lets the precious liquor run out”; 1822: “there are some whose memory is like a sieve”; 1839: “Memory is like a sieve, that holds the bran, lets the flour go”; 1863: “My memory is just like a sieve”. All these are before the first reported use with mind: 1869: “your mind is just like a sieve; as fast as I pour water in, it runs out again”.  --Lambiam 19:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

omega with titlo

Unicode character name, self-descriptive, rather like "u with an umlaut". (Might not even meet RFV in usage, btw.) Equinox 14:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete DCDuring (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. It is as SOP as “e with acute”. Fay Freak (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Note that this was originally created as vandalism. Old Man Consequences (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Send to RFV. This is not SOP, as the diacritic above the Unicode character ‘omega with titlo’ is not a titlo, but a ‘great apostrophe’ consisting of a smooth breathing and a pokrytije; the character was misnamed by Unicode. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 17:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Some elaboration. According to the Russian Wikipedia, the Cyrillic “wide” omega with great apostrophe («широкая» омега с великим апострофом) Омега с великим апострофом.jpg, used for exclamations, is different from the omega with titlo (омега с титлом) Омега с титлом.jpg. Unfortunately, Unicode has introduced interminable confusion by assigning the name “omega with titlo” to U+047C/D, while the grapheme for that code on their website is clearly the omega with great apostrophe. Most computer fonts now render U+047C/D indeed with the graphic appearance of an omega with titlo: Ѽѽ. Because the Unicode titlo is combining, you can get a “true” omega with titlo by combining a plain Cyrillic omega U+0460/1 with a titlo U+0483: Ѡ҃ѡ҃. They may look just the same on your screen as the previous pair (for me they do), but under the hood they are quite different. This is evident if you search the text for one (using the Find command of your browser); this will not highlight the other one. The pair shown in the definition of our entry is U+047C and U+047D. I think it is impossible for us to clean up this mess until Unicode gets its act together; sending this to RfV is somewhat futile.  --Lambiam 22:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I wonder Unicode can fix it; they haven't fixed the various letters with cedilla that actually render as letters with comma (ģ, ķ, ļ, ņ, ŗ) because of earlier conflation of cedilla and comma. — Eru·tuon 22:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Even if Unicode has confused a "titlo" with a fucking green apple, it's not our job to create entries for every possible letter, "a with titlo", "b with titlo", "c with titlo" and say that it's really an apple because Unicode made a mistake. Equinox 04:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
The only font family I could find that gives me a great apostrophe is Code2000: Ѽѽ. Code2001 is back to the titlo.  --Lambiam 22:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
For a further discussion, look here under “047C 047D”.  --Lambiam 22:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
The official Unicode charts note that ‘despite its name, this character does not have a titlo’. Through previous Unicode discussions the character apparently started out as an omega with a great apostrophe, was changed to an omega with a titlo, and then was changed back to one with a great apostrophe for good, resulting in the current chart note and the mess of fonts you mention. (The fonts that actually show the character as omega plus a titlo are, I’d guess, either old or uninformed.) If, as a result of all that mess, the use of the term ‘omega with titlo’ has genuinely caught on in reference to the omega with great apostrophe, I do think that’d be worth documenting — though I also rather doubt that it’s the case. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 00:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
For the sake of fairness: when you go from one Web page to another, the first page is called the referrer, but due to bad spelling, it was called the referer in technical standards. One of my earliest arguments on here when I was a newbie was saying "yeah but referer isn't a word" lol. If enough people fuck up, the fuck-up becomes acceptable. Equinox 05:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

wine cave

DTLHS (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I tend towards Keep for the following reason. Like an ice cellar is a place for storing ice brought in from elsewhere, and a wine vault is a place just for storing (and consuming) wine produced elsewhere, one might be tempted to think a wine cave is just a cave for wine storage, Bur a wine cave is typically constructed specifically for wine production; although this may involve storage, it is storage for the aging of wine as part of the production process. This is not obvious from the individual parts.  --Lambiam 00:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
cheese cave, beer cave and probably other products that are aged are similarly used. DTLHS (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
It reminds me of bierkeller. DonnanZ (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete cave #3 is "A storage cellar, especially for wine or cheese". Neither wine cave's "an underground wine cellar" nor wine cellar's "An underground place for storing wine at a constant temperature." expand on what the storage is for, which is encyclopedic. (I'd say the wine cellar's "at a constant temperature" is a bit encyclopedic; is it not a wine cellar if the temperature varies some?)--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The conditions of a wine cave must be more specific than those of a wine cellar, right? This means it is less SOP than wine cellar, which may be about any cellar in which wine is stored. It’s just that as a consumer one hears the former less often to believe it is idiomatic. Leaning to keep. Fay Freak (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Not according to our definition, where a wine cave is an underground wine cellar, and a wine cellar is by definition underground, where a cellar is by definition underground. cellar also says "A wine collection, especially when stored in a cellar."--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I didn’t look at the definition, understanding an underground structure designed in a certain fashion for wine business. Fay Freak (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
        • If needed, we can amend the definition, for example: # an underground location for the storage of wine OR "# a subterranean grotto for the storage of wine." However, the idiom "wine cave" is certainly notable and should be in Wiktionary. TFSA (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
          • Notability is not a relevant criterion for this discussion. DTLHS (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Prosfilaes. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • <humor> Redirect to Pete Buttigieg </humor> Purplebackpack89 21:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that there is any place that is a wine cave but isn't a cave. Equinox 04:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep on the understanding that this is a set term with specific meaning in the wine production industry, and is not just ad hoc for any cave in which wine might happen to be present. Mihia (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Prosfilaes; there are plenty of senses at cave that cover the artificial caves. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Insert

