Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:RFD)
Jump to: navigation, search

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
add new | history | archives | old index

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

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} -

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 “brown leaf”
  • Out-of-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFDs

May 2014[edit]


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)
  • FWIW, the other sense of "greenline" has passed RfV, meaning it won't be deleted and this sense is redundant to that one. Purplebackpack89 23:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
This looks like no consensus for deletion. Editors who I guess might be interested in this nomination include User:Dbfirs, User:Wikitiki89, User:Ƿidsiþ, and User:Equinox. If anyone wants to delete this sense (or this definition as contrasted to the other one in the entry), please speak now. The current two probably redundant definitions:
  • To ease access to services (such as banking, insurance, or healthcare) to residents in specific areas.
  • To designate (an area) as suitable for real-estate lending and property insurance.
Both defs have the same quotations listed in the mainspace as supporting them:
  • "Bankers, who must fight to stay even with inflation and face an uneven credit supply (even many "greenlined"' areas didn't get loans during the recession of 1974-1975)"
  • "But ABN-AMRO redlined some small areas in largely yellowlined zip code areas, and greenlined some small areas in largely redlined areas."
  • "If the new residents, especially the most recent arrivals, are less tolerant of lower or working-class behavior, these tensions may become serious. Banks begin to greenline the area, looking for spatial patterns of reinvestment"
--Dan Polansky (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Can the senses be merged? It seems to me that "to designate an area as suitable" for something is merely one case of easing access to that something. How about "To ease access to services to residents in specific areas, particularly by designating those areas as suitable for those services"? bd2412 T 01:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


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)
Is it used as a word in any language? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
According to Google Books, it appears in about 150,000 books. bd2412 T 22:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
If it's used as an English word or any other language, it may get an English or other entry. For romanised Sanskrit, I'm afraid it's a policy question, you'll have to start a separate discussion or a vote. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Alternative form of maha (four) in Tahitian. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see a discussion or policy that says that romanizations of Sanskrit are disallowed. Until then, I consider the above statement "We don't do Sanskrit romanised forms" unsubstantiated. In fact, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-08/Romanization of languages in ancient scripts resulted in 7:4 for the proposal that "If an ancient, no longer living language was written in a script that is now no longer used or widely understood, and it was not represented in another script that still is used or widely understood, then romanizations of its words will be allowed entries." (I wrote 7:4 rather than 8:4, since Ruakh only supported for Gothic.). A subsequent vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-09/Romanization of languages in ancient scripts 2 unanimously expressly allowed romanizations for Etruscan, Gothic, Lydian, Oscan, and Phoenician.
I found Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2013/August#Sanskrit_in_Latin_script?. There, couple of people support allowing Sanskrit romanizations, including Ivan Štambuk (apparently), Angr, Dan Polansky (me), and Eiríkr Útlendi, where Ivan reported User:Dbachmann to support including Sanskrit romanizations as well; opposition seems to include Liliana; Chuck Entz is unclear. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know much about Sanskrit, but I do know that there are tens of thousands of books that use the mahā (in that script) to signify a specific word with a specific meaning. I'm not about to suggest that we incorporate the whole transliterated Sanskrit corpus, but it seems absurd to refuse to have a definition for a word used as widely as this one. bd2412 T 15:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we should continue to have a consistent (uniform) policy towards romanized Sanskrit. At the moment, that policy is to exclude it. I wouldn't mind reversing that policy and allowing romanized Sanskrit to be entered similarly to romanized Gothic or pinyin Chinese, and the preceding comments suggest that enough other people feel the same way that we should probably have a vote.
Allowing some romanized of Sanskrit words and not others according to some arbitrary threshold such as "n Wiktionary users think this word is important" or "[we think] this word is used in x books (where x is some very high number, like 10 000)" does not strike me as a workable state of affairs. Google Books' raw book counts are unreliable, as are its attempts to restrict searching to particular languages, so although we might decide to include only romanizations used in e.g. more than 10 000 books, we have no easy way of ascertaining whether or not a romanization actually meets that threshold.
Even if we continue to exclude romanized Sanskrit, it might be possible to cite mahā as a loanword in some language, if it is really as common as has been suggested. - -sche (discuss) 17:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
What evidence supports the hypothesis that the current policy is to exclude romanized Sanskrit? Or, put differently, what makes you think and say that the policy is to exclude it? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
See WT:ASA. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Wiktionary:About Sanskrit is not a policy; it is a policy draft. Furthermore, this is not evidence; a discussion or a vote is evidence of policy. The draft says "Entries written in IAST transliterations shall not appear in the main namespace." which was added in diff. The first edit I can find to that effect is diff, before which the page said "If entries are made under the IAST orthographic transliteration, they should use the standard template {{temp|romanization of}} to reference the Devanagari entry." Since none of the diffs refer to a discussion or a vote, they are illegitimate as means of policy making. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft or not, excluding transliterated Sanskrit is the common practice. Start a discussion if you want to change that, or continue refusing to believe it, I don’t care. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I asked "What evidence ...". If you had no answer to that question, you did not need to answer; the question was directed to -sche anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
If you really want evidence, look for RFD archives of romanised Sanskrit entries. I’m familiar with your strategy of asking people to waste their time looking for this or that and then finding some excuse for why what they found is not valid or outright ignoring it. I’m going to act like CodeCat and not waste my time; as I said, you can continue refusing to believe it. — Ungoliant (falai) 10:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Putting aside the outcomes of previous discussions, what is the reason for not having entries for such things? We are talking about a well-attested word that readers may well look to us to define. bd2412 T 16:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the logic is that, insofar as we hold that Sanskrit is not written in the Latin script, mahā is not a Sanskrit word. Compare: insofar as Russian is not written in the Latin script, soyuz is not a Russian word. And mahā (great) and soyuz (union) have not been shown to be English words, or German/Chinese/etc words. If mahā is not a word in any language, it is both outside our stated scope ("all words in all languages") and not technically includable anyway : what L2 would it use?
In contrast, महा (mahā) is a Sanskrit word, and is included, and союз#Russian is included.
That said, we have made exceptions for some languages, e.g. Japanese and Gothic, and we have said in effect "even though this language is not natively written in the Latin script, we will allow soft-redirects from the Latin script to the native script for all the words in this language which we include." (Note this is very different from your statement of "I'm not about to suggest that we incorporate the whole transliterated Sanskrit corpus, but [... only] a word used as widely as this one.") I think one could make a strong case that we should make a Gothic-style exception for Sanskrit, since Sanskrit, like Gothic (and unlike Russian), is very often discussed/mentioned (whether or not it is used) in the Latin script. - -sche (discuss) 20:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Even if we admit that "mahā is not a Sanskrit word" (and that is rather questionable since it seems to confuse words with their writen forms), it still does not follow that we have a policy that forbids having Sanskrit romanization soft-redirect entries in the mainspace, on the model of Japanese, Chinese and other romanizations (Category:Japanese romaji, Category:Mandarin pinyin). We have had Japanese romanizations for a long time (dentaku was created on 17 August 2005‎), full will definitions or translations, since no rogue oligarch bothered or dared to eradicate them (we still have them, albeit in reduced form). Whether we have a policy could be quite important in a possible upcoming vote about Sanskrit romanization, since it is not really clear what the status quo is. Therefore, it is rather important to avoid misrepresentations (unintentional or otherwise) about there being or not being a policy. As for the amount of Sanskrit romanization in the mainspace, there may well be none, which would be a fairly good sign for there being a common practice of avoiding Sanskrit romanizations, but one has to consider that this could be a result of rogue olicharch actions. Generally speaking, I find it hard to find a reason for having Japanese and Chinese romanizations while avoiding Sanskrit romanizations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: Re: "I’m familiar with your strategy of asking people to waste their time looking for this or that ...": Not really. You would be familiar with my strategy of asking people to source their claims, supply evidence, clarify the manner in which they use ambiguous terms or explain themselves. Since you already know this strategy (as you say), since you don't like it, and since the question was not directed at you, you should have spared yourself the trouble and avoid answering the question (about evidence for there being policy as opposed to common practice or a draft page that anyone can edit regardless of consensus) that you did not intend to really answer anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I did intend to answer. Not for your benefit, but for that of others who may otherwise be fooled by you into thinking that adding romanised Sanskrit is totally OK. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I still see no rationale for excluding a widely used romanization that readers are likely to come across and want defined. Some justification beyond the naked assertion of policy or the momentum of past exclusions. bd2412 T 14:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
AFAICS, adding romanised Sanskrit is totally OK; there is no discussion or vote the outcome of which is that Sanskrit romanizations shall be excluded from the mainspace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
@BD, re "I still see no rationale": I just explained one rationale (mahā is not a word in any language).
The previous BP discussion linked-to above, and comments in this discussion by people who didn't participate in the previous discussion, suggest that a proposal to allow romanizations of all Sanskrit words would pass. I myself could support such a proposal. I suggest, for the third time, that someone make that proposal.
I do not see any indication that the proposal to allow "widely used romanization[s]" only has gained traction with anyone beyond you and possibly Dan. As you note, quite a lot of momentum is against you: AFAIK, there has never been a language for which we allowed romanizations for only some words according to some threshold of exceptional commonness. AFAIK, there has never even been an alphabetic or abugidic language for which we allowed romanizations for only some words according to the threshold of any citations at all. (If you discovered that one of our Gothic romanizations had 0 attestations at Google Books, Groups, etc, we'd still keep it as long as it was derived from an attested native-script form according to the rules of Wiktionary:Gothic transliteration.)
You could keep trying to overturn this momentum, but — especially given that the only people who still seem to be participating in this discussion are you, me, Ungoliant, and Dan, and we don't seem to be changing each others' minds — I think it would be more productive to grasp the support for allowing all romanized Sanskrit, and run with it. - -sche (discuss) 17:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
We generally decide whether any unbroken string of letters is "a word" by looking to see if it is used in print to convey a consistent meaning. We do this because the existence of the word in print is what makes it likely that a reader will come across it and want to know how it is defined, or possibly how it is pronounced, derived, or translated into other languages. There are now a half dozen citations of mahā at Citations:mahā, including several where the word is used in English running text without italicization. In some previous discussions we have used the compromise position of declaring the word to be English, but derived from the language of its original script. I think this is absurd. Is tovarich English, really? bd2412 T 18:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I have posted this at the Beer Parlour. bd2412 T 19:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes tovarich is indeed English if it's used in running English text as an English word (for which a citation is provided). Same with mahā - the word originates from Sanskrit but it's not a Sanskrit word in the context of provided citations - it's an English word now because it's used in English. --09:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The above unsigned comment seeks to make the case:

it's an English word now because it's used in English.

That alone is a wholly inadequate reason. I say how natsukashii a certain time of year makes me; that doesn't make natsukashii suddenly English. The whole context must be taken into account: to whom am I speaking? Do I assume that my intended audience is familiar enough with Japanese to understand this term? Or am I being deliberately obtuse in using a word that my audience probably won't know? Or perhaps I introduced this term earlier, and explicitly explained it then. All of this must be taken into account before deciding how "English" any given term is.
Past there, I just had a look at Citations:mahā page. There are currently six citations listed. The first one mentions mahā where it's used as part of a title (the w:Mahabharata), rendering that invalid. The second, third, fifth, and sixth all feel the need to add a gloss for the term in parentheses, clearly indicating that this is not an English word. The fourth citation is the only one that might pass muster, but it's from a quite esoteric text about Tibetan Buddhism. The deeply specialized nature of this text assumes that the reader is intimately familiar with many things related to Tibetan Buddhism and related terminology, and as such, I would characterize this as a case of using Sanskrit terms in an English context where the audience is expected to know the term, and not a use of the term as English.
Delete as an English entry. Per Dan below, possibly keep as an IAST transliteration of Sanskrit महा (mahā), similar to our various other transliteration entries for non-Latin-alphabet languages, like Japanese or Gothic. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to exclude any word used in English as not being English. The use of a gloss doesn't clearly indicate that it's not an English word; it's clearly indicating that the word is precise but not necessarily clear. As for the fourth citation, if a term is used in English, even in a specialist context, it's still English.
"This time of year makes me feel natsukashii" does use natsukashii as an English word. Chasing down every bit of code switching is not a fruitful pursuit and we probably do need to have some lines, but I think you're confusing the map for the terrain there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "This time of year makes me feel natsukashii" does use natsukashii as an English word. I can only say that you and I have very different ideas about the criteria by which any given word belongs to any given language. 17:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I regard "criteria by which any given word belongs to any given language" as problematically treating "word" and "language" as platonic entities. The fundamental question is flawed. If we have a sentence that uses a word unmarked in the English language, then it's using that word as an English word. I have a book before me that says "On Agasha, these include horse, gressh, sleth and skink." Those aren't exactly English words, in the sense that an English speaker would understand them, but what else are they? They, just like natsukashii, are being used in English as English words.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep mahā as an IAST transliteration of the Sanskrit महा. (To make my stance clear to a prospective closing admin; my reasoning is above.] --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

September 2014[edit]


An IP has been tagging this for speedy deletion on the grounds that it's not a single word, so I thought I would bring it here. While I disagree with the stated grounds for deletion, I do think this is quite SOP. The only question in my mind is whether we keep hyphenated adjective-noun constructions.

