Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	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 verification/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for verification/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.	Requests for verification/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/Others add new | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, 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/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for deletion/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.	Requests for deletion/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction add new reconstruction request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

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 whose existence is in doubt

Templates:

• {{rfd}}
• {{rfd-sense}}
• {{rfd-redundant}}
• {{archive-top|rfd}} + {{archive-bottom}}

See also:

• Criteria for inclusion
• Page deletion guidelines

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. The most common reason 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 words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Disputes regarding whether an entry falls afoul of any of the subsections in our criteria for inclusion that demand a particular kind of attestation (such as figurative use requirements for certain place names and the WT:BRAND criteria) should also go to RFV. 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 once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because there is no consensus, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. The threshold for consensus is hinted at the ratio of 2/3 of supports to supports and opposes, but is not set in stone and other considerations than pure tallying can play a role; see the vote.

• 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: In some cases, like moves or redirections, 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 is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

Oldest tagged RFDs

• No pages meet these criteria.

June 2013

Transwiki:Guard ship

Discussion moved from WT:RFDO#Guard ship.

Says it's a warship used as a guard. I assume it can be any type of ship, just a warship is much more suited to the task than a shrimper. Ergo delete, unless guardship is ok, then we kinda can't. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it fails WT:COALMINE because it's not significantly more common than guardship, it's significantly less common than it; on Google Books an estimate 441 hits whil guardship gets 25100, more than 50 times more. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

But guardship can also refer to "the state of being a guard/guarded", so a simple Google Books search may not be representative for this particular sense. —CodeCat 18:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"A guard ship" gets 32900 GBC hits to 3930 for "a guardship". "Guardships"+crew gets 1440, "guard ships"+crew gets 4950 (with some being for "Coast Guard ships"): "the guardships"+crew gets 529, "the guard ships"+crew gets 3480. - -sche (discuss) 16:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you noticed how wonky Google search results are? The counts, in particular, seem unreliable. Caution seems required. Sometimes it pays to try to page toward the end of the results. That end may come much sooner than the indicated number would suggest. That might be the result of Google limiting the number of such pages they make available or it might indicate a bad estimate. Heavy use of qualifying terms to reduce the absolute count, possibly even going further than -sche did above, may be desirable to make a page-by-page scan of the results more feasible, without fear of Google-imposed limits. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. "Of the guardships" masts crew gets 9 results (though it says it gets 10), "of the guard ships" masts crew gets 12 (though it says it gets 237). "Of the guard ships" boats crew gets 18 (claims 673), "of the guardships" boats crew gets 6 (claims 7). The two-word term seems more common than the one-word term. - -sche (discuss) 17:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Also guard ship seems to be a calque for the Russian ship-class name storozhevoj korabl. It may be worth checking the literature for whether this is a common English name for the particular type. —Michael Z. 2013-06-10 19:44 z

Maybe not. First page of GBooks results for storozhevoy korabl has various SOP translations including guard ship, escort ship, patrol ship, etc. —Michael Z. 2013-06-11 00:54 z

Keep per WT:COALMINE. I'm not sure what the point of reporting on the wonkiness of Google search results is, when the actual hits can be looked at, and reveal uses like:

• 1873, David Hogg, Life and Times of the Rev. John Wightman, D.D., 1762-1847, p. 138:

  On one occasion the captain of a guardship was obliged to put in at Whithorn to have some repairs done for the accommodation of a number of men who had been impressed and taken on board.

• 1904, Marcus Robert Phipps Dorman, A History of the British Empire in the Nineteenth Century, p. 182:

  Captain Adye was therefore ordered to Caprara, while the Fleur de Lys, the French guardship, sailed towards Antibes.

• 1908, Dues and Charges on Shipping in Foreign Ports, p. 591:

  A guardship is stationed in the Bay of Nagara, about three miles to the northward of the Dardanelles town, and vessels must stop off and communicate with this guardship The guardship is a small man-of-war schooner sailing vessel, anchored in 10 fathoms water, and carrying by day the ordinary Turkish ensign.

Cheers! bd2412 T 15:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The question is not whether there are such hits but rather whether "guard ship" is significantly more common than "guardship", since that being the case is one of the conditions in WT:COALMINE. guard ship,guardship at Google Ngram Viewer suggests that "guardship" is more common, so coalmine would not protect "guard ship". An editor has tried above to differentiate the term per sense and show that "guard ship" could be more common for that sense. In any case, this is not a clearcut coalmine case. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• In retrospect, I'm actually not bothered by the ratio of one-word to two-word formations. The phrase, "guard ship" is one for which it is trivially easy to find citations:

• 1832, William Allen, An American Biographical and Historical Dictionary, p. 209:

  He was pronounced guilty, and sentenced to confinement on board a guard ship, and in forty days to be sent with his family to England.

• 1919, George Grafton Wilson, International Law Situations, p. 137:

  Vessels after having been visited by the guard ship in Monvik and taking route toward Reval, must, for the second time, pass the guard ship near island Wulf for delivery of permission of the previous mentioned guard ship and then continue their route, according to orders of this guard ship.

• 1999, Hans Turley, Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash: Piracy, Sexuality, and Masculine Identity, p. 23:

  The narrator describes — in what could be exaggeration — what newly pressed sailors discovered when they were hauled aboard a guard ship to wait for orders.

• 2007, C. Douglas Kroll, "Friends in Peace and War": The Russian Navy's Landmark Visit to Civil War San Francisco, p. 67:

  With the guard ship Shubrick gone, the commanding officer of Alcatraz assumed guard duty to make sure that no hostile foreign warships entered the bay.

• 2010, British Ships in the Confederate Navy, p. 218:

  In 1858, taking up his commission once more in the Royal Navy, he was appointed an officer of the guard ship at Malta, and subsequently was given command of the gunship Foxhound, which patrolled in the Mediterranean.

• 2011, Murray Leinster, The World is Taboo, p. 122:

  The guard ship would overhear. He could not trust untried young men to act rationally if they were unaware and the guard ship arrived and matter-of-factly attempted to board one of them.

  I would keep this, therefore, irrespective of whether "guardship" exists to describe a kind of ship. bd2412 T 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  If you want to keep it without WT:COALMINE, then you have to show that it is idiomatic. I think you'll have more luck keeping it with WT:COALMINE. --WikiTiki89 14:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  What if it was just an {{alternative spelling of}} guardship, with the main definition at the unspaced title? bd2412 T 17:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Acanthasitta

I think this is a not-common misspelling of Acanthisitta. DCDuring TALK 23:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly disconcerting in the etymology of Acanthisittidae. — Pingku^dimmi 13:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete; google books:"Acanthasitta", google groups:"Acanthasitta", “Acanthasitta”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. yields no hits at all. This could go to RFV, but I actually think it could as well have been speedied, so let us vote on deletion here and be done with it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep; With very little time invested I found three distinct hits.
  • http://newzealandecology.org/nzje/free_issues/NZJEcol34_1_28.pdf
  • http://www.boprc.govt.nz/media/33700/Wildland-091118-TaurangaEcolDistPhase1.pdf
  • http://www.sahs.uk.net/BoTNHAS%20Trans%20Vol%20V,%20Part%20II.pdf

I agree that it may be a misspelling but it clearly meets the rules of Attestation, aren't you glad it wasn't speedied. Speednat (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The citations clearly fail to meet the "durably archived" test. In any event it is a not very common misspelling. A misspelling that is this close to the correct spelling will cause the correct spelling to be suggested to the user who types the wrong spelling in the search box. DCDuring TALK 17:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There are four durably archived quotes coming up in a gscholar search (you need to download the large full pdfs to see some of them), but as these are all referring to Acanthasitta chloris it is a slam dunk they are all a misspelling of w:Acanthisitta chloris. Actually, the files were downloading while I was typing this and one of the four I can now see is only a google scanno. And another one uses the correct spelling elsewhere in the document. SpinningSpark 00:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Last call for comments before I close this as no consensus. bd2412 T 17:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• The standard of evidence presented in defense of this spelling is shamefully low. Google Scholar's count of 4 for this spelling compares to 481 for the Acanthisitta. Not only is the absolute number of hits of the erroneous spelling low, but the relative number would seem to be below 1%. Such a low threshold would vastly increase the number of misspellings that we keep. Also I cannot find instances of the erroneous spelling at Google Books. Spinningspark also acknowledge that only two of the hits he advanced would count for RfV. DCDuring TALK 18:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete because of that. IMO, a "common" misspelling should be something like miniscule. We already have a spell-check facility. Equinox ◑ 18:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete, nowhere near a common misspelling. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 19:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

check into

See here. AFAICT, this is not a unit as e.g. check in is, but simply check, followed by into (which belongs to a following prepositional phrase). Longtrend (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's actually , where of course into becomes a single word. I feel uneasy about deleting it; probably keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I think with the definition given it is a misspelling of check in + to, probably an uncommon one.

With another definition, several OneLook dictionaries have it. DCDuring TALK 18:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. The entry currently hosts the sole definition: "To announce one's arrival (at a hotel etc.)." A similar definition is 1. at Macmillan[1], and the definition given at oxforddictionaries.com (not OED)[2]. A search shows "check into the hotel" to be more common than "check in to the hotel": check into the hotel,check in to the hotel at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the definition falls short as is. A person does not "check into" a hotel or a flight merely by walking into the lobby/terminal and announcing "I'm here". The notice of that person's arrival must be presented to the proprietor of the business, or an employee of the proprietor. A person who is "checking in" to an event like a conference must inform someone connected with the conference in a name-gathering capacity. bd2412 T 12:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Kept for lack of a consensus to delete. bd2412 T 12:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

-endlic

The etymology really says it all. I don't think this is a single suffix, but rather a combination of two. —CodeCat 17:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete, I think. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

What about moving the definition to -lic and changing it to “forming […] from present participles […] ”? Would that be correct? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Although this looks like -ingly (=-ing+-ly), the definition says "Forming adjectives from verbs with the sense of ‘able to, capable of’." How would you know from -ende (Old English present participle ending) and (deprecated template usage) -līċ (-ly, "like") that you can form -able adjectives like this? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

August 2013

K

(US) The initial letter of the call sign of radio stations west of the Mississippi (see also W)

Orginally in Translingual. Is this practice of the US FCC involving a single letter of what might be considered an alternative name of a broadcast organization a morpheme that we should include? BTW, what should its tag be: "in the US", "of the US", "of certain US radio broadcasters", or just ambiguously "US"? DCDuring TALK 16:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Call it a prefix if you must since it's never used as a standalone word. DTLHS (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs here. If we do want it, then we need to include all the other call sign prefixes XE- and XH- for Mexico, C- and VO- in Canada, and so one for broadcasters in all nations. DCDuring TALK 16:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It has meaning, but I'm not sure it belongs in a dictionary. It's just a practice in assigning of letter sequences- do we want to include the letters at the end of forms, like the US IRS tax forms 1040 vs. 1040A vs. 1040EZ (w:IRS tax forms#1040)? There are all kinds of cases where a serial number or ID or code contains sequences that have meaning. It's kind of like the practices in naming things like ships and hurricanes: there is a system to it, but it's not really dictionary material. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I was wrong to move this from Translingual, as one of the purposes is to identify a broadcaster at a distance, which distance has little to do with official boundaries. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't even exact; there are a few exceptions. It kind of reminds me of the "used to differentiate between houses with the same number" sense of a. delete -- Liliana • 18:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There is some interesting history to the exact assignments. According to Wikipedia, "[t]he United States was represented by the military at the 1927 [International Radiotelegraphic Convention] conference, which is why it received (or, in some cases, retained) A (for Army) and N (for Navy). The W and K for civilian stations followed as the simple addition of a dash to the Morse code letters A and N. (However, in 1912, KDA–KZZ, all of N, and all of W were assigned to the United States, but all of A was assigned to Germany and its protectorates). International call signs for stations aboard U.S. ships were initially assigned with W prefixes on the west coast and K prefixes in the Atlantic; land-based stations followed the opposite pattern. The distinction between Atlantic and Pacific ships was to become less meaningful after the Panama Canal reduced the distance required to cross from one ocean to another". It's not exactly etymology, but it is an interesting explanation. I had never realized that radio stations and television stations outside the U.S. had call signs at all, or that all call signs had an initial letter assigned by international convention. bd2412 T 20:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. It's not dictionary material. We could do similar with the Australian radio stations and add 4 for Queensland, 2 for NSW, etc, but in neither case are the letters or numbers used in a linguistic sense. (BTW, our radio prefixes match our post code prefixes, so that could open another can of worms).--Dmol (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Good point about the post codes. In the US, you can tell by the first 2 digits of a zip code what state or territory it's in, and you can tell the same about phone numbers from the area code. There's a huge amount of encyclopedic information associated with specific letters, numbers, and sequences thereof that's not really a part of the language. Such things may find their way into the language via their symbolism or as short-hand for something (I think an adjective entry for 90210 might be justifiable, for instance), but on their own they simply don't belong in a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

W

Same as K. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep both: Not seeing how the project is harmed by these entries Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 13:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep both, there is some interesting history behind them for which a reader might turn to a dictionary. bd2412 T 19:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete both. Any "interesting history" behind them is Wikipedia material. --WikiTiki89 20:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It has a definition that is not discernible from the letter alone, plus in interesting history as to why it has that definition. bd2412 T 22:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
    • It doesn't have a definition period, discernible or not. It would be like defining "BC" as "broadcasting corporation (used as the last two letters of a television network name)". --WikiTiki89 22:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
      • That would be an entirely reasonable definition to include if there was some law or administrative rule that required all TV networks to have names ending in "BC" (or to have names ending in one of two abbreviations, based on the broadcast region of the network). bd2412 T 17:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
        • No it wouldn't be. Compare that situation to a totalitarian regime that by law approves only one TV network and mandates its name to be "The Super Awesome TV Network"; would we then have to add The Super Awesome TV Network just because some country mandated that it be the only TV station? --WikiTiki89 17:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm amazed that you would think that the name of a specific entity is comparable to an initial used as a component of multiple entities, and having the same definition in each of them. That is more like B. (the abbreviation for "Bachelors" used in academic degrees) that it a common component of multiple degrees. bd2412 T 18:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
            • Well now that you bring it up, I am against having B.. --WikiTiki89 18:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Over two months without further comment. Would someone please close this. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

enable

RFD-redundant.

None of the senses [of enable] given seem distinguished.

Sense #1 specifically overlaps Sense #2. Sense #3 is redundant to #1 and #2. The example given is too general and vague to confer any additional meaning. No citation given.

Here is the version being referenced 8/8/2013 ~ 06:03 PM CT:

1. To give strength or ability to; to make firm and strong.
   • (Can we date this quote?), King James Bible, "1 Tim. i. 12"

     Who hath enabled me.

2. To make able (to do, or to be, something); to confer sufficient power upon; to furnish with means, opportunities, and the like; to render competent for; to empower; to endow.
   • 1711, October 13, Joseph Addison, The Spectator, number 195

     Temperance gives Nature her full play, and enables her to exert herself in all her force and vigor.

   • Template:quote-magazine
3. To allow a way out or excuse for an action.

— This unsigned comment was added by Anon lynx (talk • contribs) at 23:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC).

I think the first two senses are redundant, but the third sense is distinct - the root of enabler. To enable someone to carry on bad habits is not to give them the ability to do those things, but to facilitate their habits by failing to take steps to prevent them. bd2412 T 23:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The first sense is to make one able, in a general sense. The second is to make one able to do something specific. It's almost like the difference between transitive and intransitive with the following infinitive clause acting like an indirect object. I'm sure there's a technical term for the difference, but I can't think of one. For the original poster: unlike Wikipedia, we don't require citation for things like definitions (they're often a good idea in etymologies, though)- we strictly go by usage. For us, a citation is a reference to an example of usage, not to an authoritative work. I can attest that the third sense is in widespread use, especially in the context of psychotherapy and addiction counseling, so it no doubt meets WT:CFI. Even if it didn't that would be something to bring up at WT:RFV, not here. I also think you meant 8/2/2013- unless you can retrieve things from 6 days in the future... Chuck Entz (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus to delete. bd2412 T 21:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

ask for it

Discussion moved from WT:RFV#ask for it.

Sense 3. Is this distinct from sense 2? I don't think so. Hyarmendacil (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC) (moved by Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC), please continue discussion)

It's a total no doubter for me; I would've simply undone the edit. This is a specific example of #2 not a new definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. It’s definition 2 used in a specific context. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 10:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say sense 2 could be narrowed down instead, since it seems to primarly be a synonym for "someone who's vulnerable and is deliberately annoying those who are liable to hurt them" whereas sense 3 is a woman who's underdressed as if to tempt someone to rape them. I dont think being underdressed can be a subset of being annoying. Soap (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read it again. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There is difference between provoking (even unwanted) sexual attention and instigating sexual assault. It's a gliding scale, but we distuingish black and white, even if there is a whole range greys between them. People using the expression "asked for it" when it is clearly inappropiate, often don't think that they are asking for it. It might be useful to add a usage note that outside certain circles "she was asking for it" is asking for a kick in the balls, if not a castration. --80.114.178.7 20:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Weak delete per Mglovesfun and Ungoliant... or else make it into a subsense. - -sche (discuss) 23:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Sense deleted. bd2412 T 22:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

prévaille

prévaillent

The proper first-person and third-person present subjunctive of prévaloir is prévale. Esszet (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking this might be a common enough error to be included as an erroneous form. But it's actually attested in early Modern French (with the acute as well) as a correct form. Here's such an example. Keep, rewrite as necessary. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That source says that prévaille is incorrect: 'But no matter what those who attach themselves to the exactitude of grammar say about how it is so and how one must speak so, one says at the court prévale and not prévaille, and it is the court that must set the rules for us.’ If prévaille is a common error, it should be included under ‘Usage Notes’ and not be given a seperate page or even be included in the conjugation table. I'm also nominating prévailles and prévaillent for deletion because the correct forms are prévales and prévalent respectively (see the above link for prévale). Esszet (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

We're a descriptive, not a prescriptive dictionary- if it's in use, we have an entry for it. That's not to say it shouldn't be tagged as "proscribed", "nonstandard" or a "misspelling"- but it merits an entry according to our WT:CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep all and rewrite as necessary - all of these are likely enough errors that they should be included. Razorflame 21:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Esszet, prévaille might be incorrect but it hasn't always been incorrect. It has existed, it is present in French texts. Websites likes Larousse and Leconjugueur only list current forms, not all forms that have existed. Similarly you won't find avoit under avoir instead of avait, but it's an older form and the standard spelling for much longer than avait has been. And I'm not suggesting adding these to the conjugation either. So only those who type it in will find it, and they will see the usage notes saying this is no longer used and prévale is the only modern form. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see actual uses (the link provided above does not show a use at all). I found at least one use, but I feel that it might have always been an uncommon error due to the conjugation of valoir. I even find this error on a modern conjugation site (mentioning prévaille', prévailles but prévalent), despite the fact that nobody would use prévaille. Lmaltier (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of uses; I searched Google Books, found about 10 and stopped after that. The total number of hits was in the thousands and I didn't want to check all of them. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at

• http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=pr%C3%A9vaille%2Cpr%C3%A9vale&year_start=1600&year_end=2000&corpus=19&smoothing=3&share=
• http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=pr%C3%A9vailles%2Cpr%C3%A9vales&year_start=1600&year_end=2000&corpus=19&smoothing=3&share=
• http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=pr%C3%A9vaillent%2C+pr%C3%A9valent&year_start=1600&year_end=2000&corpus=19&smoothing=3&share= (but this comparison is not very meaninglful, because prévalent is also an adjective, so look at the following one)
• http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=ils+pr%C3%A9vaillent%2Cils+pr%C3%A9valent&year_start=1600&year_end=2000&corpus=19&smoothing=3&share=

All these figures seem to show that prévale, prévales, prévalent have always been the normal forms, and prévaille used concurrently only during very short periods. These statistics should be used in some way to clarify things in the pages: it might be understood that the old normal form was prévaille and that prévale is only a modern form. Lmaltier (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus to delete. Any clarification as to usage is a matter for the entry talk pages. bd2412 T 22:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

lead poisoning

Change to an &lit. It's poisoning by means of lead. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It is my thumbnail understanding that "lead poisoning" refers to poisoning by incidental absorption through the skin. If you decide to do away with your evil twin by mixing lead into their tea, they may be poisoned by it, but this would not be "lead poisoning" as it is traditionally used. Consider:

• 2005, John Emsley, The Elements of Murder: A History of Poison, page 317:

  Specht and Fischer deduced that Clement had been fatally poisoned with lead and that this had been taken repeatedly and over a period of time. They concluded that his remains revealed a pattern of lead poisoning similar to those who had been exposed to lead as a result of their occupation and who had died of this cause.

Cheers! bd2412 T 18:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete, simple enough. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"...poisoned with lead...revealed a pattern of lead poisoning..." seems to me to be evidence for exactly the opposite case that BD2412 is trying to make. SpinningSpark 23:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The book is about murders committed with poison. In context, the passage is about how researchers knew that Clement had died of from exposure to lead because he had symptoms similar to those of crafstman who worked with lead (i.e. had actual "lead poisoning"), and concluded from those symptoms that Clement had been poisoned with lead - much like finding that someone had died from burns (the symptom, which might be found on people who work in fire pits and boiler rooms and get burned incidentally) and concluding that this particular subject had been murdered by intentionally being set on fire. bd2412 T 00:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There are two definitions of poisoning. "The administration of a poison" is what you're focusing on as the SOP meaning, but "The state of being poisoned", works just fine for the common usage. Lead poisoning is a condition or syndrome that is the result of too much lead in one's body- how it got there is irrelevant. For instance, if children eat chips of lead-based paint, they get lead poisoning. If someone is shot and the bullet isn't removed, they're at risk for lead poisoning. "Poisoning by incidental absorption through the skin" isn't part of the definition. In fact, one could say "this particular case of lead poisoning was no accident- someone deliberately poisoned him with lead." It seems to me a matter of whether the fact that only one definition of a component contributes to the default meaning is enough to establish idiomaticity. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. Delete. bd2412 T 13:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There are no non-literal senses in the entry, and it's not a translations target, since plumbism hosts the translations... so if it's decided that any poisoning by lead is lead poisoning, the thing to do would seem to be delete the entry, rather than make it an {{&lit}}. - -sche (discuss) 00:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@-sche: There was a non-literal sense when I nominated it. Semper deleted it out of process and I reverted him. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the context from that sense, because I don't think it's correct. I have heard or seen that figure of speech in fiction, so it may be that the contributor saw it in some western and assumed that was the context. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

For some reason or other many lexicographers find this worth including, including Merriam-Webster, usually fairly picky about excluding MWEs. See “lead poisoning”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring TALK 17:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster definition is quite specific, too. bd2412 T 13:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

La Calavera Catrina

Not English. Bad title (shouldn't contain "La"). SemperBlotto (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove 'la' and make it a proper noun. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 03:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No strong feelings, if kept as English can retain the 'La' as 'La' isn't an article in English. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

failover

I am proposing to delete the first sense. I feel, as someone who's worked in the computing field for more than a decade, that the first sense is really just a specific case of the second, which is more general, and in my opinion, the better dictionary definition. What do you guys think? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 03:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I am puzzled that sense #1 is glossed as uncountable. Is there an uncountable use of this term? SpinningSpark 20:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The "capability to perform a failover" (countable) seems to be uncountable. I've added a few cites under the uncountable heading, but intending no endorsement of that wordy, even encyclopedic definition. I don't think there are a vast number of these so the sense should be worded to span all the cites, which probably means lack of specificity. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so if you agree that there is an uncountable sense (and you have now just cited it), then you can't delete it. There are still two senses. Unless you also intend to gloss sense #2 as countable and uncountable. I would think a cleanup of sense #1 is a more appropriate thing to do than deletion. SpinningSpark 15:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there's not enough difference between the uncountable and countable versions to warrant two definitions. The second definition can be tweaked slightly to cater to both. My point with this post is the unnecessary degree of specificness that the first definition goes into. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 00:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that one definition ought to be enough. We are talking about the difference between an uncountable ability ("do we support failover?") vs. a countable instance ("how many failovers last year?"). Compare backup, perhaps. Equinox ◑ 00:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

If it is a requirement for a definition to be substitutable – it is a desideratum – it may not be so easy find suitable wording. DCDuring TALK 04:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

prévalant (adjective) and prévalants

It's a somewhat common spelling error (the right spelling for the adjective is prévalent, unlike the past participle), but I think that nobody considers it as a legitimate spelling. Google figures: "prévalents": 45 100, "prévalants": 3 030, Google Books figures: "prévalents": 3 860, "prévalants": 755 (surprisingly high, but I find that there are scanning errors and that some of the uses are, clearly, not adjectives). If kept, it should be made clear that it's not a standard spelling. Lmaltier (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Entries by User:89.240.237.161

Do we want all these "division" entries? —CodeCat 01:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete all. Encyclopaedic information not for the Wiktionary. Razorflame 02:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Move to titles without "Division" for the ones that would thereafter be single words that we don't have. bd2412 T 04:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This sounds more reasonable, as place names are allowed. Preferably the names should be accompanied by translations into Urdu and native languages but this could be added later. Either move per BD2412 or keep in full. My only concern is that these divisions are too small and are unlikely to be used in the media or books and are of little value as a translation target. It's far more advantageous to keep high level administrative divisions of a country, such as provinces of Pakistan, like we have Category:en:States of India or Category:en:US States. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with them is that, unlike Orange County and the like, they don't actually tell us anything. I would delete them all (by all means add proper entries for the names without "Division"). SemperBlotto (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference, in the end, between deleting these "Foo Division" titles and creating new "Foo" titles, or merely moving these "Foo Division" titles to "Foo" titles? bd2412 T 16:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea; if we're going to move Lahore Division to just Lahore, does it carry the same meaning even when the word 'Lahore' is removed? Is this like New York State or more like Arizona State, or what? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Lahore Division is currently defined as "One of the administrative divisions of Pakistan". At worst, we would merely need to adjust that to "The name of one of the administrative divisions of Pakistan". I am, however, certain that we should have an entry on Lahore, with an etymology and a pronunciation. bd2412 T 03:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If you click on one of the Wikipedia links, you'll find that a reform in 2000 eliminated that entire tier of jurisdictions- these are all historical, rather than current entities. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep We have had a VOTE on keeping toponyms. It passed. I see no reason to provision for excluding administrative divisions from places far away in distance or time. End of discussion.

If we would like to reverse or qualify the vote, then we need a VOTE. We may have enough information now to actually have criteria that would allow us to rationally distinguish between toponyms we deem entry-worthy and those we don't, though I doubt it. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Is "Lahore Division" a toponym, though, or is it a toponym with a qualifier? It seems rather similar to Washington State, which is completely SoP as even the definition itself shows. That the "state" or "division" part is used as disambiguation doesn't really matter, because "tall tree" is also distinguished from "small tree". —CodeCat 12:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, the fact that it is a former division rather than a current division merely means that we would have to mark the entry "obsolete". Lahore is still a word, and can be defined here. bd2412 T 23:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

In this case probably "historical" rather than "obsolete". Equinox ◑ 23:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's more complicated and murkier than that. According to w:Divisions of Pakistan there was a vote in 2008 to restore the divisions, but it's unclear to me how far along the restoration is.

As for why I pointed this out: of course we have historical and obsolete terms, and there's no reason to eliminate these because of that. My point was that this IP is operating from a definite POV, and we need to factor that into our decisions- albeit remaining true to CFI in the process. If we decide to keep these, we need to consider if there's anything we can do to mitigate the POV aspects. My take on this is that we have a typically-jingoistic expat living in England who's on a mission to make sure that the Pakistani version of things is represented in detail. Mostly that's not a problem in itself, but this edit shows they're quite capable of crossing the line into overt POV. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It gets worse: some of the divisions were in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, which is in the disputed territory of Kashmir, and India doesn't have divisions with those names. I've speedied those. Others were listed as being part of "East Pakistan", better known as Bangladesh. Given that East Pakistan ceased to exist decades ago, defining Dacca Division as "One of the administrative divisions of East Pakistan" is misleading. I changed "East Pakistan" to "Bangladesh". Also, all of the entries have Wikipedia templates, but several link to nonexistent Wikipedia articles.

To sum it up: this IP needs to be watched carefully, due to POV language, politically-motivated entries with no correspondence to actual reality, and sloppiness with Wikipedia links. I've gone through and cleaned up some of the POV stuff, but I'm sure there's more that I didn't spot. I'm also not sure what to do about some of the divisions in disputed territory that might or might not be part of Pakistan, depending on whom you ask. It wouldn't hurt for someone to check all my edits to their contributions, for that matter, to make sure I didn't make any mistakes- it got a bit tiring after awhile. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• As for Bahawalpur Division, Bannu Division, Lahore Division and similar entries from Category:en:Divisions of Pakistan:
  • One thing is whether e.g. "Lahore Division" should have an entry. I think it should, and thus keep. Geographic names that contain their entity type in the name include Hudson River, Cooper Creek, Lake Ontario, Atlantic Ocean, Adriatic Sea, Chesapeake Bay, Cape Horn, Mount Everest, Longs Peak, Death Valley, Copper Canyon, Red River Gorge, Mexico City, New York City, Cape Town, New York State, Main Street, Grant Avenue, Jack Kerouac Alley, Leicester Square, Piccadilly Circus, and Abbey Road. Some have the form "<noun-phrase-used-attributively> <entity-type>" (e.g. "Death Valley"), while some have the form "<adjective-phrase> <entity-type>" (e.g. "Atlantic Ocean").
  • Another thing is that the definitions are entirely unspecific and poor: "One of the administrative divisions of Pakistan". This is I belive that SemperBlotto means when he says that "... unlike Orange County and the like, they don't actually tell us anything". I admit that this is a fairly good reason for wanting to delete the entries.
  • As for "We have had a VOTE on keeping toponyms", a claim made above: We had a vote that resulted in this regulation: Wiktionary:CFI#Names_of_specific_entities: "... A name of a specific entity must not be included if it does not meet the attestation requirement. Among those that do meet that requirement, many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which. ...". So the regulation does not tell us that we need to keep all place names. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The vote eliminated the sole criterion for discriminating among proper nouns. The surrounding discussion explicitly included toponyms. By normal rules of construction, that leaves us with not basis for discrimination other than subjective whim, as was mentioned at the time. We are now in the position of exercising our discretion arbitrarily against a place that is unpopular and far away from the deciders, exactly the kind of situation that rules are intended to prevent. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

moral authority

Seems to mean "an authority with respect to morality". Mglovesfun (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Actual, it's more or less the other way around. It means having authority because one is believed to be moral. The authority can be over anything. In other words, if a person is believed by others to have impeccable morality, those others may follow the commands of the person with "moral authority", even if that person has no formal authority (i.e. doesn't have academic expertise in a subject or hold a political office). bd2412 T 12:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Government/politics and academia only? Really?

Some other sources of formal authority includes management position, property ownership, officially certified competence, legal violence or threat thereof. There may be more. Other, informal sources of authority can include extra-legal violence or threat thereof, status from any source derived, celebrity, a track record of success (or its tokens), acknowledged competence or knowledge (certification-free), friendship with or leverage over others. I don't know what I'm missing.

Moral authority is in no OneLook reference besides Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 14:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

invitar a salir

"to invite to go out", NISOP (not idiomatic, sum of parts). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, delete as SOP -WF
• Keep, as a Spanish translation of a non-sum-of-parts English entry ask out. The entry hosts a pair of Spanish and English sentences for "ask out"; you cannot have this at ask out. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete: the translation at ask out has been formatted as [[invitar]] [[a]] [[salir]] since just a few minutes after this entry was added, and the usage example can be added to both invitar and salir. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • And delete convidar para sair (Portuguese) too while we're at it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

crystally clear

Adverb sense. Insofar as this is not SoP it seems to me to be a clear error in grammar. It is conceivable that clear is used as an adverb in parallel to words like fast which is used both as adjective and adverb, which would make this SoP. Otherwise, it seems like a simple grammatical error. Grammatical errors are never SoP, but they are […] errors. I didn't think we documented them. DCDuring TALK 20:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep per CFI’s “A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means.” Even if it is a grammatical error (I see it as an error of interpretation: forming a -ly adverb from the expression crystal clear and thinking crystal is an adjective, probably a result of it ending the same phonemes as the common adjectival suffix -al) we do include them (Mussulmen, avocadi). If anything is a SOP, it’s the adjective:

• “There is a crystally clear river flowing by Vidauban.” ((deprecated template usage) crystally + (deprecated template usage) clear)
• “How dare you imply that the paradox rules aren't utterly, crystally clear!” (multiple adverbs (utterly and crystally (missing sense?) modifying the adjective)

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 13:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ungoliant: These two are obviously adverbial uses of crystally#Adverb, modifying the adjective clear. Thus, it is SoP. That, as a matter of style, many, including me, would view it as inferior, is immaterial to its SoPitude. We do not have the talent to be a style guide and would be venturing into a realm that is gradually being abandoned by AHD, the sole major dictionary that offered any style guidance.

