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



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".

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 and archiving requests: A request can be closed when a decision to delete, keep, or transwiki has been reached, or after the request has expired. The deleting administrator should remember to sign. Deletion requests are archived to the talk page of the deleted entry, using {{rfd-passed}} and {{rfd-failed}}; for a model see Talk:piffle and Talk:good job. If you see discussions on this page that were closed in previous months, your help in archiving would be appreciated; it's as simple as cut-and-paste.

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


January 2013[edit]


(uncountable) the action of the verb to wax. Can't decide whether to rfd or rfv, so will start with this one. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you make of these: [1][2][3][4]? — Ungoliant (Falai) 23:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be what comes of our decision not to include {{gerund of}} alongside {{present participle of}} for English -ing forms. Any verb-ing form can mean "the action of the verb to verb", because -ing forms are gerunds as well as present participles. I've never understood why we try to hide that fact from our readers. —Angr 06:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, those seem like the verb to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
@Angr: Why not just reform {{present participle of}} to {{en-ing form of}} and display Present participle and gerund of ...? Does that capture all the uses of the form or do we need more of a grammar lesson built into the display for "progressive"? DCDuring TALK 15:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
You can't change {{present participle of}} itself because it is used in languages (such as Italian) in which the present participle and gerund are of different forms and have different meanings and usage. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
But we could bot-replace all instances in English with an en-specific template that was specific to the grammar of English. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I suppose we could have an English-specific template that says "both present participle and gerund", but I'd rather we just had two senses, one with {{present participle of}} and one with {{gerund of}}. It's really only coincidence that the two are homophonous in English; it's not like they form any sort of semantically natural pair. It would be like having a Latin-specific {{la-dative and ablative plural of}} just because the dative and ablative plural of (I believe) every single Latin noun are identical. But we don't do that; we list the dative plural and ablative plural separately. And the English pres.ptc. and gerund are even less closely related to each other than the Latin forms are. Can't we get a bot to add {{gerund of}} underneath every instance of {{present participle of}} in an English section? —Angr 17:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I’m not sure. If they were the verb, wouldn’t they be “waxing the floor” instead of “the waxing of the floor”? — Ungoliant (Falai) 17:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Not necessarily. In "Waxing the floor is fun" it can't be anything but a gerund. —CodeCat 17:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
We must keep a sense of the noun because the plural is very much attestable. Whether it's this sense and/or the others, I don't know. Equinox 23:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
This sense is marked as uncountable. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
If the sense is marked uncountable, then the sense needs to be corrected; it is trivially easy to find instances of "waxings" referring to the action of the verb. See, e.g.:
  • 1983, Youlan Feng, ‎Derk Bodde, A History of Chinese Philosophy, Vol. 2, p. 427:
    The wanings and waxings (of the sun and moon) occur according to the (twelve) pitch-pipes.
  • 2009, Fritz Allhoff, Wine and Philosophy: A Symposium on Thinking and Drinking, p. 128:
    Are these metaphorical descriptions just the subjective waxings of the critic or are they aesthetic properties really (but metaphorically) true of the wine?
  • 2006, Mary Lou Lyon, Early Cupertino, p. 81:
    The building interior was Gothic and finished by multiple waxings of the commercial coast woods, redwood, sugar pine, white pine, and Douglas fir.
Cheers! bd2412 T 16:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Now that we have the extended functionality of Lua modules. Could it detect "lang=en" and describe it as "present participle and gerund of..."? SemperBlotto (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
That can actually very easily be done even without Lua. The question is do we really want to? --WikiTiki89 22:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Weak keep because there are other noun senses (so it makes sense to have the most basic one), and waxings is attested. - -sche (discuss) 04:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure it makes sense to keep such a vague sense. - -sche (discuss) 04:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
How is a vague gerund sense (applicable to noun forms of multiple verb actions) any less sensible than the lone "present participle of" sense for verbs with multiple meanings? bd2412 T 16:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete. But we should probably revisit how we present ing-forms. Perhaps the most economical thing would be to amend {{present participle of}} to refer to "gerund" and link to both participle and gerund pages ours or WP's or something new. DCDuring TALK 18:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a related issue concerning Dutch and German verbs as well. Both languages have gerunds, like English, although the gerund is always identical to the infinitive, rather than like the present participle. These gerunds are nouns, and have neuter gender; a few have a plural form as well, but generally they're uncountable. German capitalises nouns, so the gerunds are spelled with a capital letter and so they get their own entry, as in Category:German gerunds. But for Dutch it's not so clear because the spelling is exactly identical with the infinitive. Only a few our current Dutch verb lemma entries also include a gerund sense, mainly because this is implicit in any verb. So the situation is really much like the English one being discussed above. Whatever we decide for English should presumably take the Dutch situation into account as well. —CodeCat 21:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
What about the -ung gerund (and its Dutch equivalent if there is one)? --WikiTiki89 21:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
(Dutch has -ing) That's not really a part of the verbal paradigm as such. It's more of a "companion". The relationship is derivational rather than inflectional, and many verbs don't even have such nouns. So their existence is lexically disconnected from the main verb and would need to be considered separately by CFI. Many of them also have idiomatic meanings, while the "plain" gerund always has the meaning of the verb. There are also other ways to form verbal nouns (like English -tion, -ance and so on), and often they have identical meanings and are in competition with the -ing suffix form, if it exists. —CodeCat 21:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I see no consensus to delete and no likelihood of one developing. Can we close this now? bd2412 T 19:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

March 2013[edit]


Should the legal senses be combined? The definition in the 1848 quote appears to combine the elements of both. — Pingkudimmi 11:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

One definition says attentat is any appealed (i.e. claimed to be wrong) lower-court holding/ruling/whatever. The other say it's any wrong (and therefore appealed) lower-court holding/ruling/whatever. I'd venture a guess that only one of those is correct, but have no idea which. (Both might be, though.) Of course most citations won't help distinguish which meaning is correct, but careful citation-finding/reading could help. (I haven't time now, I'm afraid.)​—msh210 (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. It could be that they are both describing the same thing, with the one sense being an objective one meant by a disinterested observer, and the other being what is meant by the appealing lawyer, who in argument would be claiming wrongness. It does sound somewhat abstract though. — Pingkudimmi 13:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll ping User:BD2412 to see if he has any insight — or legal dictionaries with insight ;) — on the matter... - -sche (discuss) 01:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
This one is a bit archaic - I have not come across it before, that I recall. bd2412 T 13:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Update: This word is not in any recent edition of Black's Law. bd2412 T 14:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Century Dictionary c. 1914 has 3 legal senses including the two we have. On their faces, our two definitions are not semantically equivalent, nor are Century's. Keep. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, current literature on international law makes abundant reference to the attentat clause in extradition treaties. Some of its current relevance has to do with its possible role in providing legal protection to those who have committed politically motivated crimes. Such a term is obviously derived from the third sense in our entry. I don't know whether that the sense in attentat clause is identical to any of the sense we have or that it exists apart from its use in attentat clause. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Kept, clear lack of a consensus to delete. bd2412 T 19:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


Pronoun. There is a noun PoS section with definition and usage example I can't distinguish from those offered for the purported pronoun. DCDuring TALK 12:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to classify the first use as. It's the same conundrum we have with lots of (which just happens to be a redirect...)
For the second use, that seems to be an adjective or noun describing the subject through use of the copula equating "six eggs" to "plenty".
However, there seems to be plenty (pun intended) wrong with our coverage of the word. There are constructions like "there is plenty to go around" and "six eggs is plenty" instead of "six eggs are plenty" that our current entry does not serve to adequately describe. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, some linguists would use the existence of lotsa as justification for an entry for lots off. Similarly, plentya is readily attestable in books and provides a justification for plenty of.
This is the kind of entry that is worth the work of consulting references, getting examples, and facing some dispute about what one does. It's also not as daunting as trying to improve or repair an entry for a common preposition or a modal or light verb. DCDuring TALK 16:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Plenty is either a noun or a pronoun, not both. I think it is more fitting to call it a noun. --WikiTiki89 01:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Numerous dictionaries treat it as both a noun and a pronoun. I have just added a usage note with references, but also redefined the pronoun to avoid duplicating the definitional information. - -sche (discuss) 19:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep pronoun. "I think six eggs should be plenty for this recipe" does not seem to be a noun use of "plenty" to me, although I am not sure it is pronoun either. The treatment of "plenty" should be compared to the treatment of "enough", since they seem to play similar grammatical roles. --- I have in part returned the definition to the pronoun: "More than enough"; this definition does not seem to belong to the noun part of speech, unlike "A more than adequate amount". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    Re "I think six eggs should be plenty for this recipe": I think it is an adjective or (or possibly an adverb) in this sentence. --WikiTiki89 14:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I have added the less-than-standard intensifier (adverb) sense and a determiner section with two nonstandard determiner senses (one for countable nouns, the other for uncountable). DCDuring TALK 13:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

all right, my lover[edit]

NISoP once we move the note about lover to lover. Equinox 16:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Have made the move. Incidentally, I've only ever heard/read this as "all right, me lover". Using the standard "my" in such a dialectal phrase looks very weird to me. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

sexuality studies[edit]

Sum of parts. Needs a headword if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

p.s. Don't we have a bot that picks up missing headwords?

KassadBot, also speedy delete, it's just a good faith mistake by a new user. The new user seems pretty open to communication so I feel confident that this can be resolved quickly. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It may be a sum of parts, but I still think it should be included to avoid conflation with sexology (sexual psychology), which has a different focus than sexuality studies. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep per Nicole Sharp, although I am unsure about this. About "<noun> studies" entries, these are often worth keeping for their translations, e.g. English studies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus to delete. bd2412 T 21:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


It seems to me that these two senses should be merged:

  • The science of planting and growing trees in forests.
  • The art and practice of planting and growing trees in forests.

and that these two senses should be merged:

  • The art and practice of cultivating, exploiting and renewing forests for commercial purposes.
  • Commercial tree farming.

However, the translations are different, which is puzzling. DAVilla 05:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The second, at least, strikes me as different; a tree farm is not a forest.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I understood "commercial tree farming" to include forests. DAVilla 05:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I support merging sense 1 and 2 (perhaps as “The science, art and pratice of [] ”), but 3 and 4 strike me as different, unless parallel rows of same age, same species trees counts as a forest. — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I support merging sense 1 and 2 along Ungoliant's lines.
Senses 3 and 4 could be merged by simply replacing "forests" with "trees" in sense 3. Further revision might be desirable. I don't think that the non-tree portions of the forest environment play anything other than a supporting role to the trees, in the main uses of this term. Also, I wonder whether some may be trying to redefine forestry to refer to management of the forest ecosystem without regard to its commercial use. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
w:Forestry says "Modern forestry generally embraces a broad range of concerns, including assisting forests to provide timber as raw material for wood products, wildlife habitat', natural water quality management, recreation, landscape and community protection, employment, aesthetically appealing landscapes, biodiversity management, watershed management, erosion control, and preserving forest as 'sinks' for atmospheric carbon dioxide." Italics bring out examples where merely talking about trees and farming isn't good enough.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

te reo Māori[edit]

Names of languages in Maori are created by adding te reo "the language" to the name of a people or country. So this just means "the Maori language". I think we've deleted similar entries in other languages before? —CodeCat 20:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If that's the precedent, then yes. However, it's a common phrase in NZ English, in which it is perhaps non-SoP? Here are some cites [5]. Note entries 1, 5 & 6 in particular. Furius (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
That would make it keepable as an English term, not as a Maori one. —Angr 19:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, yes. That was what I had in mind. Furius (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
We've tried to delete similar entries before (e.g. in Russian), but it hasn't always happened. [[Türk dili]] was RFDed but passed due to COALMINE. The RFD on русский язык et al. is still open, with (by my count) two users favouring deletion and one favouring keeping. - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

green line[edit]

The quote does not support this – it just means a literal green line (which happens to indicate a grammar mistake). But you can't say, "I've made a green line." (green line may mean something else though, like the Israel-Arab state boundaries.) Ƿidsiþ 07:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


Finnish is an agglutinative language and often forms compounds by putting words together. Some words are changed during this process by converting them from the nominative singular form into their inflectional stem. This includes words ending with -nen, which becomes -s- when an ending is attached (see the declension of pohjoinen) or when the word is used in a compound. This process is completely regular and predictable, so every Finnish word ending in -nen automatically has this stem form with -s-. For that reason, it seems wrong to treat this as a prefix (since there is Category:Finnish words prefixed with pohjois-), this is just the combining form of a word. It's the same as how Russian сам (sam) becomes само- (samo-) in a compound, like in само-вар (samo-var), and Greek and Latin also have such combining forms of most words. —CodeCat 14:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Institute for the Languages of Finland, also known as KOTUS, lists pohjois- in their wordlist, which we have copied in Wiktionary as Finnish index. They list it as prefix. They don't list every word formed this way, e.g. varsinais- (from varsinainen) is not included, although it is used in some place names, see Varsinais-Suomi. I also think the commonness of this form speaks for keeping it. A simple Google search for "pohjois-" gets 27.6 M results, which - to be honest - includes millions of inflected forms of pohjoinen (northern). Further, the process of forming these prefixes/attributive modifiers is regular but not perfectly predictable. Notable exceptions include the colours sininen (blue) and punainen (red) which become sini- and puna-. I would say majority of adjectives cannot be transformed this way. I have never heard common adjectives such as tavallinen (common, ordinary) modified to tavallis- whereas erikoinen (special) becomes erikois- which, by the way, is included in KOTUS wordlist. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
sini and puna are distinct words, so you can't really treat them as combining forms of sininen and punainen. The argument that "you've never heard some adjectives modified this way" seems a bit moot. Of course not every word actually does appear in compounds, but that doesn't automatically make the remainder into prefixes. What I would find more convincing is if the prefixed/combining form had a different meaning from the base word, but as far as I can see pohjois- means the same as pohjoinen, so I don't see any way it could be distinguished from the compounding form of pohjoinen. I would agree with keeping it, though, if we changed the definition into something like "combining form of" and allowed such entries for all other -nen words. But that would be so that people don't get stuck when they see a term like Pohjois-Irlanti and can't find "pohjois" anywhere. Then again, would they know whether to look for pohjois- or pohjois? —CodeCat 12:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Unsupported titles/Ideographic space[edit]

I thought we deleted stuff like that before. This is not a term in any language. -- Liliana 10:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep. We have Unsupported titles/Space and , so why not this?
    • I don't think we should have the space either, to be honest. We have words, phrases and symbols (like the character you cited above), but this is not a word, not a phrase and not a symbol. It's not within our scope. -- Liliana 16:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete: it's not a "word in a language", we have already voted to delete far more symbol-like things (e.g. the APL characters), and we can't even give it its proper title. Nobody would look this up, nor be particularly enlightened if they did. Equinox 18:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Community Chest card[edit]

tagged but not listed -- Liliana 11:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete per Baby Pokémon. Equinox 17:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Could be valid if there were uses like this:
  • His pockets were turned inside out just like on the Community Chest card but instead of being empty the pockets have piles of coins coming out of them. [6]
I'm not sure it need to pass WT:BRAND but certainly that would be more than sufficient, no? DAVilla 00:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]


rfd-sense: (in grammatically negative comparative clauses that express superlatives) not (usually translated with the positive sense of the subsequent negative)

Which is as clear as mud, but if you look at the usage example it makes sense:

le gâteau le plus grand que je n’ai jamais vu — “the biggest cake that I have ever seen”

Except that ne is an error in this case, it should be « que j'aie jamais vu ». I have found a couple of hits for it used this way on Google Books, so am not sending this to rfv. Argument is that it's a rare error and only hear because a non-native speaker added it, probably because of the association between 'jamais' and 'ne'. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree a bit. I think it's an error only inasmuch as the verb should be in the subjunctive. Some examples I posted in the Tea Room:
  • Ajoutez que Marguerite était revenue de ce voyage plus belle qu'elle n’avait jamais été. – Alexandre Dumas, La Dame aux camélias.
  • Singer décrit ce film comme le plus ambitieux et le plus grand qu'il n’ait jamais fait. here
  • J'avais eu un réel coup de cœur pour cette émission, notamment pour le décor, le plus grand que je n’aie jamais vu sur un plateau de télévision. here.
However, I don't necessarily object to deleting it because I think this is probably not different from the preceding sense. Ƿidsiþ 19:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep. The discussion above is incorrect because the entry in question deals with ne without a negative word. You don’t need the subjunctive mood in a comparison.
TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
(French student here, and the ne is a ne expletif. You can also find similar phrase in English, "they'll learn much more than I'll never know". Note that it is non-standard form in English but acceptable in French. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


rfd-sense: An expression of disbelief or doubt at what one has just heard. Isn't this just the noun used on its own? No interjection at horseshit or bullcrap for example. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep. One could just as easily add the same to nonsense, poppycock, horsefeathers, hogwash, bull, horse pucky and, of course, all the usual vulgarisms. Delete Chuck Entz (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Delete. This kind of usage could be considered an ellipsis for "That/this is/was bullshit". Unless an ostensible interjection that is more commonly also a noun cannot be so defined with at least one of the noun's definitions, it seems to me that it does not merit inclusion, except in Wikiphrasebook. DCDuring TALK 16:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep as a phrasebook entry at least. This word, when used as an interjection, has nontrivial translations into foreign languages, which I think are worth keeping. Keφr 11:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
We have intjs at some such entries (rubbish) but not others (tommyrot). I incline towards deletion. Equinox 18:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am not sure. What I find troubling is that there is no attempt at a systematic treatment of the question. Like, would many interjection sections of terms from Wikisaurus:dammit be deleted, including shit, fuck, hell, on similar grounds? If not, what is the difference? For "hell", I would argue that a non-native speaker cannot know that the noun "hell" is used to the effect of "damn"; you cannot use Czech cs:peklo in that way; similarly for "fuck": this highly generic expletive is almost never rendered into Czech as cs:mrdat, certainly not in that generic way; "shit" (damn) would not be rendered as cs:"hovno" but rather as cs:kurva or cs:sakra. For a past case that seems directly equivalent to "bullshit", see Talk:nonsense. As for what other dictionaries do: AHD: bullshit has an "interjection" section; Merriam-Webster: bullshit does not have an interjection section, while Merriam-Webster: hell has "used as an interjection" in its noun section; Collins:bullshit has no interjection section while Collins:hell has an exclamation section. dictionary.cambridge.org:bullshit has the entry as "exclamation, noun". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, but the argument for deletion is that the exclamation "bullshit!" can be understood as "[what I just encountered is] bullshit!" — no such thing applies to hell or fuck, and it is quite a stretch to apply it to shit. Keφr 08:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]


"An uncontested party leadership election." Way too specific, why only a (political) party leadership election? Could be any office (Sepp Blatter being re-elected as president of FIFA whilst being the only candidate comes to mind as a specific example). But then, isn't that just the first sense used sarcastically (as in how big can means small, and easy can mean hard)? As a separate issue, has anyone heard of "The pomp or assembly at a coronation" as a definition of coronation, because I haven't. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

My second instinct is to keep this but to rewrite per what I've written above. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Any non-competitive instance of an ostensibly competitive process for selecting a winner can be so described. Elections are the most common usage, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it used in sports and in business, as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Transwiki:Guard ship[edit]

Discussion moved from WT:RFDO#Guard ship.

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

No, it fails WT:COALMINE because it's not significantly more common than guardship, it's significantly less common than it; on Google Books an estimate 441 hits whil guardship gets 25100, more than 50 times more. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
But guardship can also refer to "the state of being a guard/guarded", so a simple Google Books search may not be representative for this particular sense. —CodeCat 18:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
"A guard ship" gets 32900 GBC hits to 3930 for "a guardship". "Guardships"+crew gets 1440, "guard ships"+crew gets 4950 (with some being for "Coast Guard ships"): "the guardships"+crew gets 529, "the guard ships"+crew gets 3480. - -sche (discuss) 16:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Have you noticed how wonky Google search results are? The counts, in particular, seem unreliable. Caution seems required. Sometimes it pays to try to page toward the end of the results. That end may come much sooner than the indicated number would suggest. That might be the result of Google limiting the number of such pages they make available or it might indicate a bad estimate. Heavy use of qualifying terms to reduce the absolute count, possibly even going further than -sche did above, may be desirable to make a page-by-page scan of the results more feasible, without fear of Google-imposed limits. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Good point. "Of the guardships" masts crew gets 9 results (though it says it gets 10), "of the guard ships" masts crew gets 12 (though it says it gets 237). "Of the guard ships" boats crew gets 18 (claims 673), "of the guardships" boats crew gets 6 (claims 7). The two-word term seems more common than the one-word term. - -sche (discuss) 17:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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




Is this seriously dictionary material? -- Liliana 17:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - Curiosity may be as worthy as dictionary material as Opportunity and Spirit I would think - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Good point - I added those two to this discussion as well. -- Liliana 17:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Not in my opinion. But WT:CFI#Names of specific entities lets us debate each instance of such things, all as a result of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The craft is named from the word, because it is hoped to embody certain properties of the word — like calling a child Grace. We don't have entries for individual people called Grace, and IMO should not for individual vehicles. Drbogdan points out that we do have Opportunity and Spirit; we also have Titanic and Apollo; and (better known than some of these, but fictional) Talk:Enterprise failed. IMO delete all. Equinox 17:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
How is this different from my cat being called Gatto? The difference is cultural not lexical, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Seems that Curiosity, Opportunity, Spirit, Apollo and Titanic may all be comparable (ie, all names of world-famous vehicles of notable real-world historical significance) - but Grace and Gatto may not be "*as* analogous"? - apples and oranges (*maybe*?) - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering - should the Mayflower (and the like) also be included? - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Words like Titanic and Columbia should be included because they have entered the lexicon (in these cases, as epitomes of major accidents, as used in comparisons.) This is not the case with Curiosity, Spirit and Opportunity. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Wiktionary Pages for the Challenger (ie, the space shuttle Challenger) and the Hindenburg, having major accidents, should be created? - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
You could create them, and if they were RFDed I would oppose deletion, but I doubt that everyone will agree. — Ungoliant (Falai)
Yes check.svg Done - hopefully the newly created pages (Challenger and Hindenburg) will last a long time - or at least as long as the Titanic, Columbia and Mayflower pages? - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hindenburg is used as an approximate synonym for disaster. I'm not so sure about Challenger. Above you mentioned "notable real-world historical significance". That's valid for an encyclopedia, but not for a dictionary ("notable", especially, points to confusion between Wikipedia and Wiktionary standards). The term itself is what we focus on, not the thing it refers to. Unless the term has some meaning beyond just a reference to a specific thing- no matter how famous or important- it doesn't belong in a dictionary. In other words, we answer the question "what does 'Curiosity' mean?", not "what is Curiosity, and what's important about it"? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz - Thank you for your comments - they're *very much* appreciated - in terms of Curiosity - to some (maybe many these days) Curiosity may actually mean a "robot on Mars" - and may be synonymous with "space exploration" - might this make the Curiosity term dictionary worthy? - rather than only encyclopedic material alone? - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you show any evidence that Curiosity might be a generic term for a Mars robot? It seems incredibly unlikely. Equinox 04:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
You may be right about this - I was thinking that, in casual conversations these days, the word Curiosity seems to bring to mind "Mars robot" - without further explanation - how widespread this may be - or how widespread it needs to be - may be an issue of course - thanks for your comment - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
My test for these is metaphorical usage, which Apollo, Titanic, Hindenburg, and Mayflower all pass. For instance, the Concord was "commonly called the Mayflower of the Germans."[7] This may be difficult to find for the listed terms because of the commonness of the words, but tentatively I would say delete Spirit, Opportunity, and Curiosity. It doesn't look good for Challenger and Columbia either. DAVilla 16:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The metaphorical/allusive usage test is a good one, if it could be operationalized and rendered objective and replicable. Allusions might be a worthy expansion of Wiktionary's coverage. We already have many of them. For example, we should have George Washington, because of the abundant use of "the George Washington of his country/nation/people". All sorts of historical figures, especially classical ones, are used for allusive reasons in taxonomic names, especially genera. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Rfd-sense: (with “the”) Apollo Theater, a music hall in New York City associated with African-American performers.

Like the above, I don't think this is dictionary material either. -- Liliana 17:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete sense line. Perhaps have a "See also" linking to Wikipedia's article, but that's as much as there should be. Equinox 18:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
We have {{only in}} for just these cases. DCDuring TALK 21:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
{{only in}} won't work inside a language section because it's a box. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Citations added show how it is referenced simply as "the Apollo". DAVilla 09:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


Sense#3: To bite; to bite off; to break short.

I am not convinced that the citations have the meaning claimed. They seem to me to be just more examples of "break off pieces". In "he will knap the spears apieces with his teeth" the "with his teeth" element would be redundant if knap really meant "bite off". Likewise in "He breaketh the bow, and knappeth the spear in sunder" the "in sunder" part is redundant if the meaning of knap were "break short". SpinningSpark 13:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought the same until I looked at the OED. There is an old sense "To bite in a short or abrupt way; to snap; to nibble" (cognate with Dutch and German (originallyLow German) knappen to crack, snap, bite) which the OED says is "now dialect". Shakespeare used the verb with this sense in "The Merchant of Venice": "As lying a gossip..as euer knapt Ginger.", and John Clare used it in "The Village Minstrel" (1821, perhaps dialect by then): "Horses..turn'd to knap each other at their ease." Anne Elizabeth Baker includes the word in her "Glossary of Northamptonshire words and phrases" in 1854. Dbfirs 23:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

financial institution[edit]

Delete. Obvious sum of parts. --Dmol (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. "financial institution". I find it unobvious that this term should be used to refer to, among other things, commercial banks. For lemmings: financial institution at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete SOP. — Ungoliant (Falai) 23:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • SOP. Keφr 05:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

financial service[edit]

SOP. Delete.​—msh210 (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Obvious sum of parts. --Dmol (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete both. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep "financial service". I don't think it's really obvious. The current def seems actually wrong ("A service concerned with the handling and investment of funds"), as it seems to exclude insurance companies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete SOP. — Ungoliant (Falai) 23:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 19:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

clean coal[edit]

Clean (which doesn’t damage the environment) + coal. — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It does damage the environment, though. (OTOH, I'm not sure all misnomers should have entries. I'll stay on the fence for now.) - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
In an Orwellian sense like the Clean Air Act cleans the air of birds. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it is listed for deleted, when the term clearly exists. The reason I listed it at RFV was that the definition is vague and dubious. Feel free to put in a more accurate definition, then I'm sure we can get rid of this sense only.--Dmol (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Because it’s SOP. Clean is used for anything which (whether true or not, as -sche noted) doesn’t damage the environment. There’s clean energy, clean oil, clean technology, clean mining, etc. — Ungoliant (Falai) 17:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Delete per nom. The Orwellian magic is right in the word clean, like organic, gluten-free, democracy, etc. DCDuring TALK 18:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I have added a second definition, taken from Wikipedia, that seems to cover the term. As I have said, I wanted verification of the dubious and vague first definition. --Dmol (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


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

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

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

check into[edit]

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

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

ancient Greek[edit]

This is a mistake not an alternative form. Hardly worth creating {{misspelling of}} entries for wrong capitalization. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I’m on the fence on whether wrong capitalisations should have misspelling of entries, but if kept it should have an {{&lit}} definition as well. — Ungoliant (Falai) 10:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not. Delete. —Angr 18:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think using ancient + Greek to signify the ancient form of Greek is a mistake. Greek: "The language of the Greek people, spoken in Greece and in Greek communities." hardly indicates that Greek refers to Modern Greek. (I think I'll add a note about when Greek means Modern Greek and when it means Ancient Greek later, but we can hardly exclude that it sometimes does refer to Ancient Greek or both. (I'd have a hard time citing both, though.))--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Re your last sentence: Maybe I misunderstand you, but I think it'd be simple enough to cite both "Greek" = modern Greek and "Greek" = ancient Greek. For the latter, just look for works that say "the (Latin|English) word foo was borrowed from the Greek word ..." or mention famous Romans who spoke or were fluent in "Greek", etc. - -sche (discuss) 00:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Certainly any modern work on Indo-European studies will say "Greek" to refer to Ancient Greek and "Modern Greek" to distinguish the modern language (if they mention it at all). (Back when I was studying Indo-European linguistics I once told someone "I've never been to Modern Greece", making them laugh and ask if I had been to Ancient Greece, but all my brain was doing was making a kind of back-formation for "the country where Modern Greek is spoken".) —Angr 09:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking about a sentence like "Greek is the language that is currently spoken in Greece, and has been since before the time of Homer." Maybe formulated that way, it would be possible to cite; I still think that most works would either make a Greek/Ancient Greek divide or a Modern Greek/Greek divide, if the other one was ever important enough to worry about.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


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

Delete, I think. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
What about moving the definition to -lic and changing it to “forming [] from present participles [] ”? Would that be correct? — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]


"column or having columns. Combining form is appended to make an adjective form. "

This is based on what are or should be senses of style, used in combination or with a prefix. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Different etymology as style. Dictionary.com also has it as a suffix. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


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

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

Call it a prefix if you must since it's never used as a standalone word. DTLHS (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it belongs here. If we do want it, then we need to include all the other call sign prefixes XE- and XH- for Mexico, C- and VO- in Canada, and so one for broadcasters in all nations. DCDuring TALK 16:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It has meaning, but I'm not sure it belongs in a dictionary. It's just a practice in assigning of letter sequences- do we want to include the letters at the end of forms, like the US IRS tax forms 1040 vs. 1040A vs. 1040EZ (w:IRS tax forms#1040)? There are all kinds of cases where a serial number or ID or code contains sequences that have meaning. It's kind of like the practices in naming things like ships and hurricanes: there is a system to it, but it's not really dictionary material. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I suppose I was wrong to move this from Translingual, as one of the purposes is to identify a broadcaster at a distance, which distance has little to do with official boundaries. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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

There is some interesting history to the exact assignments. According to Wikipedia, "[t]he United States was represented by the military at the 1927 [International Radiotelegraphic Convention] conference, which is why it received (or, in some cases, retained) A (for Army) and N (for Navy). The W and K for civilian stations followed as the simple addition of a dash to the Morse code letters A and N. (However, in 1912, KDA–KZZ, all of N, and all of W were assigned to the United States, but all of A was assigned to Germany and its protectorates). International call signs for stations aboard U.S. ships were initially assigned with W prefixes on the west coast and K prefixes in the Atlantic; land-based stations followed the opposite pattern. The distinction between Atlantic and Pacific ships was to become less meaningful after the Panama Canal reduced the distance required to cross from one ocean to another". It's not exactly etymology, but it is an interesting explanation. I had never realized that radio stations and television stations outside the U.S. had call signs at all, or that all call signs had an initial letter assigned by international convention. bd2412 T 20:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete. It's not dictionary material. We could do similar with the Australian radio stations and add 4 for Queensland, 2 for NSW, etc, but in neither case are the letters or numbers used in a linguistic sense. (BTW, our radio prefixes match our post code prefixes, so that could open another can of worms).--Dmol (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Good point about the post codes. In the US, you can tell by the first 2 digits of a zip code what state or territory it's in, and you can tell the same about phone numbers from the area code. There's a huge amount of encyclopedic information associated with specific letters, numbers, and sequences thereof that's not really a part of the language. Such things may find their way into the language via their symbolism or as short-hand for something (I think an adjective entry for 90210 might be justifiable, for instance), but on their own they simply don't belong in a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


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

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



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

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

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

  1. To give strength or ability to; to make firm and strong.
  2. To make able (to do, or to be, something); to confer sufficient power upon; to furnish with means, opportunities, and the like; to render competent for; to empower; to endow.
    • 1711, October 13, Joseph Addison, The Spectator, number 195
      Temperance gives Nature her full play, and enables her to exert herself in all her force and vigor.
    • 2013 June 29, “A punch in the gut”, The Economist, volume 407, number 8842, page 72-3: 
      Mostly, the microbiome is beneficial. It helps with digestion and enables people to extract a lot more calories from their food than would otherwise be possible. Research over the past few years, however, has implicated it in diseases from atherosclerosis to asthma to autism.
  3. To allow a way out or excuse for an action.
    His parents enabled him to go on buying drugs.