To avoid making this a debate about alleged obscenity, let's look at analogous constructions with less-controversial body parts: big-nosed, big-eared, big-footed, etc. I would argue that there are lots of adjectives that could be used this way: long-fingered, bony-fingered, sharp-toothed, crooked-fingered, short-thumbed, wide-hipped, etc. We have entries for broad-shouldered and long-legged. The first makes sense, because it implies more than mere measurement, but I'm not sure about the second.

Going further afield, what about round-windowed, blue-painted, sandy-soiled, big-trunked, or wood-paneled? All of these seem similarly SOP to me. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The meaning's very transparent. On the other hand it seems to me that it's a single word. Is the meaning easily derived from the sum of its parts? Possibly. To my surprise dicked#Adjective exists. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
At least we have the appropriate sense of dicked#Adjective. (Though we miss the other sense of dicked#Adjective ("screwed", "fucked"), which is almost certainly a true adjective.) I hope we have all the similar adjectives of the form 'noun + -ed'. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I scoured b.g.c for bigdicked in case this is coal-mineable, but no luck. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete as redundant to dicked. Equinox 10:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete. CFI's pretty clear on this one. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
My mistake, it says "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." It doesn't have any information on what makes single words idiomatic or not. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

of biblical proportions[edit]

There are many adjectives that fit into the slot occupied by biblical. Some examples are epic (the most common), historic, apocalyptic, Freudian, mythical, mythological, brobdingnagian.

Biblical is used in this sense of "large" with nouns like scale, size, deluge, flood.

This just looks like a typical effort to memorialize a phrase some contributor found fascinating. of biblical proportions at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that we stand alone among the references they include. DCDuring TALK 00:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
keep: it's idiomatic and the exact meaning can't easily be gleaned from SoP. I would change PoS to 'Prepositional phrase' however Leasnam (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
WHY do you say it is idiomatic, when the components seem to clearly have the meanings needed? Is the key word in your objection "readily"? Does that mean someone having to consulting [[biblical]] might also have to consult [[proportion]]? That they would have to scan more than one definition at each entry (ie, to definition 3 at [[biblical] and 6 at [[proportion]])? DCDuring TALK 15:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
whoops, i should have checked biblical first--its covered there. Changing my nom to Delete. Normally i dont think of biblical in this sense in any other phrases, hence my original conclusion. Leasnam (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to biblical. It’s common, but it’s more or less synonymous with sense number three. --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirected as proposed (there is consensus against having the entry, and no objection was raised to the proposed redirect). I have moved the citations supporting the phrase to Citations:biblical. bd2412 T 15:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

play pocket pool[edit]

This term meaning "masturbate" was deleted before as sum of parts, but it does not seem sum of parts to me. We do have pocket pool as "masturbation", but that does not make "play pocket pool" seem sum of parts to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It's true that you have to understand it in the sense of the game, as well as in the figurative sense of masturbation, e.g. the word "game" in this example from Google Books: "Even the trace of moisture from his lips struck me as erotic, and I had to play a quick game of pocket pool to avoid public embarrassment." I'm not sure how we can document that comprehensively; it is probably best done with notes in the entry, rather than creating all such forms. Equinox 19:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW, is this only used for male masturbation? I'd assume so, because pocket pool suggests balls moving around! Equinox 20:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I know someone who called it pocket billiard juggling. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
TMI, Renard. Anywho, redirect to pocket pool. Purplebackpack89 15:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirected: There's not a single "keep" or "delete" vote here, and nobody's discussed this in more than 2 months. The only action supported by the participants in this discussion seems to be redirect. Purplebackpack89 17:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    My error in stance indication: I actually prefer full keep rather than a redirect, especially since this does not seem to be a sum of parts term. Full keeping enables entry of synonyms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]


"[W]rong analysis of -tio?" I can see why someone would say that. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Fix it or tag it, don't delete it. WCCasey (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to -tio. I think that it’s an excusable mistake. --Romanophile (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

baruhu baruh shemó[edit]

Tagged but not listed. I suppose the issue is either attestation or mistransliteration of the Hebrew spelling. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that it claims to be a Ladino transliteration. But Judaeo-Spanish is written with the Hebrew alphabet, so it's not clear why anyone thinks the entry should exist. Perhaps the Ladin language with the Latin alphabet was meant? Note also that the Hebrew source phrase itself is missing a vav: "ברוך הוא וברוך שמו". Choor monster (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Ladino (or Jud(a)eo-Spanish), while traditionally written in the Hebrew alphabet, is in modern times usually written in the Latin alphabet. We have generally been including both spellings. The problem is that there are various different orthographies in the Latin alphabet. --WikiTiki89 21:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Mistransliteration of the Hebrew spelling, or unattested I suppose. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. May request undeletion if attested.--Jusjih (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Rationale "[t]his is a mistaken spelling of “cànanan”." Renard Migrant (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I made it a misspelling. In Google books, cànannan is absent and cànanan is rare. Online, google:"cànannan" gives me 29 hits (after pressing multiple times next) and google:"cànanan" gives me 208 hits (after pressing next). Absent better data, given the online frequency ratio of about 7, keep as common misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • RFD kept: no consensus to delete after two months. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)



Tagged but not listed, Ladino again. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There's this, this, and this. My guess is that it's an issue of different orthographies (Ladino has scads of them), though I can't seem to find what the more common spelling is. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


Extremely uncommon misspelling of devaluing. I tried Google Books Ngram which says it can't even find devalueing. I would've tagged it with {{d}} but I thought it might get ignored. But please delete immediately. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Has this been deleted out of process? What did the entry say previously? Why don't deletions show up in an editor's contributions? Dbfirs 20:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Ivan Štambuk deleted it 19, October 2014. 10 days from nomination does seem to be pretty quick, especially 2 days after an opposing view was posted. I notice, though, that Renard had changed the tag from {{rfd}} to {{d}} the same day he added it, so Ivan may not have been aware of this discussion.
As to the merits, I don't share Dan's childlike faith in statistical tests, but I wouldn't call the 73 hits I got in Google Books "rare", given that scannos are unlikely to add a letter, and that books are usually edited and have fewer misspellings. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining what happened. I now see why I couldn't trace the history. There do seem to be quite a few instances of this mis-spelling in Google Books. I wonder why Ngrams doesn't find them. Dbfirs 22:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
1632:1, way too rare. Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Chuck & Dan don't think so. If the mis-spelling is this common in books, then it's probably much more common in unedited text. Dbfirs 08:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I know they don't think so; I read their comments. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as uncommon misspelling. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Donnanz (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete (explicit bolding). Renard Migrant (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What are 7 spellings that the supporters of "delete" consider to be common misspellings worth keeping? --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    • For English, how about alot, alright, donut, enuf, lite, tonite, and tuff? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
      • These are alternative spellings, not misspellings. Spelling "tonight" is even found in many dictionaries that do not list misspellings: alright at OneLook Dictionary Search; specifically MWO[3], which has a usage note mentioning some people deeming the spelling wrong. Most of the other ones are clearly intentional formations, like eye dialect spellings. The items mentioned should not carry misspelling template (as they don't); the template should not be used to mark prescriptivist stances. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
        • The term "misspelling" is inherently prescriptivist; you can't label anything a misspelling without being prescriptivist. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Not really. Relative frequency is a fact and we can label things as misspellings based on such facts. Even descriptivist dictionaries exclude some attested items as misspellings, and this does not make them any less descriptivist. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
            • If we were being purely descriptivist about it, we'd label them "rare alternative spellings" rather than "misspellings", which is by its nature a value judgment. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
              • "misspellings" is not a value judgment; it is no more a value judgment than "miscalculation". Misspelling is a failed attempt at spelling; the person writing or typing tried to create a certain spelling but produced another one (happens to me all the time). In User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling, I propose to understand misspellings as failures of transmission over a noisy communication channel. Errors of transmission are facts; to label a difference between the sent message and the received message as an error and to label the means of detecting it as an "error-detecting code" is an act of description, not of making value judgments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
                • They're totally different things. A miscalculation is an error in an objective mathematical fact; a misspelling is a deviation from a socially accepted norm. It's like breaking a taboo or a law. There's no "noise" involved in a misspelling, merely ignorance of, lack of interest in, or deliberate violation of the artificially imposed standard spelling. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
                  • I do not share this definition of "misspelling" as a violation of "socially accepted norm", especially not for a language like English that does not have a prescriptivist language academy. An error in transmission over a channel is a fact (in its being an error), not having to do anything with "socially accepted norm". When I make a misspelling, I see myself as making a harmless error of transmission rather than seeing myself as engaging in a "violation" of a "socially accepted norm". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
                  • It's not how I would have thought about it, but I think Polansky's view is a useful one for us. A misspelling is a spelling used by someone who would recognize themselves as being in error if it is pointed out to them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
                    • We don't have a language academy, but we do have authoritative (prescriptivist) dictionaries, schoolteachers, proofreaders, and copy editors. A misspelling is a spelling that would be marked wrong by a schoolteacher and that would be corrected by a proofreader or copy editor. That spelling is a social norm rather than an objective truth is shown by the fact that what is considered a misspelling can vary by location (color is a misspelling in the UK but not in the US) and time (German muß is a misspelling today but it wasn't 20 years ago). It's not necessarily a transmission error because unless the misspelling is so extreme that I can't figure out what you're trying to say, you have successfully transmitted your message. If someone writes recieve instead of receive, I know what they mean, so there's no error in transmission; they simply failed to follow the artificially imposed rule that this word is to be spelled receive. (On the other hand, when my sister's dyslexic roommate wrote bansy on the shopping list, that was a transmission error because my sister had no idea that her roommate was trying to say bananas.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 15:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]


This is just mfG capitalized as the beginning of a sentence. -- Liliana 21:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 05:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

cunt hunt[edit]

This is sum of parts; cunt can be replaced with any other vulgar synonym, and hunt generally uses the sense "To try to find something; search." That sense may not be quite right, but the example sentences "The little girl was hunting for shells on the beach." and "The police are hunting for evidence." both imply the acquisition of the item after the search. I don't believe anyone familiar with the words cunt and hunt wouldn't understand cunt hunt to include the immediate use of the "cunt" for sexual purposes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, "he was on the cunt hunt" and "he was on the hunt for cunt" should mean the same things and be equally well understood. I'd note job hunt is a parallel phrase, much more common, where the acquisition is not as literal as shells on the beach.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete, I'm sure Romanophile literally only created this because it rhymes. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete (as author). --Romanophile (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Dunno, is it "idiomatic"? I've never heard it, but in G.Books I can see "been on the cunt hunt" and "if you want to cunt hunt, there's a phone..."; I think we have entries for some other rhyming forms that have caught on. This one does seem somewhat transparent though. Equinox 00:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete, a rather low-grade entry, IMO. Donnanz (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep. It's idiomatic insofar as it doesn't refer to the literal search for a vagina, but to the search for a sexual partner in possession of one. And, even if it's not idiomatic, I think it's arguably a set phrase, given the fair number of hits it gets on Google Books. Compare spank bank. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Cunt does have the sense 'woman... as a source of sex'. Also the only conclusion I get from comparing cunt hunt and spank bank is that they have nothing in common. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I meant that it's another example of a rhyming sex-related slang phrase. Equinox mentioned "rhyming forms that have caught on" above, and that was one I could pull off the top of my head. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
As job hunt is idiomatic because you aren't searching for a job, but for an employer willing to hire you. "Hunting for X" usually implies some limitations on the type of X you're hunting for. Heck, X usually implies some limitations; in commerce, it's called "implied warranty of usability", since the law has to make explicit what's implicit in human communication, that someone asking for a hamburger is asking for one without metal shrapnel and a red ball in a children's store for one that doesn't have acid or explosive inside.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
"Job hunt" is arguably a set phrase. It's way more common than other ways of saying the same thing, such as "employment hunt." And OneLook shows that Oxford, Collins, and American Heritage already have it. I'd say there's a stronger case for including it than there is for not. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 03:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

in the trouser department[edit]