The name of a button on a keyboard. In my life, I have never pressed the button to insert anything, or to have anything inserted in me. That is an irrelevant comment, of course. Anyway, I remember years ago a similar page was kept, much to my chagrin - PrtSc? or Page Up or Scr Lk of F12 or whatever. --ReloadtheMatrix (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It has some limited use. Occasionally, switching to overtype mode is useful when making repetitive manual replacements in text files. Mihia (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
This kind of thing has been discussed before; e.g. Talk:F1, Talk:Bild ↓ Talk:Esc key. - -sche (discuss) 10:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
As discussed before I would delete the names of keys, joypad buttons, microwave oven controls, etc. (at least where the name describes what the key does; the Commodore 64 for example had a Run/Stop key, and the ZX Spectrum had one for inverse video). Regarding the use of the key: it usually toggles overtype mode as stated, but I think I've encountered a few rare scenarios where it is used for pasting. Equinox 19:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep: The sense is attested; "Insert" acts as a noun; what is the statement of the deletion rationale in relation to WT:CFI? If it is a sum of parts, which parts? An example of kept button is Talk:Start; multiple buttons were discussed in a discussion archived at Talk:Delete, which does not seem to have a clear and proper closure but was archived anyway. An example of deleted button is Talk:eject. One more note on "Insert": it does not even mean "button labeled Insert" since, on my keyboad, it is labeled "Ins". A note on examples given above: Esc key is dissimilar (it would be about Insert key); Esc is similar, and it says "Abbreviation of escape key. (on a computer keyboard)"; Escape is even more similar and is a redlink. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

route redistribution

This entry is for a 2-word phrase, not a single word. 66.82.144.143 23:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not in itself a reason to delete: some two-word phrases, like black magic, are includable. The important question is whether the meaning is obvious by putting the two words together, as in black car. Equinox 00:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what makes some people tick - it has been RFD'd by the creator. DonnanZ (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
It was a test edit that is no longer needed. I was trying to create some other entry but the edit filter blocked me and I wasn't sure why. That being said, it is a legitimate technical term, and also "author requested deletion" seems not to be a speedy-deletion criterion on Wiktionary like it is on Wikipedia, so if somebody else thinks that it should stay, that's okay with me. 66.82.144.143 01:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep. It appears unlikely to me that someone would guess the meaning of the term solely from the components. For one thing, what is being redistributed are not routes themselves, but information used for routing. Then, this information is not redistributed between network nodes (routers) as in some network protocols, such as STP, but between different routing protocols running on a single node.  --Lambiam 08:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Israel firster

By PAM. If it were correctly defined, as more generally someone who puts Israel and its interests first in their priorities (etc), wouldn't this be SOP? One just as often hears of an google books:"America firster", google books:"Germany firster", google books:"Britain firster", etc. - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I feel unhappy with the existing definition, which seems non-neutral. I'm not familiar with the usage of this term myself, but as far as I can gather from a very quick scan of some search results, the term is held, at least by some people, to be racist or anti-Semitic. I wouldn't have necessarily understood this from Israel + firster. If this is felt to be an important aspect of its usage then possibly we should say so somewhere, either in this separate entry, or at firster if similar connotations may apply to other "firster" phrases. Mihia (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, the people you mention regard any criticism of Israel or its government or (as here) its [government's] supporters, including criticism by Jewish people, as anti-Semitism; that's not something specific to this word that would make it any more idiomatic, IMO, since they also regard other SOP phrases like "Israel lover" or "stooge for Israel", and even non-word concepts like the concept of boycotting Israeli businesses, as anti-Semitic. Quite likely our entry on anti-Semitism/anti-Semitic should mention (in usage notes, or perhaps a sense) that some people regard criticism of Israel or its government/policies/supporters/etc as anti-Semitic, but I don't think it makes phrases that have "Israel" in them any more or less idiomatic than they would otherwise be. - -sche (discuss) 21:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

too clever by half

Redirect to by half. Canonicalization (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep as is. It passed RFD just over a year ago. Besides that, it has lemmings, and is a set phrase. DonnanZ (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
My opinion from the previous RFD still holds. Equinox 18:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I would like to keep this set phrase. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep set phrase. Add link to by half. Mihia (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I do think it's SOP, but it's in lemmings and already passed RFD not long ago, so I abstain. - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

B. markmitchelli

Such short forms of taxonomic names are usually intelligible only in a context in which the abbreviated genus is unambiguously known from prior use in the document. Exceptions are few, like E. coli and T. rex. DCDuring (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I think this is the wrong section for Translingual. There is another entry for markmitchelli anyway where this species is listed, so if this is non-standard I think it can be deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The thing about E. coli and T. rex is that they are ambiguous terms which are nevertheless freely used in pop science without prior identification of the genus. That is a good reason to include them yet is something that is, strangely enough, not at all acknowledged in our treatment of these terms, which instead suggests that uses of T. rex may just as well stand for Tachyoryctes rex. In this case there is no such argument for inclusion of this standardly abbreviated binomial name.  --Lambiam 10:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I meant non-standard in Wiktionary; it is common treatment in the scientific world. DonnanZ (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm on the fence about this, which is why I didn't !vote. On one hand, a lot of abbreviations, especially technical ones, are probably explained by the same texts that use them, and we still include them, and it does not stop three unconnected authors who use them from being "independent" in the sense of CFI. On the other hand, any taxonomic name like this can be abbreviated in this way, just like any first or middle or last name can be abbreviated, too, and I wouldn't want to have a huge list at [[M]] saying "abbreviation of Matthias", "abbreviation of Michael", "abbreviation of Macron", "abbreviation of Miller", etc for basically every name that starts with M. To my mind, the main argument against inclusion is then practical/pragmatic. (But this gets tricky fast. We had an RFD recently about some multi-letter abbreviation of yellow where I'm pretty sure I voted keep, but if three works discussing primary colors abbreviated them in tables or whatnot to r, b and y, would I want to include that? I don't think so.) The discussion of initials was Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2018/December#Initials and the abbreviation of yellow was Talk:ylw. - -sche (discuss) 21:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@-sche Well I attempted to give further meaning to “independent”, meaning that the use should also be independent from previous definitions or disambiguations in the same work. In general also including such things is not what a dictionary does. Anyway it is misguided to presume like Dan Polansky that the WT:CFI are exhaustive regulations such as not inviting to use common sense or istiḥsān and I gave examples against such abbreviations that should be obvious (the usage in → Palandt). Somewhere one has to be consequential and practical, which goes without saying. If it is not at the abbreviation for yellow then the line is here. Fay Freak (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure about CFI, but we simply can't do this justice: the best place to find out what an abbreviated binomen means is in its immediate context, not in a dictionary. If we were to have an entry like this for all the possible species covered by a particular abbreviation, our readers would still have to get enough information from the original text to decide which of the multiple options was the correct one.
This entry is deceptive- species names containing the full name of a person are pretty rare, so they don't tend to repeat. On the other hand, B. australis gets at least 10 thousand raw Google hits, which include various flowering plants, ticks, butterflies, lizards, mollusks (from gastropods and shipworms to belemnites), fish, brachipods, amphibians, red algae, whales, crustaceans, birds- and probably more. Wikipedia has a disambiguation page for w:B. australis, but it lists only 3 plants and a fungus- by searching for australis, you can easily find a dozen more, without resorting to redirects or synonyms. Anything we attempt will be even more feeble. The fact is, there are approximately half a million published genera divided among 26 letters. Even if only an infinitesimal fraction of those end up in entries like this, we still will have too much for our resources without really doing much for our readers. We shouldn't even pretend to try this.
There are some things, like listing all of the different Main Streets or First Streets in all the cities and towns, that aren't specifically prohibited by CFI, but are simply impossible to do right- and this is definitely one of those. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