@Musselman: It's meaning is obvious from its parts. Crystally is attestable as an adverb, whether or not it agrees with anyone's theories of proper word formation and whether or not we can attest to crystal as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete; covered by crystally (and in some cases evidently an error by non-native speakers). Equinox ◑ 16:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Musselman: crystal#Adjective "very clear" is attestable as an adjective. See Citations:crystal. DCDuring TALK 16:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually CFI goes on to say "A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense. Any of these are also acceptable:

Compounds and multiple-word terms such as post office."

I suppose it doesn't mean all multiple word terms, but it doesn't say one way or another. I keep finding error or ambiguous bits of CFI, and even blatant errors are hard to get rid of, because there needs to be a 70% consensus on what to replace the error with, even if 70% of voters overall want to see the text change. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Last call before I close this as no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 17:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus to delete. bd2412 T 19:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

September 2013

superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen

I am opening this RFD to close a RFV. The RFV seems hard to close going by evidence only, so a RFD seems appropriate.

For a RFV discussion, see WT:RFV#superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen. For attestation evidence in Wiktionary (I see none), see superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen and Citations:superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen.

I motion to delete the page as unattested. The term has zero Google books hits, and less than 1000 Google web hits. There was a pro-keeping argument by considering the "well-known work" item in WT:ATTEST, but I do not see it as obvious that the work in question (Mary Poppins) is a well-known work, nor do we have a standard for what "well-known work" means. I do not known the work, while I could name a couple of works by Shakespeare, so I reject the "well-known work" item from applying to the discussed term. As a disclaimer, I have tried to have the "well-known work" item removed from WT:CFI in the past, and I may try to do so again in future, so I am generally unfavorable to the item, but even I have to admit that e.g. Much Ado about Nothing is a well-known work, whether I like the item or not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete. No chance it is a well-known work. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 13:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Mary Poppins is a rather well-known work in English; but in Finnish? (Let's not, for example, allow all the Joycean nonce words in various French translations.) Equinox ◑ 13:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It's quite well-known also in Finland. The movie was extremely popular, and there have been several theater productions. This particular song has been recorded in Finnish and it became quite popular as well. 1000 hits is not so bad for Finnish. It's a small language with only five million speakers. Even if we don't count Indians and Pakistanis, there are at least 100 times as many English speakers around. If 1,000 hits is some sort of criterion, we'll have to delete much of the current Finnish content. That said, delete by all means, too much energy has been spent on discussing it already. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 20:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

slapende vulkaan

Two separate words, adj+noun. One could include slapende hond, 'sleeping dog' too. — This unsigned comment was added by DrJos (talk • contribs) at 12:47, 1 September 2013.

Actually there isn't currently a definition for slapende#Dutch. Also slapen just says 'to sleep', whereas a dormant volcano isn't literally sleeping of course. Things which aren't alive can't literally sleep. Whether slapende means "(of a volcano) dormant" I don't know, so we need Dutch speakers, and we have a few of those. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

(deprecated template usage) slapende is the inflected form of (deprecated template usage) slapend, but most present participles are currently lacking inflection tables and don't have entries for all the forms yet. I would say that (deprecated template usage) slapen can also mean "be dormant" in the more figurative sense, although "slapende vulkaan" does sound somewhat poetic. The more usual way of saying it would be (deprecated template usage) inactieve vulkaan. —CodeCat 13:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If I look at the examples at dormant, it's not a good translation for slapend (not even as a secondary meaning after sleeping; though dormant bank account might do too). An "inactieve vulkaan" can be a w:dode vulkaan or a "slapende vulkaan", most are "dood" (extinct).

Weak keep, idiomatic meaning. --80.114.178.7 21:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

My point wasn't the idiom: "slapend" literarily means "dormant", that's not the point, the Dutch use the term "slapende vulkaan" for a volcano that hasn't erupted in quite a while. A dictionary however should be filled with words, not encyclopedic terms: these are two separate words coincidentally put together. You could include "slapende hond" (sleeping, dormant dog) or "slapende man" (sleeping, dormant man) too. --DrJos (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

In English "dormant" and "volcano" aren't two words coincidentally put together; "dormant volcano" is more scientific whereas "sleeping volcano" is more allegorical. The question of what the translation of "dormant volcano" into Dutch is is certainly a lexicographic question, not an encyclopedic question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If (and that's a big if) English uses "dormant dog" for a "sleeping dog" (as opposed to, say, a dog who did lead a pack, who doesn't lead it now, yet might lead it again), you could be right. For me (and I am Dutch) Template:l/nl usually only means Template:l/en, the idiomatic uses in Template:l/nl and Template:l/en just happen to coincide. --80.114.178.7 20:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Last call for comments before I close this as "no consensus to delete". bd2412 T 17:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Should appear under vulkaan as a derived term too. Donnanz (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

get on

definition: (deprecated template usage) (transitive) To commence (an action).

This is clearly get#Verb ("to reach a certain condition") + on#Preposition ("used as a function word to indicate destination or the focus of some action, movement, or directed effort" [from MWOnline]). DCDuring TALK 13:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be in favor of making an entry for "get on it." The verb "get" is so complex that expecting the user to figure out which meaning of "get" is meant here is not reasonable. --BB12 (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Keep: Too many definitions of "get" and "on" for this to be SOP which is BS anyway Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Purplebackpack89. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This clearly isn't get#Verb ("to reach a certain condition") as that's intransitive. Try again. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I was using an MWOnline intransitive verb definition. DCDuring TALK 17:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This nomination definition is transitive, and 'on' isn't the direct object. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. If you consider get on to be a unit then it is transitive. If you consider it to be SoP then you need to have recourse to an intransitive sense of get which can be used with a prepositional phrase headed by on. DCDuring TALK 17:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• RFD kept for no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

AA cup

doesn't seem particularly idiomatic to me -- Liliana • 16:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Both AA and cup have brassiere-related definitions. Seems SOP. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

A cup

I'm on the fence about these entries, particularly because I note that this one has a "by synecdoche: a woman whose breasts fit this size of bra" sense. I'm adding it to the RFD because I don't think it would make sense to delete one and not the other. The letters are common on their own, so there is an argument to be made that the combinations ("AA cup", "A cup") aren't idiomatic. [[A cup]] currently contains more info than [[A]], but it would be easy to move the info. As for the synecdoche sense: it seems possible to use synecdoche to speak of the wearers of most any item of clothing, with the intelligibility of the synecdoche dependent on the context and the commonness of the clothing. (Yoga pants and skinny jeans might understand things that pantsuits don't. G cups have to deal with things that suits don't. Of those, we only have an entry on the one that is by far the most common, suits.) - -sche (discuss) 03:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Good point: A and cup allow for a lot of senses for "A cup", yet A cup dwarfs those senses. --80.114.178.7 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Rephrase or delete If the definition were, "a woman with teeny-tiny breasts", then we might have a shot. But the present definition adds nothing that isn't either overly encyclopedic or blatantly obvious from the bra-related definition of cup Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't understand your vote. If you think the definition should be rephrased — and you're even offering a rephrased version — then you should just edit the entry accordingly, and then vote "keep". No? —Ruakh_TALK 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Since my rephrase involves saying the same thing with completely different words, deleting the existing entry and starting from stratch would provide the same effect. FWIW, I've added the small-boob definition alongside the other one, which we can still discuss. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• And since the rephrase is now in the entry as a separate def, just delete Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 05:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know that the yoga-pants analogy works ("I'm an A cup" is fine, *"I'm a yoga pant" is not), but this is part of a much broader group of size related terms ("I'm a size 6" is fine). Even if it's specifically worth documenting this use of "___ cup", I think the best place to do that might be [[cup]]. —Ruakh_TALK 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

And size for the size 6, 2, 10 definition Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me the general sentiment above is that entries like A cup, *size 6, etc should not exist with the definition "a person who wears a _ cup / a size _", whilst the "a certain size" sense seems likely to pass either as "kept" or as "no consensus". Regarding the question of expanding cup to account for uses like "I'm an A cup": Ruakh observes that "this is part of a much broader group of size related terms", and it's actually even broader than just size-related terms. A psychologist might refer to a person by saying "she's a real code 67" or "oh, joy, another code 329", referring to a diagnostic or billing code for e.g. narcissistic personality disorder. The phenomenon of "[A] is [B]" meaning "[A] has or uses [B]" is so broad that we should perhaps either document it at be (the usex "I am 75 kilograms" which already exists there seems to contain a related, though not identical, phenomenon), or else consider it a basic element of grammar that isn't really something we have the capacity to document in a sensible way (since I'm not convinced that having separate "a size" and "a person who wears this size" senses in every attested pant/shirt/bra/shoe size is sensible). - -sche (discuss) 03:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC) clarification added: 16:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Metonymy can lead to entry-worthy meanings, but this pattern doesn't seem to me to make for good entries.

Should we track our RfD discussions of metonymy to direct users to it and to track our thoughts on the subject?

An Appendix on metonymy might be a good place to which to redirect specific entries like this one if we choose to create one, possibly starting with w:Metonymy. DCDuring TALK 12:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

falling

probably not a true adjective - WF

Needs fixing, not deletion. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It needs evidence to show that it behaves like a true adjective and with what meanings, if any. This is a common problem with -ing form entries. They are worth systematic inspection and review for PoS, without actually flooding RfV or RfD. Perhaps the more far-fetched ones could be done en masse. DCDuring TALK 15:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

depend on

Looks like depend + on. Wonderfool's definition, in any case, is lousy. -WF

Some lemmings view it as a phrasal-verb idiom. Is it? Well, it depends. If we view it-phrases as idioms and ignore the legal and literary meanings, then there may be no common current use of depend that is not always followed by on (or upon). Duplicating the meanings or cross-referencing/linking are possibilities. DCDuring TALK 13:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

vernacular

The challenged sense: "(Roman Catholicism) The indigenous language of a people, into which the words of the Mass are translated." Vatican II allowed the celebration of the mass in the vernacular.

seems virtually the same as the immediately preceding sense:

"Language unique to a particular group of people; jargon, argot." For those of a certain age, hiphop vernacular might just as well be a foreign language.

Am I missing something? DCDuring TALK 01:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The first sense is referring to a language in the context of all the languages of the world, with Latin being considered the high, sacred language and any other language being considered a common, ordinary everyday language by comparison. The second refers to lower-prestige and/or less-formal varieties within a language, The best way to highlight the difference is to imagine an archbishop saying Mass at the national cathedral, with senators and foreign dignitaries in attendance, and asking whether the language used could be described as "jargon, argot". Chuck Entz (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Another clue is the way Roman Catholic usage tends to refer to "the vernacular", rather than "a vernacular language". Speaking of "the vernacular" in reference to slang is rarely used anymore, except as a humorous way to sound incongruously elegant and proper when describing obscenity. More common is to speak of a specific type of vernacular, such as the hip-hop vernacular in the example sentence. We might end up actually adding a sense, leaving us with three senses: the Roman Catholic sense, a general "speech of the common people" sense, and a "specific speech variety" sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see evidence to that effect and I don't believe it.

What makes that peculiar to the RCs? I could understand vernacular referring to standard language; spoken language; or non-standard dialects, argot, slang etc., not that our definitions make that clear. I could understand that religious texts might be translated into the first and second, but not the third. But lots of groups might not consider "argot" and worthwhile translation target.

And is a "particular group of people" is meant not to include, say, the speakers of a local language not officially recognized.

I also not that, unsurprisingly, we manage to exclude "vernacular" as it might apply to aspects of culture other than language, eg, architecture. DCDuring TALK 02:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) After looking through the entry, I would say that the real overlap is between the first sense:

1. The language of a people, a national language.

   The vernacular of the United States is English.

or the second sense:

1. Everyday speech, including colloquialisms, as opposed to literary or liturgical language.

   Street vernacular can be quite different from what is heard elsewhere.

and the Roman Catholic sense. The "jargon, argot" sense is the least similar to the Roman Catholic sense of the three. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep, but change. The Roman Catholic sense is "not Latin", used pejoratively. --80.114.178.7 23:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

big balls

SOP, per the RFV discussion. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not really SoP because if balls means courage, big balls doesn't mean big courage. Unfortunately from a Wiktionary point of view, it can be rephrased in very many ways (huge balls, massive balls) but none of them as SoP. Or if they are, what do we list at big, huge, massive, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If we keep this, I think we should insist on exact translations from every variation into all the main languages we have.

"Big courage" is simply not good English because courage is uncountable. Balls in this sense needs to be marked as both countable and uncountable. The countable definition could be a non-gloss definition or some strained gloss like "symbols of courage". That would then accommodate both classes of modifiers. Or we could have a single sense marked as both countable and uncountable with a non-gloss definition. An additional step would be have redirects from all the attestable (on Citations pages) combinations of modifiers and balls to a senseid-marked sense of balls and have two or three usage examples that span the usage.

This is yet another example of modifiers being restricted by the grammar and semantics of a term. If every one is to be an entry with translations, we have a lot of entry-creation and translation to do. Wouldn't we be better off to automate the creation of appropriate redirects? Wouldn't that help users at least as much as the proliferation of parallel entries? DCDuring TALK 13:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Could be covered with usage notes at balls I suppose. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of a usage note. In addition to that, a redirect from big balls, but not other combinations such as massive balls, would be helpful to the user. --BB12 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, with addition of usage note to balls. bd2412 T 19:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

pessimistic

Rfd-redundant: "Always expecting the worst." Redundant to "Marked by pessimism and little hopefulness." Both definitions are frankly a bit weak but they have separate translation tables so I want a consensus to unify them before I merge them. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I mean merge, since they're both the same but imperfect. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there is room for a distinction that not every dictionary makes. A person can be pessimistic and an impersonal forecast/outlook/appraisal/assessment can be pessimistic. It seems silly to say or imply that a forecast is pessimistic only because of the pessimism of forecaster, but that is what most dictionaries' definitions seem to imply.

If the distinction doesn't seem worth distinct sense, perhaps usage examples can show the application to both people and predictions.

Of course, this isn't reflecting in the existing senses which seem to be the same meaning worded for different types of dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 22:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose such a distinction. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

drastically

rfd-sense: "Using drastic or severe measures." Isn't this the same as "in a drastic manner"? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You would think so, being a native speaker, but what about the poor language learner who doesn't know that? DCDuring TALK 15:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what's your point? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It may look like duplication to you from your privileged position as native speaker, but not to the poor, struggling language learner. DCDuring TALK 22:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Combine them. Sense 1: In a drastic manner; using drastic or severe measures. bd2412 T 22:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

They are not the same, are they? "The numbers have fallen drastically" does not mean they have fallen "using drastic or severe measures" (no measures were used!), but to a drastic or severe extent. Equinox ◑ 22:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I made the degree sense separate from the 'manner' sense today. The challenged sense is "using drastic or severe measures", which could be considered duplicative of the manner sense "in a drastic manner". DCDuring TALK 23:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

destabilize

rfd-sense: "To undermine a government, especially by means of subversion or terrorism." I think either this is just wrong, or it's a specific example of 'to rendered unstable' the first definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an overspecific subsense of the first sense. Delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 12:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A "destabilized" government (ie, one no longer carrying out all of its functions effectively over its nominal jurisdiction) could be "stable" in most normal senses of the word, but at a low level of functioning. The term can mean something like "render ineffectual". This seems to me to be the equivalent for a verb of a misnomer. The misnomer principle suggests that some sense specific to governments ought to be in our definition. Even MWOnline, has an "especially" for governments and has adjusted the definition to make sure it includes governments. Keep until replaced by superior definition. DCDuring TALK 03:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, could you perhaps find some citations where the 'render unstable' definition wouldn't work? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

face sex oral

Sum of parts, especially considering that we already have face sex. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering what face sex was, until I clicked on it and it was Romanian. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

At least it's better than face cum... -- Liliana • 05:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

no comprendo

Sum of parts- as per no hablo above. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely but I don't understand is a phrasebook entry. I suppose perhaps this is so simple it can still be deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep as a phrasebook item. Converted as such. See also I don't understand, я не понимаю. "no hablo" is not a complete phrase, will leave that one to others to decide. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

no vayas

Sum of parts. There's a reason the verb and not the whole phrase is wikilinked for negative imperatives in the conjugation template. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete --Diuturno (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

no vayáis

Sum of parts- same as no vayas above. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete --Diuturno (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

group action

This is just group+action. The math sense is covered at [[action]] (and sees much use outside this phrase, as in "the action of G on M"). I don't know sociology, but it also seems to be a simple sum of its parts. Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, our math sense at [[group action]] is terrible. If it gets kept, it will need to be reworded (to what's at [[action]] or similar).​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

First, I rewrote the definition here (without seeing what was at action).

Second, I could suggest this is backwards. Perhaps. There are different kinds of actions: algebra, monoid, monad, graded, category actions and so on. I'm not sure what the proper way to divvy up the meanings is. As I said in a different discussion, I try to stay away from my professional expertise here. I believe mathematics and dictionaries don't really mesh too well.

To clarify, mathematics is notorious for "abuse of language". An official full unambiguous language is effectively present, but then no one actually uses it, except for a few stray moments when the extra clarity is necessary. The result is that "action" is really "X action", except in situations when only "X actions" are considered, and no one mentions "X". And even when two or three kinds of actions are present, well, if the notation is well-chosen, it is always "clear from context" (ha!) which kind of action is meant. As it is, group actions are historically the first kind of action, and they remain the most common, so yes, by default the word "action" without context refers to "group action". But no one would say "I study actions", but "I study group actions." Choor monster (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

jdb

One of Sae's. "The debugger of the JDK." This is the filename of the executable program; it's rather like gcc, make, rmdir, winword, and other command names. Not dictionary material IMO. Equinox ◑ 17:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

We have make, probably with good reason. I agree that jdb isn't as archetypal and isn't really useful for wiktionary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

For me it is more encyclopedical than pertaining a dictionary, therefore I'd suggest deletion --Diuturno (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

While discussing this, is there some reason we have JDK? Is it ever used in a context where Java is not being discussed? Choor monster (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a term in the language, though; you could argue the same for e.g. UNESCO only being discussed in politics (or various better examples I can't think of right now — financial acronyms etc.). "jdb" is just a filename. Equinox ◑ 11:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I see it as WT:BRAND, and I'd probably feel the same about MSDN, VBA, HTTP but not DNS or TLA or GFDL. Regarding UNESCO or NYSE or WSJ, I can easily think of contexts outside their official venue. Anyway, if there's policy on this, I'm happy either way. Choor monster (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not just a filename, though. "The standard Java debugging tool, jdb, provides basic debugger functionality with a command line interface." "The jdb debugger enables you to step through code one line at a time and also display the value of variables." "The debugger jdb comes with the free JDK download from Sun Microsystems." Or for an example that uses both: "JDB can attach to a running Java Virtual Machine and debug a running application. At a command line one can execute “jdb” and..." That even capitalizes JDB, proving it's not a filename, because a capitalized filename refers to a completely different file. "Before describing the dynamic slicing method in details, let us ponder a bit and explain its difference from conventional software debugging tools such as the gdb for C, jdb for Java, or VBwatch for Visual Basic." I can come up with any number of examples where it's being used as the name of a program, not just a filename.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, yes, program/application name as well as filename. But there is some overlap between these kinds of use, and an application's name is still the sort of proper noun we generally omit. (As for BRAND, I don't find it meaningful to apply to non-commercial things: I believe e.g. HTTP is an open protocol, not a product.) Equinox ◑ 17:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Then why is JDK a term in the language? It's just the name of an application, too. I don't particularly see the value in having them, but I'm hard put to see a distinction between the two.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of an app/program called jdk or jdk.exe (though there might be one). The Java Development Kit is not a single specific program; it is an entire technology; that is why they feel different to me. JDK does seem brand-like to me (it's part of proprietary Java), but then the real term is Java Development Kit, so it's still useful to have it as an abbreviation; compare HP for Hewlett-Packard or Harry Potter. I agree it's debatable and I'll shut up now, but hopefully you can get an idea of where I'm coming from. Equinox ◑ 23:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

—Ruakh_TALK 05:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete unless citations that prove it has entered the lexicon are added. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 05:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It's unlikely that this could meet the relevant (WT:BRAND?) standard for attestation. I think it should be held here for the 30-day RfV period rather than be deleted more quickly. DCDuring TALK 13:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Any reason for that? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Because attestation, which is a defense here as Ungoliant points out, usually takes more time than getting a consensus on deletion. To make the lack of consensus on more rapid deletion clear: Keep unless not attested in a month. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's an unfair stay of execution. You already said you believe in due process, why not for this? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If there is a possibility of attestation, why not? Why be such a deletionist? It'll probably go anyway. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep, as no RFD-relevant reason was stated, and I cannot think of any. If WT:BRAND is the reason for deletion, this is for RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

RFV as appropriate. (Shouldn't we have RFV as a voting option instead of just "keep" and "delete"?) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase

Translingual entry. In the translingual community that uses this term Template:l/mul (a species name, in italics) seems to be used attributively as a modifier to chemical term carbapenemase (not italicized). This seems SoP. The same may be true for more casual use in English, but that is a separable matter.

The whole mess of related MWEs surrounding this in both English and Translingual L2s needs review. This seems like the best place to start. If this passes, then the rest almost certainly would pass RfD, whatever redundancy-eliminating cleanup they might need. DCDuring TALK 13:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Basically, it's totally wrong. Originally it was a (deprecated template usage) carbapenemase produced by (deprecated template usage) Klebsiella pneumoniae - this would be SoP. Now, KPC refers to (deprecated template usage) carbapenemases produced by other bacteria. I would just delete it. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

  The misnomer principle would say we should keep it if the SoP name is misleading as to the actual meaning in use. DCDuring TALK 15:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that to me sounds like a reason to keep (but improve). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It might not be too easy to attest the non-SoP definition. Who would like to take a crack at an alternative definition?

Perhaps, these definitions ought to be RfVed. In the course of the RfV maybe better definitions will emerge. If no one is willing and able to find good attestation for the definitions, then we are incapable of including it, whether or not it is in fact part of the language. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

culture of death

Rfd-redundant:

1. (deprecated template usage) (theology, Catholicism) According to Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, an opposite state to the "culture of life".
2. (deprecated template usage) (politics) In contemporary political discourse, a culture that is deemed to be inconsistent with the concept of a "culture of life", such as cultures that support abortion, euthanasia, degradation, humiliation, human cloning, self-absorption, apathy, poverty and capital punishment. Some commentators would add to that list homosexuality, contraception and other phenomena perceived to attack marriage and the family.

Redundant to each other and poorly worded as they both rely on a link to culture of life that doesn't exist. The second definition reads like an excerpt from an essay. Basically we need one sens that means 'opposite to the culture of life' but without relying on the wording 'culture of life' because we don't have a definition for that. While we're at it the fourth definition looks dubious to me, but that's purely instinct, I haven't checked. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Cloning? Really? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

At least that makes it not sum-of-parts. Keφr 00:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Combine into one (preferably short) definition per nom. - -sche (discuss) 04:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

bible belt

Same as #quran belt above, one sense should be Bible belt but is SoP (belt has this definition) and the other should be Bible Belt, which already exists. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Belongs at RfV. Too bad it can't be a redirect. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

испански

Non-existent in Russian, the correct adverbial form is по-испа́нски (po-ispánski) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep in RFD; existence is tested in RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Which RFV? It's Bulgarian, not Russian. The Russian adjective is испа́нский (ispánskij), adverbial is по-испа́нски (po-ispánski) , "испански" means nothing. This RFD is for the Russian, not Bulgarian term. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Don't bother RFVing as this is easily attestable in forms such as "по-французски и испански". --WikiTiki89 15:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I have put it to WT:RFV#испански after Anatoli tagged it with RFV in the mainspace. If you two agree that there is nothing to attest, the RFV can be withdrawn, but then please post there to that effect. Or even better, you can provide attestation in испански or Citations:испански. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Convinced by Wikitiki89's example. I never thought about it. So, the entry needs reformatting and usage notes. It only happens to avoid repetition of the prefix. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

足の指

While this definition is considerably better than the first, I think this is not idiomatic because 指 means either finger or toe. This is literally "finger/toe on the foot" which is a clearer translation of "toe" than simply 指, but this is not an idiomatic term. Haplogy (話) 18:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Move to 足指, which is attestable as a word. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Haplogy (話) 18:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved 足指 with a redirect. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note that 足の指 is in WWWJDIC. 86.169.36.80 04:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point, confirmed existence in the dictionary. Also, see related discussions below. I assume this is a back translation example, i.e. the term was created since there is an English word for it. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• WWWJDIC is full of entries that would not pass our criteria for inclusion. Jim Breen errs on the generous side in including entries in order to be friendly for learners, which is great for his dictionary, but for better or worse we have CFI which differ from his. Going through entries which were copy-pasted from WWWJDIC has been a never-ending trial. I will accept existence in pretty much any other dictionary as a solid argument for inclusion, but not WWWJDIC, especially when it comes to idiomaticity. Haplogy (話) 00:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I mentioned the discussion below since it may be necessary to have an entry as a back translation, even if it's a SoP. Not all users/learners are smart enough or be linguistic to figure out that to translate English "toe" (one word), they need two words. WWWJDIC entry may be there for the same reason - because there is an English word "toe". "足指" is a synonym but "足の指" is quite common too. Unstrike for the moment. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It may be useful to have 足の指 for English speakers, and it is more common than 足指. But it is not a fixed phrase, as you usually say 右足の指 rather than 右の足の指 or 右の足指. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have added the usage notes for your consideration. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. --WikiTiki89 19:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep: "foot's finger" is nonsense to English speakers (although a Chinese speaker like me understands it). --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله

This phrase, although important to Islam, is not really dictionary material as it has no meaning beyond the literal. It would similar to including שמע ישראל ה׳ אלקינו ה׳ אחד (w:Shema Yisrael) or In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. --WikiTiki89 23:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Maybe we could find some way to work it into the entry at شهادة. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep, it's a very common slogan and expression. Add to the phrasebook category, if you wish. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

So are the other two things I pointed out above. Would you support adding those? By contrast, بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم is actually used somewhat idiomatically as introducing speech. The shahada has no such idiomatic use (as far as I know). --WikiTiki89 05:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say delete. The fact that a sentence is culturally significant does not automatically make it dictionary-worthy. I note that we do have quite a few of these, though, e.g. God Save the Queen, Happy New Year (probably for translation reasons). Equinox ◑ 22:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

We have quite a few English phrases. The sample English phrases given by Wikitiki89 are not used as complete slogans. Arabic "لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله" is used on its own and is usually included in Arabic and Islamic phrasebooks. Anyway, those English and Hebrew entries do not exist yet, so I am not voting for those, I voted "keep" on the phrase in question. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I added it as an example to شهادة in diff. - -sche (discuss) 03:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Would a proper non-gloss definition make clear its discourse function? DCDuring TALK 17:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have a discourse function. --WikiTiki89 23:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Pervasive in Arabic literature. —Stephen ^(Talk) 23:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no doubt about its existence. The question here is whether it has any meaning beyond the literal. --WikiTiki89 23:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have converted the entry to phrasebook entry after the nomination. It's not as common as English "thank God" but nevertheless it is too frequent to be ignored. It's the shortest form of this shahada. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

But thank God has an idiomatic meaning as a discourse particle other than the literal. The shahada does not. When it is said, it only has the literal meaning. --WikiTiki89 00:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus to delete.

full circle

I am nominating both noun senses as SOP (although I do not want to add the tags while it is WOTD). Both of the senses are nothing more than full + circle. --WikiTiki89 15:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. I could expand on this but I don't think I need to. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: There is a sense that is conveyed in the expression "come full circle" that justifies keeping at least #2, and probably #1 as well Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  The sense in come/go/etc full circle is supposed to be reflected in the definitions given under the Adverb PoS section. Whether it really makes sense to have an Adverb section rather than just say nouns can function as spatial and temporal adverbs is not an RfD matter, but one for BP. It should be noted that circle is not shown as an adverb, probably accurately reflecting usage.

I have added {{&lit|full|circle}} to the Noun section. DCDuring TALK 22:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, but I think this entry is missing a sense. A debate or discussion can come "full circle" when the participants end up going over points already discussed, even though no literal change of orientation is involved. Compare talking in circles. bd2412 T 14:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

board

3. Short for blackboard, whiteboard, chessboard, surfboard, etc.

The items above are boards (by definition 1), thus board is not "short" for them. Perhaps we should extend the first definition to include materials other than wood to make this more apparent. --WikiTiki89 19:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete, I agree. In fact I posted this separately as a mistake and reverted myself (link). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Debatable. To me, the chess sense is redundant (because every board game has a board, so termed), but the blackboard/whiteboard might not be: "he wrote it on the board" does not require context for us to think of this kind of board. Also, similar terms like cupboard and sideboard cannot be abbreviated to board. Equinox ◑ 19:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That is because cupboards and sideboards are not boards (but are made of boards). --WikiTiki89 19:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Is that really the etymology? I thought it was from how "board" used to mean a (dining-?)table. Equinox ◑ 19:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right, that's just what I assumed. Anyway, the fact that you said "used to mean" is why we can no longer call them boards. --WikiTiki89 19:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Definition 1? "A relatively long, wide and thin piece of sawn wood or similar material, usually intended for use in construction." That's sort of a stretch for any of them. A chessboard can be made of glass or plastic or paper or merely be data in a computer. Neither whiteboards or blackboards are wood or intended for use in construction. Maybe surfboard, though that still does seem to match #1.

The chess sense can't be redundant to the sense for board games until we have a sense for a board game board.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Added: "A flat surface with markings for playing a board game." Equinox ◑ 03:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I did say we would need to generalize the first definition, because boards do not have to be wood and do not have to be used for construction. --WikiTiki89 13:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise of the RfV. Blackboard > whiteboard and the others are not well-presented as directly following from sense 1, even as appropriately generalized. Board's senses evolved along a few lines, one including generalization to wood-like materials, another to flat, thin-ish shapes, like those in the challenged sense line.

Can the challenged sense be even be called a definition? It seems as much a list of examples of the word board ("a rigid piece of flat, thin material") being used in combination, which definition we lack. (MWOnline has "a flat usually rectangular piece of material (as wood) designed for a special purpose" with the various "-boards" above as subsenses.)

This seems much more like a cleanup candidate than an RfD candidate. DCDuring TALK 15:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup? Not your normal cleanup. The difficulty here is that what is undermining (deprecated template usage) board sense 3 is not simply a lousy/lazy definition. What is going on is really a distinct linguistic phenomenon, and shoehorning it into definition-making isn't the right thing, but just ignoring it isn't the right thing either.

I ran into this when I struggled with (deprecated template usage) sosh sense 2 when I was new to WT. "Sosh" is an abbreviation for numerous words/phrases that begin with "social" or the like. For example, "social security number", "social climber", "sociology", and it seems to function as an open-ended abbreviation. The same thing is going on with (deprecated template usage) board used as a combining term. And the same thing is going on with x-word for various choice of letters x. (See RfD and RfV in progress.)

I agree that what we have now is shoddy, but this kind of flexibility should be indicated somehow, with specialized non-gloss definitions, or as some kind of open-ended abbreviation, or an "implicit" snowclone. Choor monster (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with that analysis, you maybe right about (deprecated template usage) sosh/soc, but with board, there is no "shortening" going on, just lack of specificity. A "chalkboard", "chessboard", "surfboard", etc. is just a type of board and thus they can all be called boards. With sosh, you can't say that a "social security number" is a type of "sosh". --WikiTiki89 17:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: I see nothing wrong with this definition. A chalkboard isn't made of wood, but even if it was, the definition "abbreviation of chalkboard" would still be an acceptable definition Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

  It is made of "wood or similar material". A chalkboard is definitely a board. It's more likely that chalkboard is "long" for board than it is that board is "short" for chalkboard. --WikiTiki89 21:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

  According to w:chalkboard, they can be made of slate stone (which was their original material) or porcelain enamelled steel, either of which are a similar material to wood. (I'm actually not sure what a similar material to wood is supposed to cover, but if it covers stone and steel, it covers about everything).--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

  The definition is not perfect yet. See google books:"stone board". --WikiTiki89 21:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Not all boards are made of wood. I see no reason to discuss that, and no relevance. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Please inspect the sets of definitions for board that professional lexicographers use to span almost all usage. (I particularly like Merriam Webster because it is online and has more structure, but any full dictionary will do.) Note the relationship of the various definitions.