WF sock made this a few years ago. Perhaps wasn't thinking straight. --Type56op9 (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Why should we delete this? It has 4 citations and doesn't seem to be an SOP. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 14:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: verifiable and not SOP, so passes CFI. Also, I'm wondering if in the...department is a valid construction. Purplebackpack89 15:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is clearly no definition now in the entries for either trouser or, for that matter, department that makes this euphemism SoP. If someone can define and attest senses of the component terms that would make this SoP, I'd be happy to consider changing my vote. DCDuring TALK 19:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    @DCDuring:, given the discussion below, do you have an opinion on moving this to trouser department? Cheers! bd2412 T 13:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    @BD2412: As I said below, "Wouldn't it have to be trouser department to include the last cite (and the many others that have another article, predeterminer, determiner, and/or intervening adjective)?" Sorry I didn't explicitly change my vote to Move to trouser department. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." So keep. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Move: I'd like to float the idea this should be just the trouser department. That's how Knickers in a Twist: A Dictionary of British Slang lists it. Irvine Welsh's Filth says "The mouth department and the trouser department are well out of synchronisation in the not-so-superstore that is Ray Lennox, I kid."[4] Three Things About Me says "His trouser department took a dive. Rose was as confident and beautiful as ever."[5] Genesis: The Complete Guide to Their Music says "'The Shorts.' Not a reference to the band's trouser department, but the brevity of the tracks on their best selling compilation The Way We Walk(1992)".[6] Blowing It says "The front trouser department would surely be the first place to seek out evidence of intent when faced with a potential stalker." Etc.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    Wouldn't it have to be trouser department to include the last cite (and the many others that have another article, predeterminer, determiner, and/or intervening adjective)? DCDuring TALK 03:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    What he said. If you're dropping "in", drop "the". Purplebackpack89 04:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Other "department" constructions might arguably be SOP, but this one is definitely idiomatic, as it's not self-evident that "trouser department" is intended to be a euphemism for "groin." To the uninitiated, "he leaves a lot to be desired in the trouser department" could be interpreted to mean that the man in question wears out-of-style/ill-fitting/dirty trousers, etc. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Move to trouser department and word as a noun. "In the" is transparent when prepended to such a noun. Leave the current title as a redirect. bd2412 T 14:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • How often is 'trouser department' used without 'in the'? If it's very rarely I'd sooner keep it as it is. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I found four cites of "trouser department" (in this sense--also found in the literal sense) without too much work. It's a tiny sample, but the first couple pages of google books:"trouser department" shows me 11 literal uses, 5 figurative uses of "in the trouser department" and 3 of just "trouser department" (including "going for the trouser department"). (And one dictionary entry for "trouser department".) So it's definitely not "vary rare".--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This entry should definitely be deleted and possibly trouser department created. But better than that would be to create a new sense of department to cover usages like this:
Did something in the love department just recently happen to you?
The arms are also a good length as sometimes jumpers are a little short in the sleeve department.
If you're feeling a little out of sorts in the stomach department, you might want to try this potent tea.
He looked into Mona's eyes, seeing a mysterious woman, an unknown for him on several occasions in the feelings department.
Older men need to exercise regularly to keep up on the sex department.
--Hekaheka (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
"In the trouser department" is euphemistic in a different way to those examples. "In the sleeve department" literally means "with respect to sleeves", but "In the trouser department" does not mean "with respect to trousers". (See also Wiktionary:Tea room#In the [YOUR ITEM HERE] department) Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Read carefuly. I wrote "possibly trouser department created". "In the trouser department" is "in the" + "trouser department". Or, would you add a separate entry for all the following:
He was aware that some men were concerned about the size of their equipment, but usually their anxiety focussed on the trouser department.
Lee thinks with his trouser department!
I also felt a little stir underneath me from his trouser department before turning around quickly and blushing again.
Plus, we need the new sense of "department". This guy wasn't thinking his penis when writing this:
I tried not to look at the things I really don't need and focused on the trouser department of my outfit.
Further, is this the only occasion where "trouser" is used to refer to "penis"? Do we need a new sense for "trouser"? If we do, also "trouser department" becomes SOP. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I just assumed that when you said "But better than that would be to create a new sense of department to cover usages like this", you were suggesting that if we had this sense of department, trouser department would automatically become SOP, which I was refuting. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have boldly moved this to trouser department, and refactored it as a noun. bd2412 T 16:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there any objection to calling this one resolved, at this point? bd2412 T 21:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Striking as resolved. bd2412 T 17:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

cost per available seat mile[edit]

I'm sure I'm missing something here....--Type56op9 (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per Talk:cycle per second. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think we should somehow discourage the proliferation of multiple-word terms, because RFD-procedure is not able to handle the flow. I wish I still knew how. --Hekaheka (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 03:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

cribbage board[edit]

A board for cribbage. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • It looks like it's still called a cribbage board even when you use it to score dominoes or darts (1 2 3 4) so Keep (but I'll rewrite the definition). Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think your improved definition solves the problem. Dbfirs 02:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 14:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

cultural evolutionism[edit]

Original RFD by DCDuring (talkcontribs) was "SoP, used in most plausible ways you could combine the meanings of components". --Type56op9 (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. It may be a sum of parts of "cultural evolution" + "-ism", but that does not matter, since these two items are not separate components. Furthermore, I do not know what it is; is it a synonym of cultural Darwinism? Citations would help. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus to delete. bd2412 T 14:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Fifth Amendment[edit]

The other amendments have no entry. I know that's a terrible RFD argument, but I have a funny feeling about this one...--Type56op9 (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep, and create First and Second: The Fifth Amendment of what? There are Fifth Amendments to a whole lotta things other than the United States Constitution, but in America, when you say "Fifth Amendment", you're always talking about the self-incrimination and double jeopardy clauses of the Bill of Rights. Purplebackpack89 17:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there any deletion rationale here? If so, what is it? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe the nominator is arguing that the Amendments to the United States Constitution should not be included. Purplebackpack89 18:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Weak keep. I don't want to set a precedent to include a lot of numbered laws of various countries, but this one is mentioned a lot in many contexts. Equinox 22:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no amendment to the US Constitution that does not appear in some OneLook reference, though some appear in only one, often RHU, but sometime only West's Legal Encyclopedia. The Equal Rights Amendment (not passed) appears in many such references. The Fifth Amendment is distinguished in that it has Fifth as a synonym, indicating the greater extent to which it has entered general popular discourse in such dialog as: "Have you been drinking?" "Can I take the Fifth on that?"
Isn't I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me worth an entry, too? It is another formulaic answer to questions like "Have you been drinking?" used in circumstances where literal criminality is not at issue. DCDuring TALK 23:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Kept. No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 14:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

global society[edit]

Looks SOP too --Type56op9 (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep this too. I suspect it may be idiomatic. Donnanz (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Unsure, it depends on usage. However, I think it falls under global sense "concerning all parts of the world." So delete, or provide evidence of idiomaticity. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete The definition, the absence of citations or even usage examples fail to justify even a suspicion of idiomaticity. DCDuring TALK 16:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete per DCD. Equinox 18:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as alt of global village: the latter ain't SOP Purplebackpack89 18:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    But it is not an alternative form, which we usually (and should always) limit to inflectional and orthographic variations of ordinary terms, permitting greater variation only for more extended idioms and proverbs. DCDuring TALK 19:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Keep anyway. IMO, this is ambiguous as to whether it's SOP or not. Purplebackpack89 19:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I also suspect that it's a mass noun - no plural. Donnanz (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    @Donnanz: "much/little global society"? I "suspect" not. DCDuring TALK 19:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    It's probably a mass noun, but I think global societies is grammatically correct. Purplebackpack89 19:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Donnanz, Purplebackpack89: Why all the fact-free opining? Don't you know how to construct a fact-based rational argument? DCDuring TALK 20:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Oh, it's an argument, @DCDuring:, it's just one you happen to disagree with. That does not necessitate accusing us of "fact-free opining". You need to tone it down: it's not the end of the world if this is kept. There's no need to tear us down because we're on the other side of the discussion from you. Purplebackpack89 21:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    @Purplebackpack89: re: "Oh, it is an argument": That is an example of yet another unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable assertion, just like the evidence-free assertion or "suspicion" that the term in question is idiomatic. Could you please direct me to what you think is an argument? The amount of empty blather that you are responsible for will risks killing participation in this page and thereby letting Wiktionary turn into Urban Dictionary. DCDuring TALK 23:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    @DCDuring:: Why isn't the suspicion of it being idiomatic an argument? Why isn't being the alternative form of an existing word an argument? Again, you're claiming arguments you don't like aren't arguments. Also, "will risks" isn't grammatically correct, and my participation in RfD will neither risk killing nor will kill participation in this page, anymore than your tearing down Donnanz and I will. Purplebackpack89 23:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    @Purplebackpack89: It is an opinion without any substantiation outside of itself. If a government censor said it, it would be an "argument" ad baculum. Since you don't seem to have any weapons to back up such an argument, you have to resort to persuasion, preferably rational persuasion, though you would not be the first to use other means here. Your arguments should connect to WT:CFI or to some reason why in this case CFI should be ignored. There is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion, but it is no substitute for fact-based argument.
Have you ever actually constructed a fact-based argument? It can be fun. Finding significant holes in an argument can be fun. Digging up evidence and researching authoritative sources can also be fun. So, go have some fun. DCDuring TALK 23:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@DCDuring:: Haha. I've constructed fact-based arguments many times. You're just resorting to bashing me and Donnanz, even though you seem to have forgotten I want this kept as alternative of only, because I think alternative of should be defined more broadly than you do. But no amount of belittling me is going to get me to change my mind, and it's not going to get me to leave this project either. Purplebackpack89 23:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: "I've constructed fact-based arguments many times." Yet another assertion I'd like to see evidence for, in sufficient quantity to outweigh the blather. My argument noted that there are no citations or usage examples and that the definition also fits with an SoP interpretation. The last point could be challenged, forcing me to make more specific arguments. An assertion about one's "suspicion" is unchallengeable (One can't well say "I believe that you don't suspect that it is idiomatic.".), but also nothing more than an indication of how one would vote. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@DCDuring: The "suspicion" line is Donnanz, not me. If you want arguments, look at the lead for the neutral RfD closure vote I started last week. My argument is that, if WORDA WORDC is SOP, but it means the same thing as WORDA WORDB that isn't SOP, WORDA WORDC should either redirect to WORDA WORDB, or be listed as an alternative form of WORDA WORDB. That preserves a bluelink at WORDA WORDC without a definition that's SOP. I fail to see why you think that is unreasonable. Purplebackpack89 00:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Purplebackpack89: I refute thee thus: We do not treat "WORDA WORDC" as an alternative form of "WORDA WORDB" unless "WORDC" is an alternative form of "WORDB" in orthography. (I anticipated a possible objection in the previous rejection of your alternative form proposal.) Similarly our uses of redirects is usually intended to take a user from a non-lemma form to the lemma form of an entry. DCDuring TALK 00:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    @DCDuring:: Is there a policy or guideline that says that, or is it just the way editors have done it? If it's the latter, it's just a matter of opinion. I doubt its policy, and even if is, it's a bad one that doesn't take full advantage of what redirects and alternative forms do. Purplebackpack89 00:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    @Purplebackpack89: Practice is not the same as individual opinion. If you made more actual contributions in principal namespace instead of blather elsewhere, you might understand that. Practice is usually the result of a specific decision that is then used as a precedent for similar situations. Practice means that we have educated users to expect Wiktionary to behave in certain ways. We do not, or at least should not, violate those expectations unless we expect to make a substantial improvement. Significant changes in practice for English pages are brought to WT:BP not because a rule requires it, but because we like to operate by consensus as much as possible. DCDuring TALK 01:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    @DCDuring: OK, now you're the one who's not making an argument. Practice isn't policy, and it can be ignored at any time because it isn't. I think practice should be ignored in this case (and in all subsequent cases). If you think it shouldn't, get a consensus to ignore it in this case, or to limit redirects to certain things (I will oppose this being enacted as policy). Until you get one, I am entitled to vote to ignore practice, and you have to respect my right to do that. Purplebackpack89 03:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    @DCDuring: As for the "substantial improvement" line, I do think it would make a substantial improvement if we had more words like global society, even if they were alt forms or redirects of existing articles. Purplebackpack89 03:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    We all know you constantly oppose policy. If you don't believe that policy is binding, and you don't believe that practice is binding, then what is binding? --WikiTiki89 03:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    I don't oppose all policy, I just think SOP/CFI should be demoted to a guideline. And I don't really see a need to have a lot of "binding" stuff if the Wiktionary could be made better without it. I believe the Wiktionary would be better with more entries, and I believe SOP/CFI should be relaxed and current alt form practice should be ignored to allow that. Purplebackpack89 03:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Eirikr:, it's the value of having an additional searchable term. Something people would want to look up, and stay here to look up rather than go elsewhere and never come back. Purplebackpack89 05:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
      @Purplebackpack89: What would be the problem if they go to w:Global society instead? Do you have something against our parent project? A dictionary is not a good tool for understanding nuances of vague concepts.
      I notice no difference between your attitude toward policy and your attitude toward practice and, for that matter, your attitude toward other Wiktionarians: you don't seem to care about any of them if they disagree with you. You can continue ignoring them at your peril. DCDuring TALK 12:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia isn't a dictionary lol. If somebody wanted to know what a word meant, and we don't have it, they'd probably go to another online dictionary rather than an encyclopedia. If they wanted a broader understanding of the topic, they'd have never gone here at all, but I don't think that "this is too broad" is a good reason for deletion of an entry; we have to try to define it. As for this broad generalization about policy, practice and editors, I am hardly the only editor that disdains people that disagree with me. And I again say that the only policy I disagree with is CFI, and only there I do it on RfD. You don't see me re-creating tons and tons of previously deleted articles, just voting "keep" on articles. That's 100% OK. Purplebackpack89 14:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    • This is not where we discuss changing, demoting, or promoting WT:CFI. This is where we apply it on a case-by-case basis. Other discussions about WT:CFI are for WT:BP. DCDuring TALK 22:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    Your grammar nag is irrelevant, and your very own edit summary had an error too (using "I" instead of "me" for an object). And of course "I suspect X" isn't an argument. Anyone else could say "well, I suspect the opposite!" Arguments require thought and evidence. Equinox 23:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    "I suspect the opposite" is essentially DCDuring's argument. That and "Purplebackpack89 and Donnanz are needlessly opining." DCDuring needs to ratchet it down a few notches. The way he's talking, you'd think keeping this article is the end of the project as we know it. Although, TBH, I'm not opposed to Wiktionary being more like Urban Dictionary. Purplebackpack89 23:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • After e/c... The current definition is not idiomatic, in that this is simply global + society -- that's basically the canonical example of a sum-of-parts term. Nor is the current def at global society really sufficient: one could also have a global society [of plumbers], or a global society [of FILL-IN-THE-BLANK], and that has nothing in particular to do with either the societies of the world considered as a single entity, or with globalization as a sociological phenomenon. This latter also demonstrates that global societies is entirely possible as a concept. Any mass-noun-ness arises from the semantics of society, which in different contexts can be used as a regular countable noun.
I'm happy to acknowledge that global village is idiomatic, but I fail to see how global society is idiomatic.
Purplebackpack89, if you truly believe that we have anything to fear from Urban Dictionary of all things, then methinks you misunderstand the purpose, mission and intent of Wiktionary. Wiktionary is about as different from Urban Dictionary as an apple is from a potato. They are both foods, and many people like both, but that's about all that they have in common. Tharthan (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
And the latter is called an earth-apple. Keφr 12:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete as non-idiomatic sum-of-parts. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete It's purely the sum of its parts. Tharthan (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Whether or not it's idiomatic or a mass noun I'll leave that to others to research; I'm usually too busy researching Norwegian translations and inflections. But global society is a potential translation target; Weltgesellschaft is the subject of this article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltgesellschaft. Basically it refers to the globalisation that has occurred in recent decades creating a new global society, according to some social scientists. Donnanz (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    • That's interesting, but I'm not sure that German is the best language to use for demonstrating possible source languages justifying translation targets in English, given German's well-known proclivity for forming noun compounds. One amusing example not long ago was the now-deleted entry Fussbodenschleifmaschinenverleih, with evidence provided in the form of a photograph of just such a storefront. If lots of other languages have similar one-word terms for this phenomenon, then I think perhaps a case could be made for including global society as a translation target. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I agree with you on that score, but some other languages can be just as guilty, including the Scandinavian languages. But, lo and behold, in Norwegian it's "et/eit globalt samfunn" or "det globale samfunn", and in Danish "et globalt samfund" or "det globale samfund". I can't win. Donnanz (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Actually, that word should be spelt Fußboden- in lower case (except Switzerland), and FUSSBODEN- in capitals, as in the photo. And I know of a dictionary which has it, with the translation "a shop that hires out floor sanding machines". So there you go. Donnanz (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
        As an aside, I thought Germany's spelling changes proscribed the scharfes S anymore, in favor of a simple double-S? Or was that just Switzerland?
        Also, why all caps? I thought nouns just took initial capitalization. Curious, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
        OK, there's a bit of explaining to do - "ß" is only used in lower case, and there is no equivalent in upper case so "SS" is used - also there are no words beginning with "ß", so there is no real need for a capital letter version. In the last German spelling reform "ß" was replaced by "ss" in some words, but other words such as Fußboden kept it. In Switzerland, I believe there was not enough space on their keyboards, originally on typewriters, for all the characters, this being due to having to cater for French as well. I guess the easiest solution was to do away with "ß" altogether, replacing it with "ss", thus freeing up a key for another character. Donnanz (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
        One important point you forgot to mention is that "ß" is a ligature of "ss" anyway. --WikiTiki89 00:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 15:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