m³/s

Translingual, not English. And I thought we were deleted stuff like this. --Yesyesandmaybe (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There was an earlier discussion at Wiktionary:Tea room/2019/September#Units X per Y, but it was somewhat inconclusive as to whether the soppiness of such formulas is covered by the SOP clause of our CFI. We do have an entry E=mc², which by the way looks horrid to me in non-italic font and without proper spacing. These spaces are like a canary in a coalmine: they depart from this physical plane and then the term is considered includable.  --Lambiam 18:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
See also Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#mg/dl. I say, Delete all.  --Lambiam 11:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to note that we also have e.g. m/s, , , cm³, km², and most probably others too, possibly on the basis that these are defined characters in Unicode (, , , , ), which we redirect to the "plaintext" versions. is a case where there is no redirect. Is it our policy to have entries for all Unicode characters? If so, the content at e.g. m/s would presumably need to be moved to should the former be deleted. Mihia (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
We have entries for many Unicode characters, including quite a few for which I have no idea how one would use them (e.g. “arc”, or “tie over infinity”). I have no objection to having entries for the Unicode characters ㎧ etc., which is preferable IMO to having them be redirects.  --Lambiam 22:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

dirty cop

SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. It has become effectively exclusive of police with poor hygiene or who have just come from a mud fight. It is even exclusive of those who use "below-the-belt" fighting tactics. bd2412 T 06:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete as SOP. To bd's point, this is true of e.g. "dirty politician" as well, and is a result of the fact that cops and politicians don't often engage in literal mud fights in the first place—it's not that "dirty" is somehow unusually restricted on a lexical level to "unethical" in just this phrase, it's that on a practical level, people don't go around talking about cops' (or politicians') literal cleanliness that much in the first place (look at the Ngram for "unclean cop", for example: it's too rare a phrase to plot), but do talk about their corruptness. - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

twenty-five to

And five to, ten to, quarter to, twenty to, five past, ten past, quarter past, and the attributive forms five-to, ten-to, quarter-to, twenty-to, five-past, ten-past, and quarter-past. The info is already at to and past; there's no need for such specific numbers. We could just as easily have forty-one past. (Sidenote: there is no noun sense at quarter for a quarter hour.) Ultimateria (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"forty-one past" scarcely exists as a phrase by itself AFAIAA (though "forty-one minutes past (the hour)" is possible of course). The only ones in practical use, as far as I know, are the multiples of five. I would be inclined to keep these as sufficiently idiomatic. The attributive forms may be deleted per this vote, provided the definitions contain no more content than "attributive form of unhyphenated phrase". Mihia (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not true that only multiples of 5 are in regular use. It's just that it's unusual to use these forms for larger numbers. I regularly use and hear things like seven to (more common) or seven after (less common without the hour). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep all. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The translations are translations of, specifically, “twenty-five to two” (1:35 am or pm), and not of twenty-five to the next hour, which could also be 12:35 or 2:35.  --Lambiam 14:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Tribbles! Delete them before they multiply. It is best handled at to. If all of these tos are kept then the equivalent tills will need to be entered also (five till, ten till, quarter till, &c.) -Mike (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
And the afters: ten after, quarter after, twenty-five after, etc. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete all. Canonicalization (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

"A representation of X" as a sense of X (unicorn, etc)

Bengal tiger, book, cockatrice, coronet, crown

double eagle, dragon, eagle, griffin, harp

heron, hunting horn, lion, mitre, popinjay

portcullis, salamander, wheel

~20 entries have one definition for an animal or thing, then another for "A [heraldic] representation of such a [thing]". I want to delete the "heraldic" senses as redundant to the main senses; compare how we deleted the definition of Talk:quadriga as a representation of a quadriga. Such a sense could be added to any common (and many uncommon!) plant, animal, or object: an oak, hawk, gauntlet, etc, all exist in heraldry as "a representation of such a thing", and the use of "eagle", etc to refer to a representation rather than a real bird, etc is not (as claimed) limited to heraldry: my friend has an eagle hanging on her fridge (that her kid drew), there's an eagle (stylized representation) on the coin in my pocket. In a few cases, the def adds additional info, e.g. that a heraldic wheel is "usually with six spokes": well, a "representation" of a house, if you ask any child or many adults to make a quick sketch, is "usually rectangular or with a triangular roof", but does this mean "house" needs another sense? Nonetheless, by all means say if you'd like to keep some and delete others.
Note: lion claims to be "a stylized representation of a large cat", but given the leeway of "stylized" surely it really means "a stylized representation of a lion". And Agnus Dei oddly distinguishes "A small model or a picture of a lamb with a cross" from "A heraldic representation of a lamb with a cross", while woodwose includes "...or a representation such" in its one singular definition. (Bezant, in contrast, says that in non-heraldic use it means a particular coin of either gold or silver, while in heraldry it's any gold coin, which if true makes it different; similarly, ichthys and gillyflower have no corresponding non-heraldic sense, so I'm not RFDing those.) - -sche (discuss) 08:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Just droppin' in to say that I like the cut of your research jib. Wow, what a list. Actually: agree with the general point ("there's a bathroom in my daughter's doll's house" should not support "bathroom" as "a tiny model of a normal bathroom"). I do wonder about heraldry, because it's the most stylised thing in the world and there might be some cases where a heraldic X actually isn't very similar to a real-world X; but I admit I have no particular example to show and would just like to be sure that whoever deletes these does it conscientiously, and checks this stuff. Equinox 09:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
[[salamander]] says representations of them in heraldry "always" include flames, and though a look around Google Images turns up a few salamanders without flames (so the wording should be "typically"), that entry may be the best candidate for different treatment. (I'm open to the idea some of these may be keep-worthy even if the bulk aren't.) But then, it also looks like the flames aren't considered part of the representation of the salamander per se, but are blazoned separately, as "a salamander in flames proper", "a salamander argent, crowned and in golden flames", etc, so, meh. A phoenix, which does not currently have a heraldry-specific def, is also often represented in or near flames, if we decide that kind of thing is sense-worthy. - -sche (discuss) 12:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Thinking more about the question of whether stylization is lexical: a "pedestrian" on a traffic sign almost always has a dot for a head (often unconnected from his body) and no hands, unlike a real pedestrian whose nonspherical head stays attached as long as cars brake for him, but is that lexical? Might it be sufficient to just put an image of a "pedestrian crossing" sign on [[pedestrian]], and of a unicorn supporter on [[unicorn]], etc? - -sche (discuss) 12:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Such images are nice, even though not at all essential to understanding. The heraldic details are encyclopedic, not lexical.  --Lambiam 14:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there is a practice under which the figure in the street sign is referred to as "a pedestrian" in the same way as an heraldic lion is referred to as a lion. If you incorporated the figure from the street sign into a coat of arms, I don't think people would look at it and say, "ah, a pedestrian, dexter, on a field argent". bd2412 T 06:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Note that it's not just heraldry that has specific, well-defined ways of representing things. Eastern Christian iconography has well-established traditions in this regard. The vocabulary might be less technical, however. But it's the same general principle. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I deleted the heraldic sense from "Bengal tiger", the most egregious of these; it was defined as being used in the Coat of arms of Malaysia and Coat of arms of Singapore, but (1) the tigers on them look very different from each other but are clearly both representations of real tigers, and (2) neither is or is intended to be a Bengal tiger. I also deleted/merged griffin, harp, and popinjay. I struck double eagle; I expanded its heraldic sense slightly to include other iconographic and symbolic use; there's no other sense for the "representation" sense to be merged into.
Of the rest, only salamander (with its claim of being depicted together with fire), wheel (with its claim of a specific number of spokes) and hunting horn (with its claim of a specific shape) seem to go beyond being mere representations of the things. Crown tries to make itself sound idiomatic by saying it can appear on the heraldry even of an individual who has no physical crown (like the king of Belgium supposedly doesn't) or who has no head (like a town), but this seems vacuous as a city could also have a tiger or something on its coat of arms even if it does not have a real tiger within its city limits. - -sche (discuss) 06:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I've merged the heraldic senses of "book", "cockatrice", "eagle", "dragon", "lion", "mitre", "unicorn", and "hunting horn" into the general senses, adding images of heraldic arms in the first few cases and revising the definition in the last case, since I also added an image of a real hunting horn of the type depicted in heraldry, showing that real hunting horns do not have to be a spiral. One thing that can be seen from the collage of heraldic eagles I added to "eagle" and from comparing the various coats of arms that feature lions or dragons is that there is no one depiction; different people traditionally or individually draw them in different styles and at often vastly different levels and directions of abstraction. - -sche (discuss) 20:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