In a case like this where the relationship of multiple definitions is involved, the matter cannot be resolved by a debate, though useful points can be raised in a debate. Cleanup gives license to someone to undertake a revision of multiple senses, which may be challenged of course. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have to be so bureaucratic? It doesn't have to nominated for cleanup for someone to clean it up. --WikiTiki89 00:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Requests for deletion and verification (and to a lesser extent moving) are the routine serious procedures we have, which have rules to make it possible to get things done without edit wars. Only rarely are these rules ignored, usually by near-unanimous consent. DCDuring TALK 02:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

So nominating it for cleanup magically bypasses these rules? --WikiTiki89 02:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If there is sufficient agreement that the item should not be deleted, then it is kept. If the keep is conditional on cleanup, then it goes to cleanup. Changing definition while the definition is under discussion makes the discussion more difficult. One could add definitions, but that also make the discussion harder to follow. DCDuring TALK 03:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If we nominate it for cleanup, it would still be here at RFD anyway, so I don't see how that solves the problem. Anyway, I'm still in favor of deleting this sense and then cleaning up the entry. --WikiTiki89 13:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

speculative bubble and others

How many specific bubbles are needed, as we have the sense "period of intense speculation in a market, causing prices to rise quickly to irrational levels" under bubble? In addition to "speculative bubble" we have the following, all recently added by Silent Sam:

• economic bubble
• financial bubble
• investment bubble
• market bubble
• price bubble

If we decide to folllow this line, there are other bubbles awaiting:

• tulip bubble
• South Sea bubble

All, and many more are attestable collocations, but aren't they kind of SOP-ish? --Hekaheka (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete the six listed. I can't speak for any others. (Also, this is not an appropriate use of {{alt form}}.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

sveda lingvo

Sum-of-parts entry created by Tbot (though it has been edited by a couple of other editors since). Mr. Granger (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Erm, it's pretty obvious what it means. However Special:WhatLinksHere/lingvo shows quite a few of these. Have any of them been nominated for deletion before? What was the result? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Evidently greka lingvo has. See Talk:greka lingvo. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete all (we need to list them to do that, of course). If you know what sveda and lingvo mean, you know what sveda lingvo means. And if you don't know what they mean, that's why we have entries for sveda and lingvo. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm listing the others below; if you have a comment specific to these, please put it in the language's individual section. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - they should all be deleted. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

 Delete Yes, all SOP. And remove derived term links at sveda, eŭska, vaska, itala, irlanda, and klingona. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, outside of CFI. The incomplete inclusion criterion that I am using: it is a term denoting a concept or thing for which English has a single word; Esperanto probably does not have a single word to refer to Swedish. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, the most typical way to refer to Swedish in Esperanto is "la sveda" (the Swedish). Saying "sveda lingvo" is a lot like saying "Swedish language" in English. (Maybe this is a sense that should be added to sveda, actually.) —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  But then you need a noun sense at sveda, right? Anyway, striking my keep, since I believe you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep. In Esperanto, Swedish is called la sveda lingvo, or la sveda by abbreviation. Note that Esperanto nouns always end with -o, and sveda is clearly an abbreviation and not a noun of its own. It is not clear whether an adjective + lingvo stands for an actual language or not. Compare sveda lingvo (“Swedish language”) and amerikaj lingvoj (“American languages”). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

date rape drug

Nothing more than date rape + drug. --WikiTiki89 20:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• I would keep this - it is not apparent from the sum of its parts that this is a drug that facilitates date rape, instead of treating it (as opposed to, for example, cancer drugs which fight cancer, rather than causing it, or even recreational drugs which are taken voluntarily for their effects). bd2412 T 22:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  Date rape is not a condition you can treat. Also compare "party drug", "rave drug", "chill drug", "creativity drug", "sports drug". --WikiTiki89 23:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  All of those are drugs that the person seeking the effect takes themselves (i.e., a person takes a creativity drug to boost their creativity, or a sports drug to boost their sports performance). A person does not choose to take a date rape drug in order to boost their ability to engage in date rape. A person might take a Viagra to enable themselves to perform the act, but it would be incorrect to call Viagra a "date rape drug" on that account. bd2412 T 23:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  Ok, how about "mind control drug", "truth drug", it's hard to think of these on the spot... --WikiTiki89 23:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  We have truth drug. bd2412 T 00:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  "cooperation drug", "drop dead drug", ... --WikiTiki89 00:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  Perhaps the definition needs to be tweaked a bit. Consider the Portuguese translation, boa noite Cinderela, literally "good night Cinderella". This reflects the general usage of the term to specify a drug that has a combination of sedative and mind-altering effects. Although alcohol itself has jokingly been referred to as a "date rape drug" because it reduces a person's psychological and physical ability to resist, the imagery commonly brought to mind with respect to the phrase is some sort of benzodiazepine being surreptitiously introduced into the victim's drink, specifically causing the combination of sleepiness, loss of inhibition, suggestivity, and anterograde amnesia. By contrast, a drug that merely causes temporary physical paralysis, but does not effect memory or inhibition, is not brought to mind by the phrase (even though such a drug would facilitate "date rape"). bd2412 T 15:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  I'll make it clearer for you: I just added the definition "rape committed with the use of a sedative or memory-inhibiting drug" to date rape. Now we just have to decide whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first. --WikiTiki89 15:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  I have sent that sense to RfV. I do not believe that the phrase has come to be used that broadly. bd2412 T 17:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  I hate to use urban dictionary to advance my point, but it might bring you some insight if you read the definition given there (obviously it should be taken with a grain of salt and cannot be used as a cite, but it shows that the sense exists). --WikiTiki89 17:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. There are anti-cancer drugs as well as cancer drugs, and they are the same thing. Some comprehension of how words can fit together is required by any language speaker. Equinox ◑ 23:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Seems more like a drug that is used to rape a total stranger, rather than the victim of a date rape where it the perp is known. --Dmol (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Now you may have a point. It depends on whether that sense of date rape existed before or after "date rape drug". Either way, we should add that sense to date rape. --WikiTiki89 23:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Why should we add that sense to date rape? Can you demonstrate that outside of the phrase "date rape drug", the phrase "date rape" is ever used to refer to rape of a total stranger? bd2412 T 03:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It is commonly used to refer to raping a stranger at a party. The essential difference from other forms of rape is that there is no violence involved. But like I said, this sense could have been derived from "date rape drug", or "date rape drug" could have been derived from this sense. I just don't know. If you want citations, feel free to RFV after the sense is added. --WikiTiki89 03:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox. Virtually all noun-noun compounds have a certain element of context and common sense required to avoid the errors that machines make when interpreting them. Fortunately we are doing a dictionary for people. We are utterly incapable of proving an adequate dictionary for a machine anyway. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

BD2412, I think what you say isn't relevant as no human being would interpret it that way. I'm getting irritated by hypothetical ways people can misinterpret something, even if nobody has never made that mistake ever. You're a lawyer, surely you believe in evidence. Well, get some evidence of someone making that mistake and we'll talk about it. Until then, it's just an amusing thought experiment. Oh and delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No human being? How about a non-English speaker, which is precisely the sort of person who would look something like this up in a dictionary? bd2412 T 03:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. Find evidence of this error and then we'll discuss it further. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nomination.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep it. Donnanz (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• I count five people favouring deletion (Wikitiki, Equinox, DCDuring, Mglovesfun, Msh210) and three favouring retention (BD2412, Dmol, Donnanz). I myself am on the fence, leaning towards keep. - -sche (discuss) 21:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Consensus to delete requires something more than merely a majority favoring that outcome. bd2412 T 15:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

hard work

What else are we still missing? Easy job? --Hekaheka (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems SoP to me, in contrast to hard labor, which is idiomatic because of its use in a legal/penal context. DCDuring TALK 22:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. --WikiTiki89 22:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• What they said.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

And delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Should be kept. The fact that it's a mass noun should be noted; besides that it's listed by Oxford (online at least). Donnanz (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

  It's a mass noun because "work" is mass noun. There is nothing idiomatic about it. --WikiTiki 89 19:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a mass noun in this sense, but work has a plural in other senses; e.g. literary works, reference works, works of art. Donnanz (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• There is no RFD attached to this entry, and no record in the entry's history. Donnanz (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  Fixed. --WikiTiki89 19:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

emergency physician

Looks like sum of parts to me. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep as a translation target. The French translation is urgentiste, a single-word non-compound. Per WP, Portuguese is emergencista. German Notarzt is a compound, but I am not sure one would be able to be sure about the translation by combining translations for "emergency" and "physician". I am not sure what the Czech translation should be; maybe záchranář, but not nouzový lékař offered by Google translate (actually, Google offered "nouzové lékař", which is ungrammatical for gender mismatch). Slovak would probably be pohotovostný lekár, which is quite transparent, yet Google translate offers núdzové lekár. Admission: translation target is outside of CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

emergency doctor

As above. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

My first thought is an emergency physician is one you call in an emergency, not one that works in an emergency department. Having said that, I'm pretty sure it means both. So delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

без посторонней помощи

SOP for без (bez, “without”) посторо́нней (postorónnej, “outside”) по́мощи (pómošči, “help”). --WikiTiki89 17:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It can be considered either way, it's borderline. To me it seems quite idiomatic. It's similar to невооружённым гла́зом (nevooružónnym glázom) - "with the naked eye", which is in instrumental case. "невооружённый глаз" "lit.: unarmed eye, i.e. naked eye" is not actually used in the nominative. Keep. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

midnatten

The Danish entry should be deleted as midnat is not inflected at all. See history of midnat, and Den Danske Ordbog. Donnanz 15:56 11 December 2013 (UTC)

RfV? Perhaps it's a real but nonstandard term. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, maybe. I'm not sure whether this link will work.

http://ordnet.dk/ddo/ordbog?query=midnat&search=S%C3%B8g It says (Grammatik) "især i ubestemt form singularis". (especially in indefinite singular form). But no inflection is shown. Donnanz 00:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a primary source though. Secondary sources have their uses, but can never replace primary ones. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• If this isn't a primary source, what is? Name one. Donnanz 11:59 19 December 2013 (UTC)

parquet

The adjective shown here is a noun modifier, according to Oxford. The derived terms could be transferred to the noun, and the quotations too. Donnanz 11:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete (or cite as unambiguously adjectival). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

vi estas stultulo

This is in Category:Esperanto phrasebook, but it seems like a strange sentence for a phrasebook (at least to me), and it's not a translation of an English phrasebook entry as far as I can tell. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 04:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete; not useful for travellers and although perhaps very amusing to students under 16, not especially instructive. There must be a more appropriate phrase that has the same form "You are a ..." if we're interested in that sentence pattern. Haplogy (話) 01:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

スカイプ

According to CFI "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." スカイプする (Sukaipu suru) gets 50K web hits and 4 book results... Can we call this a -suru verb? Haplogy (話) 01:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In retrospect it seems like a clear case so maybe I should've just deleted the proper noun section right away and added the common noun and -suru verb myself... I've added them just now. I cheated with the quote however, so if anybody can quote a use of it before this year that would be fantastic. Haplogy (話) 08:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: スカイプする generally means to have a video chat. If you use Skype as a sound-only free phone, you say 電話する or 通話する. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep: If anything, just delete the sense of the proper noun and move it into usage notes, like what the entry skype has done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

electric vehicle

Sum of parts. Definitely not a proper noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. --WikiTiki89 09:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete obviously, nothing worth discussing. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Deleted SemperBlotto (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Restore and keep this entry, which was deleted too quickly. Nothing obvious here. What's next - steam engine, fire brigade? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, needs to run its course. Restored. DAVilla 12:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's worth noting that a hybrid car is not an electric vehicle, so there really is something to define here. DAVilla 12:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, keep it. It was deleted far too quickly. There are a number of types of electric vehicles, including trolleybuses: I have to go to Belgium to find them. Donnanz (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Donnanz again, what possible relevance? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

インターネットアクセス

SoP -> Internet access? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete インターネット = Internet, アクセス = access in the same senses. "インターネットのアクセス" gets 14 million hits results. Not in any dictionaries except EDICT but it doesn't count. Haplogy (話) 11:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep. It's interesting that the English collocation was borrowed in full into Japanese as one word, "インターネットのアクセス" is a synonymic form with the same meaning. It's verifiable. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Literal transliteration of noun-noun compounds without "の" is one of the most common forms of loan words in Japanese, especially in the information technology domain. There are numerous terms that take the same pattern: w:ja:ユーザインタフェース (ユーザ (user) + インタフェース (interface) = user interface), w:ja:クラウドコンピューティング (クラウド (cloud) + コンピューティング (computing) = cloud computing), w:ja:トップレベルドメイン (トップレベル (top-level) + ドメイン (domain)), etc. I cannot see anything collocational about "インターネットアクセス". Whym (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Weak keep. It is not clear why this word means an access to the Internet and not an access via the Internet (like 交通アクセス, which means an access via public transportation). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

homo marriage

Obvious SOP added by the author because it applies to his gay lifestyle. --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you added it yourself. Second of all, you also added homomarriage, so now WT:COALMINE applies unless homomarriage is not citable. If you want it to be deleted, why did you add it? --WikiTiki89 17:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

homomarriage is just homo + marriage. --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You do know about WT:COALMINE, don't you? --WikiTiki89 17:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Is WT:COALMINE a Wiktionary policy? If it is, then that automatically makes it worthless. All that matters is common practice. --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes it's a policy, and the common practice happens to be to follow it, despite the editors (including me) who disagree with it. --WikiTiki89 18:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

We don’t need policies; Wiktionary can exist without any policies. --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Without policies, there would no criteria for blocking people for making bad edits. --WikiTiki89 18:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah who cares. Let the admins block whomever they want! It’s not like they ever needed reasons, well, aside from the fact that blocking is fun. --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Move homomarriage to RFV (and delete both once it fails). Ƿidsiþ 18:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Does this ever mean a gay person's straight marriage of convenience? Including this would seem to be justified, nay, required by our slogan with no justification in CFI for excluding it (even without COALMINE). Similarly for breeder marriage, which is attestable on Usenet from a few different groups. DCDuring TALK 22:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would to request the deletion of this entry on the grounds that it’s an idiotic word and I don’t want to be associated with it. My comments above were just me making a damned idiot out of myself as usual. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

brimstone

The adjective PoS does not suggest a true adjective rather than attributive use of the noun. The citations could use clean up as they illustrate literary use of the noun attributively. DCDuring TALK 20:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, delete the adjective entry. The citations can be listed under the noun. Donnanz (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

chè sâm bổ lượng

Sum of parts: chè + sâm bổ lượng. The latter is a noun taken as an adjective, but any construction of chè + <name of dish> is unnecessary. Suggest deleting definition and moving it as alternative form of sâm bổ lượng. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

‎in one stroke, ‎at a single stroke, at a stroke, at one stroke

All created at a single stroke. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-idiomatic Vietnamese words

The following pages contain classifiers, which serve the same grammatical function as English articles (though more descriptive). I think they should be deleted because they are non-idiomatic (the forms given in parentheses should not be deleted):

• cái võng (=võng)
• cây điều (=điều)
• cây keo (=keo)
• cây sa kê (=sa kê)
• cây thông rụng lá (=thông rụng lá)
• cây xương rồng (=xương rồng)
• con cóc (=cóc)
• con ếch (=ếch)
• con giòi (=giòi)
• con muỗi (=muỗi)
• con nhím (=nhím)
• con rận (=rận)
• đàn ghi-ta (=ghi-ta)
• quả sa kê (=sa kê)
• quả sầu riêng (=sầu riêng)
• quả táo (=táo)
• sự hy sinh (=hy sinh)
• sự giải quyết (=giải quyết)
• trái chà là (=chà là)
• trái mít (=mít)
• trái sa kê (=sa kê)
• trái vú sữa (=vú sữa)

I don't think Wiktionary should have articles like "cái võng", which means "a hammock" (as opposed to "võng", which means "hammock"). Also, "sự giải quyết" is considered a word with a classifier in front, not a word per se. (This means there will never be a Vietnamese entry with the definition "decision".) I'm less sure about deleting the tree (cây) and fruit (quả, trái) entries, because we do have entries like "apple tree". Note that not all entries named with classifiers are problematic: "quả đất" would be perfectly fine, because it means "Earth", not "ball of dirt".

See also Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits#Non-idiomatic Vietnamese words.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 10:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete those that seem problematic. I'm curious about nouns with the nominaliser "sự", though, such as sự hy sinh, sự giải quyết. Do you always treat them as non-lemma forms? What about sự kiện vs kiện? Is that a different case? We could use [[giải quyết]] as a lemma for "to decide" but [[sự giải quyết]] is a translation for "decision". So a valid translation for "decision" would be sự giải quyết (vi) where "sự giải quyết" is displayed but linked to the verb "giải quyết". Perhaps an approach for Japanese -suru verbs can be taken, e.g. 勉強 has both noun and verb sections. Thus, nouns with "sự" could all be linked to verbs/adjectives without them. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What helps in determining whether or not a word fits the idiomaticity requirement of CFI is the prevalence of the expression in general use as well as the semantic weight each individual expression can carry. "frog" has as much semantic equivalence as "the frog" for example, and even when the latter is more grammatically correct and more commonly used, most people are apt to understand just the former by itself as well. Does the classifier carry any semantic weight with it? Your example quả đất is a good starting point, as it indicates that when the literal translation "ball of dirt" is extended to its logical conclusion, it becomes "Earth" in its totality. The initial classifier quả changes the meaning slightly yet significantly. I think we would have to make similar considerations, such as sự giải quyết ("the act of deciding" = "decision") for example. Does "decision" have anything semantically new that is not provided by "the act of deciding"? As for precedent, I think it's great in discouraging future redundancies such as "muỗi" and "con muỗi"; I don't think there should be equivalent entries at "mosquito" and "the mosquito" for example. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you like the idea but I suggest to have sự-nouns in the entries without them. E.g. see this revision of hy sinh where I added a noun section (and other things) - {{vi-noun|head=[[sự]] [[hy]] [[sinh]]}}. To an English speaker "sự hy sinh" is a noun meaning "sacrifice", even if the lemma form is "hy sinh". "sự hy sinh" could be formatted as an "Alternative form of hy sinh" or a "sự-noun form (or similar) of hy sinh" if a template is created. I have created Category:Vietnamese sự-nouns, which now contains just one entry - "hy sinh" but perhaps "sự hy sinh" should be there instead? Not sure if redirect is the best option, users might want to know what this "sự" means and why we have two forms - "hy sinh" and "sự hy sinh".

With the living creatures too, a Vietnamese translation of "toad" is "con cóc". It seems both "cóc" and "con cóc" mean the same thing - "a toad". Many dictionaries use "con cóc" to translate "toad" even if "con" can be dropped. Not sure if "toad" and "the toad" is a good analogy here or even Mandarin or Japanese measure words (counters or classifiers). E.g. Mandarin 蟾蜍 (chánchú) is never used in dictionaries as 只蟾蜍 (zhī chánchú) (classifier + noun). Vietnamese "con" must have a much wider usage. Perhaps another category for "con-" nouns should be created. Sorry, my knowledge of the Vietnamese grammar is very basic but I'm thinking from the users' point of view. Using "cls=con" in Vietnamese noun entries is not a bad idea but perhaps con-nouns should also exist? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As I have never used the word sự in regular Vietnamese I cannot speak to that, but what I can say is that the word con and the like are really semantically empty categories, save for a few specific situations. Why do we omit particles a/an/the from our entries even though they are so commonly and widely used? We have seen and heard many ESL learners even omit these words when they try to speak English, and their utterances remain perfectly understandable. It is because these particles are semantically empty categories, they are only used as specifiers in number and specificity. If you were to omit the word the from your paragraph above, it is still semantically parsable even as it is grammatically incorrect. Similarly, a Vietnamese speaker would simply tell you that omitting the classifiers is grammatically incorrect, but they'd still be able to understand what you were trying to say (save for a few ambiguous homonyms where classifiers are expected, but again homonyms exist in English too, and besides those may warrant separate entries). The majority of these are rather silly and redundant entries for a dictionary to have, like nhím and con nhím, duplicating the entire contents of one onto the other. This extra maintenance, we do not need, it provides more work for us should something change, and it takes up empty space. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I cannot fully agree with you at the moment. See my section about sách below. nhím is used with con but not all nouns seem to behave the same way. Could you explain, e.g. why dictionaries list living creatures with "con"? Why do they show "con nhím", not simply "nhím" for porcupine?

With nouns with classifiers I may agree to delete the terms but the corresponding lemmas should have a "cls=" parameter. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree that we want to help readers find out how to turn "hy sinh" into a noun, but calling "hy sinh" a noun is misleading. It really is a verb. The "sự" is understood if you try to use "hy sinh" like a noun; indeed, "sự" is very rare in spoken Vietnamese, only used to disambiguate e.g. "sự chết" (death) from "cái chết" (a death). Why not simply treat "sự hy sinh" as a usage example? We can definitely have Category:Vietnamese con nouns and the like for actual nouns, but I would expect Category:Vietnamese verbs classified by sự rather than Category:Vietnamese sự-nouns. If necessary, I can add a cls parameter to {{vi-verb}} that doesn't display the classifier but instead adds the entry to a "classified by" category.

"Con cóc" can be the Vietnamese translation of "toad" just as "hy sinh" would be translated as "to sacrifice" rather than just "sacrifice". That is, I have no problem with mentioning the classifiers in translation sections, but they don't usually warrant separate entries. And I think the classifier should be linked separately, if at all.

We should make an exception for Sino-Vietnamese terms like "sự kiện" (事件). As far as Vietnamese is concerned, "sự" and "kiện" are just syllables.

One point I neglected to make is that "cây táo" (apple tree) would probably be acceptable, because "táo" on its own refers to the fruit, as in English. "Cây" can still be omitted (e.g., "trồng táo" to grow apple trees, not just the apples). In contrast, "bạch dương" (poplar) on its own refers to the tree, so "cây bạch dương" is redundant.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, you yourself suggested to delete the "sự" nouns. I was just thinking of a way to allow such entries.

I want you to consider the Japanese analogy again, where the situation is the same but verbs and nouns swap their placec with Vitenamese. 勉強 (benkyō, "studying, studies") is a noun and a verbal noun. To form a verb, you need to add する (suru, "to do") to the end. Rather than having a separate entry for "勉強する", which means "to study". The entry for 勉強 contains a verb section, which displays 勉強する in the header. I've done the same thing for "sự hy sinh" (only it's a noun made from a verb, the reverse from Japanese), which is in the verb entry "hy sinh" but now has a noun section and displays "sự hy sinh" in the header. This resolves the lemma problem, IMO. It remains to be discussed whether "sự hy sinh" gets a special entry or a hard/soft redirect to the lemma form "hy sinh". Re: but calling "hy sinh" a noun is misleading. If you examine the "hy sinh" entry carefully, you will see that it's not "hy sinh" but "sự hy sinh", which is a noun. If they don't warrant a separate entry, they can be turned to redirects but the information should be saved into separate sections in the lemma entries. Cases like "sự kiện" may get separate entries, no problem with that. Other words like "con cóc" can be treated similarly but there shouldn't be any information loss for users.

I have renamed the category as suggested -Category:Vietnamese verbs classified by sự. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think an entire section is necessary for "sự hy sinh" in hy sinh; a usage example is enough. See "cạnh tranh", which gives both "sự cạnh tranh" and "tính cạnh tranh" as examples. I don't think there would be any information loss this way. (There would be two noun sections under your proposal.) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete. sự kiện is fundamentally different from "sự hy sinh". Wyang (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, since I find the stated reason for deletion implausible: "The following pages contain classifiers, which serve the same grammatical function as English articles ...". The claim that the leading syllables serve the same grammatical function as English articles is hard to believe: "cây" is also a noun meaning tree, "quả" is also a noun meaning fruit and "trái" is also a noun meaning fruit. Admittedly, these are also entered in Wiktionary with the part of speech of "classifier". W:Vietnamese_grammar#Classifier_position contains no inline references, so its accuracy is hard to verify. On another note, the spaces seem to indicate separation of syllables rather than words; thus, to delete sự hy sinh ("sacrifice", noun) as sum of parts (sự "nominaliser particle" + hy sinh "to sacrifice") may be a bit like deleting "crucifying" as a sum of parts (crucify + ing). --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  Vietnamese classifiers can carry as much meaning as "set" in "a set of underwear" but grammatically function the same way as "a" in "a shoe". That is, you can usually delete "sự" when "hy sinh" is used where a noun would go, and you can delete "cây" where there is no possibility of mistaking the tree for the fruit. I purposely left alone any "cây" entry for fruit trees, where there would be such an ambiguity ("apple tree" meets CFI and so would "cây táo").

  Vietnamese is an analytical languge, unlike English, so not all analogies work. Spaces do separate all syllables, but those syllables are each words in their own right, except in onomatopoeia, reduplication, or Sino-Vietnamese borrowings. "Sự hy sinh" can be viewed as two words: whereas "ing" has no meaning on its own in English, "sự" is a noun in isolation. ("Hy sinh" is a Sino-Vietnamese borrowing, so "hy" has no meaning on its own.)

  I'll improve Wikipedia's discussion of classifiers shortly, but in the meantime, there's a wealth of academic research online about them, for example: [3][4]. [5] starts out with a good overview. For something more accessible, see this grammar chapter and this one by Laurence Thompson. Finally, it may be helpful to see how reputable translationaries deal with this issue.

   – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  These things called Vietnamese classifiers do not seem to be very similar to English articles. You say they serve the same grammatical function, but I am rather unclear about what you mean by that. I can add "a" or "the" to almost any English noun; from what I have understood, you cannot freely combine any classifier with any noun or verb; furthermore, an addition of "a" vs. "the" indicates definiteness or determinacy, while that is not what the classifiers do. The classifiers seem to be similar to -ing, -ion, -ness, -ize, -er, -or suffixes and to "tree" and "fruit" in "apple tree" and "apple fruit". An almost perfect regularity in application of classifiers--if there is one--may make it customary for Vietnamese-English dictionaries to omit combinations that include the classifiers, but it is less clear that this fits the overall approach of English Wiktionary, which even includes inflected forms as separate entries, and which has "coolness" as a separate entry, unlike Merriam-Webster online, which only has a dedicated entry for "cool". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  I think that a large part of this problem is that you are too fixated on interpreting these to be like prefixes or suffixes when the comparison to English "-ing", "-ness", etc is pretty inadequate on its own. And besides, muỗi is redundant to con muỗi and this duality would only create more maintenance work in the future should something change. This seems to be a problem dictionaries have with Sinitic languages in general, when classical classifications of PoS like "noun", "verb", "adjective" are inadequate at fully capturing the meaning of a lemma. But I'll let Mxn speak more about these entries. TeleComNasSprVen (talk 10:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  You have not explained why the comparison of "sự" to -ing and -ion and the like is inadequate; I have explained what makes a comparison to English definite and indefinite articles implausible to me, or at least not useful in deciding whether the Vietnamese combinations should be kept. A reasoning along the lines of '"sự hy sinh" should not be kept, since we do not keep a car' is entirely implausible to me.

  As for maintenance, I do not see any maintenance problem with "con muỗi" vs. "muỗi" that is absent in "blueness" vs. "blue" or "plowing" vs. "plow"; indeed, MWO avoids "blueness"[6], while en:wikt does not. However, since both con muỗi and muỗi mean "mosquito", the former could have a definition line reading like "classifier-extended form of muỗi", or the like; the same approach is not so useful for sự hy sinh (sacrifice, noun), which is not synonymous with hy sinh (sacrifice, verb). But even there, sự hy sinh could read like "Nominal form of hy sinh; sacrifice". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  I have already given my explanation further up the page and I'd have expected you to fully read all the arguments presented here before coming up with a rebuttal of your own. You might have done so, but nevertheless, I believe Mxn is more qualified to comment on the classifier-as-PoS-issue (he's even given you links to the literature on them which I was not previously aware existed), so rather than risk having the appearance of talking out of my ass I will leave it to him. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  Your diff does not explain why the comparison of "sự" to -ing and -ion and the like is inadequate. The only part of the diff that pertains to "sự" is this: "As I have never used the word sự in regular Vietnamese I cannot speak to that [...]". --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  I was certainly simplifying things by comparing classifiers to English articles. My point was only that they often introduce the noun in usage but aren't considered part of the word.

  As you suggest, you can't arbitrarily combine just any classifier with any noun, but you can't say "stick of cattle" or "head of butter", either. Now, "butter" and "cattle" are collective or mass nouns, so what about count nouns? Well, Vietnamese has no such thing: "mít" refers to the concept of jackfruit, so "quả" is required to refer to an individual jackfruit. If that's enough to warrant a separate entry, why not include "stick of butter" and "head of cattle" as well?

  Even though "sự" may be used in many of the situations in which English uses the suffix "-tion", they are not equivalent grammatical features. I'm a fan of inflection entries, but Vietnamese has no inflection, as the most basic description of the language will attest. Chinese, another analytical, non-inflected language, has a similar system of classifiers (including a nominalizer), yet Wiktionary doesn't use them in entry titles. Inflection entries help me master Spanish conjugations because I can find poder if all I have is pudieron, without needing to remember that poder is a stem-changing verb. But if you know no Vietnamese and encounter sự cạnh tranh in a sentence, does that need still arise?

   – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 12:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Minh Nguyễn. Could you answer my question I asked above: why dictionaries list living creatures with "con"? Why do they show "con nhím", not simply "nhím" for porcupine? I am familiar with Mandarin and Japanese, Mandarin and Japanese dictionaries don't list nouns with their classifiers. So, a Chinese porcupine is simply 豪猪 (háozhū) in dictionaries, not 头豪猪 (classifier "tóu" + háozhū). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I can't speak for the other languages, but English-Vietnamese dictionaries show "con nhím" as a translation of "a porcupine" as opposed to the general concept of "porcupine". (Hence my original rationale, which in hindsight was a distraction.) Plus, you may very well want to say "three porcupines", at which point you need to know "con". That's why I've been putting classifiers in translation sections and in Vietnamese entries here. But I just don't think they need to be so prominent. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 13:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• (after an edit conflict) Since Vitnamese has no inflection, it can easily afford entries like sự cạnh tranh (competition) in addition to cạnh tranh (compete) and still take fewer pages in English Wiktionary than all the inflected entries in a highly inflected language. You point to the pair of pudieron and poder as worthwhile for its surface intransparency, but "plowing" (plow + -ing) and "plowed" (plow + -ed) seem rather surface transparent and yet we include them. I admit that the sự-combinations seem extremely transparent, also for the inclusion of a space after "sự", but I am still not sure this should lead us to have no entries for transparent sự-combinations, not even soft-redirect entries. I think the representation of Vietnamese in English Wiktionary should be accurate while still convening to the needs and expectations of English speakers. Thus, some English speakers ask that we include long German compounds such as Bindungsdissoziationsenergie, since they do not feel comfortable finding the locations of split into component words, while many German speakers may feel this is a transparent sum of parts not worth having; this is an accomodation of representation of German in English Wiktionary to the needs of English speakers. As for maintenance, I have addressed the issue above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• The generic classifiers "cái" and "con" don't even translate into English. Look at all the examples at w:Vietnamese grammar. (I just like to think of them as meaning "a", ignoring English's definite/indefinite distinction, because both languages put something in that slot before the noun.) "Sự" is a bit special in that it appears mostly in dictionaries (to be pedantic) and very formal writing (like the thank you letter the Foundation sends donors). In "normal Vietnamese" it barely even exists, so I'm not sure that it would help people much. When I was just starting to learn Vietnamese, "sự" was just one more individual word I had to look up when trying to parse a formal sentence. If a total newbie encounters "Cảm ơn sự thông cảm của bạn" ("Thank you for your understanding") and doesn't know what "sự" is for, they won't immediately know to start a search with it anyways. More likely, they'll look up "cảm" (huh?), "cảm ơn" (ah: thanks), "sự" (turns things into nouns), "sự thông" (nothing, so "sự" goes by itself), "thông" (huh?), "thông cảm" (ah: sympathize), "của" (belonging to), "bạn" (you). You don't start out by knowing that "thông" and "cảm" go together, or that "sự" starts anything in particular. Spaces in Western languages are boundaries for search terms. Vietnamese is not so convenient, and I'm not convinced that soft redirects are worth it for "sự". – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 13:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Dan Polansky is not far off saying that certain additional words/syllables serve the same purpose in Vietnamese as they -ing, -ion, -ness, -ize, -er, -or, etc. suffixes do in English. "sự" is certainly a nominaliser that turns verbs like "hy sinh" (to sacrifice) into nouns, e.g. "sự hy sinh" (sacrifice). It's not an "instance of sacrificing" or "a sacrifice" but simply a noun meaning "sacrifice". See sacrifice@vdict.com, which gives "sự hy sinh" as a noun translation for "sacrifice". So does my pocket Berlitz English-Vietnamese dictionary. Admittedly, "hy sinh" is the lemma here, that's why a noun section can be added here. A usage example is not sufficient, IMO.