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

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

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

ask for it[edit]

Discussion moved from WT:RFV#ask for it.

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

It's a total no doubter for me; I would've simply undone the edit. This is a specific example of #2 not a new definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete. It’s definition 2 used in a specific context. — Ungoliant (Falai) 10:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd say sense 2 could be narrowed down instead, since it seems to primarly be a synonym for "someone who's vulnerable and is deliberately annoying those who are liable to hurt them" whereas sense 3 is a woman who's underdressed as if to tempt someone to rape them. I dont think being underdressed can be a subset of being annoying. Soap (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
You might want to read it again. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
There is difference between provoking (even unwanted) sexual attention and instigating sexual assault. It's a gliding scale, but we distuingish black and white, even if there is a whole range greys between them. People using the expression "asked for it" when it is clearly inappropiate, often don't think that they are asking for it. It might be useful to add a usage note that outside certain circles "she was asking for it" is asking for a kick in the balls, if not a castration. -- 20:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)




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

I was thinking this might be a common enough error to be included as an erroneous form. But it's actually attested in early Modern French (with the acute as well) as a correct form. Here's such an example. Keep, rewrite as necessary. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
That source says that prévaille is incorrect: 'But no matter what those who attach themselves to the exactitude of grammar say about how it is so and how one must speak so, one says at the court prévale and not prévaille, and it is the court that must set the rules for us.’ If prévaille is a common error, it should be included under ‘Usage Notes’ and not be given a seperate page or even be included in the conjugation table. I'm also nominating prévailles and prévaillent for deletion because the correct forms are prévales and prévalent respectively (see the above link for prévale). Esszet (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
We're a descriptive, not a prescriptive dictionary- if it's in use, we have an entry for it. That's not to say it shouldn't be tagged as "proscribed", "nonstandard" or a "misspelling"- but it merits an entry according to our WT:CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep all and rewrite as necessary - all of these are likely enough errors that they should be included. Razorflame 21:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Esszet, prévaille might be incorrect but it hasn't always been incorrect. It has existed, it is present in French texts. Websites likes Larousse and Leconjugueur only list current forms, not all forms that have existed. Similarly you won't find avoit under avoir instead of avait, but it's an older form and the standard spelling for much longer than avait has been. And I'm not suggesting adding these to the conjugation either. So only those who type it in will find it, and they will see the usage notes saying this is no longer used and prévale is the only modern form. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see actual uses (the link provided above does not show a use at all). I found at least one use, but I feel that it might have always been an uncommon error due to the conjugation of valoir. I even find this error on a modern conjugation site (mentioning prévaille', prévailles but prévalent), despite the fact that nobody would use prévaille. Lmaltier (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of uses; I searched Google Books, found about 10 and stopped after that. The total number of hits was in the thousands and I didn't want to check all of them. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Have a look at
All these figures seem to show that prévale, prévales, prévalent have always been the normal forms, and prévaille used concurrently only during very short periods. These statistics should be used in some way to clarify things in the pages: it might be understood that the old normal form was prévaille and that prévale is only a modern form. Lmaltier (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

lead poisoning[edit]

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

I disagree. It is my thumbnail understanding that "lead poisoning" refers to poisoning by incidental absorption through the skin. If you decide to do away with your evil twin by mixing lead into their tea, they may be poisoned by it, but this would not be "lead poisoning" as it is traditionally used. Consider:
  • 2005, John Emsley, The Elements of Murder: A History of Poison, page 317:
    Specht and Fischer deduced that Clement had been fatally poisoned with lead and that this had been taken repeatedly and over a period of time. They concluded that his remains revealed a pattern of lead poisoning similar to those who had been exposed to lead as a result of their occupation and who had died of this cause.
Cheers! bd2412 T 18:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete, simple enough. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
"...poisoned with lead...revealed a pattern of lead poisoning..." seems to me to be evidence for exactly the opposite case that BD2412 is trying to make. SpinningSpark 23:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The book is about murders committed with poison. In context, the passage is about how researchers knew that Clement had died of from exposure to lead because he had symptoms similar to those of crafstman who worked with lead (i.e. had actual "lead poisoning"), and concluded from those symptoms that Clement had been poisoned with lead - much like finding that someone had died from burns (the symptom, which might be found on people who work in fire pits and boiler rooms and get burned incidentally) and concluding that this particular subject had been murdered by intentionally being set on fire. bd2412 T 00:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
There are two definitions of poisoning. "The administration of a poison" is what you're focusing on as the SOP meaning, but "The state of being poisoned", works just fine for the common usage. Lead poisoning is a condition or syndrome that is the result of too much lead in one's body- how it got there is irrelevant. For instance, if children eat chips of lead-based paint, they get lead poisoning. If someone is shot and the bullet isn't removed, they're at risk for lead poisoning. "Poisoning by incidental absorption through the skin" isn't part of the definition. In fact, one could say "this particular case of lead poisoning was no accident- someone deliberately poisoned him with lead." It seems to me a matter of whether the fact that only one definition of a component contributes to the default meaning is enough to establish idiomaticity. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Point taken. Delete. bd2412 T 13:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
There are no non-literal senses in the entry, and it's not a translations target, since plumbism hosts the translations... so if it's decided that any poisoning by lead is lead poisoning, the thing to do would seem to be delete the entry, rather than make it an {{&lit}}. - -sche (discuss) 00:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
@-sche: There was a non-literal sense when I nominated it. Semper deleted it out of process and I reverted him. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I removed the context from that sense, because I don't think it's correct. I have heard or seen that figure of speech in fiction, so it may be that the contributor saw it in some western and assumed that was the context. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
For some reason or other many lexicographers find this worth including, including Merriam-Webster, usually fairly picky about excluding MWEs. See lead poisoning at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 17:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

La Calavera Catrina[edit]

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

Remove 'la' and make it a proper noun. JamesjiaoTC 03:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
No strong feelings, if kept as English can retain the 'La' as 'La' isn't an article in English. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


I am proposing to delete the first sense. I feel, as someone who's worked in the computing field for more than a decade, that the first sense is really just a specific case of the second, which is more general, and in my opinion, the better dictionary definition. What do you guys think? JamesjiaoTC 03:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I am puzzled that sense #1 is glossed as uncountable. Is there an uncountable use of this term? SpinningSpark 20:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The "capability to perform a failover" (countable) seems to be uncountable. I've added a few cites under the uncountable heading, but intending no endorsement of that wordy, even encyclopedic definition. I don't think there are a vast number of these so the sense should be worded to span all the cites, which probably means lack of specificity. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so if you agree that there is an uncountable sense (and you have now just cited it), then you can't delete it. There are still two senses. Unless you also intend to gloss sense #2 as countable and uncountable. I would think a cleanup of sense #1 is a more appropriate thing to do than deletion. SpinningSpark 15:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I think there's not enough difference between the uncountable and countable versions to warrant two definitions. The second definition can be tweaked slightly to cater to both. My point with this post is the unnecessary degree of specificness that the first definition goes into. JamesjiaoTC 00:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that one definition ought to be enough. We are talking about the difference between an uncountable ability ("do we support failover?") vs. a countable instance ("how many failovers last year?"). Compare backup, perhaps. Equinox 00:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
If it is a requirement for a definition to be substitutable – it is a desideratum – it may not be so easy find suitable wording. DCDuring TALK 04:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

prévalant (adjective) and prévalants[edit]

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

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


Rfd-sense: Columbia Rediviva, a famous American sailing ship.

Is there anything special about this ship that it needs its own definition? From my non-American bias it just seems to be the name of a ship, which is clearly not dictionary material. -- Liliana 20:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete DCDuring TALK 21:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete. If anything, have a "See also" section linking to this on Wikipedia, rather than a sense line; but I doubt it's worth it. Equinox 01:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete. As far as I can tell, we don't have ship names, except for the occasional exception like the Titanic which has entered the langage as a symbol of something. Having just the one makes no sense, especially since most Americans have never heard of it, let alone anyone outside the US. I would say that even the space-shuttle sense is borderline, though its association with tragedy might argue for some kind of symbolic overtones. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The sense seems to be there to support the following sense, "The space shuttle Columbia, named after the sailing ship", which should probably deleted as well. —Angr 11:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It's very borderline (Challenger is more commonly used to refer to a disaster). I gave it the benefit of the doubt but wouldn't mind if someone else nominated it as well. -- Liliana 14:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: The river was named after the ship. The spaceship was named after the ship. Ergo, both definitions are dependent on the ship. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I would expect you to defend your definition, but... according to w:Burbank, California: "The city was named after David Burbank, a New Hampshire–born dentist and entrepreneur". We have an entry for Burbank- does that mean we should have one for the dentist (who Wikipedia doesn't consider notable enough for an article)?. Presence in etymologies isn't a reason for having an entry, especially since we can link to Wikipedia articles. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
      • The two are hardly analogous. The fact that the ship has a Wikipedia article is the first way that comes to mind. You mention only a few ships have entries here. a) Columbia should be one of the ones that does, and b) I see no policy arbitrary limiting the number of ships. Also, the fact that no one has heard of it now is hardly relevant; notability at any period in recorded history is sufficient; the ship had such notability 100-200 years ago Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Entries by User:[edit]

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

  • Delete all. Encyclopaedic information not for the Wiktionary. Razorflame 02:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to titles without "Division" for the ones that would thereafter be single words that we don't have. bd2412 T 04:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
This sounds more reasonable, as place names are allowed. Preferably the names should be accompanied by translations into Urdu and native languages but this could be added later. Either move per BD2412 or keep in full. My only concern is that these divisions are too small and are unlikely to be used in the media or books and are of little value as a translation target. It's far more advantageous to keep high level administrative divisions of a country, such as provinces of Pakistan, like we have Category:en:States of India or Category:en:US States. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The trouble with them is that, unlike Orange County and the like, they don't actually tell us anything. I would delete them all (by all means add proper entries for the names without "Division"). SemperBlotto (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
What is the difference, in the end, between deleting these "Foo Division" titles and creating new "Foo" titles, or merely moving these "Foo Division" titles to "Foo" titles? bd2412 T 16:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea; if we're going to move Lahore Division to just Lahore, does it carry the same meaning even when the word 'Lahore' is removed? Is this like New York State or more like Arizona State, or what? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Lahore Division is currently defined as "One of the administrative divisions of Pakistan". At worst, we would merely need to adjust that to "The name of one of the administrative divisions of Pakistan". I am, however, certain that we should have an entry on Lahore, with an etymology and a pronunciation. bd2412 T 03:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
If you click on one of the Wikipedia links, you'll find that a reform in 2000 eliminated that entire tier of jurisdictions- these are all historical, rather than current entities. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep We have had a VOTE on keeping toponyms. It passed. I see no reason to provision for excluding administrative divisions from places far away in distance or time. End of discussion.
If we would like to reverse or qualify the vote, then we need a VOTE. We may have enough information now to actually have criteria that would allow us to rationally distinguish between toponyms we deem entry-worthy and those we don't, though I doubt it. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Is "Lahore Division" a toponym, though, or is it a toponym with a qualifier? It seems rather similar to Washington State, which is completely SoP as even the definition itself shows. That the "state" or "division" part is used as disambiguation doesn't really matter, because "tall tree" is also distinguished from "small tree". —CodeCat 12:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz, the fact that it is a former division rather than a current division merely means that we would have to mark the entry "obsolete". Lahore is still a word, and can be defined here. bd2412 T 23:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
In this case probably "historical" rather than "obsolete". Equinox 23:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it's more complicated and murkier than that. According to w:Divisions of Pakistan there was a vote in 2008 to restore the divisions, but it's unclear to me how far along the restoration is.
As for why I pointed this out: of course we have historical and obsolete terms, and there's no reason to eliminate these because of that. My point was that this IP is operating from a definite POV, and we need to factor that into our decisions- albeit remaining true to CFI in the process. If we decide to keep these, we need to consider if there's anything we can do to mitigate the POV aspects. My take on this is that we have a typically-jingoistic expat living in England who's on a mission to make sure that the Pakistani version of things is represented in detail. Mostly that's not a problem in itself, but this edit shows they're quite capable of crossing the line into overt POV. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
It gets worse: some of the divisions were in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, which is in the disputed territory of Kashmir, and India doesn't have divisions with those names. I've speedied those. Others were listed as being part of "East Pakistan", better known as Bangladesh. Given that East Pakistan ceased to exist decades ago, defining Dacca Division as "One of the administrative divisions of East Pakistan" is misleading. I changed "East Pakistan" to "Bangladesh". Also, all of the entries have Wikipedia templates, but several link to nonexistent Wikipedia articles.
To sum it up: this IP needs to be watched carefully, due to POV language, politically-motivated entries with no correspondence to actual reality, and sloppiness with Wikipedia links. I've gone through and cleaned up some of the POV stuff, but I'm sure there's more that I didn't spot. I'm also not sure what to do about some of the divisions in disputed territory that might or might not be part of Pakistan, depending on whom you ask. It wouldn't hurt for someone to check all my edits to their contributions, for that matter, to make sure I didn't make any mistakes- it got a bit tiring after awhile. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • As for Bahawalpur Division, Bannu Division, Lahore Division and similar entries from Category:en:Divisions of Pakistan:
    • One thing is whether e.g. "Lahore Division" should have an entry. I think it should, and thus keep. Geographic names that contain their entity type in the name include Hudson River, Cooper Creek, Lake Ontario, Atlantic Ocean, Adriatic Sea, Chesapeake Bay, Cape Horn, Mount Everest, Longs Peak, Death Valley, Copper Canyon, Red River Gorge, Mexico City, New York City, Cape Town, New York State, Main Street, Grant Avenue, Jack Kerouac Alley, Leicester Square, Piccadilly Circus, and Abbey Road. Some have the form "<noun-phrase-used-attributively> <entity-type>" (e.g. "Death Valley"), while some have the form "<adjective-phrase> <entity-type>" (e.g. "Atlantic Ocean").
    • Another thing is that the definitions are entirely unspecific and poor: "One of the administrative divisions of Pakistan". This is I belive that SemperBlotto means when he says that "... unlike Orange County and the like, they don't actually tell us anything". I admit that this is a fairly good reason for wanting to delete the entries.
    • As for "We have had a VOTE on keeping toponyms", a claim made above: We had a vote that resulted in this regulation: Wiktionary:CFI#Names_of_specific_entities: "... A name of a specific entity must not be included if it does not meet the attestation requirement. Among those that do meet that requirement, many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which. ...". So the regulation does not tell us that we need to keep all place names. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
      • The vote eliminated the sole criterion for discriminating among proper nouns. The surrounding discussion explicitly included toponyms. By normal rules of construction, that leaves us with not basis for discrimination other than subjective whim, as was mentioned at the time. We are now in the position of exercising our discretion arbitrarily against a place that is unpopular and far away from the deciders, exactly the kind of situation that rules are intended to prevent. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

moral authority[edit]

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

Actual, it's more or less the other way around. It means having authority because one is believed to be moral. The authority can be over anything. In other words, if a person is believed by others to have impeccable morality, those others may follow the commands of the person with "moral authority", even if that person has no formal authority (i.e. doesn't have academic expertise in a subject or hold a political office). bd2412 T 12:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Government/politics and academia only? Really?
Some other sources of formal authority includes management position, property ownership, officially certified competence, legal violence or threat thereof. There may be more. Other, informal sources of authority can include extra-legal violence or threat thereof, status from any source derived, celebrity, a track record of success (or its tokens), acknowledged competence or knowledge (certification-free), friendship with or leverage over others. I don't know what I'm missing.
Moral authority is in no OneLook reference besides Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 14:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


Not an interfix, but the preposition on used both before and after a hyphen. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. It is simply on. If we don't, we will end up with entries being added, one-by-one, for many English prepositions wrapped in hyphens, then entries for other English words used in hyphenated orthography. DCDuring TALK 19:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
If it were simply "on", one would write "Stratford on Avon" instead of "Stratford-on-Avon", but note "Stratford-upon-Avon". -- 19:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. The examples have been moved to on. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

invitar a salir[edit]

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

  • Yep, delete as SOP -WF

crystally clear[edit]

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

Keep per CFI’s “A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means.” Even if it is a grammatical error (I see it as an error of interpretation: forming a -ly adverb from the expression crystal clear and thinking crystal is an adjective, probably a result of it ending the same phonemes as the common adjectival suffix -al) we do include them (Mussulmen, avocadi). If anything is a SOP, it’s the adjective:
  • “There is a crystally clear river flowing by Vidauban.” (crystally (as a crystal) + clear)
  • “How dare you imply that the paradox rules aren't utterly, crystally clear!” (multiple adverbs (utterly and crystally (missing sense?) modifying the adjective)
Ungoliant (Falai) 13:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
@Ungoliant: These two are obviously adverbial uses of crystally#Adverb, modifying the adjective clear. Thus, it is SoP. That, as a matter of style, many, including me, would view it as inferior, is immaterial to its SoPitude. We do not have the talent to be a style guide and would be venturing into a realm that is gradually being abandoned by AHD, the sole major dictionary that offered any style guidance.
@Musselman: It's meaning is obvious from its parts. Crystally is attestable as an adverb, whether or not it agrees with anyone's theories of proper word formation and whether or not we can attest to crystal as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete; covered by crystally (and in some cases evidently an error by non-native speakers). Equinox 16:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
@Musselman: crystal#Adjective "very clear" is attestable as an adjective. See Citations:crystal. DCDuring TALK 16:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually CFI goes on to say "A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense. Any of these are also acceptable:

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

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

September 2013[edit]


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

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

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

Delete. No chance it is a well-known work. — Ungoliant (Falai) 13:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Mary Poppins is a rather well-known work in English; but in Finnish? (Let's not, for example, allow all the Joycean nonce words in various French translations.) Equinox 13:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
It's quite well-known also in Finland. The movie was extremely popular, and there have been several theater productions. This particular song has been recorded in Finnish and it became quite popular as well. 1000 hits is not so bad for Finnish. It's a small language with only five million speakers. Even if we don't count Indians and Pakistanis, there are at least 100 times as many English speakers around. If 1,000 hits is some sort of criterion, we'll have to delete much of the current Finnish content. That said, delete by all means, too much energy has been spent on discussing it already. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

slapende vulkaan[edit]

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

Actually there isn't currently a definition for slapende#Dutch. Also slapen just says 'to sleep', whereas a dormant volcano isn't literally sleeping of course. Things which aren't alive can't literally sleep. Whether slapende means "(of a volcano) dormant" I don't know, so we need Dutch speakers, and we have a few of those. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
slapende is the inflected form of slapend, but most present participles are currently lacking inflection tables and don't have entries for all the forms yet. I would say that slapen can also mean "be dormant" in the more figurative sense, although "slapende vulkaan" does sound somewhat poetic. The more usual way of saying it would be inactieve vulkaan. —CodeCat 13:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
If I look at the examples at dormant, it's not a good translation for slapend (not even as a secondary meaning after sleeping; though dormant bank account might do too). An "inactieve vulkaan" can be a w:dode vulkaan or a "slapende vulkaan", most are "dood" (extinct).
Weak keep, idiomatic meaning. -- 21:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
My point wasn't the idiom: "slapend" literarily means "dormant", that's not the point, the Dutch use the term "slapende vulkaan" for a volcano that hasn't erupted in quite a while. A dictionary however should be filled with words, not encyclopedic terms: these are two separate words coincidentally put together. You could include "slapende hond" (sleeping, dormant dog) or "slapende man" (sleeping, dormant man) too. --DrJos (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
In English "dormant" and "volcano" aren't two words coincidentally put together; "dormant volcano" is more scientific whereas "sleeping volcano" is more allegorical. The question of what the translation of "dormant volcano" into Dutch is is certainly a lexicographic question, not an encyclopedic question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
If (and that's a big if) English uses "dormant dog" for a "sleeping dog" (as opposed to, say, a dog who did lead a pack, who doesn't lead it now, yet might lead it again), you could be right. For me (and I am Dutch) slapend usually only means sleeping, the idiomatic uses in slapende vulkaan and dormant volcano just happen to coincide. -- 20:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

get on[edit]

definition: (transitive) To commence (an action).

  1. The dishes need washing, the floor needs vacuuming, the laundry needs folding. Get on it!

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

I would be in favor of making an entry for "get on it." The verb "get" is so complex that expecting the user to figure out which meaning of "get" is meant here is not reasonable. --BB12 (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. Keep: Too many definitions of "get" and "on" for this to be SOP which is BS anyway Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep per Purplebackpack89. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This clearly isn't get#Verb ("to reach a certain condition") as that's intransitive. Try again. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I was using an MWOnline intransitive verb definition. DCDuring TALK 17:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This nomination definition is transitive, and 'on' isn't the direct object. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. If you consider get on to be a unit then it is transitive. If you consider it to be SoP then you need to have recourse to an intransitive sense of get which can be used with a prepositional phrase headed by on. DCDuring TALK 17:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


I'm not sure if CFI includes names of treaties, and if it does then maybe this qualifies, but this one, The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, seems awfully encyclopedic. --Haplology (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion of this entry is governed by WT:CFI#Names of specific entities, which leaves it open to RFD whether to keep this or not. One option is to look at past RFDs on names of treaties to find what we did for them. My guess is that unless we want to keep all attested names of literary works, we probably do not want to keep all attested names of treaties. This particular entry might have some interesting lexicographical material, but I cannot judge what it is. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete. This is a term simply composed of 包括的, 核実験, 禁止 and 条約. There is nothing lexicographically special in it, I'd say. If merely being attestable is not enough for a treaty name to be included, then this would have to be deleted.--Whym (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

AA cup[edit]

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

Both AA and cup have brassiere-related definitions. Seems SOP. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

A cup[edit]

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

Good point: A and cup allow for a lot of senses for "A cup", yet A cup dwarfs those senses. -- 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Rephrase or delete If the definition were, "a woman with teeny-tiny breasts", then we might have a shot. But the present definition adds nothing that isn't either overly encyclopedic or blatantly obvious from the bra-related definition of cup Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your vote. If you think the definition should be rephrased — and you're even offering a rephrased version — then you should just edit the entry accordingly, and then vote "keep". No? —RuakhTALK 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Since my rephrase involves saying the same thing with completely different words, deleting the existing entry and starting from stratch would provide the same effect. FWIW, I've added the small-boob definition alongside the other one, which we can still discuss. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • And since the rephrase is now in the entry as a separate def, just delete Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 05:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know that the yoga-pants analogy works ("I'm an A cup" is fine, *"I'm a yoga pant" is not), but this is part of a much broader group of size related terms ("I'm a size 6" is fine). Even if it's specifically worth documenting this use of "___ cup", I think the best place to do that might be [[cup]]. —RuakhTALK 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
And size for the size 6, 2, 10 definition Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


probably not a true adjective - WF

Needs fixing, not deletion. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
It needs evidence to show that it behaves like a true adjective and with what meanings, if any. This is a common problem with -ing form entries. They are worth systematic inspection and review for PoS, without actually flooding RfV or RfD. Perhaps the more far-fetched ones could be done en masse. DCDuring TALK 15:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

depend on[edit]

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

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



Another chance to achieve what should have been done the first time, usually indicating success this time around. (See second-guess.)

Per the RFV, this is simply “second chance/attempt” with ellipsis of chance/attempt. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep. See, e.g., 2003, Sheila Ryan Wallace, The Sea Captain and His Ladies, page 22:
The policeman smiled, his eyes twinkling. "Now if you'll follow me, I'll escort you to the Victoria."
"Oh, there's no need of that. If you'll just point me in the right direction..."
That's what got you in trouble the first time around. You don't need a second.
Note, there is no reference to a chance or an attempt, even though the word as used requires that it be a second opportunity to do something. bd2412 T 18:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
It could be an ellipsis of time (around), but you’re probably right. Did you find any other? — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Here's another: 2009, Paulette Jiles, Stormy Weather, page 37:
Smoky Joe ran against a Houston horse named Cherokee Chief.
“Don't hit him,” Jeanine said to the jockey. “Maybe once. But you don't get a second.”
Cheers! bd2412 T 19:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
About the first citation, the only place one would have to look for the what to be understood after second is after first. It's hard to imagine a more straightforward case. The second one isn't much more mysterious, except for the enallage between once/first and second/twice. (I've long looked for a chance to use the word.) DCDuring TALK 19:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Shall we delete the sense of "physician" at doctor, then, since it is generally deducible from the context that it is just an ellipsed form of "doctor of medicine"? bd2412 T 20:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
They are orders of magnitude apart in terms of conventionalization, which is why this sense of second is not to be found in other dictionaries. Actually, to me it seems not all conventional, just a matter of find-the-reference. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand the argument - basically, it is that "second" in these sentences is like "slow" in "Bob got a fast car, and Joe got a slow", or "sturdy" in "Bob built a shaky house, Joe built a sturdy"; but I think that it is far more common and grammatically acceptable to use "second" here than to use other adjectives, to the point that it no longer feels like an adjective. bd2412 T 15:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The 'feeling' rationale would be better if we had a systematic way of polling such feelings, presumably among a variety of native speakers who understood what we were asking. The particular examples (sturdy, slow) that you selected don't really work: most speakers would probably insist on adding one or ones. Maybe there are some sensible tests that would get at where a given adjective sense fit on an evolution toward being a full noun sense. The existence of plurals is a strong indication, which we use for English -ing forms, though it doesn't help if the sense is uncountable. Absence of an anaphoric referent is pretty strong, but can require reading paragraphs of preceding text. Checking for use with one/ones requires reading for sense in citations. COCA/BNC at the BYU site makes this easier.
The effort required to find evidence is what sends us to different heuristics: me to lemmings, you to feelings. Maybe I can find something in CGEL that can help. DCDuring TALK 16:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps this is because "second" already existed as a noun for other purposes before it was used this way. With respect to the sturdy and slow examples, it would likely be a bit different if the sentence were, "Bob got a blue car, and Joe got a red", because "red" is already a noun on its own. Whether it is wrong or not, it doesn't feel as wrong as "Joe got a slow" or "Joe got a sturdy". The fact that some feel more wrong than others is borne out by the existence of actual uses, i.e. the rather straightforward:
  • 2011, Karen Miller, The Innocent Mage:
    I'll have one chance to show them that's no longer true. One chance ... and if I stumble, I'll not get a second.
As for pluralization, see:
  • 1969, Peg Bracken, I didn't come here to argue, (link not available) page 43:
    So perhaps some of us flog ourselves unnecessarily when we're actually using every decent brain cell we own. Now, it's apparently true that 100,000 brain cells die every day, and, unlike teeth, you don't get seconds.
  • 1983, Joanna Jordan, Never Say Farewell, page 243:
    "I've already had my turn," Margaret said, "and with Grant you don't get seconds."
  • 2007, James Atticus Bowden, Rosetta 6.2, page 231:
    We don't get seconds and thirds at this. It has to happen now.
Cheers! bd2412 T 18:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you've actually cited a plural-only (or perhaps plural only) sense seconds; the citations for 'second' seem like ellipsis and not a separate sense (not different to third, fourth, fifth, sixth), while your citations for seconds seem to back up a sense I haven't heard of before of seconds. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I suspect that the "food" seconds is derived from an elliptical of "second helpings", as applied to multiple people wanting such helpings (i.e. "I had a first helping, and would like a second" -> "we had first helpings, and would like seconds"). As for the plural examples above, all of them could be reworded in the singular ("for each brain cell that dies, you don't get a second"; "with Grant you don't get a second"; "we don't get a second or a third at this"). Incidentally, in the course of searching for the origin of the food-related term, I found a large number of late 1800s/early 1900s hits for another sense, that of goods of secondary quality (as in "our seconds are as good as other sellers' best products"). bd2412 T 14:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep. The citations (especially the second one BD posted) show, IMO, that this has transcended elliptical usage. — Ungoliant (Falai) 11:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The "items of second quality; items with minor, often cosmetic, defects" sense is still in use, as is the "second helpings" sense, of course. As the other plural uses not clearly in these senses are relatively scarce, it could be argued that even other plural nominal senses are simply metaphorical appropriations of those senses.
I find it silly to be straining to imagine new and relatively rare senses when our entries neglect so many relatively common senses that emerged in the 20th century. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
We have a definition for this sense of seconds, but it only relates to clothes; I saw cites for potatoes and dishes. I would guess that it also originated from an ellipsed form of a second something. bd2412 T 16:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


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

seems virtually the same as the immediately preceding sense:
"Language unique to a particular group of people; jargon, argot." For those of a certain age, hiphop vernacular might just as well be a foreign language.