GNU Free Documentation License

Doesn't seem lexicographic. --Yesyesandmaybe (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding:

GNU General Public License

Delete both.  --Lambiam 20:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete both. "Stuff nerds like" is not of itself a pillar of CFI. Same issue with those Pokémon entries back in the day. Equinox 13:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete both. Canonicalization (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

wiki-

"Product of Wikimedia Foundation: Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc." This is an element of some historically recent brand names, hardly a morphological prefix for a dictionary. Equinox 13:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this should be broadened to something like "product using wiki software", and based on things like "wikidictionary", not brand names like "Wikipedia" which could be viewed as a blend. Or perhaps all possible instances could be viewed as simply blends or compounds with wiki instead, which would leave no reason for this entry at all. Anyway, "Wiktionary" (mentioned in the definition) doesn't contain the full element "wiki"/"wiki-" at all. - -sche (discuss) 23:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
So, delete on the grounds that (the definition is wrongly narrow, and) things ostensibly formed with this can adequately or better be considered compounds or blends with wiki instead. - -sche (discuss) 23:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

artillery cannon

SOP artillery + cannon. — surjection?〉 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

novel coronavirus

A coronavirus that is novel. DTLHS (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete. The next one will be called this as well, once the Wuhan outbreak is no longer novel. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment that is not the definition given. The definition given is temporally contextually defined. (ie. in 2020, the novel coronavirus is 2019-nCoV, in 2013, it was the MERS-CoV.) -- 67.70.33.184 05:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
    • That’s like defining sexiest man alive as “Sean Connery”; “George Clooney”; “Idris Elba” ... It’s not a definition but a series of members of the class. Delete. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
      • No, it isn't, since "Sexiest Man Alive" is a title, and isn't the only name Sean Connery had at that time, whereas, these were the only official term for the thing at the context dependent periods. It would be like Chelsea Manning being the only name for this person in a certain period, while in another period it would be Bradley Manning. Thus Bradley Manning would only be a valid name for Chelsea in a certain time period, in this it would be the same, sole official name, for this topic. -- 67.70.33.184 06:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete, per the reasoning of Μετάknowledge and SGconlaw. As the CDC says, "The 2019 Novel Coronavirus, or 2019-nCoV, is a new respiratory virus first identified in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China." However, "A novel coronavirus (CoV) is a new coronavirus that has not been previously identified."[118] One can do the same thing with novel virus or novel species. But to refer to a specific instance requires additional context. -Mike (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. A novel coronavirus is a coronavirus that is novel. There are completely analogous uses of “novel adenovirus”, “novel circovirus”, “novel parvovirus”, and so on and so forth.  --Lambiam 07:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete per Lambiam. - -sche (discuss) 18:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

dictynid spider

I have no idea why the definition limits the term to certain US species, but such a limitation would be impossible to maintain in the real world- you would never know whether someone was referring to just any spider in the family Dictynidae, or to a dictynid spider in the narrower sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Not different from cases like “ameroseiid mite” or “solifugid spider”. The (later) addition of a region was probably more intended as (misguided) extra information than as a limitation.  --Lambiam 07:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Create an adjective d~ if necessary, but what else are we expecting, a dictynid dinosaur, a dictynid human? Equinox 11:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

see

"Interjection"

  1. Directing the audience to pay attention to the following
    See here, fellas, there's no need for all this rucus!
    Synonyms: behold, look; see also Thesaurus:lo
  2. Introducing an explanation
    See, in order to win the full prize we would have to come up with a scheme to land a rover on the Moon.
    Synonyms: look, well, so

How is the imperative of see an interjection in the usage examples? DCDuring (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

We've got an entry at see here, BTW. Equinox 20:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Given that we don't even label the interjectional (read: interjection-like) sense of "read" that I just used as an interjection, it does seem inconsistent to present these as interjections. - -sche (discuss) 07:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
It is very similar to “Listen, guys – we have to talk“, which we do not list as an interjection. On the other hand, we do list look as an interjection (as well as lo and behold). I have no strong opinion as to whether we should list such imperatives also as interjections, but it is IMO obvious that see in “See, it isn’t that hard” is not meant as a literal command to exercise one’s faculty of sight. (BTW, this use fits neither of the two given senses.)  --Lambiam 21:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete just the imperative. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Broxholme Lane