Let's take some more examples. con cóc appears in dictionaries in this longer form, even if "con" is a classifier but "cóc" is the lemma. Why words such as hotel are not used with classifiers but simply as "khách sạn". Why is "book" simply sách, not "cuốn sách" - classifier "cuốn" + sách (book). Are cóc and con cóc synonymic? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I just mentioned at w:Vietnamese grammar#Classifier position (with sources), classifiers aren't used for Sino-Vietnamese compound words like "khách sạn". Your dictionary is inconsistent: given the "con nhím" example you gave above, I would expect "cuốn sách" for "book", even though it means "a book". ("Sách" by itself could just as well mean "books" in general.) There's more than one nominalizer in Vietnamese, which is why "cạnh tranh" mentions both "sự cạnh tranh" and "tính cạnh tranh". But "sự hy sinh" does also mean "an instance of sacrificing" if you append a demonstrative: "sự hy sinh này" (this sacrifice) or "sự hy sinh đó" (that sacrifice). Please don't tell me we need to add sections for those too! "Cóc" and "con cóc" are synonymous, yes.

The difference between a noun section and a usage example is to me one of emphasis. I believe these extra sections would just clutter up entries for words like "bay" that already have both verb and noun senses. If we must include a grammar lesson (nominalization) at each and every verb entry, how about usage notes, like the ones at "cattle"? Templates could help. (Wiktionary should have more such usage notes: "corn" fails to mention "ear of corn" anywhere.)

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 13:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm now convinced about Vietnamese classifiers. It's not just one dictionary, which is misleading learners to believe that "con cóc" is a word. I can quote at least two, plus some textbooks (plus Google Translate for some reason). No other dictionary for a language, which features classifiers, AFAIK, confuses users providing "classifier + noun" in translations of English nouns. It's also to do with the way specifically Vietnamese classifiers work, compared to other languages. In Vietnamese, a sentence can start with a classifier, without a numeral or determiner, it's not the case with some other languages. Anyway, I'm OK to delete such cases - "classifier + noun".

I'm not convinced about "nominaliser + verb" cases, though, even if some Vietnamese grammarians don't consider them true nouns and there could be more than one nominaliser. Some grammarians don't considers Japanese suru-verbs true verbs either. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for move discussion is here Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Non-idiomatic_Vietnamese_words. Only applies to entries with "classifier + noun" entries from the above list. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Reviving the discussion, which mainly moved to Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Non-idiomatic_Vietnamese_words and that part is complete - entries moved to terms without the classifier. Further comments are sought for "sự" nouns, a few of the above. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

risk appetite

Another doubtful entry from the RFC sludge pile. Ƿidsiþ 12:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There's risk tolerance by the same contributor. I don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

They are virtually synonymous. To me risk tolerance seems SoP. I'm not as sure about risk appetite, because if the two terms are always used synonymously, the senses of appetite do not include "tolerance" in any definition I've yet seen.

In the kind of rational setting suggested by three mutually redundant definitions, decision-makers do not have an absolute preference ('appetite') for risk, rather than a tolerance for risk associated with higher expected returns. DCDuring TALK 15:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

mushroom

1. Containing or being made of mushrooms.

   mushroom soup

2. Resembling a mushroom by shape or appearance.

   mushroom cloud

Adjective section; tagged but not listed. Both usexes show attributive use of the noun, but the second seems idiomatic. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete both. Not comparable, etc. and oxtail and turtle aren't adjectives just because you can make soup from them. Equinox ◑ 23:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete both. --WikiTiki89 23:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that mushroom is not an adjective and should be deleted, but I wonder if the translations here for mushroom as a noun modifier can be tacked on to the translations for the noun (and suitably marked). Donnanz (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, that can be done. Brass shows one way it can be done, namely by having a separate table for translations of the attributive uses of the noun; cork shows another way, namely having translations of both the subjective / objective and the 'attributive' uses of the noun in one table, labelling the latter. (See here for some discussion of the concepts.) - -sche (discuss) 04:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• mushroom cloud, mushroom body, mushroom anchor, and a few other terms seem to be entryworthy. I don't see them or other terms using mushroom attributively as evidencing a shared meaning that is adjectival. Delete. DCDuring TALK 03:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete the first sense per DCDuring or, if we wanted to be procedurally correct, move to RFV, since citations that would prove 'mushroom' to be adjectival could exist, even though I think they don't. (E.g. citations of the form "he added the whole can and the soup ended up being a bit too mushroom", "a mushroomer soup than I'm used to", etc. would support an adjective POS section.) Keep/move to RFV (and modify as needed) the second sense, for which citations are more likely to exist (given that Widsith has just provided a few). - -sche (discuss) 04:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC) - -sche (discuss) 10:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We could just let it sit here for a month, giving advocates the time an RfV would provide. DCDuring TALK 04:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Mushroom can be used as a noun modifier, but I would choose mushroomy as an adjective. Donnanz (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete the first one, probably keep the second. The OED has it in a slightly modified form (‘Resembling a mushroom in speed of growth or brief duration of existence’) with quotes like ‘He has..a knack of versifying, which has pleased the German ladies and got him a mushroom reputation’, and ‘This source of Belém's wealth was two thousand miles and more away from Belém itself; and the mushroom city of Manaus quickly inserted itself, in between’ where the use is at least moving towards being a true adjective. It's still possible to interpret this as attributive noun use though if we want to. However from Google books I also see:

  Neither Mr Robinson nor Mr Price were of a very mushroom character

  Some Christian churches are said to be of very mushroom growth

  I think it improbable, for instance, that Spenlow, a rather mushroom recruit, would have been in a position to receive an articled pupil at all

• so it looks like it might be all right. Ƿidsiþ 09:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  The gradability evidence you present looks good to me.

The true adjective usage is definitely not common. Should we mark the adjective sense as 'rare' or would that confuse our normal users even more than they are already confused by our treatment of attributive use of nouns (which I support)? DCDuring TALK 15:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There's not mushroom for discussion here (sorry!) Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep #2 A mushroom cloud isn't made of mushrooms Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody said it was. A "round ball" isn't made of rounds of ammunition. So what? Equinox ◑ 15:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

And "dragon fire" isn't made of dragons. --WikiTiki89 15:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Simple solution; never take a Purplebackpack89 comment as an informed contribution. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not a mushroom cloud is made of mushrooms is quite germane to whether or not an additional definition is needed or not. Equinox, I don't quite understand why you put down almost every comment I make in defense of perfectly legitimate definitions Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Because almost every comment is illogical (unless you think we need "round ball" and "dragon fire" per the above rebuttals). Equinox ◑ 18:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If dragon fire comes from some source other than a dragon, then, yes, we do need that definition. As for round ball, round is an adjective in that sense rather than a noun, so that's completely irrelevant. Neither example convinces me that mushroom as it pertains to the shape should be deleted, sorry. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll tell you what's illogical: Saying that because we keep one definition, we have to create another definition, one that's 10x more ridiculous. That's classic slippery slope fallacy. The outcome of one RfD is distinct from the outcome of any other RfD Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"A mushroom cloud isn't made of mushrooms" is so spurious as make me think you don't understand basic lexicogaphic/semantic concepts like polysemy. You have participated in these discussions for quite some time and we seem to have to repeat the same reasoning over and over. But you do not even seem to argue against the reasoning, rather you repeat your rejected assertions. DCDuring TALK 18:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Polysemy would seem to be in favor of keeping these definitions. "Being a mushroom" and "Being shaped like a mushroom" are two different meanings. Therefore, there should be two different definitions. I don't see what the big deal is here. The problem you, Equinox and Mglovesfun seem to have is that I think the bar should be a little lower for inclusion than you do. So what? I'm entitled to vote based on my lower bar. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not about a "bar"; it is about your illogic and failure to respond to counterarguments. Equinox ◑ 18:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your argument has been "Well, you're illogical" and "Well, if we keep this, we'll have to create this other thing". The first one is an opinion, not an argument. The second one I've responded to above as not being germane because each RfD is a separate entity. My keep vote is as valid as your delete vote Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"My keep vote is as valid as your delete vote" Contrary to popular belief, it is not. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Those who close RfD discussions do not give equal weight to all votes, nor should they. They tend to dismiss unreasoned votes and those that ignore WT:CFI. Your arguments don't quite descend to that level, though it is hard to have a discussion if the other party neither acknowledges error not defends the position others argue is erroneous.

'"Being a mushroom" and "Being shaped like a mushroom" are two different meanings. Therefore, there should be two different definitions.' Thank you for stating your reasoning.

There are many possible semantic relationships between a noun and another noun modifying it attributively:

'mushroom soup' is a soup (made) 'of' mushrooms

'mushroom compost' is compost 'for' mushrooms

'mushroom cloth' is cloth 'for' (cleaning without damaging) mushrooms

'mushroom growth' is growth 'by' mushrooms OR

growth 'like' the rapid growth of mushrooms

'mushroom farming' is farming 'of' mushrooms

'mushroom eater' is one who eats mushrooms

In each case mushroom has a different relationship to the noun modified. The meanings correspond to plausible relationships often reflected in different prepositions or, possibly, a 'case' (as in 'mushroom eater'). This is almost universal for constructing the meaning of noun phrases that have a noun used attributively. 'Like' in shape is just another instance, similar to the second instance of 'mushroom growth'.

This does not say we definitely should not have the second sense of mushroom#Adjective, but it does undercut your argument. DCDuring TALK 20:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's misleading to call these "noun phrases". In other Germanic languages these are compounds, so they must be considered compounds in English too. They're really single terms, the space doesn't suddenly make it a phrase. The relationship is generally that of a genitive, and all the examples you gave boil down to that. Soup, compost, cloth, growth, farming, eater of mushrooms. —CodeCat 20:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree that they are compounds (you can't say they aren't noun phrases because a single noun is still a noun phrase), I think it's wrong to use other Germanic languages as an argument. --WikiTiki89 20:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

User:DCDuring, there is one major difference between shape and the others: namely that the others can be used with a lot of words, and shape is generally used with much fewer. For example, take "mushroom eater". Any other food can be substituted for mushroom and it would be a valid phrase. Very few foods are discussed in regards to shape. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ My rebuttal to that is that "For example, take 'mushroom [cloud]'. Any other [object] can be substituted for mushroom and it would be a valid phrase." 'Flower cloud', 'rat cloud', 'car cloud', 'potato chip cloud', have all referred to cloud shapes rather than cloud compositions. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think I speak for almost everyone here when I say we can't take your votes seriously PBP, even though MG may have worded that a little harsher than intended. And that's not an attack, it's a statement of fact: even with the best of intentions, we cannot take you seriously. And how can we when you seem to make a hollow, empty statement like "a mushroom cloud isn't made of mushrooms" instead of a rational, well-reasoned and well-thought-out argument? It makes one wonder whether you've seen and/or compared how other dictionaries have criteria for including their terms and senses. A statement like "a mushroom cloud isn't made of mushrooms" shows a lack of understanding about Wiktionary; it's like the guy who signs up for an account because he saw an article about him about to be deleted and votes "Keep I like it" as his only edit (if we're going to take an example to appeal to your Wikipedian sense in any meaningful way) and then walks away with no willingness to contribute to anything else. And besides, we already have an entry at mushroom cloud, which is a noun, so it's completely irrelevant to whether or not we should keep or delete this particular sense. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Dude, have you noticed how many votes that are just "Delete" without any reason at all on this page? Or delete with a rationale of 3 words or less? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, some of you may have missed the subtle undertones of my comments. The undertone of my comments were "if these definitions are deleted, there are some things with the word 'mushroom' in them that can't adequately be described by the remaining definitions. Therefore, the definitions should be kept" Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

More acceptable, though you'll have to explain what you mean by "there are some things... that can't adequately be described by the remaining definitions", otherwise this is a circular argument: i.e. if we delete a sense it will be missing, therefore it should be kept. And I've already given the noun sense of mushroom cloud in a separate entry as rebuttal to your claims, so you can try to address that. Maybe you should try not being so 'subtle' next time. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"Mushroom cloud" isn't the adjective "mushroom" with the noun "cloud", though; otherwise, you could say "this cloud is mushroom". (Compare "green door; this door is green".) It's a separate noun phrase. Equinox ◑ 00:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is you can't say "this cloud is a mushroom" either, because, while that would be grammatically correct, it's not correct in terms of meaning, except as a metaphor. Also, is a mushroom cloud the only thing that is referred to as being shaped like a mushroom but isn't an actual mushroom? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Wait, so now you lack reading comprehension as well? DCDuring pointed out above that mushroom body was a legitimate sense. And you've failed to provide any counterarguments to my rebuttals above, especially the fact that mushroom cloud is already a noun entry, so it invalidates your argument that we would need to have an adjective sense on that basis. You've also failed to counter my rebuttal further up above that almost anything put in front of 'cloud' will refer to the cloud shape, not its composition. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You also can't say "this soup is a mushroom", yet you seemed fine with removing that sense? —Ruakh_TALK 00:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Because there's actual mushrooms in mushroom soup, but no actual mushrooms in a mushroom cloud. Note that another editor voted delete 1, keep 2 above. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

WTF? There are no actual tractors in a tractor part, either. We're back to "so what?". Equinox ◑ 00:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

What do tractor parts have to do with mushroom clouds/anything else shaped like mushrooms? Again, bringing to bear words that don't really matter to this discussion. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It was an analogy for a comparable case, that has the same noun+noun arrangement. But you evidently don't apply any logic to your RFD decisions so I give up at this point. You may have noticed that most other people feel the same way about your caprices. Equinox ◑ 01:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that they feel that way, but I feel that it would be better for this project if certain things were kept. This definition of mushroom is one of them. Call that capricious if you will (though I would be offended if, taken in whole, you considered my argument at ride the circuit above capricious or illogical). But if there's one thing I'm consistent on, it's that analogies have no place in RfD discussions. Just as you find the various arguments I've put forth in this discussion illogical, I find the use of analogies illogical. I've said it twice before, but hear it again: just because we keep one entry doesn't mean we have to keep or create something else. You think I'm illogical, I think you're illogical. Our votes cancel each other out Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Votes don't cancel each other out on that basis, otherwise all the votes here will be null. His just makes more sense, and will have more weight, even if we happen to disagree. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's true that "just because we keep one entry doesn't mean we have to keep or create something else", but that hardly justifies banning analogies as a mechanism for understanding the language we're trying to document. Just because you want to forbid one use of analogies doesn't mean you have to forbid all uses. (Also, the reason that you and Equinox find each other illogical is that you are illogical and he is not. The facts don't cancel out, they add up.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Logic goes against common practice and should be permanently banned from Wiktionary. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So should people ganging up on the same editor to call him "illogical". Oh, wait, it already is! (By policies that urge commenting on arguments rather than the editor itself in forums as these) Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I don't see a problem with calling your arguments illogical and irrelevant to this discussion. I've yet to see Equinox call you 'stupid' or anything like that. (Though I'm pretty sure he's tempted to do so right now.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, what have policies got to do with anything? They only exist to give new editors a false sense of security. Otherwise, they just choke up bandwidth. Editors are supposed to agree with common practice unconditionally. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I just want to point out that Purpleback89 is now making some real arguments that can be taken seriously. Purpleback, I'm glad that you have listened to our advice. I still disagree though that the shape sense merits a separate definition, although I think that we should make sure that the stereotypical shape of a mushroom is included in the primary definition. --WikiTiki89 03:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the formulation PBP put forth in response to my post was at a minimum much more acceptable this time around, but there is still room for improvement. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that it's just "at a minimum". He's actively arguing his case, even if you disagree with it. --WikiTiki89 04:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I just think a formulation like "if these definitions are deleted, there are some things with the word 'mushroom' in them that can't adequately be described by the remaining definitions. Therefore, the definitions should be kept" is better than "Keep #2 A mushroom cloud isn't made of mushrooms" and I explained why above. It's easier to take him more seriously if uses the first formulation.TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this RFD but interested in seeing if an interesting way of translating attributive nouns is developed or suggested. For example in Russian "mushroom" (noun) is гриб (grib) but an adjective (of or related to mushrooms) is грибно́й (gribnój), so a "mushroom soup" is "грибной суп" (gribnój sup). Most Russian nouns can have adjectives derived from them. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete sense 1, keep sense 2, per User:Widsith. bd2412 T 12:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Closed accordingly. Adjective sense 1 deleted, sense 2 kept for lack of consensus to delete, and marked as rare. bd2412 T 19:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

take exception to

This seems redundant to take exception (and even that is a bit SoP, considering exception#Noun sense 4, but I'm willing to keep that for whatever reason) so recommended course of action is to delete senses, merge metadata (quotes, refs, translations) to take exception, then leave it as a hard redirect to take exception. Perhaps there could be a usage note saying that take exception is usually, but not always, paired with to. (I wasn't exactly sure whether to best post this in RFM or RFD, but since deletion of the senses seemed more controversial I decided here.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My preference is to combines everything along the lines you suggest, including the redirect. I like to put the complement information on the relevant sense line with {{cx}} (like Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English) and have the redirect from take exception to go to the specific sense using {{senseid}}. Those who have less interest in Wiktionary as a useful monolingual dictionary seem to like the freedom of having as many translation targets as possible. DCDuring TALK 06:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The RFD discussion archived at Talk:wait for may be relevant. (And there's also some discussion archived at Talk:take exception to, but just between DCDuring and me.) —Ruakh_TALK 07:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If my memory worked better, I would have provided the Talk references. The only new development is the availability of {{senseid}}. I also note that the length-of-entry (actually length-of-L2) argument does not apply to [[take exception]]. DCDuring TALK 13:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

television show

Restore and keep. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Why? DCDuring TALK 22:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Because it's a word, defined in a number of dictionaries, borrowed by other languages as is or in the abbreviated form, it's a translation target - many languages have single-word idiomatic equivalents, it has synonyms/alternative forms: TV show, teleshow, television program, TV program. The deletion of the term was brought up in the RFD many times by other users. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Leave deleted; this has already failed RFD at least twice. If it has single-word synonyms, (a) so what? that's no good indicator of idiomaticity / dictionary-worthiness, (b) those single-word synonyms can be the translation targets. - -sche (discuss) 23:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not worried about translations, I just think it's an English word with a specific meaning. That's why teleshow exists. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to During above, the Google n-gram for television show, television program, TV show, TV program: Google Ngram Viewer (television show,television program,TV show,TV program). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't restore. Show is a word. A television show is a show that happens to be on television, as opposed to a Broadway show or radio show, which are on Broadway and radio, respectively. --WikiTiki89 00:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, many words have clear etymology but it doesn't make them non-words. Definition: "a program broadcast by television" "television show" @ dictionary.reference.com, "television show" @ www.thefreedictionary.com. It may not only be "a program" but also a drama, series, etc but this definition needs to be confirmed. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not about the etymology. It's about the fact that if you know what televeision is and you know what a show is, you will then understand what a television show is without any further non-contextual information. That is what SOP means. --WikiTiki89 00:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"Yellow car", "a book of", "I said", "long word" are a SOP but "prepositional pronoun", "wide are network", "fire extinguisher", "higher education", "spell checker", "cardinal number", "aphthous ulcer" and many others, whose meaning you can tell by their parts, many of which have already passed RFD and are defined by far more respectable dictionaries are not SOP. Dictionary words can be multi-word. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you are misusing the word "SOP". SOP (sum of parts) means that you can tell the meaning of a word from its parts. Some SOP terms pass RFD for other reasons, but they are still SOP. --WikiTiki89 01:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"Misuse" is applicable to both pro- and anti-deletion commenters, like "yellow car" is used by both. I was just trying to clarify my take on SOP with a bit of exaggeration, it doesn't necessarily involve a big change in meaning. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Using a term for something other than its accepted meaning is usually referred to as "misuse". There is not even a small change in meaning of either television or show when you put them together into television show. --WikiTiki89 01:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can say that when there are so many definitions of "show", though, several of which aren't applicable to TV shows Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that's more of a problem with our entry for [[show#Noun]], which needs to be cleaned up; many of the senses can be merged. But essentially, we are dealing here with the primary sense, not some obscure sense at the end of the list. --WikiTiki89 01:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This suggestion is similar to your suggestion to host translations of "apple tree" at "apple". I have just read your comment there. Why is a SOP, as you said, "apple tree" better than "television show" and you were undecided? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I explained the whole thing there with the example of "oak tree". The word "oak" has no other purpose other than to be followed by "tree", "wood", etc (sometimes "oak tree" or "oak wood" are shortened to just "oak", but that's a different story), however, "television" is a completely standalone word. --WikiTiki89 01:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89 (after an EC) If you look at the history of this page or at the list of parts of speech in any language you speak, you will see that there is no such thing as "accepted meaning of SOP". Don't accuse me of misusing the term, "petrol station" and "television show" (and others I listed) can equally be idiomatic or non-idiomatic depending on who you ask. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I was not talking about idiomacity. SOP-ness is a related concept but is not 100% correlated with idiomacity. A word can be idiomatic and SOP at the same time. I agree that many editors misuse SOP, but in a logical discussion, words need to have predefined meanings or no one will understand anyone else. --WikiTiki89 01:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to try your luck RFD-ing "gas station" or "petrol station" or do any of the senses of gas/petrol make these terms more idiomatic than "television show"? If yes, which ones? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I would vote to delete those, but I don't feel compelled to go and bring it up here myself. --WikiTiki89 01:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Such deletions won't help any dictionary better, even if I see the logic in your desire to rid Wiktionary of multi-part words. And you don't have to maintain those entries. You haven't said why "apple tree" is better (more idiomatic, worth keeping) than "television show". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have said that, although I made my argument with "oak tree". It is harder to talk about "apple tree" because "apple" is also a fruit of that tree, but I think that "apple tree" is the same sort of construction as "oak tree", rather than a "tree that grows apples". None of these arguments apply to "television show" or "illegal immigrant", as I have already said several times and would prefer not to have to say again. --WikiTiki89 02:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You vehemently argue for deletions and you don't expect that you have to repeat yourself in a different discussion? I don't see good reasoning in your explanations about oak and apple trees but I won't ask you again. You have made your opinion very clear, so have I. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

What I meant that I don't want to have to repeat is the fact that the arguments for "apple tree" do not apply to those for "television show" or "illegal immigrant". I wasn't talking about repeating arguments. --WikiTiki89 02:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, they are different words. Re: "apple tree" because "apple" is also a fruit of that tree". Then you need to go back to "vegetable garden" and vote "keep" but I'm sure you'll be able to tweak your answer again and be the last to comment as usual. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I know sometimes my logic is hard to follow, but what I meant was that I used "oak tree" as an example because it is more difficult to discuss "apple tree". "apple" being a fruit of an "apple tree" is the reason that its harder to discuss "apple tree" than it is to discuss "oak tree". I was not using it as an argument for keeping or deleting, but as the reasoning for using the "oak tree" example instead of talking directly about "apple tree". --WikiTiki89 03:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't say that! Somebody might actually do it! (I'd vote keep, of course, because, like "show", "station" is ambiguous) Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If they don't pass, they may not get full legitimacy but there's a huge list of potential candidates. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89: I don't have a comment to make about television show, just a question. I was under the impression that SOP was the opposite of idiomatic — what would be an example of a word that's SOP but still idiomatic? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question. Maybe "short story"? --WikiTiki89 02:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess any SOP phrase where you can't substitute any of the words for synonyms. --WikiTiki89 02:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Like "bad luck" and "tough luck"? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

No, because in that case you can substitute any synonym for "bad" ("poor luck", "horrible luck", etc.). I'm having trouble coming up with a reason to keep "bad luck" so I'd probably vote delete if it were brought up here ("tough luck" is different because it is usually an interjection). --WikiTiki89 04:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Restore: per Anatoli, and because "show" is too ambiguous for SOP to really apply. There are 11 definitions for show as a noun alone! Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Don’t undelete. SOP, and the translations can be hosted in any of the idiomatic equivalents. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

But Ungoliant, "show" is ambiguous, which throws the SOP argument into question Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The definition of "show" in question here is its first definition. There is not much ambiguity as to which one it refers to. --WikiTiki89 01:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ungoliant (after three edit conflicts!). As I said, I'm not worried about translations here (I haven't seen anyone worried about translations), I just think it's more idiomatic and much more common than "teleshow", which is derived from "television show" or "television program". As Google n-gram suggests, it's growing fast in usage too. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, "fear of long words" is much more common than "sesquipedaliophobia". Having a less-common, one-word synonym doesn't make a phrase SOP. --WikiTiki89 01:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"fear of long words" is SOP from my point of view, it's a description, not a word. The example "television show" and "teleshow" is quite different and is similar to WT:COALMINE, even if "television" is shortened to a prefix "tele-". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why you can't say "television show" is a description of a type of "show". I'm not a big fan of WT:COALMINE, and I would support a vote to get rid of it; but as long as it is policy, it must be enforced. In fact I even made a fake entry at User:Wikitiki89/coalmine of how I imagine [[coalmine]] looking if [[coal mine]] is deleted. --WikiTiki89 02:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

WT:COALMINE is only about a shortcut, debate-curtailing method of accepting orthographic evidence as sufficient evidence of idiomaticity. There is no such evidence presented here. It is irrelevant, not even a canard, because its irrelevance should be obvious to all. DCDuring TALK 14:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Restore (keep) as a translation target. This will be useful for translations; the Russian ones seem to include common non-compounds "телепрограмма", "телепередача" and "телешоу"; for frequencies, see телевизио́нная програ́мма,телепрогра́мма,телепереда́ча,телешо́у at Google Ngram Viewer (courtesy of {{R:GNV}}). And translation of the combinations of "show" in various languages is not compositional (sum-of-partish), I believe: "television show" is cs:"televizní pořad" while "Broadway show" is definitely not *"Broadway pořad" či *"Broadwayový pořad", "rodeo show" is not *"rodeový pořad" či *"rodeo pořad", "theatre show" is almost never "divadelní pořad" but rather "divadelní představení". When you go to Google translate, you'll see that Google has "television show" as a single translation unit for several languages, including Chinese (their name), Russian, Spanish, and Japanese; you can see that by hovering over the non-English translation on the right, at which point you get to see the translation units highlighted.

  On another note, hosting the translations on teleshow is outright ridiculous: teleshow, television show, TV show at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Restore, reinstate, undelete. If teleshow is used in science fiction, it's too far out, haha. Donnanz (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Restore and keep. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Don't restore. Per above and previous discussion.​—msh210℠ (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• Restore as {{translation only}} per DP. — Keφr 08:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

個人献金

Simple sum of its parts in Japanese and as much as the English gloss "personal donations". It's the same with 企業献金. 迂回献金 was created in the same batch but maybe it's ok. It's not in any of my sources but it seems to be legal jargon so it could be in a dictionary of legal terms. Haplogy (話) 03:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete all three. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to say in Japanese "donations which are personal" rather than "personal donations"? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction. Haplogy (話) 08:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean to say, is "personal/individual" exclusively used in an adjectival sense? That is, a construction of "adjective" + "noun" seems to be more obvious as sum of parts than a construction of "noun" + "noun" is. I think that in English the distinction between those two can be shown when "adjective" + "noun" can also be expressed as "noun" + "copula" + "adjective". TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-idiomatic noun + noun expressions are very common. Nouns are often used with an adjectival sense often to begin with. 海上 for example is a noun but is translated with the adjective "marine." Haplogy (話) 02:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I see. Well, I'm convinced enough that deleting this won't harm the dictionary in any way. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

奉仕活動

奉仕+活動. 活動 ("activity") is used for any number of things in the same pattern. For example:

• 独立活動: independent activity
• 人生活動: lifestyle activity
• 製作活動: manufacturing activity
• 内部活動: internal activity
• 精神活動: spiritual work

No published source available to me includes this, although Jim Breen's online dictionary does. I think that this is an example of a sense of 奉仕 or "work in service" figuratively to mean "service for a greater purpose" which is why Jim Breen lists 奉仕活動 as labor of love. Perhaps this expression could be a translation target for labor of love, but I suspect 奉仕 alone would be better. Haplogy (話) 02:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

delete sum of parts. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep. This is a specific term for social volunteer activities, while 奉仕 means any service. You can say 神に奉仕する, 家族に奉仕する, and 芸術に奉仕する, but they are not 奉仕活動. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep. I think it's a jargon with the specific meaning explained by TAKASUGI Shinji above, used typically in the context of education and politics in the recent years. Apparently, the new idiomatic use meaning "voluntary participation to social/community activities" was started by Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan, [7] and adopted by official documents of public educational institutions in Japan. [8] See these search results from the National Diet proceedings for further examples. --Whym (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

chromosomal aberration

Is this SOP? - -sche (discuss) 08:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

If we had a medical definition of aberration, I would have said delete. --WikiTiki89 14:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Now we have (#7): "deviation of a tissue, organ or mental functions from what is considered to be within the normal range". Feel free to improve my English, I'm just a poor learner. Mastering a foreign language would require a lifetime. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case delete. --WikiTiki89 15:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

محمد بن عبد الله

This kind of entry is explicitly disallowed by WT:CFI, which says "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney." Move the content to (deprecated template usage) مُحَمَّدٌ (muḥammadun) and delete this. - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep. What about Jesus Christ? We also have Christ. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Jesus Christ does not include "both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

محمد بن عبد الله is one of the fuller names, which identifies Muhammad as the prophet, rather than any person called Muhammad. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

...and it does so by spelling out his given name (Muhammad) and patronymic (son of Abdullah), which CFI explicitly forbids. If you think something is gained by having a dictionary entry for this (I don't see what), please start a BP discussion about changing CFI to allow it. - -sche (discuss) 22:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. @Atitarev please read the line that -sche quoted from the CFI. I don't see why this is up for debate. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I just expressed my opinion and put a vote. The reason I voted keep is because I think CFI is imperfect in case of Arab prophet names who are better known by names other than "first name + surname". BTW, I'm not voting "keep" for Владимир Ильич Ульянов or suggesting to create Владимир Ильич. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 20:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep. I don’t think it’s a name in the modern Western sense, but more like "John who lives down the street". No one would have referred to him as Mr. بن عبد الله (or Mr. Ibn Abdullah). Among his family and his friends, he would have been known simply as محمد. It’s just that محمد is such a common name that a little extra description is sometimes needed. I see it as much more like the Christ in Jesus Christ than to Obama in Barack Obama. —Stephen ^(Talk) 04:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

evening prayer

noon prayer

Delete as sum of parts. It could be argued that they are not sum of parts since they refer specifically to Islamic prayers, but I do not believe they do so refer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Evening prayer at least is also used in Anglicanism. Not sure about either the Muslim or the Anglican meaning being SOP though, since I think both are more specific than "any prayer uttered in the evening". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If the meaning is more specific, what are their specific defining qualities or characteristics beyond "prayer taking place in the evening"? How do you know that these specific additional qualities are really picked by the term "evening prayer"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

See Evening Prayer (Anglican). The Anglican Evening Prayer service has a specific form, with certain elements that belong to it and certain elements that don't. However, on consideration, the name of the Anglican service is usually capitalized, so maybe Evening Prayer would be a better entry for it. I don't know about the Muslim service (or the Jewish one Maariv). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Defining qualities for evening prayer includes 4 rak'as. A specific amount of sunnah prayers afterwards. As well as vocal utterance as opposed to the quiet ones during dhuhr and asr. Similar defining characteristics exist for the other entries. Pass a Method (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't we need a different definition for the specification of the prayers evoked by the use of this term for each religion and sect thereof by the inclusion logic suggested to far? Is each such definition a reflection of a name of a specific entity? DCDuring TALK 18:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