grafting tool[edit]

"A tool used in grafting" --Type56op9 (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Grafting what? Trees? Is it a horticultural tool? Donnanz (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not a specific tool, it's any tool used for grafting. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Convert to {{&lit}}. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Keφr 12:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Almost deserves an RFV: do people talking about "grafting tools" when they aren't the specific sense #2? Equinox 22:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete "[verb]ing tool" is just a standard way to construct an NP that refers to a 'tool for/used in [verb]ing.'. It's really a special case of "[noun] tool" ('a tool used for [noun]').
Or maybe we should create a special L2 for these: let's call it Mentalese. It can include all the non-idiomatic translation targets that anyone can think of. Even better why not create a separate Wiki for it: WikiConcept? Its CFI need not be limited to words and phrases. DCDuring TALK 08:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Have you tried w:? They have managed to eschew any CFI whatsoever. Keφr 12:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
They are conceptual and they have notability as a criterion. Language has many non-notable words. DCDuring TALK 07:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Funny, I would rather RFV the second sense. Keφr 12:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
That would be a good RfV. DCDuring TALK 07:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
But here are some Google Books hits for the tool sense. I think I own a tool like this, though perhaps not as strong. Mine is a long-bladed shovel used for digging narrow trenches. Also the sense of graft/grafting ("dig"), which [[graft]] lacks, is a different etymology from the sense relating to woody plants. DCDuring TALK 08:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I have revised the entry and also [[graft]] to distinguish 2-3 distinct etymologies. DCDuring TALK 08:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep; don't convert to &lit. This is too intransparent. Is it for verb graft sense "(transitive) To insert (a graft) in a branch or stem of another tree; to propagate by insertion in another stock; also, to insert a graft upon."? Dicts that have this: MWO[7], where it says "This word doesn't usually appear in our free dictionary, but the definition from our premium Unabridged Dictionary is offered here on a limited basis."; Webster 1913[8][9]. Some images would be nice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


The sense not apparently contrived or manipulated; natural seems to me to be covering the same ground as the preceding sense produced without being planted or without human labor; indigenous, and to whatever extent they differ in meaning, I reckon they probably ought to be merged. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, there is a recurring rediscovery among definition writers that 'things are not always what they appear', leading to an effort to make the dictionary cover both the use of a word to convey the truth and its use to deceive. (Why not another sense for sincere error?) It is reminiscent of the similar recurring effort to have distinct definitions for ironic, sarcastic, or humorous uses of terms. Not to say that these tags are never appropriate.
Delete. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

radio-controlled car[edit]

Total SOP! radio-controlled car --Type56op9 (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete. We need a policy to keep the SOP's from proliferating. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
We do. It should have some relatively objective means for determining whether an entry or definition should be included or excluded. I wonder what we should call it. The name should probably have a positive spin. Hmmmm, I wonder. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The deletionist policy. Donnanz (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Like I keep saying, we have rules, just currently we don't apply them. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 19:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
We should have R/C ("radio controlled") DCDuring TALK 19:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. Donnanz (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I always thought RC was "remote control". --WikiTiki89 23:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It's possibly synonymous in a lot of cases. Remote control is often achieved via radio waves. Donnanz (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I would go as far as to say "almost always". But still, how can we tell what the abbreviation actually stands for? --WikiTiki89 23:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Does it ever refer to actual cars, or just toys? Does it matter anyway? Keφr 19:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Big (and little) boys' toys. Heaven help us if the roads were full of full-size radio-controlled cars. Donnanz (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I remember seeing a radio-controlled shunter (locomotive) in NZ. The loco was controlled by a railwayman on the ground. Donnanz (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Kephir: It refers to larger vehicles, too, but not very often. I found one referring to a "large" one used somehow on a movie set, others referring to vehicles used to move nuclear fuel or other dangerous materials. Here is one from 1921, pictured.
It is highly unlikely to matter very often as context almost always makes it clear, but think of the translators. DCDuring TALK 20:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am going to vote keep for that very reason, as a few translations would be nullified or orphaned. Think of the children indeed. I realise there's an entry for radio-controlled, but I don't want deletion of this entry to go through unopposed. Donnanz (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. PS we have radio-controlled. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l35sUu0u8bk. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete because radio-controlled Purplebackpack89 21:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: it's SOP, it's an easily understandable term, yes, but it seems to be a term belonging to the vocabulary of the language, as the usual name of a toy, and we are supposed to describe the whole vocabulary. The same applies to voiture télécommandée in French. Lmaltier (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I usually against deletions but I think in this case, I think it's not really a dictionary term. Weak delete. There are radio-controlled helicopters, other toys, radio-controlled vehicles is a more generic description. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    • For radio-controlled vehicle, I would have used delete (not a term of the vocabulary)... Lmaltier (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I always thought "RC" was "remote control" as well, User:Wikitiki89. A "remote control(led) car", a "remote control(led) toy" etc. Tharthan (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
        • 'Part of the vocabulary' is just pure opinion, it's like asking someone which is better, the Beatles or Elvis. It's nothing to do with evidence, it's just preference. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as a translation target and possibly per fried egg argument via the tendency to refer to toy cars. Compare the translations that we have with what Google translate produces; we do a better job. Translations that I find worthwhile include Dutch autootje op afstandsbediening French: voiture téléguidée, and Swedish radiobil; by contrast, German funkgesteuertes Auto seems pretty word-per-word. Yes, Wiktionary is a multilingual dictionary that serves a variety of purposes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 02:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

on drugs[edit]

D'you think this might be SOP? My gut says yes. --Type56op9 (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • What we need is an additional sense of "on". Sense 16 says "Regularly taking (a drug)", but you could say that someone is "on crack" or "on PCP" if they are reacting to the effects of the drug at that moment, even if this is the first and last time they will ever take it. bd2412 T 14:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes delete because this sense of 'on' is used with lots of other nouns, such as on acid, on heroin, on crack, etc. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Yep what BD said. Equinox 14:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I have added the sense. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There may be an idiomatic sense that we're currently missing, though; consider "The book is like Gödel Escher Bach on drugs"; obviously a book cannot literally be under the influence of drugs. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Angr: I think that is what we call a metaphor. But what definition(s) would you suggest to cover the range of uses? DCDuring TALK 14:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Is that usage really any different from "on crack", "on acid", and other variations which can be used the same way? E.g., Mike McNichols, On Turpin's Head: A Novel (2014), p. 111: "The Strip is like Disneyland on acid". bd2412 T 15:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It is relatively transparent from a decoding perspective. It certainly should be in a usage example at [[drugs]], as it is at Sense 16 and 17 at [[on#Preposition]]. But, as with every combination, we will hear the deesis: think of the translators.
I suppose for the translators we really need on blood thinners, on heart medication, on a low-dose aspirin regimen (all of which are attestable and in common use, though not necessarily among the youthful). DCDuring TALK 14:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Would those be any different from taking blood thinners, taking heart medication, etc.? bd2412 T 15:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
That's just more that we need for the translators. Wiktionary will never be finished. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
We should make that our motto. --WikiTiki89 18:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It would never be finished anyway - languages continually add words. bd2412 T 18:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I hypothesize that we loosen (or ignore) our standards at an even faster rate than the language adds terms. DCDuring TALK 18:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I hypothesize that we cover greater and greater percentages of the language. I've often added archaic definitions to existing entries...at Ethiopian and Native American in the last three days. Purplebackpack89 23:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 15:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


Rfd-sense: "(computing, programming) interface (as a prefix on the name of an entity)".

Sure, the letter I is used in this way, and this sense is probably citable; but is this a "term" or lexical element that we should include in a dictionary? I don't think so. It's a slippery slope - do we want to be including all w:Hungarian notation prefixes? They're probably citable too, given the number of books written about programming, but I don't think they are "terms"... This, that and the other (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be I- (or i-) for this definition, as it's a prefix? CFI says prefixes should be kept, but then it mentions "i-" specifically in the "attestation vs. slippery slope" section. However, it looks like the mention of "i-" in the slippery slope section is not referring to this prefix, but to words generated with the prefix "i-", and probably the definition pertaining to Apple products. Based on that, move and keep. Purplebackpack89 14:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I would say delete because programming code words are used in programming languages and not in English. Wiktionary covers only human languages. —CodeCat 14:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, but if it's not used in English then it shouldn't be kept as English. In fact (though CFI sadly doesn't mention it) 'all words in all languages' refers to human languages not computer languages. Furthermore, it's my understanding that computer languages don't have words. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I created this and can see why it might be deletion-worthy; the point about Hungarian prefixes is a good one, and e.g. C is also sometimes used as a class prefix. (We shifted the APL symbols to an appendix, for example, and we don't have entries for programming keywords unless they have entered English, e.g. bless, enum.) It does raise questions about the acceptability of some other programming-language items, like ++. Equinox 23:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't we have definitions for scientific or mathematical symbols, though? Compare the four definitions listed under R#Translingual. I can see how it's not quite the same thing, though. (Should we have entries for c-, k-, μ-, or other metric prefixes?) ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 13:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to treat μ and friends as symbols, not prefixes, since the things they form are not really words. Equinox 15:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Although μ- is a special case, since it can abbreviate "micro" in technical terms (μ-electronics, μ-scope, μmeter, μwave). The others can sometimes be used when spelling out unit names (there are plenty of kvolts and Mpixels on Google Books. I don't know whether or not they're worth having. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I've been known to refer to a certain company as µSoft. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, since "I" is neither a word nor a morpheme in a language. It is an item used to form identifiers, and identifiers themselves (e.g. "JOptionPane") are not words in a language, despite often being composed from English words. If we were including attested identifiers used in programming languages as words (three independent uses in source code?), then we could be including I as an item resembling a word used in a closed compound (in natural language, "head" in "headache") or I- as a prefix.--Dan Polansky (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sense deleted. bd2412 T 02:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


"Si Racha fragrant and sweet chili sauce". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Is there a better term for sriracha sauce in Chinese? —Stephen (Talk) 06:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
If a translation table in sriracha is created, then an SoP translation can be added to link individual words as in 是拉差 (Shìlāchā):
  1. 是拉差香甜辣椒醬 [trad.] / 是拉差香甜辣椒酱 [simp.]Shìlāchā xiāngtián làjiāojiàng [Pinyin]Si Racha fragrant and sweet chili sauce --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see sriracha#Translations, I've added some translations, it's possible to simply say 是拉差, which is "sriracha sauce". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete as SOP. - -sche (discuss) 21:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

binary operator[edit]