Created by Wonderfool in response to there being an entry for Ludgate Hill. I'm pretty sure the was trolling. --AcpoKrane (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

is go, are go

SOP ("be" verb + adj. sense of go). If deleted, the quotations can be moved to go. Previously discussed at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2020/January#is_go. Mihia (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete. NISoP. DCDuring (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete, since there's a corresponding sense at go. Move the quotes there. Canonicalization (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

cease to be

This seems SoP to me. I suspect it exists only for the opportunity to insert the citation. DCDuring (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I would say that "X has ceased to be" and minor variants is a sort of catchphrase, repeated after the said comedy sketch. Mihia (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

crack down on

It's just crack down + on. 76.100.241.89 04:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Mihia (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC) (or redirect if preferred)
Redirect to crack down. Equinox 15:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

homing instinct

SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

gain someone's trust

SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Not only that, the definition "To get someone to trust oneself" is ungrammatical. "Oneself" can only be used when the person trusting and the person trusted are the same. Obviously contributed by a non-native speaker. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Yikes. Delete. Nothing at all unusual about "gaining" intangible things. Equinox 15:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

mechanical mouse

SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep - it has a specific meaning in computing. This has passed rfd previously. John Cross (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks SoP to me too. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep It has passed RfD recently, so restarting it now is questionable. It is not obvious to me that a mouse that has a mechanical wheel and buttons but uses a laser is less of a mechanical mouse than one that has a ball.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Similarly, there are clockwork mice that are used as toys for cats.John Cross (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    • How is optical mouse an antonym of mechanical mouse? DCDuring (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
      • You put emphasis on "antonym", but I'm not sure what you're getting at. "PCs for Dummies" (2009) says "Also, optical mice don't need a mouse pad, which is necessary for a mechanical mouse's ball to...". The Best of BYTE (1994) says "Figure I: In an electromechanical mouse, a rubber ball drives the encoders, which make and break electrical contacts. ... The "opticians" also point out that the optical mouse is maintenance-free, unlike mechanical mice, which require periodic ..." Project Arcade: Build Your Own Arcade Machine (2011) says "Mechanical mice are getting harder to find as optical mice have become popular." The Winn L. Rosch Hardware Bible (1994) says "The first mouse was a mechanical design based on a small ball that protruded through its bottom and rotated as the ... Instead of a rotating ball, the optical mouse uses a light beam to detect movement across a specially patterned mouse pad." Does that answer your question?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
    • To Prosfilaes, I don't think it's questionable. This entry was practically kept on a technicality. See my answer to John Cross above. Canonicalization (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Dan Polansky offered a keep argument in that RFD that was not technical. I would have appreciated mentioning the original discussion and responding to it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Talk:mechanical mouse, which has a RFD closed in November 2018. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep on the assumption that the entry is correct, that it is a retronym created to differentiate a ball mouse from an optical mouse. Mihia (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

like

I admit I found this very confusing, but the adverb sense "For example, such as; introduces an example or a list of examples." does not seem to be an adverb, but instead a preposition, and is already seemingly covered by our preposition defs. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

See also Wiktionary:Tea_room/2018/August#like,_such_as. Mihia (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DCDuring (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

shining part

Just a pretty phrase. NISoP. See shining (def. 4)/shine (def. 3) and part (def. 2 etc.). DCDuring (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It's quoted from a poem, isn't it? "Every shining part" seems to ring a vague bell. Equinox 15:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
But which one?
A moon upon a moonlit sea
To me thou art;
And every shining part
Of heaven belong to thee;
from “Lost!“, Leon Gellert (1892–1977); or
Deep in the water's crystal heart,
Replete in every shining part.
from “The Moon and the Lake”, John Leonidas Rosser (1875–1972)?  --Lambiam 19:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay... not familiar. Maybe I'm getting mixed up with "sea to shining sea". Equinox 19:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

as far as

Adverb PoS. I have added conjunction and preposition PoS sections, moved L4 header content, and added a usage note. I believe that the Adverb PoS section was in error. AHD and MW online have conjunction and preposition PoS definitions. Oxford calls it a phrase. I have not yet found any reference that calls it an adverb. DCDuring (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

With regard to the preposition (and also presently adverb) sense "With respect to; as relates to", with examples such as "As far as financing, there will be no problems", I have always considered this usage an error in which the speaker forgets to say "... is concerned", or does not understand that "... is concerned" is required. Or perhaps some people confuse "as far as" with "as for". I feel that some sort of label might be in order. Mihia (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The omission of "is concerned" does not need to be an error; it may be intentional to achieve brevity. M-W:as far as[119] has this in its "as far as preposition" section and does not contain any proscription tag, although it does say that it is "chiefly in oral use".
As for the adverb section nominated here, it seems it can be deleted now that DCDuring has created the other sections, but I did not check carefully. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
According to [120]:
Usage Note: As far as is often used as a preposition meaning "as for" or "regarding," especially in speech. This construction derives from the term's use as a conjunction (as in as far as the election goes), but with the verb of the clause omitted (as far as the election). A large majority of the Usage Panel frowns on this usage. In our 2011 survey, 71 percent found the prepositional use unacceptable in the sentence As far as something to do on the weekend, we didn't even have miniature golf. And 74 percent objected to as far as when followed by a noun clause in the sentence As far as how the victim got shot, we don't know yet. Objection to this construction has decreased slightly among the Panelists since 1994, when 80 percent objected to the first sentence and 89 percent to the second.
To me "as far as" used in this way without a completion is purely nonsensical, but it seems that the longer it persists in use, the more people forget this. Mihia (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The source you have found (AHD) could be used to source the "sometimes proscribed" tag. But let me add from AHD:as far as[121]: "Our Living Language Despite the admonitions detailed in the Usage Note, it is the case that many speakers often drop the verbal part of the as far as construction, as in As far as a better house, I don't want one (instead of As far as a better house is concerned ...)". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

pickled onion

Is this SOP? The bit about it being a common bar food seems non-lexical. Other pickled (bar or other) foods include pickled pigs' feet and pickled olives. (See also pickled egg: is that SOP too?) - -sche (discuss) 07:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

