Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
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

Templates:

Shortcuts:

See also:

Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. One of the reasons for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "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. Note that talk pages containing such discussions are preserved even if the associated article is deleted.

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

Oldest tagged RFDs

Contents


December 2014[edit]

cooperation[edit]

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)

Senses #1 and #2 could be merged, since they express more or les the same concept, but sense #3 is distinct because it can refer to the organization or association itself rather than to the act of cooperating. --Tweenk (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The definitions look like the product of some kind of encyclopedic, not lexicographic, effort. I would rather start over (RfC?) than work with the confused mess we have, but the RfD process limits us and may help preserve some of the translations.
I find that the most helpful thing one can do in defining English words is find any grammatical distinctions. For English nouns, a countability distinction commonly requires a distinct definition. Also, for a noun that is clearly associated with a specific verb, inclusive definitions either refer to the definitions of the verb or have to duplicate the senses of the verb, though possibly some verb senses may not carry over.
Sense three, because it starts "a" is countable and therefore distinct from the other senses. The most general countable definition would be something like "an act or instance of cooperating". Which definition is close to sense one "The act of cooperating", which is confusingly (mis)labeled as uncountable. "An orderly sharing" (sense 3) is possible among inanimate things whereas cooperation is usually among animate things, though I could imagine it being applied to, say, computer processes. Thus sense 3 seems wrong.
I think the more common uses of cooperation are uncountable. A general definition is something like "The process of cooperating". I suppose that senses two and four would be included in such a definition, though they seem at best to be two arbitrary classes of cooperation. Moreover, "active help" (sense 2) is a one-sided giving, whereas cooperation is essentially mutual. Thus sense 2 seems wrong.
Perhaps the best way to save the translations is to make sense 1 countable and make sense 4 the uncountable sense or make it a subsense of a new general uncountable sense "The process of cooperating." DCDuring TALK 14:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
This would preserve the bulk of the translations, as sense 2 and 3 have little not in sense 1 and 4, except in for words translating sense 2 that mean "help", not specifically cooperation. DCDuring TALK 14:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Let's get this closed out. bd2412 T 13:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

As of 9 May 2015, there are no attested usages for any senses. How can there be consensus about whether any sense is idiomatic? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Idiomaticity is not being challenged here. Redundancy is the issue. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep sense three as distinct; I believe that this is the sense reflected in co-op, a specific kind of entity rather than an abstract concept. bd2412 T 19:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Striking as no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 16:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

raucous[edit]

Rfd-redundant: "loud and annoying" redundant to "disorderly and boisterous". Look at the usage example 'raucous party', which would be as good under the "disorderly and boisterous". So delete/merge and improve. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Raucous needn't imply annoying. Equinox 21:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Equinox: A few dictionaries do include the reaction of the hearer in one of the usually two definitions: eg, "Making or constituting a disturbingly harsh and loud noise" Oxford US. "harshly or hoarsely loud" Collins. "disagreeably harsh or strident" MWOnline. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that we delete this sense, but add the "loud" connotation to sense 1. Dbfirs 10:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
MW 1913 has "Hoarse; harsh; rough; as, a raucous, thick tone. His voice slightly raucous." (no mention of "loud") and not the "disorderly and boisterous" sense which is the most common current one, IMO. So meaning has changed. The dictionaries that incorporate into a definition the hearer's reaction to the noise always include "harsh/strident/hoarse/grating" in the definition. The "disorderly, boisterous" definitions do not include the hearer's reaction. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
As of 9 May 2015, there is only one attested usages for the criminal sense. How can there be consensus about whether any other sense is idiomatic? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
That's not the issue. The issue is redundancy, not idiomaticity. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: redundancy is not a term found in WT:CFI. Which standard guides this? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The question is not whether the word should be included but whether the separate definition is correct. bd2412 T 18:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Striking as no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 16:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

double radio-source associated with a galactic nucleus[edit]

Sum of parts (and the plural) SemperBlotto (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  • It seems like it might be a set phrase. I find it interesting that the commonly used abbreviation, DRAGN, requires an unusual selection of letters from the initial phrase (a direct acronym would be more like "DRSAWAGN" or at least "DRAWGN". Can this be reworded and maintain the same technical meaning? bd2412 T 21:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • More likely, the phrase was coined for the purpose of providing a suitable acronym, and is probably only found in actual use as a gloss for the acronym. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      Oh, you cynic. DCDuring TALK 03:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      There are three Google Books hits, albeit one is in German. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It is not sum of parts. It is not any old set of two radio-sources that are associated with any galactic nucleus. For instance, it is not about two radio-loud pulsars that orbit the galactic nucleus. Nor it is for a pair of H-I regions inhabiting the galactic nucleus region. Etc, off to infinity, for all the varieties of radio sources that can be found close to galactic nuclei. It is specifically about the configuration of radio lobes carved out of the extragalactic medium that line up with the galactic nucleus, which are detectable from Earth. If one or both of the radio lobes are not detectable from Earth, then it doesn't fit, even though theoretical models of the galaxy will feature two lobes. -- 65.94.40.137 05:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Semper. We cant't include every seven-word combination which has an exact meaning. Very often they have. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
As of 9 May 2015, there are no attested usage added.
DRAGON is a name proposed in 1994 for such phenomena The snippet shows it seems to be part of a working vocabulary in astronomy. Here are three usages that need to be examined, since the snippets do not inform enough about the gloss: The universal book of astronomy , Galaxies in turmoil, Jets in extragalactic radio sources. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Striking as no consensus to delete; the entry may still fail RfV. bd2412 T 16:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Buraq Wall[edit]

"A wall connected to the al-Aqsa mosque." We have no criteria for including or excluding placenames, so the question is, what level of granularity is too much granularity? (Hilariously, the larger place, al-Aqsa mosque, is a redlink.) - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Funny, en-Wikipedia article on al-Aqsa does not mention Buraq Wall, but it is the same wall that the Jews call Wailing Wall, and which is more neutrally known as the Western Wall. The Arabic name for that particular wall translates word-by-word as "Buraq Wall" into English. Buraq, as we remember, is the name of the heavenly horse-like creature that took prophet Muhammed from Mecca to Jerusalem and back. Muhammed reportedly tied Buraq to this wall during his stay, hence the name. It's undeniably a remarkable place. If we decide to keep it, we might want to create a main entry of "Western Wall" and make "Buraq Wall" and "Wailing Wall" refer to it as its Muslim and Jewish names respectively. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

derogatory[edit]

Sense 2 seems to describe a noun, and i can't find it in any other dictionary. Not to mention how cumbersome it is to read. —This comment was unsigned.

The noun is "derogatory clause", so this is in fact an adjective modifying "clause". The definition may be outdated (a Google search suggests it comes from Rawson's 1884 Pocket Law-Lexicon) but that isn't a reason to delete it altogether. Equinox 20:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Move to derogatory clause. The definition we have appeared as a run-in in MW 1913, which does not mean that it takes the PoS of the headword. Thus it is arguably "created in error".
Further, derogatory clause seems to have another meaning, possibly a generalization of the one in question: "a statutory or contractual provision proclaiming that the document in which it appears, or a part of the document, cannot be repealed or amended."
I don't think it will turn out that there is use of derogatory in these senses apart from the word clause, either as derogatory clause or clause derogatory, but that would depend on someone attempting to create an adjective definition. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking at derogatory clause at OneLook Dictionary Search I see no entries but derogatory clause in a testament at OneLook Dictionary Search show three references containing entries, run-in or full, and one with a null redirect. DCDuring TALK 21:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I found "if the clause be derogatory", so I disagree with the proposed move. Equinox 22:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Striking as no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 16:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

tight[edit]

RFD sense: "(sport) Not conceding many goals."

This is just a combination of "6. Well-rehearsed and accurate in execution." and "7. Lacking holes; difficult to penetrate; waterproof." as applied to football. It also seems rather inaccurate - you can't describe a goalkeeper as "tight" no matter how few goals they concede. There was one citation, which I've moved to sense 7. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Many of our sports senses are similar overspecializations of more general definitions and should be rooted out. DCDuring TALK 09:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring:: Why? If a word means something even slightly different in sports than it does generally, it should get a second definition. Purplebackpack89 00:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Tight means something distinguishable in many contexts, but we do users (Remember them?) no service by recording every possible nuance. Our list of definitions quickly becomes useless for humans, however valuable it might be for machines attempting to "understand" human speech. DCDuring TALK 04:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"We do users no service by recording every possible nuance." I completely disagree with that. There is a great deal of use to be had in distinguishing between nuances. I cannot fathom how you and others have convinced yourselves that it is somehow more useful to users to have fewer definitions. Purplebackpack89 06:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
So users can quickly locate something close to what they want. Having "exactly" what they want but making it harder to find is no help. Think cognitive limitations and impatience. DCDuring TALK 14:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's a terrible excuse for not covering the language as well as we should. Our primary aim should be covering the language, not worrying about cognitive limitations. Generally speaking, you only have to read the first couple words of each entry anyways: once you pass the context part, it's clear whether or not you need to read on. Purplebackpack89 16:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"...not covering the language as well as we should"? That begs the question of whether we should cover it that way. There are all kinds of semantic distinctions that could be made: eating an apple involves biting and chewing, eating soup involves drinking, eating many other things involves swallowing whole, eating things like shellfish involves eating only the edible part, while eating kumquats involves eating the entire thing. Creating senses for those would just add clutter without adding anything that people couldn't have easily figured out for themselves. Using categorical statements like that hurts your argument, especially when coupled with over-the-top absolute expressions (one of your most irritating affectations) such as "terrible excuse". I think that, at the very least, the sense in question needs rewording, since tight in sports can refer to preventing all sorts of things- not just goals. If we keep this, it should be a subsense of "Lacking holes; difficult to penetrate; waterproof", and have a definition along the lines of "not allowing opportunities for opponents". We might also consider how well "Lacking holes; difficult to penetrate; waterproof" covers the expession "a tight seal". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
In answer to should we, yes, I think we need to have more precise definitions. I'd also note that this discussion grew out of a desire to have different definitions for sports and non-sports context. Also, there is a second sports-related definition nobody's touching on...when I hear "tight" in sports, I assume people are talking about the score being close. Also, why are you knocking only me for painting with a broad brush, when this discussion started with DC positing that a whole bunch of sports-related definitions should be deleted? Purplebackpack89 21:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, you seem to be of the opinion that Wiktionary should be designed for you, with your God-like cognitive capabilities and unquestionable good taste. But given those capabilities you don't need a dictionary. DCDuring TALK 22:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
How about you spend less time personally attacking me by accusing me of having a God complex and more time explaining why having fewer definitions is a good idea? Purplebackpack89 22:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I said nothing of the kind. I was trying to bring you down to earth, to realize that the ordinary Wiktionary user, for whom we should be developing it, are closer to the average human than to the average Wiktionary contributor in terms of raw capability, education, and patience. DCDuring TALK 22:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
But being of a lower capability and education would favor having more definitions... And I do consider the ordinary user, whom I believe wants as many definitions as possible, and uses other online dictionaries rather than Wiktionary because they have more definitions than we do. Purplebackpack89 22:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Arrowred.png I see this claim, again and again (not just from Purple): “users want _____” Do we have any hard data on any such statement? If so, where do we find it? Is it just a matter of combing through WT:Feedback? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

WMF seems to have many concerns with the means by which information is collected from users. Anything that smacks of tracking user behavior, which is very cheap to do, seems to be out of the question, partially on ideological grounds. Other cheap means of getting information are essentially anecdotal or suffer from selection bias of unknown nature and magnitude. Thus we are forced to rely on WMF's own efforts, which seem never to involve projects other than WP. Feedback is our best shot AFAICT, but it suffers from a selection bias. It might be possible to draw some inferences from the information available from site trackers such as ALEXA, which shows that worldwide Wiktionary users skew greatly toward those with "advanced" graduate degrees, compared to, say MWOnline. See Special:Statistics#See also. DCDuring TALK 23:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
There are some things that don't need a lot of data, like keeping rare, obsolete, archaic, and dated terms out of definitions, where an alternative exists (eg, subterraneous vs subterranean). What plausible definition of our user base could possible justify using such terms? We don't even try to exclude such terms systematically. DCDuring TALK 00:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, I regularly ask people about words, to find out whether they use them, have heard of them, have heard them used in certain ways, etc. My sample is the people in my neighborhood who walk dogs. They mostly have college degrees, but relatively few have advanced degrees. I recommend that all Wiktionary contributors get a dog and talk to the full range of people they meet while walking their dog. Those who live in university ghettos would have to take stronger measures for the same result. DCDuring TALK 00:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's get this right out of the way here. There is no conceivable way by which readers are harmed by our having properly labeled entries for rare or archaic terms, or even arguably SOP entries. People who never look them up will not see them, and therefore will not have any reaction to them at all. The real question is, what do people use dictionaries for? I would think that it is not controversial to say that the most common reason anyone would use a dictionary is if they come across a word in a book or other written work, and want to know something about that word - not necessarily the definition (although that will always be up there), but maybe the pronunciation, the etymology, the relationship it has to words with similar sounds or spellings. We offer features beyond those of the typical dictionary, like translations, citations, and even anagrams. I recall that we used to have some means to see which of our entries were being viewed by the most people. If we could get that back, it would be a great tool to see what readers were finding useful. bd2412 T 02:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record, "people who never look them up will not see them" is not true, because of anagrams, "random entry", predictive search, our pages being spidered by Google, etc. etc. Reminds me of the "if you don't like it, don't read it!" argument of the person who posts daily inflammatory comments on your favourite blog. Equinox 02:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Are we equating definitions with appropriate context tags with inflammatory blog posts? I am sure that the technology exists to leave archaic terms out of the process of creating anagrams. As for the rest, I concede that there is approximately a one in four million chance that a person clicking "random entry" will arrive at any particular entry, although it will actually probably be an Italian conjugation. Predictive search results only come up for those searching for words for which we have no entry, and will not be seen by people correctly typing in titles of existing entries. We can't control what people see on Google, but a Google search quickly turning up an archaic term on Wiktionary is probably a search for that archaic term. There is, after all, a degree to which people actually look for archaic stuff, and want to know its history of usage, etymology, and the like. bd2412 T 22:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with BD. There's no harm in having more entries, more definitions, and more sections. Purplebackpack89 07:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It's perfectly real, just I wouldn't word it this way. For example, not all sports have goals, in cricket and baseball it's runs, in tennis and badminton it's points. Given that it exists and I can't see a definition it's redundant to, I would absolutely keep it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I would like to merge the two poker definitions, #17 and #18 as I write this. But I would prefer to nominate once this discussion is closed to avoid confusion! Renard Migrant (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you can go ahead and merge those. This discussion should not affect that. bd2412 T 12:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Purplebackpack89: yes something even slightly different in sports should get a second definition it is part of the jargon.

@DCDuring, Eirikr: yes, it means something distinguishable in many contexts The entry fails the consumer when it fails to show the consumer the term in the context the consumer wants. I agree with Purplebackpack89. Nuance is the meaning of communication. Two primitive humans grunting certainly wanted to understand the nuance of another grunt.

DCDuring is discussing metrics about user experience (cognitive limitations and impatience) without data. It is not objective without numbers. I can tell you, from experience, that there will be different metrics on various consumer platforms and metrics will change over time. And, you cannot plan for disruptive technological change. The argument is no more than subjective personal bias, which everyone has and varied. Using {{context}} provides the consumer with the cognitive hint at the appropriate sense.