They are probably not SOP's since they're not any prayers uttered in the evening, but a specific one which is typically done in congregation with various doctrines attached. As for different definitions, thats up for other editors to add since i'm not knowledgeable about that. Pass a Method (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The way I see it, "evening prayer" refers to the prayer that you say in the evening (not any prayer you say in the evening, but the prayer you say in the evening). The specific content of such a prayer in various religions is encyclopedic and not part of the definition of the word. --WikiTiki89 21:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• “evening prayer”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. would have led to inclusion of the Anglican sense, which might have led to inclusion by analogy of the Islamic sense. DCDuring TALK 03:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think they all should be kept. They can all be expressed as single words (abbreviated) in Arabic and some other languages. They are like "breakfast", "lunch" and "supper" as opposed to "meal". See فجر (fajr)‎, ظهر (ẓuhr)‎, عصر (ʿaṣr)‎, مغرب (maḡrib)‎ and عشاء (ʿašāʾ, ʿišāʾ)‎ (some definitions are incomplete, they also stand for the short names of the five daily prayers). English synonyms for all these prayers: "fajr", "zuhr"/"dhuhr", "asr", "maghrib" and "isha" (English definitions are also incomplete or missing). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The existence of breakfast, lunch, dinner, supper, etc. does not mean that we need to include morning meal, evening meal, etc. --WikiTiki89 05:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

morning meal is synonymous with "a meal in the morning". thus not the best example.Pass a Method (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep and merge: I think many people know breakfast, lunch, dinner, but a few (at least I) don't know what the Arabic name of the prayers are. If I want to know what the prayers are called in Arabic, deleting them would make this impossible. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've updated entries "fajr", "dhuhr"/"zuhr", "asr", "maghrib" and "isha" - the synonyms, which are much less known to English speakers but in case the community decides to delete the above entries, we'll have at least something. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

mondo bizarro

Adjective PoS section. The citations are only for attributive use, clearly uses of the noun sense. DCDuring TALK 17:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

See Citations:mondo bizarro for cites. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

diamond ring

I'm looking forward to reading why this isn't diamond + ring. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

See w:Baily's beads. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm amazed! --Hekaheka (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Pretty, don't you think? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(after e/c) I seem to remember this passing RFD before. But I would vote delete. --WikiTiki89 00:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, re the more literal sense that's actually in the entry, I suppose it could be argued that the whole ring isn't made of diamond (cf. gold ring), just the stone that's set in it. That perhaps makes it weakly idiomatic, but not enough for me to vote for it to be kept. I would only say that the solar-ecliptic sense should have an entry, and that the current sense should perhaps therefore be retained with {{&lit}}. Maybe. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

raspberry ice cream is not made entirely of raspberries. --WikiTiki89 05:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Kept for the sake of the solar-ecliptic sense. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• “diamond ring”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. would not have saved us any time unless we included the single technical glossary that has the astronomy sense. DCDuring TALK 03:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Convert to &lit. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree: convert to &lit, bearing in mind Wikitiki's point above about raspberry ice-cream. Equinox ◑ 21:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Convert the "ring with a diamond" sense to {{&lit}}, per Wikitiki's point about raspberry ice cream. I would add that, likewise, something like a yellow car does not have to be entirely yellow; it likely has a transparent colourless windscreen rather than an opaque yellow windscreen, for instance, and probably also has an unyellow muffler, tyres, etc. A Google Image search for "yellow car" bears out this hypothesis. For that matter, even a gold ring can bear a jewel and still be referred to as a "gold ring". - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Convert sense 1 to {{&lit|diamond|ring}} per Ungoliant, Equinox, and -sche, in accordance with Wikitiki's point. DCDuring TALK 23:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that this is &lit. THIS is a literal diamond ring. What we conventionally think of as a "diamond" ring is actually a metal ring (or, possibly, wood) with a diamond setting. bd2412 T 15:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at with "I suppose it could be argued that the whole ring isn't made of diamond (cf. gold ring), just the stone that's set in it. That perhaps makes it weakly idiomatic". It's not the strongest of arguments, however. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

“X Y” does not always mean “Y made of X”. In this case, it is used as “Y whose distinguishing feature is the presence of X”. If we limit ourselves to only considering the “Y made of X” usage, we will have to add the name of every piece of jewellery containing a gem, every name of a dish or juice containing an ingredient (i.e. tomato soup may contain water and spices; lemon juice may contain sugar), every name of a structure containing the material it is made of (i.e. a brick house also has mortar), etc. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well said. This an example of the kind of common rule of semantic construction that gives instances of its application the same non-lexical status as grammatically correct SoP phrases. DCDuring TALK 15:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, diamond ring is an unusual construction. How often have you ever heard of someone referring to a "pearl ring" or a "ruby ring"? Furthermore, there are implications inherent in the diamond ring that go far beyond a diamond ring, such that its significance as an engagement ring is generally understood without any further clarification. bd2412 T 18:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I am certain I have encountered ruby ring before, though I don’t recall any specific instance of seeing pearl ring. google books:"ruby ring" and google books:"pearl ring" have 39100 and 11700 hits on Google Books respectively, so I wouldn’t call <gem> ring an unusual construction. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have most certainly heard "ruby ring" and although I haven't heard of "pearl rings", that construction is readily understood (and Google shows plenty results for it). I have heard of "pearl earrings". The cultural significance of diamond rings is not part of the definition of a diamond ring. --WikiTiki89 19:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, both of those. I've also heard "turquoise ring", "carnelian ring", and very many others. Equinox ◑ 19:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) re "diamond ring is an unusual construction": no, it isn't; it's barely 10x more common than ruby ring (or emerald ring or sapphire ring or pearl ring), with much of that ascribable to the fact that "diamond" in isolation is already 5x more common than ruby, etc, and the rest influenced by the fact that the physical jewels themselves have different levels of popularity.
Re "there are implications inherent in the diamond ring": as I commented on another recent RFD, there are implications to "black car" (e.g. it's often shiny and classy rather than shabby, and it's typical for government officials to be driven in black cars), but it's still just a black car. Tellingly, the relative commonness of black car vs blue car vs black vs blue (note the different timeframe; cars haven't been around as long as rings) is similar to that of diamond ring vs ruby ring vs diamond vs ruby. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Diamond ring is an unusual construction as against things like "gold ring", "silver ring", "iron ring", "wood ring", "plastic ring", "platinum ring", "obsidian ring", and others which do convey that the ring is made of the material, not made of some other material but with a bit of gold or iron or wood set in it. bd2412 T 20:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe you need a better argument. There are also things called "emerald ring", "pearl ring", "sapphire ring", "opal ring" etc. and none of those are made of the materials mentioned. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

So? It's not unusual when compared to the other kinds of ring mentioned above (ruby ring, etc). "Government truck" is unusual when compared to "Chevy truck", "Ford truck", "Opel truck" and other collocations which convey that the truck is manufactured by the specified entity rather than being owned/operated by it. But then you realize that there are "company trucks" and "private trucks" and... - -sche (discuss) 21:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case, it seems we need another line for the sense of "a ring made entirely of diamond", since the &lit sense is occupied by rings not entirely made of diamond. I am curious as to whether this is the norm in other languages - is it the typical case that a ring set with a bauble of a certain material is referred to as a "foo-material ring", irrespective of the material from which the band is made? Are there languages where "diamond ring" (a ring set with a diamond) would have a different translation from "diamond ring" (a ring made of diamond)? bd2412 T 22:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The beauty of SOP is that we don't need to list every possible meaning that diamond + ring can have. Any way that a ring can be diamond is an SOP definition of "diamond ring". --WikiTiki89 22:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

For instance, a criminal organization that smuggles diamonds, or that's associated with baseball fields, or diamonds arranged in a circle, or... Chuck Entz (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Re "it seems we need another line for the sense of 'a ring made entirely of diamond', since the &lit sense is occupied by rings not entirely made of diamond": how do you figure? Perusing the first few dozen pages that use {{&lit}}, I don't notice any of them using multiple sense-lines when there are multiple literal meanings. (deprecated template usage) Ask for it, for example, has numerous literal uses but only one &lit line:
A: "Hey! how come you got a pickle on your burger and I didn't?" / B: "I asked for it."
C: "Where's the foobarium?" / D: "Who wants to know?" / C: "The android." / D: "Why doesn't it ask me itself?" / C: "I asked for it."
And Chuck explains the many possible literal senses of diamond ring Brillantly, if you'll excuse the bilingual pun... :D - -sche (discuss) 23:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Are there languages where "diamond ring" (a ring set with a diamond) would have a different translation from "diamond ring" (a ring made of diamond)? bd2412 T 01:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There are possibly languages with distinct terms for (rings|earrings|necklaces|lockets|brooches|cufflinks|buttons) made entirely of (gold|silver|diamond|ruby|sapphire|pearl|emerald) vs ones which are merely set with such things. (BTW, every combination of those two sets I just mentioned is attested.) In particular, languages which use periphrastic constructions rather than compounds might make a distinction. However, the ones I've checked so far don't, either because they construct both "ring made of X" and "ring set with X" as "ring of X", or because they normally express "ring made of X" as "X^[adj] ring" but lack an adjective for "diamond" and thus express both "ring made of diamond" and "ring set with diamond" as "ring of diamond". (Rings made of diamond are so rare that in many languages there's simply no literature online that mentions them.)
Of course, the fact that some languages have different terms for conceptually different things does not mean other languages must have different senses for them. Russian has completely different terms for the colour of the deep sea and the colour of the clear sky, yet blue records that English merges the two conceptually different things into one sense, "the colour of the clear sky or the deep sea, between green and violet in the visible spectrum". (And true blue merges all possible 'true' shades of 'blue' into one &lit sense.) - -sche (discuss) 06:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, which sense of ring would inform a reader that a diamond ring is not a ring made of diamond? Surely it can't be sense three, "A round piece of (precious) metal worn around the finger or through the ear, nose, etc.", because that gives no suggestion that a "diamond" ring would not be a ring made of diamond. How can a phrase be SOP when there is no sense within either parts from which the meaning as a whole can be discerned. bd2412 T 01:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The same is true of many other compounds of "<stone> <article of jewelry>", e.g. "diamond necklace", "pearl earring", "sapphire {nose ring}", "{pearl and garnet} anklet", "diamond {{wedding or engagement} ring}", "ruby tiara", "{natural emerald} {engagement ring}", and so on. I'd be down with explaining this at entries for "<article of jewelry>", but it's clear that this is a productive compound-formation principle in English, so I don't think don't think it makes sense to try to give an entry for each compound. So, I'd ask: is 'diamond ring' is special in such a way that justifies an exceptional entry? —Ruakh_TALK 02:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think the issue here boils down to the fact that "diamond ring" is effectively a synonym for engagement ring, per citations like the following:

• 1985, Arthur Colton Park, A History of the Park and Colton Families: Six Generations 1810-1985, p. 29:

  It was at that apartment one evening in May that I gave her the diamond ring that would formalize the engagement which had become inevitable in the minds of all, including us.

• 1987, Nell McCafferty, Goodnight Sisters: Selected Articles of Nell McCafferty, p. 87:

  A diamond ring means marriage and status.

• 2000, Gerard E. Smith, Journey of an Ordinary Man, p. 471:

  “I thought we could get married this summer,” he answered, and with that he took the small box he had been carrying for a week from his jacket pocket. Her smile broadened as he opened the box and gave her the diamond ring.

• 2003, Douglas K. Thompson, A Refuge from the Storm p. 153:

  Valentine's Day was always a special day for us. Ann's was so thrilled when I gave her the diamond ring on that day in 1956. It was a day we had always celebrated as the real start of our life together. We went out to dinner that evening, and set the date for our marriage.

• 2006, Mary Slonaker, The Vinton House, p. 37:

  “Delvin, a diamond ring means you are engaged to be married. I barely know you.”

• 2007, Ricki Pepin, God's Health Plan - the Audacious Journey to a Better Life, p. 33:

  In 1999, when my daughter became engaged to be married, memories flooded back to me as she excitedly showed us her beautiful, shimmering diamond ring.

• 2008, Sandy Denton, Let's Talk About Pep, p. 88:

  I opened the box and saw this beautiful ring that I thought meant what a diamond ring means—that we were engaged.

In each of those cases, "engagement ring" could be substituted for "diamond ring", but in at least some of them, no other kind of ring could be substituted. It has an additional significance beyond the mere material components, like a gold medal. bd2412 T 03:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It is common in certain cultures to formalize engagements with rings, and it is common in some of those cultures for engagement rings to be diamond rings, but it is not required, and it is not lexicographically significant. (It is ethnographically significant, but Wiktionary is not an ethnography.)

• In the 1985 citation, a pair's engagement is being formalized with a ring, and the ring happens to be diamond, but it could as well be ruby or pearl. Even "I gave her the black cow that would formalize the engagement" works, although the background knowledge you have of which cultures give rings as symbols of engagement vs which ones give cows may change your mental picture of the pair's cultural background to much the same extent that "she rode to the wedding in a horse-drawn carriage" vs "she rode to the wedding in a rusty Trabant" would change your mental image of the pair's affluence. Likewise, in the 2006 and 2008 citations, the setting of the scene in a particular culture is what causes the characters to interpret the ring set with a diamond as a sign of engagement; the signification attaches to the physical object in the particular cultural context, it is not inherent the words; compare the 1982, 1993 and Shadow of Antiquity citations I present below, and my comments elsewhere on this page about "black car" and "pink ribbon".
• The 1987 is the equivalent of "a Ford truck means strength and toughness" or "a gray tie means you're old" (the latter a quotation from Stories in Short, ISBN 1630046132).
• As in the 1985 citation, the "diamond ring" in the 2000 citation could be replaced with a "ruby ring" or a "silver necklace" — though not a "cow", since cows don't fit in jacket pockets. The 2000 citation also notes that the same cultures which commonly give rings as symbols of engagement give the rings in boxes while kneeling; should we find some lemma (*diamond ring box?) to house this information on? Ditto the 2007 citation. And ditto the 2003 citation; compare the Muscadines and Daffodils citation below.

Here are some "counter-citations": - -sche (discuss) 06:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

things other than diamond rings as symbols of engagement

• 1982, Dianne M. Eash, Proceedings: International Gemological Symposium, 1982, page 172:

  Young women would receive a natural pearl ring as a symbol of their engagement and later they would be given a necklace made of natural pearls.

• 1993, Edward F. Anderson, Plants and People of the Golden Triangle: Ethnobotany:

  A Karen couple may exchange tobacco pipes to symbolize their engagement, […]

• 2010, Karen Jamison, Heart of A Hero (ISBN 1462813437), page 45;

  He had actually gone there two days before to look at engagement rings. […] He stuck his hand into the front pocket of his jeans and pulled out a little, gray, velvet box. He opened it and revealed a diamond and ruby ring.

• 2011, Jessica Steele, Unexpected Engagement (ISBN 1459277694):

  "You are formally engaged to be married, señorita?" he had enquired. "Down to the ring," Todd had replied for her, raising her left hand to show the ruby ring on her third finger.

• 2011, Katherine Mansfield and Literary Modernism (ISBN 1441111301), page 170:

  Murry […] gave her Mansfield's pearl ring to symbolize their engagement.

• 2012, Gregory S Aldrete, ‎Alicia Aldrete, The Long Shadow of Antiquity (ISBN 1441189815):

  The first aspect of Roman marriage rituals that would seem wholly familiar today is that, as a symbol of their engagement, the man (or boy) placed an engagement ring made of iron on the third finger of the woman's (or girl's) left hand, […]

• 2012, Judy Renick, Muscadines and Daffodils: A Daily Devotional (ISBN 1462718973):

  When Angela's father proposed to her mother, the engagement ring was a beautiful ruby. From that day forward, a ruby ring had significance in the family.

diamond rings as symbols of things other than engagements

• 1975, Harness Horse, volume 40, issues 29-36, page 74:

  Immediately after his 2,000th win, Lachance was presented with a diamond ring to commemorate the feat by Blue Bonnets senior vice-president Michael MacCormac.

• 1975, Edwyn Gray, The Devil's Device: The Story of Robert Whitehead, Inventor, page 63:

  And recognition of his engineering skill did not end there for, some weeks later, he was personally thanked by the Emperor Francis Josef and given an enamel and diamond ring to commemorate the occasion.

• 2004, Karl Bodmer's North American prints (ISBN 0803213263), page 21:

  Catlin's visit, no doubt, caused Louis Philippe to recall Bodmer's visit and the quality of his engravings, and he sent Bodmer a warm letter and a monogrammed diamond ring to commemorate the occasion.

• 2006, William E. Akin, West Virginia Baseball: A History, 1865-2000 (ISBN 0786425709), page 85;

  After recognizing all the players, Pennywitt presented manager Buzz Wetzel with a diamond ring to commemorate the pennant.

miscellaneous

• 2008, Robert Vare, The American Idea: The Best of the Atlantic Monthly (ISBN 0307481409), page 406:

  In Europe, where diamond prices had collapsed during the Depression, there seemed little possibility of restoring public confidence in diamonds. In Germany, Austria, Italy, and Spain, the notion of giving a diamond ring to commemorate an engagement had never taken hold. In England and France, diamonds were still presumed to be jewels for aristocrats rather than the masses.

• 2003?, Encyclopedia of Superstitions, Folklore, and the Occult (ISBN 1410209156?):

  A popular stone for the engagement ring is the ruby, especially for the girl born in July. […] In Madagascar, when a lover is going abroad, he is given a ruby ring by his sweetheart; and if the lustre grows dim, he believes it is a sign that she is dead or false.

  does this make ruby ring idiomatic with a meaning like "a ring set with a ruby, used to determine if an absent partner is faithful/alive"?

- -sche (discuss) 06:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Those are not really "counter" citations so much as they are citations that describe regional and historical restrictions. The first one, looking at the entire article, specifically says that pearls were a symbol of engagement "[u]ntil 1929". Many of the other citations to rings other than diamond rings relate to non-English speaking countries or cultures, which merely tells us that this is a regionalism, which of course we include (see apples and pears, beauty parlor). The fact that someone can give someone else a diamond ring to signify something other than engagement is no more significant than the fact that someone can give someone else a gold medal to signify something other than winning a competition (I don't think a slew of cites like The Indian Review: A Monthly Journal (1913), Volume 13, p. 480: "So pleased were they with Rama Murti's strength that they gave him a gold medal as a token of their appreciation" would justify removing the existing sense). By the way, I noticed that in examining my citations, you didn't take issue with the 2006 citation that specifically says, "a diamond ring means you are engaged to be married". What your citations indicate, then, is that "diamond ring" is a regionalism as a synonym for "engagement ring", in the later 20th century United States. bd2412 T 16:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

So if, in late 20th century US, you gave your fiancée an engagement ring with a ruby, it is accurate to claim you gave her a diamond ring? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No more so than if you had a competition, and gave the winner a silver medal, and the second-place competitor a gold medal. bd2412 T 16:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

So merely a culturally inappropriate act and not something of lexicographic relevance? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have provided citations in print above stating "A diamond ring means marriage and status"; "a diamond ring means you are engaged to be married"; and "I opened the box and saw this beautiful ring that I thought meant what a diamond ring means—that we were engaged". Provide some citations addressing the relevant region and time period that a "ruby ring" or a "pearl ring" or the like "means marriage" or "means you are engaged", and you will have demonstrated the absence of the congruity which makes this a synonym for its time and place. This is no different than proposing that any number of citations stating that "a silver medal means first place" would call into question the congruity between gold medal and grand prize. Obviously, not all first prizes are made of gold, or are medals, but the existence of the blue ribbon doesn't lead us to exclude the attested meaning of gold medal. Likewise, the use of other stones for engagement rings does not detract from the lexical value of a phrase like, "her boyfriend finally gave her the diamond ring", which communicates the meaning, engagement ring (note that the 1985, 2000, and 2003 cites above refer to "the" diamond ring, not "a" diamond ring, expressing an understanding of the additional meaning conveyed by it being a diamond ring). bd2412 T 05:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Your citations aren’t using mean in the lexicographic sense. They are using it in the same way as “punching your boss in the face means you’re fired”.

“Elvis gave his daughter a diamond ring and mink coat on her eighth birthday, [… ]”, “The last time we were in Hawaii in the same hotel, I had been impressed to give a diamond ring to someone the morning we were getting ready to come home.”, “Gemstone intentionally offers to give a diamond ring to Bennett, a trial court judge, in order to influence her decision in a case that is to be tried before her.”. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sometime after 1936, Jesse Owens "gave one of his four Olympic gold medals to dancer and movie star Bill "Bojangles" Robinson"[9]. In 1960, the King of Siam visited the Vatican, and "the Pope gave the king a gold medal" as a sign of friendship.[10] The fact that someone can literally give someone else a "gold medal" or a "red ribbon" or a "diamond ring" does not detract from the fact that each is understood to symbolize a particular thing in a particular context; neither does the fact that a first place winner can receive something other than a medal made of gold, and an engaged woman can be given a ring with a stone other than a diamond. How is "diamond ring" in this context and different from "gold medal"? By this reasoning, shouldn't we delete "gold medal", since not all first place prizes are medals made of gold, and not all medals made of gold are given as first place prizes? bd2412 T 17:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Because "gold medal" can be used figuratively in cases where no actual medal is involved. For example, "John got a the gold medal for his impressive performance" does not need to involve any actual gold medal, but simply the achievement of first place. However, "John gave Sarah a diamond ring and they lived happily ever after" necessarily does imply that an actual physical ring with a diamond on it was given to Sarah. --WikiTiki89 17:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That is nothing more than the distinction between the existing sense 1 of gold medal (an actual medal made of gold awarded as a prize), and sense 2 (the figurative prize). Should sense 1 be deleted, since it refers to an actual medal made of gold? Further to your objection, here are some figurative use, 2006, Nicole Beland, "Babes in Boyland", in Report 2006 a Man's Guide to Women, p. 51: "I'm not the kind of girl who lives her life waiting for a man to give her a diamond ring"; 2009, Bess Vanrenen, Generation What?: Dispatches from the Quarter-Life Crisis, p. 289: "While I was tapping my foot waiting for a diamond ring, my personality became uglier by the day". In the first example, no actual ring is involved; the author is merely saying that she's not waiting around for a man to ask her to marry him. In the second, again, no actual ring is involved, the author is merely impatient that her boyfriend has not proposed to her. I have added these, and others like them, to Citations:diamond ring. bd2412 T 17:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Yes, I think the first sense of gold medal should be replaced with {{&lit}} (and the second one should be reworded a bit). 2. In your quotes, no diamond ring is involved because no engagement is involved. --WikiTiki89 17:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Despite no actual engagement being involved, these authors are using the phrase "diamond ring" to mean "engagement". bd2412 T 17:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

But it's not. It's being used to symbolize engagement. If without using any words, a man gives a woman a gold ring with a diamond on it, that already symbolizes engagement without the need for the literal words "diamond ring". This shows that the symbolism has nothing to do with meaning of the words. --WikiTiki89 18:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, "gold medal" is not found in MWOnline or my print edition of MW3rd. I have long considered Merriam Webster the most principled of dictionaries, especially with respect to idioms, though I wouldn't claim its overall superiority to the OED.

Although several dictionaries have gold medal as an entry, of the 4 references that appear at “diamond ring”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., Wordnik has no actual definition, Urban Dictionary has an alternative "cultural" definition, WP has only a disambiguation page, and Zoom Astronomy Glossary has the lunar phenomenon. As to the cultural meaningfulness, WP's dab page has links several articles about songs with diamond ring in the title, though we have not resorted to such evidence previously.

I rather doubt that there is a bright sharp line that distinguishes between lexicographic meaning and meaning that is more "cultural". In any event, BD's skilled argument in the alternative deserves high marks and make him a credit to his profession. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@WikiTiki, if without using any words, a man places a gold medal around another man's neck, or pins a blue ribbon to his pumpkin, would that show that the symbolism has nothing to do with the meaning of gold medal and blue ribbon?

@DCDuring, I am actually making a compound argument, with complementary points uniting in a graceful ballet. I don't propose, for example, that we should have "emerald ring" or "sapphire ring", even though neither is likely to be a "ring" of the material at issue, because they have no meaning beyond that. On the other hand, efforts to draw a sharp line between "cultural" meaning and "lexicographic" meaning are pointless. There is nothing about the color blue that makes a blue ribbon inherently symbolic of winning first place. There are plenty of other tokens given as first place prizes, having other colors, and there are plenty of instances where ribbons that are blue are used for purposes other than awarding prizes, but for reasons relying entirely on cultural context, a "blue ribbon" is a first prize, a second banana is a supporting role, and a diamond ring given by a man to his girlfriend is an engagement ring. I also think that we should have entries for soup spoon and salad fork (distinguishing them from conventional utensils), and yellow ribbon (signifying support for soldiers), which I consider to be in the same class. bd2412 T 19:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That there isn't a sharp bright line distinguishing cultural and lexicographic meaning doesn't mean that a dictionary can't choose which definitions to include and which to exclude. Not everything called a "meaning" is dictionary material. I see no evidence that other dictionaries have chosen to include your client. In contrast “engagement ring”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. finds several and MW3 (print) has it as well. A possible difference is that diamond ring is not:

1. the only kind of ring used as an engagement ring in post-1500 European cultures
2. only used as an engagement ring and for no other event or purpose in post-1500 European cultures
3. as likely to be used as an engagement ring at all socio-economic levels in post-1500 European cultures
4. a cross-cultural symbol.

As a modern historical dictionary, I would think we would be obliged to cover the symbols used in many cultures over recorded history. Literary allusions would seem to belong as well. To simply correctly provide scope and register of the "engagement" definition seems a research project worthy of a thesis.

I suppose that as long as we have taken leave of any practical considerations whatsoever, in principle we should include any attestable cultural and subcultural meaning of anything at any time. Is that the direction we wish to go? DCDuring TALK 20:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that this is something we already do, whenever we include something like Cockney rhyming slang or New England regionalisms and . As for the research, that has already been done. There are plenty of articles in reliable sources explaining how and when the diamond ring came to symbolize engagement, so we don't need to reinvent that wheel. One interesting thing that -sche noted above is that up until the Great Depression, pearls were the engagement ring stone of choice. However, in one of the citations I provided, the author (writing in 2006) tells a story set in 1912 where a woman specifically responds to an offer of a diamond ring by saying that it means they would be engaged. As it turns out, this is somewhat of an anachronism; it didn't have that meaning then with the degree that it has it today, having picked it up sometime in the 1930s. It is just a bit less out of place than a story set among Native Americans a thousand years ago where one gives another a diamond ring to signify engagement (or indeed, where one gives another a blue ribbon to signify winning a contest). bd2412 T 21:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Re DCDuring's edit summary, which linked to it:   [[engagement ring]] exists? Sigh. - -sche (discuss) 04:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Not only does engagement ring exist, but it exists in many languages, some of which have it as a single word. bd2412 T 04:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep "A finger ring on which is mounted a diamond, often a symbol of engagement or marriage" rather than lit, since the "often a symbol of engagement or marriage" part is significant for understanding many a sentence that use "diamond ring", and the part cannot be obtained by looking at "diamond" and "ring". --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  Now that you mention it, I think we should add a note to "ring" saying that rings are often a symbol of marriage or engagement. --WikiTiki89 07:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  If only there were some kind of online editable linkable resource that we could refer users to for voluminous encyclopedic information, so we could focus more on language. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  Keep on dreaming... If such a resource existed, they should have been linking to us more often. --WikiTiki89 17:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are two more citations which, I think, seal the deal in establishing idiomatic meaning with respect to engagement:

• 2010, Mark Joyner, The Irresistible Offer: How to Sell Your Product or Service in 3 Seconds or Less:

  For example, it may go without saying that most women in America want a diamond ring from the man asking their hand in marriage. Heck, it may have even crossed over into a need at this point, since not having one will require some explaining, but you see what I mean.

This indicates that whatever other gifts may symbolize engagement, a diamond ring is the expected token.

• 2008, Dave Parker, Big Is Beautiful, p. 24:

  Don't put out until you are man and wife.
  Shacking up will lead to misery and strife.
  Even if you get that diamond ring,
  If he really loves you he'll control his thing.

Here, "get that diamond ring" is clearly used to mean "get engaged" in contrast with shacking up. Perhaps we need an entry for "get the diamond ring", meaning to get engaged, since that is clearly understood to be the meaning, even if no actual diamond ring is involved. bd2412 T 13:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think it seals the deal at all, considering the discussion we're having at WT:RFV#thyme. --WikiTiki89 13:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  This is exactly the opposite of thyme, which has only ever been presented as meaning "virginity" through abstract metaphor. Here we have evidence that an actual, physical diamond ring came to signal engagement to be married, and that, by extension of that practice, being engaged is metaphorically "getting a diamond ring" even if no actual "diamond ring" is involved. This, therefore, is more like brass ring, which derives from an actual ring of brass that was a token of success, but has come to mean the success itself; here, diamond rather than brass means engagement to be married rather then some other kind of success. bd2412 T 14:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  One difference between diamond rings and brass rings is that an actual ring of brass is no longer a token of success. Thus "brass ring" must be idiomatic, but "diamond ring" doesn't need to be in order to explain all of the above. For thyme as well, it is the thyme itself that is the metaphor, not the word "thyme". --WikiTiki89 14:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure that the "actual ring of brass" still exists as a carnival prize, which is where the term originated. Moreover, there are actual citations in print which use both "brass ring" and "diamond ring" in the same idiomatic context:

• 2012, Catherine Mann, Code of Honor:

  She loved him? She said she did, and he had no reason to doubt her. Be happy, grab the brass ring—or rather a diamond ring. So why was he choking when it came to answering back?

• 2013, Jennifer Keishin Armstrong, ‎Heather Wood Rudúlph, Sexy Feminism: A Girl's Guide to Love, Success, and Style, p. xvi:

  I thought that was what you did to get the brass ring — or, more specifically, the diamond ring — of marriage.

  The second one in particular makes it clear that "diamond ring" is to marriage (as one kind of success) exactly what "brass ring" is to success generally. bd2412 T 14:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Just for fun, Astronomers find 'diamond engagement ring' in space. I can't imagine who they think is getting engaged - a couple of galaxies, maybe? bd2412 T 18:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It’s just a pun. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's a pun, but puns rely on the meanings of words. By the way, in case it comes up, the instances of "diamond ring" relating to engagement or a marriage proposal outnumber the instances of the phrase "diamond engagement ring". bd2412 T 18:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

a modo mio

SOP? --Back on the list (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

irreverent

The sense in question:

1. Disrespectful, cynical, cavilling, querulous, or vulgar, where one's own feelings, or especially deference to the feelings of others, customarily command silence, discretion, and circumspection.

Which is redundant to:

1. Lacking proper respect or seriousness; sarcastic.

Aside from being redundant, it's a textbook example of thesaurus abuse... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Pretty much the same sense written in a way that makes it harder to understand. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. What also bothers me is that there is a translation section with two senses, and I'm not sure that the glosses correspond to the senses above them, or if they do, which is which. "Lacking proper respect or seriousness; sarcastic." seems to be the only accurate sentence on that entry. I'd keep that, delete the ugly one, merge the translations, and revise the gloss so that it matches. Haplogy (話) 14:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

-aculum

I'm not sure we ought to have this. The thing is, it doesn't seem to be used with verbs other than those of the first conjugation, whose stem ends in ā- (habitaculum from habito, cenaculum from ceno, spectaculum from specto, ientaculum from iento, potaculum from poto, etc.). Thus it would just be a wrong analysis spect-aculum for specta-culum : it's the suffix -culum (conventiculum, etc.), really. --Fsojic (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually the same goes for -atio ~ -tio. --Fsojic (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree, but I reckon this belongs at WT:RFD instead. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  Fsjocic has given a cogent analysis that entry was created in error. As I have some recollection of the quality of the creator's work, I can vouch for the possibility of such mistaken analysis. If someone has evidence that there are terms that do not fit Fsjocic's hypothesis that all terms ending in aculum are from first conjugation verbs the evidence can the introduced here. I would think we should not delete this in less than a month to give those who would search for such evidence a chance. DCDuring TALK 19:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  There is a whole book written about this: here. I don't have it at hand at the moment, but hopefully soon. --Fsojic (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, the same goes for -abilis, -atum, -atus. There is a lot of questionable material in Category:Latin suffixes. --Fsojic (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirects from the with-leading-vowel versions of the suffixes to the without-leading-vowel version might help rationalize these without losing users who are accustomed to the version with vowels. Probably the same logic applies to any Translingual (taxonomic) suffixes, though their meaning and use can be quite distinct from their Latin forebears. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

refreshing

Is this sense, "Serving to refresh." not redundant following "That refreshes someone; pleasantly fresh and different; granting vitality and energy." ? If not, the meaning is not clear and it ought to be stated more specifically. Haplogy (話) 05:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I found "It sets the refreshing frame rate to 30 frames per second" (referring to computer displays) but IMO the verb covers that adequately. Equinox ◑ 18:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

B.