My comment above was a question rather than a clear delete !vote, because I was kind of on the fence, but at this point I do think this should be deleted. - -sche (discuss) 22:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I would say it is SOP, really the only non-SOP pickled item I can think of is a pickle, which is a pickled cucumber. I have pickled garlic and pickled beets on the shelf right now. - TheDaveRoss 13:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
On second thought, keep, I forgot about fried egg. - TheDaveRoss 13:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss Hmm, but does this actually pass that test? Just being a food is not enough: what part of the definition goes beyond "pickled" + "onion"? The IMO non-lexical detail that it can be found, but certainly not exclusively, in bars? The claim that it's pickled specifically in vinegar? AFAICT that's partly wrong and partly an attribute of "pickled". Or do we want entries for pickled cucumber, pickled olive (pickled black olive) and every other pickled food? - -sche (discuss) 17:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@-sche I guess my view is that if fried egg is somehow lexical then so is pickled onion. In my book fried egg is not a lexical unit, even though it is most commonly fried in a particular way and an egg of a particular animal, it isn't always either of those things. If we have determined that fried egg merits inclusion then I can't see enough of a difference to exclude pickled onion. - TheDaveRoss 21:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss So, can I add all the other pickled things, too, like pickled pigs' feet, pickled black olives and other pickled olives, pickled green beans and other pickled beans, pickled corn, pickled grapes, pickled pears, etc? (And what about a pickled brain, pickled penis, etc?) - -sche (discuss) 21:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep as a type of food. I'm not terribly keen on them, but they are probably regarded as a delicacy. DonnanZ (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
In BrE, "pickled onion" is a highly debatable case, in my opinion. Yes, it is an onion that is pickled, but also it has a place in the cuisine or culture of the country far beyond what is true for e.g. "pickled olive" or "pickled bean". Mihia (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Not in any traditional lemming: pickled onion at OneLook Dictionary Search. Seems to be a sum of parts so if it is to be kept, there has to be a redeeming property. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete... This is certainly a commonly pickled food and Brits know what it is, and they know they can be found behind the bar, just above the Scampi Fries and below the Glenfiddich; but it's still just an onion that has been pickled; there's no magic about it, and no special meaning. I am mainly posting here to tell you that -sche has gone totally mad and created pickled olive and pickled black olive (because we don't have Wikipedia's WP:GAME policy) and he is now standing on the roof of the Beer Parlour with a spud gun. Equinox 06:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete, and I have nominated -sche's (seemingly bad-faith) creations mentioned by Eq. The "but it's a food" reasoning is patently stupid. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I think a question that we can ask ourselves is whether there is any type of onion that has been pickled that would not be a pickled onion in the commonly understood British sense. Somewhere in the combination of size, type, pickling method, packaging, presentation, serving etc., I think the answer to this question is probably yes, implying that the common British sense is something more than purely sum-of-parts. Whether this is enough to save the entry, I'm not so sure. It may be the case that a variety of ostensibly SoP foodstuff terms have usual local forms in various places, but listing all of these could be beyond the scope of any dictionary. Mihia (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    I suspect that most (and I know that some) of the restrictions go (a) beyond this collocation, and even (b) beyond the scope of what is lexical. For example, the same restrictions apply if you say you've just gotten some onions which you were going to pickle and some brine/vinegar to pickle them with. Restrictions also apply if a recipe for a pasta sauce or fajitas or something calls for "1 onion, diced": a reader will infer that a very tiny onion the size of a spring onion is not meant, and may also infer that some (e.g. sweet) kinds of onion may not be meant. (Btw, I did not initially RFD pickled egg, precisely because it claims that it is restricted to hen's eggs, but I suspect it too is SOP and the restriction is on egg: if a recipe calls for "2 large eggs", a reader will infer to add hen's/chicken's eggs, not ostrich eggs, although these are large eggs.) - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
It could be a question of what type of onion is pickled. They always seem to be small, larger than a spring onion, but not whopping big onions. DonnanZ (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete. There is no British sense. The recipes one finds for pickled onions, in English, do not go beyond what one expects from the concept of pickling, and are the same as for Russian-language recipes for маринованный лук (marinovannyj luk), and the resulting cans and whole onions look the same. Fay Freak (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

stupidfucker

This would be a rare misspelling given stupidfucker, stupid fucker at Google Ngram Viewer does not find it, and no frequency ratio can be determined. Delete as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings; see also Talk:stupidfuck. For contrast, compare coalmine, coal mine at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete. - TheDaveRoss 13:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete, and then let's RFD stupid fucker as SOP. - -sche (discuss) 18:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Isn't this one of Luciferwildcat's (or was that stupidfuck)? Delete anything he ever did, even if it's an everyday word like cat. "It's the only way to be sure" as they said in Alien. Equinox 06:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

madly in love

SOP. The Czech and Polish entries given as translations should be moved to až po uši and po uszy respectively, and added to the translation tables at madly and head over heels. Canonicalization (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep per WT:THUB. Even if až po uši (up to ears) is created, it would not necessarily be translated as "madly" outside of the phrase zamilovaný až po uši. Czech zamilovaný až po uši is listed in Slovník české frazeologie a idiomatiky and also in Nizozemsko-český/ česko-nizozemský kapesní slovník. Also of note is that madly in love is listed as a boldfaced item in Macmillan English Dictionarys love entry[122]. As for the Polish zakochany po uszy, I am much less certain about its translation in relation to po uszy, not being a Polish native speaker, but at least, the item is mentioned in Nowy słownik angielsko-polski 2003. There is also Japanese 首ったけ by @Suzukaze-c indicated to mean "head over heels in love; madly in love", but that is entered as a noun; should this perhaps be changed to adjective? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete: the sense at madly (wildly, without control, etc.) is perfectly adequate to explain this. Equinox 06:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Tardislike

Arguably, this is a rare misspelling since it is not found in Tardis-like, Tardislike at Google Ngram Viewer, and therefore, no frequency ratio can be determined for it. Delete accordingly. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that "like" can be used as a closed (i.e. no-space, no-hyphen) SoP constructor, which we presently do not or cannot legislate for, whereas we have rules for spaced and hyphenated SoP combinations so that we do not need to list a billion™ combinations that people can easily enough figure out for themselves. Mihia (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The nomination rationale is not sum of parts (SOP) but rather rare misspelling. Let those who agree that this is a rare misspelling post delete; the policy is WT:CFI#Spellings, "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
What is the basis for considering this a misspelling rather than an alternative spelling (as it is currently labelled)? As Mihia says, using -like without a space is possible, and permissible in standard English as far as I know, as in ratlike, kittenlike, Frenchlike, or (to pluck a random example out of the air and show that citations of it can be found) pronounlike, even if a hyphenated spelling of often more common. Hence, I say keep on the grounds that it's not a misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 17:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The basis is the frequency ratio. Normally, I would use {{R:GNV}} to determine the frequency ratio but this spelling is so rare that it does not appear in {{R:GNV}}. This stands in contrast to ratlike,rat-like at Google Ngram Viewer, which finds both spellings, and kittenlike,kitten-like at Google Ngram Viewer. Still, your argument has some force: there is nothing mis- about the nominated spelling, very rare as it may be, and it fits a pattern as you have shown. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree that this is probably not a misspelling. As you say, people can add "like" with no space or hyphen to almost anything, and it is hard to say that the result is misspelled. My point above really is whether we need to add "Xlike" entries for all of the potentially very large number of possibilities, or whether in some cases, such as perhaps "Tardislike", we should take the view that people can figure it out for themselves. It is straightforward SoP, except for identifying the boundary between parts. Mihia (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
BTW, Tardis-like should also be deleted as SoP. The "unexpectedly capacious" property is properly a property of Tardis, not of SoP derivatives. Mihia (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

head over heels

RFD-sense: "(with in love) Hopelessly, madly, to distraction."