@Chuck Entz: your examples about eating are all about the same category of activity: eating. Your distinctions are relational. Jargon is part of the whole experience of sports. For me, just add clutter is a non-argument and variation of, as I wrote in Wiktionary:Requests for verification#pedophilia recently, a subjective preference for less clarity (diff) about exclusion of the attested criminal sense of pedophilia. Various senses add nuance and clarity. Complaining about style of communication does not affect what was said.

Chuck Entz, I agree that it could be reworded but only after these senses are attributed with quotes (WT:CFI). There is not enough attributions to know how to prune any senses.

Chuck Entz, @Smurrayinchester: I think that walking into a pub, pointing at a TV, and asking if tight means waterproof would emote laughter. All these senses need quotations before reasonable discussion.

DCDuring: thumbs-up to walking dogs and talking to people.

@BD2412: I agree that consumers benefit from precise and accurate {{context}} and such. Wiktionary has great features but it lacks a standards based culture. Even this discussion quietly ignores WT:CFI. I think all terms and all senses belong in wiktionary. It is, ideally, the opposite of censorship found in list of Newspeak words in 1984. —This unsigned comment was added by BoBoMisiu (talkcontribs).

Ailill mac Máta[edit]

Ailill mac Máta (< Máit?)

Amairgin mac Echit[edit]

Amergin mac Echit

Cairbre Nia Fer[edit]

Cairbre nia fer
This meaning of nia (later niad or niath, cf. Modern Irish niata (warriorlike, adj)) isn't there yet.

Cet mac Mágach[edit]

Cét mac Mágach

Cethern mac Fintain[edit]

Cethern mac Fintáin

Conchobar mac Nessa[edit]

Conchobar mac Nessa

Condere mac Echach[edit]

Condere mac Echu (Echach)

Cormac Cond Longas[edit]

Cormac cond longas

Fedlimid mac Daill[edit]

Fedlimid mac Dall

Fergus mac Róich[edit]

Fergus mac Róch

Fionn mac Cumhail[edit]

Finn mac Cumal

Manannan mac Lir[edit]

This is a special case: Manannán is a unique name, possessed only by the god Manannán mac Lir. The elements are probably worth adding in their own right, Manannán in the etymology of the Isle of Man, and Ler in the possible origin of King Lear, and his Welsh cognate Llŷr. (He's also the father in the story of Clann Lir, where his four children were turned into swans by their evil stepmother.)

Per WT:CFI: "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney." (These individuals are of questionable historicity, but the aforecited section of CFI says it "regulates the inclusion and exclusion of names of specific entities, that is, names of individual people, [...] names of mythological creatures", etc, emphasis mine) See also my and others' comments at WT:RFV#Lugaid_mac_Con_Ro.C3.AD. Someone else may want to nominate entries like Conall the Victorious. - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete*, and I find it strange that these are marked English rather than Old or Middle Irish.
(*) Technically, Cairbre Nia Fer and Cormac Cond Longas have neither patronymics nor family names. The names mean (as far as I can tell from Googling - I'm sure one of our Irish speakers can put me straight) Cairbre, Hero/Defeater of Men and Cormac, Exiled Prince. I would assume that this sort of disambiguator would also make an individual ineligible for inclusion, although I see we do have Alexander the Great and Mary Magdalene. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Cairbre Nia Fer and Cormac Cond Longas are other examples of people, not names as names. Is it worth adding a section to Proper noun entries of "Notable bearers" or the like? With wikipedia links, say.
Mythical people is one thing, but gods is another. Manannán is a unique god. Similarly, I can't find any examples of Lugh as people, but there are names derived from him: Lugaid, Lugach, Lugair. The difference is that Lugh has many bynames -- samildánach, lámfada, macnia -- but Manannán is primarily known with his patronym. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 09:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd certainly support adding something like ", name of several ancient Irish kings." to entries like Conchobar and Ailill (which don't yet exist!), similar to what we have at Henry. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

entfernen[edit]

Rfd-sense: two senses added by a non-native speaker:

  • (reflexive) sich vom etw. entfernen, to go absent
  • (reflexive) sich aus etw. entfernen, to leave something

I don't see how these are any different from sense 2. -- Liliana 12:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The "leave something" sense is transparent (given German's relatively strict rules about prepositions, you can expect any verb meaning leave to be coupled to "aus"/"raus"), so delete sense 4 (although it would be nice to have a usage example that shows the use of "aus"). The "go absent" sense is less clear to me, as a non-native German speaker. Does it only refer to cases of running away, or is it equivalent to the broader English "go absent"? If, for example, I don't report for duty (that is, I don't show up at all), have I still entfernt myself from the troop? Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The example sentence is pretty horrible because absent without leave is idiomatic in English. Really, all it means is that you leave the troop. That's it. If you don't report for duty, you never left to begin with, in that case, you'd use sich entziehen. -- Liliana 00:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
In that case Delete both. Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

mania[edit]

Senses 1 and 3 should be merged, IMHO, and I ask for support for this.

  • Sense 1: Violent derangement of mind; madness; insanity.
  • Sense 3: (psychiatry) The state of abnormally elevated or irritable mood, arousal, and/or energy levels.

The phrasing of sense 1 is directly from Webster 1913[1].

The genus of the merged def should be "mental disorder" or "mental illness" since I don't think psychiatry denotes a one-off temporary state of high energy level a "mania".

For comparion: mania at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. The psychiatry term doesn't mean 'madness' or 'insanity', it's a specific medical condition of elevated mood. Madness/insanity refer to many things like hallucinations which have nothing. In fact I suspect #1 is a dated definition not in current use. I believe only the medical definition is in use. Can anyone confirm or refute this? 95.144.169.113 17:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Given there's no overlap in meaning at all, can anyone provide a deletion rationale? 95.144.169.113 16:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I think the Webster 1913 definition (sense 1) was intended to cover the psychiatric sense 3. Yes, mania in the psychiatric sense and madness are not synonyms. I checked mania at OneLook Dictionary Search and found dictionaries only have two senses. Maybe I should have tagged sense 1 with {{rfd-sense}}, but it should not matter all that much since I ask for a merge. Another option is to send sense 1 to rfv-sense to see what sort of support in evidence that sort of definition has. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mglovesfun: added a third sense added 2013: (psychiatry) The state of abnormally elevated or irritable mood, arousal, and/or energy levels. Unfortunately did not attest the quote (from Berrios G. E. (2004). "Of mania". History of Psychiatry 15 (57 Pt 1): 105–124. doi:10.1177/0957154X04041829. PMID 15104084.) correctly, having added attribution (Definition taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mania&oldid=572079138) as an edit comment.
In 2015, @Dan Polansky: improved it and added {{rfd-sense}} (diff).
Looking at both, it seems arbitrary to select one
  • Violent derangement of mind; madness; insanity.
  • (psychiatry) The state of abnormally elevated or irritable mood, arousal, and/or energy levels.
and not the other. No one is adding attributions (WT:CFI) just folks chatting about what they read on the internet. WT:AGF I added the cite, I don't have access to that journal to add a quote. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

sell oneself short[edit]

Included under second sense of sell something short. Should be a redirect. DCDuring TALK 20:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Both of those entries should be redirects to sell short since something is, obviously, not the only thing that one can sell short. In addition to selling oneself short, one can also sell someone (else) short. - -sche (discuss) 17:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Can sell short ever be used without an object between sell and short? I think a lot of our entry titles with something in them could also have a someone as the object, just it would be incredibly pedantic to have two separate entries for them. When I say "ever used", I mean more than incredibly rarely. 95.144.169.113 17:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
We have a few entries that include something as a placeholder in the headword in the way that I think is warranted for this. See some of the items in this search. There are others for which one, one's, oneself, and someone or somebody are placeholders.
The placement of short before or after the object depends entirely on the length/complexity of the object:
"I sold the S&P short." / *"I sold short the S&P".
"I sold short all of the Standard and Poor's index except for energy stocks." / ?"I sold all of the Standard and Poor's index except for energy stocks short."
With enough redirects, either could work. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Diet Coke[edit]

The definition says: "(uncountable, informal) A cola-based soft drink containing no or low amounts of sugar". I think this wrong in two ways (see: Diet Coke):

  1. Diet Coke is not a noun, but a proper noun.
  2. It's not informal, it is a trade mark of Coca Cola Company.

If Diet Coke has become a generalized trademark, the entry should say so. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - also it is countable ("These idiots will have two Diet Cokes please, but I'll have a proper drink.") SemperBlotto (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Comparable (and IMO equally worthless in a dictionary, as non-genericised brands): Cherry Coke, New Coke, Vanilla Coke, Coke Zero, and variants of Pepsi, Fanta, Mountain Dew, Dr Pepper, Irn Bru, 7-UP, Sprite... oh, I could go on. Equinox 13:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: This RfD reveals the fact that we didn't have "diet" as an adjective. "Diet" is put in front of words and/or brands to denote something low in fat, salt, sugar or calories. As such, I have created the adjective sense. Purplebackpack89 15:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    Good point. I'd be happy to see this entry be deleted if we can ensure the relevant sense is covered at diet. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@PBP: I think you're mistaken there, diet is a noun and a verb, and here it's being used as a noun modifier, not as an adjective. Donnanz (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Donnanz: If you're trying to make the case that diet is merely an attributive noun, I would point out to you than when diet is used as a "noun modifier" (your words), it's not used in a way consistent with any of the definitions of diet we currently have. That is why there is a separate definition of diet as an adjective, which has been attested. Purplebackpack89 13:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying diet is an attributive noun - it's a standalone noun. But when it's used to modify another noun, such as in diet cola, it becomes a noun modifier, not an adjective. But there seems to be two different schools of thought here, so if you insist in calling it an adjective in cases like this, it should at least be marked as "attributive". Donnanz (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I have very little doubt that the same people who use Coke as a genericized trademark also use Diet Coke that way. The question is, when they do so, do they spell it diet Coke (in which case it's SOP as diet + Coke) or Diet Coke (in which case it isn't SOP, but a direct genericization of Diet Coke®)? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
WT:BRAND applies. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't buy the stuff, but shouldn't anything other than the brand be called "diet cola"? Donnanz (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I would say keep this entry. Supermarket brands such as Sainsbury's and Tesco (in the UK) tend to be called diet cola, and this could be entered as a synonym. The supermarkets wouldn't be allowed to call their product diet coke. Donnanz (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
If we keep it without getting citations that show that it meets WT:BRAND, it can (and should) be RfVed. Let's skip the step and give this at least a month here to collect citations that meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe that's not necessary; all you have to do is check the product, which I did. Sure enough, the ® symbol appears next to the Diet Coke name on each bottle. Predictably enough the Pepsi product is called "diet pepsi" (that's the way it's spelt) but no ® symbol, even though Pepsi-Cola is a trademark. And Sainsbury's own brand is confirmed as "diet cola". How's that for an afternoon's work? Donnanz (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

kondo[edit]

Protologism? I can't see any usage before 2014. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (p.s. Might need moving to Kondo if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The usage started in Japan but I don't know how far back it goes. Book was published 2001 in Japan. SageGreenRider (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Was it published in English in 2001? If not, when was it used in English for the first time? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Move to RFV. Doubt it will pass, but there is limited usage on the Web. Equinox 16:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Even if it is new, I thought we kept hot words, provisionally at least? SageGreenRider (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    I've tagged it with {{hot word|date=2015-02-26}} which is the earliest citation in the entry. There might be something earlier, perhaps on UseNet. The English translation got a rush of publicity on March 26, 2014, but I didn't find hits for kondoed or kondoing until later. DCDuring TALK 13:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hoechst[edit]

Not dictionary material (not even close) -- Liliana 12:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It might me shown to meet WT:BRAND, if not in a consumer context then conceivably in an industrial one. It should be in RfV, but we can keep it here for at least a month to attract citations that meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 13:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep attested single-word company name, which can host e.g. pronunciation. Best evidence of consensus about company names or its lack I know of is at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. I doubt WT:BRAND applies to it, but maybe there are quotations that show use of this as a brand name for a product or service; I don't know of such quotations, and in their absence, my working hypothesis is that WT:BRAND does not apply. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Convert to an entry signifying that this is an alternative spelling of the place name Höchst (the German city from which the company gets its name). Etymology and pronunciation information would be the same. bd2412 T 02:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Striking as resolved, since the proposed conversion has been carried out. bd2412 T 13:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

pervasive developmental disorder - not otherwise specified[edit]

Highly doubtful we need this as an entry. It basically means what it says on the tin. -- Liliana 12:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 13:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Note that a lot of diagnostic names include "Not Otherwise Specified". Equinox 15:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I wrote that Wikipedia page. bd2412 T 19:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
not otherwise specified seems like a candidate for an entry, as does not elsewhere classified (nec). DCDuring TALK 20:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Also not elsewhere specified. A little coverage for these at OneLook. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep. The current definition is inaccurate. "Pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified" is considered both an autism spectrum disorder and a pervasive developmental disorder in its own right (see the Wikipedia article), and not just a description applied to other disorders. At least it was pre-DSM5. Basically, the DSM5 rolled the separate diagnoses of autism, Asperger's, and PDD-NOS into a single "autism spectrum disorder" diagnosis. There's been some controversy over this change, particularly in the autistic community. Anyway, searching Google Books for "with PDD-NOS" yields results like "children with PDD-NOS" and "individuals with PDD-NOS," further establishing its status as a discrete disorder/diagnosis. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Obviously delete. And correct the plural if we keep it. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This reminds me of the use of incertae sedis in taxonomy. I sure don't think that every taxon ("Taxon") that has some direct members that are of a lower rank than other direct members needs to have "Taxon incertae sedis" as an artificial taxon. That Wikispecies needs such things for presentation purposes does not make them real.
Similarly that DSM publication formatting needs a heading doesn't give any reality to it. DCDuring TALK 21:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

可供軍用, 可供军用, 可耕地, 可得到, 可編程, 可编程, 可共患難, 可共患难, 可讀音性, 可读音性, 可變化合價, 可变化合价[edit]

@WikiWinters: Sum of parts. Wyang (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wyang, Atitarev: I don't always agree with CEDICT when it comes to proper nouns, because some terms are SOP, but I don't think these are in the same category, and all of these terms are found in CEDICT. --WikiWinters (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Why do think they are not SoPs? Wyang (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
If you take 可得到, for example, it has the distinct meaning of "available," whereas 得到 means "to obtain." One is an adjective and the other is a verb. 可得到 is not the same as 可的得到 or 可以的得到, which are both certainly SOP as they are simply literal variations of the original. --WikiWinters (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
可得到 is SoP, as 可 is not tightly attached as in a word, e.g. 1) adverbs may be inserted: one may say 可轻易得到 (that can be easily obtained; easily obtainable); 2) it may act as the predicate of a sentence: 一些小幸福可得到。("Little moments of happiness can be obtained.") These show that its actual meaning is "can be obtained", not "obtainable". Wyang (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, thank you, that's understandable. I shall practice more discretion when creating entries in the future. Do you think all of the terms nominated for deletion should now indeed be deleted? --WikiWinters (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Wyang (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Re: "可得到 is SoP, as 可 is not tightly attached as in a word": Seems to be a non-sequitur: what has deducibility of the meaning from parts have to do with tight attachment? Consider look up and the phrase "look it up" for an English example of a separable non-sum-of-parts term. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep 可耕地, 可读音性 and 可讀音性. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
These are not words in Chinese. Wyang (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
IMO, some terms are worth keeping. I haven't checked well, though. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
A few will pass Lemming test. Terms 可耕地, 可共患難可共患难 are also included in the ABC dictionary, which is shipped with Wenlin software. 可共患難可共患难 seems very idiomatic. Component seems a very productive prefix to form "-able" adjectives (in English translations), e.g. Wenlin generates a big list of such words, just a few, which we are currently missing:
--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This should have been posted as individual items. I don't envy the editor who is going to close this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • These terms should be assessed individually.
可供軍用 - Delete. Not idiomatic.
可耕地 - Keep of course. This is in the 現代漢語規範詞典 for goodness sake.
可得到 - Delete. Sum of parts.
可編程 - Delete. Sum of parts.
可共患難 - Keep. Idiom. We should also add the idiom 可共患難不可共安樂.
可讀音性 - Keep. Technical term.
可變化合價 - Keep. Technical term.
---> Tooironic (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Are technical terms a problem? We have English technical terms. --WikiWinters (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
可耕地 means "arable land" not "cultivable"! 可共患難 should be deleted; 共患難 and 可共患難不可共安樂 can be kept. 可讀音性 - not a technical term and not a word in itself - there is something wrong when what you yield on Google is nothing but foreign dictionary hits. 可變化合價 - not a technical term, sum of parts 可變 and 化合價. Wyang (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nutcracker[edit]