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

Yes. The first sense is referring to a language in the context of all the languages of the world, with Latin being considered the high, sacred language and any other language being considered a common, ordinary everyday language by comparison. The second refers to lower-prestige and/or less-formal varieties within a language, The best way to highlight the difference is to imagine an archbishop saying Mass at the national cathedral, with senators and foreign dignitaries in attendance, and asking whether the language used could be described as "jargon, argot". Chuck Entz (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Another clue is the way Roman Catholic usage tends to refer to "the vernacular", rather than "a vernacular language". Speaking of "the vernacular" in reference to slang is rarely used anymore, except as a humorous way to sound incongruously elegant and proper when describing obscenity. More common is to speak of a specific type of vernacular, such as the hip-hop vernacular in the example sentence. We might end up actually adding a sense, leaving us with three senses: the Roman Catholic sense, a general "speech of the common people" sense, and a "specific speech variety" sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see evidence to that effect and I don't believe it.
What makes that peculiar to the RCs? I could understand vernacular referring to standard language; spoken language; or non-standard dialects, argot, slang etc., not that our definitions make that clear. I could understand that religious texts might be translated into the first and second, but not the third. But lots of groups might not consider "argot" and worthwhile translation target.
And is a "particular group of people" is meant not to include, say, the speakers of a local language not officially recognized.
I also not that, unsurprisingly, we manage to exclude "vernacular" as it might apply to aspects of culture other than language, eg, architecture. DCDuring TALK 02:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) After looking through the entry, I would say that the real overlap is between the first sense:
  1. The language of a people, a national language.
    The vernacular of the United States is English.
or the second sense:
  1. Everyday speech, including colloquialisms, as opposed to literary or liturgical language.
    Street vernacular can be quite different from what is heard elsewhere.
and the Roman Catholic sense. The "jargon, argot" sense is the least similar to the Roman Catholic sense of the three. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep, but change. The Roman Catholic sense is "not Latin", used pejoratively. -- 23:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

big balls[edit]

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

It's not really SoP because if balls means courage, big balls doesn't mean big courage. Unfortunately from a Wiktionary point of view, it can be rephrased in very many ways (huge balls, massive balls) but none of them as SoP. Or if they are, what do we list at big, huge, massive, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
If we keep this, I think we should insist on exact translations from every variation into all the main languages we have.
"Big courage" is simply not good English because courage is uncountable. Balls in this sense needs to be marked as both countable and uncountable. The countable definition could be a non-gloss definition or some strained gloss like "symbols of courage". That would then accommodate both classes of modifiers. Or we could have a single sense marked as both countable and uncountable with a non-gloss definition. An additional step would be have redirects from all the attestable (on Citations pages) combinations of modifiers and balls to a senseid-marked sense of balls and have two or three usage examples that span the usage.
This is yet another example of modifiers being restricted by the grammar and semantics of a term. If every one is to be an entry with translations, we have a lot of entry-creation and translation to do. Wouldn't we be better off to automate the creation of appropriate redirects? Wouldn't that help users at least as much as the proliferation of parallel entries? DCDuring TALK 13:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Could be covered with usage notes at balls I suppose. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of a usage note. In addition to that, a redirect from big balls, but not other combinations such as massive balls, would be helpful to the user. --BB12 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, with addition of usage note to balls. bd2412 T 19:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]


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

Merge. — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes I mean merge, since they're both the same but imperfect. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I think there is room for a distinction that not every dictionary makes. A person can be pessimistic and an impersonal forecast/outlook/appraisal/assessment can be pessimistic. It seems silly to say or imply that a forecast is pessimistic only because of the pessimism of forecaster, but that is what most dictionaries' definitions seem to imply.
If the distinction doesn't seem worth distinct sense, perhaps usage examples can show the application to both people and predictions.
Of course, this isn't reflecting in the existing senses which seem to be the same meaning worded for different types of dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 22:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't oppose such a distinction. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

me gustas[edit]

Straightforward SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The current translation is not acceptable, but I’m not so sure the term is straightforward for English-speaking students of Spanish. The translation should be "I like you"; it might be better as a phrasebook term. It’s a confusing construction for English-speakers who are studying Spanish. I think most Spanish students would argue that me gustas and te gusto are errors, and that only me gusta is correct. —Stephen (Talk) 19:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course to a Spanish speaker it's pure sum of parts. However surely this is a good candidate for a phrase book entry, so keep as a phrasebook entry, move the literal meaning to the etymology. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, Stephen G. Brown, Mglovesfun: I have edited it. Please check if it still fits to be a RFD candidate. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Move any idiomatic parts of the definition to gustar or se gustar. --WikiTiki89 18:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The ping didn't work, and it's still just as SOP as ever. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, since Stephen is not so sure the term is straightforward for English-speaking students of Spanish, and since this seems to be a good candidate for a phrasebook entry as per Mglovesfun. Furthermore, if the usage note at me gustas is correct that this phrase is only restricted to expressing sexual attraction, then I do not see how this is a sum of parts; see also gustar and the following example given there: Me gusta la canción. — I like the song. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    Searching me gustas at google image further proves that it is not SOP. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    But me gustas is nothing more than a conjugated form of se gustar is it not? The definition should be at the lemma and not the conjugated form, since other conjugated forms also share the definition (like "te gusto"). --WikiTiki89 23:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete or keep as a phrasebook entry. It's certainly SOP. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep as a phrasebook entry (converted), that's what it is. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


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

You would think so, being a native speaker, but what about the poor language learner who doesn't know that? DCDuring TALK 15:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, what's your point? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
It may look like duplication to you from your privileged position as native speaker, but not to the poor, struggling language learner. DCDuring TALK 22:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Combine them. Sense 1: In a drastic manner; using drastic or severe measures. bd2412 T 22:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
They are not the same, are they? "The numbers have fallen drastically" does not mean they have fallen "using drastic or severe measures" (no measures were used!), but to a drastic or severe extent. Equinox 22:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I made the degree sense separate from the 'manner' sense today. The challenged sense is "using drastic or severe measures", which could be considered duplicative of the manner sense "in a drastic manner". DCDuring TALK 23:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


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

This is an overspecific subsense of the first sense. Delete. — Ungoliant (Falai) 12:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
A "destabilized" government (ie, one no longer carrying out all of its functions effectively over its nominal jurisdiction) could be "stable" in most normal senses of the word, but at a low level of functioning. The term can mean something like "render ineffectual". This seems to me to be the equivalent for a verb of a misnomer. The misnomer principle suggests that some sense specific to governments ought to be in our definition. Even MWOnline, has an "especially" for governments and has adjusted the definition to make sure it includes governments. Keep until replaced by superior definition. DCDuring TALK 03:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not convinced, could you perhaps find some citations where the 'render unstable' definition wouldn't work? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

face sex oral[edit]

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

I was wondering what face sex was, until I clicked on it and it was Romanian. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
At least it's better than face cum... -- Liliana 05:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

no comprendo[edit]

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

Definitely but I don't understand is a phrasebook entry. I suppose perhaps this is so simple it can still be deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep as a phrasebook item. Converted as such. See also I don't understand, я не понимаю. "no hablo" is not a complete phrase, will leave that one to others to decide. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

no vayas[edit]

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

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete --Diuturno (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

no vayáis[edit]

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

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete --Diuturno (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

group action[edit]

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

Incidentally, our math sense at [[group action]] is terrible. If it gets kept, it will need to be reworded (to what's at [[action]] or similar).​—msh210 (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
First, I rewrote the definition here (without seeing what was at action).
Second, I could suggest this is backwards. Perhaps. There are different kinds of actions: algebra, monoid, monad, graded, category actions and so on. I'm not sure what the proper way to divvy up the meanings is. As I said in a different discussion, I try to stay away from my professional expertise here. I believe mathematics and dictionaries don't really mesh too well.
To clarify, mathematics is notorious for "abuse of language". An official full unambiguous language is effectively present, but then no one actually uses it, except for a few stray moments when the extra clarity is necessary. The result is that "action" is really "X action", except in situations when only "X actions" are considered, and no one mentions "X". And even when two or three kinds of actions are present, well, if the notation is well-chosen, it is always "clear from context" (ha!) which kind of action is meant. As it is, group actions are historically the first kind of action, and they remain the most common, so yes, by default the word "action" without context refers to "group action". But no one would say "I study actions", but "I study group actions." Choor monster (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


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

We have make, probably with good reason. I agree that jdb isn't as archetypal and isn't really useful for wiktionary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
For me it is more encyclopedical than pertaining a dictionary, therefore I'd suggest deletion --Diuturno (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
While discussing this, is there some reason we have JDK? Is it ever used in a context where Java is not being discussed? Choor monster (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a term in the language, though; you could argue the same for e.g. UNESCO only being discussed in politics (or various better examples I can't think of right now — financial acronyms etc.). "jdb" is just a filename. Equinox 11:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I see it as WT:BRAND, and I'd probably feel the same about MSDN, VBA, HTTP but not DNS or TLA or GFDL. Regarding UNESCO or NYSE or WSJ, I can easily think of contexts outside their official venue. Anyway, if there's policy on this, I'm happy either way. Choor monster (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not just a filename, though. "The standard Java debugging tool, jdb, provides basic debugger functionality with a command line interface." "The jdb debugger enables you to step through code one line at a time and also display the value of variables." "The debugger jdb comes with the free JDK download from Sun Microsystems." Or for an example that uses both: "JDB can attach to a running Java Virtual Machine and debug a running application. At a command line one can execute “jdb” and..." That even capitalizes JDB, proving it's not a filename, because a capitalized filename refers to a completely different file. "Before describing the dynamic slicing method in details, let us ponder a bit and explain its difference from conventional software debugging tools such as the gdb for C, jdb for Java, or VBwatch for Visual Basic." I can come up with any number of examples where it's being used as the name of a program, not just a filename.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, yes, program/application name as well as filename. But there is some overlap between these kinds of use, and an application's name is still the sort of proper noun we generally omit. (As for BRAND, I don't find it meaningful to apply to non-commercial things: I believe e.g. HTTP is an open protocol, not a product.) Equinox 17:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Then why is JDK a term in the language? It's just the name of an application, too. I don't particularly see the value in having them, but I'm hard put to see a distinction between the two.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not aware of an app/program called jdk or jdk.exe (though there might be one). The Java Development Kit is not a single specific program; it is an entire technology; that is why they feel different to me. JDK does seem brand-like to me (it's part of proprietary Java), but then the real term is Java Development Kit, so it's still useful to have it as an abbreviation; compare HP for Hewlett-Packard or Harry Potter. I agree it's debatable and I'll shut up now, but hopefully you can get an idea of where I'm coming from. Equinox 23:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


RuakhTALK 05:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete unless citations that prove it has entered the lexicon are added. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
It's unlikely that this could meet the relevant (WT:BRAND?) standard for attestation. I think it should be held here for the 30-day RfV period rather than be deleted more quickly. DCDuring TALK 13:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Any reason for that? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Because attestation, which is a defense here as Ungoliant points out, usually takes more time than getting a consensus on deletion. To make the lack of consensus on more rapid deletion clear: Keep unless not attested in a month. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd say it's an unfair stay of execution. You already said you believe in due process, why not for this? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
If there is a possibility of attestation, why not? Why be such a deletionist? It'll probably go anyway. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep, as no RFD-relevant reason was stated, and I cannot think of any. If WT:BRAND is the reason for deletion, this is for RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
RFV as appropriate. (Shouldn't we have RFV as a voting option instead of just "keep" and "delete"?) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase[edit]

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

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

  • Basically, it's totally wrong. Originally it was a carbapenemase produced by Klebsiella pneumoniae - this would be SoP. Now, KPC refers to carbapenemases produced by other bacteria. I would just delete it. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
    The misnomer principle would say we should keep it if the SoP name is misleading as to the actual meaning in use. DCDuring TALK 15:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, that to me sounds like a reason to keep (but improve). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It might not be too easy to attest the non-SoP definition. Who would like to take a crack at an alternative definition?
Perhaps, these definitions ought to be RfVed. In the course of the RfV maybe better definitions will emerge. If no one is willing and able to find good attestation for the definitions, then we are incapable of including it, whether or not it is in fact part of the language. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

culture of death[edit]


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

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

Cloning? Really? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
At least that makes it not sum-of-parts. Keφr 00:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Combine into one (preferably short) definition per nom. - -sche (discuss) 04:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

bible belt[edit]

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

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


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

  • Keep in RFD; existence is tested in RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Which RFV? It's Bulgarian, not Russian. The Russian adjective is испа́нский (ispánskij), adverbial is по-испа́нски (po-ispánski) , "испански" means nothing. This RFD is for the Russian, not Bulgarian term. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Don't bother RFVing as this is easily attestable in forms such as "по-французски и испански". --WikiTiki89 15:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I have put it to WT:RFV#испански after Anatoli tagged it with RFV in the mainspace. If you two agree that there is nothing to attest, the RFV can be withdrawn, but then please post there to that effect. Or even better, you can provide attestation in испански or Citations:испански. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Convinced by Wikitiki89's example. I never thought about it. So, the entry needs reformatting and usage notes. It only happens to avoid repetition of the prefix. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 21:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


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

Move to 足指, which is attestable as a word. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 11:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Haplogy () 18:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Moved 足指 with a redirect. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Good point, confirmed existence in the dictionary. Also, see related discussions below. I assume this is a back translation example, i.e. the term was created since there is an English word for it. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • WWWJDIC is full of entries that would not pass our criteria for inclusion. Jim Breen errs on the generous side in including entries in order to be friendly for learners, which is great for his dictionary, but for better or worse we have CFI which differ from his. Going through entries which were copy-pasted from WWWJDIC has been a never-ending trial. I will accept existence in pretty much any other dictionary as a solid argument for inclusion, but not WWWJDIC, especially when it comes to idiomaticity. Haplogy () 00:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I mentioned the discussion below since it may be necessary to have an entry as a back translation, even if it's a SoP. Not all users/learners are smart enough or be linguistic to figure out that to translate English "toe" (one word), they need two words. WWWJDIC entry may be there for the same reason - because there is an English word "toe". "足指" is a synonym but "足の指" is quite common too. Unstrike for the moment. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It may be useful to have 足の指 for English speakers, and it is more common than 足指. But it is not a fixed phrase, as you usually say 右足の指 rather than 右の足の指 or 右の足指. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I have added the usage notes for your consideration. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 08:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 19:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Keep: "foot's finger" is nonsense to English speakers (although a Chinese speaker like me understands it). --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

палец ноги[edit]

Same as Japanese 足の指 above. па́лец ноги́ (pálec nogí) simply means "finger of the foot/leg". Unlike Japanese (足指 ashiyubi), Russian doesn't even have a special word for a toe, they are just called па́льцы (pálʹcy) (fingers) --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Delete. --WikiTiki89 23:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it automatically clear for an English-speaking non-speaker of Russian that "finger of foot" means "toe"? If not, this should be kept. BTW, there's a number of languages with similar structure: Portuguese, Spanish, Romanian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Tagalog, Arabic, Bulgarian, Irish, Italian, Macedonian.. I would be inclined to treat them as idiomatic and thus would keep this. The fact that the entry палец has the sense "toe" and there's no entry for ноги does not necessarily make it less confusing. Then the translation becomes "toe of something" and you start wondering what else it could be. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a non-Russian speaking person's perspective should be taken into account here and similar forms in other languages. I had some doubts, now I think that we can probably keep it, at least as a back translation. BTW, "ноги́" is genitive singular of нога́ (nogá, foot, leg). To be clear, Russian consider toes "finger of the foot", so a person has 20 fingers altogether (thumbs are also fingers - "big fingers"). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why it wouldn't be clear, especially since "toe" one of the definitions of палец. --WikiTiki89 13:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It's because the fact that палец means "toe" does not imply in any way that палец ноги should mean the same. As we don't have ноги, one has to guess. I can imagine many logical guesses, like "toe nail", "toe print", "toe ring"… --Hekaheka (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
ноги́ (nogí) is the regular genitive form of нога́ (nogá, leg, foot). Just because we don't have an inflected forms bot for Russian, doesn't mean that this phrase is idiomatic. --WikiTiki89 17:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I would even go as far as to say that "палец ноги" sounds just as awkward in Russian as "finger of the foot" does in English. --WikiTiki89 18:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
In Google Books, there is not a single instance of "finger of the foot." However, there are lots of палец ноги, and I don’t think that includes any oblique forms such as пальцев ног. —Stephen (Talk) 18:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Because it's not useful in English, since we have the word toe. Maybe a better analogy is google books:"finger of the left hand", which gets plenty of hits. In English, if it matters which hand your finger is on, you can add "of the X hand" or "on my X hand" to finger. In Russian, if it really matters whether it's a finger or a toe, you can clarify by adding ноги́ (nogí, of the foot), руки́ (rukí, of the hand), на ноге́ (na nogé, on the foot), на руке́ (na ruké, on the hand), or pretty much anything else to па́лец (pálec). --WikiTiki89 19:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we should have back translation entries with usage notes, such as "This term may be considered a sum of parts by a native speaker". Also, toes are very different for fingers - a different body part. From the anatomical point of view, it may be important to have such entries.
Consider Romanian deget de la picior. If the Russian палец ноги is not kept, so shouldn't Romanian deget de la picior and translations should be split (a bit time-consuming). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Which translations exactly should be split? We already have translations for fingers and toes on separate pages let alone separate tables. As for anatomy, your pinky toe is quite different from your thumb toe, that doesn't mean they use different definitions of "toe". --WikiTiki89 13:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I meant toe#Translations, of course. I have split some translations like this: Bulgarian: пръст на крак m (prǎst na krak), Russian: па́лец ноги́ m (pálec nogí), па́лец на ноге́ m (pálec na nogé), Czech: prst u nohy m, Romanian: deget de la picior n. Spanish, Portuguese, Polish are already split. Some are not (Latvian, Lithuanian, Arabic, Catalan, etc.).
Thumbs, little fingers and other fingers have their own entries. Anatomically, fingers and toes are different parts of the body, especially for humans. See thumb, little finger (pinky), index finger --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The phrase little finger could plausibly just mean "small finger" rather than pinky if you didn't know better (which to me makes it seem idiomatic), whereas phrases like Spanish dedo del pie (and presumably this Russian phrase too) could only refer to toes - there's no other plausible meaning. Mr. Granger (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
You're right about little finger, but палец ноги means exactly what you would expect, nothing more and nothing less, based on its constituent parts. --WikiTiki89 00:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
It's good that there is no ambiguity, like many other multi-part words, it's unambiguous, like a few words in my post just below and many others. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger And your point is? We are not talking about synonyms or whether terms can be ambiguous or not here. middle finger, blood vessel, mucous membrane are unambiguous.
I have reformatted [[палец ноги]] with the usage notes, so if anyone is still pro-keep, please say it. Also, I have split some more translations - Arabic, Persian, Belarusian, Ukrainian. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread what you said, thinking it was an argument to keep the entry. My mistake. Mr. Granger (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
You can interpret it differently. I initiated the RFD but it doesn't mean that I'm against keeping it. It depends on the outcome of this discussion. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Keep. If someone asked me to translate палец ноги and explained to me that it means exactly what I would expect, nothing more and nothing less, then I would translate it as "leg finger". Neither "leg finger" nor "foot finger" are possible in English (except in the case of someone who has had a finger surgically transplanted onto his leg or foot). As far as I’m concerned, specific things merit an entry if a word or phrase exists, even if the phrase is SoP. If there is a specific plant with a scientific name (e.g., Acacia farnesiana), then it deserves to have an entry in English (and every other language) if a native word or phrase exists for it, even if the phrase is SoP. Acacia farnesiana is sweet acacia, and the fact that people usually only call it acacia is beside the point...if it is necessary to be specific, the English term is sweet acacia and we should have an entry for it (even if there are also other common terms for it). A toe is a specific thing, and if a language has a way that the toe can be specified, then it should be kept. IMO, the only legitimate excuse for deleting палец ноги is if it is incorrect or never used. If the entry were "нос стопы" (foot nose), then I would say delete it, because "нос стопы" is incorrect and is never used to mean toe (even though "foot nose" makes more sense to my English ear than "leg finger"). —Stephen (Talk) 09:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you misunderstand the meaning of нога́ (nogá). I have updated its definition to clarify. --WikiTiki89 13:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I know what it means. I’ve been speaking and reading Russian for 48 years or so. —Stephen (Talk) 14:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Then you should know that "leg finger" is an unreasonable literal translation. Given the more correct literal translation "leg/foot finger", it is pretty easy to see that it means a toe. --WikiTiki89 14:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
You are speaking from the point of view of someone who has always known what палец ноги meant. For someone who only knows English, but knows that нога means either leg or foot (you have to choose one of the two, and since leg often includes the foot, while foot never includes the leg), I think leg fingers are as likely or more likely than foot fingers...but either one sounds absolutely ridiculous in English. There have been a few cases where someone had a toe transplanted onto a hand, so leg fingers or foot fingers only bring up an image of somebody who has had a finger transplanted onto his foot or knee. Yes, for people who are around languages enough to know that some languages don’t have a separate word for fingers and toes, leg fingers is something they could figure out. Most Americans don’t know anything about other languages except for some Spanish food items and some French things they may have heard in a song, and some Chinese foods. —Stephen (Talk) 15:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
How about we ask someone who does not know any Russian?
Also, you just made me think of another interesting point. In the case that a toe is transplanted onto the hand, it would probably not be called палец ноги (palec nogi), but палец с ноги (palec s nogi), палец из ноги (palec iz nogi), or палец от ноги (palec ot nogi), all meaning "finger from the leg/foot". --WikiTiki89 16:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds fine, but I think you should look for someone who speaks only English and does not know any foreign languages. How about: палец пересажен с ноги на руку? —Stephen (Talk) 20:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Is there anyone on this wiki that speaks only English? And yes "палец пересажен с ноги на руку" is fine; it's just "палец с ноги" with greater specificity added. --WikiTiki89 20:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Remember, it can be quite difficult to ask such questions without inadvertently guiding the person towards a certain answer. Also, when Americans start to learn Russian, they learn right away that нога means leg or foot, and that палец means finger. They usually do not hear anything about toes for a long time, if ever. I don’t think you will be able to find anyone on this wiki who has not been tainted by existing discussions. You probably will not find anyone on any of the wikis who is not able to find definitive answers quickly by searching and/or asking, or even using Google Translate. You should carefully devise neutral questions, bearing in mind that when they start learning Russian, they will only learn that нога means leg or foot, and that палец means finger, and then pose the questions in person to neighbors or store clerks. —Stephen (Talk) 20:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Does it matter what they learn first? The question here is whether they can figure it out given our articles on палец and нога. --WikiTiki89 21:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I think students who have started studying Russian, either in a classroom or on their on, make up a large percentage of the users who have an interest in this, so, yes, it matters. They learn right away the word for leg/foot and the word for finger, and they do not learn anything about the toe. And if you only ask this one question, it will be understood that there is something very special about it, and that will affect the answer. You have to have a number of questions so that this one does not appear to be special, and you have to make sure that they don’t use any other resources. I can already tell that this is going to be a debacle. If you don’t do it right, there is no use in doing it at all. I have said what I have said, and I stand by that. —Stephen (Talk) 21:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, outside of CFI, as a term denoting a concept for which English has a single word, even a monosyllanic one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

deget de la picior[edit]

Same as above. --WikiTiki89 13:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

See also 足の指 above. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, outside of CFI, as a term denoting a concept for which English has a single word, even a monosyllanic one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    I don't see what the number of syllables in toe has anything to do with anything. --WikiTiki89 20:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we need a template similar to {{translation only}} but for foreign language SoP translations of English idiomatic or non-SoP terms, which would add to "Category:(LANGUAGE) non-idiomatic back-translation targets" (by "back-translation" into English) or similar. Non-idiomatic translations of the English term "toe" is a good example. Online dictionaries confirm that there is demand for such terms. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

{{translation only}} is useless here. The translation table on the English entry toe already gives the translations to foreign languages. There is no need for an entry to exist just because it is listed as an SOP translation somewhere. --WikiTiki89 22:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I said "similar", not this template but a reverse of it. The fact that 足の指, палец ноги, deget de la picior, انگشت پا and others get created and exist in the online dictionaries show interest in such terms. The logic being - "an English term exists, why there is no word for it in language X?". A template would specifically say something like палец_ноги#Usage_notes, which would direct to more correct terms/alternatives and explain why this term is non-idiomatic. I know your opinion but others have expressed opposition and it seems like no consensus on deletion for this or any of 足の指, палец ноги, انگشت پا. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

انگشت پا[edit]

SoP? See also 足の指, палец ноги, deget de la picior above. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete as being too useful to stupid English-natives who want to learn languages. What right have they to knowledge. — [Ric Laurent] — 23:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I know how you feel. That's why the issue is highlighted in the above discussion. Foreign language terms like this should either be allowed for the benefit of English natives, even if they are considered SoP's by native speakers or we shouldn't waste time. See usage note at палец ноги. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, outside of CFI, as a term denoting a concept for which English has a single word, even a monosyllanic one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The RFD for 足の指, палец ноги, deget de la picior above and this one - انگشت پا - all meaning "toe" but considered SoP in corresponding languages. The question is whether we should have entries as a back translation target (into English). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
My answer is no. Delete. DCDuring TALK 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله[edit]

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

Delete. Maybe we could find some way to work it into the entry at شهادة. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Keep, it's a very common slogan and expression. Add to the phrasebook category, if you wish. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
So are the other two things I pointed out above. Would you support adding those? By contrast, بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم is actually used somewhat idiomatically as introducing speech. The shahada has no such idiomatic use (as far as I know). --WikiTiki89 05:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I would say delete. The fact that a sentence is culturally significant does not automatically make it dictionary-worthy. I note that we do have quite a few of these, though, e.g. God Save the Queen, Happy New Year (probably for translation reasons). Equinox 22:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
We have quite a few English phrases. The sample English phrases given by Wikitiki89 are not used as complete slogans. Arabic "لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله" is used on its own and is usually included in Arabic and Islamic phrasebooks. Anyway, those English and Hebrew entries do not exist yet, so I am not voting for those, I voted "keep" on the phrase in question. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I added it as an example to شهادة in diff. - -sche (discuss) 03:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Would a proper non-gloss definition make clear its discourse function? DCDuring TALK 17:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't have a discourse function. --WikiTiki89 23:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Pervasive in Arabic literature. —Stephen (Talk) 23:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
There's no doubt about its existence. The question here is whether it has any meaning beyond the literal. --WikiTiki89 23:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I have converted the entry to phrasebook entry after the nomination. It's not as common as English "thank God" but nevertheless it is too frequent to be ignored. It's the shortest form of this shahada. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
But thank God has an idiomatic meaning as a discourse particle other than the literal. The shahada does not. When it is said, it only has the literal meaning. --WikiTiki89 00:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

full circle[edit]

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

Delete per nomination. I could expand on this but I don't think I need to. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep: There is a sense that is conveyed in the expression "come full circle" that justifies keeping at least #2, and probably #1 as well Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    The sense in come/go/etc full circle is supposed to be reflected in the definitions given under the Adverb PoS section. Whether it really makes sense to have an Adverb section rather than just say nouns can function as spatial and temporal adverbs is not an RfD matter, but one for BP. It should be noted that circle is not shown as an adverb, probably accurately reflecting usage.
I have added {{&lit|full|circle}} to the Noun section. DCDuring TALK 22:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I think this entry is missing a sense. A debate or discussion can come "full circle" when the participants end up going over points already discussed, even though no literal change of orientation is involved. Compare talking in circles. bd2412 T 14:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


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

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

Delete, I agree. In fact I posted this separately as a mistake and reverted myself (link). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Debatable. To me, the chess sense is redundant (because every board game has a board, so termed), but the blackboard/whiteboard might not be: "he wrote it on the board" does not require context for us to think of this kind of board. Also, similar terms like cupboard and sideboard cannot be abbreviated to board. Equinox 19:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
That is because cupboards and sideboards are not boards (but are made of boards). --WikiTiki89 19:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Is that really the etymology? I thought it was from how "board" used to mean a (dining-?)table. Equinox 19:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
You're probably right, that's just what I assumed. Anyway, the fact that you said "used to mean" is why we can no longer call them boards. --WikiTiki89 19:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Definition 1? "A relatively long, wide and thin piece of sawn wood or similar material, usually intended for use in construction." That's sort of a stretch for any of them. A chessboard can be made of glass or plastic or paper or merely be data in a computer. Neither whiteboards or blackboards are wood or intended for use in construction. Maybe surfboard, though that still does seem to match #1.
The chess sense can't be redundant to the sense for board games until we have a sense for a board game board.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Added: "A flat surface with markings for playing a board game." Equinox 03:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I did say we would need to generalize the first definition, because boards do not have to be wood and do not have to be used for construction. --WikiTiki89 13:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with the premise of the RfV. Blackboard > whiteboard and the others are not well-presented as directly following from sense 1, even as appropriately generalized. Board's senses evolved along a few lines, one including generalization to wood-like materials, another to flat, thin-ish shapes, like those in the challenged sense line.
Can the challenged sense be even be called a definition? It seems as much a list of examples of the word board ("a rigid piece of flat, thin material") being used in combination, which definition we lack. (MWOnline has "a flat usually rectangular piece of material (as wood) designed for a special purpose" with the various "-boards" above as subsenses.)
This seems much more like a cleanup candidate than an RfD candidate. DCDuring TALK 15:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Cleanup? Not your normal cleanup. The difficulty here is that what is undermining board sense 3 is not simply a lousy/lazy definition. What is going on is really a distinct linguistic phenomenon, and shoehorning it into definition-making isn't the right thing, but just ignoring it isn't the right thing either.
I ran into this when I struggled with sosh sense 2 when I was new to WT. "Sosh" is an abbreviation for numerous words/phrases that begin with "social" or the like. For example, "social security number", "social climber", "sociology", and it seems to function as an open-ended abbreviation. The same thing is going on with board used as a combining term. And the same thing is going on with x-word for various choice of letters x. (See RfD and RfV in progress.)
I agree that what we have now is shoddy, but this kind of flexibility should be indicated somehow, with specialized non-gloss definitions, or as some kind of open-ended abbreviation, or an "implicit" snowclone. Choor monster (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with that analysis, you maybe right about sosh/soc, but with board, there is no "shortening" going on, just lack of specificity. A "chalkboard", "chessboard", "surfboard", etc. is just a type of board and thus they can all be called boards. With sosh, you can't say that a "social security number" is a type of "sosh". --WikiTiki89 17:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep: I see nothing wrong with this definition. A chalkboard isn't made of wood, but even if it was, the definition "abbreviation of chalkboard" would still be an acceptable definition Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    It is made of "wood or similar material". A chalkboard is definitely a board. It's more likely that chalkboard is "long" for board than it is that board is "short" for chalkboard. --WikiTiki89 21:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    According to w:chalkboard, they can be made of slate stone (which was their original material) or porcelain enamelled steel, either of which are a similar material to wood. (I'm actually not sure what a similar material to wood is supposed to cover, but if it covers stone and steel, it covers about everything).--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    The definition is not perfect yet. See google books:"stone board". --WikiTiki89 21:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Not all boards are made of wood. I see no reason to discuss that, and no relevance. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Please inspect the sets of definitions for board that professional lexicographers use to span almost all usage. (I particularly like Merriam Webster because it is online and has more structure, but any full dictionary will do.) Note the relationship of the various definitions.
In a case like this where the relationship of multiple definitions is involved, the matter cannot be resolved by a debate, though useful points can be raised in a debate. Cleanup gives license to someone to undertake a revision of multiple senses, which may be challenged of course. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Why do we have to be so bureaucratic? It doesn't have to nominated for cleanup for someone to clean it up. --WikiTiki89 00:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Requests for deletion and verification (and to a lesser extent moving) are the routine serious procedures we have, which have rules to make it possible to get things done without edit wars. Only rarely are these rules ignored, usually by near-unanimous consent. DCDuring TALK 02:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
So nominating it for cleanup magically bypasses these rules? --WikiTiki89 02:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
If there is sufficient agreement that the item should not be deleted, then it is kept. If the keep is conditional on cleanup, then it goes to cleanup. Changing definition while the definition is under discussion makes the discussion more difficult. One could add definitions, but that also make the discussion harder to follow. DCDuring TALK 03:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
If we nominate it for cleanup, it would still be here at RFD anyway, so I don't see how that solves the problem. Anyway, I'm still in favor of deleting this sense and then cleaning up the entry. --WikiTiki89 13:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