Sense just entered into the entry. This should be in head over heels in love, if anywhere. We do not go creating "(with dwarf) being small, relatively cool star of the main sequence" in red instead of red dwarf. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me note that we do have an astronomical sense at red: "Of the lower-frequency region of the (typically visible) part of the electromagnetic spectrum which is relevant in the specific observation". There are no usexes or quotes, however, and I don't know if it's used in that sense in red dwarf. Some expertise would be welcome. Canonicalization (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
As an aside, I have no intention of RFDing red dwarf. Canonicalization (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Some sources: head over heels at OneLook Dictionary Search, red dwarf at OneLook Dictionary Search. M-W:head over heels[123] has sense 2 "very much : deeply"; if this sense can be shown to be used in combinations other than with "in love", the sense I put to RFD can be reworked and stay. Collins[124] has "completely; utterly (esp in the phrase head over heels in love)", which supports the idea of keeping the sense but reworking it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest that we combine this sense with the "At top speed, frantically" sense - they are both essentially intensifiers for verbs that relate to tumbling, falling, or lurching. Kiwima (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Some research into older uses suggests the following course of sense development. The original sense is that of a human body being turned upside-down. Most uses are in combination with the verb tumble. In 1825 we could read about someone (literally) falling head over heels, and likewise in 1839, the latter in reference to water. And in 1825 someone is seen throwing himself head over heels down a little descent. About the same time (1824, 1839) people start falling head over heels in love. Somewhat speculatively, I think this early use was meant to be a humorous variation on the usual fall in love by taking the verb fall as a metaphor for a literal falling, and then intensifying it by making the falling more dramatic than a mere dropping to the ground. And while fall in the sense “to happen” can also be gradual (as in “he fell gradually ill”), a literal falling head over heels happens in an instant, and this carried over to the metaphorical falling head over heels in love. So now head over heels, used as a metaphorical intensifier in combination with fall, signalled not only the dramatic nature, but also instantaneity. Then this became generalized as an intensifier, divorced from its initial application to falling in love, like in 1835 we read about somebody being sent head over heels out of the ranks, indicating the suddenness of the dismissal. Quite some time later, in 1863, someone else finds himself head over heels in trouble, where the intensifier now signals the completeness. Only more than a century later, head over heels starts being used as a shortened form of head over heels in love, where it remains ambiguous whether this signals the utterness or the suddenness of the infatuation (or both). TL;DR: First metaphorical use as a dramatic intensifier specifically for fall in love, then generalized with two distinguishable meanings, and more recently also used as a shorthand phrase.  --Lambiam 08:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Great job. The above would suggest to me that we should create head over heels in love as a precursor of the abbreviated head over heels meaning the same; as Canonicalization pointed out elsewhere, head over heels in love has some support in lemmings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Since this was nominated, the sense has been relaxed to “usually with in love”, which means that the original rationale for deletion no longer applies. I have added two more cites.  --Lambiam 14:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete! Oops, I was thinking that it can just mean "in love" without stating love, but that's the adjective sense that we already had, and I didn't scroll down far enough. This adverb sense adds nothing. Equinox 06:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The adverb which is tagged RFD-sense, which now reads "(usually with in love) Hopelessly, madly, to distraction, deeply, utterly", seems to be well attested by various citations saying "I am head over heels in trouble", "wind up head over heels in debt", "found ourselves head over heels into ritual", etc, and even one use which seems adverbial(?) after "fall" but without "in love" ("do I just fall head over heels for the last girl"), so I don't see what the basis for deleting it is anymore (it was re-written after the start of the RFD). So, keep as it stands now. - -sche (discuss) 06:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep per -sche. Canonicalization (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus

Very rare, with mention-y cites. It's currently included under the "hot word" criteria, but those are for words that we expect to continue to be used in a year — who really believes that is the case for this ungainly and uncommon synonym? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete. This naming may also have been based on a false assumption, which makes its continued use very unlikely.  --Lambiam 09:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete for the nominator’s reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

color me

SoP. This just a specific sense of the verb color (sense 5) + pronoun. Leasnam (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Sense 5 at color doesn't tell us that "color me X" is very much a set phrase. (In fact I personally can't imagine saying "they coloured him confused".) At the very least we need a clear usage note and some real examples showing the verb in other constructions. Equinox 02:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
‘Rajinikanth said the attempts to "color him as a BJP man" were not correct.’“And the all-day-long pundits ... will ... try to color me naïve for even trying.”The Force Awakens humanized Ben from the start, coloring him as a broken human instead of a deadpan machine, like Vader.” (Not all are durably archived.)  --Lambiam 10:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I note also the uses with impersonal objects, such as "The chief minister J Jayalalithaa promptly issued a statement that it was a caste conflict between Thevars and Pallars and tried to colour it as a caste issue". Mihia (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I added a "portray (as)" sense to sense 5 at "colour". Mihia (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Color me X" is not an imperative telling someone to "portray me as X". It's an exclamation meaning "Boy, am I X!" You can't get that from its parts. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Set phrase, and comparatively recent construction. – Jberkel 19:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

if possible

Isn't that just sum-of-parts? —This unsigned comment was added by 2407:7000:982F:D899:B849:D504:9B89:C00B (talk) at 08:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC).