The name of a ballet? I'm sure this will stay put in the end, but hey...you never know. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The name rings a bell. Or is it the Nutcracker Suite? Donnanz (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete: like book titles, IMO doesn't belong here. Equinox 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I love the ballet, I've seen it twice. Nevertheless, delete. Not dictionary material. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain. If the name of the ballet had anything lexicographically interesting about it, I would vote keep. But this is capitalized common noun nutcracker, so no interesting pronunciation and etymology can be expected; the current translations provided in the entry seem to be translations of the common noun nutcracker. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I would be inclined to keep it for that very reason. Donnanz (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete. If a name of a ballet is included, next thing is an opera, then a play, then poem, book, plays, poems, books, operas…--Hekaheka (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

…then poems about aoperas about books. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

negativity thinking[edit]

I'm feeling somewhat borderline about this entry. So I'm not advocating deletion, but it still smells a bit SOPpy. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

ː For sure, it is easy enough to deduce the meaning from the parts, but if it was purely SOP, wouldn't it be "negative thinking"? Partly, it may be my definition does not do justice to the jargon-y way it is used. I was trying to avoid sounding judgemental one way or the other, but it is used by the "Postive thinking" people as a put-down of any sort of criticism, or questioning of the doctrine of positive thinking̃

Posterity will thank us for attesting this awkward bit of minor-league psychobabble, won't it? DCDuring TALK 11:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
It sounds so weird I'd actually keep it. Because to me it doesn't make any sense. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The more usual form is negative thinking. I don't see much value in this entry. Donnanz (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
That is just the reason for this entry. I'm the one who added it, and I did so because I stumbled on it while reading and thought it sounded weird and awkward. I figured there must be something more to it than just negative thinking, or why would it be such a strange wording. That led me to do some digging and then create the definition. I think it of use to others who, like me, run across the phrase and think - am I missing something here? Kiwima (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

strijderin[edit]

This word has been rdf for quite a while.

The normal feminine form for warrior/fighter stijder is strijdster in Dutch and I had never heard of strijderin. Goolge produces mostly omitted spaces in the combination "strijder in ..", but WNT does mention it as "unsual" in an article from 1925, and there is a few hits from around 1800 that say the same and mention strijderse as another unusual and archaic alternative. Perhaps keep, but mention as rare and archaic? Gunmhoine (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted (well, moved) per the linked-to RFV. - -sche (discuss) 22:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

haematopoesis[edit]

Needs deletion, the correct spelling is haematopoiesis (see also hematopoiesis and Oxford). Donnanz (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

(This is an RFV issue, but nvm) Seems to be a not uncommon misspelling (rate approx 1/50)
  • 1916, Charles Russell Bardeen, Irving Hardesty, John Lewis Bremer, Edward Allen Boyden, The Anatomical Record
    Nevertheless, it is possible to notice certain features of the haematopoesis in the bone marrow, characteristic for this organ, which appear already in the embryo and are very conspicuous in the adult animal.
  • 2004, Dr Timothy T. Marrs, Bryan Ballantyne, Pesticide Toxicology and International Regulation, John Wiley & Sons (ISBN 9780470091661), page 177
    In medium- and long-term studies on mice, rats, and dogs, haemolytic anaemia with compensatory increased haematopoesis and increased methaemoglobin content was observed.
  • 2006, World Health Organization, Pesticide Residues in Food - 2004: Toxicological Evaluations : Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core Assessment Group, Rome, 20-29 September 2004, World Health Organization (ISBN 9789241665209), page 372
    They showed haemorrhagic lesions in the stomach mucosa, blood- filled and dilated alveolar vessels, degenerative processes in proximal kidney tubules of females, atrophied spleens with signs of decreased haematopoesis, some giant spermatids in testes, and decreased haematopoesis in the bone marrow of males.
Change to {{misspelling of}}. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The ratio of 50 ((haematopoesis*50),haematopoiesis at Google Ngram Viewer) suggests an alternative spelling to me rather than a misspelling. Keep, obviously. This is not a RFV issue since attestation was never in the slightest doubt: this is obviously attested in use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I found afterwards that SemperBlotto made (or listed without entering them) quite a number of similar entries. So maybe treating it as a misspelling may be the best option. It is a difficult word to spell after all. Donnanz (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Kept as a common misspelling. bd2412 T 13:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]

loop tape[edit]

Is it just a tape that loops? I'm not sure I'm giving it due credit, but we shall see. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete. loop#Noun has the specific definition "An endless strip of tape or film allowing continuous repetition." DCDuring TALK 19:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per DCDuring. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 13:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

take upon[edit]

I think this is only used reflexively, as to take upon oneself. When used non-reflexively, don't people say "take on"; that meaning is already documented under take on. Kiwima (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

RFV maybe? I agree but I think we should try to cite 'take upon' without a reflexive pronoun. I can't imagine it though: "he took it up his mother to finish the task". Nah! Renard Migrant (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I tried to cite non-reflexive usage using COCA. I found three instances that do not have -self forms as the object, but they are nonetheless reflexive. DCDuring TALK 10:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

cuesta arriba[edit]

Seems like SOP cuesta + arriba to me. --Sucio green (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a set phrase and the lemmings principle applies. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the entry should be tweaked to reflect that the phrase is often used to mean "uphill work" or "a lot of effort". Keep, by the way. -- ALGRIF talk 09:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
As in the popular columns advising: "Cómo superar la cuesta arriba de enero", for example. -- ALGRIF talk 12:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Kept, with addition of a usage note stating "Often used to describe "uphill work" or work requiring a lot of effort". bd2412 T 13:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

stiff peaks[edit]

Sum of parts? Plural only? I could well be wrong. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Well you'd never try to beat an egg into a single stiff peak. But delete, they are undoubtedly peaks which are stiff. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I dunno, I feel like this is a technical term in cooking. Egg whites that have been beaten to stiff peaks do not have peaks that are "rigid, hard to bend, inflexible" (per our definition of stiff); in fact they can be easily pushed over with your finger. They're merely stiff enough to support their own weight. See [2] for definitions of when beaten egg-white peaks are soft, firm, and stiff. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It's just relative. "Loud" in music isn't the same as "loud" in aircraft testing. Equinox 19:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep. It is also a good anchor for translation to other languages. An of course a technical concept in cooking. Not only stiff peaks, it includes more. [3]. It would be here before. Take A LOT (days) of time to find the right term and the translation --Lagoset (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete. A culinary sense may or may not need to be added to "stiff", but one can "beat eggs until they are stiff", etc, showing that this phrase is not idiomatic. - -sche (discuss) 21:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Why not added before to peaks? (plural). Can see the result now?. --Lagoset (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It is preposterous to claims that this is plural only. This Google Groups search already provides abundant UseNet attestation of the singular.
Out of the context of food preparation you could not be sure what was being referred to. In context it is obvious SoP. Delete. DCDuring TALK 21:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
18 entries, compared to 2650 in the plural!!. It is really strange cannot see a definition in Wiktionary :-?, when you own see a wide use in culinary arts.--Lagoset (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
See only#Adverb and plurale tantum ("plural only"). DCDuring TALK 00:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. What can I say, I like to cook. I know exactly what this phrase means in that context, and it is not exactly what one would think from saying "stiff" and "peak". bd2412 T 00:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is like medium rare, well done, sunny side up, and over easy. —Stephen (Talk) 10:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'm a native speaker and it wasn't quite clear to me what it meant, even when referring to eggs. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Equinox said and what -sche said. SOP.​—msh210 (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I have added a culinary sense to stiff — as I noted above, one can "beat egg whites until they are stiff", etc, so stiff has a culinary sense regardless of the collocation stiff peaks. I've also added an eggy citation, which uses both stiff and peak but not stiff peaks, to peak. - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Just to be picayune, cream can also be whipped/beaten to form stiff peaks. bd2412 T 21:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing and editing the entries accordingly. - -sche (discuss) 15:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I would add for comparison that we have a culinary sense for medium and for rare, and that does not preclude our having medium rare. bd2412 T 16:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It is mainly / huge majoritary / mainstream plural and a culinary concept, very often used. meringue are egg whites stiff peaks with sugar. Time to quit rfd.--Lagoset (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Kept; clear absence of consensus to delete. bd2412 T 13:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

alcohol-dependent[edit]

The definition is misleading; it's just a person dependent on alcohol. The hyphen is strange to me as a native English speaker, but seems to be attested (although it is much more rare than alcohol dependent.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

  • More likely to be an adjective, I would have thought. Donnanz (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete as self-evident SoP, like "drug-addled", "cocaine-addicted", etc. Equinox 22:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, single word. Ƿidsiþ 08:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • On the fence. Could be considered a single word. But not necessarily. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep the noun (verifiable) and include the adjective as well. A Google search reveals how many writers leave the hyphen out, when they should know better. Donnanz (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete this strictly compositional MWE. DCDuring TALK 03:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. What DCDuring said.​—msh210 (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

magic point[edit]

A point of magical energy. Seems SoP given the context gloss. Other arbitrary things can be measured in points ("Bots begin the game and respawn with 10 health points") and not just in video games. Equinox 22:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Although it is SoP, it is also ambiguous for a non-native speaker, given the number of meanings for point -- I would keep.
Keep. I don't consider this SoP because the precise meaning isn't readily deducible from the component words. "Magic points" are a player stat. But someone who didn't have that prior knowledge, and knew only that the term was related to games, might very well conclude they are a type of score. Not to mention that "magic points"/"mana points" are an almost universal feature in RPGs. It's spawned the abbreviation MP. "Magic points"/"mana points" are a discrete, notable concept in the gaming world in a way that "WP" (wisdom points), "SP" (stealth points), etc. are not. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

snitch bitch[edit]

On one hand, it rhymes. On the other, it looks to me like we're talking about a snitch considered a bitch (or hell, vice versa). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Rhyming collocations often turn out to be set phrases, though. bd2412 T 15:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't find it that obvious, what it means. I would keep it. Is this really 'easily derived from the sum of its parts'? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The definition is, roughly, "a prison snitch". I see nothing in it about being a bitch. So it doesn't seem to be SOP; keep.​—msh210 (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • RFD kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

police brutality[edit]

The first and second defs are SOP; the third def is bullshit that would die in RFV ("I was attacked by a police brutality"?). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

What strange wording! Definitely reduce it to one sense, at least. Equinox 00:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
A combination of the first two defs would be non-SOP if either the illegal or unjustified parts were part of the term's meaning, but I don't think that either are accurate. Any brutality can be called this, even if it's justified and in a country where it may be legal. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
At the very least, it should be heavily edited to get rid of the anger and loaded words that permeate the entry: "wanton extreme and inhumane duress, typical of a beast" isn't exactly npov. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Wiped the slate clean and wrote a new, consolidated definition. Keep. I don't consider this one SOP because the meaning is narrow. The term "police brutality" is restricted to acts of unjustified violence committed by police officers in the commission of their law enforcement duties. An off-duty police officer punching a man for harassing his wife in a bar wouldn't be considered an instance of "police brutality." -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I would keep more or less as rewritten. If a police officer uses "brutal" violence to take down a dangerous criminal, this is not what is typically considered "police brutality"; the term is reserved for "brutality" that is in excess of what the situation requires, of a kind that law enforcement officers are supposed to be trained to avoid. bd2412 T 14:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
brutality has a long-standing definition of "The use of excessive physical force e.g. police brutality." I don't see the distinction you give; if an officer uses brutal ("Savagely violent, vicious, ruthless, or cruel") force, then it is police brutality; if the police officer uses large but necessary force to stop a dangerous criminal, it's not brutal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete as SOP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
X brutality = brutality practiced by X > delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
There's even a specialized sense at brutality to cover this. Ergo, delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
This is still more precise than that sense of brutality. A schoolyard bully or a random guy starting a bar fight can use force than is "excessive" for the situation, although neither of them has the legal right to use any force. Police brutality is an abuse of the authority to use force. bd2412 T 13:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I consider those the same thing. The force is excessive because they don't have the authority, legal or moral, to use it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep completely idiomatic. It's actually euphemistic for police assault, nothing to do with being ‘animalistic’ or ‘unintelligent’ (OED definitions of brutal). Ƿidsiþ 08:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As I pointed out above, it is completely SOP with our definitions for brutality. Whether or not it is SOP with OED doesn't seem relevant, nor does whether or not it is SOP with brutal, which may or may not have much connection to brutality in actual usage.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, but consider the ‘In a Jiffy’ test at WT:IDIOM. ‘Brutality’ in that sense is something that comes from euphemistic phrases like “police brutality’, which the word has a very specific meaning. I actually also suspect that this term passes the PRIOR KNOWLEDGE test as it has a specific meaning in legal/criminal terms, see e.g. here. Ƿidsiþ 07:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep. Idiomatic but lacks WT:CFI attestations. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

police protection[edit]

And protection by police. I think this might be the last of the obvious SOPs added by WritersCramp. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. I grant that there is some ambiguity here ("police protection" could also refer to something like bulletproof vests worn by police for their own protection), but the phrase as currently defined is one that will always be transparent in meaning from the context, which will describe something or someone as being under the protection of the police. bd2412 T 14:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
It actually says "law enforcement agency". Surely police protection is not a law enforcement agency, it's a system? Still, to what extent is police protection protection by the police? Is it actually by other bodies that aren't the police? Even then, is that even relevant? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412:, even the bulletproof vest definition would be police + protection. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
This, and neighbouring entries on this page snitch bitch, police brutality, prisoner abuse and law enforcement agency are all creations of WritersCramp. Nomen est omen? --Hekaheka (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The creator is a mere hint, or else one ends up in the logical fallacy of ad hominem; even generally bad editors can produce good entries, and we investigate those on a per-entry basis. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Oh and I voted keep for a couple of his entries above. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ƿidsiþ 08:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Further comments: this is also in the OED, and in Collins (with two definitions). I don't consider it sum of parts at all. Consider that in general, ‘X protection’ means ‘protection of X’, e.g. in phrases like ‘wildlife protection’ or ‘child protection’. But ‘police protection’ does not mean ‘protection of the police’ but rather protection by the police. Ƿidsiþ 07:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Then, a fortiori, the multiply ambiguous head butter must need an entry. DCDuring TALK 12:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Ask and ye shall receive: head butter. bd2412 T 13:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, are you suggesting that headbutter is not valid? I'm not sure of your point. There is no need to deconstruct the idiomaticity of ‘head butter’ since it already exists as a common single word. That's not the case with ‘policeprotection’, which is why I was trying to look at our expectations with noun-noun compounds. Ƿidsiþ 13:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is idiomatic – a type of task. Nevertheless, it lacks WT:CFI attestations.