по этому[edit]

Sum of parts, even though it's a homophone of поэ́тому (poétomu). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Same as #за тем above. --WikiTiki89 01:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Why doesn't WT:COALMINE apply? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
They mean different things. The one-word version has a more-or-less idiomatic meaning, while the two-word version is completely SOP. --WikiTiki89 15:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure that поэ́тому (poétomu) does not mean по этому (po etomu) often enough to be attestable? This seems suspiciously close to therefor, therefore. DCDuring TALK 21:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
поэ́тому (poétomu) never means по этому (po etomu), but по этому (po etomu) could be a non-standard or dated spelling of поэ́тому (poétomu). I suppose we could replace the definition with a {{&lit}} sense and a {{alternative form of}} sense. --WikiTiki89 21:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete, yes, it's a complete SoP, unless we have special CFI for homophone collocations (e.g. [[upon]] = [[up]] [[on]] or similar). If "по этому" is ever used a non-standard of "поэтому", then it's very rare and illiterate. No, it's not a dated form. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

speculative bubble and others[edit]

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

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

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

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

December 2013[edit]

sveda lingvo[edit]

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

Erm, it's pretty obvious what it means. However Special:WhatLinksHere/lingvo shows quite a few of these. Have any of them been nominated for deletion before? What was the result? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Evidently greka lingvo has. See Talk:greka lingvo. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete all (we need to list them to do that, of course). If you know what sveda and lingvo mean, you know what sveda lingvo means. And if you don't know what they mean, that's why we have entries for sveda and lingvo. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm listing the others below; if you have a comment specific to these, please put it in the language's individual section. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed - they should all be deleted. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Yes, all SOP. And remove derived term links at sveda, eŭska, vaska, itala, irlanda, and klingona. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, outside of CFI. The incomplete inclusion criterion that I am using: it is a term denoting a concept or thing for which English has a single word; Esperanto probably does not have a single word to refer to Swedish. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, the most typical way to refer to Swedish in Esperanto is "la sveda" (the Swedish). Saying "sveda lingvo" is a lot like saying "Swedish language" in English. (Maybe this is a sense that should be added to sveda, actually.) —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    But then you need a noun sense at sveda, right? Anyway, striking my keep, since I believe you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep. In Esperanto, Swedish is called la sveda lingvo, or la sveda by abbreviation. Note that Esperanto nouns always end with -o, and sveda is clearly an abbreviation and not a noun of its own. It is not clear whether an adjective + lingvo stands for an actual language or not. Compare sveda lingvo (“Swedish language”) and amerikaj lingvoj (“American languages”). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

eŭska lingvo[edit]

vaska lingvo[edit]

itala lingvo[edit]

irlanda lingvo[edit]

klingona lingvo[edit]

date rape drug[edit]

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

  • I would keep this - it is not apparent from the sum of its parts that this is a drug that facilitates date rape, instead of treating it (as opposed to, for example, cancer drugs which fight cancer, rather than causing it, or even recreational drugs which are taken voluntarily for their effects). bd2412 T 22:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
    Date rape is not a condition you can treat. Also compare "party drug", "rave drug", "chill drug", "creativity drug", "sports drug". --WikiTiki89 23:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
    All of those are drugs that the person seeking the effect takes themselves (i.e., a person takes a creativity drug to boost their creativity, or a sports drug to boost their sports performance). A person does not choose to take a date rape drug in order to boost their ability to engage in date rape. A person might take a Viagra to enable themselves to perform the act, but it would be incorrect to call Viagra a "date rape drug" on that account. bd2412 T 23:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
    Ok, how about "mind control drug", "truth drug", it's hard to think of these on the spot... --WikiTiki89 23:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
    We have truth drug. bd2412 T 00:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
    "cooperation drug", "drop dead drug", ... --WikiTiki89 00:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
    Perhaps the definition needs to be tweaked a bit. Consider the Portuguese translation, boa noite Cinderela, literally "good night Cinderella". This reflects the general usage of the term to specify a drug that has a combination of sedative and mind-altering effects. Although alcohol itself has jokingly been referred to as a "date rape drug" because it reduces a person's psychological and physical ability to resist, the imagery commonly brought to mind with respect to the phrase is some sort of benzodiazepine being surreptitiously introduced into the victim's drink, specifically causing the combination of sleepiness, loss of inhibition, suggestivity, and anterograde amnesia. By contrast, a drug that merely causes temporary physical paralysis, but does not effect memory or inhibition, is not brought to mind by the phrase (even though such a drug would facilitate "date rape"). bd2412 T 15:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
    I'll make it clearer for you: I just added the definition "rape committed with the use of a sedative or memory-inhibiting drug" to date rape. Now we just have to decide whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first. --WikiTiki89 15:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
    I have sent that sense to RfV. I do not believe that the phrase has come to be used that broadly. bd2412 T 17:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
    I hate to use urban dictionary to advance my point, but it might bring you some insight if you read the definition given there (obviously it should be taken with a grain of salt and cannot be used as a cite, but it shows that the sense exists). --WikiTiki89 17:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete. There are anti-cancer drugs as well as cancer drugs, and they are the same thing. Some comprehension of how words can fit together is required by any language speaker. Equinox 23:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Seems more like a drug that is used to rape a total stranger, rather than the victim of a date rape where it the perp is known. --Dmol (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Now you may have a point. It depends on whether that sense of date rape existed before or after "date rape drug". Either way, we should add that sense to date rape. --WikiTiki89 23:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Why should we add that sense to date rape? Can you demonstrate that outside of the phrase "date rape drug", the phrase "date rape" is ever used to refer to rape of a total stranger? bd2412 T 03:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It is commonly used to refer to raping a stranger at a party. The essential difference from other forms of rape is that there is no violence involved. But like I said, this sense could have been derived from "date rape drug", or "date rape drug" could have been derived from this sense. I just don't know. If you want citations, feel free to RFV after the sense is added. --WikiTiki89 03:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete per Equinox. Virtually all noun-noun compounds have a certain element of context and common sense required to avoid the errors that machines make when interpreting them. Fortunately we are doing a dictionary for people. We are utterly incapable of proving an adequate dictionary for a machine anyway. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
BD2412, I think what you say isn't relevant as no human being would interpret it that way. I'm getting irritated by hypothetical ways people can misinterpret something, even if nobody has never made that mistake ever. You're a lawyer, surely you believe in evidence. Well, get some evidence of someone making that mistake and we'll talk about it. Until then, it's just an amusing thought experiment. Oh and delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
No human being? How about a non-English speaker, which is precisely the sort of person who would look something like this up in a dictionary? bd2412 T 03:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I stand by what I said. Find evidence of this error and then we'll discuss it further. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nomination.​—msh210 (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I count five people favouring deletion (Wikitiki, Equinox, DCDuring, Mglovesfun, Msh210) and three favouring retention (BD2412, Dmol, Donnanz). I myself am on the fence, leaning towards keep. - -sche (discuss) 21:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

hard work[edit]

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

Seems SoP to me, in contrast to hard labor, which is idiomatic because of its use in a legal/penal context. DCDuring TALK 22:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 22:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • What they said.​—msh210 (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
And delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Should be kept. The fact that it's a mass noun should be noted; besides that it's listed by Oxford (online at least). Donnanz (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
    It's a mass noun because "work" is mass noun. There is nothing idiomatic about it. --WikiTiki 89 19:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a mass noun in this sense, but work has a plural in other senses; e.g. literary works, reference works, works of art. Donnanz (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no RFD attached to this entry, and no record in the entry's history. Donnanz (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    Fixed. --WikiTiki89 19:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

emergency physician[edit]

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

emergency doctor[edit]

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

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

без посторонней помощи[edit]

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

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


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

RfV? Perhaps it's a real but nonstandard term. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm, maybe. I'm not sure whether this link will work.

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

It's not a primary source though. Secondary sources have their uses, but can never replace primary ones. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • If this isn't a primary source, what is? Name one. Donnanz 11:59 19 December 2013 (UTC)


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

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

vi estas stultulo[edit]

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

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete; not useful for travellers and although perhaps very amusing to students under 16, not especially instructive. There must be a more appropriate phrase that has the same form "You are a ..." if we're interested in that sentence pattern. Haplogy () 01:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

rational numbers[edit]

rfd-sense: "The set of numbers that can be expressed as a ratio of integers (fraction) m/n, where n is not zero. In set-builder notation, it is defined as {m/n|m,n}." Not that I doubt it, but is this a dictionary definition or a mathematical one? Does 'plural of rational number' cover the dictionary aspect? For example we don't define 0.9 with dot over the 9 (0.9 recurring). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Added "rfd-sense:". --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
No objections (though I was simply expecting people to read the entry). Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Is this term used outside of mathematics? I doubt it, which is why it has a mathematical definition. Also, I don't see what 0.9 recurring has anything to do with this. --WikiTiki89 20:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree it's an infelicitous definition. If the first sentence stopped at ‘integers’ it would be just as accurate (wouldn't it?) and less confusing. We need to be defining things like this for people who don't understand mathematics, that's really the whole point of a general-purpose reference work like a dictionary. (I did maths to A-level and the set-builder stuff still means nothing to me: is it necessary? Are we just saying the same thing again in a less accessible way?). Move to RFC, or possibly delete if it's SOP (you can also have rational roots, rational coefficients etc., where ‘rational’ just means ‘expressible as a ratio of two integers’ in all cases). Ƿidsiþ 21:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the definition should be cut off after the word "integers", the rest is unnecessary. But I still don't understand what point Mglovesfun was trying to make with the 0.9 repeating. --WikiTiki89 21:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it took me so long to find out how to write it, I'd forgotten why I wanted to in the first place. I mean to define 0.9 recurring as a synonym of 1. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but what does that have to do with rational numbers? --WikiTiki89 21:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Nothing, never claimed it did. It was just a comparison. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean now. Sorry for not getting it before. --WikiTiki89 21:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's a difference between the plural of rational number and a reference to the entire set of rational numbers. I agree that the definition should be cut off after "integers" - the rest is a mathematical definition, not a dictionary definition. For comparison, we have definitions for real numbers and natural numbers, but only "plural of" entries for irrational numbers, complex numbers, hyperreal numbers, and imaginary numbers. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, more or less as is. Non-experts will get what they need from the first part of the definition and glaze over the rest; experts (or. at any rate, formal math students) will get what they need from the whole thing. Definitions of complex topics in technical fields should be suitably useful both to the average reader, and to the member of that technical field. bd2412 T 21:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have edited the definition, but if you disagree, revert me. It should be kept either way. --WikiTiki89 22:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I restored the deleted material to a usage note, which should be sufficiently out of the way to avoid intimidating non-math majors, but contains the information that hardcore math fans will be looking for. bd2412 T 22:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I think it is unnecessary to have the information there. A link to Wikipedia should be enough. But if you really think it is crucial, I won't object. --WikiTiki89 22:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mr. Granger. The set Q is a mathematical object frequently referred to and is not simply the plural of rational number, it is the set of all rational numbers. I do agree, however, that the expression in set notation is not needed. It adds nothing to the definition, nor is it really a usage note. It is what it is; a formal expression in the language of sets. If we want that sort of thing we should put it under a different language head because it ain't English. Mathematical notation is either a language of its own or else it is translingual. By the way, for those that can't read gobbledegook, the expression translates into English as "the set of all quotients of m and n where m is an element of the set of integers and n is an element of the set of natural numbers". Pretty much the same as the definition we already have in words except that it is not necessary to explicitly exclude n=0 since zero is not included in N. SpinningSpark 00:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. A considerable number of non-native users are math-literate, and for them the mathematical definition given in addition to the verbal one is very clarifying. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
An additional point: most of our math-related definitions include a formula. Deleting this would logically indicate that we would prefer to remove them all. Probably all chemical formulae would have to go as well. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete the nominated sense as redundant to the definition in rational number, and we have "plural form of rational number" at rational numbers. I am unconvinced by the argument by Mr. Granger from 21:34, 16 December 2013; the other arguments above I cannot follow at all. Checked: rational numbers at OneLook Dictionary Search. By the way, "{m/n|m∈ℤ,n∈ℕ}" is no more precise than rational number's "A real number that can be expressed as the ratio of two integers"; it is just a technical notation. If you want to present this notation to the reader, you can do so by adding "; any member of {m/n|m∈ℤ,n∈ℕ}" to rational number. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Since you found it necessary to add "any member of" to the front of the expression, I take it that you understand that the expression is for the set of rational numbers. The term rational numbers when used with the meaning of this set is not the same as the plural of rational number. That plural meaning is any old collection of rational numbers. The set meaning is specifically the set ℚ, the set of all rational numbers. SpinningSpark 03:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Re: "... the expression is for the set of rational numbers." You see, you yourself do not write "the set of all rational numbers", since all is implied. The plural of a noun can refer to all items, depending on context and use of articles: if I say "cats are animals", I mean "all cats" or "cats in general, with possible exceptions". Sure, I had to write "member of" to allow the use of the set notation in the singular entry for the lovers of the set notation; there is nothing necessary about using the set notation. Put differently, if you use a technical notation that naturally constructs collectives rather than predicates, you have to say "member of". The letter "ℚ" does not work like mantra, neither does the set notation; chanting mathematical symbols and notation as if they were some sort of mantra does not bolster any argument and brings one closer to mysticism. "ℚ" is just a convenience to enable writing things like "x∈ℚ", one that you want to have since you have a short symbol for "∈"--"member of"--while having no such symbol for "is a" AKA "instance of".
    • On another note, let us have a look at what other sources do. Let us first check rational number at OneLook Dictionary Search and rational numbers at OneLook Dictionary Search. When you follow the latter link and click through Collins, Vocabulary.com, Wikipedia, and "Encyclopedia" (item 5 there), you land on pages that use "rational number" as the leading headword of term. As a second check, have a look at https://www.google.com/#q=define+%22rational+numbers%22, a search that uses plural, and check whether the pages that you find use plural or singular. From what I can see, sources online do not feel the need to define "rational numbers" as something separate that is not sufficiently covered by "rational number". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
      • To prove that this sense is not covered by the plural of rational number, consider the term open interval. I have never heard someone say "the open intervals" to refer to the set of all open intervals. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't think that common use of "the rational numbers" in contrast to "the open intervals" to refer to the set of all of them proves that we need to have the entry for "rational numbers" defined as anything else but the plural. We certainly do not need two different or redundant definitions at rational number and rational numbers. If this common use of the plural to refer to all of them is considered an oddity to be highlighted, a usage note at rational number or rational numbers should do, IMHO. Somewhat similarly, we do not have a separate definition at computer to cover the use in which "the computer" does not refer to any particular item taking space but rather to the invention in general. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
        • A quick Google Books search turns up this and this. Given that there are only 19 hits for "the set of open intervals", the rarity of the expression may have something to do with the nature of open intervals as a class rather than with this construction. Perhaps it's because it consists of relations between pairs of numbers rather than numbers sharing a common property. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Open intervals are sets, not relations between pairs of numbers. But okay, I'm convinced. Delete. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Reduce it to a plural of "rational number". Delete the set rubbish. Equinox 10:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps our resident mathematician would like to weigh in. Pinging User:msh210... :) - -sche (discuss) 01:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with this sense of the term, but that's an RFV issue. (A quotation like "function on the rational numbers" is not for this sense: it means a function on all of the rational numbers (i.e. the usual plural). I don't know of uses with "The rational numbers is", but cites will tell.) As to RFD: certainly it's a separate sense from the plural-of sense: keep.​—msh210 (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
@msh210: I don't think the point of the sense "The set of numbers that ..." is to claim that "the rational numbers" is grammatically used in singular just like "the set". The point seems to be that "the rational numbers" means all of them. I could send the sense to RFV, but I do not think I would be able to require that only the likes of "The rational numbers is" count toward attestation. Furthermore, the use of plural or singular with the likes of "the group of ..." seems to be pondian anyway, so the genus "the set" does not unequivocally force the grammatical singular. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
AFAIK even in Leftpondia "the set of Xes" is singular; certainly in a math context. I understood the nominated definition as referring to, well, the set, which would always take a singular verb (in a math context at least). If it refers to rational numbers generally, then it's redundant to the other, and delete.​—msh210 (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
@msh210, two questions:
  • One, when you say "even in Leftpondia 'the set of Xes' is singular", do you mean that you would say something like "integers is those elements of the infinite and numerable set {...,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,...}, and rational numbers is those numbers that [blah blah blah]"? Something about that sounds grammatically "off" to me. Or do you mean that you would say "the set of rational numbers is..."? In that case "is" goes with "set" and makes grammatical sense, but also seems irrelevant, since the entry under discussion is [[rational numbers]], not [[set of rational numbers]]. (We wouldn't add a usage note to [[phonebook]] claiming it is used with a singular verb just because it is possible to say "the set of all phonebooks is...")
  • Two, is there any mathematical concept X for which the term that means "the set of all Xs" is not the same written word as the plural form of X? There are some non-mathemetical things for which there exist different terms, e.g. multiple people = "humans" but the set of all people = "humanity". (Even then, "humans" can also mean "the set of all people": "Humans are mammals that [blah blah blah].") It seems to be a rule that the general plural Xs of a word X can mean either "the set of all Xs" or "multiple Xs". For example, I can speak of the "trees" outside my flat, or of all "trees"...
...and if that is a general rule—that plurals can refer to either multiple Xs or the set of all Xs—then it seems appropriate to explain what it takes to be an X in the entry X, not the entry Xs.
(general comment) I think this RFD was ill-formed, and has thus turned into a discussion of whether or not we should give a precise explanation of what it takes to be a rational number. Really, it should be a discussion of whether to give that precise explanation in the singular entry, the plural entry, or both. (Accordingly, I have half a mind to start a RFM once the RFD concludes.) - -sche (discuss) 06:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Ad 1: I mean the latter, and it's relevant because the nominated sense is "The set of numbers that can be expressed as a ratio of integers…". See also below.
Ad 2: You're not using set the way a mathematician uses set, and I read the entry as using it the way a mathematician uses it. So we're speaking past each other a bit here. Let me try to clarify: By set of Xes I mean a single entity, the collection of all Xes. That phrase (set of Xes) takes a singular verb, always. Humans are mammals refers to all humans, not to the set of humans. The set of humans contains some seven billion members refers to the set. Rational numbers refers to any, possibly all, rational numbers, not to the set (AFAIK; again, that's an RFV issue). The nominated sense "The set…" thus is different from the usual-plural sense, which is why I said to keep it, and it one that I doubt can be cited (not that I've looked). I hope I've made my point more clearly.
​—msh210 (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Since this discussion is moving in the direction of RFV, let's start looking for citations. Here's one that seems to meet MSh210's criterion,
First, we review his method for showing that the cardinality of the rational numbers is the same as the cardinality of the natural numbers.[8]
The set of rational numbers is clearly meant here even though "rational numbers" is not explicitly preceded by "set of". The claim that the cardinality is the same implies this: clearly, taking any old bunch of rational numbers and comparing with any old bunch of natural numbers will not necessarily result in equal cardinality. SpinningSpark 17:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You cannot pick "any old bunch of rational numbers" using an expression that contains a definite article: "the rational numbers". Your quotation has some merit, but the idea that "the rational numbers" could possibly refer to any old set containing some rational numbers but not all of them not so. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The prefix "the" is relative to context, as is "you". The set of rational numbers given by the number of urinations my dog makes in any day over the number of different trees he uses is not the set in the quotation. Cantor is not talking about my dog pissing up a tree, he is talking about ℚ. SpinningSpark 19:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Using "the" without qualifiers and without cues to the contrary in the context means that you're talking about about the entirety of that which follows, either as a whole or as a class. The fact that someone might say "the British speak English differently than the Americans do" doesn't mean we're talking about left-handed accountants from Derbyshire vs. people who watch w:Duck Dynasty from the Midwest. It's a well-known construction that can be applied to any class of numbers: the irrational numbers, the integers, the natural numbers, the imaginary numbers, the powers of two, the even numbers, the odd numbers, etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
After following the above links, I can see that we have a real inconsistency problem in analogous terms, with some entries using this concept, and others using simply "plural of". Chuck Entz (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This really needs to be moved to RFV. If it can be shown to be used with set-related terms, then it should be kept. For example "member of the rational numbers", would support this if it is cited. --WikiTiki89 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
It wouldn't support it, any more than "one of my children" would support "children" being anything more than the plural of "child". Equinox 00:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
You may have misunderstood me: "one" is not a particularly set-related term, while "member" is. You would never say "this child is a member of my children" unless you were thinking of "my children" as a mathematical set. --WikiTiki89 00:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
It makes no difference. If you think we need separate senses at prime numbers (plural), odd numbers (plural), numbers!!! (plural) etc. merely because they can be sets, then perhaps you're right in some arcane branch of mathematics but you are not right in English. This dictionary is English. Equinox 02:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
And to attempt to put it in slightly more mathematical terms: take any two elements x, y from the set of rationals. I ask you, "Are x and y rational numbers?" Yes, obviously. Each one belongs to the set. It doesn't matter that they don't make up the entire set. It's the same as Fido and Rover being dogs, even though there are other dogs in the world. There is no precedent or lexicographical reason for trying to restrict the plural term to the entire set. Equinox 02:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
We're not "restricting" the definition; we are adding a second definition. There is a linguistic distinction between using "rational numbers" as the plural of "rational number" and using it as a set. You are right that "prime numbers" and "odd numbers" can be used this way too, as can the plural of any type of anything ("regular polygons", "unit vectors", etc.), which is why I'm starting to think that it would be impossible to include the set definition on each of these terms. I guess it could be considered SOP (or something like that) to use a plural as the name of a set. --WikiTiki89 03:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The best proof of a set-only sense would be: "The rational numbers are made up of rational numbers". Do you think anyone would ever say such a thing? Chuck Entz (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The "best" proof is not always available, so we'll have to settle for the second best. --WikiTiki89 17:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep: Another one of these "shoot-first-ask-questions-later" RfDs. This is a valid definition and I see no reason to arbitrarily limit this project Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
LOL, if anyone ever "shoots fist" (sic) it's you, Purple. I doubt you'd even want to delete "man wearing a blue hat", because hey, it's words that have a meaning. Equinox 02:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
We're a dictionary of words, not a dictionary of words...except for a bunch of words a few editors who vote in RfDs arbitralily decide to delete. And, no, I don't shoot first, or fist, because I don't nominate a lot of entries for deletion. Also, my proclivities for voting are hardly germane here because this isn't a SOP RfD. TBH, the only rationale I'm seeing is that the nominator doesn't understand the definition. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
As suggested by several users above, including some who have voted "keep" in this forum, I have opened a Request for Verification. (That does not, IMO, prevent this RFD discussion from continuing, though it should probably not be closed until the RFV is resolved.) - -sche (discuss) 03:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Isn't the challenged sense a proper noun sense? DCDuring TALK 14:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
mathworld has an entry only for the singular. In that article it says The set of all rational numbers is referred to as the "rationals," and forms a field that is denoted Q. (my bold) SemperBlotto (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, "rationals" is short for "rational numbers" in both the plural sense and the set sense. --WikiTiki89 17:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I will note that statements like "rational numbers form a field" are true only if by "rational numbers" you mean the set of all of rational numbers (equipped with the appropriately defined addition and multiplication). If you choose to interpret this as "given some unspecified set of rational numbers, it forms a field", you will get an obvious falsehood: a single number can never be a field. No, field with one element does not count.
On the other hand, I would expect most languages conflate the two interpretations just like English does. So from a practical standpoint, splitting translation tables would only create editorial burden for little benefit. Keφr 19:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


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

In retrospect it seems like a clear case so maybe I should've just deleted the proper noun section right away and added the common noun and -suru verb myself... I've added them just now. I cheated with the quote however, so if anybody can quote a use of it before this year that would be fantastic. Haplogy () 08:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: スカイプする generally means to have a video chat. If you use Skype as a sound-only free phone, you say 電話する or 通話する. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep: If anything, just delete the sense of the proper noun and move it into usage notes, like what the entry skype has done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

electric vehicle[edit]

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

  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 09:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete obviously, nothing worth discussing. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Restore and keep this entry, which was deleted too quickly. Nothing obvious here. What's next - steam engine, fire brigade? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, needs to run its course. Restored. DAVilla 12:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I guess it's worth noting that a hybrid car is not an electric vehicle, so there really is something to define here. DAVilla 12:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, keep it. It was deleted far too quickly. There are a number of types of electric vehicles, including trolleybuses: I have to go to Belgium to find them. Donnanz (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Donnanz again, what possible relevance? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


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

Delete インターネット = Internet, アクセス = access in the same senses. "インターネットのアクセス" gets 14 million hits results. Not in any dictionaries except EDICT but it doesn't count. Haplogy () 11:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep. It's interesting that the English collocation was borrowed in full into Japanese as one word, "インターネットアクセス" is a synonymic form with the same meaning. It's verifiable. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Literal transliteration of noun-noun compounds without "の" is one of the most common forms of loan words in Japanese, especially in the information technology domain. There are numerous terms that take the same pattern: w:ja:ユーザインタフェース (ユーザ (user) + インタフェース (interface) = user interface), w:ja:クラウドコンピューティング (クラウド (cloud) + コンピューティング (computing) = cloud computing), w:ja:トップレベルドメイン (トップレベル (top-level) + ドメイン (domain)), etc. I cannot see anything collocational about "インターネットアクセス". Whym (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Weak keep. It is not clear why this word means an access to the Internet and not an access via the Internet (like 交通アクセス, which means an access via public transportation). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

take one's leave[edit]

Redundant to take leave. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Should probably remain as a redirect to [[take leave]]. But I'm open to whether there might be differences in usage, eg, degree of formality, dates of usage prevalence of one form or the other, that might warrant including both. DCDuring TALK 12:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Donnanz 12:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  • It is/was possible to say something like "He took leave of his friends and retired to his quarters." I'm not sure that it has exactly the same meaning or usage distribution as "He took his leave of his friends....". It is at least dated, so that the "take a leave of absence" sense seems much more transparent, ie, SoP. DCDuring TALK 14:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a different expression. --WikiTiki89 15:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
    Also, I don't believe it means "to say goodbye", but rather simply "to leave". --WikiTiki89 15:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
    take leave has as a sense "to depart"; as definitions depart has "to leave" and leave has "to depart". I'd feel more comfortable if take one's leave were like excusing oneself. "I take leave of you" vs "I take my leave of you" as form of departure and/or excusing yourself. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • There is at least one dictionary for each of take one's leave (2), take leave (14), and take leave of (1), but some of the entries recognize the other forms of the expression. I think all of them should be covered, at least by redirects. Probably take leave of is the one most deserving of being merely a redirect, to [[take leave]], which can take a label noting the "of"-complement.
21st-century usage in the "depart"/"say goodbye" is very uncommon, except in some language-learner books and dictionaries.
Take leave seems to usually mean only "to depart", whereas take one's leave seems to more often refer to a process that includes saying goodbye or excusing oneself, though it is also used to mean simply "to depart". DCDuring TALK 22:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Soft redirects / alternative-forms-of are fine; that's why I said it was redundant when I nominated this. I don't think a separate sense should exist for take one's leave, I think it should tell people it's simply another form of take leave. Any connotations could belong in the Usage Notes section instead. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep either as "alternative form" or as a separate entry. Equinox 07:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep as soft redirect, BUT we also need to add the reflexive sense to take leave. Ƿidsiþ 18:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
What reflexive sense? --WikiTiki89 18:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Er…I'm not quite sure what was going through my head when I wrote that! Keep, anyway, as alternative form. Ƿidsiþ 19:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

homo marriage[edit]

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

First of all, you added it yourself. Second of all, you also added homomarriage, so now WT:COALMINE applies unless homomarriage is not citable. If you want it to be deleted, why did you add it? --WikiTiki89 17:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
homomarriage is just homo + marriage. --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
You do know about WT:COALMINE, don't you? --WikiTiki89 17:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Is WT:COALMINE a Wiktionary policy? If it is, then that automatically makes it worthless. All that matters is common practice. --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes it's a policy, and the common practice happens to be to follow it, despite the editors (including me) who disagree with it. --WikiTiki89 18:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
We don’t need policies; Wiktionary can exist without any policies. --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Without policies, there would no criteria for blocking people for making bad edits. --WikiTiki89 18:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah who cares. Let the admins block whomever they want! It’s not like they ever needed reasons, well, aside from the fact that blocking is fun. --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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


The name of a neighbourhood. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

  • On what grounds? SemperBlotto (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
    Being too specific a placename. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. A single-word name of a specific entity. Per WP, it is a part of São Paulo with population over 60,000. Similar entries that we have: Soho--An area of central London’s West End, Tottenham (suburban area), Westminster (A borough of London), Twickenham ("A town in southwest London"), Kensington ("An affluent area of west London"), Wimbledon (A borough of London), Manhattan (borough of New York City). Pertinent regulation: WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. Note, however, that liberdade is a Portuguese common noun meaning liberty. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Updated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Keep per Dan Polansky. We have entries for much smaller places. It should also be noted that the place is known for its large Japanese population. While that alone is not a reason to include, we do seem to list places known for a particular reason, such as London's Harley Street, (doctors) and Threadneedle Street, (finance). --Dmol (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
WT:CFI specifically (and correctly) says there is no consensus on this issue, so it is just a matter of voting. I really don't care tbh. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


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

  • Yes, delete the adjective entry. The citations can be listed under the noun. Donnanz (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Christmas present[edit]