Being a part of an abbreviation doesn't constitute being an abbreviation. "B." is never used alone to mean "Bachelor(s)". --WikiTiki89 18:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep; whether it is ever used alone or not, it does have this meaning, much like a prefix. If someone was a college graduate and you didn't know what their degree was in, you would know that it was a "B." something. Moreover, if a school develops a new degree program, it would be a "B." plus whatever the new component abbreviates to. bd2412 T 19:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • But it's not a prefix. A prefix can be attached to any word meeting some certain set of criteria. "B." is not attached to things, but is a product of abbreviating names of degrees. For example, "Bachelor of the Arts" is abbreviated "BA" or "B.A.". You cannot say that "BA/B.A." is formed by combining "B." and "A.". --WikiTiki89 19:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete unless standalone use can be found. Now that standalone usage has been found, see my vote below. - -sche (discuss) 21:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC) X being part of a word or abbreviation is, as Wikitiki correctly observes, very different from X being itself a word or abbreviation.
Points to the first person to POINTily add to B. other senses it is 'missing', including "bank" (as in "E.C.B." et al), "before" (as in "B.C.E.", "B.C."), "bull" (as in "B.S." and a perhaps uncommon but probably attested abbreviation of "bullcrap" as "B.C."), "business" (as in two senses of "D.B.A."), "base" (as in other senses of "D.B.A."), etc. Also points to whoever adds to "b" the many objectively accurate definitions its missing, such as "the second letter of many words" (as in "abbreviation", "absurd" and "ibuprofen").
Compare Talk:sug-. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If it is kept due to a standalone case being found I would still request that the ===Derived terms=== be removed (or changed to ===Related terms===) because these terms are not "derived" from B.. --WikiTiki89 20:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This Analytical Sciences article, for example, describes subjects as having received a "B. of" something without the something being part of the abbreviation. Someone who didn't know what the "B." stood for in that context would need to consult a dictionary that had an entry for B. to define it. As for sug- and company, they were about hypothetical prefixes that were not actually used in English. "B." meaning "Bachelor's" can be distinguished from any number of other abbreviations including "B." because if you heard that someone earned a "B." anything you would know immediately that it was some kind of Bachelor's degree. bd2412 T 20:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a different story. "B. of Science" for example is a common abbreviation of "Bachelor of Science". And that might merit having an entry for B. of, but I'm undecided on that and would have to think some more. --WikiTiki89 20:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If "B." has meaning by itself, isn't "B. of" SOP? In any case, here is an article that omits the "of", stating that the subject "received a B. Engineering Physics from the University of Saskatchewan in 1984". I would also disagree that specific combinations (B.A., B.Ed.) are not derived terms. Terms can be derived from whole components (e.g. fire fighter). bd2412 T 20:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that's a big if. If you can show that B. has meaning by itself, then we can keep it. --WikiTiki89 20:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how phrases like "B. of (Science|Arts|whatever)" "might merit having an entry for B. of". The idiomaticity in such phrases is either in each full phrase (B. of Science) or in B.. (Who would look at "B. of Science" and think "I don't know what this means, I should look up only the "B of" portion"?) - -sche (discuss) 21:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be one of the arguments against it. Like I said, I'm undecided. --WikiTiki89 21:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone reading the cited article would see that some subjects have a "B." of Science while others have a "B." of Engineering. They would correctly conclude that the "B." has the same meaning for both, and want to look up "B." itself to see what it means. I find it highly doubtful that the reader in that situation would look up "B. of", or that the reader would feel the need to put in one of the multiple examples of things that the B. is of. bd2412 T 21:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

After doing some thinking, I agree with what you just said and we should have the entry for B. as used in phrases such as "B. or Science". However, abbreviations such as BS and B.S. are not derived from it and should not be listed in the derived terms section. --WikiTiki89 21:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about it, but see no great difference between listing them as "related" terms or "derived" terms, so I have no objection. bd2412 T 21:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference in terms of this RFD. If they are not derived terms, then they are not the reason the term is kept. --WikiTiki89 01:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, we know that whenever a new Bachelor's degree is devised, it will be called a "B." something (for example, the B.Comp.Sci. is a relatively recent invention). It seems to me that such later inventions, at least, are derived from "B." bd2412 T 16:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm disagreeing with. "B.Comp.Sci." is not "B." + "Comp.Sci.", but an abbreviation of "Bachelor of Computer Science". The degree is created first, then the abbreviation. --WikiTiki89 23:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

They don't sit around asking, "should we call this a 'Bach.Comp.Sci'? A 'Ba.Comp.Sci.'? A 'Br.Comp.Sci.'?" They incorporate the established "B." and figure out how to abbreviate the rest. bd2412 T 05:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you can't create "B.Comp.Sci." unless "Bachelor of Computer Science" already exists. --WikiTiki89 05:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that you can necessarily create "B.Comp.Sci." unless "B." already exists, either. bd2412 T 04:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not? --WikiTiki89 04:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Absent the already existing "B.", why would you abbreviate it that way, and not some other way? bd2412 T 04:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well you could abbreviate it as "Q.Comp.Sci." but people would be less likely to understand it. But I suppose you meant something like "Bach.Comp.Sci.", in which case it's just longer than it needs to be; abbreviations try to be as short as possible. --WikiTiki89 05:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep on the basis of the 'standalone' uses like "B. of Science" that have been found to exist in the literature. - -sche (discuss) 21:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep. You don't really see Inc. or Ltd. alone either, do you? Equinox ◑ 13:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not what was meant by alone. By the definition of alone that we have determined to be appropriate for this case, Inc. and Ltd. are almost always used alone. --WikiTiki89 14:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• For the record: I am in favor of keeping the sense of "B." used in "B. of Computer Science" or "B. of Comp. Sci.", but I am not in favor of keeping the sense I originally RFD'd, which is the one in "B.A.", "B.S.", and "B.Comp.Sci.". Therefore, I am not withdrawing the nomination. --WikiTiki89 14:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • At this point, then you are maintaining an RfD nomination solely to remove "B.A." and "B.S." from the list of derived terms? Since we already know that it can be said that someone "has a B. Engineering", how would this change or affect the existing definition at all? bd2412 T 14:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Not Just "B.A." and "B.S.", but everything on that is currently on that list. "B. Engineering" changes nothing with regard to "B.A.". --WikiTiki89 14:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Still, if you agree that the definition for "B." should exist, then what have an RfD? We have never used RfD as a venue to change a "derived terms" header to a "related terms" header. bd2412 T 16:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
        • First of all, because that wasn't my original reason for RFDing it. Secondly, I still disagree with the definition as it stands, particularly the parenthetical comment "usually followed by an abbreviation indicating the specific discipline". Lastly, I think it is important to be clear about this distinction because this RFD may cited as a precedent in other RFDs. --WikiTiki89 16:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
          • Very well, then I continue to maintain that so long as there is an original usage of "B." something to indicate a certain kind of Bachelor's degree, all later degree abbreviations reading "B." something are in part derived terms of "B.". bd2412 T 17:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

A couple of lemmings: Chambers and Merriam-Webster both list B as an abbreviation for bachelor. Not checked others. Equinox ◑ 14:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, The New Penguin Dictionary of Abbreviations (2000) lists "Bachelor" (capitalised) as one of the meanings of "B" (without a period). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. This is now tagged as rfd-sense for the sole sense: "Bachelors degree (usually followed by an abbreviation indicating the specific discipline)." --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason to keep this open any longer? bd2412 T 21:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A

Stock symbol for Agilent Technologies. We have two entries in the category Translingual stock symbols of which this is one, but there are probably scores or hundreds of thousands of these in the real world, some of them with multiple meanings over time. We generally don't seem to like things associated with making money unless they are in some way colorful or funky.

I don't really see the justification for deleting these, but it fits our practice to do so. In contrast, we have appendices with ICAO three-letter codes for airports with numerous blue links. "I was reading the stock-ticker board/my trading screen and want to know what TIGR and SPDR meant" seems on all fours with "I saw someone's baggage with it's baggage tickets and I wanted to know what MSY, IAH, and Template:l/mul meant"?. DCDuring TALK 12:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete, the faster the better. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

biological clock

Second sense: "The progression from puberty to menopause during which a woman can bear children." I don't think so. The biological clock is most often mentioned in connection with woman's fertile age, but it does not mean that they would be the same thing. This is like saying that "alarm clock" has the sense "sleep". --Hekaheka (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This is more of an RFV matter then, isn't it? --WikiTiki89 04:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That there is some sense or subsense relating specifically to childbearing cannot be doubted. It is the definition that is inadequate. Try substituting it in the citation sentences: Take Linda, a thirty-nine-year-old newscaster who relished her career but began to hear the alarm ringing on her biological clock. It is not so long ago that this was a live metaphor. A possible definition might be "A figurative clock that indicates the decline in a female's ability to bear children." Some such definition should be readily citable, perhaps even under "widespread use". DCDuring TALK 17:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

My original thought was that this would be covered with sense #1, but as there is only one cycle involved in the childbearing as opposed to e.g. sleep or metabolism, this could probably be a sense of its own. On the other hand, the female-fertility point of view may be too narrow, as I've seen texts of men's biological clocks. Perhaps something along these lines: "The internal mechanisms regulating the development and ageing of the body of a living thing during its lifetime, used especially to refer to the limited duration of a woman's fertile age." --Hekaheka (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think references to men's biological clocks are also references to fertility, specifically to things like the quality of one's sperm degrading to the point that it is more likely that a child conceived of that sperm will have genetic problems. Perhaps it's "One's life cycle and tendency to age, seen as a clock that ticks particularly towards a time when one cannot bear healthy children."? (Nah, that's not a good wording.) - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

machiolate

Discussion moved to WT:RFV.

Category:Hungarian terms derived from Turkmen

Category in question should be deleted, it is empty and probably will stay that way. Hungarian borrowed quite considerably from the Turkic languages, though not Turkmen --31.192.45.114 09:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll give a candidate - create manat#Hungarian (Turkmen and Azeri currency), which is borrowed into other languages, including Hungarian. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Standard English

Template:l/en (may need specific linguistics definition) + Template:l/en. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete, and I don't think a special definition of standard is necessary. --WikiTiki89 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Defined at Oxford, Merriam-Webster, etc. BTW, keep those with "Ancient", "Old", "Modern", "Eastern" prefixes languages one may have appetite for. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Old English, Modern English, etc. are the names of specific languages. Standard English is any register of English considered standard. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The border between languages and registered is often blurred. Modern Standard Arabic is both a register and a quite distinct language if compared to Arabic dialects but not so, if compared to Classical Arabic. Standard Chinese (it's missing but it shouldn't, = Mandarin) and Standard Mandarin are also complicated. Anyway, the term is defined in notorious dictionaries, using Lemming principle, we should keep it. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You are right about MSA, but that does not apply to English. --WikiTiki89 05:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The Lemming principle is still applicable and whether it is a register or a language, it's a word. I'm not encouraging to have Standard + plus language name entries but for Standard English there are English definitions (more than one) (I gave a SoP Russian translation станда́ртный англи́йский язы́к m (standártnyj anglíjskij jazýk) because I haven't found a dictionary entry for it.). The standard Spanish is not called "Standard Spanish" but "Castilian Spanish". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The OED for example does not have a separate definition for it, instead mentioning it as an example of standard definition 3e: "Applied to that variety of a spoken or written language of a country or other linguistic area which is generally considered the most correct and acceptable form, as Standard English, Standard American, etc.; Received Standard; also, standard pronunciation = received pronunciation n." --WikiTiki89 06:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

OED definition, although "standard" is in lower case: [mass noun] The form of the English language widely accepted as the usual correct form. In Merriam-Webster both words are capitalised. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is it so hard for people to understand that Oxford Dictionaries is not the Oxford English Dictionary? --WikiTiki89 07:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Merriam-Webster is still valid and is in the right case. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying Merriam-Webster is not valid or even that Oxford Dictionaries is not valid. I'll make my point about the OED explicit: The OED acknowledges the existence of "Standard English" by mentioning it as a boldface example of "standard", yet it does not include it as a headword. That can only mean that the editors of the most prestigious English dictionary did not find the phrase idiomatic, since it is clear they did just simply leave it out due to oversight. --WikiTiki89 07:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Standard Spanish is called Standard Spanish. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 06:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Any language can have a standard register. I'm not asking to create or keep Standard Spanish, I don't see a definition for Castilian Spanish either. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I don’t see why Standard English is idiomatic. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 07:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I mean I don't see a definition for standard Spanish names in dictionaries but there is "Standard English". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete. A linguistic definition of standard is needed, since its technical definition appears in linguistic dictionaries and glossaries.

Can someone provide a good link to WT:Lemming principle? I hate it when I can’t find guidelines that specifically support other editors’ arguments and really exist. —Michael Z. 2014-03-26 17:00 z

The lemming test is one of several potentially (though not necessarily) persuasive tests, outlined at WT:IDIOM, based on simple precedent / examination of which entries have survived RFD in the past and what arguments were made in favour of them. - -sche (discuss) 18:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A brief discussion of formalizing and automaticizing the lemming principle for inclusion decisions is at WT:BP#Proposal: Use Lemming principle to speed RfDs. DCDuring TALK 19:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. So it appears to me that #Lemming identifies a principle that has been applied, but makes no recommendation for applying or disregarding it in specific cases. Is that a fair interpretation? —Michael Z. 2014-03-27 15:38 z

That's right, I think. The proposal.is an attempt to give it a formal definition for a limited purpose. It is mach like many of the list of idiomaticity indicators advanced by Pauley. It is just particularly easy to implement at any of several levels of inclusion on the list of lemmings. — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs).

aniôn

Uncommon misspelling of ânion. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this not a matter for RFV? Keφr 07:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don’t think so. But move it there if you want to, I don’t care. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 08:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Any supporting evidence? --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Some data: Google Books Pt aniôn: 15 hits; Google Books Pt ânion: 2,470 hits; Google books hit ratio: 164. Since the absolute numbers leading to the ratio are rather low, it is hard to judge. Furthermore, some of these allegged 15 hits are clear scannos. This spelling may even be hard to attest. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

accouté, accouta, accoutant, etc.

It seems that the verb accouter does not exist in French. Lmaltier (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Persianoid

I think this term is easily cited and atested for. It has many related terms such as negroid, congoid, africanoid, caucasoid, caucazoid, europid, araboid, hellenoid, indianoid, mongoloid, australoid, and americanoid, iberiod, celtoid, and mixoid, i believe that there is wide availability for all the other terms but that persianoid related information has been censored by google books but if you search harder you realize it's real i have seen it in anthropology books and those books and classes helped me figure out who i am and where i came from because i have generally celtoid features with lots of hellenoid features, geographically a huge group of people are hellenoid from Greece to Afghanistan others turkoid or persianoid or araboid or indianoid and having all these terms available helps people understand their ancestry so we should not leave out persianoids for we would be leaving out a ton of people. — This unsigned comment was added by 66.87.64.66 (talk) at 07:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC).

The article has been deleted from Wikipedia as a hoax: Persianoid. Try getting it back in there before you add it here. Also, Google Books hasn't censored anything: the word simply isn't in common use. Equinox ◑ 07:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The word you want is Persoid, which is rather rare, but just about exists (16 Google books results for '"Persoid" + Persia'). iberiod? Isn't that a dog-sledding competition? Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict -- how did SM get in ahead of me? The only Google hit is to the deleted Wikipedia article, and other search engines don't find anything either. They can't all be censoring the word. The "-oid" suffix seems to be widely used for only the major classifications, not for subsets, though Smurrayinchester (above) has found a very rare alternative for you. Dbfirs 12:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Haven't a clue - I just clicked save, and it went straight back to the page with no edit conflict warning. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Same here. I wasn't complaining at you, just puzzled by the sequence. Anyway, thanks for finding the correct term -- just about citeable. Dbfirs 07:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

See WT:RFC#The race-related edits of User:66.87.70.160 and User:Artemesia. This is the tip of the iceberg. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Case closed: not restored. — Keφr 10:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

alotted

Reasonably sure this is a typo. Scores a lot of Google books hits (13,000), but other forms of the hypothetical verb "alot" ("alots", "alotting", "can alot", "will alot") get little to nothing. A lot of noise in the results, due to the common typo for "a lot". Given that "alotted" and "alotting" are the most numerous results, I think it's some sort of strange way of compensating for the double "t" by undoubling the "l". Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it common enough to be a common misspelling of allotted? DCDuring TALK 20:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. A misspelling of allotted. Donnanz (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep at least as a common mispelling: (alotted*500),allotted at Google Ngram Viewer. This is per common practice, as we do have Category:English misspellings. There is also Help:Misspellings, a non-policy page, which says "Wiktionary accepts common misspellings". WT:CFI does not expressly have a regulation stating what shall happen with common misspellings; it has WT:CFI#Spellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep as common misspelling; remove the separate senses it has now. Equinox ◑ 14:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep per Dan Polansky and User:Equinox. bd2412 T 14:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to stop links pointing to that page from being blue? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why we'd generally want to link to a "misspelling" entry — or are you asking this with a view to avoiding typos? Equinox ◑ 16:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest the opposite. There were only two incoming links to the page; one of them was a misspelling in a definition, which I fixed just now, and would not have known about but for having looked at the incoming links. bd2412 T 18:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Equinox: Exactly that. We all make mistakes; a red link has more than once prompted me to correct a typo I've made whilst writing an entry. Including the string __HIDDENCAT__ on a Category: page stops that category from appearing in an entry's category list when that entry is included in that category; is there something similar that can be added to the pages that are only misspelling entries, which would stop blue-linking (or else somehow flag that link as being one for a typo)?

@BD2412: I wasn't suggesting that we not have entries for misspellings (although the blue-linking is a good reason not to). And besides, there is no need for a misspelling entry and/or a what-links-here to find these typos; a normal search would suffice.

 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, redlinks sometimes help catch typos, but that shouldn't really be a reason for keeping or deleting anything. --WikiTiki89 16:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89: Not a good reason, no, but it would be nice to have the best of both worlds. Such blue-linking–prevention could also be used for rare and obsolete spellings (which we definitely do want), too. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete as a too uncommon misspelling.

I see no evidence that this is common by any reasonable definition of "common", based on relative frequency. The Google N-Gram presented shows it to be occurring about 0.2% as frequently as the correct spelling. At COCA, for example, it occurs once relative to some 1100 instances of allotted. It doesn't occur at all at BNC. The corpus of Global Web-based English (GWE) has 41 occurrences relative to 5400 instance of allotted. If we had corpora of secondary and tertiary education examination essays, I'd expect a higher percentage, but we have no quantitatively reliable corpora that show it is "common" relative to allotted.

Including this is setting a precedent of less than 0.8% at GWE relative to the correct spelling, which seems to be the most misspelling-laden of corpora and about 20 in a billion (.2 in a million) relative to the word count of the entire corpus. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

WT:CFI#Spellings gives ocurred, occurred as an example of what "may well merit entries"; it gives no other example. (ocurred*3000),occurred at Google Ngram Viewer shows the factor of 3000. By my lights, factor 3000 in GNV is still acceptable for inclusion, in the copyedited corpus used by Google Ngram Viewer. At User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2013#What_is_a_misspelling, in the table starting with "beleive", there was only one example much below the 500-factor band in which "alotted" lies: "condensor". We are not overflooded with misspelings; we have 1,595 entries in Category:English misspellings. What you should do, IMHO, is present a method and calibrate it using what you consider examples of common misspellings. What are 7 examples of what you consider common misspellings? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Gotham

• RFD-sense: A fictional city, the hometown of Batman. (Inserted later.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd expected to find at least a couple of citations that could support a sense like "A crime-ridden fictional city where the Batman comics are set" by comparing a real crime-ridden city to the fictional one, but surprisingly, I can't find anything like that. Therefore, this seems to fail WT:FICTION. Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Should this be an RFV? But given the choice, delete all such fancruft. Equinox ◑ 17:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete, Batman's home town is Gotham City anyway, not just Gotham. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "When Gotham City is ashes, you have my permission to die"? I guess it fails WT:FICTION anyway, though we could move this to RFV to keep obnoxious bureaucrats our consciences silent... — Keφr 17:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and reword There's no deletion rationale here. RfV rationale, yes. Rewording rationale, yes. RfD rational, no Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This might be citable.

1. [11] I don't think she's saying New York City is like New York City. Esp. because of the Star Wars reference, I think she's comparing it to Gotham City..
2. [12] Because of the crowds and police, I suspect he's comparing London to Gotham City. Bit ambiguous to me, though.
3. [13] May not qualify, but not far off.

I'd suggest RFV. DAVilla 20:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't see the quote at the third link you gave, but in the first I think she's saying the apartment felt like a log cabin in the middle of the big city and is using Gotham to mean NYC as the big, bad city. But I don't think she's thinking of Batman's Gotham City at all. The second quote might be referring to Batman's city, especially since the guy's name is Robin, but it could really equally well be referring to NYC. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

virgin forest

Instead of this entry, we need a specific sense at virgin, as it is also used with other types of woodland: google books:"virgin jungle", google books:"virgin woodlands", google books:"virgin oak forest", google books:"virgin larch forest", as well as predicatively: google books:"forest is virgin", google books:"forests are virgin". — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep. "virgin forest" is naturally extended to "virgin jungle", but is the most common of this use of "virgin", and the natural extension should not lead to sum-of-parts claim: virgin forest,virgin jungle,virgin woodlands at Google Ngram Viewer. For the predicative use claim, check google books:"forests are virgin" -"forests are virgin forests", with its 8 hits, the first 3 hits by non-native authors Kristiina A. Vogt, Maria S. Tysiachniouk, and Dr Soili Nystén-Haarala. “virgin forest”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. finds "virgin forest" in Collins: virgin forest and in WordNet copiers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So what if it’s the most common? Being common doesn’t make something idiomatic. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to point out, virgin (if it is to be considered an adjective) is only used attributively in all of its definitions. So the lack of "forests are virgin" means nothing. --WikiTiki89 17:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

In addition to its 7 senses & subsenses of the noun, MWOnline has 9 senses and subsenses of virgin as adjective as follows:

1. "free of impurity or stain : unsullied
2. chaste
3. characteristic of or befitting a virgin : modest
4. fresh, unspoiled; specifically : not altered by human activity <a virgin forest>
5. a (1): being used or worked for the first time (2) of a metal : produced directly from ore by primary smelting

   b: initial, first

6. of a vegetable oil : obtained from the first light pressing and without heating
7. containing no alcohol <a virgin daiquiri>"

Colins's 8 adjective defs are

1. "of, relating to, resembling, suitable for, or characteristic of a virgin or virgins; chaste
2. pure and natural, uncorrupted, unsullied, or untouched ⇒ "virgin purity"
3. not yet cultivated, explored, exploited, etc, by man ⇒ "virgin territories"
4. being the first or happening for the first time
5. (of vegetable oils) obtained directly by the first pressing of fruits, leaves, or seeds of plants without applying heat
6. (of a metal) made from an ore rather than from scrap
7. occurring naturally in a pure and uncombined form ⇒ "virgin silver"
8. (physics) (of a neutron) not having experienced a collision"

It's definition if virgin forest is: "a forest in its natural state, before it has been explored or exploited by man".

To me MW's and Collins's underlined sense of virgin completely covers the use of virgin in virgin forest as well as with other collocates such as "prairie", "timber", "timberland", "snow", "coral", and "ecosystem", just to mention those that I thought of off the top of my head (apparent attestability confirmed at Books). Collins inclusion of virgin forest seems to show that they have a policy of including very common non-idiomatic collocations. We could have such a policy, but we don't, so I expect DanP to propose a vote. DCDuring TALK 19:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Compare it with second-growth forest. Donnanz (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete that, too, and create second-growth. In addition to s-g forest there are s-g wine, bordeaux, phenomena, symptoms, log cabin, doug fir, structure, riparian, fund, logging, tropical forest, Tsuga canadensis, potato, stand, curve, cypress… --Hekaheka (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete, transparent SOP for a sense of "virgin" that we now have (although it could be expanded to indicate that it refers to an object or place, which would also apply to the virgin prairie and the virgin meadow). bd2412 T 03:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per DCDuring. - -sche (discuss) 06:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Keep regardless of whether the new sense of virgin is created or not. The meaning of the word "virgin" is ambiguous, and the meaning of the word "virgin" in the context of "virgin forest" is not the most common meaning Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  Has that ever been a criterion for keeping? --WikiTiki89 16:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  User:Wikitiki89, Maybe not in those words, but something akin to that. There aren't "criteria for keeping" per se, only criteria for deleting. Ungoliant's deletion rationale is essentially SOP. I believe that SOP shouldn't be applied in situations where one or more of the words is ambiguous. There have been similar instances where words have been kept. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, but you have that backward. There are criteria for keeping, which are conveniently documented at a page called Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. (If you'd like to create a redirect thither from Wiktionary:Criteria for keeping, please be my guest.) The criteria for deletion are mostly either direct consequences of the criteria for keeping (if something doesn't meet the latter, then it meets the former) or clarifications of said. —Ruakh_TALK 02:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Better idea would be 1) you stop second-guessing my every move, and 2) Wiktionary:Criteria for deletion is a bluelink, one that says things can be deleted if and only if they fail certain criteria Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• After a lot of thinking about the arguments above, I decided to go with delete. --WikiTiki89 16:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Incidentally none of the other senses at "virgin" makes sense for a forest. Equinox ◑ 19:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Equinox, Isn't your rationale one that would bespeak KEEPING it, though? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

As you will recall, I have previously established that you don't use or understand logic so I am not going to talk rationales with you! Equinox ◑ 19:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If you can bash my rationales, I can bash yours. And what you have said was a personal attack Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

And in this case, it's your deletion rationale that is COMPLETELY illogical. The vote delete and the rationale you made doesn't come to the conclusion of SOP, or of anything else approaching deletion. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You said "I believe that SOP shouldn't be applied in situations where one or more of the words is ambiguous." Equinox showed that it isn't ambiguous in any way that makes sense, and you responded by saying "Isn't your rationale one that would bespeak KEEPING it, though?" Chuck Entz (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

He didn't establish that it was unambiguous. Unambiguous is ONE definition. He said there were NONE. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

None of the other senses; i.e., one sense, and no other. bd2412 T 21:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

But the one sense that does make sense has no entry, as established above Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Adjective sense 2. bd2412 T 22:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89 Even if we didn't have a suitable definition a term such as virgin, that would not mean that there is no English definition for the term that would meet WT:ELE. IOW, a missing definition is usually at least as good a reason to add the missing definition as to justify keeping a term that is not SoP only because Wiktionary is still a work in progress, incomplete even its coverage of English.

In this case we know that there are definitions that other dictionaries think cover virgin in virgin forest, with which opinion I agree. DCDuring TALK 00:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep although largely SOP, it's a phrase which is used as a whole, and has taken on its own specific meaning and usage history (e.g. it is now somewhat dated and old-growth forest is preferred). It has also appears to have produced terms such as "virgin timber" (which doesn't appear to fit any of the current definitions at virgin, though that may just be a problem with the definitions). Virgin forest has a fairly precise definition and a bunch of forest-specific synonyms. If those synonyms were at virgin it would just be listed as, (of a forest): old-growth, primary, primeval, late seral, or they'd be randomly mixed in with another definition's quite confusingly. It makes more sense for it to have its own entry. Pengo (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  Actually, virgin forest seems to have two slightly different definitions: an older, more romantic meaning of "unexplored and untouched" (akin to virgin territories or virgin snow) and a more modern one meaning simply "old-growth" (mature ecosystem, unharvested). (I'd speculate that the confusion from the shift of meaning is why "old-growth" is now preferred over "virgin forest") Although you could guess these meanings from the definitions at virgin, I don't think the reader should have to. Pengo (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  Would these definitions apply in the same way to other types of land (prairies, plains, jungles, meadows, deserts, etc.)? bd2412 T 14:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  @BD2412 In principle they should (though perhaps not for "deserts"). I'd be reasonably certain for prairies, plains, tundra, and other environments characteristic of English speaking North America; for hypernyms like land(s), expanse(s), etc; less so for more modern, semi-technical terms like ecosystem and environment. Do you need attested confirmation or will multiple native-speaker opinions suffice?

@Pengo I think the usage of both is more common for forests because forests are/were relatively common in the climes where English is spoken, especially the "virgin" forests in North America and southern ANZ. The usage of "virgin" increasingly seems silly as it was usually used in a Euro-centric way, ignoring the previous, less intensive use by indigenous cultures, which nevertheless would have violated the "virginity" of the forest or other environment. To capture this aspect we would redefine virgin with a definition more like "unraped by European cultures", though this certainly seems a bit tendentious, whatever one thinks of its accuracy.

Old-growth is a reflection of the fact that in much of eastern North America, what was farmland 100-300 years ago is now covered by mature or nearly mature forests. DCDuring TALK 15:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@BD2412 I'd agree applying virgin to other land-types or ecosystems would be SOP and would be similar to the more traditional meaning of virgin forest (the Euro-centric virgin territory meaning). However, to my knowledge, the more modern/technical definition of virgin forest ("unharvested mature ecosystem" or "old-growth") does not apply for any other land types — possibly because other ecosystems don't take as long to reach maturity, or have been simply ignored (@DCDuring It's not only that forests were relatively common. Their "virgin" status was and is also far more noticeable. E.g. Australian native-grass ecosystems were trampled by livestock and displaced by European grasses without anyone much noticing the loss of "virgin grasslands". However, with Regnans living well over 500 years, European settlement in Australia has not been long enough for any harvested late-mature trees to have ever been replaced. I generally agree with your comments though). Perhaps shaky evidence, but I noticed the phrase "new virgin forest" can be found (albeit rarely) to refer to one that has been "produced" or "planted", but "new virgin plains" refers only to plains which are newly discovered. Pengo (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this would be inapplicable to other biomes that could be revirginized in the same way; if anything, this calls for a subsense at virgin. bd2412 T 03:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: I agree that this phrase is used as a whole, I think it's not built from virgin + forest each time it's used. In other words, it belongs to the vocabulary of English. Lmaltier (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

meeting

"The action of the verb to meet." Isn't this actually the present participle? Renard Migrant (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's actually the gerund, which in English always has the same form as the present participle. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: Gerund. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• Move to RfV, or at least get some plausible usage examples. This kind of definition has always seemed just pure intellectual laziness. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Isn't that the sense being used in sentences like:
    • 2013, Mark Q. Sutton, ‎E. N. Anderson, Introduction to Cultural Ecology, p. 36:

      Human ecology profits considerably from such meetings of the minds.

    • 2004, Eliezer Berkovits, ‎David Hazony, God, Man and History, p. 87:

      All encounters in this world are meetings of needs set in a context of value.

    • 1968, Robert S. Summers, Essays in Legal Philosophy, p. 215:

      • It is in the meeting of the requirements for principled decision that the qualities of neutrality and generality are achieved.

  • Cheers! bd2412 T 12:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  The first looks like it is from one sense of the verb meet; the other two are from one or more different senses. Are other senses of the verb also covered? Shouldn't the use of the "action of the verb" sense of meeting be verified for each sense of meet? DCDuring TALK 20:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • We have five senses of "meet" as a verb, with a number of subsenses. It does not seem at all inconceivable that the gerund would be equally attestable for all of them. We can have accidental meetings with old friends, there can be meetings of lawmaking bodies, there can be a meeting of rocks rolling towards one another or a meeting of roads at an intersection, a meeting of needs or requirements, the meeting of a horrid fate. I'm not sure it would be of any benefit to have either separate senses or separate attestations for all of these, as I am hard-pressed to imagine a sense of meeting that could not have a gerund. bd2412 T 15:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

    • I have created Citations:meeting, and am adding cites for the gerund as it relates to all of our listed verb forms. bd2412 T 13:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

      I believe that I have now covered all the bases, so keep. bd2412 T 16:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep because of "meetings of minds", etc. The definition can probably be improved. Equinox ◑ 16:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

corgŵn

The plural of corgi in Welsh is corgwn without the circumflex i.e. not *corgŵn. You can look it up in the Welsh Academy Dictionary and the National Terminology Portal. It follows the pattern of other "dogs" e.g. helgwn "hounds", milgwn "greyhounds", dwrgwn "otters", morgwn "dogfish", celwyddgwn "liars" etc. Llusiduonbach (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru has a cite for Cor’gŵn from 1630, so it may be worth keeping this as a {{nonstandard spelling of}} or {{obsolete spelling of}} or the like. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

wicked

Noun sense: "people who are wicked". Almost any English adjective can be used in this way: (deprecated template usage) the unknown, (deprecated template usage) the blind, (deprecated template usage) the dead, (deprecated template usage) the French, (deprecated template usage) the sarcasm-impaired. We usually disregard attributive use of nouns as establishing a separate part of speech, so why this? — Keφr 12:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, delete. But see Talk:Irish#RFD. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I am very sympathetic to the idea of getting rid of PoS sections for PoS conversions that occur universally or nearly so. But I am not sure that all adjectives can be converted to nouns in this way, except in cases where there is an anaphoric reference. So one can use any adjective in a clause of the form "the [adjective] (one/ones}", with the "one/ones" omitted in much speech, if there is a clear referent for the "one/ones". If one said "the fruity" without an immediate referent, it is not likely that someone would understand any specific meaning.