law enforcement agency[edit]

Law enforcement (insuring adherence to the law) + agency (department or other administrative unit of a government). Am I missing something? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, unless there is some unusual value for translations or something. No different in construction than "food safety agency" or "tax collection agency". bd2412 T 15:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I would 100% keep law enforcement as it's more than the enforcement of the law. It doesn't normally refer to judges making rulings on civil matters, for example, it's mostly policing. Not used much in the UK, I would tend to gloss as US and Canada. Perhaps others, I don't know about NZ, AUS, India, etc. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Quick! There are no translations yet. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as a translation target; thanks for the tip, Hekaheka. W:Law enforcement agency has some interwiki that shows translations that do not appear to be word-for-word translations: German Strafverfolgungsbehörde (Straf-verfolgung-s-behörde), Czech policejní orgán, Polish organy ścigania, etc. Furthermore, WP says it is a term of "North American English" (U.S. and Canadina?); is it true? If so, this is lexicographical info that adds to the value of the entry as a lexicographical one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Interwikis aren't necessarily translations, sometimes they're similar concepts which are 'close enough' to merit an interwiki. I'd argue back but since we all know that WT:CFI isn't binding, you're entitled to vote keep for any reason you like. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The assumption that, without CFI, there would be nothing to argue about seems strange to me. The unstated assumption is that we want to built a good multilingual dictionary. The good then gets broken down into multiple further requirements, such as accurate, complete, succinct, detailed, clear, verifiable, and the like. Some of these requirements clash. Even without CFI, they are there by implication. The current CFI is a particular operationalization of some of these requirements. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Who's making that assumption, just you? It's not my assumption to be clear. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@Hekaheka: It's not clear (to me) what your vote really is. Undecided for now. Russian правоохрани́тельные о́рганы (pravooxranítelʹnyje órgany) fits more "law enforcement agency", though, not "law enforcement". probably the same with the Czech policejní orgán. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep idiomatic set phrase. Ƿidsiþ 08:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd ask you to justify that opinion, but I know you don't do that. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd ask you not to be so passive-aggressive, but I guess that's a bit pointless too? It's idiomatic because this is the natural way to say it in English and that cannot be predicted. No one refers to the post office as a ‘delivery enforcement agency’. Also, institutions like corporate tribunals, peacekeeping forces etc. are agencies that enforce the law, but they are not what we mean when we talk about law enforcement agencies. Ƿidsiþ 08:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
All of that is covered by law enforcement rather than law enforcement agency. Law enforcement agency is just law enforcement immediately followed by the word agency. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom.​—msh210 (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 22:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

GeoServer[edit]

Name of a specific software product. Also Sae1962 -- Liliana 18:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Not enormously famous outside the GIS sphere. Equinox 18:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Needs to meet WT:BRAND, and I find no hits at all detached from a description of the product. bd2412 T 18:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It is not just a brand, the name is used like xerox, it has been generic for 20 years. It is insane to delete something so ubiquitous. If you don't know what it is assume WT:AGF. See Citations:GeoServer where I added citations. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Your cites are for geoserver, lower-case, generic. Please create at the appropriate article. This capital "GeoServer" is indeed a specific product. Equinox 22:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Identical case cites added. It is an open source implementation of specific technology. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@BoBoMisiu: It also doesn't look like you bothered to read WT:BRAND, judging by the quality of your cites. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I did. I also looked at Coca-Cola and Coke, Corvette, Taser, Kleenex, Jacuzzi, Pyrex, Apollo, Unix, Xerox; and Talk:Windows, Talk:Linux as others that were deleted. Aspirin with a German entry, Linux with a Hungarian entry. breathalyzer, bubble wrap, realtor, aspirin with etymology "trade name Aspirin is a registered trademark in some countries, but has entered the English language in generic usage." I also know the cites describe the eponymous product (GeoServer) of the generic product type (geoserver). —BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

diminished value[edit]

SoP SemperBlotto (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

w:Diminished value says that diminished value is different from depreciation which is when the value diminishes with the passage of time, like a second-hand car being worth less than a new car. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
To me it seems that the entry is a misconception. Diminished value is that which is left after a loss, not the loss itself. In accounting the loss may be called impairment, write-down or revaluation. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's worth keeping, but maybe some rewording is necessary. Donnanz (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia-logo.png Diminished value on Wikipedia.Wikipedia:Diminished value (which has "issues") implies that diminution of value is a synonym. I don't find an entry for diminished value at OneLook, so one would have to look elsewhere for an insurance-industry glossary for help. If it is not a term of art but is intended for normal people to understand then the components + the context should directly provide the meaning, ie, SoP. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I take back my previous comment. After taking a closer look, it seems that the term has a specific legal sense comparable to "damages". I did some rewording and added two quotes. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hekaheka: So, are you saying that, in actual usage, the equation "original value" - "diminution of value" = "diminished value" is not true? The WP article's assertion that "diminished value" is synonymous with "diminution of value" makes no sense to me. Is this the product of the lack of knowledge of arithmetic, failure to understand the ordinary meaning of "diminution" or "diminished", or willful abuse of language by advocates? DCDuring TALK 01:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: Your equation is true also, but it is a SOP sense. The non-SOP sense appeared illogical to me as well on the first sight, but if you google up "pay diminished value", you'll get convinced that it is used that way in the insurance business (it would make absolutely no sense to pay the remaining value as compensation for the loss). As I wrote, the usage seems comparable - not completely similar - to that of "damages", which in addition to it's "normal" usage is defined as "money paid or awarded to a claimant (in England), a pursuer (in Scotland) or a plaintiff (in the US) in a civil action as compensation for a loss suffered by the same". --Hekaheka (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Of your three alternative explanations I would put my bets on "willful abuse of language by advocates". More seriously, I would say they use "diminish" as transitive verb. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the edit history, the original entry had a very non-lexicographical description of what diminished value is in the insurance context, liberally sprinkled with links to a commercial website. I did my best to prune it down to an actual definition, but I still have no clue as to exactly what they were trying to say. The commercial site does have explanations, but they're likewise not very well-written. I should probably have hidden the original edits as promotional material, but I hoped someone would have more luck making something coherent out of the entry if they had access to the original version. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you check the definition as it is now after my edits? Is it still incoherent? --Hekaheka (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I am feeling a strong urge to prescribe here. Perhaps I should lie down until the feeling passes. DCDuring TALK 08:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I would keep as a set phrase in the law. For example:
    • 1905, In re the Income Tax Cases, Hydraulics Company Case, in Supreme Court of Victoria (Australia), The Victorian Law Reports, p. 186:
      In assessing the income of the company for taxation the Commissioner allowed the claim for deduction for the actual cost of repairs and renewals, but did not allow any claim for diminished value.
bd2412 T 15:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

abolir[edit]

Discussion moved to WT:RFDO#Template:es-conj-ir (abolir).

thingmajig[edit]

Deleted before without process. Does anyone think this should be deleted? The reason for deletion would probably be that this is a misspelling of thingamajig, and a rare one too. thingmajig, thingamajig at Google Ngram Viewer. Attested in Google books: google books:"thingmajig". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • There's so many variants of thingamajig that I wouldn't even regard this as a misspelling, just a variant. And it seems to roll off the tongue better than thingamajig. Donnanz (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

nicht zutreffend[edit]

clear case of SoP -- Liliana 22:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • You obviously didn't look to see whether there is an entry for n. z., (not to be confused with NZ). But maybe not applicable should be allowable as a common term. Donnanz (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It's common but nothing more than the sum of its parts. Green grass is a common term, too. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

mehr als zuviel[edit]

another typical SoP case -- Liliana 23:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Can you say it like this? I came across "Mehr als genug ist zuviel." (More than enough is too much). Donnanz (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Good point. I'm only familiar with mehr als genug. b.g.c only finds historical books. -- Liliana 09:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
In that case, deletion may be in order. Donnanz (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

wall hanging[edit]

Sum of parts? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Altered to countable. I would be inclined to keep it, the description is reasonably accurate, and I don't think it's all that obvious from the sum of its parts. Donnanz (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a [[wall]] [[hanging]] though isn't it? The definition is 'a wall decoration [] ' Might as well change it to 'a wall hanging'. Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Donnanz. I don't see how this could be changed to "a wall hanging" when attestations are easily found for "the wall hanging[s]" or "[his/her] wall hanging[s]". For example, '2008, Robin Amber Kilgore, In Her Bathrobe She Blogged, page 91: "Flustered, he began to scrub his wall hanging feverishly in the kitchen sink". That does not seem particularly transparent to me at all, and if you didn't know that the character was an art lover with a spider infestation, you might think he was scrubbing the wall while somehow hanging in the sink. bd2412 T 14:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete It's wall+ sense #3 of hanging (noun). Would you guys want to see ceiling hanging, window hanging, Christmas tree hanging, door hanging, car mirror hanging… they're all attestable. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Are they? I get no usable Google Books results for car mirror hanging, ceiling hanging only gives results for ceilings being partially impacted, and door hanging seems to only give results about installing doors, or doors that are for some reason "hanging". On the other hand, "wall hanging", in the sense defined here, gets hundreds of hits. bd2412 T 18:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Car mirror hangings are not something to write books about, but a simple Google search gets 14,000+ hits. I'd assume at least 3 of them fulfil our CFI. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Door hanging could refer to the hanging of doors on hinges (OK, you mentioned it). And we shouldn't get confused with (death by) hanging, nor with paperhanging. Donnanz (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I assume you mean interior rear-view mirrors. The hanging objects are also known as danglers or danglies. Donnanz (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
At times one gets what one wants to see. "Door hangings" gets 220,000 direct Google hits. BGC has these: [4] [5] [6] [7]. These are only with attributes "beaded" and "beautiful". Additional attributes will bring additional results. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
:Delete --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, using the lemming heuristic: present in oxforddictionaries.com[8], AHD[9], and Collins[10]; seems to be even in Merriam-Webster unabridged[11].--Dan Polansky (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    Keep then, I support the Lemming principle .--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Another entry without WT:CFI being discussed without anyone adding a single attestation. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep by the fried egg principle: a painting hangs on a wall but is not a wall hanging. Kiwima (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
But a painting's not a hanging. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
macramé wall hanging? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kiwima and the fried-egg test. We define hanging as "Anything that is hung as a decorative element". Paintings are hung on walls as decorative elements, but they aren't wall hangings, which means the term is idiomatic, which means it meets CFI, which means some of us interpret CFI differently from others, which means we're not ignoring CFI in our voting. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you're qualified to speak for anyone who's voted keep. Even the ones who disagree with you. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, you seem to feel qualified to speak for everyone who's voted at all either way, so why not? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
No I'm just reading their comments. If people say they're voting for non-CFI reasons, I believe them. You're accusing them of lying are you? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: wallhanging is attested, so this meets WT:COALMINE. bd2412 T 19:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

vector[edit]

msh210 and Keφr seem to be fairly inactive as of late, but we are in need of mathematicians. To me, the first three definitions all seem like various parts of the true mathematical definition of a vector. They are mathematically distinguishable, but not lexically distinguishable, in the sense that I don't think one could find a use exclusive to any of those definitions that did not fall under all of them, hence my belief that they ought to be merged. That said, I await the judgement of more knowledgeable individuals, especially with respect to what the merged definition would look like. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the three mathematical definitions could be condensed to two definitions, but I'd be unwilling to have a single one. What the three senses we have at the moment effectively mean is:
  1. A mathematical quantity consisting of a magnitude and a direction.
  2. A mathematical quantity represented in a format like (x,y,z), which can be thought of as representing a magnitude and a direction.
  3. A mathematical quantity which can be meaningfully added to another quantity of the same type, and also multiplied by a scalar
Sense 1 is arguably a subsense of sense 2 (or possibly vice versa), although there are ways of representing magnitude and direction vectors that aren't ordered tuples (for instance, "1 mile in a north-westerly direction" is a vector), and there are ordered tuples for which magnitude and direction are physically meaningless (quantum physics uses vectors as a convenient way to represent the state of particles, but these vectors aren't directly related to any distance or angle in the physical world - rather, they only 'exist' in a mathematical abstraction called a Hilbert space - and supercomputers often represent all sorts of data in vector format just because that's easier for parallel processors to handle). Both of these senses are solidly from the realm of applied mathematics. Sense 3 on the other hand is restricted almost entirely to pure mathematics. These vectors do not necessarily have anything at all to do with distances and magnitude, and they don't necessarily even represent numbers - they could be functions, matrices or even entire fields of numbers. The only thing that makes them vectors is the fact that they have two properties: you can add them together, and you can multiply them by scalars (typically, this means just a straightforward real number). Now, sense 1 and 2 are both technically redundant to this sense, but this sense is so vague and so far removed from our everyday intuition of a vector that we wouldn't help anyone by merging all the senses here. I would suggest instead having:
  1. A member of a vector space.
    1. (Mathematics, physics) A directed quantity, one with both magnitude and direction; the signed difference between two points.
    2. (Mathematics, physics, computing) A mathematical quantity represented by an ordered tuple.
    3. (Pure mathematics) A mathematical object representing a member of a space on which addition and scalar multiplication are defined.
Any suggestions are of course welcome. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Never really been a fan of organizing things as definition, subdefinition. I think it's fine the way it is. Purplebackpack89 20:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Eh, might as well vote keep. I haven't been convinced that this should be deleted and it's certainly not an SOP case. Purplebackpack89 14:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Our current senses are:

  1. (mathematics) A directed quantity, one with both magnitude and direction; the signed difference between two points.
  2. (mathematics) An ordered tuple representing a directed quantity or the signed difference between two points.
  3. (mathematics) Any member of a (generalized) vector space.