SOP. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 19:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
SOP. Keφr 19:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
...and birthday present/birthday presents? SpinningSpark 20:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete this, birthday present, and your little dog too. Ba humbugi. DCDuring TALK 21:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Santa is noting down all the names that vote delete for this. You'll all be sorry next Christmas. SpinningSpark 21:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Are you spoilsports going to leave all those translations homeless?? Donnanz (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I appreciate the appeal, but suppose there are a few languages that have a single word for the concept of a blue umbrella, or the smell of spring, or the time half an hour after midnight - would we have entries to accommodate those translations? bd2412 T 23:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes. DTLHS (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
        • There are languages that have words for all of those things, so you'd better create the entries. :] You should also create [[possess a bunchberry plant]], since there's a language which has a word for that. - -sche (discuss) 03:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I no longer believe in the concept of words. DTLHS (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
            • I don’t oppose converting it to a translation target. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete Christmas present and birthday present per nom. - -sche (discuss) 22:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know. The whole project is so rife with SOP's that these two don't make the situation any worse. I just added Finnish translation (per request) to illegal immigration and wondered, why the heck we have it. But I guess it's lesser evil to let them be, because RFD'ing them all would totally jam this page. Then I checked illegal immigrant and it has been around since 2006. If I would have to choose between keeping "Christmas present" and "birthday present" versus keeping the two immigration terms, I would certainly choose the presents. Perhaps we should have an authorized "execution squad" which would be authorized to kill SOP's without any formalities. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem with that is that there are cases where one person thinks a term is SOP, but it really isn't. No one on the authorized execution squad would be infallible in their decision. --WikiTiki89 03:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
illegal immigrant is gone. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I suppose if you delete every Christmas-related entry it would keep the atheists, pagans, Jews, Moslems and other non-believers, as well as the North Koreans happy. Donnanz (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
This comment seems off-topic and inflammatory. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete as transparent, if you know what Christmas means and you know what present means, you know what this means. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Off-topic? Definitely not - look under Christmas (derived terms). Inflammatory? I guess it depends on how thin-skinned you are. My comment did not target any group in particular, and there's plenty of people who would criticise the celebration of Christmas in any form. Donnanz (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Implying that opposition to the inclusion of Christmas present in a dictionary is opposition to Christmas itself is about as useful as implying that opposition to red tricycle is opposition to tricycles (and also strikes me as somewhat "thin-skinned" itself, but that's beside the point). Do we have entries for graduation present, wedding present, housewarning present, Mother's Day present, Father's Day present, etc.? Is that because we have an agenda against mentioning graduations, weddings, housewarmings, Mother's Day, Father's Day, etc.? I love Christmas. I've given and received Christmas presents, participated in Christmas Eve services, put up Christmas lights and Christmas decorations, not to mention putting Christmas-tree ornaments on Christmas trees. I have fond memories of my family's Christmas traditions and the activities my mom had for us to do during Christmas Vacation. I still need to see good reasons why someone will need to look up Christmas present if they already know what Christmas and present mean. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You seem to think that people only look things up in a dictionary to find out what they mean. Which, firstly, isn't the case, and secondly does not resolve anything because ‘present’ means all kinds of things, most of which are irrelevant to the meaning of ‘Christmas present’. Ƿidsiþ 17:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
What’s this? The Spanish Inquisition? — Ungoliant (falai) 15:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, who put the cat amongst the pigeons? Donnanz (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I haven't completely made up my mind on this: there have been solid, well-reasoned comments on both sides of the issue. The ones I responded to weren't among those. To first throw in a gratuitous reference to "atheists, pagans, Jews, Moslems and other non-believers, as well as the North Koreans", then to use "thin-skinned" when challenged, seemed a bit much. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
If my comment caused any offence, I apologise. Donnanz (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. It's not that I was particularly offended, but that I didn't like the direction things seemed to be going, and wanted to stop it from going any further in that direction. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. To be honest, I don't know where the main objection lies - is it terms derived from present, or terms derived from Christmas? As far as present is concerned, I have no objection to birthday present or Christmas present, which are very common in usage, and this is reflected by the translation entries in both cases. But I would perhaps draw the line there. Strangely enough, there is no ""Derived terms" section under present (Etymology 2). Donnanz (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep. In the OED (first citation from Samuel Pepys! This is the sort of surprising information that good dictionaries provide). Also, remember that Scrooge is visited by the Ghost of Christmas Present: there the collocation is sum of parts, but in normal use it's a set phrase which calls on a specific noun use of present. Ƿidsiþ 15:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I did not realize we had a second sense of "current Christmas". If that sense is attestable then the entry should be kept, because it is not SOP, as it is not the usual word order for "present Christmas" and stems from its usage in A Christmas Carol. But delete birthday present. --WikiTiki89 19:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Clarification of my vote: Keep the Dickens-derived sense. Delete gift given on Christmas sense. --WikiTiki89 19:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Just added it and I believe it's attestable, A Christmas Carol's' legacy is far-reaching. It should also be kept on the grounds that it's not obvious what sense of present is being referred to in the set phrase Christmas present, whether the literal SOP one or the sense I just added. I have not found a reason not to delete birthday present however, but I'll continue looking for one. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
It all goes to show how fickle Wiktionary policy is regarding SoP entries. Donnanz (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's probably more a problem with notions of language than a problem with Wiktionary itself IMO. Wiktionary's mission is to include "all words in all languages", and tries to apply an objective inclusion criteria to inherently subjective interpretations of "words" and "languages", which are constantly changing and evolving. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Further thoughts: Christmas present in this sense uses present as a postpositive adjective, and may be uncountable. Anyway, "Christmas presents" would be the wrong plural. "Christmas present and Christmases past" is quite feasible though. Donnanz (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Further thoughts on this: not all presents given at Christmas are Christmas presents, and not all Christmas presents are given at Christmas. I received some Christmas presents this year in August (from relatives that I rarely see): the point is that I keep them and open them on Christmas Day. Similarly, if I give a friend 20 quid on the 19th December, I might say ‘Consider this a present’ but it would not be a Christmas present – unless I wrapped it up in a box and he put it under his tree until the 25th. There are all kinds of cultural and traditional assumptions involved in this term that are not obvious from Christmas + present. Ƿidsiþ 07:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    That's not a linguistic phenomenon. They are presents given for Christmas, whether it is on Christmas or in August. --WikiTiki89 20:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting that Japanese has borrowed the term in full: クリスマスプレゼント (kurisumasu purezento), just like インターネットアクセス (intānetto akusesu) and many other compound English terms and words, which may or may not be considered SoP. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, given all the discussion and development that has occurred here, with my involvement in creating a new home and sense for the entry, I haven't found any compelling reason to keep the first noun sense. So yeah, delete. (And I guess we will yet again consider RFDing yet another entry クリスマスプレゼント Atitarev, considering the latter is under discussion as we speak.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Because the "gift" sense was the only one present when this entry was RFDed, and the "current Christmas" sense was added after many users voted, I think any deletion of the "current Christmas" sense requires a new, separate RFD. This RFD (on the "gift" sense) shows, by my reading, a 2-to-1 majority for deletion. - -sche (discuss) 22:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

birthday present[edit]

Since many have already expressed their opinion that this should also be deleted (and I agree), it should also be explicitly RFDed. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Nope, keep it. I have no objection whatsoever to this entry. Donnanz (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. Ƿidsiþ 20:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I suspect that there may be a second sense of just "wrapped presents", which should be kept if attestable (for example, "The store was decorated with stacks of birthday presents."). --WikiTiki89 20:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • (In case it wasn't clear from the previous section) Keep Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Note to whoever closes this, my vote on this entry (like some other users' votes on it) is in the previous section. - -sche (discuss) 20:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Same (which was delete). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Same here (also delete). bd2412 T 19:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Once again, don't forget the translations which several users have taken the effort to enter (not me - yet). Donnanz (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    Translations are really not a good reason to keep an SOP term. --WikiTiki89 16:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    Take for example "I eat" or "I am eating". As far as I know, a large percentage of all languages that exist can say that in one word: Arabic آكُلُ, Spanish como, Polish jem, etc. That does not mean that we need to include I eat and I am eating to host those translations. --WikiTiki89 23:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    Wiktionary's mission is to include "all words in all languages". I want to see your definition of what "word"/"term"/"lemma" you consider to be appropriate or legitimate in a dictionary. Does man wearing a blue hat (Equinox) constitute a legitimate "word"? Or I am not a potato. But I'll give a brief explanation of why I don't consider myself a potato? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    User:Wikitiki89, while we might not have I am eating, it would probably behoove us to have an explanation of the progressive tense, which exists in English but not in romance languages. However, in general, I believe that we are being too hasty in deleting entries of more than one word. This is an example of one that shouldn't be deleted. television show is another. Our job is to have a dictionary that can explain any definition anybody anywhere could possibly want Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
    The progressive tense is irrelevant to the point I was making. I was saying that we don't need to include those terms just because a single-word translation exists in a multitude of languages. As for explaining definitions, birthday and present explain perfectly well what a birthday present is. --WikiTiki89 00:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Having researched the term, I cannot find any conclusive evidence that this is not sum of parts. Therefore, delete TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's a pretty accurate observation, it's a sum of parts, three to be precise: birth + day + present. By some quirk of fate birth + day were combined in this sense, so that leaves us dealing with birthday + present. The page for present redirects users to gift for translations, but how often is it referred to as a birthday gift? Yes, there's an entry for that too, so you can have even more fun! Personally, I prefer the term birthday present; it's what I'm used to. Donnanz (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
in en-US or en-GB? I believe the term present by itself is used more widely than gift anyway, so the comparison between "birthday present" and "birthday gift" would be redundant. If you want we can nominate "birthday gift" as well. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I use British English. Donnanz (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
There are many set terms whose meanings are perfectly transparent, it doesn't mean they should be deleted. I don't see how this is any different from, say, tennis ball. Ƿidsiþ 11:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I suppose it may be cultural and not completely obvious that the present is given to the person celebrating their birthday, not the other way around. Still, keeping on those grounds would allow for pretty much every type of present, for which that's almost universally the case. Weak delete this and gift, though I would consider allowing as a translation target despite the slippery slope arguments above. DAVilla 12:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 18:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. Commenters above were 2-to-1 in favour of deletion. - -sche (discuss) 22:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

birthday gift[edit]

Same as above. --WikiTiki89 00:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I knew this would happen. Both should be kept for a variety of reasons. They are synonyms for a start, and not everyone may be aware of that, especially foreign users who may not have the time nor inclination to work it all out if both entries are deleted. Donnanz (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
    They are synonyms because present and gift are synonyms, making them all the more SoPpy. --WikiTiki89 18:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete as I foretold. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ƿidsiþ 15:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons I outlined in Christmas present and birthday present above Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I would like to make one qualification to my above !votes. If Christmas present is kept, then birthday present should also be kept as an example of the same formation, and vice versa; if birthday present is kept, then birthday gift should be kept as a synonym. Therefore, if there are any of these does not end end up having a consensus to delete, then I would prefer to see all of them kept, for consistency. bd2412 T 21:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
    Even if Christmas present is kept just for its other sense? --WikiTiki89 01:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    I think that it is highly unlikely that the determination as to Christmas present will hinge on the second sense introduced. bd2412 T 19:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    Oh really? --WikiTiki89 19:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    Given that you are the only editor who would keep one and delete the other, yes, really. bd2412 T 21:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    1. Considering how close the vote is currently, my vote could be the deciding one. 2. I think most people who voted to delete the original RFD'd sense would support keeping the Dickens-derived sense. --WikiTiki89 21:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    We don't really have "deciding votes"; the closing administrator will make a determination based on policy and consensus. bd2412 T 22:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    And also based on the votes. --WikiTiki89 22:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    I don't know why you have that impression, but we have "RfD", not "VfD" here. bd2412 T 13:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: both of these terms seems to pass the "tennis player" test at WT:IDIOM. Ƿidsiþ 09:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    Please explain, because I don't see how they could pass. Frankly, I don't see how tennis player passes either. --WikiTiki89 19:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Because there's no other word - tenniser doesn't exist, though it's tennisser in Dutch. Donnanz (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
There's no other word for the cat stuck in the tree, that doesn't mean we should include it. --WikiTiki89 20:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
But no one thinks we should. Unlike this. Ƿidsiþ 08:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The entry for tennis player was kept because we decided to keep similar entries, mostly on the grounds that they were professional titles. You wouldn't call anyone who plays tennis a tennis player. Your argument for keeping it doesn't explain why we have soccer player despite footballer. DAVilla 12:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
That decision was a bad one. The frequency of phrases like "bad tennis player", "poor tennis player" shows that it is often used for non-professionals. Equinox 20:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Even tennis player doesn't pass the tennis player test. The discussion just got botched. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Delete (ergo same as my vote above). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 18:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Delete. No unique meaning separate from the combined meanings of the two terms. Kaldari (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. WikiTiki89, Mr. Granger, Ungoliant, TeleComNasSprVen, Mglovesfun, Equinox, Kaldari and I favoured deletion; Donnanz, Ƿidsiþ and Purplebackpack89 favoured retention. My decision to resolve this RFD before resolving the other two — because a quick glance suggested the consensus on this term was clearer than the consensus on the other terms — made it hard to apply BD2412's conditional vote, but there is an approximately 2-to-1 majority favouring deletion regardless of which way BD2412's vote is counted. - -sche (discuss) 21:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

chè sâm bổ lượng[edit]

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

commit suicide[edit]

Sum of parts: commit + suicide. As the same with commit homicide, regicide, genocide, patricide, infanticide... etc. Also on commit#verb sense 3 we have: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, looking from another angle, you don't do suicide, nor make suicide, you commit suicide. It should be kept. And there's a load of translations. Donnanz (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)You sure you can't "do suicide"? You can make all the same arguments for all the other constructions, and they'd still be sum of parts; our entry at commit already covers this. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
    The fact that you "commit" rather than "do" suicide has more to do with the peculiarities of -cide: if there were a Latin-based morpheme blurg, you would "commit blurgicide" rather than "do blurgicide". Chuck Entz (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Addendum: I didn't have time to develop my thought because I was going to be late for work. Here's what I meant to say: basically commit is the preferred verb in a specific semantic environment: you commit "a crime, sin, or fault", as it says in definition #3 of the verb. When someone jokes about "committing insecticide", the humor comes from the way that it sets up a conflict between the idea of insects being lower life forms that you buy chemicals to kill and the "commit Xcide" construction that you would use for various classes of murder (patricide, matricide, fratricide, sororicide, etc.). Suicide, being a very terrible deed, is quite regular in taking commit. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. No one says ‘commit homicide’ except police spokesmen (let alone ‘matricide’ etc.), but ‘commit suicide’ is the normal idiomatic way to express the idea in English. Ƿidsiþ 08:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete SOP. The translations can be hosted at suicide#Verb. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep if only for the translations ("translation target"); while German "Selbstmord begehen" is a word-for-word translation, Romanian "sinucide", Italian "suicidarsi" and Spanish "suicidarse" not so. suicide#Verb is a poor location for translations, since the verb is unidiomatic in the sense of "not most characteristic or usual means of expression"; for this check committed suicide, suicided at Google Ngram Viewer. As for other dictionaries, Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary has this; see also commit suicide at OneLook Dictionary Search. See also commit suicide, kill oneself, kill himself, kill herself at Google Ngram Viewer, which shows "commit suicide" to be the most common expression of the notion. See also commit suicide, commit homicide, commit genocide, commit infanticide, commit regicide, commit patricide at Google Ngram Viewer to see how common this is relative to the other phrases. So the other non-CFI card I would play is "set phrase". My personal tentative criterion for translation target: The term has to be useful for translation into at least three languages and the three translated terms (i) must be single-word ones and (ii) they must not be closed compounds. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Irritatingly I think this is a delete as not idiomatic. I suppose per Dan Polansky, what's the point of having Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets if you then delete all the non-idiomatic stuff from Wiktionary. Still, I think WT:CFI and the de facto CFI both say delete on this one. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as SOP. If you think it's that important we let readers know that "commit suicide" is the customary locution, you could supply an appropriate usex or two under suicide. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Usage examples in "suicide" entry do not allow translation. They do not make it possible to link all the synonyms in other languages to commit suicide and traverse the translation graph through it, such as Spanish suicidarse --> English commit suicide --> German Selbstmord begehen. By the way, here is Duden: Selbstmord begehen, where "Selbstmord begehen" can be understood from Selbstmord and begehen. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 18:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete as SOP, even though suicide does show a great deal of commitment. Note that there are also a fair number of hits for "perform suicide". bd2412 T 19:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
    The frequency ratio is overwhelmingly in support of "commit suicide": commit suicide, perform suicide at Google Ngram Viewer; committed suicide, performed suicide at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
    The frequency ratio of "eat breakfast" is overwhelmingly in support of that usage over any other synonym of "eat", but that only shows that when it comes to consuming food, the most common verb to use is "eat". When it comes to engaging in an act that is generally deemed criminal or wrongful (suicide, murder, adultery, burglary, a faux pas), the corresponding verb is "commit". bd2412 T 05:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    With breakfast, the verb breakfast seems to be nearly as common as "eat breakfast". Thus, if the sense is only hosted at the verb breakfast, it is on a term that is actually very often used for the sense, unlike when "to commit suicide" would only be hosted on the verb suicide. Searches: had breakfast,breakfasted,ate breakfast at Google Ngram Viewer. "ate breakfast" is not even the most common term of the three. By the way, I searched for past tense, since otherwise the present-tense "breakfast" would also find noun occurrences. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • One more note: You can think of this as a semantic analogue of WT:COALMINE: if a concept AKA sense has two synonyms of which one is unequivocally a single word while the other one is more common, the more common one should be kept. In this case, the verb suicide will clearly be kept even though it is quite rare; the concept or sense will be there in Wiktionary, albeit on the wrong headword: suicide (verb). --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
    By that logic, the existence of I'm is a reason to have I am. You can't just make up policies on the spot, they should be voted on. --WikiTiki89 01:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    The term "muckamuck" gets 2810 hits at Google Books. The phrase "someone important" gets 49,100, "a person of great importance" gets 43,400, "an important guy" gets 6,970- do you see where this is heading? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    big cheese,big gun,big kahuna,top dog,big noise,big shot,bigwig,big wheel,head honcho,someone important,person of great importance,important guy at Google Ngram Viewer shows that the terms you listed are not the most common terms for the sense. I admit that my formulation of the semantic coalmine has to be fixed, to only allow the most common synonym even if it is semantically transparent. The idea is that when we include a sense, we should also include it on the headword that is most characteristic for the sense; if the most characteristic headword turns out to be sum of parts, that should not prevent us from including it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ƿidsiþ 07:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. As Dan Polansky said, the value of translations is enough to keep this entry. ¦ hyark digyik 12:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Dan Polansky. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Within the suicide community, it's sometimes considered offensive to talk of "committing" suicide; see e.g. http://ash2.wikkii.com/wiki/About_ASH#General_posting_rules However, I think even they break their own rule. Leucosticte (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as SOP.​—msh210 (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

starting price[edit]

"The opening price for an item at an auction", redundant to "Used other than as an idiom." Mglovesfun (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I think it's different from the reserve price. An item can be withdrawn from an auction if it doesn't reach the reserve price set by the seller. I guess an auction has to start somewhere pricewise. Donnanz (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    I don't see what point you're trying to make. An auction needs to start at some price, and that price is referred to, unidiomatically, as the "starting price". --WikiTiki89 19:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Donnanz, what relevance are you proposing, if any? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
An auction has to start at a certain price, whether it's a penny, pound, £100 or whatever. I guess it depends on the perceived value of the item. The reserve price could be set above the starting price - "bidding did not reach the reserve price". Donnanz (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok perhaps I was unclear, what relevance to the discussion of the deletion of this sense of 'starting price'? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If you think it's redundant to "Used other than as an idiom", then why did you add that sense? Anyway, it's a set term in bidding/auctions, otherwise I don't see how it's obvious what exactly is being "started". It's no more literal than the horse racing sense, even though the meanings are diametrically opposed: in bidding, it's the first price (i.e. when the bidding starts), in racing it's the last price (i.e. when the race starts). Ƿidsiþ 19:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • See also the OED: "starting-price n. (a) the price at which the bidding at an auction is started; (b) Horse Racing the final odds on a horse at the time of starting". Ƿidsiþ 19:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    In the horse-racing sense, the meaning is the opposite of what you'd expect. In the auction sense, it is exactly what you would expect. --WikiTiki89 20:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    I feel that we just have different ideas about what a dictionary is, because to me the fact that you find the meaning obvious is completely beside the point. There are lots of things in a dictionary with transparent meanings. But it is by no means obvious that English would express the idea in this way. In French, it's called the "initial price", which would be equally obvious in English, but we don't generally say that. We say "starting price". It's a set term, and the only one that you would use in this situation. If you don't know about bidding at an auction, you would have no idea what to call it (even though you would obviously understand what someone meant if they said it). That is what good dictionaries record: what terms are actually used for such things, how long have they been in use, how would you translate them, where does the stress fall in pronunciation of such two-word terms, etc. etc. Ƿidsiþ 20:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not a set term in bidding, bidding uses the unidiomatic sense. Saying it's a bidding terms isn't untrue it's just misleading. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Basically your definition is unacceptably inaccurate, mine isn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You could say "initial price". It may be less common, but it's the exact same thing. --WikiTiki89 20:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    To me there s a clear difference between what people could say and what they do, in fact, choose to say 90 percent of the time, and that is perhaps partly what I mean by ‘set term’. Ƿidsiþ 20:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    So what's the threshold percentage? --WikiTiki89 20:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I didn't realise that this is a brand new entry. I suggest it is restored to the original as entered by Widsith. Donnanz (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    A lot more than just auctions have starting prices. That is what {{&lit}} is for. --WikiTiki89 20:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    You might be right, but like what exactly? If the vast majority of citations are about bidding, then to me it makes sense to have a definition line which explains it properly, rather than just saying "look up starting and price" (by the way, what sense of starting do you think is being used here?). I don't think it's helpful to users, I think it's a way for editors to score points. (I see that there may be a specific sense in stocks and shares as well.) Ƿidsiþ 07:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, fine. I have added the abbreviation SP to the horse racing sense. Donnanz (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
That one's totally not obvious from the sum of its parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it's kind of stupid to have a reserve price higher than the starting price. Why is that done? --WikiTiki89 22:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea. Maybe the reserve price is not disclosed before the auction. Donnanz (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It is done to encourage bidding to begin and to get bidders fighting each other for an item. The reserve price is not known to the bidders. The auctioneer may start by asking for bids much lower than the reserve price. If he gets no bids, he asks for a lower bid until someone is willing to start. SpinningSpark 15:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, SpinningSpark. Donnanz (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes thanks! I did not realize the bidders don't know the reserve price. --WikiTiki89 23:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If this were actually a true set phrase then we wouldn't find modifiers of price inserted after starting. But one can find, for example, asking, ask, and bid. And coordinate expressions can be inserted as well, eg, or reserve.
Opening price, starting price, and initial price all seem seem to refer to the same thing, all occurring in significant numbers in Books, none having even the majority of the total of usage in proximity to auction. I can't tell if there is some difference in the context in which they are used. This looks like our standard enthronement of a single SoP term when multiple SoP terms exist. DCDuring TALK 00:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Well in regard to your first point, fried egg is enshrined as a set term in WT policy and it is very easy to find evidence for "fried hen's egg", "fried chicken's egg" etc. Ƿidsiþ 08:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a pleasure, it's a great pleasure, it's been a pleasure, etc. Doesn't seem like a very strong argument. DAVilla 11:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Terms used in discourse are included not because they are set, but because they are commonly used in discourse. I think that set phrase is includable here principally because it is a misonomer. If we would care to define set phrase to include many kinds of insertions and not just inflectional variation, we may as well use the term snowclone instead. DCDuring TALK 17:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Does it make sense to say that the starting price of the iPhone was $599 if that was the price that it sold for upon initial release? At the very least, that's not a very clear way to express that little factoid in words. The phrase starting price implies an auction or at least some kind of negotiation, which is an understanding that can't be derived from the parts. Keep. DAVilla 11:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 2010, William M. Pride, ‎O. C. Ferrell, Foundations of Marketing, page 294:
    Price skimming is charging the highest possible price that buyers who most desire the product will pay. The Apple iPhone, for example, was introduced through AT&T with a starting price of $599 for a smartphone with 8 gigabytes of memory
It speaks for itself. DCDuring TALK 14:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I stand by what I said, that it wouldn't be a very clear way to express that if, in this case, the author's argument wasn't explained in so many other words. Thinking of the auction definition, I can still read the latter part of that quote in a way that doesn't make sense. Especially with the horseracing definition in the OED, it's worth isolating this sense. DAVilla 04:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
"Technical term" is thrown about to often here when it's just the general term used in a specific field. We don't have special baseball and cricket senses for 'throw' and 'catch' because there aren't any; just the general use term used in those specific fields. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
This is perhaps going off on a tangent, but actually ‘throw’ does have a specific meaning in cricket inasmuch as it is distinguished from ‘bowling’ by being performed with the arm bent. On your general point though, you may be right, I think most of these discussions come from a basic disagreement between editors who either ‘feel’ something to be a set term or who don't, and a lot of the terminology like ‘technical term’ and ‘set phrase’ are ways for people to try to express that feeling which ultimately cannot be pinned down by legislation (no matter how much we try!). Ƿidsiþ 14:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether I'm stating the obvious here, but starting price for an iPhone is a completely different sense for starting price in an auction. The auction sense is the initial price offered, but not necessarily the price actually paid; the iphone sense is the the price of the lowest priced item (and the price actually paid) of a range of similar items of increasing value/quality. SpinningSpark 15:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that is the sense intended in most of the hits at my Iphone/starting price search. The one I picked is unfortunately ambiguous.
The mechanics are certainly different among, say, an auction, retail selling, and supply-contract negotiation. But even in a retail setting, the price the customer pays need not be the quoted price. For example, there are coupons and loyalty-program discounts. Retail pricing for tech goods is something like a long-term Dutch auction, with the retailer offering goods with lower and lower prices over time.
I just don't see that a dictionary is the place to document the vast range of institutional possibilities, when the terms used are not unique, even in one usage context. I also don't see that we should enthrone any one particular usage context's usage just because a contributor has a familiarity or a lack of familiarity with that context. DCDuring TALK 17:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
You are missing the point. It is beside the point that a customeer can negotiate a price with the retailer. The iPod meaning of "starting price" is still not the price at which a negotiation started. It is the price of the basic model, as opposed to the model with all the extras, or the model with the faster processor, bigger engine etc. The auction meaning is not simply a different usex, it is an entirely different sense. The fact that you have just managed to conflate those two meanings convinces me that I ought to be saying keep to this. SpinningSpark 18:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
It might be that for this single instance, which is ambiguous, the term might be synonymous with "base price". There are many usage contexts in which the phrase "starting price" can be used, with various possible meanings, none of which have any special status, given the evidence presented so far. The existence of multiple meanings is highly likely when polysemous terms are involved. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
A starting price is the price at the start of something, whether it's the start of bidding in an auction or the start of selling a new product. When you say "starting price", you don't imply either one of these. You just have to know from context. --WikiTiki89 20:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think any sort of issues about how these particular words have certain 'connotations' or particular 'contexts' are better explained in detail in an encyclopedia for the term. Certainly the specific meaning of a word varies from context to context, from culture to culture (even in the same language like between en-US and en-GB) but this is reason to include all variations of such a word into an encyclopedia. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That's just what an encyclopaedia doesn't do. An encyclopaedia article is about a single subject, so the article is only going to discuss a single meaning of the title term. On Wikipedia, if two articles with the same title term are desired they are not mixed on the same page. Instead, the title carries a disambiguator in brackets after the title term. The kind of reference that lists all meanings of a title term on the same page is a dictionary. SpinningSpark 23:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

‎in one stroke, ‎at a single stroke, at a stroke, at one stroke[edit]

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

Non-idiomatic Vietnamese words[edit]

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

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

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

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

Delete those that seem problematic. I'm curious about nouns with the nominaliser "sự", though, such as sự hy sinh, sự giải quyết. Do you always treat them as non-lemma forms? What about sự kiện vs kiện? Is that a different case? We could use [[giải quyết]] as a lemma for "to decide" but [[sự giải quyết]] is a translation for "decision". So a valid translation for "decision" would be sự giải quyết (vi) where "sự giải quyết" is displayed but linked to the verb "giải quyết". Perhaps an approach for Japanese -suru verbs can be taken, e.g. 勉強 has both noun and verb sections. Thus, nouns with "sự" could all be linked to verbs/adjectives without them. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 13:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
What helps in determining whether or not a word fits the idiomaticity requirement of CFI is the prevalence of the expression in general use as well as the semantic weight each individual expression can carry. "frog" has as much semantic equivalence as "the frog" for example, and even when the latter is more grammatically correct and more commonly used, most people are apt to understand just the former by itself as well. Does the classifier carry any semantic weight with it? Your example quả đất is a good starting point, as it indicates that when the literal translation "ball of dirt" is extended to its logical conclusion, it becomes "Earth" in its totality. The initial classifier quả changes the meaning slightly yet significantly. I think we would have to make similar considerations, such as sự giải quyết ("the act of deciding" = "decision") for example. Does "decision" have anything semantically new that is not provided by "the act of deciding"? As for precedent, I think it's great in discouraging future redundancies such as "muỗi" and "con muỗi"; I don't think there should be equivalent entries at "mosquito" and "the mosquito" for example. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if you like the idea but I suggest to have sự-nouns in the entries without them. E.g. see this revision of hy sinh where I added a noun section (and other things) - {{vi-noun|head=[[sự]] [[hy]] [[sinh]]}}. To an English speaker "sự hy sinh" is a noun meaning "sacrifice", even if the lemma form is "hy sinh". "sự hy sinh" could be formatted as an "Alternative form of hy sinh" or a "sự-noun form (or similar) of hy sinh" if a template is created. I have created Category:Vietnamese sự-nouns, which now contains just one entry - "hy sinh" but perhaps "sự hy sinh" should be there instead? Not sure if redirect is the best option, users might want to know what this "sự" means and why we have two forms - "hy sinh" and "sự hy sinh".
With the living creatures too, a Vietnamese translation of "toad" is "con cóc". It seems both "cóc" and "con cóc" mean the same thing - "a toad". Many dictionaries use "con cóc" to translate "toad" even if "con" can be dropped. Not sure if "toad" and "the toad" is a good analogy here or even Mandarin or Japanese measure words (counters or classifiers). E.g. Mandarin 蟾蜍 (chánchú) is never used in dictionaries as 蟾蜍 (zhī chánchú) (classifier + noun). Vietnamese "con" must have a much wider usage. Perhaps another category for "con-" nouns should be created. Sorry, my knowledge of the Vietnamese grammar is very basic but I'm thinking from the users' point of view. Using "cls=con" in Vietnamese noun entries is not a bad idea but perhaps con-nouns should also exist? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
As I have never used the word sự in regular Vietnamese I cannot speak to that, but what I can say is that the word con and the like are really semantically empty categories, save for a few specific situations. Why do we omit particles a/an/the from our entries even though they are so commonly and widely used? We have seen and heard many ESL learners even omit these words when they try to speak English, and their utterances remain perfectly understandable. It is because these particles are semantically empty categories, they are only used as specifiers in number and specificity. If you were to omit the word the from your paragraph above, it is still semantically parsable even as it is grammatically incorrect. Similarly, a Vietnamese speaker would simply tell you that omitting the classifiers is grammatically incorrect, but they'd still be able to understand what you were trying to say (save for a few ambiguous homonyms where classifiers are expected, but again homonyms exist in English too, and besides those may warrant separate entries). The majority of these are rather silly and redundant entries for a dictionary to have, like nhím and con nhím, duplicating the entire contents of one onto the other. This extra maintenance, we do not need, it provides more work for us should something change, and it takes up empty space. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I cannot fully agree with you at the moment. See my section about sách below. nhím is used with con but not all nouns seem to behave the same way. Could you explain, e.g. why dictionaries list living creatures with "con"? Why do they show "con nhím", not simply "nhím" for porcupine?
With nouns with classifiers I may agree to delete the terms but the corresponding lemmas should have a "cls=" parameter. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I certainly agree that we want to help readers find out how to turn "hy sinh" into a noun, but calling "hy sinh" a noun is misleading. It really is a verb. The "sự" is understood if you try to use "hy sinh" like a noun; indeed, "sự" is very rare in spoken Vietnamese, only used to disambiguate e.g. "sự chết" (death) from "cái chết" (a death). Why not simply treat "sự hy sinh" as a usage example? We can definitely have Category:Vietnamese con nouns and the like for actual nouns, but I would expect Category:Vietnamese verbs classified by sự rather than Category:Vietnamese sự-nouns. If necessary, I can add a cls parameter to {{vi-verb}} that doesn't display the classifier but instead adds the entry to a "classified by" category.
"Con cóc" can be the Vietnamese translation of "toad" just as "hy sinh" would be translated as "to sacrifice" rather than just "sacrifice". That is, I have no problem with mentioning the classifiers in translation sections, but they don't usually warrant separate entries. And I think the classifier should be linked separately, if at all.
We should make an exception for Sino-Vietnamese terms like "sự kiện" (事件). As far as Vietnamese is concerned, "sự" and "kiện" are just syllables.
One point I neglected to make is that "cây táo" (apple tree) would probably be acceptable, because "táo" on its own refers to the fruit, as in English. "Cây" can still be omitted (e.g., "trồng táo" to grow apple trees, not just the apples). In contrast, "bạch dương" (poplar) on its own refers to the tree, so "cây bạch dương" is redundant.
 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, you yourself suggested to delete the "sự" nouns. I was just thinking of a way to allow such entries.
I want you to consider the Japanese analogy again, where the situation is the same but verbs and nouns swap their placec with Vitenamese. 勉強 (benkyō, "studying, studies") is a noun and a verbal noun. To form a verb, you need to add する (suru, "to do") to the end. Rather than having a separate entry for "勉強する", which means "to study". The entry for 勉強 contains a verb section, which displays 勉強する in the header. I've done the same thing for "sự hy sinh" (only it's a noun made from a verb, the reverse from Japanese), which is in the verb entry "hy sinh" but now has a noun section and displays "sự hy sinh" in the header. This resolves the lemma problem, IMO. It remains to be discussed whether "sự hy sinh" gets a special entry or a hard/soft redirect to the lemma form "hy sinh". Re: but calling "hy sinh" a noun is misleading. If you examine the "hy sinh" entry carefully, you will see that it's not "hy sinh" but "sự hy sinh", which is a noun. If they don't warrant a separate entry, they can be turned to redirects but the information should be saved into separate sections in the lemma entries. Cases like "sự kiện" may get separate entries, no problem with that. Other words like "con cóc" can be treated similarly but there shouldn't be any information loss for users.
I have renamed the category as suggested -Category:Vietnamese verbs classified by sự. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think an entire section is necessary for "sự hy sinh" in hy sinh; a usage example is enough. See "cạnh tranh", which gives both "sự cạnh tranh" and "tính cạnh tranh" as examples. I don't think there would be any information loss this way. (There would be two noun sections under your proposal.) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Delete. sự kiện is fundamentally different from "sự hy sinh". Wyang (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, since I find the stated reason for deletion implausible: "The following pages contain classifiers, which serve the same grammatical function as English articles ...". The claim that the leading syllables serve the same grammatical function as English articles is hard to believe: "cây" is also a noun meaning tree, "quả" is also a noun meaning fruit and "trái" is also a noun meaning fruit. Admittedly, these are also entered in Wiktionary with the part of speech of "classifier". W:Vietnamese_grammar#Classifier_position contains no inline references, so its accuracy is hard to verify. On another note, the spaces seem to indicate separation of syllables rather than words; thus, to delete sự hy sinh ("sacrifice", noun) as sum of parts (sự "nominaliser particle" + hy sinh "to sacrifice") may be a bit like deleting "crucifying" as a sum of parts (crucify + ing). --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

    I'll improve Wikipedia's discussion of classifiers shortly, but in the meantime, there's a wealth of academic research online about them, for example: [11][12]. [13] starts out with a good overview. For something more accessible, see this grammar chapter and this one by Laurence Thompson. Finally, it may be helpful to see how reputable translationaries deal with this issue.