But some de-adjectival nominals, including this one, do not seem to require any previously mentioned referent. Keep. DCDuring TALK 13:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that not all adjectives can be used this way does not mean that we have to include noun sections for the ones that can be. --WikiTiki89 16:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You can, in fact, substitute "the fruity" for "the wicked" in any sentence: it may not make sense, but it works grammatically. In truth, it's the context that's excluding many adjectives, not any lexical characteristic. If I say "there's no rest for the fruity", the definite article implies that I'm talking about something as a class, the word choice implies a biblical or moralistic register, and "rest" implies that I'm talking about something animate, since we don't associate that word with inanimate objects or with abstractions. Everything points to the implication that I really meant "there's no rest for those who are fruity." You may think that "fruity" is an odd adjective to apply to people or other animate entities, but that's strictly a matter of our not thinking of people as fruity (childish homophobic slurs aside), not of any lexical characteristic of the adjective. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to delete this kind of thing for the reasons given. "poor" is another. Equinox ◑ 18:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleting the Noun PoS section is deleting lexical information. We have included so many PoS sections for all kinds of terms (eg, English -ing-forms as nouns) and for non-idiomatic MWEs that excluding the noun PoS for this class of adjectives seems at best arbitrary.

It could be argued that without a systematic effort to add noun section to all the appropriate adjective entry pages and delete the sections where inappropriate we are not accurately conveying the lexical information. I believe that we can credibly have this by starting with a list of those adjectives whose ability to function as nouns in non-anaphoric usage is documented in references such as CGEL, add others by analogy, verifying dubious cases, until we find the limits of the class of adjectives that actually behave as nouns in a non-anaphoric way. DCDuring TALK 19:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Lexical information, by definition (I think), is information that speakers can't derive intuitively through some productive process, but have to memorise. Essentially that's not so different from what we use in WT:CFI to decide what to keep and what to delete (the idiomaticity requirement). "wicked", as a noun, has meaning, yes. But its meaning can be completely transparently derived from the adjective. Not only that, but it's assumed that every adjective can form a collective noun in such a way, albeit that not all such formations will necessarily be useful to a speaker. So the existence of "wicked" as a noun is not indicated by lexicon (which is what we as a dictionary are primarily concerned about) but by grammar. That said, of course Wiktionary doesn't include only lexically-significant forms; for grammar we have form-of definitions. I see "wicked" the same way; it's a grammatically predictable form of the adjective. —CodeCat 19:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If WT:CFI is supposed to only serve to help speakers decode, we have a great number of entries to delete, for many entries have as justification only that they are the customary way among many possible ways of conveying a meaning in English.

The lexical information here is that the word CAN be used correctly without an explicit referent preceding it. This would probably not be expected by a non-native speaker learning English. Such a learner might even have some trouble decoding had s/he first learned that adjectives without explicit nouns that they modify have a preceding referent. Contrary to what was said above this is not at all typical for English adjectives. The arguments made so far would exclude dead#Noun, for which MWOnline, for example, has three definitions.

Though no one has made arguments requiring this concession, I would concede that it may be that the lexical information about the noun-like behavior of wicked, but not most other adjectives, belongs under the adjective wicked's PoS, at least as several usage examples. DCDuring TALK 23:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep per WT:CFI, since this is attested as a noun. If this should be deleted, we need to find precedent RFDs, at least, and ideally decide about this whole class of uses of adjectives as nouns. There being a regularity that enables the readers to derive the information cannot suffice for removing the information, or else we would be deleting -ness forms, for instance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, per the two above, and because the nominator is inaccurate about almost any adjective being able to be used that way in common parlance Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Following precedent (see Ungoliant's link to Talk:Irish; also see Talk:deaf) would lead us to keep this, but I'm not sure that's the right course of action, so ... abstain. - -sche (discuss) 01:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

-in

Both the Geordie senses are redundant to sense 1. Sense 3 indicates the present participle - in other words, it's an eye dialect of -ing - and sense 4 indicates a gerund - in other words, it's an eye dialect of -ing. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

(Before anyone suggests that maybe "-ing" is only condensed to "-in" in these specific contexts in Geordie, Google books gives plenty of evidence of Geordies eating herrin, and paying shillins, and climbing Roseberry Toppin.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"Roseberry Topping"? OMG I think I just found my drag queen name. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, just eye dialect, and common in many other dialects, not just Geordie. Dbfirs 08:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Maybe a usage note listing the dialects where this eye dialect is most commonly used can be added. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 01:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

some kind of wizard

Sum of parts: some + kind + of + wizard (“exceptionally skilled individual”). Am I missing something? — Keφr 16:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete (and it ought to be a noun!). Equinox ◑ 19:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Feed to the Balrog. --WikiTiki89 19:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You shall not pass! -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. However "some kind of" appears in a fairly large number of titles of songs, films, etc. In speech I have heard it as an adjective-modifying intensifier or modifying a noun meaning something like "exceptional". If my understanding is correct, some kind of is not SoP and merits inclusion. DCDuring TALK 20:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree: Delete, and create an entry for some kind of (and some sort of and some type of). Those are reminiscent of the French construction "espèce de" used in insults. We would have to be some kind of fool to let some kind of SOP like this get past us. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted with extreme prejudice. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What is this, some kind of a joke? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

dative of purpose

SOP. This is no dictionary material. --Fsojic (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is part of a set of correlative terms: the types of dative cases. DCDuring TALK 22:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

jedno-

Keep. --WikiTiki89 22:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

nowo-

Delete. --WikiTiki89 22:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with this? Keep. Cf Russian ново- (novo-) - новогреческий. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I said what's wrong with it. And ново- (novo-) should go too for the same reason. —CodeCat 22:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I see now. I will answer below, after your comment. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This can be done with any adjective. The ones I voted keep for are not really adjectives, or at least don't have the exact same meaning as the adective. --WikiTiki89 22:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

samo-

Keep. --WikiTiki89 22:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

staro-

Delete. --WikiTiki89 22:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with this? Keep and enhance the meaning. A common prefix, similar to Russian старо- (staro-) - старомодный, стародавний, старославянский. Surely not just related to languages and древне- (drevne-) древнегреческий, древнерусский, etc.?

само-

Keep. --WikiTiki89 22:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And the corresponding categories. This is just the combining form of a word which is formed regularly by attaching -o- as a linking vowel. All Slavic languages form compounds in this way, so I don't think this should be considered a "prefix". If this is a prefix, then any Slavic word that has ever been used as the non-final part of a compound could be called a prefix, which is a bit silly. —CodeCat 19:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not all Slavic adjectives can form prefixes or form them the same exact way, even if that was the case, that's not a good argument to delete them, like any English verb can have an -ing form. Users may want to know what they mean, especially the productive as listed here. I personally see no need in categorising by used prefixes but some people do. Anyway, no need to be annoyed with too many words or word forms in any language. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete This is the main reason I've been letting the " words [af]fixed with " categories pile up while I've been working on Special:WantedCategories: the difference between affixes and independent elements of compounds can be very subtle and tricky. The only thing that gives me pause is that at least one set were created by an experienced native speaker (User:Kephir). Chuck Entz (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep Strong keep all. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Atitarev Why? DCDuring TALK 22:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@DCDuring Why should prefixes be deleted in ANY language? I don't get it. They are correct forms too and have correct English translations, which may be enhanced. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what deleting prefixes has to do with this nomination. These are not prefixes. —CodeCat 23:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

They are prefixes. What are they then in your opinion? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

They are prefixed adjectives. Compare German Althochdeutsch; alt- is not a prefix, but just a prefixed adjective. --WikiTiki89 23:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think predictability is an argument for deletion at all and it's not always predictable. Besides, German alt- has the same form as alt, apart from the hyphen but но́вый (nóvyj) and ново- (novo-) are different. ру́сский (rússkij)->русско- (russko-), физи́ческий (fizíčeskij)->физико- (fiziko-) (физическо- doesn't exist, so many others, seemingly predictable forms). Some adjectives form prefixes differently - дре́вний (drévnij)->древне- (drevne-) (it's -е, not -о) or have variations - французско- (francuzsko-)/франко- (franko-), японско- (japonsko-)/японо- (japono-). I don't understand the rush to delete them. Does it cause any categorisation problem or what is it?. @Kephir some of the above are your edits. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No one said anything about a rush. CodeCat simply thinks they don't meet CFI, and I agree but only about some of them. --WikiTiki89 00:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of the stem vowel in compounds is nothing new. It stems back to Indo-European and is found in many descendants. Latin has countless examples of this, as do Greek, Sanskrit and Gothic. In each case the formula for forming a compound is predictable. It's the bare stem of the word, in the Indo-European sense: the -o- in these Slavic compounds is simply the reflex of the Indo-European thematic vowel, just like in the other languages I named. So essentially, if not all words have combining forms, it equates to the same thing as saying they cannot form compounds. Either way, these are not prefixes. —CodeCat 00:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

(E/C) I'll wait for more comments. I strongly disagree with you both on this. I don't think (predictable or unpredictable) prefixes in other Indo-European languages should be deleted either, no matter how many there are. Besides, adjectival entries mostly lack info on how these prefixes are formed and we don't cater only for users who are "smart enough" to do it themselves or are of Indo-European descent. All words in all languages. Many of the prefixes will pass the Lemming test too. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You're working on the assumption that these are prefixes, so in my view any argument founded in that point is automatically moot. Let's say a Russian has two random words, and wants to make a compound. I'm pretty sure that the compound will be formed by adding the appropriate linking vowel -o- or -e- to the stem of the first part, and then attaching the second part. It's no different from the linking -s- found in many Germanic languages in how it's used. Just because a word does not have exactly the same form as it would when it stands alone doesn't make that form a distinct prefix. The forms using -s- in the Germanic languages aren't prefixes either; if they were, then those languages would have thousands of prefixes, all derived from the noun by adding -s-. In the same way, these forms with -o- are not prefixes in Slavic, otherwise Slavic languages too would have hundreds or thousands of prefixes. —CodeCat 00:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you form prefixes using Russian adjectives деревя́нный (derevjánnyj), водяно́й (vodjanój)/во́дный (vódnyj) and лесно́й (lesnój) with confidence? Hint: they do have prefixes but not just by adding -о to the stem. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Those are all attributive adjectives, formed from a noun with the -n- suffix. So I'm going to guess that compounds will be derived from the base noun, not from the adjective. —CodeCat 00:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well done! They are дерево- (derevo-), водо- (vodo-), лесо- (leso-) but attributive adjectives also commonly form prefixes by adding -о to the stem. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You guys are confusing everything. водный (vodnyj) is an adjective and it forms compounds such as воднолыжный (vodnolyžnyj); вода (voda) is a noun and it forms compounds such as водопровод (vodoprovod). The stems are much more regular than you are letting on. --WikiTiki89 00:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

(E/C)Nothing's confused. I was gonna add the alternative prefixes with separate senses. It's not so straightforward at all. лесно- (lesno-) doesn't exist and a huge number of words prefixed водо- (vodo-) (a MUCH more productive suffix) would use водяно́й (vodjanój) or во́дный (vódnyj) if analysed as adjective + other word. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Then you're analyzing it wrong, can you give some examples? --WikiTiki89 01:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I do everything wrong if I don't agree with you, don't I? во́дный обме́н (vódnyj obmén) ->водообме́нный (vodoobménnyj), водообме́нник (vodoobménnik). Even a better example for you, since the unabbreviated form is well-known - во́дная процеду́ра (vódnaja procedúra) ->водопроцеду́рный (vodoprocedúrnyj). No need to state the obvious fact that водно- (vodno-) is also used in the 2nd case. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You're proving my point. "Водообменный" is not from "водный обмен" but from "водообмен", which in turn is from "обменять воду". And neither водопроцедурный nor воднопроцедурный seems citeable, but I think the latter would be more common if it were a real and useful word. --WikiTiki89 01:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Many Russian derived or inflected forms are not citable with Google but they are still valid and correct Russian words. Google still needs to learn that the Russian language has complicated inflections, forms diminutives or pejorative forms and can form words with prefixes. And I'm not proving YOUR point, it's во́дный обме́н (vódnyj obmén) even if it's also "обме́н воды́". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

But it doesn't matter whether it's "водный обмен" or "обмен воды". What matters is that in the compound form "водообмен" (with or without additional suffixes), it is the noun form of water that is prefixed, not the adjective form. I don't see any reason to believe that a nontrivial analysis is better than a trivial one in this case. --WikiTiki89 01:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see it's useless. водообме́н (vodoobmén) can be analysed as во́дный обме́н (vódnyj obmén), even if you deny it. I think you're going to twist my words to suit your point. I'm gonna leave it at that and let the RFD process to take its course. I have said enough. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"водообмен" means the same thing as "водный обмен", but the question here is derivation, not meaning. "водообмен" is вода + -о- + обмен (voda + -o- + obmen), while "водный обмен" is водный + обмен (vodnyj + obmen). --WikiTiki89 02:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Still, my point is not invalid. Even if the combining form is not necessarily fully predictable from a given word, it doesn't change the fact that every noun (and maybe adjective) will have a combining form of some sort, as compounding is still productive in Russian. Thus, I argue, these prefixes are not lexically significant; they're an open set and have meanings fully predictable from the noun. That implies that if we have entries for all of them, we'll quickly overrun Category:Russian prefixes with hundreds of entries with definitions that are carbon copies of their corresponding noun lemmas. You'd end up with the Russian equivalents of tree-, water-, food-, apple-, cat-, word-, road-, gold-, sound- and so on. —CodeCat 01:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

In Russian, many things are unpredictable, like in any languages. Many of the nouns/adjectives would never have a related prefix or a borrowed/suppletive form be used. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

As for the question of -e- versus -o-, I think that's obvious. It's the same alternation between hard and soft endings that is found all over Russian and the other Slavic languages. Again, completely predictable based on the stem-final consonant. —CodeCat 00:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

As above, adjective entries lack this info and this kind of predictability is known by linguists, native speakers or advanced learners. We also allow all inflected forms. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

*carriage-return* Delete. Our policy is all words in all languages, but these are not words, they are word parts, and I believe we need much higher standards for word parts than we typically hold to. It is my opinion that we should only have entries for combining parts if they meet a number of criteria, namely that they are productive in the language in question, and that they are not existing words that are compounded using predictable rules. There is some wiggle room, for example when an existing word behaves slightly differently when compounded than when not. See πρό (pró) for an example of how I believe this is best accomplished. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep all. I understand the difficulty in calling these prefixes, but whatever they are, they are as valid dictionary entries as any of the so-called English prefixes ending in o-, like hydro- and pyro- and geo- and aero- and what have you. The only difference between these and the Slavic examples is that the Slavic languages use native stems to form these whatever-they-ares, while English uses Greek stems. But that doesn't invalidate the Slavic entries IMO. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What about the point I raised earlier, that these are an open set? Most Slavic nouns automatically have such compounding stems, and my guess is that hundreds of them are likely to be attestable (all it takes is one attestable compound using it). So that means hundreds of extra "prefixes" in Category:Russian prefixes and the like, which would completely swamp all the real prefixes without contributing any lexical information to the reader. I think the observation you make is really a crucial difference too: these are built from native words. In English, pyro- is a lexically significant word element, because it's not analysable as anything else; *pyr is not a native English word, nor do any of the others you named have obvious counterparts as distinct words. But if you go back to their Ancient Greek origins, then suddenly all of them do have counterparts that are distinct words, and these are no longer lexically significant. Would we include πυρο- (puro-) or anything like that as a "prefix" in Ancient Greek? Of course not, because there would be hundreds and even thousands of them. Just look at Unsupported titles/Ancient Greek dish; it's full of such combining forms, but there's no way we would ever think of including all of them as separate "prefix" lemmas! The situation for the Slavic languages is no different from that of Ancient Greek.
  • Now, I can understand that it may be useful to readers to know what the combining form of a noun is. And I completely agree, that is useful. But that doesn't mean it deserves a full lemma entry of its own, with a separate definition. The combining form is just that, a form of the noun. If someone wants to create all these hundreds and thousands of entries as form-of entries, something like "combining form of (main noun)", I would not oppose that. We should probably include them in inflection tables as well. —CodeCat 13:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Another difference is that "hydro", "pyro", "geo" and "aero" cannot be used on their own in English. — Keφr 13:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • That isn't really a difference, because these Slavic compounding forms can't be used on their own either. Another parallel I thought of is Sanskrit महा (mahā), which we do have an entry for, but we list it as an Adjective, not a Prefix. It's a native stem, and it's neither the lemma form of the adjective nor one of its normal inflected forms. So it's defined as "compounding form of महत् (mahat)" and categorized as an adjective form. Would that be preferable here for the Slavic cases? I still feel like CodeCat's arguments amounts to "I don't like calling these prefixes and categorizing them as prefixes" rather than "These entries have no business in a dictionary." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• I would keep jedno-, if only because there are dwu-, trój-, czwór- (which cannot be explained away to be independent words + -o-). samo- seems to emphasise the "on its own, self-sufficient" meaning rather than "isolated, alone" of sam. I am not sure what I can say to defend nowo- and staro-, but they do subjectively feel like prefixes independent from their adjectives in a way that some other words would not (like in biało-czerwony, grzybobranie, myszoskoczek, rybołów); I find it really hard to pinpoint why, though. (And I am quite torn whether jasno- (“bright”) and ciemno- (“dark”) count as independent prefixes or not.) In the same vein we might as well nominate przed-, nad-, pod-, od-, w-, po- (arguing they are all identical to their corresponding prepositions) or even nie- (the same as the particle nie)… do you really want to? — Keφr 13:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, samo- is also a prefix of archaic numeral-pronoun-adjectives (e.g. pl:samotrzeci, meaning "with a company of two"). Not used in contemporary language (may need to be tagged as zlw-opl), and probably not directly to the "self-" meaning, though. — Keφr 14:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • For the remaining numerals, you need to know a bit of history to understand why they don't have -o- in them. I mentioned earlier that this -o- is the thematic vowel, so historically it applied only to thematic words (o- and a-stems). These other numerals were not thematic in PIE, and the lack of -o- in these forms is therefore just an archaism. I don't know if this distinction still applies in modern Polish (that is, whether the distinction between thematic and athematic declensions is still consistent). If it doesn't, then these are just irregular, which is not terribly surprising as the remaining inflections of those numerals are also irregular. But in any case that's why. —CodeCat 14:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I have no idea what an "athematic declension" is (reading w:thematic vowel did not help much), so it probably means no. But the point was, if we include productive prefixes meaning "two, double" and "three, triple", there is no reason not to include a productive prefix meaning "one, single". If people want to look up the former, they would also like to know about the latter. — Keφr 15:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Abstain for now. I tend to avoid creating these things for Czech. In Czech, I think of them not so much as prefixes but rather as combining forms; they are needed for formation of compounds. From Category:Czech compound words, one can extract barvo- (barva), boho- (bůh), cukro- (cukr), deseti- (deset), děje- (děj), těsno- (těsný), etc. Usually, you must use a combining form in Czech to form a compound, although there is a relatively small class of compounds that are formed without a combining form. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep all per Angr. Either as lemma or form-of entry.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

  Having thought about it, I think I agree that the ones that I voted delete for can be converted to {{form of|Prefixed form}}, since they really are just that and even though it is pointless to repeat the definition, it still makes sense to have entries. Maybe we can even create {{prefixed form of}}. --WikiTiki89 20:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Was anyone aware that we have a template called {{combining form of}}, which puts entries in language-specific categories based on Category:Combining forms by language? It seems to me that we should change the POS to that of the base form (in this case "numeral"), and use {{combining form of}} exactly like we would use {{alternative form of}} in an alternative form entry. Then we have to remember to use {{compound}} instead of {{prefix}} in the etymologies. About the only thing missing is something to replace {{prefixsee}}. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware of it. I think that's exactly what's called for here. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made the change to samo-. The entries are categorised as adjective forms, and use {{combining form of}}. How is this? —CodeCat 16:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

    I object to this. I think samo-/само- and jedno- deserve having full definitions. --WikiTiki89 17:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

    Then copy-and-paste the definitions of the base word. Except that would be duplication, which we should avoid. That's why {{combining form of}} is a better solution. —CodeCat 18:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

    What I'm trying to say here is that the definitions of the prefixes I named are different enough from the base words. --WikiTiki89 18:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

    • Looks good to me. That's exactly what I've done with महा. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Any idea why {{combining form of}} puts things into Category:form of lacking "of"? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I oppose this. These are definitely not adjective forms, because Polish adjectives cannot modify other adjectives, while these prefixes can (jednospójny, staropolski, nowoczesny). Arguments that these came from a noun, which only later was turned into an adjective would seem rather contrived (quick, what is the noun from which staropolski was derived?). I would be surprised to learn of other Slavic languages which do not work this way. — Keφr 16:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't understand your argument. They are forms of adjectives. Adjective forms. What they can modify doesn't really have anything to do with that. Participles are verb forms that can modify nouns, and we have no problem calling them verb forms all over Wiktionary. (As for your question, staropolski was derived from the adjective stary, the noun pole (“field”) and the adjective-forming suffix -ski.) —CodeCat 17:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
        • No, it was formed as staro- (or staro) + polski, because pole has never acquired any meaning related to the language; only the adjective polski did. I could argue these prefixes have more in common with adverbs than adjectives; in most cases, they even have identical form, see równociągły, długowieczny. However, these prefixes are not limited to adjectives. The noun nowożeńcy (“newlyweds”) is a quite established word, while nowomowa (“newspeak”) actually sounds somewhat less contrived than its English equivalent. — Keφr 18:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Saying that staro- is a form of stary does not mean it has to have the same part of speech. Adjectives have adverbial forms, verbs have nominal, adjectival, and adverbial forms, etc. --WikiTiki89 19:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• A question for the keepers: should German Inhalts- be included as a combining form or prefix, implied in Inhaltsverzeichnis? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, I think so. The same way Inhalts is created and kept. We're allowing inflected forms, why shouldn't we allow combining forms - for languages where it differs from lemma? I'm not suggesting to create them manually. I'm softening my position from "strong keep" to "keep" and not insisting that they are prefixes any more but they should be kept. We could use a different template, like {{combining form of}} or something and categorise with Category:LANGUAGE combining forms. Inhalts- is predictable but we shouldn't assume all our users are smart and should know grammar well. E.g. there's nothing unpredictable in the Russian adjective form ле́тняя (létnjaja). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  Inhaltsverzeichnis is a three-part compound of Inhalt + -s- (Fugen-s) + Verzeichnis, as is stated in de.Wikt's entry on it. Inhalts- is not a prefix or "combining form" so much as it's just the first element of the compound followed by second element, followed by a hyphen showing that the third element has been omitted. An entry for it would be arbitrary — why not have an entry for *Inhalt-, i.e. just the first element of the compound + a hyphen showing that the second and third elements were omitted? Why not an entry for -verzeichnis or even -sverzeichnis? Better to stick to entries for the actual components of the word, IMO (viz Inhalt, -s-, Verzeichnis). - -sche (discuss) 19:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have been giving the combining forms in a Usage notes section of the base entry for many years, without creating separate entries for them. --Vahag (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  Creating combining or inflected forms is a hassle but there is no harm in having them and let bots create them. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

ⲧⲱⲟⲩ

Requesting deletion for ⲧⲱⲟⲩ, as it is misspelled.

Speedied since you were the creator and no one else had edited it. Next time you can use {{delete}} for this sort of thing rather than bringing it here. Please also correct the spelling in the translation table at theirs#Translations. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

green line

The sense: "Any of the various subway, railway, tram and bus lines around the world marked with color green on the map and/or on the signs along the route or on the vehicles" is completely SOP, as it refers to a line that has randomly been designated "green". In my town, we have one of these, along with a red line, blue line, orange line, yellow line, and soon-to-open silver line and purple line. Undoubtedly we can find other examples from around the world, but in every case they will be no more idiomatic than train or bus routes that identify their route by reference to numbers or geographic locations. bd2412 T 15:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: There may potential for greenline as a noun. There certainly is as a verb. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • For the tram or bus line sense? I'm not seeing it. bd2412 T 17:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. What's next- A line: "Any of the various subway, railway, tram and bus lines around the world marked with the letter A"? Chuck Entz (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. The example given is not even correct. The London Underground does not use colours as names for the lines. It would be "District" line. --Dmol (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. It's my addition, so I took the liberty of deleting it right away. I originally added the "sense" as sort of bad joke because I thought it fit perfectly the SOPish overall content of the entry. Now, as the RFD for the whole entry was declared "unsolved" and thus "kept", there's no place for this "sense". The usex , btw, was not incorrect. The District line is sometimes referred to as the green (not Green) line as also the Tube uses color codes to differentiate the lines. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

PS. I still think the word processing sense (which is the sense that provoked my irresponsible action) is equally SOP - the line indicating an error could be of any color, it just happens to be green in some word processors. In my version of Microsoft Outlook a suspected error is indicated by a dotted red line. The usex proves nothing. It would be absurd to call a green line on a screen for something else than a "green line". --Hekaheka (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that almost all the uses of "green line" in the word processing context refer just to a line that happens to be green. I found two borderline examples, but not enough to convince me that it is used as a separate term in word processing. Would you like to rfv the sense? Dbfirs 08:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

All senses seem encyclopedic, except the word-processing sense, too trivial for an encyclopedia, more suitable for a user-manual glossary at best. DCDuring TALK 12:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The generic sense of a demarcation line does not seem particularly encyclopedic to me; although examples are provided, the examples are not the definition. bd2412 T 12:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Then why not put the encyclopedic part of the definition into a properly formatted usage example. Also, try finding another green line that fits the definition, especially with the "such as". Then try substituting the definition with the "such as" into a usage instance for some other demarcation line. The comma between the definition proper "A demarcation line" and the 8 times longer "such as" is a flimsy basis for claiming the "example" is not part of the definition. The definition as is looks like a minimally disguised encyclopedic definition. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to keep the discussion on track, my deletion nomination relates to the transportation route sense of "green line". bd2412 T 12:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's delete the whole entry! The demarcation line -sense is in Collins and dictionary.com, but the actual usage seems scant. Most of the time the term is either capitalized or within quotation marks, and even when it is not, it is used to refer to a specific Green Line. The word-processing sense is useless as DCD points out. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Sense 1 is almost invariably capitalised in the usages I can find, so any entry should go under Green Line. Dbfirs 10:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to the deletion of the entire entry. bd2412 T 01:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

private language

RFD SOP sense: "A language used exclusively within a group of closely associated people, such as lovers, immediate family members, or members of a profession." --WikiTiki89 19:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete {{&lit}} covers it. DCDuring TALK 20:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

greenlining

Gerund? It doesn't have a plural or anything to distinguish it meaningfully from the verb. Or am I wrong on this, in which case every single present participle, even e.g. "defragmenting", should have a noun section of this kind? Seems silly. Equinox ◑ 15:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: The reason you don't find a plural is that greenlining is usually used with a definite article, i.e. "the greenlining of ...". As for your second sentence, a) not every present participle is used as a noun in common parlance, and b) the ones that are SHOULD have noun definitions Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, all -ing forms are both gerunds and present participles. What seems silly is calling them all present participles alone when actually they're both. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree with Angr, but it might not be practical if we do it this way. After all, the same form can also be used as an adverb: Sitting here, I can't help but wonder.... —CodeCat 16:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I think that in the sense you described, sitting is a verb Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Since when do verbs modify clauses like adverbs? —CodeCat 16:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Since when does your case show an -ing-form modifying a clause? Consider: "Sitting there, I viewed the car." and "Sitting there, the car was viewed by me." In the second case, the natural, native interpretation is that it was the car that was "sitting". DCDuring TALK 16:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
            • And in that case, "was sitting" is the present progressive form of sit. But we've gone off-topic. The topic is that this and other gerunds should be kept if used in common parlance (and therefore attestable) Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not convinced that sitting is an adverb in "Sitting here, I can't help but wonder." I think "sitting here" is an adjective (as all participles are) modifying "I"; after all, sitting is describing a property of the speaker, not the manner of her wondering (or the manner of her inability to help wondering). It's like disappointed in "Disappointed, he went back home" or "He went back home disappointed", which are different from "He went back home disappointedly." I have no particular objection to listing both the present participle and the gerund under a ===Verb=== header (categorized as verb forms); I merely object to persistently omitting the gerund sense from -ing forms. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
        • It's debatable whether in the example above "sitting" is an adjectival participle or an an adverbial participle. Same goes for something like this: "She fell, screaming, down the rabbit hole." I think the best way to analyze it is as an adverb that describes the subject's state while performing the action. --WikiTiki89 18:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Another clear example of why it must be an adverb is "It is not good to eat walking.", because the subject that "walking" would refer to is not even mentioned in the sentence. --WikiTiki89 18:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
            • It's also fairly easy to see by adding "while". "While sitting", "while walking" and so on. This makes it more obvious that we're dealing with a subordinate clause that expresses time or circumstance, which behaves syntactically as an adverb within the overall sentence. A good way to see this with any phrasal part of speech or subordinate clause is to replace it with an interrogative for which the phrase is the answer, or alternative a demonstrative. In this case, the question must be "when" (in the meaning of "in what case/circumstance" or "at what time"), and the demonstrative can be either "then" (in that case) or "now" (at this time). For Angs example with "disappointed", the question is "how", and the demonstrative is "so", "thus" or "like that". These are all clearly adverbs, which means that the original phrase must be as well. —CodeCat 19:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict) Lest we forget, this RfD is about a noun sense, not an adjective or adverbial sense. This and other gerunds can function as both noun and verb senses, and definitions should be created accordingly Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  The discussion is confusing word class and function. The existence of the adverbial usage of Thursday in "He left Thursday" does not require us to have an adverb PoS section in [[Thursday]]. Just because we are confused on this doesn't mean we should confuse our users. DCDuring TALK 19:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  I don't believe walking or Thursday are adverbs in those senses...walking is a verb and Thursday is an object (consider the the proper way to say those things are "It is not good to eat while you are walking" and "He left on Thursday". In either case, this RfD is not about an adverb, but a noun, and no one has yet to give a valid reason why the word is used improperly as a noun and/or should be deleted. I have no intention of adding an adverbial sense, even if I did believe one existed Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  If there was such a word as Thursdaywalking, it could be a gerund. However, the word would have to exist before it could be classified. bd2412 T 21:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  I was concerned with CodeCat's introduction of the idea of an -ing-form of a verb generating an adverb PoS because it might be construed as adverbial. I don't recall anyone else introducing or advocating that idea.

As to the matter at hand, if an -ing-form of a verb can be found in the plural (rantings) or modified by a determiner (much ranting), we have been declaring it to be a noun even if, as in the case of ranting there is no distinct meaning in the alleged noun, apart from aspect. I think the noun PoS is a distraction. IMO, we would be better off creating and applying a template for English ing-forms that conveyed the idea that such forms were both nominals (gerunds) and participles (inflected forms of verbs also serving as modifiers of nouns).