This is straightforwardly sense 5 of binary plus operator. —CodeCat 23:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I would be inclined to keep it. It is an operator across two operands, it is not an operator which only works in base 2 (the far more common meaning of binary these days), and is thus a term of art. I would add links between it and unary operator and ternary operator as well. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 23:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
This is really something that CFI doesn't clarify. Some things are idiomatic not because they can't be understood as the combination of the parts, but because it's not obvious how each part should be understood in the context of the whole. Or to say that another way, the combination has less possible interpretations than the parts allow for. —CodeCat 00:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Any programmer would understand this, just as with polymorphic constructor, derived class, integer variable, etc. We are not going to solve the "lack of expertise" problem by including obvious SoP combinations as entries. WHY IS THIS STILL AN ISSUE. Equinox 02:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Not being a programmer, I would not understand this, or polymorphic constructor, derived class, integer variable, etc. If I wanted to know what they mean, I would have to look them up, and I would not know which definitions of binary or operator to choose. The correct definition might not even be present at binary or operator; I would have no way of knowing that, since I don’t know what [:binary operator]] means. —Stephen (Talk) 06:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The idea that you wouldn't understand integer variable is not to your case, since "integer" in this case can be replaced by any type, and the Java core libraries alone come with over 4,000 types. String variables and Date variables and complex variables and double variables and real variables and fixed-point variables and JarFile variables and array variables and Option[Vector[String]] variables are all things in some language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Not being a biologist, I don't understand multi-word biological terms; not being a chemist, I don't understand multi-word chemical terms. Not speaking Spanish, I don't understand any multi-word Spanish phrase. Don't you see why your counterargument is inane? Equinox 17:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. This is not a set phrase: the adjective can be used predicatively (“the sum operator is binary”) and with other nouns (“binary operation”, “binary equation”, “binary gate”, “binary sum”, etc.). — Ungoliant (falai) 20:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, since this is unobvious and easily confusing because of the use of the word "binary" in computing to refer to binary digits and binary representation of numbers and other things. "binary operator" is one that takes two operands, althought one might think it is an operator that operates on bits AKA binary digits. Thus, bit complement operator is a unary, not binary, operator. "binary equation" uses a different sense of "binary" than "binary operator" does. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is still an issue, Equinox. Most people aren't programmers. They aren't going to understand what this is. "Binary" is ambiguous, as Dan notes. Purplebackpack89 23:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    • You stated that "Any programmer would understand this," apparently as an argument to delete. My counterargument is not inane, it demonstrates how silly your original argument is. As for your argument "Not being a biologist, I don't understand multi-word biological terms," that is a very common problem for everyone who has an interest in a discipline such as biology, or who wants to understand a biology text. The best solution, for those who can afford it, is a dictionary that explains these terms. Such dictionaries (dictionaries that address multi-word terms) are high-end and usually pricey. Most English-speaking people do not ever need to look up book in a dictionary, since we all know what it means, but anyone who encounters the programming term binary operator for the first time will need to find a definition somewhere (and looking up [[:binary] and operator separately will not be helpful). To learn the meaning of such terms, it is necessary to have an explanation of the term binary operator. —Stephen (Talk) 13:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Leaf" is ambiguous but (i) we don't have an entry for "brown leaf" and (ii) we actually use "brown leaf" as the exemplar for what should not be kept. So what. Equinox 23:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Furthermore: the non-programmer who doesn't understand what "binary operator" is will also not understand the meaning of "overloaded binary operator" or "bitwise binary operator". So do we need entries for those? How about "overloaded bitwise binary operator"? There comes a point where people must learn how to combine words. Equinox 23:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    I am concerned with the programmer who does not remember what "binary operator" is intended to mean. A specification that would use the term "binary operator" would do well to define the term, IMHO, since otherwise it would fail the standard of unambiguity, which in a specification is important.--Dan Polansky (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    leaf is a term that every English-speaking person understands. Dictionaries only include words such as leaf to be complete, or to show the etymology. "Brown leaf", as far as I know, is not a term; neither is "dead leaf", "crinkled leaf", "rotting leaf", or "dry leaf". But leaf spring is a term, as are leaf bud, leaf gold, leaf fat, leaf brass, and leaf lard. And binary operator is a term. —Stephen (Talk) 13:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Bitwise binary operator" and "binary bitwise operator" are interchangeable, showing that neither "bitwise operator" nor "binary operator" is a set term. --WikiTiki89 01:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Equinox. DCDuring TALK 16:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Non-programmers will certainly have a confusion between the two distinct senses of binary in binary operator and binary digit. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 14:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


Not worth an entry. This is just the sum of satis + -ne, the latter of which sole introduces questions. --Fsojic (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete. We've been through this before with uses of -que, and it's basically the same issue as with forms ending with -'s in English. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep until more convincing arguments are presented than those found at Talk:fasque#Deletion debate. I believe the deletion was not based on CFI. This would not be all that bad, but the salient difference to un-, -ness and English plural-forming -s for the purpose of worthiness of inclusion has not been made clear, IMHO. In my view, "-ne" is not a separate component and thus "satisne" cannot be deleted with the use of WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. Moreover, the definition of "satisne" says "introducing questions" and thus the item seems phrasy, and thus worthy of inclusion. --Dan Polansky (talk)
    Since you've voted against making CFI binding, I assume you mean the fact that the deletion wasn't based on CFI is a good thing. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    In Wiktionary:Votes/2014-11/Entries which do not meet CFI to be deleted even if there is a consensus to keep, I said that each argument for keeping should be based on CFI as far as possible; I actually meant that even arguments for deletion should be based on CFI as far as possible. When I make an argument in terms of "translation target", I acknowledge that this is not in CFI. I see no acknowledgment in this nomination and in the pro-deletion arguments that this nomination lies outside of CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. The difference between -ne and English un-, -ness and plural-form -s is that the English forms are affixes that are restricted in the forms they can be added to and that change the meaning of the word they're added to. Latin -ne is a clitic that can be placed after literally any Latin word that can be the first word in a clause (which because of Latin's free word order amounts to any virtually word at all) and doesn't change the meaning of that word but rather marks the entire clause as being a question. I suspect the primary reason this entry exists at all is to give satin and satine something to link to; but they can link just as well to [[satis]][[-ne|ne]]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Question On satin, the examples include "Satin' omnia ex sententia?" and "Satin' salva sunt omnia?" (presumably these are equally applicable to satisne too, but please correct me if I'm wrong). I don't see the immediate connection here to satis meaning "enough" - I don't know much Latin, so I have to ask: could these sentences be reworded to make another word lead the sentence ("Salvane satis sunt omnia?"?), or is satin saying something other than "isn't there enough...?" here? Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angr. DCDuring TALK 16:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I’m slightly tempted to suggest a redirection to -ne, but that would open the floodgates to hundreds of redirections. --Romanophile (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Why would this redirect to -ne rather than to satis? bd2412 T 01:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

dead broke[edit]

This was deleted before, but I can't find any discussion. Is this considered sum of parts? (I am not supporting deletion, merely opening a discussion.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It's SOP, but I'm abstaining, because it might be useful as translations target, and the lemming principle (if we one day agree on it) might save it.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It was deleted before as "No usable content given" because literally all it said was /* Dead Broke */. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Anyway, I find dead broke,stone broke,absolutely broke,completely broke,entirely broke at Google Ngram Viewer interesting. The only combination outperforming "dead broke" is "completely broke", which covers many cases for which "broke" does not mean "impoverished", such as in "He completely broke up the rod". --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dead is a colloquial word for very, it also commonly collocates with "fit" and "tired". This is not a special or unusual combination. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't seem useful to me. OED attests adverbial dead from the 1700s, and it occurs with any number of adjectives. Contrast with stony broke, which is a keeper. Equinox 21:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Broke is about the 12th most common adjective modified by adverbial dead. It is used mostly colloquially. It has, I think three adverbial glosses, almost always modifying adjectives or other adverbs: "as if dead" (dead asleep, dead pale); "exactly" (dead level, dead ahead, dead even); "very, absolutely" (dead serious, dead set, dead wrong). I can't explain what selects dead in the "very, absolutely" sense rather than any of the other degree adverbs. It may be the other senses are connotations appropriate for certain modified terms rather than others. But it is used with a sufficiently large variety of terms that the combinations do not seem at all lexical. DCDuring TALK 23:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep. One could argue, perhaps unkindly, that if Hillary Clinton can use the term it must be idiomatic. Equinox states that stony broke is a "keeper" probably as it's UK / Australian; I wonder whether the synonym dead broke is used more stateside. The Wikisaurus file is a good idea, gathering together all the terms for being without any money. Anyway, what chance have the terms not have two pennies to rub together and skint as a flint got? Usage of the latter term may be localised, it doesn't Google very well. Donnanz (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
No, "stony broke" is a keeper because it doesn't work with other adjectives: you can't be "stony rich", "stony cool", "stony funny" but you can be "dead rich", "dead cool", "dead funny". Equinox 14:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm dead certain that Equinox is dead right on this and that Donnanz is dead wrong. If Hillary or anyone else uses a term and a modifier together that provides no evidence whatsoever of idiomaticity. I'm amazed that we still have to have a discussion about what constitutes evidence of idiomaticity. DCDuring TALK 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Why would who uses it make it includable? English isn't only used by notable people. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I agree, you're not exactly notable. It may or may not be idiomatic. I see Equinox's point about stony, but I still think "dead broke" should be be kept as a synonym. If CFI doesn't specify this, it ought to be changed. Donnanz (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
CFI is a few weeks away from being a museum piece. Why update it? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd say not have two pennies to rub together and skint as a flint have 100% chance of remaining here unchallenged if created. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


German genitive nominated in diff as "Not the correct genitive, see also de:Archives." I would send it to RFV but some people opposed RFV for inflected forms. Archiv lists Archivs as another genitive. Is this Archives attested and, if not, do we want to keep it anyway? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Looking on Boogle Gooks, I find that it is attested but can probably be safely labeled "archaic". Of all the sources I found that use the genitive Archives, all but one are from before 1835. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added three cites, so keep. I've removed it from the headword line of Archiv, though, since it's archaic, and listed it as an alternative form of Archivs instead. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: Let's assume it wouldn't be attested. Why should one keep it? The only argument which comes to my mind is this one: compared with other words the genitive form could exist or could have exist in theory. But is this the case?
@Angr: 1. one usually doesn't look at [in]flected words, i.e. one would visit Archivs, so that's a bad idea. (When removing it from the head-line, the form could at least be mentioned under "Usage notes" or something.) 2. see Archives, an example from 2006 got added. So it's not archaic. (But maybe rare or something).
- 22:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The example from 2006 seems to be the only one from modern times; at least the only one I've been able to find. I think it's simply a mistake in that book rather than a case of a genuine alternative form. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
A simple search on books.google for "eines Archives" gives around 230 results. When changing it to results from the 21st century (2001-2100, thus just 2001-2014 ATM) there are 33 results. Of couse: a) Some results might be based on wrong OCRs, but that mostly happens with older books resp. books in fraktur; b) Some modern results might just be quotes. Other non-quote examples from modern times include:
  • books.google.de/books?id=ASnOE5bWrEQC&pg=PA411 (2005): "Der einzelne Beleg eines Archives reicht deshalb für die Identifikation eines Satrapensitzes nicht einmal dann aus, wenn zugleich auf ein Schatzhaus verwiesen wird, da diese Verbindung ohnehin typisch ist."
  • books.google.de/books?id=mZIyYyBqyCcC&pg=PA138 (2008): "Daraus geht hervor, dass die Entscheidung zur Einrichtung eines Archives für das Schriftgut des Verlages und zur Bestandsbearbeitung 1985 zum 40jährigen Jubiläum des Aufbau-Verlages fiel."
  • books.google.de/books?id=FW49AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA75 (2013): "Eine Urkunde kann also sowohl als Teil eines Archives, als auch als Teil eines regionalen Regestenwerkes wie ebenso als Teil einer kritischen Edition dargestellt werden."
Thus: "chiefly archaic" seems not to be true too. Maybe rarer (more rare, less common) than "Archivs" might be true. google gives around 1.220 results for "eines Archivs" and around 353 for it in the 21st century. So rarer it is. Furthermore: "Not listed in Duden" (and maybe in some other dictionaries) is true, but is that relevant? - 23:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep of course, definitely exists, we're just haggling over archaic/dated/rare. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]