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

    These things called Vietnamese classifiers do not seem to be very similar to English articles. You say they serve the same grammatical function, but I am rather unclear about what you mean by that. I can add "a" or "the" to almost any English noun; from what I have understood, you cannot freely combine any classifier with any noun or verb; furthermore, an addition of "a" vs. "the" indicates definiteness or determinacy, while that is not what the classifiers do. The classifiers seem to be similar to -ing, -ion, -ness, -ize, -er, -or suffixes and to "tree" and "fruit" in "apple tree" and "apple fruit". An almost perfect regularity in application of classifiers--if there is one--may make it customary for Vietnamese-English dictionaries to omit combinations that include the classifiers, but it is less clear that this fits the overall approach of English Wiktionary, which even includes inflected forms as separate entries, and which has "coolness" as a separate entry, unlike Merriam-Webster online, which only has a dedicated entry for "cool". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    I think that a large part of this problem is that you are too fixated on interpreting these to be like prefixes or suffixes when the comparison to English "-ing", "-ness", etc is pretty inadequate on its own. And besides, muỗi is redundant to con muỗi and this duality would only create more maintenance work in the future should something change. This seems to be a problem dictionaries have with Sinitic languages in general, when classical classifications of PoS like "noun", "verb", "adjective" are inadequate at fully capturing the meaning of a lemma. But I'll let Mxn speak more about these entries. TeleComNasSprVen (talk 10:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    You have not explained why the comparison of "sự" to -ing and -ion and the like is inadequate; I have explained what makes a comparison to English definite and indefinite articles implausible to me, or at least not useful in deciding whether the Vietnamese combinations should be kept. A reasoning along the lines of '"sự hy sinh" should not be kept, since we do not keep a car' is entirely implausible to me.
    As for maintenance, I do not see any maintenance problem with "con muỗi" vs. "muỗi" that is absent in "blueness" vs. "blue" or "plowing" vs. "plow"; indeed, MWO avoids "blueness"[14], while en:wikt does not. However, since both con muỗi and muỗi mean "mosquito", the former could have a definition line reading like "classifier-extended form of muỗi", or the like; the same approach is not so useful for sự hy sinh (sacrifice, noun), which is not synonymous with hy sinh (sacrifice, verb). But even there, sự hy sinh could read like "Nominal form of hy sinh; sacrifice". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    I have already given my explanation further up the page and I'd have expected you to fully read all the arguments presented here before coming up with a rebuttal of your own. You might have done so, but nevertheless, I believe Mxn is more qualified to comment on the classifier-as-PoS-issue (he's even given you links to the literature on them which I was not previously aware existed), so rather than risk having the appearance of talking out of my ass I will leave it to him. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    Your diff does not explain why the comparison of "sự" to -ing and -ion and the like is inadequate. The only part of the diff that pertains to "sự" is this: "As I have never used the word sự in regular Vietnamese I cannot speak to that [...]". --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  • (edit conflict) I can't speak for the other languages, but English-Vietnamese dictionaries show "con nhím" as a translation of "a porcupine" as opposed to the general concept of "porcupine". (Hence my original rationale, which in hindsight was a distraction.) Plus, you may very well want to say "three porcupines", at which point you need to know "con". That's why I've been putting classifiers in translation sections and in Vietnamese entries here. But I just don't think they need to be so prominent. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 13:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (after an edit conflict) Since Vitnamese has no inflection, it can easily afford entries like sự cạnh tranh (competition) in addition to cạnh tranh (compete) and still take fewer pages in English Wiktionary than all the inflected entries in a highly inflected language. You point to the pair of pudieron and poder as worthwhile for its surface intransparency, but "plowing" (plow + -ing) and "plowed" (plow + -ed) seem rather surface transparent and yet we include them. I admit that the sự-combinations seem extremely transparent, also for the inclusion of a space after "sự", but I am still not sure this should lead us to have no entries for transparent sự-combinations, not even soft-redirect entries. I think the representation of Vietnamese in English Wiktionary should be accurate while still convening to the needs and expectations of English speakers. Thus, some English speakers ask that we include long German compounds such as Bindungsdissoziationsenergie, since they do not feel comfortable finding the locations of split into component words, while many German speakers may feel this is a transparent sum of parts not worth having; this is an accomodation of representation of German in English Wiktionary to the needs of English speakers. As for maintenance, I have addressed the issue above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The generic classifiers "cái" and "con" don't even translate into English. Look at all the examples at w:Vietnamese grammar. (I just like to think of them as meaning "a", ignoring English's definite/indefinite distinction, because both languages put something in that slot before the noun.) "Sự" is a bit special in that it appears mostly in dictionaries (to be pedantic) and very formal writing (like the thank you letter the Foundation sends donors). In "normal Vietnamese" it barely even exists, so I'm not sure that it would help people much. When I was just starting to learn Vietnamese, "sự" was just one more individual word I had to look up when trying to parse a formal sentence. If a total newbie encounters "Cảm ơn sự thông cảm của bạn" ("Thank you for your understanding") and doesn't know what "sự" is for, they won't immediately know to start a search with it anyways. More likely, they'll look up "cảm" (huh?), "cảm ơn" (ah: thanks), "sự" (turns things into nouns), "sự thông" (nothing, so "sự" goes by itself), "thông" (huh?), "thông cảm" (ah: sympathize), "của" (belonging to), "bạn" (you). You don't start out by knowing that "thông" and "cảm" go together, or that "sự" starts anything in particular. Spaces in Western languages are boundaries for search terms. Vietnamese is not so convenient, and I'm not convinced that soft redirects are worth it for "sự". – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 13:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I think Dan Polansky is not far off saying that certain additional words/syllables serve the same purpose in Vietnamese as they -ing, -ion, -ness, -ize, -er, -or, etc. suffixes do in English. "sự" is certainly a nominaliser that turns verbs like "hy sinh" (to sacrifice) into nouns, e.g. "sự hy sinh" (sacrifice). It's not an "instance of sacrificing" or "a sacrifice" but simply a noun meaning "sacrifice". See sacrifice@vdict.com, which gives "sự hy sinh" as a noun translation for "sacrifice". So does my pocket Berlitz English-Vietnamese dictionary. Admittedly, "hy sinh" is the lemma here, that's why a noun section can be added here. A usage example is not sufficient, IMO.
Let's take some more examples. con cóc appears in dictionaries in this longer form, even if "con" is a classifier but "cóc" is the lemma. Why words such as hotel are not used with classifiers but simply as "khách sạn". Why is "book" simply sách, not "cuốn sách" - classifier "cuốn" + sách (book). Are cóc and con cóc synonymic? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 11:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks. I'm now convinced about Vietnamese classifiers. It's not just one dictionary, which is misleading learners to believe that "con cóc" is a word. I can quote at least two, plus some textbooks (plus Google Translate for some reason). No other dictionary for a language, which features classifiers, AFAIK, confuses users providing "classifier + noun" in translations of English nouns. It's also to do with the way specifically Vietnamese classifiers work, compared to other languages. In Vietnamese, a sentence can start with a classifier, without a numeral or determiner, it's not the case with some other languages. Anyway, I'm OK to delete such cases - "classifier + noun".
I'm not convinced about "nominaliser + verb" cases, though, even if some Vietnamese grammarians don't consider them true nouns and there could be more than one nominaliser. Some grammarians don't considers Japanese suru-verbs true verbs either. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Request for move discussion is here Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Non-idiomatic_Vietnamese_words. Only applies to entries with "classifier + noun" entries from the above list. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

risk appetite[edit]

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

There's risk tolerance by the same contributor. I don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
They are virtually synonymous. To me risk tolerance seems SoP. I'm not as sure about risk appetite, because if the two terms are always used synonymously, the senses of appetite do not include "tolerance" in any definition I've yet seen.
In the kind of rational setting suggested by three mutually redundant definitions, decision-makers do not have an absolute preference ('appetite') for risk, rather than a tolerance for risk associated with higher expected returns. DCDuring TALK 15:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


  1. Containing or being made of mushrooms.
    mushroom soup
  2. Resembling a mushroom by shape or appearance.
    mushroom cloud

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

Delete both. Not comparable, etc. and oxtail and turtle aren't adjectives just because you can make soup from them. Equinox 23:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete both. --WikiTiki89 23:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that mushroom is not an adjective and should be deleted, but I wonder if the translations here for mushroom as a noun modifier can be tacked on to the translations for the noun (and suitably marked). Donnanz (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, that can be done. Brass shows one way it can be done, namely by having a separate table for translations of the attributive uses of the noun; cork shows another way, namely having translations of both the subjective / objective and the 'attributive' uses of the noun in one table, labelling the latter. (See here for some discussion of the concepts.) - -sche (discuss) 04:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Delete the first sense per DCDuring or, if we wanted to be procedurally correct, move to RFV, since citations that would prove 'mushroom' to be adjectival could exist, even though I think they don't. (E.g. citations of the form "he added the whole can and the soup ended up being a bit too mushroom", "a mushroomer soup than I'm used to", etc. would support an adjective POS section.) Keep/move to RFV (and modify as needed) the second sense, for which citations are more likely to exist (given that Widsith has just provided a few). - -sche (discuss) 04:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC) - -sche (discuss) 10:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
We could just let it sit here for a month, giving advocates the time an RfV would provide. DCDuring TALK 04:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Mushroom can be used as a noun modifier, but I would choose mushroomy as an adjective. Donnanz (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete the first one, probably keep the second. The OED has it in a slightly modified form (‘Resembling a mushroom in speed of growth or brief duration of existence’) with quotes like ‘He has..a knack of versifying, which has pleased the German ladies and got him a mushroom reputation’, and ‘This source of Belém's wealth was two thousand miles and more away from Belém itself; and the mushroom city of Manaus quickly inserted itself, in between’ where the use is at least moving towards being a true adjective. It's still possible to interpret this as attributive noun use though if we want to. However from Google books I also see:
    Neither Mr Robinson nor Mr Price were of a very mushroom character
    Some Christian churches are said to be of very mushroom growth
    I think it improbable, for instance, that Spenlow, a rather mushroom recruit, would have been in a position to receive an articled pupil at all
  • so it looks like it might be all right. Ƿidsiþ 09:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    The gradability evidence you present looks good to me.
The true adjective usage is definitely not common. Should we mark the adjective sense as 'rare' or would that confuse our normal users even more than they are already confused by our treatment of attributive use of nouns (which I support)? DCDuring TALK 15:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
There's not mushroom for discussion here (sorry!) Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Nobody said it was. A "round ball" isn't made of rounds of ammunition. So what? Equinox 15:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
And "dragon fire" isn't made of dragons. --WikiTiki89 15:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Simple solution; never take a Purplebackpack89 comment as an informed contribution. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not a mushroom cloud is made of mushrooms is quite germane to whether or not an additional definition is needed or not. Equinox, I don't quite understand why you put down almost every comment I make in defense of perfectly legitimate definitions Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Because almost every comment is illogical (unless you think we need "round ball" and "dragon fire" per the above rebuttals). Equinox 18:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
If dragon fire comes from some source other than a dragon, then, yes, we do need that definition. As for round ball, round is an adjective in that sense rather than a noun, so that's completely irrelevant. Neither example convinces me that mushroom as it pertains to the shape should be deleted, sorry. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 18:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll tell you what's illogical: Saying that because we keep one definition, we have to create another definition, one that's 10x more ridiculous. That's classic slippery slope fallacy. The outcome of one RfD is distinct from the outcome of any other RfD Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 18:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
"A mushroom cloud isn't made of mushrooms" is so spurious as make me think you don't understand basic lexicogaphic/semantic concepts like polysemy. You have participated in these discussions for quite some time and we seem to have to repeat the same reasoning over and over. But you do not even seem to argue against the reasoning, rather you repeat your rejected assertions. DCDuring TALK 18:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Polysemy would seem to be in favor of keeping these definitions. "Being a mushroom" and "Being shaped like a mushroom" are two different meanings. Therefore, there should be two different definitions. I don't see what the big deal is here. The problem you, Equinox and Mglovesfun seem to have is that I think the bar should be a little lower for inclusion than you do. So what? I'm entitled to vote based on my lower bar. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 18:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not about a "bar"; it is about your illogic and failure to respond to counterarguments. Equinox 18:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Your argument has been "Well, you're illogical" and "Well, if we keep this, we'll have to create this other thing". The first one is an opinion, not an argument. The second one I've responded to above as not being germane because each RfD is a separate entity. My keep vote is as valid as your delete vote Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 18:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
"My keep vote is as valid as your delete vote" Contrary to popular belief, it is not. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Those who close RfD discussions do not give equal weight to all votes, nor should they. They tend to dismiss unreasoned votes and those that ignore WT:CFI. Your arguments don't quite descend to that level, though it is hard to have a discussion if the other party neither acknowledges error not defends the position others argue is erroneous.
'"Being a mushroom" and "Being shaped like a mushroom" are two different meanings. Therefore, there should be two different definitions.' Thank you for stating your reasoning.
There are many possible semantic relationships between a noun and another noun modifying it attributively:
'mushroom soup' is a soup (made) 'of' mushrooms
'mushroom compost' is compost 'for' mushrooms
'mushroom cloth' is cloth 'for' (cleaning without damaging) mushrooms
'mushroom growth' is growth 'by' mushrooms OR
growth 'like' the rapid growth of mushrooms
'mushroom farming' is farming 'of' mushrooms
'mushroom eater' is one who eats mushrooms
In each case mushroom has a different relationship to the noun modified. The meanings correspond to plausible relationships often reflected in different prepositions or, possibly, a 'case' (as in 'mushroom eater'). This is almost universal for constructing the meaning of noun phrases that have a noun used attributively. 'Like' in shape is just another instance, similar to the second instance of 'mushroom growth'.
This does not say we definitely should not have the second sense of mushroom#Adjective, but it does undercut your argument. DCDuring TALK 20:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
It's misleading to call these "noun phrases". In other Germanic languages these are compounds, so they must be considered compounds in English too. They're really single terms, the space doesn't suddenly make it a phrase. The relationship is generally that of a genitive, and all the examples you gave boil down to that. Soup, compost, cloth, growth, farming, eater of mushrooms. —CodeCat 20:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Although I agree that they are compounds (you can't say they aren't noun phrases because a single noun is still a noun phrase), I think it's wrong to use other Germanic languages as an argument. --WikiTiki89 20:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
User:DCDuring, there is one major difference between shape and the others: namely that the others can be used with a lot of words, and shape is generally used with much fewer. For example, take "mushroom eater". Any other food can be substituted for mushroom and it would be a valid phrase. Very few foods are discussed in regards to shape. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
My rebuttal to that is that "For example, take 'mushroom [cloud]'. Any other [object] can be substituted for mushroom and it would be a valid phrase." 'Flower cloud', 'rat cloud', 'car cloud', 'potato chip cloud', have all referred to cloud shapes rather than cloud compositions. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I think I speak for almost everyone here when I say we can't take your votes seriously PBP, even though MG may have worded that a little harsher than intended. And that's not an attack, it's a statement of fact: even with the best of intentions, we cannot take you seriously. And how can we when you seem to make a hollow, empty statement like "a mushroom cloud isn't made of mushrooms" instead of a rational, well-reasoned and well-thought-out argument? It makes one wonder whether you've seen and/or compared how other dictionaries have criteria for including their terms and senses. A statement like "a mushroom cloud isn't made of mushrooms" shows a lack of understanding about Wiktionary; it's like the guy who signs up for an account because he saw an article about him about to be deleted and votes "Keep I like it" as his only edit (if we're going to take an example to appeal to your Wikipedian sense in any meaningful way) and then walks away with no willingness to contribute to anything else. And besides, we already have an entry at mushroom cloud, which is a noun, so it's completely irrelevant to whether or not we should keep or delete this particular sense. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Dude, have you noticed how many votes that are just "Delete" without any reason at all on this page? Or delete with a rationale of 3 words or less? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, some of you may have missed the subtle undertones of my comments. The undertone of my comments were "if these definitions are deleted, there are some things with the word 'mushroom' in them that can't adequately be described by the remaining definitions. Therefore, the definitions should be kept" Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
More acceptable, though you'll have to explain what you mean by "there are some things... that can't adequately be described by the remaining definitions", otherwise this is a circular argument: i.e. if we delete a sense it will be missing, therefore it should be kept. And I've already given the noun sense of mushroom cloud in a separate entry as rebuttal to your claims, so you can try to address that. Maybe you should try not being so 'subtle' next time. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
"Mushroom cloud" isn't the adjective "mushroom" with the noun "cloud", though; otherwise, you could say "this cloud is mushroom". (Compare "green door; this door is green".) It's a separate noun phrase. Equinox 00:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem is you can't say "this cloud is a mushroom" either, because, while that would be grammatically correct, it's not correct in terms of meaning, except as a metaphor. Also, is a mushroom cloud the only thing that is referred to as being shaped like a mushroom but isn't an actual mushroom? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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

You also can't say "this soup is a mushroom", yet you seemed fine with removing that sense? —RuakhTALK 00:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Because there's actual mushrooms in mushroom soup, but no actual mushrooms in a mushroom cloud. Note that another editor voted delete 1, keep 2 above. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
WTF? There are no actual tractors in a tractor part, either. We're back to "so what?". Equinox 00:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
What do tractor parts have to do with mushroom clouds/anything else shaped like mushrooms? Again, bringing to bear words that don't really matter to this discussion. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
It was an analogy for a comparable case, that has the same noun+noun arrangement. But you evidently don't apply any logic to your RFD decisions so I give up at this point. You may have noticed that most other people feel the same way about your caprices. Equinox 01:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that they feel that way, but I feel that it would be better for this project if certain things were kept. This definition of mushroom is one of them. Call that capricious if you will (though I would be offended if, taken in whole, you considered my argument at ride the circuit above capricious or illogical). But if there's one thing I'm consistent on, it's that analogies have no place in RfD discussions. Just as you find the various arguments I've put forth in this discussion illogical, I find the use of analogies illogical. I've said it twice before, but hear it again: just because we keep one entry doesn't mean we have to keep or create something else. You think I'm illogical, I think you're illogical. Our votes cancel each other out Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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

It's true that "just because we keep one entry doesn't mean we have to keep or create something else", but that hardly justifies banning analogies as a mechanism for understanding the language we're trying to document. Just because you want to forbid one use of analogies doesn't mean you have to forbid all uses. (Also, the reason that you and Equinox find each other illogical is that you are illogical and he is not. The facts don't cancel out, they add up.) —RuakhTALK 02:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Logic goes against common practice and should be permanently banned from Wiktionary. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
So should people ganging up on the same editor to call him "illogical". Oh, wait, it already is! (By policies that urge commenting on arguments rather than the editor itself in forums as these) Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Whoa, what have policies got to do with anything? They only exist to give new editors a false sense of security. Otherwise, they just choke up bandwidth. Editors are supposed to agree with common practice unconditionally. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I just want to point out that Purpleback89 is now making some real arguments that can be taken seriously. Purpleback, I'm glad that you have listened to our advice. I still disagree though that the shape sense merits a separate definition, although I think that we should make sure that the stereotypical shape of a mushroom is included in the primary definition. --WikiTiki89 03:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the formulation PBP put forth in response to my post was at a minimum much more acceptable this time around, but there is still room for improvement. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that it's just "at a minimum". He's actively arguing his case, even if you disagree with it. --WikiTiki89 04:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I just think a formulation like "if these definitions are deleted, there are some things with the word 'mushroom' in them that can't adequately be described by the remaining definitions. Therefore, the definitions should be kept" is better than "Keep #2 A mushroom cloud isn't made of mushrooms" and I explained why above. It's easier to take him more seriously if uses the first formulation.TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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

take exception to[edit]

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

My preference is to combines everything along the lines you suggest, including the redirect. I like to put the complement information on the relevant sense line with {{cx}} (like Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English) and have the redirect from take exception to go to the specific sense using {{senseid}}. Those who have less interest in Wiktionary as a useful monolingual dictionary seem to like the freedom of having as many translation targets as possible. DCDuring TALK 06:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The RFD discussion archived at Talk:wait for may be relevant. (And there's also some discussion archived at Talk:take exception to, but just between DCDuring and me.) —RuakhTALK 07:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
If my memory worked better, I would have provided the Talk references. The only new development is the availability of {{senseid}}. I also note that the length-of-entry (actually length-of-L2) argument does not apply to [[take exception]]. DCDuring TALK 13:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

television show[edit]

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

Because it's a word, defined in a number of dictionaries, borrowed by other languages as is or in the abbreviated form, it's a translation target - many languages have single-word idiomatic equivalents, it has synonyms/alternative forms: TV show, teleshow, television program, TV program. The deletion of the term was brought up in the RFD many times by other users. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Leave deleted; this has already failed RFD at least twice. If it has single-word synonyms, (a) so what? that's no good indicator of idiomaticity / dictionary-worthiness, (b) those single-word synonyms can be the translation targets. - -sche (discuss) 23:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not worried about translations, I just think it's an English word with a specific meaning. That's why teleshow exists. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to During above, the Google n-gram for television show, television program, TV show, TV program: Google Ngram Viewer (television show,television program,TV show,TV program). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't restore. Show is a word. A television show is a show that happens to be on television, as opposed to a Broadway show or radio show, which are on Broadway and radio, respectively. --WikiTiki89 00:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, many words have clear etymology but it doesn't make them non-words. Definition: "a program broadcast by television" "television show" @ dictionary.reference.com, "television show" @ www.thefreedictionary.com. It may not only be "a program" but also a drama, series, etc but this definition needs to be confirmed. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not about the etymology. It's about the fact that if you know what televeision is and you know what a show is, you will then understand what a television show is without any further non-contextual information. That is what SOP means. --WikiTiki89 00:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
"Yellow car", "a book of", "I said", "long word" are a SOP but "prepositional pronoun", "wide are network", "fire extinguisher", "higher education", "spell checker", "cardinal number", "aphthous ulcer" and many others, whose meaning you can tell by their parts, many of which have already passed RFD and are defined by far more respectable dictionaries are not SOP. Dictionary words can be multi-word. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you are misusing the word "SOP". SOP (sum of parts) means that you can tell the meaning of a word from its parts. Some SOP terms pass RFD for other reasons, but they are still SOP. --WikiTiki89 01:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
"Misuse" is applicable to both pro- and anti-deletion commenters, like "yellow car" is used by both. I was just trying to clarify my take on SOP with a bit of exaggeration, it doesn't necessarily involve a big change in meaning. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Using a term for something other than its accepted meaning is usually referred to as "misuse". There is not even a small change in meaning of either television or show when you put them together into television show. --WikiTiki89 01:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure you can say that when there are so many definitions of "show", though, several of which aren't applicable to TV shows Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that's more of a problem with our entry for [[show#Noun]], which needs to be cleaned up; many of the senses can be merged. But essentially, we are dealing here with the primary sense, not some obscure sense at the end of the list. --WikiTiki89 01:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
This suggestion is similar to your suggestion to host translations of "apple tree" at "apple". I have just read your comment there. Why is a SOP, as you said, "apple tree" better than "television show" and you were undecided? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I explained the whole thing there with the example of "oak tree". The word "oak" has no other purpose other than to be followed by "tree", "wood", etc (sometimes "oak tree" or "oak wood" are shortened to just "oak", but that's a different story), however, "television" is a completely standalone word. --WikiTiki89 01:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89 (after an EC) If you look at the history of this page or at the list of parts of speech in any language you speak, you will see that there is no such thing as "accepted meaning of SOP". Don't accuse me of misusing the term, "petrol station" and "television show" (and others I listed) can equally be idiomatic or non-idiomatic depending on who you ask. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I was not talking about idiomacity. SOP-ness is a related concept but is not 100% correlated with idiomacity. A word can be idiomatic and SOP at the same time. I agree that many editors misuse SOP, but in a logical discussion, words need to have predefined meanings or no one will understand anyone else. --WikiTiki89 01:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you want to try your luck RFD-ing "gas station" or "petrol station" or do any of the senses of gas/petrol make these terms more idiomatic than "television show"? If yes, which ones? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I would vote to delete those, but I don't feel compelled to go and bring it up here myself. --WikiTiki89 01:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Such deletions won't help any dictionary better, even if I see the logic in your desire to rid Wiktionary of multi-part words. And you don't have to maintain those entries. You haven't said why "apple tree" is better (more idiomatic, worth keeping) than "television show". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I have said that, although I made my argument with "oak tree". It is harder to talk about "apple tree" because "apple" is also a fruit of that tree, but I think that "apple tree" is the same sort of construction as "oak tree", rather than a "tree that grows apples". None of these arguments apply to "television show" or "illegal immigrant", as I have already said several times and would prefer not to have to say again. --WikiTiki89 02:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
You vehemently argue for deletions and you don't expect that you have to repeat yourself in a different discussion? I don't see good reasoning in your explanations about oak and apple trees but I won't ask you again. You have made your opinion very clear, so have I. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
What I meant that I don't want to have to repeat is the fact that the arguments for "apple tree" do not apply to those for "television show" or "illegal immigrant". I wasn't talking about repeating arguments. --WikiTiki89 02:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course, they are different words. Re: "apple tree" because "apple" is also a fruit of that tree". Then you need to go back to "vegetable garden" and vote "keep" but I'm sure you'll be able to tweak your answer again and be the last to comment as usual. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I know sometimes my logic is hard to follow, but what I meant was that I used "oak tree" as an example because it is more difficult to discuss "apple tree". "apple" being a fruit of an "apple tree" is the reason that its harder to discuss "apple tree" than it is to discuss "oak tree". I was not using it as an argument for keeping or deleting, but as the reasoning for using the "oak tree" example instead of talking directly about "apple tree". --WikiTiki89 03:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't say that! Somebody might actually do it! (I'd vote keep, of course, because, like "show", "station" is ambiguous) Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
If they don't pass, they may not get full legitimacy but there's a huge list of potential candidates. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: I don't have a comment to make about television show, just a question. I was under the impression that SOP was the opposite of idiomatic — what would be an example of a word that's SOP but still idiomatic? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a good question. Maybe "short story"? --WikiTiki89 02:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I guess any SOP phrase where you can't substitute any of the words for synonyms. --WikiTiki89 02:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Like "bad luck" and "tough luck"? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
No, because in that case you can substitute any synonym for "bad" ("poor luck", "horrible luck", etc.). I'm having trouble coming up with a reason to keep "bad luck" so I'd probably vote delete if it were brought up here ("tough luck" is different because it is usually an interjection). --WikiTiki89 04:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Restore: per Anatoli, and because "show" is too ambiguous for SOP to really apply. There are 11 definitions for show as a noun alone! Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Don’t undelete. SOP, and the translations can be hosted in any of the idiomatic equivalents. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
But Ungoliant, "show" is ambiguous, which throws the SOP argument into question Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The definition of "show" in question here is its first definition. There is not much ambiguity as to which one it refers to. --WikiTiki89 01:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
@Ungoliant (after three edit conflicts!). As I said, I'm not worried about translations here (I haven't seen anyone worried about translations), I just think it's more idiomatic and much more common than "teleshow", which is derived from "television show" or "television program". As Google n-gram suggests, it's growing fast in usage too. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, "fear of long words" is much more common than "sesquipedaliophobia". Having a less-common, one-word synonym doesn't make a phrase SOP. --WikiTiki89 01:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
"fear of long words" is SOP from my point of view, it's a description, not a word. The example "television show" and "teleshow" is quite different and is similar to WT:COALMINE, even if "television" is shortened to a prefix "tele-". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why you can't say "television show" is a description of a type of "show". I'm not a big fan of WT:COALMINE, and I would support a vote to get rid of it; but as long as it is policy, it must be enforced. In fact I even made a fake entry at User:Wikitiki89/coalmine of how I imagine [[coalmine]] looking if [[coal mine]] is deleted. --WikiTiki89 02:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
WT:COALMINE is only about a shortcut, debate-curtailing method of accepting orthographic evidence as sufficient evidence of idiomaticity. There is no such evidence presented here. It is irrelevant, not even a canard, because its irrelevance should be obvious to all. DCDuring TALK 14:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Restore (keep) as a translation target. This will be useful for translations; the Russian ones seem to include common non-compounds "телепрограмма", "телепередача" and "телешоу"; for frequencies, see телевизио́нная програ́мма,телепрогра́мма,телепереда́ча,телешо́у at Google Ngram Viewer (courtesy of {{R:GNV}}). And translation of the combinations of "show" in various languages is not compositional (sum-of-partish), I believe: "television show" is cs:"televizní pořad" while "Broadway show" is definitely not *"Broadway pořad" či *"Broadwayový pořad", "rodeo show" is not *"rodeový pořad" či *"rodeo pořad", "theatre show" is almost never "divadelní pořad" but rather "divadelní představení". When you go to Google translate, you'll see that Google has "television show" as a single translation unit for several languages, including Chinese (their name), Russian, Spanish, and Japanese; you can see that by hovering over the non-English translation on the right, at which point you get to see the translation units highlighted.