Further, just as the PoS header "Prepositional phrase" eliminated the need to have essentially duplicative definitions under "Adjective" and "Adverb", a PoS header for -ing-forms would also eliminate duplication, though at a price of causing occasional users confusion not guaranteed to be meliorated by a linked definition in Appendix:Glossary. DCDuring TALK 21:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Having a gerund template is probably a good idea, so long as we count definite and indefinite articles as determiners Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Some count the articles as determiners. I was focused on the uncountable senses that -ing-forms can have, which are associated with determiners like much and little. Some define determiners broadly to include the articles, others chop determiners into many classes, based on various differences in their usage properties. It's not a debate I'd care to pursue until it proved important lexicographically. DCDuring TALK 01:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If "a" or "the" is used properly in front of a word ending in -ing, it is a noun and that sense should be kept Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. In "feed the starving", "starving" is an adjective. --WikiTiki89 02:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it's a noun, because it is preceded by a definite article, and there is no noun for it to modify. Its Dutch equivalent has singular and plural forms ("starving" is implicitly plural), and can have genders. It's a noun. —CodeCat 03:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Haven't we had this discussion hundreds of times? It's an adjective used in place of a noun. Whether you call it a noun or noun is irrelevant, it's still an adjective. Any adjective can be used this way. --WikiTiki89 03:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

CGEL calls it a "fused-head" construction, something both determiners and adjectives are capable of, which behaves as a nominal. DCDuring TALK 04:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and the important point here is that it's not a gerund, but a participle. --WikiTiki89 04:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Here, here, and here greenlining is a gerund, not a participle. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that. --WikiTiki89 02:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

in cash

A payment "in cash", etc. This is just a normal use of the word "in". You can also pay "in gold", "in forged banknotes", etc. Equinox ◑ 19:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 19:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

IMO the question here is whether to frequent pairing of in kind with in cash and the lack of other current usage of the sense of kind used in this expression together warrant inclusion of the transparent in cash. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Make it a Phrasebook entry and it becomes untouchable. Seriously speaking: delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added a usex with "in cash" to [[cash#Noun]]. The invitation to challenge the RfD remaining unaccepted, my own instinct says Delete. DCDuring TALK 12:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 16:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep: The payment is done inside some sort of cash? --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added a sense to in (though it, and many of the other senses, could use some tweaking) that covers this usage. When you're speaking of money, you can say "in" almost anything- cash, securities, tens and twenties, even Monopoly money. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I have taken a run at a subsense structure for the definitions. I feel we are still missing some senses and have unnecessary specificity in some definitions (See the sub-subsenses.), though the usexes could stay. I find prepositions among the hardest PoS sections I have tackled, requiring a great deal of abstraction to deal with the senses that are not spatial or temporal. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Much better, though getting it perfect might be a lifetime job. Sense 3-2 seems particularly off the mark: "he met his match in her" is just another way of saying "he met his match, and she was that match". All that stuff about "a place-like form of someone's (or something's) personality, as his, her or its psychic and physical characteristics" is just unnecessary verbiage. Consider, for instance: "In boxing, he found the perfect outlet for his anger and frustration". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I just didn't have the courage to hack away at every piece. We are certainly missing subsenses and also some senses that are hard to fit under the senses now in the entry. Having access to the OED would help make sense of the groupings, though there might be too much information not strictly relevant to current senses. I should probably put some musings on Talk:in. DCDuring TALK 21:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I just started a topic at Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup#in so we can discuss this further without cluttering this one further. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Payment "in cash", fine. But payment by some other means is expressed with "by" - by cheque, by credit / debit card, by bank transfer, etc. - apart from the "in" examples mentioned by Chuck Entz. I can see some merit in keeping it. Donnanz (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Donnanz That is a question of the meaning/usage of the prepositions. By the reasoning you offer, should we not have [[in goods]], [[in trade]], [[in dollars]] (and other currencies), [[in gold]], [[in stock]], [[in money]], just to use the collocations occurring more than once at COCA. I'm sure many other collocations would be attestable, such as [[in coin]], [[in silver certificates]], [[in benjamins]], [[in twenty-dollar bills]] , [[in installments]]. And of course [[by check]], [[by debit card]], [[by credit card]], [[by wire transfer]].

I think if we looked into it the newer-fangled means of payment (the ones used with by) could be shown to be viewed as instrumentalities for paying in cash. DCDuring TALK 00:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, this is worse than handbags at dawn. I pass a mild comment and get shot down in flames. If the phrase was spelt "incash" you wouldn't raise an eyebrow, but it simply isn't. It's a common enough phrase though, so judge it by that. By the way, there's no entry for newer-fangled, but I like it. Donnanz (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Donnanz Am I right that your RFD vote is not based on WT:CFI? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't, but "clearly widespread use" is a good criterion for inclusion. Donnanz (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Donnanz You raised an interesting point. I wasn't sure it was wrong when I started looking at evidence. Your argument also had the misfortune of being raised when I was reading up on prepositions with an eye toward editing [[in#English]].

Damn. I was hoping I'd coined newer-fangled, but it looks attestable! More surprisingly to me newest-fangled appears in D H Lawrence's Aaron's Rod and many less distinguished books. DCDuring TALK 10:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Here is my contribution to the ongoing discussion: 2013, Ann-Charlotte Nilsson, Children and Youth in Armed Conflict, p. 207: "[W]ith regards to public education in the provinces about 80–90 per cent is paid for by the parents, and in some cases teachers are being paid in bananas...". Cheers! bd2412 T 17:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Hunchback of Notre-Dame

A novel and its protagonist. Something for Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 16:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. I searched around a bit to see if "Hunchback of Notre Dame" is used idiomatically, but found nothing. bd2412 T 19:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

香港語言學學會粵語拼音方案

香港语言学学会粤语拼音方案

Def.: The Linguistic Society of Hong Kong Cantonese Romanization Scheme Remove both Cantonese and Mandarin entries, traditional/simplified. Not a dictionary material. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Supposedly, the term describes more specifically the term Jyutping, except that it doesn't, literally the same as English "The Linguistic Society of Hong Kong Cantonese Romanization Scheme". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just speedied it. Doesn't look like there will be strong objections. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

licensed game

"A video game based on an existing license, like a movie." Ignoring the fact that a licensed game might be a non-video game (e.g. a board game or role-playing card game): this seems very SoP. Other common collocations include "licensed toy" and "licensed product". Equinox ◑ 14:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete I think this is SOP, although admittedly, no-one would be able to interpret this using our old definitions of "licensed", or even "license". I've expanded the page a bit, to add a couple of more specific subsenses. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

blood supply

To me looks like self-evident, i.e. SOP. Any defenders? --Hekaheka (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep based on the distinction between the senses. A horse may have an abundant blood supply (sense 1) flowing to its vital organs, but that will be no help to a human who needs a blood supply (sense 2). bd2412 T 16:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. The given senses are just two randomly chosen possible meanings of "blood" + "supply". --WikiTiki89 17:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Randomly chosen? Are there any other CFI-meeting combinations? bd2412 T 14:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete. A SOP’s constituents having multiple senses does not make it idiomatic. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Both senses are idiomatic. The first can only refer to donated blood; the second has to be a volume of blood flowing over a particular time period. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  How the blood is usually obtained or measured is irrelevant to its idiomacity. --WikiTiki89 09:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  The first sense only refers to human blood. There are in fact supplies of blood maintained for certain animals, but these are always qualified as such. The second sense can refer to the blood of any animal. bd2412 T 14:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  I would say the same thing about "blood" itself; it usually refers to human blood unless qualified as the blood of some animal. --WikiTiki89 14:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Inclined to keep the second sense, a common medical term and convert the first sense (non-idiomatic) to use {{&lit}}. The first sense covered by literal sense. Defined in Collins [14] and medical dictionaries, so WT:Lemming principle might be applicable. It's also a translation-target candidate entry. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky You have removed Collins definition and usage example but I have provided the reference. Is it really a copyright violation? I am confused. AFAIK, we can use dictionaries and reference them. There was a BP discussion about it. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You cannot copy definitions and example sentences word-for-word from copyrighted sources into Wiktionary; it does not matter whether you provide a reference. I do not know of any discussion in which people declared such behavior as accepted. I know of a discussion in which multiple editors defended copying translation pairs, since that was supposed to be enabled by the merger doctrine (W:Merger_doctrine_(copyright_law)), but that was about translation pairs, not about definitions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Published books are also copyrighted but we quote from them. I don't see how two referenced sentences can be a violation but someone may clarify or fix citation if needed. In any case, I acted in good faith, no need to use "such behaviours" when there's no vandalism--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're using text to substitute for the original work--definitions from a dictionary to make a dictionary, for example--then your claim of fair use is much weaker. Dictionaries make large use of quotes from books because it has no effect on the original.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I know what you mean but in less-than-straightforward cases like this one, when the existence of a word is questioned, is it really wrong to use the exact definition of a term - a technical, medical, computing, etc? No, I'm not suggesting that we should use other dictionaries' definitions at all. Such literal quotations are quite common, as long as references are provided. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Intellectual property attorney hat on. Quoting an individual definition from a dictionary as a source is de minimis and therefore not a copyright concern. If we were quoting dozens of definitions from the same dictionary, then we would run into that as a problem. Of course, if we were, under the DMCA, the proprietor of the allegedly infringed dictionary would need to send Wiktionary (or the WMF) a takedown notice before any liability would accrue. Intellectual property attorney hat off. bd2412 T 18:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@BD2412 I don't have a neat hat to put on, but anyway: I find it dangerous to condone copying definitions and example sentences word-for-word from dictionaries under de minimis rationale. There are only handful of dictionaries to copy from; if various people start copying copyrighted content here and there, always on a "single case basis", you soon find non-trivial amount of copyrighted expressions (not just the ideas behind the expressions) transferred into Wiktionary. On a related note, my impression was that the editor above thought that copying word-for-word is ok as long as you reference the source, which is utter rubbish IMHO; it is not the first editor to think so. From what I can see, he is still of the opinion that referencing somehow magically gives you the license to take copyrighted content and relicense it under CC-BY-SA in Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

De minimis copying indicates that the amount of text copied is too short for copyright to apply to it at all; in other words, it is in the public domain. The phrase "to increase blood supply to the pelvis" is far too short to be covered by copyright. The fact that this is quoted from a dictionary does not distinguish it from the literally thousands of comparable quotes (and, indeed, much longer quotes) that we have copied from thousands of other books as citations. Incidentally, a Google Books search for books with "dictionary" in the title claims to return 293,000 results. Although a good number of those are unconventional titles like Baillière's Midwives' Medical Dictionary, there are tens of thousands of actual language dictionaries from which we might take examples. bd2412 T 20:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@BD2412 I am not sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that we are free to copy from Merriam-Webster online all definitions that are no longer than 7 words? If not, do you acknowledge that copying 100 definitions that have no more than 7 words is a copyright violation, regardless of de minimis? If not, do you acknowledge this for 1000 such 7-word definitions? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: "there are tens of thousands of actual language dictionaries from which we might take examples": That is very hypothetical. The transfer is likely to proceed from several most popular online dictionaries, as has occurred in the past when some less informed editors copied AHD definitions into Wiktionary word-for-word. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Have I said that we are free to copy a hundred of these? This isn't even a "definition", by the way, it is a sample usage, and a very basic one at that, not even a complete sentence itself. Nor is it particularly novel. There are tens of thousands of works that refer to increasing the blood supply to some part of the body. Compare this quote:

• 2010, Lois White, ‎Gena Duncan, ‎Wendy Baumle, Foundations of Adult Health Nursing, page 137:

  Treatment for angina includes measures to increase the blood supply to the affected area.

Why would you think that quoting this is any more or less of a copyright concern than quoting a dictionary example? Because the dictionary is in competition with us? We may diminish dictionary sales, but that is not traceable to our copying a relatively unoriginal seven-word snippet example of use. bd2412 T 22:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Two of the four prongs of fair use are "the nature of the copyrighted work" and "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." We're cutting into the market for a dictionary; courts are going to be way faster to find it "not fair" for us to take from them to build our dictionary, then to use quotes from other texts that we aren't in competition with. I don't know where the line is going to be laid--nobody can know until the final judge rules on this case--but in a Wiki context it's very hard to put multi-page restrictions to stop a hundred different articles from using it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If a phrase is too short or too unoriginal to be covered by copyright at all (this is both), then it is in the public domain, and the fair use factors do not enter into the discussion at all. Even if fair use were the applicable regime, the "nature of the copyrighted work" prong has nothing to do with it being a dictionary; it addresses whether the work is creative (like a poem or painting) as opposed to factual (like a reference work). Works conveying facts are entitled to less copyright protection because they can be independently collected and reported by anyone, while creative works initially exist only in the mind of their author. As for the effect on the potential market, we offer a definition of this word whether we use their seven-word example or not. In other words, any loss of market that they experience is not attributable to our quotation of their phrase. bd2412 T 04:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Re: "Why would you think that quoting this is any more or less of a copyright concern than quoting a dictionary example?" Entering 100 (or maybe 1000) attestation quotes from a single non-dictionary would also be copyright violation, I think. If Wiktionary accepts the hypothesis that "copying a short definition from a copyrighted dictionary is okay if referenced", then I see nothing in this hypothesis to prevent transfer of 10 000 definitions or more. I do not see this hypothesis as acceptable, which is why I have asked whether you do. Since if a short definition would be in public domain per its being short, then 10 000 short definitions would be in public domain for their being short. So I believe editors should be actively discouraged from copying word-for-word even short definitions, unless they can in each instance show that there is very little phrasing originality, by comparing the entered definition with definitions from other dictionaries. I propose an exercise: take a couple of words and collect their definitions from several popular dictionaries. You will see how much pain the authors take to have their definitions vary in phrasing, even in minor way; that at least is my experience. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep part-of-body sense. I see no obvious reason that every living person has a "blood supply" but only a vampire can have a "supply of blood". (O.K., not quite literally true: google:"her supply of blood", for example, also finds some allusions to blood libel. But you know what I mean.)
  No vote on the other sense.
  —Ruakh_TALK 06:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Second sense kept. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

係小

系小

An obvious mix-up by Ric. "我係小忌廉" "I am "Little Cream" ("Creamy Mamy") where 係 (to be, used in Cantonese only) and 小 (little) are two words. It reminds Mandarin 細小 "tiny" but it's not. Speedy? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Atitarev Please speedy. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedied. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

-si

Discussion moved from User talk:Angr#-si.

Thank you to kc_kennylau for initiating this RFD. The OP's "yes i think so" is a response to the automatic edit summary of my revert here. I do think the anons make a good case that -si isn't a suffix but an enclitic pronoun and that the entry at si should be sufficient, but I do want to submit this to wider discussion rather than just deleting it tout court. I'd also like someone who knows Italian to look at the two entries and see if there's anything at -si that can usefully be merged to si before the former gets deleted (assuming it does). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep, but convert the POS to pronoun and the definition to something like {{form of|Template:l/en form|si|lang=it}}. A hyphen before a term means the term is spelt without a space between itself and the preceding word, not necessarily that it is a suffix. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete, and also -arsi, -ersi and -irsi. In fact, italian verb (e.g. : « dire ») is in a lexical domain and « dirsi » is in a fonctionnal domain. The lexical verbs are associated with a position for clitic pronouns (proclitic or enclitic). As described above, clitic constructions and especially clitic climbing is an essential part of italian grammar. It's an innovating nonsense to summarize this complexity in a false item -si. This type of article can only lead readers to be in the wrong and to confound with a suffix. — Elbarriak (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Catalan has similar enclitic particles, but our entries for them are at the hyphenless forms. See se etc. —CodeCat 14:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

greenline

Sense of “To designate an area as suitable for profitable real-estate lending and property insurance” is redundant to “To ease access to services (such as banking, insurance, or healthcare) to residents in specific areas.” Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The broader sense is unsupported, which is why it is RfVed. The new, narrower sense has three citations. If the broader sense is actually attestable, then of course it stays. The narrower sense is the original definition, going back at least to the 1960s. The extension to other services, if attestable at all, is certainly newer, which lexical information is most readily displayed using {{defdate}} with separate definitions. DCDuring TALK 21:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The senses are essentially the same, therefore both senses can be supported by any of the citations provided. The only difference between the definitions is that the correct one (mine) is about residents GETTING stuff, while the incorrect one (yours) is about banks GIVING stuff. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 22:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Transitivity needs to be dealt with here. One sense suggests the verb applies to an area (which agrees with the citations) while the other suggests it applies to a service. Can you "greenline the banking in Ontario", or would it be "a bank that greenlines Ontario"? Equinox ◑ 22:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

First off, it would help if you said which was which. Secondly, I'm not seeing that. They both talk about areas and services Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If you can't tell which is which, then you are proving my point that the transitivity needs to be specified! Equinox ◑ 00:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• One more thing: in this sense, the word "profitable" is not supported by the citations. What is supported is THAT more services are provided, not WHY they are Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think this is really a debate about how to word the definition, rather than about the existence of one or the other variant of the same thing. --WikiTiki89 23:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  Yeah, DCDuring should never have added a second definition and should have started a discussion on the article's talk page about the definition rather than an RfV of a definition that was correct, but that he didn't like. But he didn't, so here we are. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  I'm not really interested in gum-flapping. I'm interested in citations, empirical support instead of verbosity. I usually descend to verbosity only as a last resort, usually when others fail to provide empirical support for their questionable positions. DCDuring TALK 00:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  You have three citations that support either definition, there's no need to accuse me of gum-flapping. THIS isn't an RfV anyway, so citations schmitations. If more citiations are needed (again, the citations in there support either definition), I have at least a week to find them, during which I can do as much gum-flapping or whatever you call it as I want Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  There is NO EMPIRICAL SUPPORT for the extension of meaning beyond real-estate loans and property insurance. You have admitted to only having a symmetry argument (from the antonym), which symmetry argument has no support in WT:CFI. I rest your case. DCDuring TALK 00:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  Um, you don't get to rest my case. This is the request for deletion of YOUR definition, not the request for verification of MINE. It's embarrassing that you haven't made that distinction, nor frankly provided any argument why your definition should be kept. Tearing down my definition won't save your own. I again remind you that while citations might be preferable, I don't have to cite it this very minute. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  I was (foolishly) responding to your off-topic objection to my decision not to use Talk:greenline as a venue. That was the case previously rested.

  The second definition is not redundant to the first as it has a materially narrower scope, as mentioned above. No other reason for deletion has been presented. I hereby rest your RfD case. DCDuring TALK 01:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  You don't get to arbitralily decide that a deletion discussion of a definition you wrote it over, sorry. That's not how it works. Editors other than I have questioned your decision to do things in the manner in which you did, and you really have yet to offer a reasonable explanation for that as well. So we're going to keep talking. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  @Purplebackpack89, It didn't help that you duplicated the discussion here at RFD (when it could have been resolved at RFV), and then blamed DCDuring when he made a comment on one page rather than the other. --WikiTiki89 22:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

job printer

How can this be anything other than someone who does printing jobs? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It’s an unusual construct. Is it used with other types of jobs? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I think job is used here with the implication that the "jobs" in question defy further classification (other than boiling down to printing something). Which makes it somewhat non-SOP. For now I say keep. Unless we add a subsense to [[job]], but I doubt this is a common construct. — Keφr 18:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

job metal finishing gets some Books usage. There are probably more, perhaps to be found in the Standard Industrial Classification manual or similar. job shop is common, with multiple senses. It can be applied to many types of manufacturing. DCDuring TALK 20:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

jedynka

Sense: "a tram or bus number 1". Actually, you could refer in this way to television or radio stations, highways, rooms, seats, people even (google:"jedynka na liście"). Anything with a number designation can be referred to with a noun naming the number (or just the numeral, if you are careless enough). An alternative would be to broaden the sense to include this metonymic usage, but is it worth it? Compare #A cup. — Keφr 20:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this does not seem to be an instance of metonymy that merits a sense. Further I don't think a general metonymic sense should be included for every number, letter, color, etc in every language. OTOH. I wish I had something other than my intuition to rely on to discriminate inclusion-worthy metonymy from exclusion-worthy metonymy. DCDuring TALK 16:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I would rephrase and fix the definition to have a broader noun sense (derived from the numeral - "by extension") but keep. No other sense seems to cover this. I didn't give it a lot of thought, though. Thinking fivesome - piątka, pięcioro? In Russian too, when someone says - сади́сь на едини́цу (sadísʹ na jedinícu), not sure if it's obvious to a learner that they mean "take number one (tram, bus, etc.)". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

don't be penny wise and pound foolish

Redundant to "penny wise and pound foolish". A similar entry might be "don't let too many cooks spoil the broth". Equinox ◑ 13:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not hard-redirect? We do that for some other phrases. — Keφr 14:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hard-redirect Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect per Purplebackpack89. DCDuring TALK 15:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed: Redirect. No chance for conflict with other languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Hard redirect seems safe and appropriate. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Master of the Universe

"A media franchise created by the American toy manufacturer Mattel in 1982." Encyclopaedic; not dictionary material; move to etymology if relevant to other senses. (Also, this franchise is not "Master of the Universe" as stated, but "Masters of the Universe"). Equinox ◑ 16:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

魔法の箒

Simple sum of parts, comparable to the English gloss "magic broomstick". Whym (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Also delete 魔法の帚, 飛行箒, and 飛行帚. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

魔法の薬草, 魔法の薬, 魔法の大釜, 魔法の釜, 魔法の霊薬

魔法の薬草 is a simple sum of its parts, comparable to the English phrase "magical herbs". (As a side note, I don't think the English gloss "herbal magic" is appropriate.) Same applies to 魔法の薬, 魔法の大釜, 魔法の釜 and 魔法の霊薬. Whym (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Nuke. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

subito accelerando

SOP. We already have appropriate English-language entries for both subito and accelerando; musical terms like this can be combined freely (subito piano, subito fortissimo, subito presto, etc.) and it is unnecessary to list them all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

virtual personal trainer

Non-idiomatic sum of parts. -- Gauss (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure which sense of virtual covers this (the trainer isn't "simulated in a computer"; he/she is a real person), and I think we need to add a sense there. But delete if such a sense is added, since you can also have virtual assistants, virtual PAs, and so on. Equinox ◑ 19:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added a sense: "Operating by computer or in cyberspace; not physically present. a virtual assistant; a virtual personal trainer." Equinox ◑ 19:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete. This sense of virtual can be used for any profession or service that is able to be offered online. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The sense added is a good catch. Accodingly, delete. DCDuring TALK 00:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Dauern

Both my dictionary and this site say that Dauer does not have a plural. However, there is also de:Dauern. Can a native speaker please confirm this one way or the other? SpinningSpark 12:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a fluent nonnative speaker, and it didn't take me long to find these instances of Dauern: [15], [16], [17]. It definitely has a plural, though Duden says the plural belongs only to "Fachsprache" (technical language). I don't know about that, but Dauer has two meanings at de-wikt, (1) duration and (2) permanence. The first sense is countable, but the second may well not be. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added one cite of the plural to the main lemma page Dauer. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, withdrawn. I should have included the article when I searched: all I got was a bunch of "dauern" the verb. SpinningSpark 12:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I looked for it with an adjective, "längeren Dauern". If you're really withdrawing the RFD, could you take the tag off the top of the entry please? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

done. SpinningSpark 17:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• RFD withdrawn by the nominator. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

cult video game

Already covered by cult + video game. Many things can be "cult": cult film, cult book, cult movie, cult radio series, cult sitcom, etc. Equinox ◑ 19:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete. The second adjective definition of Template:l/en covers this. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

言葉から実行に移る

二切れのパン

Simple sum of parts. Whym (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Grouped the above 4 requests together. Delete all. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

mahā

I would like to request the restoration, in some form, of mahā, the transliteration of the Sanskrit महा (great). In the course of fixing disambiguation links to this title on Wikipedia, I have found many uses of mahā with this meaning. It is similarly widely used in books. However, searching for it here takes the reader to maha, which has no information on the Sanskrit meaning of the word. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't do Sanskrit romanised forms. If you want to find a term using this transliteration - 1. paste/type it in the search window and linger to see suggestions, 2. select containing mahā from the bottom and click enter/double-click. A Search results page will appear 3. "Search in namespaces:" check "None" first, then check (Main). This will shorten your search to the main namespace and click "Search". again. महत् appears the 4th in the results. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that sort of advice is going to reach the average reader, who is more likely to either type maha into the window, or to type/paste in mahā and hit enter, which will take them to maha. I'm not sure why we wouldn't "do" this unusually well attested romanization. If someone sees this word in English text, they should be able to find it defined here. bd2412 T 02:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

(E/C)I was just giving you a technical advice how to reach the entry currently, since searching in Wiktionary and search results keep changing. There's no policy on romanised Sanskrit, AFAIK, even if romanisations are attested, they are not in the native script. E.g. ghar is an attestable transliteration of Hindi घर but we only have घर (there's Irish but no Hindi), yeoksa is an attestable transliteration of Korean 역사 but we only have 역사. I'm just stating the fact, so if mahā is created, any admin may delete it on sight. The policies can be created and changed, though. There are romanisations for some languages with complex scripts. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

We could add matching transliterations to the {{also}} templates. As for whether this entry should be restored, WT:About Sanskrit#Transliterated entries bans transliteration entries, so I oppose unless the Sanskrit editing community decides to change that. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The use of {{also}}, as now at maha, seems like a decent idea that respects our prejudices and yet offers the more persistent users at least a way of finding native script entries that provide a useful definition for the transliteration they may have come across, the Wiktionary definition for which they may not find by direct search. DCDuring TALK 03:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I personally have no objections to redirects. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A redirect from mahā to महा would be fine with me, so long as there are no other meanings of mahā. bd2412 T 12:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should reconsider permitting Latin-alphabet entries for Sanskrit, even if all they say is "Romanization of महा". We already allow Latin-alphabet entries for Pali, Gothic, and some other ancient languages that are usually encountered in Romanization in modern editions. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

stf-

This covers both the prefix and its category:

• stf-
• Category:English words prefixed with stf-

I added this based on a dictionary but two other users have pointed out that this isn't really a prefix and words derived from stf should be described as blends rather a prefix + X combination. This makes sense, so these two should probably be deleted. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

We are actually arguing with the mighty OUP by calling this not a prefix, since they call it one in their Brave New Words (admittedly a populist spin-off and not quite the OED). But I still feel it's too narrow and specialised to be really prefix-like. Probably delete. But thanks Adam for adding the various related words, which seem quite attestable in fandom. Equinox ◑ 19:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

cult film

Per cult video game. SoP. Equinox ◑ 23:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I think cult film should not be deleted. The first reason is that I can find 10 sources right now on the internet and put them into citations. Also, cult classic is a synonym, made before cult film (not created by me), and was edited by several people, and was still not deleted. Third, kultfilm is a full word, a Danish translation of the word cult film, and kultfilm has no spaces. Every word without spaces should be added to the dictionary unless it was clearly a made up word. As for cult video game, yeah just delete cult video game. But not cult film. What do you guys think? What else do I have to do to prove that this is not a bad entry?

One more thing. Equinox said it should be deleted because it is like "brown leaf". Well no it's not, because cult film is a very widespread word and is used quite a lot, whereas cult radio or cult video game are not used as much. Please consider that. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. RFD doesn't mean that it isn't a real thing. We know you could show that it exists. But "brown leaf" also exists. The point is that the meaning is clear from the separate words. Equinox ◑ 22:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not that it exists. Lots of things exist. I want it kept because it is used very widely. I'm not saying that I want to show that it exists. I'm saying I want to show that it's used a lot.

And I do understand that you are an administrator here, have been here much longer than I have by a long shot, and are probably much older than me (I'm a young editor). Maybe my idea of a multi-lingual dictionary containing all words in all languages is different by a long shot than what experienced editors and administrators think, but I still really want this to be kept. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"brown leaf" is also used very widely, as you can see here [18], so that argument, on its own, isn't enough to justify keeping. Equinox ◑ 22:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

My criteria:

1. Is it used widely? Yes
2. Does it have a Wikipedia page? (not required but helps a lot in my cause) Yes
3. Does it have a translation in more than one language? Yes
4. Does it have translations in a language where the word in that language has no spacing or hyphens? Yes
5. Is it important? Yes
6. Would someone look it up in this dictionary? I'd say yes to that too, eventually they will
7. What happens when it's not there? Well then hell. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Please read our criteria. The first three criteria mean nothing for rfd. The forth has some relevance, but only as a sort of circumstantial evidence- there are languages that can say things like "I saw those two women walk this way" as a single word with prefixes, suffixes and infixes. The fifth is also irrelevant to RFD. The last two are really part of the same point- and also relevant but not decisive.

The point about "sum of parts" entries is that there are a near-infinite number of such entries possible, but none of them would convey any useful information that isn't already provided by the entries for the component parts. You really have to show that cult film has a meaning that can't be found at cult or film. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete per my rationale on #cult video game, unless someone manages to cite cultfilm where I failed. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. It isn't idiomatic. - -sche (discuss) 02:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Delete it. I have no more arguments. This is not criteria for this dictionary. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

... or for any dictionary that I've ever seen. Dbfirs 08:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Lemming test: Collins has it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops! So it does! I've added a sense to our noun entry for those (like Collins) who regard "cult film" as attributive use of the noun, rather than adjectival use of "cult". In this context, I see why Ready Steady Yeti argued for inclusion. Perversely, we have art film and Collins doesn't. Dbfirs 09:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not SoP. If it were SoP, then it would mean a film made by a cult. If the Branch Davidians had filmed David Koresh preaching to his flock, that would be a cult film. But that is not what cult film means. Cult films are not produced by cults, nor are they about cults. Cult films are weird and unusual, and their audience becomes obsessive and irrationally appreciative of the film. Pink Flamingos (1971–72) starring Divine became a cult film. —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, as defined at "cult", adjective. You might as well falsely argue that "brown leaf" itself requires an entry, since there are different senses of brown and leaf: it isn't, for example, a brown page in a book, even though that's a "leaf", and plausible. Equinox ◑ 18:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, after a hesitation. For one thing, Collins has it. For another thing, here is cult film,cult movie,cult comedy,cult book,cult video game,cult horror,cult radio series at Google Ngram Viewer, which suggests that "cult film" and "cult movie" are the main expressions, of which the other ones are immitations. I do admit that these cult things form a group, but I am not sure this makes them sum of parts. Yes, you can take the group, figure out a definition of "cult" used in these combinations, and add it to cult (adjective), but I am not sure this is the best treatment; it smells too much of adding a definition to adjective red: Of a dwarf planet, being relatively cool and of the main sequence, and then claiming SoP for red dwarf. For those editors that are sometimes ok with a redirect, I propose you consider to figure it out how to take the reader from "cult film" to the adjectival sense that cult currently has; what about cult#Adjective? Although cult#Portuguese also has an adjectival definition. In any case, keeping "cult film" entry seems to serve the users better than removing it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  Correction: The Ngram actually suggests "cult book" is the term that appeared earlier. I would still keep "cult film" and "cult movie" together with "cult book". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep is what Stephen seems to say above, albeit without boldface. (A note made for the likes of me who like to count votes.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Never mind what I said above. I also say keep. Forgive me for not understanding every bit of what you guys just said. But I think I get the point. This is what I was thinking about this morning before getting out of bed. Cult film, for one, is not a combination of the entries for cult and film. Cult film means "A film that has acquired a cult following.". This word cannot be guessed by combining the meanings of cult and film in any senses. It is not about cults or having to do with cults (well I suppose it could be but that's not what the word means), it has to do with the film acquiring a cult following. Plus, more support is that another dictionary, Collins, has this entry. In that case, cult video game still seems questionable. I would actually rather cult video game be deleted, because the Wikipedia article does not have articles in other languages about cult video game. But this rule for inclusion is not what Wiktionary is looking for. I think Wiktionary (not me) would rather keep this entry for the same reason as cult film. For the reason, it is not a video game about or made by a cult, but it is a video game that has acquired a cult following, once again. I think I've made my case. Thanks for the support. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• One of our definitions of cult is "Enjoyed by a small, loyal group", so if a cult film is nothing more than a film that is enjoyed by a small, loyal group then this is SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No, because the word does not assume that the movie has something to do with a "small loyal group of enjoyers", neither does it mean that it was made by a "small loyal group of enjoyers". The meaning of the word is "A film that has acquired a cult following" (not a cult). Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Definitions are just explanations. They can be rephrased and still refer to the same thing (approximately, but no one uses uses natural languages like legalese anyway, except lawyers). What if we deleted "small" from the definition of cult? Would it still not be cult + film? — Keφr 18:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete! I did not realize. Look at the example in the definition that Angr refers to. "cult horror movie"! On the contrary, in commemoration of this attempt to keep this world, let's replace the example with "cult film"! Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

terrorist training camp

terrorist + training + camp — Keφr 08:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be worthy of a Wikipedia entry. There's no entry for training camp, but there is one for terrorist camp. Donnanz (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has different criteria for inclusion, of course. I suggest that we keep terrorist camp and expand the entry because it is not just a camp for terrorists, then delete terrorist training camp. Dbfirs 09:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly neutral on this, but it doesn't make sense to delete one and keep the other, when it is known as both. I ain't sayin' nuffink. Donnanz (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Though I'm the creator, I'm actually quite neutral on this myself. Terrorist training camp is a long word, though it is an alternative form of terrorist camp. I may say keep both of them. It doesn't make sense to delete one and keep the other, even though one is more useful than the other. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Being long is not a problem. The issue is that the term's meaning is obvious given its constituent words. (It may be argued that this is not the case for terrorist camp, so I did not nominate it, but I have nothing against adding it here.) — Keφr 16:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

By long, I meant too specific by a long shot. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Every word in every language, not every sequence of words imaginable in every language. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 15:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well then '''''''''''''''''''''''''''delete it already'''''''''''''''''''''''''''! I can't wait to see it deleted once and for all! Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

法と実

Although it seems to be true that 法 (ほう) and 実 (じつ) mean divisor and dividend respectively, the combined phrase is still a non-idiomatic sum of its parts. Whym (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)