IMO these are distinct even lexically. (I read the nomination above, and not, fully, the replies thereto, so forgive me if I repeat something already said. Thanks for the ping, by the way.) When a high-school physics teacher refers to velocity as a vector as opposed to speed, which is a scalar, he means sense 1, not sense 2 or 3. (Velocity is a vector in sense 3, certainly, and can be re-defined so it's a vector in sense 2, I suppose, but neither of those is what the teacher means.) When a high-school math teacher says "[1,2] is a vector", that's clearly sense 2 (and only possibly sense 1). So we need 1 and 2 both. And of course 3 is different, including e.g. polynomials.​—msh210 (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep the three separate as per msh210 above. I disagree with the reformulations made above; in particular, in the 3rd sense, vector space meets certain axioms which the redefinitions fail to ensure. The definitions in this revision are good "as is". The axioms are listed e.g. in Wolfram Mathworld. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

cõtempt[edit]

Manuscript variant, not a truly different spelling, right? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. One could compare this to or Govʳ, but whereas superscript r is not a letter in English or French and ʳ is included in Unicode as a "modifier letter" rather than a plain "letter" — leading to the conclusion that this is better encoded as Govr, not as Govʳõ is a letter even in English (in a few loanwords). That makes cõtempt seem more like vp: it's using one letter to spell something that would now be spelt with a different letter(s). And we couldn't automatically redirect õ spellings like we do long-s spellings, because they are standard in some languages (e.g. is probably attested both in Vietnamese as the word for "old male servant" and in older French as a variant of bon). Compare also WT:T:ADE#dafuͤr, where I note that there are hand- and typewritten works that contain things visually similar to dafuͤr and dafűr, and ask if it is good to use those Unicode codepoints to represent those things. I'm on the fence... - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems silly to delete it while we have things like pvblic for public — which I'm in favor of deleting by the way. I'd add cōtempt to this as well as it's the same thing. Same in Middle French that I've seen, and thus, very early modern French as -sche points out. You could have bõne and bonne in the same text, even in the same sentence you could encounter both. I would treat these are typographical variants not spelling variants and delete these, however I think precedent is against me in terms of vp. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
After thinking about it: keep. Cõtempt isn't an ersatz encoding like Govʳ is: it's using the tilde for something the tilde is designed to be used for, namely replacing n. So, like vp, it's using one letter to spell something that would now be spelt with a different letter(s), and that seems like an includible phenomenon. - -sche (discuss) 22:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Does that mean we should have ↄtempt as well? --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Its a form of that soft redirects. It has one WT:CFI attestation – that more than many other pages. It is a good example of what a soft redirect should be. Unicode value only represents the literal, i.e. the glyph. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hassidic Jew[edit]

This was RFD'd many years back and kept as a "set term", but I don't think that's sufficient to justify it. It's a set term because there's no other way to say it, but that doesn't mean it isn't still SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it SOP or a pleonasm? Is it possible to be a Hasidic non-Jew? Does being a pleonasm rescue a term from being SOP? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Re "Does being a pleonasm rescue a term from being SOP?": I don't know if there are cases where it could rescue something, but it certainly doesn't automatically rescue things, given that I doubt we want an entry on google books:"dead corpses". (Note that most uses are pleonastic, but it's possible some are contrasting dead corpses with reanimated corpses and thus avoiding pleonasm.) - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not a pleonasm: while all Hasidim are, indeed, Jews, not all Jews are Hasidim. I grew up on the edge of a Jewish neighborhood and I've met and spent time with very many Jews, but none were Hasidic (I remember one breakfast at a Jewish friend's house where I was the only one not eating bacon- I was on a diet). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what definition of "pleonasm" you're working from, but plenty of sources describe tuna fish as one, even though not all fish are tuna. That all Hassidim are Jews may suffice for Hassidic Jew to be considered pleonasm. (That said, it seems the main reason people talk about tuna fish is that the fish part seems redundant to them — you can just say tuna — whereas Hassidic Jew doesn't have the same part of speech as bare Hassidic. I doubt anyone would advocate saying Hassidic person to avoid the redundancy of Hassidic Jew.) —RuakhTALK 06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Anyway, OneLook says no one but us considers this an entryworthy term, and I don't believe being pleonastic rescues it from SOPpiness, so delete. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I was the nominator last time and still maintain that it's SOP and deletable. But this nomination is inappropriate, I think, in that nothing new has come up since the last RFD AFAICT. We don't re-raise RFDs under such circumstances, do we? (I mean, then we could just keep re-raising them until we get the audience we want happening to pay attention.) For that reason, I now say keep.​—msh210 (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Msh210: We should not, IMHO, require that new information comes up before a new RFD is started. It should suffice that the discussion had only few participants (1 for deletion, 2 for keeping), and that multiple years have passed (6 years). Thus, I think you should feel free to vote delete, on the same grounds on which you nominated the entry back then. What one could courteously do is count the previous participants here as well. The pro-keeping editors were Stephen and bd2412. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    I no longer remember my thought process in voting to keep last time. I was probably thinking that, if you refer to a person who was Hassidic, you would almost always say "Hassidic Jew" as opposed to any other phrase. bd2412 T 14:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    Eh. I suppose counting them (no longer BD, as he seems to be recanting) in this 'vote' is good enough.​—msh210 (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
A Jew with a low pH? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Wonderful! @Metaknowledge, -sche, Chuck Entz, Ruakh, Angr, Msh210, Dan Polansky, BD2412: A discussion about deleting the member of a distinct group of people without a single WT:CFI attestation added. What has changed since the last RFD in 2009? Is there any new evidence presented other than I don't think that's sufficient to justify it? Compare catholic v Catholic v Roman Catholic. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@BoBoMisiu: It doesn't look like you understand how this process works. We don't need attestations to demonstrate that this is SOP or pleonastic, and the fact that they are a "distinct group of people" really has nothing to do with it. We also don't need new evidence; we are a different set of people than were around 6 years ago, and it is reasonable to put this entry up for review. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: It matters since WT:CFI was different then this revision. If something was accepted by an RFD under those conditions, that should be grandfathered in. Everyone then was in in good faith and the process was concluded. Nothing different is presented now. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is about WT:SOP, which is the grounds for so many discussions on this page that no one bothers to mention it. The question at hand is whether Hassidic Jew provides anything that's not available at Hassidic and Jew. After all, adherent of Hassidism means the same thing as Hassidic Jew. Not every phrase describing something merits a dictionary entry: it has to be considered a single unit by speakers, and by our rules it has to mean more than the sum of its parts. There are differences among participants here about exceptions to the above in some cases, and we're not always consistent about application- but that't the core of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


sudden death[edit]

sudden + death. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The "not caused by violence" part of the definition makes it not SOP (see Sudden cardiac death inter alia). Getting hit by a bus or shot in the head may well cause a [[sudden]] [[death]], but not a [[sudden death]]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Angr. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. bd2412 T 17:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In what context is this definition used? It doesn't correspond to any medical definition. Is it legal? Absent some specific context, the reasoning advanced above seems specious. fast car is not used in reference to railroad cars, but that doesn't make it entry-worthy. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
General usage. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Never heard it outside of the sports sense in the US. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
We were talking about the other definition. FWIW it (the definition you refer to) is used in sports outside the US. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: I know. I am saying that I never heard that sense in the US; sudden infant death and, especially, sudden infant death syndrome yes, sudden death in that sense no. DCDuring TALK 14:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, countable in this sense. Donnanz (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    How does countability support inclusion? DCDuring TALK 14:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
That was added as a note. I have altered the entry. Donnanz (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete pending citations. Looking at the Google Books results for "a sudden death" -overtime makes it seem like a non-idiomatic common phrase. Collins does list the sense (the others I looked at didn't), but without the "non-violent" clause. The word "instantaneous" is also troublesome, in that deaths which may last minutes or hours can be considered "sudden" (one book discussed myocardial infarctions as sudden death lasting hours). I would almost suggest that any instantaneous death is violent, although that is because "violent" is subjective. - TheDaveRoss 11:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Suppose we were to clarify that it is not caused by intentional violence? bd2412 T 13:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Based on all of the usage which comes to mind I am still of the opinion that this is a non-idiomatic sense, that is a death which occurs unexpectedly and abruptly. "Instantaneous" and "non-violent" are often attributes of such deaths, but not inherent in the term. I am most interested in seeing some good usage examples where the term is clearly idiomatic, I can't find those. Furthermore the two "new" senses should probably be removed, sense 4 is just a restatement of 3 and sense 5 doesn't make sense to me. - TheDaveRoss 16:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I share the feeling that there is an idiomatic sense here, but I question if violence vs lack of violence is the defining feature of it — my gut feeling is that lack of external cause and abruptness / lack of reasonable anticipation are defining features. Death after a long battle with cancer isn't "[sudden death]", even if at the end it is a "[sudden = quick] [death]", because it could be anticipated. If a person is hit by a stray, accidentally discharged bullet, they suffer a "[sudden] [death]", but it doesn't seem like "[sudden death]" to me — even though (@bd) the death was not caused by intentional violence, it had a clear external cause. If a person dies of SUNDS/dab tsuam, or collapses of a heart attack, that is "[sudden death]", in my mind. - -sche (discuss) 15:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    • This is perhaps in contrast to "dying in one's sleep", which implies a "peaceful" passing? I do think that if this is idiomatic it will be characterized by abruptness, as you mentioned, and perhaps the absence of peacefulness? - TheDaveRoss 16:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Another RFD discussion without a single WT:CFI added by anyone. What is the object of this discussion? See google:"sudden death" epidemiology for usage. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not a discussion about whether the term is used; that would be at WT:RFV. This is a discussion about whether the term is idiomatic, which is very much a WT:CFI issue. The fact that editors do not specifically mention CFI in discussing this merely indicates that these editors are experienced enough to understand that idiomacity is a CFI issue without having it spelled out. bd2412 T 15:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 19:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

peace talks[edit]

SoP? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Well, I would keep it; it's one of those terms which never seems to be used in the singular form. But I think the term can be used outside inter-country discussions, between trade union and company for example. Donnanz (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete, it's because talks is plural only in this sense. What else could peace talks possibly mean but talks that have the objective of peace? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Listed by Oxford: [12]. Donnanz (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I never said it wasn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep using the lemming heuristic: present in oxforddictionaries.com[13] and Collins[14]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    Keep then, I support the Lemming principle .--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I would keep this, but add other supranational groups to the definition. It is also fairly common to find references to organized criminal gangs, ranging from street gangs to mafia families, having "peace talks". bd2412 T 15:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's look at some things that could be described as "peace talks" to test the boundaries of the definition:
  1. A lecture series on the subject of peace
  2. A negotiation between two former enemies to decide on managing and paying for things resulting from their peace treaty that weren't envisioned at the time it was signed (no return to conflict is likely if unsuccessful, however).
  3. Discussions by allies in an armed conflict to come to agreement about how to respond to proposals by their common enemy when negotiations begin between the two sides.
  4. Negotiations between a party in an armed conflict and a neutral third party in order to get them to help in resolving the conflict.
  5. Negotiations between the two sides in an armed conflict for the purpose of ending the conflict.
The first one is clearly SOP and unrelated to the sense at hand, the last one is my version of the sense at hand (though "violent" could be substituted for "armed" to make it more general), and the others are variations in one or more aspects. Determining which ones are peace talks in the sense at hand, and how an average user of the dictionary would know that, should help tighten up the definition and/or make it easier to see if this is truly SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you forget about peace talks in unarmed conflicts? Donnanz (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, but generalise the definition per comments above. (Disclaimer: I'm the one who created the entry originally.) ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

overall picture[edit]

Claims to be an alternative form of big picture, which it is not. It may have the same meaning as at least one sense of big picture but it seems SoP to me as is supported by overall picture at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 16:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete as does not function as a single unit; merely the word 'overall' immediately followed by 'picture'. Renard Migrant (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Not so fast, I think this term should be looked at in greater depth. Donnanz (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete as metaphorical picture with usual sense of overall. Compare e.g. "a rough picture [image, idea]" of something. Equinox 23:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
google books:"overall debate", google books:"overall narrative", google books:"overall message" all get thousands of hits. This is not a special combination. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Interix[edit]

Sae1962 (surprise!); another software product. -- Liliana 18:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep; a single-word attested term that can host such lexicographical content as pronunciation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

cheesy[edit]

Sense: of or relating to cheese

Is this really distinct from 'resembling, or containing cheese.'? Can we find actual usage that's distinct? Like for example "the cheesy industry" (the industry that produces cheese). Renard Migrant (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The usex there — "This sandwich is full of cheesy goodness." — is a good one. Certainly the goodness doesn't resemble or contain cheese (though the sandwich may): the goodness relates to cheese. (Of course, that's not a cite, but this isn't RFV.) Keep.​—msh210 (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, keep. A cheesy smile / grin (sense 4) seems to have been overlooked though, it doesn't fit in with the other definitions. I think it relates to saying "cheese" for a photographer, but I could be wrong. Oxford says "exaggerated and likely to be insincere" [15]. Donnanz (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think sense 4 is distinct from sense 3. A cheesy smile is one that's "overdramatic, excessively emotional or clichéd, trite, contrived". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, they are different senses. Would you call a cheesy smile "of poor quality"? Maybe the definition of sense 3 needs looking at too, part of it may belong to sense 4. Donnanz (talk)
I think "of poor quality" needs to be removed from sense 3. Cheesy songs and movies are not necessarily of poor quality. The Sound of Music is a pretty cheesy movie, but it won five Oscars. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Our interpretations and tastes obviously differ - I happen to like The Sound of Music. Donnanz (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I like it too, but that doesn't mean it isn't cheesy. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not of poor quality. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
As I said above, I think "of poor quality" needs to be removed from sense 3. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

let freedom ring[edit]

I'm surprised this never got RFDed, as the definition is somewhat misleading — it's really just a quote comparable to the case of Talk:Gott ist tot. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

While I am not familiar with this phrase being used in the way described, I did find a few examples which may be of value. From the Congressional Record of the 107th Congress
  • Mr. DAVIS of Illinois.
    In response to the devastation caused by the terrorists, the residents of Chicago have joined with millions of others in this country and around the world to donate millions of dollars and hours to the rebuilding efforts. Their material gifts, however, reveal an even deeper resolve to let the principles of freedom for which we stand ring loud and clear...
  • Mr. MEEKS of New York.
    ...We must preserve that democracy. What happened on September 11 of last year threatens that democracy. We must let freedom ring.
    As I reflect and think, the words of Dr. King came back to me, where basically he was just talking about freedom . In 1965, we were talking about freedom basically just here on these shores. His words were, ``So let freedom ring from the prestigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mountains of New York...
There are a number of similar instances in the Congressional Record. This may have some traction, I am on the fence. - TheDaveRoss 12:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Why would we have this? We're not Wikiquote and it has no lexical value. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I suppose for the same reason we have know thyself; at some point certain famous quotations become proverbs, idioms, maxims, etc. The question here is whether or not this particular term has reached that point. - TheDaveRoss 16:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete as a famous quotation, not a definition. Equinox 15:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Equinox. Wikiquote has this. bd2412 T 20:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a kind of a slogan like let a thousand flowers bloom. It means something like "Don't legislate or regulate on this matter".
    • Does it? I don't think it means that in My Country, 'Tis of Thee, and I don't think it meant that when Martin Luther King, Jr. said it. bd2412 T 20:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
      Of course not. The original meaning is the object of allusion. The favorable emotional associations of the use in the anthem are what all of the alluders are attempting to appropriate for their message. I don't think too many current users of the expression are alluding to MLK Jr, nor that his followers often quote that particular expression of his. As you must know, freedom has been more or less appropriated by conservatives in the US and justice and progress by the left, so one does not hear regular invocation of freedom by the left. Efforts such as FDR's to create a leftist rhetoric of freedom (the Four Freedoms) have not been as successful as the popular rhetoric of justice, as in the current no justice, no peace. DCDuring TALK 22:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
      I'm not sure that the references from the 107th Congress above mean anything more than the MLK sense either. bd2412 T 13:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

delayed puberty[edit]

Sum of parts. Crap formatting. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • The Wikipedia entry at W:Delayed puberty would suggest that this is a set phrase in medicine. bd2412 T 13:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Once you strip away the reasons for the delay, which aren't part of the definition, you end up with puberty that's delayed. What else could the words delayed + puberty mean? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep (tentative). Inspecting delayed puberty at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that, although all but two of the apparent hits are redirects to entries for puberty, two medical dictionaries offer explicit definitions, which attempt to give (different) quantitative criteria for what constitutes a sufficient delay to warrant the term. DCDuring TALK 20:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    Delete, and @DCDuring, medical dictionaries are trying to be a useful resource, but we are trying to be faithful to how words are actually used. A physician might want some cutoff so that (s)he can declare a case of delayed puberty, but if the cutoff is inherently arbitrary in overall usage, then we're really just dealing with puberty that's delayed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • We have context labels specifically because some terms have a specific meaning only in special contexts. Inevitably some terms will have an idiomatic meaning only in a specific context, whereas in general usage they are SoP. This looks like one of them. If we didn't conflate register and topic it would be a trivial matter to point to a category which would be populated solely by terms that had a meaning that only existed for users of the technical vocabulary of the field. And within such a category one could find terms that had only an SoP meaning for users not using the term in its technical sense. DCDuring TALK 22:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per DCDuring. bd2412 T 02:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It describes a real medical problem, even it combines two words that make what the combination would mean obvious, as Renard Migrant said. Deleting it would be like deleting other medical problems from wiktionary. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
That was BD2412, not me. Not that it matters. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There are three overlapping definitions and the RFD is only on one of them:

  1. Puberty beginning at an unusually late age.
  2. (medicine) Absence of any signs of puberty by age 14 years in either sex.
  3. (medicine) The lack of development of sexual maturation in boys and girls at a chronological age that is 2.5 standard deviations above the mean age at onset of puberty in a population. Delayed puberty can be classified by defects in the hypothalamic LHRH pulse generator, the pituitary gland, or the gonads. These patients will undergo spontaneous but delayed puberty whereas patients with sexual infantilism will not.