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

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


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

Delete all three. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible to say in Japanese "donations which are personal" rather than "personal donations"? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand the distinction. Haplogy () 08:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I mean to say, is "personal/individual" exclusively used in an adjectival sense? That is, a construction of "adjective" + "noun" seems to be more obvious as sum of parts than a construction of "noun" + "noun" is. I think that in English the distinction between those two can be shown when "adjective" + "noun" can also be expressed as "noun" + "copula" + "adjective". TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Non-idiomatic noun + noun expressions are very common. Nouns are often used with an adjectival sense often to begin with. 海上 for example is a noun but is translated with the adjective "marine." Haplogy () 02:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I see. Well, I'm convinced enough that deleting this won't harm the dictionary in any way. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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

delete sum of parts. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep. This is a specific term for social volunteer activities, while 奉仕 means any service. You can say 神に奉仕する, 家族に奉仕する, and 芸術に奉仕する, but they are not 奉仕活動. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep. I think it's a jargon with the specific meaning explained by TAKASUGI Shinji above, used typically in the context of education and politics in the recent years. Apparently, the new idiomatic use meaning "voluntary participation to social/community activities" was started by Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan, [15] and adopted by official documents of public educational institutions in Japan. [16] See these search results from the National Diet proceedings for further examples. --Whym (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

suppressive person[edit]

Sum of parts? If OK, shouldn't plural be "suppressive people"? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hardly: "suppressive" + "person" = suppressive of what? Keep, although I would change the definition. Keφr 09:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Not SOP unless there's a Scientology-specific definition of suppressive. As for the plural, "suppressive persons" gets more b.g.c hits in conjunction with "Scientology" than "suppressive people" does. And the definition does need changing because it seems an SP impedes other people's "spiritual progress", not his or her own. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, there is. One can talk about "suppressive acts" and "suppressive individuals" as well. Still, it's very much a set phrase, often reduced to the abbreviation SP. I'm not quite sure which way to go on this one. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Delete and add proper definition to suppressive. --WikiTiki89 14:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Delete and add proper definition to suppressive. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a jargon term. It is used almost exclusively in Scientology and carries a specific meaning. In my understanding, people who criticize Scientology are considered "suppressive persons," to be avoided because exposure to and contact with such people is viewed as harmful to Scientologists. This is not deducible from the component words alone. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Like unamerican activities? Can that implication not be adequately covered at suppressive (acts, individuals...) as described by Chuck Entz above? Equinox 05:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
There may very well be cause to add a Scientology-specific sense to suppressive. However, I still consider suppressive person to be a set phrase, since I think it has additional layers of meaning. I don't think the scope of this meaning could be conveyed in a new sense at suppressive without the definition being unwieldy (and therefore less useful). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
What about: (Scientology) Causing severe emotional distress and impeding spiritual progress. --WikiTiki89 06:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you asking if I think that's acceptable as a definition for the proposed new sense of suppressive? I think it would benefit from clarification to put the meaning in perspective. Something like: "causing severe emotional distress to and impeding the spiritual progress of Scientologists." -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but I would substitute "Scientologists" for "others". With that definition though, what is the extra meaning added when used in the phrase "suppressive person"? --WikiTiki89 06:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
There's a whole Wikipedia article on the subject: Suppressive Person. The second paragraph of the introduction is a pretty good distillation of the non-obvious usage/meaning. Actually, our entry should probably be capitalized, since "Suppressive Person" is apparently something people can be formally designated. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that in "suppressive acts", the word suppressive does not have the same connotations that it has in "suppressive person"? --WikiTiki89 07:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
More that "suppressive person"/"Suppressive person" has additional connotations that "suppressive" in conjunction with other words does not. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly what my question was, so please answer it directly. Let me rephrase it just in case: Is there a difference in the connotation of the word "suppressive" in the two phrases "suppressive act" and "suppressive person"? --WikiTiki89 08:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the above-linked Wikipedia article provides greater insight into the term "suppressive person"/"Suppresive Person" than I am capable of offering personally. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the Wikipedia article proves anything. Yes it does explain the connotations of "suppressive person", but it does not imply that these connotations do not apply to "suppressive acts" or "suppressive anything elses". --WikiTiki89 08:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: erring on the side of keeping as a set phrase in Scientology, abbreviated as "SP". This is quite often capitalized, as per suppressive person,Suppressive Person at Google Ngram Viewer. A search related to the plural: suppressive person,suppressive persons,suppressive people at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dan. In Scientology jargon, it means someone who seeks to impede or damage Scientology, not suppressive toward things in general. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    As I said before, the way I see it is that it is "suppressive" that has this additional bit of meaning in Scientology jargon. Adding the word "person" to it changes nothing. --WikiTiki89 10:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete and add relevant definition to suppressive per Wikitiki.
Incidentally, suppressive by itself exists as a noun meaning suppressive person/organisation. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

chromosomal aberration[edit]

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

If we had a medical definition of aberration, I would have said delete. --WikiTiki89 14:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Now we have (#7): "deviation of a tissue, organ or mental functions from what is considered to be within the normal range". Feel free to improve my English, I'm just a poor learner. Mastering a foreign language would require a lifetime. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
In that case delete. --WikiTiki89 15:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

محمد بن عبد الله[edit]

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

Keep. What about Jesus Christ? We also have Christ. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 09:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Jesus Christ does not include "both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
محمد بن عبد الله is one of the fuller names, which identifies Muhammad as the prophet, rather than any person called Muhammad. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
...and it does so by spelling out his given name (Muhammad) and patronymic (son of Abdullah), which CFI explicitly forbids. If you think something is gained by having a dictionary entry for this (I don't see what), please start a BP discussion about changing CFI to allow it. - -sche (discuss) 22:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I just expressed my opinion and put a vote. The reason I voted keep is because I think CFI is imperfect in case of Arab prophet names who are better known by names other than "first name + surname". BTW, I'm not voting "keep" for Владимир Ильич Ульянов or suggesting to create Владимир Ильич. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 11:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete. --WikiTiki89 20:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep. I don’t think it’s a name in the modern Western sense, but more like "John who lives down the street". No one would have referred to him as Mr. بن عبد الله (or Mr. Ibn Abdullah). Among his family and his friends, he would have been known simply as محمد. It’s just that محمد is such a common name that a little extra description is sometimes needed. I see it as much more like the Christ in Jesus Christ than to Obama in Barack Obama. —Stephen (Talk) 04:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

wearable technology[edit]

wearable heater[edit]

Both seem quite sum-of-parts-y. Keφr 17:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete both. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete both.​—msh210 (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

evening prayer[edit]

sunset prayer[edit]

dawn prayer[edit]

noon prayer[edit]

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

Evening prayer at least is also used in Anglicanism. Not sure about either the Muslim or the Anglican meaning being SOP though, since I think both are more specific than "any prayer uttered in the evening". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
If the meaning is more specific, what are their specific defining qualities or characteristics beyond "prayer taking place in the evening"? How do you know that these specific additional qualities are really picked by the term "evening prayer"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
See Evening Prayer (Anglican). The Anglican Evening Prayer service has a specific form, with certain elements that belong to it and certain elements that don't. However, on consideration, the name of the Anglican service is usually capitalized, so maybe Evening Prayer would be a better entry for it. I don't know about the Muslim service (or the Jewish one Maariv). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Defining qualities for evening prayer includes 4 rak'as. A specific amount of sunnah prayers afterwards. As well as vocal utterance as opposed to the quiet ones during dhuhr and asr. Similar defining characteristics exist for the other entries. Pass a Method (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't we need a different definition for the specification of the prayers evoked by the use of this term for each religion and sect thereof by the inclusion logic suggested to far? Is each such definition a reflection of a name of a specific entity? DCDuring TALK 18:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
They are probably not SOP's since they're not any prayers uttered in the evening, but a specific one which is typically done in congregation with various doctrines attached. As for different definitions, thats up for other editors to add since i'm not knowledgeable about that. Pass a Method (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The way I see it, "evening prayer" refers to the prayer that you say in the evening (not any prayer you say in the evening, but the prayer you say in the evening). The specific content of such a prayer in various religions is encyclopedic and not part of the definition of the word. --WikiTiki89 21:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • evening prayer at OneLook Dictionary Search would have led to inclusion of the Anglican sense, which might have led to inclusion by analogy of the Islamic sense. DCDuring TALK 03:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I think they all should be kept. They can all be expressed as single words (abbreviated) in Arabic and some other languages. They are like "breakfast", "lunch" and "supper" as opposed to "meal". See فجر (fajr)‎, ظهر (ẓuhr)‎, عصر (ʿaṣr)‎, مغرب (maḡrib)‎ and عشاء (ʿašāʾ, ʿišāʾ)‎ (some definitions are incomplete, they also stand for the short names of the five daily prayers). English synonyms for all these prayers: "fajr", "zuhr"/"dhuhr", "asr", "maghrib" and "isha" (English definitions are also incomplete or missing). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The existence of breakfast, lunch, dinner, supper, etc. does not mean that we need to include morning meal, evening meal, etc. --WikiTiki89 05:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
morning meal is synonymous with "a meal in the morning". thus not the best example.Pass a Method (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep and merge: I think many people know breakfast, lunch, dinner, but a few (at least I) don't know what the Arabic name of the prayers are. If I want to know what the prayers are called in Arabic, deleting them would make this impossible. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I've updated entries "fajr", "dhuhr"/"zuhr", "asr", "maghrib" and "isha" - the synonyms, which are much less known to English speakers but in case the community decides to delete the above entries, we'll have at least something. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

mondo bizarro[edit]

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

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

diamond ring[edit]

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

See w:Baily's beads. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm amazed! --Hekaheka (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Pretty, don't you think? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
(after e/c) I seem to remember this passing RFD before. But I would vote delete. --WikiTiki89 00:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, re the more literal sense that's actually in the entry, I suppose it could be argued that the whole ring isn't made of diamond (cf. gold ring), just the stone that's set in it. That perhaps makes it weakly idiomatic, but not enough for me to vote for it to be kept. I would only say that the solar-ecliptic sense should have an entry, and that the current sense should perhaps therefore be retained with {{&lit}}. Maybe. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
raspberry ice cream is not made entirely of raspberries. --WikiTiki89 05:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

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

  • diamond ring at OneLook Dictionary Search would not have saved us any time unless we included the single technical glossary that has the astronomy sense. DCDuring TALK 03:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Convert to &lit. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree: convert to &lit, bearing in mind Wikitiki's point above about raspberry ice-cream. Equinox 21:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Convert the "ring with a diamond" sense to {{&lit}}, per Wikitiki's point about raspberry ice cream. I would add that, likewise, something like a yellow car does not have to be entirely yellow; it likely has a transparent colourless windscreen rather than an opaque yellow windscreen, for instance, and probably also has an unyellow muffler, tyres, etc. A Google Image search for "yellow car" bears out this hypothesis. For that matter, even a gold ring can bear a jewel and still be referred to as a "gold ring". - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Convert sense 1 to {{&lit|diamond|ring}} per Ungoliant, Equinox, and -sche, in accordance with Wikitiki's point. DCDuring TALK 23:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that this is &lit. THIS is a literal diamond ring. What we conventionally think of as a "diamond" ring is actually a metal ring (or, possibly, wood) with a diamond setting. bd2412 T 15:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
That's what I was getting at with "I suppose it could be argued that the whole ring isn't made of diamond (cf. gold ring), just the stone that's set in it. That perhaps makes it weakly idiomatic". It's not the strongest of arguments, however. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
“X Y” does not always mean “Y made of X”. In this case, it is used as “Y whose distinguishing feature is the presence of X”. If we limit ourselves to only considering the “Y made of X” usage, we will have to add the name of every piece of jewellery containing a gem, every name of a dish or juice containing an ingredient (i.e. tomato soup may contain water and spices; lemon juice may contain sugar), every name of a structure containing the material it is made of (i.e. a brick house also has mortar), etc. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Well said. This an example of the kind of common rule of semantic construction that gives instances of its application the same non-lexical status as grammatically correct SoP phrases. DCDuring TALK 15:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Nevertheless, diamond ring is an unusual construction. How often have you ever heard of someone referring to a "pearl ring" or a "ruby ring"? Furthermore, there are implications inherent in the diamond ring that go far beyond a diamond ring, such that its significance as an engagement ring is generally understood without any further clarification. bd2412 T 18:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I am certain I have encountered ruby ring before, though I don’t recall any specific instance of seeing pearl ring. google books:"ruby ring" and google books:"pearl ring" have 39100 and 11700 hits on Google Books respectively, so I wouldn’t call <gem> ring an unusual construction. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I have most certainly heard "ruby ring" and although I haven't heard of "pearl rings", that construction is readily understood (and Google shows plenty results for it). I have heard of "pearl earrings". The cultural significance of diamond rings is not part of the definition of a diamond ring. --WikiTiki89 19:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, both of those. I've also heard "turquoise ring", "carnelian ring", and very many others. Equinox 19:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) re "diamond ring is an unusual construction": no, it isn't; it's barely 10x more common than ruby ring (or emerald ring or sapphire ring or pearl ring), with much of that ascribable to the fact that "diamond" in isolation is already 5x more common than ruby, etc, and the rest influenced by the fact that the physical jewels themselves have different levels of popularity.
Re "there are implications inherent in the diamond ring": as I commented on another recent RFD, there are implications to "black car" (e.g. it's often shiny and classy rather than shabby, and it's typical for government officials to be driven in black cars), but it's still just a black car. Tellingly, the relative commonness of black car vs blue car vs black vs blue (note the different timeframe; cars haven't been around as long as rings) is similar to that of diamond ring vs ruby ring vs diamond vs ruby. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Diamond ring is an unusual construction as against things like "gold ring", "silver ring", "iron ring", "wood ring", "plastic ring", "platinum ring", "obsidian ring", and others which do convey that the ring is made of the material, not made of some other material but with a bit of gold or iron or wood set in it. bd2412 T 20:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe you need a better argument. There are also things called "emerald ring", "pearl ring", "sapphire ring", "opal ring" etc. and none of those are made of the materials mentioned. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
So? It's not unusual when compared to the other kinds of ring mentioned above (ruby ring, etc). "Government truck" is unusual when compared to "Chevy truck", "Ford truck", "Opel truck" and other collocations which convey that the truck is manufactured by the specified entity rather than being owned/operated by it. But then you realize that there are "company trucks" and "private trucks" and... - -sche (discuss) 21:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
In that case, it seems we need another line for the sense of "a ring made entirely of diamond", since the &lit sense is occupied by rings not entirely made of diamond. I am curious as to whether this is the norm in other languages - is it the typical case that a ring set with a bauble of a certain material is referred to as a "foo-material ring", irrespective of the material from which the band is made? Are there languages where "diamond ring" (a ring set with a diamond) would have a different translation from "diamond ring" (a ring made of diamond)? bd2412 T 22:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The beauty of SOP is that we don't need to list every possible meaning that diamond + ring can have. Any way that a ring can be diamond is an SOP definition of "diamond ring". --WikiTiki89 22:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
For instance, a criminal organization that smuggles diamonds, or that's associated with baseball fields, or diamonds arranged in a circle, or... Chuck Entz (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Are there languages where "diamond ring" (a ring set with a diamond) would have a different translation from "diamond ring" (a ring made of diamond)? bd2412 T 01:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
There are possibly languages with distinct terms for (rings|earrings|necklaces|lockets|brooches|cufflinks|buttons) made entirely of (gold|silver|diamond|ruby|sapphire|pearl|emerald) vs ones which are merely set with such things. (BTW, every combination of those two sets I just mentioned is attested.) In particular, languages which use periphrastic constructions rather than compounds might make a distinction. However, the ones I've checked so far don't, either because they construct both "ring made of X" and "ring set with X" as "ring of X", or because they normally express "ring made of X" as "X[adj] ring" but lack an adjective for "diamond" and thus express both "ring made of diamond" and "ring set with diamond" as "ring of diamond". (Rings made of diamond are so rare that in many languages there's simply no literature online that mentions them.)
Of course, the fact that some languages have different terms for conceptually different things does not mean other languages must have different senses for them. Russian has completely different terms for the colour of the deep sea and the colour of the clear sky, yet blue records that English merges the two conceptually different things into one sense, "the colour of the clear sky or the deep sea, between green and violet in the visible spectrum". (And true blue merges all possible 'true' shades of 'blue' into one &lit sense.) - -sche (discuss) 06:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, which sense of ring would inform a reader that a diamond ring is not a ring made of diamond? Surely it can't be sense three, "A round piece of (precious) metal worn around the finger or through the ear, nose, etc.", because that gives no suggestion that a "diamond" ring would not be a ring made of diamond. How can a phrase be SOP when there is no sense within either parts from which the meaning as a whole can be discerned. bd2412 T 01:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The same is true of many other compounds of "<stone> <article of jewelry>", e.g. "diamond necklace", "pearl earring", "sapphire {nose ring}", "{pearl and garnet} anklet", "diamond {{wedding or engagement} ring}", "ruby tiara", "{natural emerald} {engagement ring}", and so on. I'd be down with explaining this at entries for "<article of jewelry>", but it's clear that this is a productive compound-formation principle in English, so I don't think don't think it makes sense to try to give an entry for each compound. So, I'd ask: is 'diamond ring' is special in such a way that justifies an exceptional entry? —RuakhTALK 02:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

  • 1985, Arthur Colton Park, A History of the Park and Colton Families: Six Generations 1810-1985, p. 29:
    It was at that apartment one evening in May that I gave her the diamond ring that would formalize the engagement which had become inevitable in the minds of all, including us.
  • 1987, Nell McCafferty, Goodnight Sisters: Selected Articles of Nell McCafferty, p. 87:
    A diamond ring means marriage and status.
  • 2000, Gerard E. Smith, Journey of an Ordinary Man, p. 471:
    “I thought we could get married this summer,” he answered, and with that he took the small box he had been carrying for a week from his jacket pocket. Her smile broadened as he opened the box and gave her the diamond ring.
  • 2003, Douglas K. Thompson, A Refuge from the Storm p. 153:
    Valentine's Day was always a special day for us. Ann's was so thrilled when I gave her the diamond ring on that day in 1956. It was a day we had always celebrated as the real start of our life together. We went out to dinner that evening, and set the date for our marriage.
  • 2006, Mary Slonaker, The Vinton House, p. 37:
    “Delvin, a diamond ring means you are engaged to be married. I barely know you.”
  • 2007, Ricki Pepin, God's Health Plan - the Audacious Journey to a Better Life, p. 33:
    In 1999, when my daughter became engaged to be married, memories flooded back to me as she excitedly showed us her beautiful, shimmering diamond ring.
  • 2008, Sandy Denton, Let's Talk About Pep, p. 88:
    I opened the box and saw this beautiful ring that I thought meant what a diamond ring means—that we were engaged.

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

It is common in certain cultures to formalize engagements with rings, and it is common in some of those cultures for engagement rings to be diamond rings, but it is not required, and it is not lexicographically significant. (It is ethnographically significant, but Wiktionary is not an ethnography.)
  • In the 1985 citation, a pair's engagement is being formalized with a ring, and the ring happens to be diamond, but it could as well be ruby or pearl. Even "I gave her the black cow that would formalize the engagement" works, although the background knowledge you have of which cultures give rings as symbols of engagement vs which ones give cows may change your mental picture of the pair's cultural background to much the same extent that "she rode to the wedding in a horse-drawn carriage" vs "she rode to the wedding in a rusty Trabant" would change your mental image of the pair's affluence. Likewise, in the 2006 and 2008 citations, the setting of the scene in a particular culture is what causes the characters to interpret the ring set with a diamond as a sign of engagement; the signification attaches to the physical object in the particular cultural context, it is not inherent the words; compare the 1982, 1993 and Shadow of Antiquity citations I present below, and my comments elsewhere on this page about "black car" and "pink ribbon".
  • The 1987 is the equivalent of "a Ford truck means strength and toughness" or "a gray tie means you're old" (the latter a quotation from Stories in Short, ISBN 1630046132).
  • As in the 1985 citation, the "diamond ring" in the 2000 citation could be replaced with a "ruby ring" or a "silver necklace" — though not a "cow", since cows don't fit in jacket pockets. The 2000 citation also notes that the same cultures which commonly give rings as symbols of engagement give the rings in boxes while kneeling; should we find some lemma (*diamond ring box?) to house this information on? Ditto the 2007 citation. And ditto the 2003 citation; compare the Muscadines and Daffodils citation below.
Here are some "counter-citations": - -sche (discuss) 06:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Those are not really "counter" citations so much as they are citations that describe regional and historical restrictions. The first one, looking at the entire article, specifically says that pearls were a symbol of engagement "[u]ntil 1929". Many of the other citations to rings other than diamond rings relate to non-English speaking countries or cultures, which merely tells us that this is a regionalism, which of course we include (see apples and pears, beauty parlor). The fact that someone can give someone else a diamond ring to signify something other than engagement is no more significant than the fact that someone can give someone else a gold medal to signify something other than winning a competition (I don't think a slew of cites like The Indian Review: A Monthly Journal (1913), Volume 13, p. 480: "So pleased were they with Rama Murti's strength that they gave him a gold medal as a token of their appreciation" would justify removing the existing sense). By the way, I noticed that in examining my citations, you didn't take issue with the 2006 citation that specifically says, "a diamond ring means you are engaged to be married". What your citations indicate, then, is that "diamond ring" is a regionalism as a synonym for "engagement ring", in the later 20th century United States. bd2412 T 16:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
So if, in late 20th century US, you gave your fiancée an engagement ring with a ruby, it is accurate to claim you gave her a diamond ring? — Ungoliant (falai) 16:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
No more so than if you had a competition, and gave the winner a silver medal, and the second-place competitor a gold medal. bd2412 T 16:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
So merely a culturally inappropriate act and not something of lexicographic relevance? — Ungoliant (falai) 02:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I have provided citations in print above stating "A diamond ring means marriage and status"; "a diamond ring means you are engaged to be married"; and "I opened the box and saw this beautiful ring that I thought meant what a diamond ring means—that we were engaged". Provide some citations addressing the relevant region and time period that a "ruby ring" or a "pearl ring" or the like "means marriage" or "means you are engaged", and you will have demonstrated the absence of the congruity which makes this a synonym for its time and place. This is no different than proposing that any number of citations stating that "a silver medal means first place" would call into question the congruity between gold medal and grand prize. Obviously, not all first prizes are made of gold, or are medals, but the existence of the blue ribbon doesn't lead us to exclude the attested meaning of gold medal. Likewise, the use of other stones for engagement rings does not detract from the lexical value of a phrase like, "her boyfriend finally gave her the diamond ring", which communicates the meaning, engagement ring (note that the 1985, 2000, and 2003 cites above refer to "the" diamond ring, not "a" diamond ring, expressing an understanding of the additional meaning conveyed by it being a diamond ring). bd2412 T 05:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Your citations aren’t using mean in the lexicographic sense. They are using it in the same way as “punching your boss in the face means you’re fired”.
Elvis gave his daughter a diamond ring and mink coat on her eighth birthday, [ ]”, “The last time we were in Hawaii in the same hotel, I had been impressed to give a diamond ring to someone the morning we were getting ready to come home.”, “Gemstone intentionally offers to give a diamond ring to Bennett, a trial court judge, in order to influence her decision in a case that is to be tried before her.”. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Sometime after 1936, Jesse Owens "gave one of his four Olympic gold medals to dancer and movie star Bill "Bojangles" Robinson"[17]. In 1960, the King of Siam visited the Vatican, and "the Pope gave the king a gold medal" as a sign of friendship.[18] The fact that someone can literally give someone else a "gold medal" or a "red ribbon" or a "diamond ring" does not detract from the fact that each is understood to symbolize a particular thing in a particular context; neither does the fact that a first place winner can receive something other than a medal made of gold, and an engaged woman can be given a ring with a stone other than a diamond. How is "diamond ring" in this context and different from "gold medal"? By this reasoning, shouldn't we delete "gold medal", since not all first place prizes are medals made of gold, and not all medals made of gold are given as first place prizes? bd2412 T 17:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Because "gold medal" can be used figuratively in cases where no actual medal is involved. For example, "John got a the gold medal for his impressive performance" does not need to involve any actual gold medal, but simply the achievement of first place. However, "John gave Sarah a diamond ring and they lived happily ever after" necessarily does imply that an actual physical ring with a diamond on it was given to Sarah. --WikiTiki89 17:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
That is nothing more than the distinction between the existing sense 1 of gold medal (an actual medal made of gold awarded as a prize), and sense 2 (the figurative prize). Should sense 1 be deleted, since it refers to an actual medal made of gold? Further to your objection, here are some figurative use, 2006, Nicole Beland, "Babes in Boyland", in Report 2006 a Man's Guide to Women, p. 51: "I'm not the kind of girl who lives her life waiting for a man to give her a diamond ring"; 2009, Bess Vanrenen, Generation What?: Dispatches from the Quarter-Life Crisis, p. 289: "While I was tapping my foot waiting for a diamond ring, my personality became uglier by the day". In the first example, no actual ring is involved; the author is merely saying that she's not waiting around for a man to ask her to marry him. In the second, again, no actual ring is involved, the author is merely impatient that her boyfriend has not proposed to her. I have added these, and others like them, to Citations:diamond ring. bd2412 T 17:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
1. Yes, I think the first sense of gold medal should be replaced with {{&lit}} (and the second one should be reworded a bit). 2. In your quotes, no diamond ring is involved because no engagement is involved. --WikiTiki89 17:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Despite no actual engagement being involved, these authors are using the phrase "diamond ring" to mean "engagement". bd2412 T 17:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
But it's not. It's being used to symbolize engagement. If without using any words, a man gives a woman a gold ring with a diamond on it, that already symbolizes engagement without the need for the literal words "diamond ring". This shows that the symbolism has nothing to do with meaning of the words. --WikiTiki89 18:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly, "gold medal" is not found in MWOnline or my print edition of MW3rd. I have long considered Merriam Webster the most principled of dictionaries, especially with respect to idioms, though I wouldn't claim its overall superiority to the OED.
Although several dictionaries have gold medal as an entry, of the 4 references that appear at diamond ring at OneLook Dictionary Search, Wordnik has no actual definition, Urban Dictionary has an alternative "cultural" definition, WP has only a disambiguation page, and Zoom Astronomy Glossary has the lunar phenomenon. As to the cultural meaningfulness, WP's dab page has links several articles about songs with diamond ring in the title, though we have not resorted to such evidence previously.
I rather doubt that there is a bright sharp line that distinguishes between lexicographic meaning and meaning that is more "cultural". In any event, BD's skilled argument in the alternative deserves high marks and make him a credit to his profession. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
@WikiTiki, if without using any words, a man places a gold medal around another man's neck, or pins a blue ribbon to his pumpkin, would that show that the symbolism has nothing to do with the meaning of gold medal and blue ribbon?
@DCDuring, I am actually making a compound argument, with complementary points uniting in a graceful ballet. I don't propose, for example, that we should have "emerald ring" or "sapphire ring", even though neither is likely to be a "ring" of the material at issue, because they have no meaning beyond that. On the other hand, efforts to draw a sharp line between "cultural" meaning and "lexicographic" meaning are pointless. There is nothing about the color blue that makes a blue ribbon inherently symbolic of winning first place. There are plenty of other tokens given as first place prizes, having other colors, and there are plenty of instances where ribbons that are blue are used for purposes other than awarding prizes, but for reasons relying entirely on cultural context, a "blue ribbon" is a first prize, a second banana is a supporting role, and a diamond ring given by a man to his girlfriend is an engagement ring. I also think that we should have entries for soup spoon and salad fork (distinguishing them from conventional utensils), and yellow ribbon (signifying support for soldiers), which I consider to be in the same class. bd2412 T 19:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
That there isn't a sharp bright line distinguishing cultural and lexicographic meaning doesn't mean that a dictionary can't choose which definitions to include and which to exclude. Not everything called a "meaning" is dictionary material. I see no evidence that other dictionaries have chosen to include your client. In contrast engagement ring at OneLook Dictionary Search finds several and MW3 (print) has it as well. A possible difference is that diamond ring is not:
  1. the only kind of ring used as an engagement ring in post-1500 European cultures
  2. only used as an engagement ring and for no other event or purpose in post-1500 European cultures
  3. as likely to be used as an engagement ring at all socio-economic levels in post-1500 European cultures
  4. a cross-cultural symbol.
As a modern historical dictionary, I would think we would be obliged to cover the symbols used in many cultures over recorded history. Literary allusions would seem to belong as well. To simply correctly provide scope and register of the "engagement" definition seems a research project worthy of a thesis.
I suppose that as long as we have taken leave of any practical considerations whatsoever, in principle we should include any attestable cultural and subcultural meaning of anything at any time. Is that the direction we wish to go? DCDuring TALK 20:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that this is something we already do, whenever we include something like Cockney rhyming slang or New England regionalisms and. As for the research, that has already been done. There are plenty of articles in reliable sources explaining how and when the diamond ring came to symbolize engagement, so we don't need to reinvent that wheel. One interesting thing that -sche noted above is that up until the Great Depression, pearls were the engagement ring stone of choice. However, in one of the citations I provided, the author (writing in 2006) tells a story set in 1912 where a woman specifically responds to an offer of a diamond ring by saying that it means they would be engaged. As it turns out, this is somewhat of an anachronism; it didn't have that meaning then with the degree that it has it today, having picked it up sometime in the 1930s. It is just a bit less out of place than a story set among Native Americans a thousand years ago where one gives another a diamond ring to signify engagement (or indeed, where one gives another a blue ribbon to signify winning a contest). bd2412 T 21:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Re DCDuring's edit summary, which linked to it:   [[engagement ring]] exists? Sigh. - -sche (discuss) 04:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Not only does engagement ring exist, but it exists in many languages, some of which have it as a single word. bd2412 T 04:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep "A finger ring on which is mounted a diamond, often a symbol of engagement or marriage" rather than lit, since the "often a symbol of engagement or marriage" part is significant for understanding many a sentence that use "diamond ring", and the part cannot be obtained by looking at "diamond" and "ring". --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
    Now that you mention it, I think we should add a note to "ring" saying that rings are often a symbol of marriage or engagement. --WikiTiki89 07:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
    If only there were some kind of online editable linkable resource that we could refer users to for voluminous encyclopedic information, so we could focus more on language. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
    Keep on dreaming... If such a resource existed, they should have been linking to us more often. --WikiTiki89 17:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

  • 2008, Dave Parker, Big Is Beautiful, p. 24:
    Don't put out until you are man and wife.
    Shacking up will lead to misery and strife.
    Even if you get that diamond ring,
    If he really loves you he'll control his thing.