Delete, SOP. Compare if acceptable, if affordable, if available, if doable, ...  --Lambiam 09:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 02:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Abstain as the creator. It's SOP, yes. However, it has idiomatic translations (French autant que faire se peut, or even the word-for-word translation si possible, which is more lexicalised than the English - you can't say *si faisable, *si disponible, etc.), plus it has a lemming. I don't consider these two criteria to be definitive, but they tell me that the entry is mildly useful. Canonicalization (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Imetsia (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

empathy fatigue

NISoP: fatigue of one's empathy. Not even witty. DCDuring (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

epicene pronoun and gender-neutral pronoun

I believe both epicene pronoun and gender-neutral pronoun are equivalent to the sum of their parts. Looking at WT:SOP, I could see "gender-neutral pronoun" being considered as "likely to be useful to readers", but I don't believe such an argument is strong. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. One can also refer to a person with an "epicene noun" or "gender-neutral noun". - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

clothes-maiden

One of these crappy "attributive form of" entries made by Msh210 (talkcontribs) years ago. --AcpoKrane (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete, ditto. -Mike (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Speedied, we already had a vote on these. - TheDaveRoss 18:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

like-for-like sales

like-for-like adjective seems to cover this precisely, and is glossed as "sales". Equinox 00:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Kaguya

RFD-sense: Kaguya (mouse), a particular fatherless mouse, conceived by parthenogenesis, and born circa April 2004. Do we want this kind of thing? We don't have a sense at Lassie or Cher for the specific dog or human, respectively; OTOH, we have R-Pattz. - -sche (discuss) 06:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Also not for proper nouns of any other real named animals I checked, including the cloned sheep Dolly, the cloned cat Little Nicky, any of several cloned dogs (Missyplicity, Ruppy, Snuppy, Toppy), or the cloned horse Prometea. This seems to be governed by our non-policy WT:CFI#Names of specific entities: “many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which”. The practice appears to be not to include; I'd make an exception for those that have become household names. We do have some fictional animals: Akela, Bagheera, Baloo, Daffy Duck, Donald Duck, Goofy, Mickey Mouse, Scooby-Doo and Winnie the Pooh. I suspect some may violate WT:FICTION, but these are all very much household names too.  --Lambiam 10:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
We also have Ancient Greek etc mythological dogs (Argos, Cerberus, Laelaps, and Orthrus, though we only have Garm/Garmr in Japanese at the moment), but then, we (reasonably, IMO) treat Ancient mythologies different from modern stuff in general, like we also include the Aeneid where we wouldn't include a modern book title (we even deleted Talk:Pearl of Great Price, although Liber AL vel Legis has apparently never been RFDed). - -sche (discuss) 18:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

pickled black olive

pickled olive

I respect this entry's creator a great deal, but POINTing is a bad habit, in my opinion... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It's WP:GAME! Delete this delicious horror. Equinox 06:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Why the discrimination against pickled green olives?  --Lambiam 08:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
#blackolivesmatter Equinox 08:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
718smiley.svgSGconlaw (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete both. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete both. Canonicalization (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I always delete the olives from my pizza, pickled or otherwise. -Mike (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • There is an entry for pickled (adjective) and another for black olive. There is no adjective entry for preserved, however, and seemingly no entries for preserved fruit, such as preserved pears, preserved peaches, preserved apricots etc. They all probably taste better than pickled black olives. DonnanZ (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    Olives (whether green or black) are too bitter to be enjoyable if they have not been cured. The traditional method uses brine, and is popularly called pickling, although preservation is not the primary objective. Vinegar and herbs may be added for taste, but this is not traditional. The process may leave the olives very salty, which is good for long-time preservation but less so for a nice taste, so some soaking in fresh water before consumption is recommended. Industrially processed olives sold in jars will normally already have been somewhat desalted.  --Lambiam 18:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Your white bourgeois olive-chomping experience will put you first against the wall when the social justice revolution comes. No kidding. Also I now want to eat a raw olive to see what it's like. Equinox 15:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete. This cannot even be idiomatic for the reason Lambiam has given. Table olives only occur in treated, mostly pickled, form. Fay Freak (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Liber AL vel Legis

Multiword book title with no redeeming lexicographical (or cultural) significance, created by a permabanned user. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete as a multi-word title of a modern book. Some other PAM religious texts can be found here, though most of them are single words, and Book of Shadows has been redefined to its generic, common-noun sense, which has more claim to inclusion IMO. I'm tempted to RFD Geniocracy, though. - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I disagree that it has no cultural significance, but it's a book title and (gasp! even worse!) multi-word, indeed. We don't have entries for stuff like Jane Eyre, usually. Delete. Equinox 07:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Nara period

There's the corresponding Wikipedia article; but as a English Wiktionary entry, this appears to be a sum of parts. ~ POKéTalker) 20:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

On one hand, nothing currently in the entry Nara allows one to work out the timeframe of the Nara period; OTOH, there are a lot of such "periods" and "eras", all of which have numerous collocations: not just "Nara" but also e.g. "Edo" and "Showa" can be attested together with "period", "era" and "epoch". This suggests that the information about timeframe could be noted on "Nara", "Edo", "Showa" etc if we wanted to note it somewhere in the dictionary, and/or maybe we consider it encyclopedic. We do seem to note the timeframes of e.g. the "Regency period" and "Victorian era" in Regency and Victorian. Btw, we also have a number of Chinese dynasties like the Tang dynasty, even though it could be worked out from Tang + dynasty (and we have non-Chinese dynasty, the Slave Dynasty). I'm on the fence and will wait for more comments before casting a !vote. - -sche (discuss) 22:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Even noting when Nara was a capital at Nara wouldn't tell you that its namesake period matches the time it was a capital without some knowledge of Japanese historiography. Spans of time seem potentially lexical to me, and this one is useful. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I figured if we wanted to move the timeframe content to Nara, it wouldn't (just) be by mentioning when Nara was the capital, but perhaps by "...capital, which lent its name to the Nara period (710-794)".
Do we want, say, the google books:"Camelot era"? "the Watergate era"? Then again, both of those are more SOP than this, since Camelot/Watergate already conveys a particular time. What about "Hellenistic period" or "Post-exilic period" (Jewish history)? We do have Gilded Age, Dust Bowl ("the period of time when..."), and Roaring Twenties. - -sche (discuss) 00:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
There's already an entry Jomon, from 縄文 (jōmon). Might as well add Asuka, Heian and Azuchi-Momoyama for the sake of argument? ~ POKéTalker) 02:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Meiji period

Same as above. ~ POKéTalker) 02:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

different light

Light (sense 7 - A point of view, or aspect from which a concept, person or thing is regarded) seems to cover this, and different is certainly not the only adjective which commonly modifies that sense of light (e.g. new), so SOP? - TheDaveRoss 13:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, translations are also SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Things can also be put in another light. Seen in this light. it is SOP.  --Lambiam 06:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. Equinox 07:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 21:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

defining characteristic, defining characteristics

Seems to be defining + characteristic. Just as possible are "defining property", "defining trait", "defining feature" etc. Mihia (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

... “defining issue”, “defining condition”, “defining question”, “defining element”, ... Delete, totally SOP.  --Lambiam 06:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. Equinox 07:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

本页面最后更新于2020-03-02 11:47,点击更新本页

本站的所有资料包括但不限于文字、图片等全部转载于维基词典(wiktionary.org),遵循 维基百科:CC BY-SA 3.0协议

万维词典为维基百科爱好者建立的公益网站,旨在为中国大陆网民提供优质内容,您还可以直接访问维基词典官方网站


顶部