If we keep the challenged sense, we should delete the two subsequent ones - right?. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It was tagged with {{rfd}} when there was only one definition. DCDuring added two more and (justifiably) did not tag them with rfd. Though I think we should. In fact I'm going to, we're already discussing them so tagging them is more of a formality. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If it really is more than just puberty that is delayed then the medical definitions should be merged/simplified - and the plural corrected. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete the challenged sense which can legitimately be regarded as SOP or as superseded by the more precise medical definitions. It also bothers me that the two medical senses are inconsistent and unsupported, but I suppose they should be left and rfv'd. (But remove the encyclopedic material from the 2nd medical sense). -- · (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Talking Point:
    1. Inconsistency is not a problem: in a lexicographic context it's also called polysemy.
    2. It isn't a matter of superseding an imprecise definition as identifying and eventually attesting usage of a distinct definition, apparently only in use in a narrow usage community.
@Renard Migrant: Why bother RfD-sense-ing the literal definition. Are you worried that, even if we delete all other definitions, we will retain the entry as a translation target? DCDuring TALK 11:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Why add it at all? It's overtly the same as the first definition (by which I mean the initial one, now definition #2) which is 'puberty that is delayed'. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: I added it as an alternative to the originally challenged definition, because it should be part of a complete entry, provided we can attest to some non-SoP, probably medical definition. Most MWEs benefit from {{&lit}}, if only to remind potential contributors to the entry that we don't add definitions that are SoP. DCDuring TALK 12:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, maybe it should be deleted. Some of the entries I created were not very good. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Strong delete. Its just the sum of its parts. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge/keep medical defs. Ƿidsiþ 09:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

onomatopoeïa[edit]

Bad character in name. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not "bad", that's a trema. Also, though it should be common sense, the use of trema is not limited to dictionaries, but does also appear in normal texts. -IP, 01:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
But Wiktionary:About Latin says "Do not use diacritical marks in page names". SemperBlotto (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That should be limited to macrons (and breves), which aren't part of usual Latin writing. Trema (as in onomatopoeïa or poëtica) and circumflex (as in deûm, short for deorum) should be treated differently. In poëtica (that does even exists here in wt: poëtica) oe is not a diphthong, but two vowels, which is indicated by the dots above e. In case of poetica one could get the false impression that oe is a diphthong. (poetica most likely was also used, most likely because some printers didn't have tremas and umlauts and because with some knowledge one knows that the word doesn't have a diphthong.) -IP, 07:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
RfV? poëtica is a SemperBlottoBot creation, after all. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
No. The actual term is poetica but the headword has the diacritic added. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe not. It's a tough one because I know that diacritics are often added when typing manuscripts up. s:fr:La Chanson de Roland is a particularly good example because it has the original manuscripts and the typed-up versions. Not only are the typed-up version not all the same, they don't match the manuscripts verbatim. The de jure ruling is that if WT:ALA says to exclude them, we can, as WT:CFI recognises language-specific instructions. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
WT:ALA is a think tank so I am surprised to hear de jure in connection with WT:ALA. The editors of Latin and other interested editors have to make the determination; WT:ALA cannot do it for them. To me, the argument that macron should be excluded because it does not appear in the actual printed text whereas trema (¨) should be included as long as it appears in the actual text sounds convincing. But there may be good counterarguments. I checked google books:"onomatopoeïa" and it may be borderline attested, or not; it has to be in use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary:About Latin might consider itself a think tank, but WT:CFI#Language-specific issues says otherwise. Which has more gravitas, hmm. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that the mentioned part of CFI makes these think tanks automatically into policies; that would be outrageous, to me anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the common practice to include diacritica in the page name when their absence constitutes an orthographical error and otherwise link as alternate spelling? _Korn (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
No. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

restitutive fantasy[edit]

It was a stupid entry I created based on an article I read about a murder case. It should be deleted. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, it gets 66 hits at google books:restitutive fantasy, although I don't know if all of those hits are using it in the same sense as what you listed. I wouldn't call it SOP, either, since if the definition given is correct I for one wouldn't have been able to deduce it from restitutive and fantasy. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-Egyptian Sudan[edit]

Another bad entry I created, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, its just the sum of its parts. It was the Sudan when it was colony of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Egypt. What else would Anglo+Egyptian+Sudan mean? --PaulBustion88 (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Weak keep. It was a historical entity, at a specific time. But I'm only giving it a "weak" keep as it did not seem to be the name of the place.--Dmol (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It was certainly the common name of the place, if not the official one. We should probably come to a more general decision about the SOPpiness of certain placenames like Republic of India, Republic of Armenia, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Norway, and so on, since on the one hand, what else could they mean, and on the other hand, they're set terms and are for the most part temporally restricted (the Republic of Finland and the Grand Duchy of Finland are temporally distinct, but they're both Finland). Hmm... —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Good points. We differentiate between other places where the name meant different things throughout history. New South Wales is a good example with three distinct meanings, two historical and one current.--Dmol (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Strong Delete. Its just an SOP term. The Sudan when it was ruled by the British (the Anglo part) and the Egyptians. Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. What else would it mean? --PaulBustion88 (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
In answer to your question, it could mean a separate part of Sudan. But look at the following list, all of which have a degree of SoP about them - West Virginia, Greater Manchester, New England, New South Wales, North Queensland (an entry that survived RFD), South Dakota, etc. We are referring to a specific place in a specific historical time frame.--Dmol (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

West Virginia isn't a good example, because it's east of some parts of Virginia- it could have been just as truthfully called North Virginia. As for New England and New South Wales, where in the definitions for England and Wales would you find a clue as to what the "new" versions would be? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep It's a historical, informal name for Sudan under an Anglo-Egyptian "condominium" from the signing of an agreement in 1899 until Sudan became independent I January 1956. Whether the "condominium" was really just British rule raises the question of whether each diplomatic lie fictional use of a term merits a separate definition of the abused term. DCDuring TALK 02:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
It was not quite just British rule, because although every Governor of the Sudan was British, many of the administrators were Egyptians, and the vast majority of the judges in Sudan, particularly in Sharia court, were Egyptians. But the British made all the important decisions there. I still think the article should be deleted, because I would put it in the category of several entries I created hastily that I should not have. I hate to say it, but I agree with some of Dan Polansky's criticism of my editing here. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Weak keep per Dmol and others. I say "weak" because I am vaguely uneasy about place names in general, but I think others have made a good case for it. —Internoob 03:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep If everyone else wants to keep it, why not?

[edit]

Russian is redundant to translingual. Also, it's not an abbreviation - Russian doesn't spell номер with an "n". This is like claiming that π is an English abbreviation of periphery. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Makes sense. _Korn (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep. We’ve had this discussion before, more than once. Russian Cyrillic does not contain the letter N, so it cannot use its Cyrillic alphabet to make the common abbreviation No. (or núm., nº, Nº, n.º, n., as used by various European languages). Therefore, Russian, unlike English, regularly uses the numero sign . In English, the numero sign traditionally was never used except in professional typesetting. On manual and electric typewriters, as well as typing documents on the modern computer, English and a number of other Roman-alphabet languages use No. (as opposed to ), and other major languages use a local variety such as núm., nº, Nº, Nr., n.º, or n. But Russian does not use “Но.”, “но.”, or anything like that. Russian uses , not only in professionally produced documents and books, but even on the cheapest old manual typewriters. is so much a part of Russian writing that all Russian typewriters have always included a key for it, even though some other important symbols, such as the parentheses ( ... ), had to be left off due to space considerations (because Cyrillic has so many letters). For languages such as English that use the Roman alphabet, the numero sign is recognized and understood, but rarely used except by professional typographers. In Russian, the numero sign has long been used by everybody. Logically it should be considered as belonging more to the Cyrillic complement of glyphs than to the Roman. I would prefer to delete the Translingual page as redundant before I would remove the Russian page. —Stephen (Talk) 09:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Is (and its plural №№) in Cyrillic an exclusively Russian invention, or do other Cyrillic languages use it? Even if we exclude Russian's close cousins like Belarusian and Ukrainian, the Bulgarian Wiktionary has it, as does the Kalmyk Wikipedia. Further afield, Japanese uses the symbol as well. Russian doesn't appear to be unique in using № this way. The symbol is simply translingual. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the Japanese also use it, and for the same reason that the Russians use it (their script lacks the letters). Maybe the problem is the definition of translingual that we use for our translingual sections. In my opinion, our use of translingual is for words in the Roman alphabet, especially Latin and some technical words such as metric measurements. I don’t consider Chinese characters that are also used by Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese to be translingual in the sense that we use it, because they are not used by the English-speaking countries. I also don’t consider words and names shared by the languages that write in Cyrillic to be translingual as we use the term. Just as we have pages for each Cyrillic letter ({{э]], ж, я, including Russian sections), we should keep with a Russian section because it is used in Russian as a native symbol, and is much more used by Russian writers than by English writers. —Stephen (Talk) 12:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep as a Russian entry and Translingual (possibly some other languages, as mentioned by Stephen). I'm not sure about the formatting and the header, it probably belongs to punctuations because it's non-verbal and doesn't need transliteration. The reading for the symbol is но́мер (nómer, number). Roman letter "N" is not used in Russian. Yes, the symbol is used heavily by Russians. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There comes a point where you have to ask what the point of translingual is if we then add individual languages below with an identical meaning. Having said that, in this case the meanings aren't identical so I'm fine with it. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to explain with another example. Character "" represents a full stop in Chinese and Japanese, currently it's only used in these two languages (if we consider all Chinese lects using Chinese characters one language). It's part of the standard letters used in these scripts, so it makes sense to leave where they belong - under appropriate language headers and categories. Character "" is only used in a limited number of languages. It may be worth to keep it under the appropriate language headers. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Aren't they? They're all "Symbol for indicating numbers". Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
There was an RFD for & (→ Talk:&), and we have decided to separate language-specific information. In the case of , I think the plural form №№ is special enough to mention. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Atitarev and TAKASUGI Shinji. bd2412 T 01:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Grand Orient Freemasonry[edit]

I'm not definitely saying it should be deleted, but Dan Polansky has suggested that most of the entries I created were bad and this seem like it might be another irrelevant since Freemasonry is not really very relevant, knowing about specific branches of it maybe is not worthy of inclusion in a dictionary. Any opinions on whether this entry should stay?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep. It's a term, somebody might want to know what it means, and one can't figure that out from just looking at it. Also, we kept Snickers. _Korn (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep, I think. By what rationale in WT:CFI would it be deleted?
I wouldn't devote effort to creating such an entry. I might even get annoyed that someone else devotes effort to them. But that doesn't mean they should be deleted. DCDuring TALK 22:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
It sucks but DCDuring's right. Keep since I can't think of a deletion rationale. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you two somehow out to break PaulBustion's heart? Korn (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
CFI line 1: "This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and idiomatic." We go to the section on idiomaticity, which says "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." Going on that alone, what else am I to say? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Well you could remind everyone that virtually all proper nouns are arbitrary signs and that, therefore, the proper names that are combinations or arbitrary signs are also arbitrary. Those that are combinations of ordinary words, eg, White House, British Telecom, or are single words given an opaque meaning, eg, Pentagon, also have meaning that are not apparent from the ordinary words they consist of. DCDuring TALK 23:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
We have loads of amateur lexicographers but obviously need more amateur semioticians. Equinox 23:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
In general I am not thrilled with the idea of having the names of specific organisations (except perhaps really famous ones like the Red Cross); it feels like something for Wikipedia. However, non-commercial organisations can't really fail WT:BRAND. Equinox 22:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The non-profit rationale doesn't work for many US non-profit organizations (USAA, AARP, Ocean Spray, PBS, credit unions, labor unions) engage in activities that for-profit organizations engage in commercial activities (insurance, banking; insurance, lobbying; agricultural packaging and marketing; banking; broadcasting, including advertising; pension and insurance; respectively), not to mention transportation facility management, education, water, gas, telecommunications, and electricity supply; broadcasting and advertising.
I have never understood what makes PBS and AARP inclusion-worthy, but not CNN, and AIG. Or Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, but not the King Ranch. DCDuring TALK 23:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
On a bit of a tangent, things that are initialisms/abbreviations may be worth including for that separate reason. Equinox 23:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
That occurred to me as I was composing my comment. I agree, but we do a terrible job on such abbreviations and I don't detect much enthusiasm for improving those entries. In this and so many other regards we have eyes bigger than our stomach. DCDuring TALK 00:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
In my humble opinion the only good reasons to have CFI are to prevent Wiktionary from being fed words not in general usage and from being abused for advertisement. Other than that, No Paper. Nothing wrong with making an entry and adding the Wikipedia link. Also, since it seems I wasn't understood: Please don't tell people how much you dislike their entries, even though these entries are validated by the site's policy. There's nothing to be gained from virtually kicking people. _Korn (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

clases particulares[edit]

Looks SOP to me --Type56op9 (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete, see particular. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
If someone does not know the meaning beforehand, they probably will not figure it out by looking up the words separately. However, there are other resources on the internet that offer the correct meaning, so we don’t have to host the difficult cases (multiword terms) on Wiktionary. —Stephen (Talk) 09:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

mahā[edit]

rfd-sense: "as a part of Sanskrit compounds with separated parts"

This is in RFV (WT:RFV#mahā), and there was no unanimity about whether the quotations provided for the sense and currently in the entry meet WT:ATTEST, or whether the sense should be deleted. One editor even opined that attestation in use is not in question. To resolve the matter, I am opening a RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. The quotations provided do not attest the sense in use (WT:ATTEST). Furthermore, as an analogy, the use of the word "New York" in a Czech sentence attests "New York" as a Czech word, full with inflection, but does not attest "New" as a Czech word; thus, "Mahā Bhārata" does not attest "mahā" as an English word. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete per Dan Polansky. We don't have an English entry for vivre because of joie de vivre. Where would it end? Also, the citations cannot possibly convey meaning, since it doesn't mean anything. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The nominated sense does not actually appear to be a definition. The citations could be redistributed to support the first two senses. bd2412 T 22:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominated. Re: bd2412's comment above, I continue to argue that the citations as provided are not sufficient to demonstrate that the term in question is actually being used as English, regardless of which sense the citations are added to. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

RFD for the whole English entry. As already amply discussed in the earlier portion of the thread at RFV#mahā and at Talk:mahā. Much like for the nominated sense 3 above, the provided citations fail to demonstrate sufficient Englishness for this to qualify as an English-language term entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you proposing to create such an RfD? The editor who nominated the specific sense has not chosen to do so. Also, what then would we do about citations like:
  • 2004, Sushil Mittal, ‎Gene Thursby, The Hindu World, Ch. V:
    Classifying texts into mahā and upa appears to be a convenient device to organize the texts in a schematic order.
  • 2008, S. Bodhesako, Beginnings: Collected Essays of S. Bodhesako, page 21:
    The evidence is twofold. First, we would expect the Cullavagga to have, if not fewer, at least not more Khandhakas than the Mahāvagga. In the Suttas we often encounter Mahā/Culla pairs, and the Mahā is invariably the longer.
  • 2013, V. Ravi, Understanding and Worshiping Sri Chakra, page 92:
    1 represents Mahā Kāmeśvarī (not Parāśakti; Mahā and Kāmeśvarī are two separate words here) and she protects the eastern corner, the point of triangle facing down.
These are all new to the discussion; I will add then to Citations:mahā now. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Eirikr: I propose the following, if I may: 1) please post boldface delete here if you agree that the third sense, nominated above, should be deleted. This makes it so much easier for the prospective closing admin. 2) Postpone any discussion of the whole English entry to a later RFD nomination. This nomination is only to the third sense, the one that lingered in RFV so long. Expanding the nomination here creates a confusion, IHMO, decreases focus, and thus creates a disincentive for people to join the discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dan: Fair enough. You're right to keep things on target. I've struck my comment above, and will propose a separate RFD in due time. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I would prefer to have it as Sanskrit, but thus far the community has insisted that if it is in the Latin alphabet, it must be English. bd2412 T 23:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I would also prefer to have it as Sanskrit, defined simply as {{sa-romanization of|महा}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Ditto bd2412 and Angr above. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 04:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
        • That was my original suggestion, in the first discussion of this topic. bd2412 T 02:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Re: "the community has insisted": That was not the community, that was a significant minority, as per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing well-attested romanizations of Sanskrit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
          • I am wrong; you mean something else. You mean romanizations in the middle of English text. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
            • The community is schizophrenic on this issue. A majority want some kind of entry to exist for mahā, but there is not a "consensus" majority to have an English entry and there is not a "consensus" majority to have a Sanskrit entry. What we need is an either/or vote to decide which one it is. bd2412 T 16:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
              • Only one sense is being challenged. Nobody has yet challenged the other two English senses. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

CNN[edit]

I recreated this with the def: Cable News Network: a U.S. TV channel.