With the hyphens? --Type56op9 (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Er, no, delete. It does say "attributive form", but in my opinion it's a bit nonsensical even as an attributive form. Donnanz (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete as with Talk:alpine-chough. Equinox 14:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete per Equinox. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The question remains, how is this different to Great spotted woodpecker as an alternative form of great spotted woodpecker when as the first word of the sentence? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: as alternative or attributive form if it passes RfV. I think it's been held that hyphenation creates a new form of a word in a different way than capitalizing the first letter of a word at the beginning of a sentence does. Purplebackpack89 14:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Widsith (talkcontribs) firmly believes that. And I suppose you do. But I think that's it (of people I can think of). Renard Migrant (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks like an RFV matter, I mean if it's really used this way then I guess keep it. It looks pretty strange to me though. Ƿidsiþ 02:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "it's been held" -- by whom? I learned that one should hyphenate compound nouns when such nouns are used attributively, to make it clear how to parse the resulting phrase. This is a contrived example, but assuming that one tells happy stories, and tends to tell them on a particular day, that day might be described as a happy-story day. The hyphen clarifies the parsing. Without hyphenation, the phrase is ambiguous: one cannot tell whether it is a [happy story] [day], or a [happy] [story day].
That's the only difference I'm aware of between great spotted woodpecker and great-spotted-woodpecker -- the latter is the former, used attributively. This degree of difference is roughly equivalent to the degree of difference between dog and Dog, when the latter is used at the start of a sentence, or between dog and dog's when the latter is used as a possessive modifying the following noun.
Delete, per Donnanz, per Equinox. Any multi-word noun takes hyphenation when used attributively. This is a requirement of English grammar and orthography, same as capital letters at the start of sentences. If someone wants to look up this term, and doesn't know enough about English to understand this rule, then I don't think Wiktionary is the website they need to be reading anyway. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 09:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Eirikr, if this is deleted without regard to passage of RfV or not, there are a lot of WORDA-WORDB and WORDA-WORDB-WORDC entries that are alt forms of WORDA WORDB and WORDA WORDB WORDC that would also have to be deleted. Purplebackpack89 14:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Quite likely. An alternative approach to simple deletion would be to convert all such entries that do do not have independently entry-worthy content to hard redirects and/or to, if possible @Kephir:, emend the operation of search to go directly to unhyphenated, spaced forms when a hyphenated form is entered in the search box and the hyphenated form does not exist. DCDuring TALK 15:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete, no different to include Great spotted woodpecker because it's capitalized in headings and as the first word of a sentence. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant:: We do include various capitalizations as separate entries, don't we? We do differentiate forms written together without a space and written with a space, and use the difference in WT:COALMINE, right? I don't understand your "Great spotted woodpecker" argument. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Chiming in.) My understanding (which I accept might be mistaken) is that we never include different capitalization if the only difference is the initial letter, and if the term is only capitalized when occurring in a header or at the start of a sentence. For this reason, we do not and should not have entries at Dog or Tree or Procrastination.
Since the only difference between great spotted woodpecker and great-spotted-woodpecker is the hyphenation, and that hyphenation only (and always) happens when this multi-word term is used as a compound modifier, and since this is a rule in common with all multi-word terms when used as compound modifiers, there is no value in having this entry. If great spotted woodpecker and great-spotted-woodpecker were different in meaning or use in some other way outside the scope of this common multi-word modifier rule, then there would be value in having both as separate entries. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK, it is not true that hyphenation happens always when an open compound is used as a modifier; it seems to be a matter of style and preference. More importantly, we include regularly formed inflected forms, so I see no reason to exclude attested hyphenated attributive-use variants of hyphen-free compounds. Furthermore, I find nothing in CFI to support such exclusion; such terms as not sum of parts, merely predictable from the non-hyphenated compound, but predictability alone does not suffice for deletion or else -ness forms and un- forms have to go. Moreover, great-spotted-woodpecker seems unattested; if we allow such hyphenated forms as long as attested, then we may actually document their existence; if, by contrast, we automatically delete them, no such distinction between those actually in use and those that do not seem to be actually in use can be documented. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 22:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


Italian for Happy - the Disney character. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  • This seems like a job for WT:RFV under WT:BRAND. It requires three cites unrelated to the Disney franchise itself, spanning a year. bd2412 T 23:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    I think you mean WT:FICTION but sure. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I may well have. bd2412 T 01:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I've added some citations written by people not related to the Disney franchise. So I would keep it (just from "all words in all languages"). SemperBlotto (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 15:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


sense: "(computing, Internet, Unix) Any computer attached to a network."

There is also a "server" sense.

This definition has been in the entry with an rfc tag since 2006. DCDuring TALK 17:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Not all hosts are servers, but all servers are hosts. —CodeCat 14:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
... so is a dumb terminal a "host" in this sense? I've never heard it used this way (but I'm willing to learn). Dbfirs 10:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea if this is accurate. Any computer attached to a network, so, in a computer room at a school, a library, etc. are all of these computers hosts? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Apparently my error in choice of venue. The definition can be found in some technical contexts. Keep and add appropriate usage-context labels. and Move to RfV DCDuring TALK 16:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I think a dumb terminal incapable of storing files would not be a host under the definitions (or usage examples) I've seen. But a computer that could store files that would potentially be accessible over the network would be as host, but not a server as it had no special capacities in that regard. But the concept of host might be broader yet. DCDuring TALK 16:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
If we do keep the sense, then we should clarify by restricting the definition: "Any computer attached to a network to serve multiple users and devices" (per Wikipedia). We could possibly add the very restricted and technical sense "Any node on a network" Dbfirs 21:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 14:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Blatino (undeletion request)[edit]

Entry was deleted in 2008 as a protologism, but I believe it is now in sufficient parlance to be undeleted. A Google Books search would indicate that it would pass RfV if taken there. Purplebackpack89 14:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Equinox 14:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • RFD out of scope: this was just a request for restoration, with no RFD-related reason for deletion. Since attesting quotatins are at Blatino, there is nothing more to discuss at RFD or RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
We've allowed undeletion requests before. We could add it to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Header or simply not and have them done here without mentioning it in the header. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I think DanP was looking for some rationale for the request, which is what we ask for. If we don't demand rationales, we won't get them. We need to make sure that we don't allow whimsy to trump group decisions. In this case, a simple explanation of the facts ("an unformatted definition without citations was deleted, but the term seems likely to be citable") would probably have been sufficient for all of us to agree with Equinox's action or at least it would have been a basis for rational discussion. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I should have said "RFD closed" instead. My issue was that the undeletion request was RFV-based (attestation) and not RFD-based (sum of parts). I do not really object to using RFD for this, though; it seems kind of close enough to use RFD. Maybe I should have said nothing, and archive the request seven days after Equinox posted "done". I did not really see a discussion unfolding from the closure. I do support Equinox action, and I wish that this thing gets archived ASAP :). --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
According to policy, this page is indeed the correct place to post requests for undeletion, or at least to discuss pages deleted by administrators. See Wiktionary:Sysop deleted#What if I think the deletion was wrong?. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


Translingual specific epithet. The epithet is actually the genus name Elaphus in lower case. This occurs in taxonomic naming fairly often. Once a word has been used as a genus name in taxonomy, it seems that all subsequent use is in reference to that name, not to the Latin or other word from which the genus name may have been derived. DCDuring TALK 20:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It comes from the Ancient Greek name of the species, and was present as a specific epithet from the initial description of Cervus elaphus by Linnaeus in 1758. As for Lucanus elaphus, Fabricius was following the lead of Linnaeus, who used cervus as the specific epithet for another species. He named other species of stag beetles after deer: alces, capreolus, & dama.
As for general practice: I can't think of any specific epithets that are nouns in apposition that are derived solely from a generic name, though I'm sure some exist. The ones that are clearly derived from generic names are usually in the genitive (very common for host-specific parasites), or with some kind of affix such as -oides or -vorus. Even for those that were simply the generic name, they would be alternative capitalizations of it and thus not deletable if attested (though attestation for taxonomic names can be problematic due to difficulties with the matter of independence). Chuck Entz (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I haven't found elaphus as a Latin word in L&S or in my Late Latin glossary (which does have elaphius as an adjective). Is it Medieval Latin or just New Latin coinage? Given its relative age it seems unreasonable for it to be called Translingual. Should it be moved to Latin? DCDuring TALK 00:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I would guess that it's a Scientific Latin borrowing from Ancient Greek. Try searching on inflected forms to filter out the taxonomic names: elaphorum turns up a specific epithet, but also Latin sentences. That's not to say it can't be translingual, too, but it definitely exists as Latin. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Just to confuse things further, here's a case where the taxonomic name Cervus elaphus is present as the inflected Latin form Cervo Elapho. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
And Elaphus was a genus name, but only from 1827. So my original hasty classification of the epithet as a genus name was just wrong. The use of forms of elaphus suggests it was in use in New Latin, but apparently not earlier. That suggests the L2 header should be be Latin, not Translingual. That elaphi and elaphorum are also used as specific epithets (for pests of deer) is consistent with elaphus being fully absorbed into New Latin. DCDuring TALK 02:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
There's an entry for “ELAPHUS” in Johann Jacob Hofmann’s Lexicon Universale (1698), whose text comprises “ELAPHUS, mons Aſiæ, & Arcadiæ. Pauſan.”, Anglicè "Elaphus, a mountain in Asia and in Arcadia. Pausanias"; nothing cervine, however. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it was used in that way in Pliny. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Right you are. I've added it. Good old Pliny. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, possibly change to Latin: I'm not seeing how this fails CFI. As Chuck notes, the argument is more for RfV than for RfD. Purplebackpack89 05:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    There is no reason to have it as a Translingual term as it is a Latin term. If it were a genus name used as a specific epithet, the genus name (capitalized) would be a Translingual entry. Genus names are sometimes used as specific epithets. When they are, they appear in lower case as a result of the 'grammatical/orthographic' rules applied to taxonomic names. To have the lower case term in addition to the upper case one introduces needless redundancy into the dictionary. If you would like to add the redundant entries, feel free to do so. It would be a way to increase your net contributions without a great deal of effort. DCDuring TALK 16:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
In the real world it seems to be used with a lowercase first letter. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
In the real world sentence-initial words are capitalized. What's your point? Any genus name (capitalized) used as a specific epithet will, in that use, appear without a capital. DCDuring TALK 19:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
As an example consider Datura stramonium, Stramonium being an obsolete genus name. A different, common type of species name is Lynx lynx. DCDuring TALK 00:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
There again, see Datura stramonium, which goes back to Linnaeus, a year before Miller published Stramonium. As I said above, I don't think I've ever seen a specific epithet consisting of a noun in apposition that came from a generic name. The usual pattern is someone taking a specific epithet and converting it to a generic name when they create a new genus. This one is a bit murky, though, because it predates Linnaean taxonomy but was treated as a genus in a couple of pre-Linnaean works. It was, however, also used as a non-generic plant name as early as 1605. As a plant producing a commodity it tends to be treated as uncountable, so there are fewer inflected forms to search for. It does show up in 19th-century pharmaceutical usage in the genitive (i.e. "folium stramonii"), but that's also true of some completely translingual taxonomic names. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm. DCDuring TALK 02:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

jibe ho[edit]

This is an SOP, but I didn't realize it when I created it. (I didn't know that ho was a generic nautical term.) Kaldari (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 14:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

host country[edit]