The entry was deleted multiple times without process so I'd like to sort this out via a new RFD; the last one (Talk:CNN) was in 2007. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: Does not WT:CFI#Company names in effect say company names should be deleted regardless of whether they are initialisms? If it does, you might see my point that the current text of CFI should not be applied as a rigid rule. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep since it's an attestable initialism. Different from e.g. Discovery Channel, which isn't. Equinox 19:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Kept, without opposition. There is no reasonable prospect of a consensus to delete arising at this point. bd2412 T 13:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

go away[edit]

If I ever saw an entry that wasn't needed... SOP, normal well-formed phrase, content absolutely covered by go (disappear) and away, I'm not even sure why I've not just speedied this. _Korn (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this nomination intended to refer to all three senses? The latter two, at least, appear idiomatic. To "go away" on a vacation implies leaving for a period and then returning. For something like a memory or an apprehension to "go away" means that it disappears, although it does not actually move to a position that is physically "away" from the person experiencing it. bd2412 T 12:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I've never heard it used like #2 without the addiction 'on holiday', but I can see how that merits an entry. But def. 1 and the interjection are fully SOP and def. 3 is 100% identical with def. 18.2 of go with reinforcement. The sense 'to become invisible' I regard as a bad description of vanishing; or is it actually ever used for invisibility without actual disappearance of the thing in question? _Korn (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per BD2412, and per the lemmings heuristic: Collins[16], Macmillan[17], dictionary.cambridge.org[18]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep all three senses. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Though I'm a bit hesitant, we could possibly keep all of these. Not sure about the interjection as an interjection rather than a verb form, though. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would support a permissive interpretation of the "SOP" rule in respect of common idiomatic phrases. 02:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

適当に[edit]

See Talk:親切に. Nibiko (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete. We have established that is a separated word, not an ending. Could there possibly be some exceptions, though? Category:Japanese adverbs needs to be checked for words ending in . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, as pointed out by Nibiko and Anatoli. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree per above. Here are all other entries with supposed adverbs ending in に, except kana duplicates:
--Haplogy () 05:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Inseparable adverbs like あまりに, いかに, 殊に, and 更に must be kept. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

real estate development[edit]

Surely this is just real estate + development? ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say delete. Equinox 10:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete, but it is a common collocation and ought be in a usage example. DCDuring TALK 12:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Should it? It's not an atypical usage so it doesn't need explaining. We don't have usage example for green grass in green and grass. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't see it being mistaken for "real" "estate development" rather than "real estate" "development". SemperBlotto (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete, simple stuff. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as a translation target. There are no translations yet but there should be; in Czech, this is not *realitní vývoj, a part-for-part translation. I don't know how to say this in Czech right now; probably simply výstavba. For German, there seems to be pretty sum-of-parts translation as Immobilienentwicklung. I would like to see comments for other languages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

pedophilia[edit]

There are now four senses in RFV. The RFV will be hard to close so I am opening this RFD.

I nominate the following senses for deletion (which Equinox already deleted and I thank him for that):

  • 4. (countable, crime) A sex offense committed against a child.
  • 5. A sexual orientation.
  • 6.​ (epidemiology, psychiatry) A World Health Organization clinical diagnostic classification of some pedophilia; a disorder of sexual preference.
  • 7. ​(psychiatry, outmoded) An American Psychiatric Association clinical diagnostic classification of some pedophilia.
  • Delete all four senses. Especially senses 4 and 5 are misguided, and I am tired of explaining why; sense 5 lacks differentia (lexicography 101); senses 6 and 7 seem overspecific. Please avoid very long posts to this RFD, or else it becomes as much of a mess as the RFV and related talk page discussion. Also please keep the typography simple, avoiding various font colors and background colors; please don't repeat the logorrhea and typographic mess that we can see at WT:RFV#pedophilia. Please limit extensive discussion; there is plenty of hard-to-follow discussion on WT:RFV#pedophilia already. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete. #4 is a cultural not a lexical difference, like how we don't have different senses for cannabis because it's legal in some countries and illegal in other. Because it's not part of the definition. #6 and #7 are not lexical. It is not the job of a dictionary to list standards held by medical bodies all over the world. That's cultural information and therefore belongs on Wikipedia. #5 is a bit more marginal. I wouldn't mind an RFV so much for that one because a sexual orientation isn't the same as sexual feelings. So definitely delete, #4, #6, #7, on the fence for #5. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: you are starting this RFD to split the discussion that is already started in an RFV – you don't want to have this discussion include usages potentially verified in that RFV (or having the many attested usages declared unverifiable there). Why don't you contribute something there? You may here that you are tired of explaining why – but you never did contribute there. No I am not going to change the way I write for you; criticizing that I visually separate what what I say from what I quote is silly. I will repeat what was included but ignored in WT:RFV#pedophilia. WT:RFV#pedophilia is about verifying what I attested to. That process is failing. No one is discussing either the nuance of the attested usage, or any of the attested usage.
This is about a vile and repulsive subject but each usage is well attested on Citations:pedophilia, Citations:paedophilia, or Citations:paidophilia.
I think this RFD process should begin after the RFV process is concluded. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: about sense 4, is hate crime a lexical WT:SOP difference or a cultural SOP difference? I was taught in elementary school that culture is a set of symbols like language.
sense 6 is lexical. It is the prescribed sense used for this term internationally. WHO was created by international agreement to do what it does. Part of what it does is publish a standard for epidemiological classification, the International Classification of Diseases. This is a controlled vocabulary which is translated into many languages. The vocabulary is by international agreement in practice and including the sense that is prescribed and used planet wide. Differentiating sense 6 and sense 7 is not over specific but the granularity in use on a planetary scale. It is part of a planetary prescribed vocabulary in multiple languages that should be described in wiktionary. I think it is safe to say most English speaking countries are signatories of these treaties and have obligations involving this vocabulary. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
But it's not lexical though. I'm not asking for it to be removed from Wikipedia, which is were encyclopedia material should be, I'm asking for it to be removed here. I said right from the start that that this was not an RFV issue and it should never have been there. This isn't a duplicate discussion, it's a relevant discussion in the right place, which the RFV wasn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me add what I find worth checking: pedophilia at OneLook Dictionary Search, Merriam-Webster[19], AHD[20], Collins[21], Macmillan[22]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the deletion and basically agree with Dan's first comment above. The cites that have come out of this debate are pretty useful but I don't think they support more than 2 senses. The three we have currently are literally more than enough. Ƿidsiþ 17:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: pointing to other dictionaries that you want to mimic is just a straw man. Wiktionary claims to "aim to include not only the definition of a word, but also enough information to really understand it" and "allows any attested terms, no matter how rare or obscure". It not just something to plagiarize other dictionaries into. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: I didn't discuss sense 6 in the same way there. Here I am discussing the nuance, there I am discussing that these usages exist. My arguements here and there are reasonable. You are shifting the discussion away from talk about the usage to talk about RFV v RFD. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Widsith: like I wrote in the RFV, you would want to reduce the number because that is what you did in 2011 (diff) when you also removed other senses to make it seem that pedophilia is just used as a feeling. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm against all of the senses BoBoMisiu wants to add as redundant or irrelevant except sense 6 "​ (epidemiology, psychiatry) A World Health Organization clinical diagnostic classification of some pedophilia; a disorder of sexual preference." That definition is slightly different than the American Psychiatric Association definition. WHO in its IHO defines pedophilia as "A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." The factor that distinguishes it from the more common medical definition is "early pubertal" so it includes children in the early stages of puberty as objects of the attraction, the APA's definition limits the attraction to a fixation specifically on prepubescent children to the exclusion not only of post-pubescent people but also pubescent children as well, "pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the manual defines it as a paraphilia in which adults or adolescents 16 years of age or older have intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that they have either acted on or which cause them distress or interpersonal difficulty"., [23] so sense 6 is a different sense of the word than sense 2, which is based on the APA definition. PaulBustion87 (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, it also depends on what this dictionary sees its purpose as. If it sees it purpose as reflecting both popular use of words and scientific use, then the two medical definitions should both be included, but if it sees itself as only reflecting popular use, then probably only the first definition should be included, and it should be tweaked to "sexual desire for or sexual interaction with a minor below the age of majority by an adult", because in popular that's how almost everybody uses the term. Not many people outside those who are experts on sexuality and on this topic specifically and the psychiatric community use the term in its medical/psychiatric sense. An example of this is that every time a statutory rape scandal takes place, most of the public labels the perpetrator a pedophile even if the victim is post-pubescent, which would exclude the criminal from both of the two medical definitions. So if wiktionary is reflecting only popular use, it should not use the medical definitions, but if its reflecting both popular and scientific use, it should use both of the two medical definitions. PaulBustion87 (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@PaulBustion87: your understanding of popular use, to use Dan's words, is misguided in my opinion.

BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

—This comment is out of chronological order: Has it occurred to you that your bartender is mad because she is dealing with the type of lunatic who wanders into a bar and randomly starts announcing definitions of words that are heard on the television? Should we get rid of senses of "rape" that have to do with agriculture, to protect such a person from reading them aloud while "rape" is being discussed in the news? bd2412 T 13:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
—This comment is out of chronological order: @BD2412: even if the bartender is mad, wiktionary is still descriptive and not prescriptive, and should not censor either rape or pedophilia – even if it makes the bartenders (or PaulBustion87's Humpty Dumpties or Alices) mad or the canola lobbyists activities more difficult. Let the consumer see all the usages of both. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@PaulBustion87: you are here, as did everywhere, discussing an outdated usage.

BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The goal here should be for our readers to understand in a general way what is meant when a term is used. We aren't paper, but it's not our job to list and explain all the different variations on the definition of a term as used in different cultures, legal jurisdictions and professional organizations. It's also not our job to discuss whether it's a sexual orientation, or a clinical disorder, etc. I would suggest the following single definition:

  1. Sexual attraction to or sex with children

A usage note might be in order to let readers know that some of the details of what constitutes pedophilia may differ/be disputed, but innumerable books have been written on the subject, just about every legal jurisdiction has some kind of law or regulation regarding it, and I'm sure it's been the subject of extensive litigation, not to mention internet flame wars, arguments, debates and fistfights. We can't begin to cover all that in our definitions, and we shouldn't try. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: sense 5 Dan thinks sense 5 lacks differentia. To me it is clear that a biological difference is neither an internal desire nor an external behavior. That is the way pedophilia is used in works studying the manifested genetic and physical differences. This sense does not describe either an internal desire (sense 1), or a medical diagnosis (sense 2), or an external behavior (sense 3). It is about a physical state of being with measurable physical differences in the brain. There is a reference to a peer reviewed paper on National Institute of Health site that I added in WT:RFV#pedophilia. @Equinox: also did not distinguish these categorical differences. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
My point is that, for the purposes of a dictionary, it doesn't matter whether it's cultural, psychological, biological, or The Work Of Satan. The term "pedophilia" as an element of the language refers to sexual attraction or actions centered on children. There's much more to it as a concept, as part of the culture, and as a phenomenon, but that's beyond the scope of a dictionary. When I say the word "ball", I could be referring to the toy my neighbor's kids were playing with this afternoon, or to something in Meso-American mythology and rituals- but a dictionary doesn't have separate definitions for each. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
We do not have different senses for a word based on whether it is legal or not. Homosexuality is legal in some states, but not in others, that does not give it a new definition, its still just being sexually attracted to or having sex with members of one's own sex. Incest is legal in some places but not in others, its still just having sex with relatives. Even Equinox agreed with me about that point. Murder is still killing innocent people, even if its legal, for example Adolf Hitler was a murderer because he murdered innocent people, but what he was doing was legal because he was the head of state and thus had sovereign immunity, his kind of murder was legal, while Ted Bundy's was illegal, but its still just killing innocent people. PaulBustion87 (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I've actually changed my mind about this entry. I think that only the first definition should be shown, the popular definition of adults being sexually attracted to/having sex with minors. Even though I do not agree with that definition, that is the definition most people use, very few in the general public limit its meaning to specifically adults wanting to have sex with only prepubescent or pubescent children, and apparently according to BoBoMisiu the American Psychiatric Association does not use the term this way either anymore,and its the job of a dictionary to reflect real world use, not to reflect scientific, specific, or even necessarily correct use of words. So my insistence on the medical definition was a mistake even though its the more accurate/useful definition. That's something that belongs in an encyclopedia entry, not in a dictionary. So there should just be one definition probably, the popular one of adults having sexual attraction to/committing sexual acts against minors. Even though the medical definition is more accurate, including it is a minority trying to impose its will on a majority, and that's not the job of a dictionary. That would belong more on wikipedia. PaulBustion87 (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, another reason why the criminal sense argument does not make sense is because most people use the term pedophilia to mean sexual relations with anyone younger than 18 years, but it is possible for that to be legal, for example in some states in the USA the minimum legal age for sexual activity is 16 years, but the media still label any adult (18 years or older) who has sex with or marries a 16 year old legally a pedophile, so in that case a legal activity is taking place, but people are still labeling it pedophilia, I do not agree with/approve of labeling that pedophilia, but the fact is, people do it, even though the "victims" in these cases are legally able to agree to sex without their partner being guilty of a crime, the general public does not care about that, because the "victims" have not reached the minimum legal age of majority (i.e., 18 years), therefore they are not adults legally in most other respects. So that is a case where people offended by a sexual activity between an adult and a "child" still label it pedophilia despite it not being a crime, so that argues against your separate, criminal sense of the term. And since this is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia, we should be reflecting popular use, not necessarily accurate use, unfortunately. We can't go by your opinion, BoBoMisiu, that's not what a dictionary does, to quote what Renard Migrant said to me before. He was right. PaulBustion87 (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
To quote what Equinox, no fan of mine, stated, "'The behavior is a crime in many cultures, but is not a crime in some cultures.' This is no rebuttal. Homosexuality is a crime in some cultures and not others: that doesn't mean we have two separate senses for it. It still just means gay sex" [24]. There's no sense in including the criminal sense per Equinox's point. PaulBustion87 (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The actual usages are attested to here, here, and here, the rest – in the RFV and RFD dysfunctional process on this term – in my opinion is just hypocritical censorship of how the term is actually used. Maybe someday these wiktionary discussions about pedophilia will get used as a sociology case study about group denial. @Chuck Entz: you know there is more to the understanding of the word then sex with children. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Why don't we just add another sense, someone who watches television to much, while we're at it.
"'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
Anyway, on a serious note, if we give the legal definition of pedophilia, then we would have to get bogged down in the discussion of what the exact legal age for sex is, which I know can easily can become an endless quagmire because it varies by country/state, and sometimes even in the same country/state it change according to the situation. So inserting the criminal sense of the word is not an option.
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'"
Hopefully it was seen that I was being sarcastic, and that I'm against all these ridiculous and redundant definitions being added. There's only three definitions at most that should be included. The popular one of sexual acts against/sexual attraction to minors by adults, the first medical one of adults sexually fixating on prepubescent children, and the second medical definition of adults sexually fixating on both prepubescent and pubescent children. Nobody uses the term in the senses you use it in, BoBoMisiu.
PaulBustion87 (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@PaulBustion87: I don't have to convince anyone. Any consumer of the pedophilia entry that looks for better understanding can open Citations:pedophilia to read the usages that demonstrate a criminal sense; and they can read the RFV and RFD by opening Talk:pedophilia after they are moved, and can read the deletes in the histories. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The vast majority of people use the term pedophilia to mean sex by an adult with a person under some arbitrary chronological age, like age 16 years old or 18 years old. For example, psychologist Hans Eysenck, in The Causes and Cures of Criminality stated that pedophilia "in its broadest sense refers to a sexual act (sodomy, intercourse, indecent assault, gross indecency) performed against a person below the age of consent, this being 16 for heterosexual behavior and 21 for homosexual behavior"[25] (he was a citizen of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where the minimum legal age for homosexual sex was 21 years at the time and for heterosexual sex was 16 years at the time, today its 16 years for both). That's more similar to how most people use the term than the medical definition. Nobody outside the medical field restricts the term to sexual interest in/sexual activity against prepubescent children in real world use. An example of this is that when Roman Polanski was accused of raping a 13 year old, much of the media incorrectly labeled him a pedophile, despite the fact that his alleged victim was clearly sexually mature. Since dictionaries are supposed to reflect actual use, not my opinion, then even though I don't agree with the popular definition of sexual acts against/attractions to minors by adults because I feel its to broad, that is the definition that should be listed, and the others should all be taken down, including the medical ones. I was used to having edited this topic on wikipedia, in an encyclopedia, accuracy is what's important, so it made sense to focus on the medical definition there, but in a dictionary, actual use is what's important, so it makes sense to focus on actual use instead here. PaulBustion87 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion is that there should only be one definition, "Sexual attraction to or sexual acts with children by adults". Because in the real world, that's how people use the term. They either base it on what the minimum legal age of majority is, or what the minimum legal age of consent is, and they may have different definitions, for example to a Frenchman pedophilia might mean an adult attraction to a person 14 year old or younger since that's the legal age for sexual activity in France, sources: [26], [27], while to an American it would mean an adult attracted to a person 17 or younger, because that's the age of majority here, but they all use it to mean an adult committing a sexual against an underage person. Nobody in real world use limits the term to its medical definition, Equinox was right about that. The medical definition belongs in an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. I was wrong to push my agenda for the medical definition here. So I think there should only be the one definition I suggested above. That's my final comment. PaulBustion87 (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I would be fine with this. I actually think this is the best solution, because there are so many citations where it is impossible to determine whether real actions are meant or just attraction/desire, and it is not clear to me whether the word has any inherent distinction for many speakers. This is particularly the case when we have a Usage note explaining the medical/legal complexities of the word. Ƿidsiþ 09:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
It is true that most people use a definition of pedophilia more similar to Hans Eysenck's definition than to the psychiatric definition, I'm quite certain that almost nobody uses the medical definition of pedophilia in real life, even though I think the medical definition is more accurate, when I defined the term as meaning adults who were sexually attracted to prepubsecent children, and I said that would not include attraction to 12-13 year olds, people were almost always either outraged or confused by my arguing that pedophilia did not include attraction to 12-13 years old. Eysenck's definition was the one that I cited above, of an adult having a sexual attraction to/committing a sexual act against, a person under the minimum legal age for sex, which is 16 years in Eysenck's country, the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as contrasted to the narrow, specific psychiatric definition of adults sexually fixating specifically on prepubescent children. Almost everyone includes sexual attraction to/sexual acts against 12-13 year olds in their definition of pedophilia, because the legal age for sex is at least 14 almost everywhere, an example of this is the Roman Polanski rape case, everyone calls him a pedophile despite the fact that his victim was clearly at least in the middle stages of puberty. Some people include sexual attraction to/sexual acts with, all people younger than 18 in their definition of pedophilia, this is how most Americans use the term, while some people limit it to sexual attraction to/sexual acts with somewhat younger people, for example in Europe a lot of people will use it only to mean sexual acts against people under 14, because that's the legal for sex in a lot of Europe, but almost everyone in the real world agrees that pedophilia means sexual attraction to/acts against people under some arbitrary chronological age, whether its 15,16, or 18 or whatever other age is chosen, the point is nobody uses the psychiatric definition in real world use "primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children by adults or adolescents" because almost everyone considers 12-13 years old children despite their being pubescent or even sometimes post-pubescent and therefore includes attraction to them/acts with them in their definition of pedophilia. So since it has no real world use, the psychiatric definition is inappropriate to a dictionary. It would be the more appropriate definition for an encyclopedia, which is about facts and logic, but a dictionary is about real world use, not logic. We cannot favor "opinion over actual usage, that's not what a dictionary does", to quote Renard Migrant. So the medical definition of pedophilia does not belong in a dictionary. PaulBustion87 (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
As a word with widespread usage, of course the medical definition belongs in a wordbook. There's no problem with making two definitions, one colloquial, one medical or technical or whatever tag we have for technical terms. Tons of people misusing a term certainly creates a second definition for it, but it doesn't annihilate the original one. As long as the medical community does have a narrowed understanding of pædophilia, we have to include it by our own standards. We're recording, not redacting. _Korn (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
ps.: I see this fulfilled by the current usage note. _Korn (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete the "crime" sense. So far as I know, there is no "crime" called pedophilia; there are a number of crimes likely committed in an act of pedophilia ranging from "sexual assault against a minor" and "statutory rape" to "child endangerment", but "pedophilia" itself is not a legal term, and I can not find it in Black's Law Dictionary or other legal dictionaries. bd2412 T 14:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    Agreed. You can easily check the current UK legislation here using Ctrl + f and it isn't in there under any of its three spellings. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
In the time since this discussion was started, all of the aforementioned senses have been deleted (not by me). I agree that this was the correct course of action. However, I have restored the distinction which existed in revision 31351647 (before all the changes by Paul et al started) between action and attraction. Many other entries (correctly, IMO) make this distinction, e.g. heterosexuality and homosexuality. - -sche (discuss) 21:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

شومېر[edit]

Implicitly nominated for deletion by User:عثمان_منصور_انصاري, giving reasons at Talk:سومر. -- Gauss (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Adjutor101: User:عثمان_منصور_انصاري moved شومېر to سومر. He wants to delete شومېر. Which word is correct, or are both of them correct? —Stephen (Talk) 14:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown: The source: http://thepashto.com/word.php?pashto=%D8%B4%D9%88%D9%85%DB%90%D8%B1 Its a modern borrowing from Akkadian Adjutor101 (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The word سومر is a Pashto writing of the English word IPA(key): /sumər/ but the word Shumér IPA(key): /ʃumer/ is used in Pashto only. This word is rarely heard in normal speech and more in academic discussions thereby probably giving rise to the user's confusion. Adjutor101 (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown: there is no a single book, authenticated & accurate website, academic research... in which found shumer!?

mostly we borrowed the therms which related to literature, historical, philosophical, related to logic, Islamic jurisprudence, theology etc from Arabic and Persian. related borrowed terms are always written as in its first source. Sumer or سومر is a term of Persian histroy, so we should used it as its in Persian. Pashto and Persian are sister language, mostly its literature have same contexts... same culture, same history, same Religion, same people, same ethnic groups ...

i will give you some books, authenticated & accurate websites links:

  • In Famous Persian Dictionary of Dehkhuda:

لغت نامه دهخدا سومر. [ م ِ ] (اِخ ). کشوری باستانی در قسمت سفلای بین النهرین ، مجاور خلیج فارس و درجنوب کشور راکد. شهرهای سومر عبارت بود از «اور»، «اوروک »، یا «ارخ »، «نیب پور»، «لارسا». در سفر پیدایش این ناحیه را سرزمین «شنعار» نامیده اند. سومریان از 5000 ق .م . در سومر سکونت داشتند و آنان یکی از تمدنهای بسیار قدیم را در بین النهرین ایجاد کردند. حکومت آن در حدود 3000 ق .م . تشکیل گردید و در هزاره ٔ دوم (2115 ق .م .) منقرض شد و قلمرو آنان ضمیمه ٔ آشور و بابل گردید. دین سومریان پرستش ارباب انواع بود. رئیس شهر را پاتسی مینامیدند، و او امور دینی ، کشوری و لشکری را اداره میکرد. پادشاهان سومر و اکد غالباً با یکدیگر در جنگ بودند و گاه غالب و گاه مغلوب میشدند وربقه ٔ اطاعت رقیب را بر گردن مینهادند. و ملوک سومرپیشوای دین هم بودند و خود را قائم مقام و کاهن اعظم خداوند شهر خویش میخواندند و بیشتر دارائی خود را صرف ساختن معابد وی میکردند و تا میتوانستند عبادتگاه را بزرگ و زیبا میساختند. (از فرهنگ فارسی معین ).

http://daneshnameh.roshd.ir/ Sumer سومر

  1. we have an article in Persian language titled: سومریان.
  2. we have an article in English language titled: Sumer or سومر
  3. in Arabic we have also: سومر

note: in english Srilanka, but its pronounciation is shrilanka, Indians, Srilankans, Bengalis called it Shrelanka, but in Pashto we pronounce it as srilanka, سریلنکا. Indonesia, Malesia, its sounds shia, but in Pashto we dont write it shia, it sounds like Zia (indonezia) اندونیزیا، مالیزیا. --عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Persian is significantly different from Pashto [grammar, vocab, pronunciation], Persian sources can not be used in Pashto. We can have words of Persian etymology like فردوس but then we even have words of Sanskrit origin like سمندر; and we obviously do not use Sanskrit sources in Pashto. Also even if the word is present even in an "non-authentic" dictionary it at least shows the word is used in Pashto. By comparison the English word on fleek is not present in Oxford English Dictionary but modern-day slang and is hence present in wiktionary. Adjutor101 (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

thepashto.com is not an authenticated website!?[edit]

@Stephen G. Brown:, @Gauss:! dear Adjutor101! the source you mentioned is a free website where everyone could come and contribute... i have checked that. most of the contributors are teenage boys who even do not know how to write pashto correctly. writing on a historical topic is so far from there level!

no academic, no literary, no any cultural soceity is involved in its contribution. this is the pashto academy Website and this is there Peshawar University page of Pashto-Academy. plz go and ask your Shumer there. if they approved that is a pure and the only one Pashto term. then your claim will be 300% right!!.

--عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't care about any concept of "pure and the only one Pashto term". We are a descriptive dictionary describing what is actually used in languages, not what some academy says should be used.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

helikoptercrash[edit]

The word is a simple sum of parts. Morgengave (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a compound word written together. There is longstanding consensus that those meet CFI. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
In Dutch, unlike in English, all compound words are always written together... Is every possible self-explanatory compound word in Dutch abiding the CFI? Morgengave (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
If it's attested in three independent permanently archived sources over the space of more than a year, yes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I've never understood why compound words like this are nominated for deletion, it's not as if we'll run out of paper any time soon. And we shouldn't assume that every non-native speaker could easily figure out the components that make up these compounds. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I have withdrawn the RFD. I thought it was policy due to the almost endless compound possibilities available in languages that easily form compound words. Morgengave (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be good practice, even if CFI is not enforceable, to say that single words don't have to be idiomatic. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
No copying off my paper, Renard. For everyone unaware of it: There were several discussions in the beer parlour abut CFI, including this very topic. Please stop by and have a look. _Korn (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

RFD withdrawn > striking. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite what you proposed, Korn, is it? I asked you if it was what you were proposing and you said no. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

in its infancy[edit]

Unnecessary, SOP: See infancy, sense #3 "early stage of development". --Hekaheka (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete: it's like "in his youth" or "in their old age". Equinox 10:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 11:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

German fascism[edit]

Even though I created this entry, I’m having second thoughts. I mean, I guess that if it’s identical to Italian fascism, I would agree that it merits deletion, but I don’t think that it is. Should we conserve this entry? --Romanophile (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I feel the word and the definition are the wrong way round (i.e. it should be Nazism defined as "German fascism"); this reminds of PaM creating an entry "Friday prayers" whose definition was a specific Islamic term for prayers on a Friday. So, inclined to delete. Equinox 12:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. But it has reminded me to add Mussolinism. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This feels very SOP to me. I strongly suspect it can refer to German neo-Nazism as well and is really just [[German]] [[fascism]]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, hence one finds e.g. "If post-war German fascism lacked an ideologue of the originality and output of Evola or Bardeche, it certainly has not been short of pan-European initiatives." (A fascist century, 2008, ISBN 0230205186, page 159.) Delete as SOP. - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

tobacconist's[edit]

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-07/Exclusion of possessive case specifically bans this kind of entry. It is not idiomatic: 's regularly has the effect it has in this case; I am going to the tobacconist's [shop] is no different from I am going to the doctor's [office] / to my aunt's [house] / to the mechanic's [shop] / to Fred's [house or restaurant or shop] / etc.
If anyone feels we need a place to store translations of "smoke shop", "doctor's office", etc, I will argue quite firmly that [[smoke shop]] and [[doctor's office]] (or indeed just [[tobacconist]], see sense 2) would be better translation targets than [[tobacconist's]] and [[doctor's]] even if we hadn't voted to ban the latter.
- -sche (discuss) 03:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I moved the translations from the second sense of "tobacconist" to "tobacconist's" to prepare for possible deletion. --Hekaheka (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep This isn't simply the "possessive case form" of tobacconist (which would be banned according to the vote), it's a noun of its own derived from the possessive of tobacconist. In that respect, it's no different to confectioner's (which survived RFD), butcher's, greengrocer's, chemist's (which is an especially interesting example, since pharmacists aren't generally called chemists these days) etc. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    In the UK they're much more commonly called chemists. Pharmacist sounds quite posh but it is used. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is different from "doctor’s". —Stephen (Talk) 15:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
How so? 86.152.163.37 11:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
However -'s does cover this: In the absence of a specified object, used to indicate “the house/place/establishment of”. Perhaps this definition is new, but, it would seem to cover a lot of the usage we have like tobacconist's, confectioner's, butcher's, greengrocer's, chemist's. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)