As per Tea room, some people seem to think that this entry created by User:‎Tooironic is sum of parts, and should be deleted. I am creating this nomination for them. Tea room is not a proper venue for deleting entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete, it means a country that is a host. Most readers can put two words together, we don't need to do it for them every time. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I am inclined to keep but will wait for the discussion to unfold. Present in Collins[10]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I imagine that there could be a meaning in international law, which would probably be idiomatic were it attested. DCDuring TALK 20:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking at several books with "law" in the title and host country in the text, I found none that felt the need to define the term, no matter what they were hosting. But someone else may find such cases. DCDuring TALK 20:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Undecided at the moment. "host family" merits an entry as a translation target, IMO. A Japanese derivation of "host family": ホストファミリー (hosuto famirī). + Korean 호스트 패밀리 (hoseuteu paemilli). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, my copy of Daijirin clearly indicates that their editors parsed this as two words, ホスト + ファミリー. I'm happy to agree that ホストファミリー (hosuto famirī) is a single idiomatic Japanese term, but as English, it isn't idiomatic, and even Japanese learners of English are likely to guess that this comes from host + family. I can't speak for Korean learners of English, but I suspect the same holds true for them. I.e., there's not much need or even value in having host family as an English term, even as a translation target. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
"Most readers can put two words together" isn't in and of itself an argument, if for no other reason than it leaves the ones who can't out in the cold. Purplebackpack89 05:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Seriously? I nearly fell over when I read your comment earlier this morning. If someone is so clueless about English that they cannot string together words, then a dictionary is not the resource they need.
Comments like this make me wonder if you're trolling. That's not hyperbole -- I'm honestly beginning to wonder if you're WF. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
If you want to request for CU me versus WF, go ahead. You'll just be wasting your time. But the argument Renard is making is that words that everybody supposedly knows or can easily be figured out should be deleted. That argument can be reduced to absurdity PDQ: the logical next step after deleting every two-word entry everybody supposedly knows the meaning of is deleting every one-word entry everybody supposedly knows. While Renard is not arguing this, it is a not entirely illogical next step from the "everybody knows it"/"everybody can figure it out" argument. Purplebackpack89 23:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking that logic isn't your strong suit. I don't say that to be mean, or snarky. Just a simple observation. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • As the creator of this entry, I don't mind it being deleted - as long as the relevant senses are included at host. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Tooironic: IMO, Sorry, but you should protect entries you create or not create them at all. You seem to focus on compound words a lot lately, which may potentially be RFD'ed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: For the reasons I outlined in the Tea Room, namely that "host" is ambiguous. Purplebackpack89 05:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    Not a CFI argument. So is red car. After all it could be a Trabant or a railroad car or [] . DCDuring TALK 14:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    Well, it should be in CFI, dammit. And CFI shouldn't be the be-all, end-all that you're making it. Purplebackpack89 18:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought we're ditch CFI. Also, a blue car would them meet CFI because it doesn't mean a depressed or melancholy car. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete 1 & 3, Keep 2. 1 and 3 are clearly just host + country, but the immigration sense is a little odder. An immigrant may be wanted or unwanted, and they may be planning a temporary stay or a permanent move. "host" in its usual senses implies that the host is actively looking after the guest, and that the guest is staying temporarily. You can't (outside the biological world of hosts and parasites, which is not very applicable to humans) host someone inadvertently, and you can't host a permanent resident. Yet google books:"permanently in the host country" and google books:"citizenship of the host country" shows quite a few results where even naturalized, long-term immigrants are described as living in a "host country". Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Ungoliant (below) has persuaded me that what we really need is a new definition of host as "One who provides accommodation for another". Delete all Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    Then do we need an entry for unwelcome guest because of the contradiction between (one sense of) guest and unwlecome? DCDuring TALK 18:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
(To try to bring this back on topic) I wouldn't actually be opposed to an entry for unwelcome guest (it has some unusual metaphorical meanings), although the addition of the adjective "unwelcome" makes its meaning fairly transparent. Here, there's no adjective which can disambiguate. I also have to say, DCDuring's question was perfectly fair, and I don't really need people trying to stick up for me. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete. All senses are host + country. Even if the use of host with regards to migration is found to be special (which I don’t think it is, because you can find usage of human hosts who have perpetual or unwanted guests), we’d need to add a new definition of host as it is possible to use it with a multitude of nouns (hоst nation, hоst state, hоst republic, hоst province, hоst city, etc.). In addition, host country is not even a set phrase because host can be used outside the phrase, as in “the country is host to about 800,000 legal and at least 300,000 illegal foreign workers”. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete all senses per RM and Ungoliant. --WikiTiki89 01:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep per Lemming test. I prefer users to come to Wiktionary, rather than Collins and if we make the Lemming test part of our CFI, we'll stop reduce significantly wasting time on RFD discussions. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
How many lemmings do we need to bake a pie? And does it matter what kind of lemmings they are? I'm not familiar with this recipe. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I've never tasted lemming pie, but, just to add to the recipe, my Millennium Collins dictionary doesn't have it (though the on-line edition does), and the OED has an entry under compounds of host, but not a separate definition. (OTOH, the OED includes host computer and we consider that sum of parts.) Dbfirs 23:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
For the trolls, see Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/January#Proposal:_Use_Lemming_principle_to_speed_RfDs. IMO, no need to check ALL dictionaries (OED, Merriam-Webster) but Collins is a reputable dictionary. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Trolls? What trolls? Where? Purplebackpack89 23:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It was a joke, I meant the "recipes" and "pies" mentioned above. We could make at least a list of approved English dictionaries for the Lemming test, OED, Collins, MW would be a good start. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
As it stands, the lemming test is just another of the many possible markers of potential idiomaticity. The most inclusive list (Pawley's) of such markers did not suggest that any one marker was sufficient. We incorporated into CFI the attestably-spelled-solid test (aka WT:COALMINE) as one sufficient to justify including more common open-spelled forms. We rejected making the lemming test another sufficient test as part of WT:CFI, partially because we could not get toward agreement on specifics, even for a test.
There are many academic discussions of idiomaticity, but it is difficult to find any likely to lead to a sufficient consensus to amend CFI. In addition, since having CFI provides little defense against blathering advocacy of unadopted and even rejected rules, there is little incentive to try to improve CFI. DCDuring TALK 00:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Re: "we rejected". I don't think this discussion is over and I don't think enough editors voted or seriously considered that discussion. A Lemming test rule in CFI would be a lot of help in reducing lengthy and useless discussion and reduce anxiety of editing entries, which might be targeted by RFD's. The list of dictionaries can be voted on. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Re: "we rejected": where is this allegged rejection? In Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/January#Proposal: Use Lemming principle to speed RfDs, I see about 9 posts in support direction and about 3 posts in oppose direction (but please check my counting). There is no unequivocal rejection that I can detect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The devil is in the details. I detected clear evidence of lack of consensus. You have the option of proposing a vote to demonstrate that there is no specific proposal that will be accepted. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
If in doubt, keep. No need for all the argy-bargy. Donnanz (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

stick up for[edit]

stick up[edit]

(Sense 4)

These are redundant, and one or the other should go (although to be clear, I'm not nominating both simultaneously. Think of this as Schrödinger's RFD). On the one hand, I can't think of any way to use "stick up" in this sense without sticking a "for" to it. (You can't just "stick up to the bully", you have to "stick up for someone") On the other hand, you can stick adverbs into this phrase ("stuck up properly for", "stuck up boldly for", "stuck up loudly for"). Since I don't know which should go, I'm going to throw it open to the community. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

stick up for should definitely be kept. Maybe this pair should have been entered separately. There is also an adjective stuck up which is perfectly OK. Donnanz (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't notice that only one sense of stick up is being queried. Maybe a redirect from one to the other would suffice. Stick and up are separable (e.g. Stick your hands up.), while "stick up for" isn't. Donnanz (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Contra SMurray, searching for stick up to shows that some dictionaries have it (though no OneLook references do) and that there is some usage, not all dated, mostly colloquial. What's more, it has two senses: "defy" and something like "remain committed to (a statement or position)". But I can't find a justification for a sense of stick up that is common to both, except {{&lit|stick|up}}, used metaphorically only with one or the other following particle. I don't know whether one can say "I stuck up to ("defied") him for her" rather than "I stuck up for ("defended") her to him."
Keep stick up for. Add stick up to. I don't think we can rely on users who search for "stick up" to page down to Derived terms to find either stick up to or stick up for. So I think we need to keep the definition line at stick up that corresponds to stick up for and add one that corresponds to stick up to. By my lights those definition lines could read: "(with for) See stick up for." and mutatus mutandi for to. DCDuring TALK 14:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep stick up for. "Stick up" in the "stick up for" sense doesn't work unless followed by a preposition, so it may not be viable. Purplebackpack89 14:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep stick up for, and delete relevant sense from stick up. --WikiTiki89 21:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    Maybe a redirect from "stick up" to "stick up for" would be desirable, as I suggested above. Donnanz (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    I think you mean a link, not a redirect. A redirect deletes the other three meanings. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    A link or redirect, whatever you want to call it, from sense 4. Donnanz (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Like Wikitiki89 says. The preposition "for" is not optional so it must be included. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The preposition "for" may be optional, but there has to be a preposition of some sort. Purplebackpack89 17:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • BTW, The existing definition 4 is completely inadequate in any event as it does not really fit the cases where one in standing up for someone or something other than oneself. DCDuring TALK 19:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

stick up (senses 1 and 3)[edit]

(Since this is a separate nom, I'll separate it Smurrayinchester (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC))

(Thanks Smurrayinchester. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC))
Separate nomination, "To put up by sticking." and "To be prominent; to point upwards." should be converted to {{&lit}}. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I certainly agree we should delete "To put up by sticking" and add {{&lit|stick|up}}. It does not seem to be at all a phrasal verb. Depending on what is being stuck + up there are synonyms. For example, He stuck the poster high on the bulletin board. Adverbial high is a specialization of up.
I'm less certain about the other, though adverbs like out and down and many prepositional phrases seem to play the same role as upDCDuring TALK 18:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep 4 Keep 3 What sense of "stick" does this use? I can't see any way of forming this from stick + up. Don't care massively about sense 1. Smurrayinchester (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    I think the question is whether it can be used and defined apart from its use in stick up for ("defend, advocate on behalf of") or the missing (IMO) stick up to ("defy"). I wondered above whether there should not be sense lines in [[stick up]] that refer users to [[stick up for]] and [[stick up to]]. DCDuring TALK 19:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant "3", not "4", refering to Renard Migrant's nomination of the "be prominent" sense. Stupid mistake on my part. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
MWOnline has no less than 10 definitions of intransitive stick in addition to 16 for transitive stick. Sense 5 is: "project, protrude". I think that fits. The define protrude as "to jut out from the surrounding surface or context <a handkerchief protruding from his breast pocket>" One could substitute stick out into that usage example and get the less formal a handkerchief sticking out from his breast pocket. DCDuring TALK 23:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep current sense 1 "To put up by sticking" and sense 3 "To be prominent; to point upwards". Not obvious to me that these are sum of parts. (Nominated in diff.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

of importance[edit]

SOP? --Type56op9 (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Of course is clearly not SoP. (Try inserting an adjective.) Some OneLook dictionaries have of note; none have of importance, of interest, of import. Some former uses of of may not be productive, ie, "natural", any more, in contrast to, say, its use in partitive genitive constructions ("barrels of oil"}. But many such uses are transparent semantically.
Of note may be idiomatic because of the use of note#Etymology 3. I don't think note currently has the sense "reputation; distinction" in uses other than with "of", at least not often.
There are other expressions with of that are or have a greater prospect of being entry-worthy: of a kind, of a mind/of a mind to, of a piece, of all things, of all the nerve, of counsel, of old, of yore.
I'd say of importance is SoP. DCDuring TALK 14:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete, transparent and also in no way unique. How about a chess move that's of brilliance or of genius? Just a way of using of with an abstract noun. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete and don't create in a house, in a box, on a table, etc. Equinox 16:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think those are anywhere near equivalent. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Me neither. I think of, like by, is now much more grammaticalized than many other prepositions. Some of its older uses are falling away. leaving us with some expressions that are hard to make sense out of by recourse to the components. But this one seems transparent. I just didn't want to jump to an unjustifable conclusion. DCDuring TALK 18:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sum of parts. Easily re-expressed as of significance, of consequence, of import, of note, etc. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep as a predicative adjective. Don't we cater for them? Donnanz (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
WT:CFI#idiomaticity "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." That's why. PS does it still count as harassment if I'm answering a question? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
You were OK until you asked a question, I think. DCDuring TALK 14:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • One thing that reminds one that this is genitive is that having is a substitute for of. Interestingly and tellingly having does not substitute in any on the list above of "of" phrases that I conjectured might be entry-worthy, except for of a mind to/of a mind DCDuring TALK 13:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

on the ladder[edit]

Looks SOP - on the ladder. Perhaps we need another sense of ladder. In fact, this probably isn't even SOP. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In context it is an obvious metaphor. Ladder has a similar metaphorical use for "a progression". MWOnline has "a series of steps or stages by which someone moves up to a higher or better position" DCDuring TALK 14:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
"this probably isn't even SOP". Keep per nominator? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that in context it clearly refers to property ladder. I will edit to property ladder to fix the actual meaning. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with the term property ladder, but I must confess I understand the previous definition ("A family's lifetime progress from cheaper to more expensive housing") better than the current one ("The hierarchy of owned housing"). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Any of the definitions (other than from WP or us) at property ladder at OneLook Dictionary Search would be an improvement. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I concede that my definition isn't very good. Accurate, but hard to understand. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The previous definition is better in every way but one: it's not correct! It's not a progression or to do with a family, you can live on your own or with friends and be on the property ladder. It's not a progression because you can be on the property ladder without moving. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
For the term ladder to have been applied to home-ownership, obviously the idea of progress is required. Increasing wealth over one's working years is part of the story, but a large part of it is increasing household size which drives need at least as much as an individual's accumulation of things. To a large extent this is a notion promoted by the real-estate industry that they use to encourage the purchase of small homes. DCDuring TALK 14:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: if the nom isn't sure if it's SOP or not, this RfD is a waste of time. Purplebackpack89 21:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


grammatically incorrect; the plural of 'gaijin' is 'gaijin' 09:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • In Japanese, yes. In English however, "gaijins" seems to be pretty common (I've added some citations to the entry), just as people talk about kimonos, katanas, bonsais, sumos, sudokus, samurais and ninjas. Words often change grammatically when borrowed from one language to another, and what we care about is how the words are actually used by speakers, not about what would make grammatical sense in the original language - otherwise we'd have to delete pretty much everything in Category:Wasei eigo... Anyway, RFD is not for challenging the existence of words. If you still think gaijins does not exist, I'd recommend taking this to WT:RFV, although I've already added several examples of the word being used by English speakers. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Not grammatically incorrect because it's a singular with an s on the end to make a plural. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Smurrayinchester, I was baffled to discover that sumos even exists -- sumo is the sport, so it'd be like having soccers or croquets as plural nouns (our current entries are third-person singular simple present indicative verb conjugations).
... And now I'm relieved to discover that sumos is Spanish, and an adjective for that matter, that has nothing to do with traditional Japanese large-person wrestling.  ;)
Regarding the anon's comment about gaijins, Wiktionary tries to describe current usage, not prescribe what is considered "correct" usage. If a term can be found in use (in ways that meet our criteria for inclusion), then either Wiktionary already has such an entry, or our editors will get around to creating it at some point. So it is with gaijins: we have adequate quotes showing usage, so this term is sufficiently cited for us to keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
In English at least (if not Japanese), sumo can also mean sumo wrestler (see sense 2) and it has the plural sumos: [11], [12], [13]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • [...shudder...] Ah, well. Change is the nature of the universe. Anicca, anicca...
(Huh, looks like we're missing that entry.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
@Smurrayinchester I can agree with all of those being able to be pluralised with -s except samurai. I've seen attestations of it being pluralised that way, but it seems ungrammatical to me.
As to gaijin, I don't think it's correct to pluralise it with "-s", but at the same time I don't give a blast about that word anyways, so I will abstain from voting. Tharthan (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Tharthan: Correctness isn't a criteria by which we keep or delete entries here -- simply whether a term can be shown in use, in sources that meet WT:CFI requirements.
Correctness is something that merits additional information in an entry, such as a “proscribed” context tag, or a usage note explaining the details. gaijin / gaijins etc. would probably benefit from such additions.
(FWIW, I agree with your impressions about the plural forms, but then, I'm also a Japanese linguist, and that colors my views.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
@Tharthan: the relevant words here are "I don't think". You alone don't get to decide which words English speakers use and don't use. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
@Eiríkr Útlendi Yeah, I know. I wasn't voting as much as I was commenting. I was more intending to suggest something along the lines of what you just said; a proscribed tag.
@Renard Migrant: I think you misread the tone of my comment. I was simply giving my tuppence worth. I wasn't claiming it was any more important than what anyone else was saying. Tharthan (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


this is bulgarian word not english —This unsigned comment was added by Vladimirge5 (talkcontribs).

If it’s a real Bulgarian word it should be kept. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

working class[edit]

Adjectival sense, looks purely attributive --Type56op9 (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

google books:"very working class" shows true adjective usage, but it’s much more commonly spelt with a hyphen. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I would say delete on this occasion. We have an entry for the noun, and the attributive adjective (working-class), and I think that is all that we need. Donnanz (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
If it were only attributive it wouldn't merit a separate PoS section. Evidently poor presentation of such terms helps maintain poor understanding of the grammar. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


The following would-be Latin inflected forms of quatio: quatierer, quatiereris, quatieretur, quatieremur, quatieremini, quatierentur, quatie, quatiite, quatiito, quatiitote, quatiunto, quatiere, quatiitor, quatiuntor.

Tagged for nomination by User:Fsojic, who says "I study Latin at University, and can read some authors comfortably enough." In diff, Fsojic removed a conjugation template from quatio as wrong; the conjugation was added in diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete all: The forms have very few Google hits, and I trust Fsojic on this. Any opposition from User:SemperBlotto? From what I recall, we often handle wrong Latin inflected forms without the burden of RFD, and I am okay with this; just a person knowledgeable in Latin chimes in, and the forms get deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No opposition from me. My knowledge of Latin is almost non-existent. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all; those forms do not exist. quatiō should use {{#invoke:la-verb|show|3rd-io|type=noperf}}, but I don't know how to get that to work there. Can you even invoke modules directly in mainspace, or do you have to invoke them via templates? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


This is no more capitalised than any other bird name; which is to say, ornithologists capitalise bird names all the time, but we as a dictionary generally don't (see BP for background). Keith the Koala (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

An RFD is hardly needed here. I found that all infomation given under English for "Mango" was already included in the entry "mango", and deleted the English section of "Mango". --Hekaheka (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


The dative plural of Verbrauch is Verbräuchen. - Master of Contributions (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a noun - "(das) Verbrauchen" means "use", "usage", formed from the infinitive [[verbrauchen]]. Restore and reformat. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
As a rule, we don't include substantivized German infinitives here, unless they happen to be the usual noun form. But that's not the case here; the usual noun for "use, usage" is Verbrauch itself. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Why don't we include them if they're includable? —CodeCat 17:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Because they'd be redundant to the lower-case version. Capitalizing a noun in German is as automatic as capitalizing a word at the beginning of the sentence, so it makes no more sense to have separate entries for stehen and Stehen (which has all the same meanings stehen does, just used substantivally) than it does to have separate entries for horses and Horses. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Adjectives can also be used substantivally, and when they are, they're capitalized (e.g. alles Gute, du bist kein Guter, mit etwas Gutem, etc.) but it would be redundant to have separate entries for capitalized Gute, Guter, Gutem etc. The exception is substantivized adjectives with truly nominal meanings, like Obdachloser and Abgeordneter. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any rule about excluding nominalised verbs or adjectives. They are, admittedly, predictable and any verb can be nominalised the same way - rauchen - "to smoke", Rauchen - "smoking", etc. but we don't exclude words or forms that are predictable in other languages. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
We try to. We actually exclude English words capitalized only in sentence-initial position. We exclude taxonomic species name abbreviations except in special circumstances in which the meaning is not obvious. We exclude English phrases that are hyphenated only for style reasons. We should exclude having entries for many more. Whether such variants are even worthwhile content as alternative forms, with or without hard redirects, is an open question to me. If our search engine can present the main form flawlessly at or near the top of a search list, why bother adding the entry. If they aren't worth systematically adding, then to maintain consistency of our user interface (thereby educating our users) we should eliminate such variations systematically. DCDuring TALK 14:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you mean but this is not the same thing. Nouns and verbs in German behave differently (as expected). Capitalised "Verbrauchen" is not just an alternative form "verbrauchen", it's a neuter noun and "verbrauchen" is a verb. The nominalised verbs are predictable but they have different grammar and usage, not just capitalisation. Compare [[Denken]] and [[denken]]. I don't see it different from English -ing forms, which are predictable but we keep them. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Atitarev: I was using as a rule to mean "in general"; I didn't mean we had an actual rule. The difference between German capitalized infinitives and English -ing forms is that -ing forms have an actual suffix on them, while capitalized infinitives are no different form lower-case infinitives except in their capitalization. The thing is, virtually any part of speech can be treated as a noun in German, and is capitalized when it is so treated. If we start adding separate entries for all these capitalized forms, we will double the number of German entries while not actually adding any value, because the new capitalized entries won't tell us anything the old lower-case entries didn't. IMO we shouldn't have Denken, which doesn't mean "thought(s)" as the entry says (that's Gedanke(n)), but merely "the act of thinking". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
While I agree that there will be duplication and (possibly) little value for people who are comfortable with basics of the German grammar but I still don't think it's fair to delete such entries or not allowing others to create them. The efforts of making such entries could be a job for a bot, not for a human editor. Nominalised adjectives still behave like adjectives (so "Gutes" may not need an entry, if we have gut) but nominalised verbs behave like nouns, e.g. "des Denkens" is the genitive definite form of "das Denken" and nouns should have declension table, verbs - conjugation tables. I don't see any problem with increasing the number of German noun by simply adding capitalised verbs with a declension table. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
But nominalized adjectives don't behave like adjectives; if they did, they wouldn't be capitalized. The same goes for nominalized prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, and so on. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Nominalized adjectives behave like adjectives in most cases as per declension.
Pls compare with the Dutch denken, which has both verb and noun sections, which don't even differ in capitalisation. We need a clearer policy on German (and Dutch, etc.) nominalised entries. I favour wider inclusion of nouns, whether they are predictable or not, derived from verbs, etc. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I feel certain we had a discussion about this somewhere before; can anyone find it? One point I recall being made is that nominalized verbs inflect as nouns — one speaks of something happening während des Schwimmens, während des Denkens, etc. - -sche (discuss) 22:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
That's my point too. We can't assume users will know the grammar of the noun Schwimmen if they know the verb schwimmen. Sorry, I don't know where that discussion is. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this one, Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2012/July#German nominalized infinitives? -- Curious (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
That's the one; thanks for finding it! :) - -sche (discuss) 21:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
So, please restore as per Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2012/July#German nominalized infinitives (thanks Curious for finding it). --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


The plural of Liter ist Liter. - Master of Contributions (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


Seems to be self-promotion - I can't see any uses of this term other than as a trademark. Keith the Koala (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel this is an WT:RFV matter. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
This looks like a great candidate for a speedy delete. I'd do it except for RM apparently disagreeing. I don't see why the spammer should get 30 days of prime advertising placement on RfV. DCDuring TALK 14:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and speedied this. google books:"swpp" "software proposal" got zero book hits, and only one web hit suggestion, which is the website that uses Software Proposal Portal as its business name. Meanwhile, google:"swpp" "software proposal" to search the wider web says it gets 360 hits, collapsing to 31 when you actually page through them, all of which appear to be evidence of this company spamming every platform available to try to raise their profile.
I also note here that Equinox already deleted a nearly identical entry in mid-November.
Flagrant spam, deleted. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Support speedy; thanks for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


How many distinct definitions of cooperation are there? Ignore the entry for a second and decide if you were writing the entry from scratch, what usage would not be covered by 'The act of cooperating'? Now to the entry itself

Active help from a person, organization, etc.

An orderly sharing of space or resources.

Association for mutual benefit, such as for purposes of production or purchase.

I don't think 'active help' is cooperation because it's not mutual, you can't cooperate with someone without their consent or against it, but you can help someone without their consent or against it

Orderly sharing of space or resources, this sounds like a specific example of cooperation

Sense #3 sounds like another example of cooperation. To me, it just sounds like the act of cooperating by another name.

This previously went to rfd (see Talk:cooperation) when there were seven senses and it failed to reach a consensus. Perhaps with only four senses, we can do it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


The Duden says, "Modelles" is wrong, it is just "Modells". The German Wiktionary has also just "Modells". - Master of Contributions (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. We don't go by Duden; we go by actual use. (Modelles*50),Modells at Google Ngram Viewer; google books:"Modelles" (which finds many non-German hits, but also plenty of German ones). However, we should be able to tag a form as rare. When you constrain Google Ngram Viewer to run up to 1920, you even get the factor of 8[14]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


Supposedly a misspelling in Spanish. Far too uncommon to warrant an entry, IMHO --Type56op9 (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. yac,yak at Google Ngram Viewer in the Spanish corpus does not suggest as much; not sure how many of the hits are for something else, though. With no frequency argument provided, there is no case for uncommonness being made, just a bare claim. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems to be incredibly common. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

relaxa e goza[edit]

An anon left feedback wondering why this isn't glossed "relax and enjoy" since gozar means "enjoy" as well as "cum". I said either way, it's SOP, so I'm bringing it here. Unless this has some idiomatic meaning not currently covered in the glosses, it should be deleted. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete this unbelievable entry. Absolutely SOP and falsely defined.
The story behind it is that around 2006, when Brazil was having delays in its airports and people started complaining about the long wait times, a politician told them to relax and enjoy [their stay in the airport].
Some people seem to suffer from the delusion that a famous person saying something makes it idiomatic or somehow special (i.e. Talk:culona inchiavabile). — Ungoliant (falai) 16:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete or I suppose create relax and cum and relax and enjoy. It's not an idiom it's a sentence. WT:CFI does not say all sentences in all languages! Renard Migrant (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

water powers[edit]

The main entry for water power says it's uncountable, which is correct in my opinion. Donnanz (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 15:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Water power is countable. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what sources you're looking at. Power can be countable or uncountable, depending on the sense. In this sense it's uncountable. Donnanz (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
google books:"water powers". — Ungoliant (falai) 20:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that in some cases it's water rights that are being referred to, rather than the use of water to provide power, whether it's a watermill or a hydroelectric power station. It seems that the water rights sense may be American and Canadian. Donnanz (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
We have identified a conceptual problem that apparently affects how we want to present things on the inflection line. The sense of water power that is countable is the unidiomatic countable one of power (legal) with respect to water or waters. That is not in the entry, as Donnanz correctly observes, nor, IMO, should it be. Our custom is to insert a 'definition' line "Used other than as an idiom: see water, power". If we take that kind of definition (too) seriously, we might say it forces us to should water power as both countable and uncountable. I don't think we do take those pseudo-definitions seriously in that way. We might be better off to move the pseudo-definition to Usage notes rather than subtract meaning from the inflection line. We could also make the case for removing any discussion of countability from the inflection line, but that would have to be at the cost of inserting un/countability labels before every single English noun definition, well more than 100K of them.
In any event, the definition of water powers as given is incorrect. I would venture that a correct definition would be SoP. We can always RfV it, the result being almost certain deletion, though with a delay and at the cost of some effort. DCDuring TALK 20:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure? Many of the hits for water powers are about the generation of electricity. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
RFV not RFD matter? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Ungoliant: That may be referring to the granting of powers for the use of water for power generation. It gets confusing. Also it may be plural only in that sense. Donnanz (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
It is tedious to search through the citations as many are not of "water" "powers" consecutively despite the use of "water powers" in quotes as the search term. Of those that are, many are not in any related sense. But some are indeed countable uses of water power, apparently referring to a site where there is a head capable of generating power, often just a simple water wheel. The use seems to be dated or archaic.
Of the 26 instances of water powers at COHA, only two are published after 1928, one a short story by Mark Twain apparently republished in 1988, another in a 1944 article quote a letter written to Mark Twain (d. 1910) about water-power rights. It does not appear in BNC. It occurs once in COCA in an academic article apparently discussing water-power rights in Canada c. 1944. Thus it should be labeled dated, I think. DCDuring TALK 22:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


All plural forms, also the dative plural, are Designs. Maybe change the entry to a substantive "das Designen". - Master of Contributions (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Acinetobacter baumannii[edit]

RFD of the English section as redundant to the translingual one. Is there any reason to include an English section (i.e. English-specific plurals, like Tyrannosaurus rex has)? — Ungoliant (falai) 01:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. The anon contributor probably wanted to insert as much content as possible at this entry and at [[Acinetobacter]]. It is not obvious how to make a link from [[Acinetobacter baumannii#Translingual]] to [[Iraqibacter#English]] as Iraqibacter is probably not a 'Translingual' synonym and it is not clear that we would welcome a slang register for Translingual. This is yet another reflection of the confusing position of Translingual entries. If we approved of having Translations sections in Translingual entries then that might be a plausible home for vernacular names like Iraqibacter. Does anyone have any preferences for where "Iraqibacter" should appear in [[Acinetobacter baumannii#Translingual]]? Synonyms? See also? Translations? Under a new 'Vernacular names' header? DCDuring TALK 02:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I’m OK with translations. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)