Here, "get that diamond ring" is clearly used to mean "get engaged" in contrast with shacking up. Perhaps we need an entry for "get the diamond ring", meaning to get engaged, since that is clearly understood to be the meaning, even if no actual diamond ring is involved. bd2412 T 13:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't think it seals the deal at all, considering the discussion we're having at WT:RFV#thyme. --WikiTiki89 13:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    This is exactly the opposite of thyme, which has only ever been presented as meaning "virginity" through abstract metaphor. Here we have evidence that an actual, physical diamond ring came to signal engagement to be married, and that, by extension of that practice, being engaged is metaphorically "getting a diamond ring" even if no actual "diamond ring" is involved. This, therefore, is more like brass ring, which derives from an actual ring of brass that was a token of success, but has come to mean the success itself; here, diamond rather than brass means engagement to be married rather then some other kind of success. bd2412 T 14:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    One difference between diamond rings and brass rings is that an actual ring of brass is no longer a token of success. Thus "brass ring" must be idiomatic, but "diamond ring" doesn't need to be in order to explain all of the above. For thyme as well, it is the thyme itself that is the metaphor, not the word "thyme". --WikiTiki89 14:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure that the "actual ring of brass" still exists as a carnival prize, which is where the term originated. Moreover, there are actual citations in print which use both "brass ring" and "diamond ring" in the same idiomatic context:
  • 2012, Catherine Mann, Code of Honor:
    She loved him? She said she did, and he had no reason to doubt her. Be happy, grab the brass ring—or rather a diamond ring. So why was he choking when it came to answering back?
  • 2013, Jennifer Keishin Armstrong, ‎Heather Wood Rudúlph, Sexy Feminism: A Girl's Guide to Love, Success, and Style, p. xvi:
    I thought that was what you did to get the brass ring — or, more specifically, the diamond ring — of marriage.
    The second one in particular makes it clear that "diamond ring" is to marriage (as one kind of success) exactly what "brass ring" is to success generally. bd2412 T 14:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

two weeks notice[edit]

Sum of parts. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Is that a reason for deletion? I didn't see that on Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion or Wiktionary:Page deletion guidelines. At any rate, the phrase isn't "two weeks notice that I am quitting" or "two weeks notice that you are being fired", so the meaning is a bit more than the sum of the words.--Brainy J (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
An aside: am I the only one who sees this as ungrammatical? It should be two weeks' notice, right — like a hard day's work? Equinox 21:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Well spotted. Donnanz (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I've seen both two weeks' notice and two weeks notice widely used. --Brainy J (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't find it ungrammatical. A hard day's work implies possession, the work belonging to the day. Two weeks notice is just a plural time period. There are plenty of citations for giving "a one week notice" for something (even if it is not understood to be termination of employment), so "two weeks notice" would merely be a plural of that. Granted, one could also say "two week's notice" in the "hard day's work" vein of formulation, but I don't think there's a right one and a wrong one. bd2412 T 14:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I have to differ. Surely the equivalent of "a one-week notice" is "a two-week notice" (compare "a one-foot pole", "a two-foot pole"). Equinox 18:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Not that you don't say "a week notice", but "a week's notice". --WikiTiki89 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, by the way. It is idiomatic in that a person merely saying that they gave or were given "two weeks notice" is thereby indicating a change in their employment situation. bd2412 T 14:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    And a person's merely saying he was given "a birthday noogie" is thereby indicating a change in his age. So? That's not part of the definition, or anything else that we, as a dictionary, need to concern ourselves with.​—msh210 (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. See two weeks notice at OneLook Dictionary Search, two week's notice at OneLook Dictionary Search and notice#Noun sense 4. We already have give notice, which arguably is idiomatic by reason of being a speech act.
    Grammatically two weeks is just attributive use of a noun phrase, which to me seems much better than a possessive/genitive, the notice not being in a relationship with two weeks such as "belonging to" or "consisting of". DCDuring TALK 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    "Two weeks notice" can be used without using "give" at all. See, e.g.:
    • 1945, Ruth Hunter, Come Back on Tuesday, page 91:
      Mr. Vivien must have seen this performance. The next night he came back with my two weeks' notice. bd2412 T 17:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    • 1958, Edward G. Robinson, My Father, My Son: An Autobiography, p. 132:
      I bollixed up my lines and skipped two and half pages of dialogue, throwing everybody off. It was a real snafu. After the curtain came down, they shoved a little envelope in my hand. It was my two-weeks notice.
  • bd2412 T 17:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not only used in employment. When you "give someone two week's notice", it could mean anything and not only that you are leaving your job. --WikiTiki89 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    That sounds like an RfV issue, not an RfD issue. The definitions as set forth specify resignation from, or termination from, a job. bd2412 T 03:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: Not SOP. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom — or redirect to [[notice]], where we have (and have had) this sense.​—msh210 (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I would support such a redirect, although it would be nice to be able to redirect directly to sense four. Is that possible? bd2412 T 13:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
      • {{senseid}} works with redirects, if I correctly recall a test I did. DCDuring TALK 14:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed it does. Click on two week's notice to see the user experience. "#REDIRECT[[notice#English-notice_of_termination_of_employment]]" achieves that result with "{{senseid|en|notice of termination of employment}}" at the beginning of the definition line. (I don't know whether it would work placed anywhere other than at the beginning.) DCDuring TALK 14:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
In that case, redirect per msh210. I think we're done here. bd2412 T 15:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I think this is a good way of handling many near-idioms. It redirects English language learners to more basic building blocks of meaning rather than giving them prefab collocations. DCDuring TALK 16:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

a modo mio[edit]

SOP? --Back on the list (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


The sense in question:

  1. Disrespectful, cynical, cavilling, querulous, or vulgar, where one's own feelings, or especially deference to the feelings of others, customarily command silence, discretion, and circumspection.

Which is redundant to:

  1. Lacking proper respect or seriousness; sarcastic.

Aside from being redundant, it's a textbook example of thesaurus abuse... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Pretty much the same sense written in a way that makes it harder to understand. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree. What also bothers me is that there is a translation section with two senses, and I'm not sure that the glosses correspond to the senses above them, or if they do, which is which. "Lacking proper respect or seriousness; sarcastic." seems to be the only accurate sentence on that entry. I'd keep that, delete the ugly one, merge the translations, and revise the gloss so that it matches. Haplogy () 14:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


I'm not sure we ought to have this. The thing is, it doesn't seem to be used with verbs other than those of the first conjugation, whose stem ends in ā- (habitaculum from habito, cenaculum from ceno, spectaculum from specto, ientaculum from iento, potaculum from poto, etc.). Thus it would just be a wrong analysis spect-aculum for specta-culum : it's the suffix -culum (conventiculum, etc.), really. --Fsojic (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually the same goes for -atio ~ -tio. --Fsojic (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree, but I reckon this belongs at WT:RFD instead. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
    Fsjocic has given a cogent analysis that entry was created in error. As I have some recollection of the quality of the creator's work, I can vouch for the possibility of such mistaken analysis. If someone has evidence that there are terms that do not fit Fsjocic's hypothesis that all terms ending in aculum are from first conjugation verbs the evidence can the introduced here. I would think we should not delete this in less than a month to give those who would search for such evidence a chance. DCDuring TALK 19:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
    There is a whole book written about this: here. I don't have it at hand at the moment, but hopefully soon. --Fsojic (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Again, the same goes for -abilis, -atum, -atus. There is a lot of questionable material in Category:Latin suffixes. --Fsojic (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Redirects from the with-leading-vowel versions of the suffixes to the without-leading-vowel version might help rationalize these without losing users who are accustomed to the version with vowels. Probably the same logic applies to any Translingual (taxonomic) suffixes, though their meaning and use can be quite distinct from their Latin forebears. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

dies Iouis[edit]

AFAIK, Iovis is never trisyllabic. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not a question of syllables, but of orthography. "u" is a variant of "v". --Fsojic (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
In that case, the spelling dies Iouis as a Latin entry title is disallowed by WT:ALA#Prefer V for consonantal form, but prefer U for the vowel form; this entry should be deleted in accordance with that policy page. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually some information is missing in this paragraph. In uppercase (the sole to have existed in Classical times), there was only the letter V (not U), that's true. But in lowercase (which was created in Medieval times), that's the contrary: there was only u, and not v (which was created in the Renaissance). So equus never existed in Classical times, but eqvvs never existed either: it's EQVVS. Since v was created after u, equus is the older form in lowercase. --Fsojic (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
And j isn't really Post-Classical either... --Fsojic (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it's wrong to say that only uppercase letters existed in Classical times. In classical times, there was just no concept of uppercase and lowercase letters. Yes, it is true that the "font" they used for engravings was similar to what we call uppercase letters today, but the handwriting at the time was more similar to what we call lowercase letters today. Saying that "V" existed and "U" did not exist is also wrong. It's more correct to say that there was one letter that was the ancestor of both "V" and "U". The engraving variant was shaped more like "V", but the handwriting variant was shaped more like "u". So when you read an inscription of Classical Latin that looks like "DIES LOVIS", it is wrong to say that the correct electronic encoding for it must use capital letters or must use V and not U or vice versa. --WikiTiki89 19:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
You're right, but in any case our page about all this has to be completed. --Fsojic (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep - just because we prefer one form does not mean that the other form is not allowed as an "alternative form of". Keeping it is best for our users. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree. We should keep it if it's attested. As far as I know, we often normalise spellings but we never have any rule against unnormalised spellings. —CodeCat 19:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Weak keep as an "alternative form of" entry, per Semper and CodeCat. By my ken, WT:ALA suggests only to lemmatize consonantal 'v' and vowel 'u' (and prefer them as lemmata), not to delete/forbid vowel 'v' or consonantal 'u'. But Wikitiki also has a good point: 'v' and 'u' weren't quite separate/distinguishable letters, or comparable to modern 'V' and 'u', for much of Latin's history. Compare Talk:vp. - -sche (discuss) 06:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm persuaded by the foregoing arguments and accordingly withdraw my nomination. What do others think about distinguishing between Latin's true alternative forms and its mere orthographic variants? For example, to do so would mean that, in the case of Iōannēs (John), Iōannis and Iōhannēs would be listed as alternative forms, whereas the J-initial forms (Jōannēs, Jōannis, and Jōhannēs) would be listed as orthographic variants of the corresponding I-initial forms. The same distinction would be applied to U vs. V, diacritics, etc. What do you all think? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I support such a distinction. --WikiTiki89 19:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
There is Template:obsolete typography of, which could either be used or serve as a model for whatever template does get used on variant typography. - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fsojic, Wikitiki89, SemperBlotto, CodeCat, -sche: Right, I've created {{orthographic variant of}} and {{la-var of}} (the latter is just a compact, Latin-specific form of the former) to handle these variants. You can see it put into action in this edit. What do you all think? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What was wrong with {{alternative spelling of}}? —CodeCat 01:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
See ISMETA's comment of 19:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC). Like Wikitiki, I think such a distinction is worthwhile. In fact, I may adapt Template:obsolete typography of to use or be more similar to the "orthography" template/wording. 02:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by -sche (talkcontribs).
I don't understand. Orthography and spelling are treated as the same thing here. And "alternative" is also treated as an "equivalent variant". So an "alternative spelling" is the same as an "orthographic variant". —CodeCat 02:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The variation in names doesn't mean much, but I can see what they're referring to: the orthographic variant has more to do with a difference in the way a given grapheme is realized because of a systematic difference in the letters that are used throughout the orthography, while the other is more individual and arbitrary. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@CodeCat: See what I've done with poena, pœna, pēna, and pęna; as well as pœnae, pœnæ, pęnae, and pęnæ. Do those examples clarify the distinction for you? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm fond of the "orthographic variant" template (I'm surprised there wasn't one already), and this particular orthographic variant looks like it's used (very roughly) about 20% of the time (in an "English" corpus). It is a can of worms though, as there must be a huge number of Latin I/J and U/V words waiting for "orthographic variant" entries. Perhaps we could at least create some categories for them? Also Wiktionary:About_Latin#I_and_J needs updating. —Pengo (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The template currently adds the entry to Category:Latin orthographic variant forms; is that the sort of thing you meant? And yes, WT:ALA will most likely need to be overhauled once this issue's been settled. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the current template. There isn't enough of a difference between "alternative spelling" and "orthographic variant" to establish which is which. It should be renamed. —CodeCat 14:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Wiktionary:About Latin#Orthography for Latin entries prescribes the spelling that is to be used for Latin lemmata; it would allow lemma pages for poena and pena, and would disallow them for pœna and pęna. Since poena, pœna, pēna, and pęna are all the same word, under this proposal, poena would be the lemma, pēna would be an {{alternative form of}} that, and pœna and pęna would be 2 × {{la-var of}} poena. Does that distinction make sense now? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that saying "orthographic variant" is not different enough from "alternative spelling" to warrant a separate template. The name and the message shown should describe more clearly what is actually meant, so that people don't confuse the two. —CodeCat 14:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Aah, OK. What would you suggest? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg
Input needed: This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Kept per the above discussion. Discussion of how to label its relationship to dies Iovis (what to name the form-of template it uses, etc) can continue here (as far as I’m concerned, anyway) or in the Grease Pit or at WT:T:ALA. - -sche (discuss) 18:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, -sche, but I added {{look}} in the hope that it would prompt the resolution of the "[d]iscussion of how to label its relationship to dies Iovis", rather than the closure of this RFD (which request I withdrew above, anyway). {{orthographic variant of}} / {{la-var of}} seems to enjoy some support (in this discussion); I'd like to be able to answer CodeCat's concerns, so that the template's use can be implemented more widely. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The current name and message "orthographic variant" doesn't seem notionally different from "alternative spelling". So either we should decide that there really is no difference, and delete the new template, or find a better name and description for whatever it is we do intend to use it for. —CodeCat 19:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Well, you said above that you understand the intended difference, so I ask you: What "better name and description" should we use for this template, if not {{orthographic variant of}}? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone mentioned {{typographic variant of}}, which seems like a better name. Typography is inherently concerned only with the superficial appearance of characters, not with their underlying identity and the rules that govern their use, which is the domain of orthography/spelling. —CodeCat 19:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


Is this sense, "Serving to refresh." not redundant following "That refreshes someone; pleasantly fresh and different; granting vitality and energy." ? If not, the meaning is not clear and it ought to be stated more specifically. Haplogy () 05:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I found "It sets the refreshing frame rate to 30 frames per second" (referring to computer displays) but IMO the verb covers that adequately. Equinox 18:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]


Being a part of an abbreviation doesn't constitute being an abbreviation. "B." is never used alone to mean "Bachelor(s)". --WikiTiki89 18:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep; whether it is ever used alone or not, it does have this meaning, much like a prefix. If someone was a college graduate and you didn't know what their degree was in, you would know that it was a "B." something. Moreover, if a school develops a new degree program, it would be a "B." plus whatever the new component abbreviates to. bd2412 T 19:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    • But it's not a prefix. A prefix can be attached to any word meeting some certain set of criteria. "B." is not attached to things, but is a product of abbreviating names of degrees. For example, "Bachelor of the Arts" is abbreviated "BA" or "B.A.". You cannot say that "BA/B.A." is formed by combining "B." and "A.". --WikiTiki89 19:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete unless standalone use can be found. Now that standalone usage has been found, see my vote below. - -sche (discuss) 21:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC) X being part of a word or abbreviation is, as Wikitiki correctly observes, very different from X being itself a word or abbreviation.
Points to the first person to POINTily add to B. other senses it is 'missing', including "bank" (as in "E.C.B." et al), "before" (as in "B.C.E.", "B.C."), "bull" (as in "B.S." and a perhaps uncommon but probably attested abbreviation of "bullcrap" as "B.C."), "business" (as in two senses of "D.B.A."), "base" (as in other senses of "D.B.A."), etc. Also points to whoever adds to "b" the many objectively accurate definitions its missing, such as "the second letter of many words" (as in "abbreviation", "absurd" and "ibuprofen").
Compare Talk:sug-. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
If it is kept due to a standalone case being found I would still request that the ===Derived terms=== be removed (or changed to ===Related terms===) because these terms are not "derived" from B.. --WikiTiki89 20:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
This Analytical Sciences article, for example, describes subjects as having received a "B. of" something without the something being part of the abbreviation. Someone who didn't know what the "B." stood for in that context would need to consult a dictionary that had an entry for B. to define it. As for sug- and company, they were about hypothetical prefixes that were not actually used in English. "B." meaning "Bachelor's" can be distinguished from any number of other abbreviations including "B." because if you heard that someone earned a "B." anything you would know immediately that it was some kind of Bachelor's degree. bd2412 T 20:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
That's a different story. "B. of Science" for example is a common abbreviation of "Bachelor of Science". And that might merit having an entry for B. of, but I'm undecided on that and would have to think some more. --WikiTiki89 20:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
If "B." has meaning by itself, isn't "B. of" SOP? In any case, here is an article that omits the "of", stating that the subject "received a B. Engineering Physics from the University of Saskatchewan in 1984". I would also disagree that specific combinations (B.A., B.Ed.) are not derived terms. Terms can be derived from whole components (e.g. fire fighter). bd2412 T 20:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but that's a big if. If you can show that B. has meaning by itself, then we can keep it. --WikiTiki89 20:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how phrases like "B. of (Science|Arts|whatever)" "might merit having an entry for B. of". The idiomaticity in such phrases is either in each full phrase (B. of Science) or in B.. (Who would look at "B. of Science" and think "I don't know what this means, I should look up only the "B of" portion"?) - -sche (discuss) 21:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
That would be one of the arguments against it. Like I said, I'm undecided. --WikiTiki89 21:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone reading the cited article would see that some subjects have a "B." of Science while others have a "B." of Engineering. They would correctly conclude that the "B." has the same meaning for both, and want to look up "B." itself to see what it means. I find it highly doubtful that the reader in that situation would look up "B. of", or that the reader would feel the need to put in one of the multiple examples of things that the B. is of. bd2412 T 21:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
After doing some thinking, I agree with what you just said and we should have the entry for B. as used in phrases such as "B. or Science". However, abbreviations such as BS and B.S. are not derived from it and should not be listed in the derived terms section. --WikiTiki89 21:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I am ambivalent about it, but see no great difference between listing them as "related" terms or "derived" terms, so I have no objection. bd2412 T 21:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference in terms of this RFD. If they are not derived terms, then they are not the reason the term is kept. --WikiTiki89 01:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, we know that whenever a new Bachelor's degree is devised, it will be called a "B." something (for example, the B.Comp.Sci. is a relatively recent invention). It seems to me that such later inventions, at least, are derived from "B." bd2412 T 16:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm disagreeing with. "B.Comp.Sci." is not "B." + "Comp.Sci.", but an abbreviation of "Bachelor of Computer Science". The degree is created first, then the abbreviation. --WikiTiki89 23:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
They don't sit around asking, "should we call this a 'Bach.Comp.Sci'? A 'Ba.Comp.Sci.'? A 'Br.Comp.Sci.'?" They incorporate the established "B." and figure out how to abbreviate the rest. bd2412 T 05:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Nevertheless, you can't create "B.Comp.Sci." unless "Bachelor of Computer Science" already exists. --WikiTiki89 05:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know that you can necessarily create "B.Comp.Sci." unless "B." already exists, either. bd2412 T 04:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Why not? --WikiTiki89 04:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Absent the already existing "B.", why would you abbreviate it that way, and not some other way? bd2412 T 04:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Well you could abbreviate it as "Q.Comp.Sci." but people would be less likely to understand it. But I suppose you meant something like "Bach.Comp.Sci.", in which case it's just longer than it needs to be; abbreviations try to be as short as possible. --WikiTiki89 05:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep on the basis of the 'standalone' uses like "B. of Science" that have been found to exist in the literature. - -sche (discuss) 21:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep. You don't really see Inc. or Ltd. alone either, do you? Equinox 13:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
That's not what was meant by alone. By the definition of alone that we have determined to be appropriate for this case, Inc. and Ltd. are almost always used alone. --WikiTiki89 14:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • For the record: I am in favor of keeping the sense of "B." used in "B. of Computer Science" or "B. of Comp. Sci.", but I am not in favor of keeping the sense I originally RFD'd, which is the one in "B.A.", "B.S.", and "B.Comp.Sci.". Therefore, I am not withdrawing the nomination. --WikiTiki89 14:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    • At this point, then you are maintaining an RfD nomination solely to remove "B.A." and "B.S." from the list of derived terms? Since we already know that it can be said that someone "has a B. Engineering", how would this change or affect the existing definition at all? bd2412 T 14:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Not Just "B.A." and "B.S.", but everything on that is currently on that list. "B. Engineering" changes nothing with regard to "B.A.". --WikiTiki89 14:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Still, if you agree that the definition for "B." should exist, then what have an RfD? We have never used RfD as a venue to change a "derived terms" header to a "related terms" header. bd2412 T 16:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
          • First of all, because that wasn't my original reason for RFDing it. Secondly, I still disagree with the definition as it stands, particularly the parenthetical comment "usually followed by an abbreviation indicating the specific discipline". Lastly, I think it is important to be clear about this distinction because this RFD may cited as a precedent in other RFDs. --WikiTiki89 16:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
            • Very well, then I continue to maintain that so long as there is an original usage of "B." something to indicate a certain kind of Bachelor's degree, all later degree abbreviations reading "B." something are in part derived terms of "B.". bd2412 T 17:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
A couple of lemmings: Chambers and Merriam-Webster both list B as an abbreviation for bachelor. Not checked others. Equinox 14:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, The New Penguin Dictionary of Abbreviations (2000) lists "Bachelor" (capitalised) as one of the meanings of "B" (without a period). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is now tagged as rfd-sense for the sole sense: "Bachelors degree (usually followed by an abbreviation indicating the specific discipline)." --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


Stock symbol for Agilent Technologies. We have two entries in the category Translingual stock symbols of which this is one, but there are probably scores or hundreds of thousands of these in the real world, some of them with multiple meanings over time. We generally don't seem to like things associated with making money unless they are in some way colorful or funky.

I don't really see the justification for deleting these, but it fits our practice to do so. In contrast, we have appendices with ICAO three-letter codes for airports with numerous blue links. "I was reading the stock-ticker board/my trading screen and want to know what TIGR and SPDR meant" seems on all fours with "I saw someone's baggage with it's baggage tickets and I wanted to know what MSY, IAH, and LHR meant"?. DCDuring TALK 12:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete, the faster the better. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

biological clock[edit]

Second sense: "The progression from puberty to menopause during which a woman can bear children." I don't think so. The biological clock is most often mentioned in connection with woman's fertile age, but it does not mean that they would be the same thing. This is like saying that "alarm clock" has the sense "sleep". --Hekaheka (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This is more of an RFV matter then, isn't it? --WikiTiki89 04:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
That there is some sense or subsense relating specifically to childbearing cannot be doubted. It is the definition that is inadequate. Try substituting it in the citation sentences: Take Linda, a thirty-nine-year-old newscaster who relished her career but began to hear the alarm ringing on her biological clock. It is not so long ago that this was a live metaphor. A possible definition might be "A figurative clock that indicates the decline in a female's ability to bear children." Some such definition should be readily citable, perhaps even under "widespread use". DCDuring TALK 17:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
My original thought was that this would be covered with sense #1, but as there is only one cycle involved in the childbearing as opposed to e.g. sleep or metabolism, this could probably be a sense of its own. On the other hand, the female-fertility point of view may be too narrow, as I've seen texts of men's biological clocks. Perhaps something along these lines: "The internal mechanisms regulating the development and ageing of the body of a living thing during its lifetime, used especially to refer to the limited duration of a woman's fertile age." --Hekaheka (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I think references to men's biological clocks are also references to fertility, specifically to things like the quality of one's sperm degrading to the point that it is more likely that a child conceived of that sperm will have genetic problems. Perhaps it's "One's life cycle and tendency to age, seen as a clock that ticks particularly towards a time when one cannot bear healthy children."? (Nah, that's not a good wording.) - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


Discussion moved to WT:RFV.


We don’t want to include typographical forms, do we? --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  • It's a wonderfoolism. Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    Keep like we kept vp (see the arguments made on Talk:vp), and seem to be poised to keep WT:RFD#dies_Iouis. And convert to use {{obsolete typography of}}, obviously. (Yes, there are a lot of 'u' forms of 'v' words and vice versa, which some bored person can increase their edit count by making, if this entry is kept and our inclusion of such things reaffirmed.) - -sche (discuss) 17:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    @SemperBlotto: Using the word "wonderfoolism" is only gonna establish it as real word. --WikiTiki89 18:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    I believe the correct term is wonderfolly. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    Wonderfoolery? Keφr 18:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete. I oppose the inclusion of typographical variants. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep for consistency; I'm also sure there's some word out there where the knowledge of whether u was used for u or v is lost.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. People will look it up.​—msh210 (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep (as soft redirect). Ƿidsiþ 16:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Are uue going to do yis for euery uuord uuith ſuch letters? Chuck Entz (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
For words like euery, where vu: yes. For words like ſuch: no. For uue: probably.
We've tended to delete spellings if they differed from other spellings only by the use of a different form of a letter: hence fisherwoman (with ligature 'fi') was deleted and only fisherwoman was kept, The (with uppercase 'T') was deleted and only the was kept, and diſtinguiſh and repræſentation (with long ſ) were deleted and only distinguish and repræsentation were kept. All of those are variations the site's search can handle: if you type fisherwoman into the search, it brings up the pages that use fisherwoman; long ſ is even something our "Did you mean...?" function can handle. (Can that function also be made to handle ligatures like ?) Humans and automatic functions can learn that fi in all pagetitles except that of the entry of [[]] itself.
In contrast, we've tended to keep forms if they differed from other forms by the use of a different letter: hence there are entries for both academise and academize, and vp (not just up) was kept, and we're poised to keep dies Iouis (not just dies Iovis). This is because alternation of two separate, still-used letters is not something that can be predicted accurately by human users (especially non-native speakers) or site functions like the site search and (as Ruakh noted on Talk:diſtinguiſh) the "Did you mean ...?" function. In many cases, both spellings are words in other languages: for example, ever is a word in Dutch and euer is a word in German, so neither one can redirect to the other, and the site search cannot know when a person looking up the word euer might be looking for ever. (This is also a reason we have English entries for words spelt with æ.)
- -sche (discuss) 19:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. If nothing else, at least the most frequent 1,000 words in English should get entries for once-common orthographic typographical variants. Would be nice if they had a usage note explaining or linking to the relevant orthographic bit of history of typography or of the Latin alphabet or whatever would be appropriate for readers of modern English. (euery/every usage comparison according to Google ngrams) —Pengo (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    This is not an orthographic variant. It was used when V and U weren’t considered distinct letters. — Ungoliant (falai) 06:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    My mistake. Regardless, it's not knowledge a typical user looking up the the word today is expected to have. —Pengo (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep. This is not typographical or stylistic variant. It is a historical spelling, based on changed identities of letters. Also, everything sche wrote. Michael Z. 2014-03-26 17:30 z

Category:Hungarian terms derived from Turkmen[edit]

Category in question should be deleted, it is empty and probably will stay that way. Hungarian borrowed quite considerably from the Turkic languages, though not Turkmen -- 09:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll give a candidate - create manat#Hungarian (Turkmen and Azeri currency), which is borrowed into other languages, including Hungarian. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

apartheid state[edit]

The second sense is sum-of-parts. And even if you can find quotations to support the first, I doubt that it has actually entered the lexicon as a sense independent from the second. I doubt a random person on the street will recognise "apartheid state" as referring to Israel as opposed to, say, South Africa (which would be more natural, given the origin of "apartheid"). I doubt even those "in the know" think of the term as a name of Israel that rarely ever needs to be explained further, as opposed to a mere descriptive phrase.

In short, this is "person = penis" style nonsense. Keφr 07:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete. This would be similar to adding a sense to idiot defined as George W. Bush. --WikiTiki89 08:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Del per nom. - -sche (discuss) 08:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 18:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

occupied Palestinian territories[edit]

Sum-of-parts descriptive phrase, not a proper noun. Keφr 07:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete and get PaM some medication. Equinox 23:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom. bd2412 T 19:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Gone.​—msh210 (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)





I don't think any of these newspaper names meets the WT:BRAND requirements of WT:CFI, and the two Russian ones are defined in a way that sounds far more encyclopedia-like than dictionary-like. That could be fixed, of course, but they'd still not be valid dictionary entries. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

  • The Guardian already has three citations that don't say it is a newspaper. I could add more if you want. I'll see what I can do for the Sun. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Известия and Правда are extremely important relics of the 20th century and the USSR. As you noted, problems in the definition can be fixed. Известия is usually mistaken for a feminine singular noun by Westerners, and students bungle its declension. Известия and Правда appear frequently in Soviet literature, and there are famous jokes and puns made about them. Правда does not masquerade as a different gender or number, but it is still an exceptionally important brand name and Soviet icon. —Stephen (Talk) 17:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Which is why I'm only nominating them for deletion here, not at Wikipedia. Being culturally important isn't a criterion for inclusion, nor is being mistaken for feminine singular. Are they mentioned in Russian-language literature in contexts where it isn't clear from the discussion that they're newspapers? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think it obvious they are brands, and WT:BRAND is for RFV, not for RFD, as WT:BRAND is specified in terms of existence or non-existence of quotations meeting certain criteria. We can at best vote about whether provided quotations meet WT:BRAND. On a related note, I would like to see the following part of WT:BRAND gone, an unlikely wish to be fulfilled I am afraid: "The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product or service to which the brand name applies, whether by stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product or service from which its type and purpose may be surmised, or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent." --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Anyway, Keep (all words in all languages). SemperBlotto (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep all above. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Please cite all of these properly, because they are likely to go right to RFV from here. Most of the Sun and Guardian citations are questionable, unless you think they are not mentioning the company when they mention the company, as is required by WT:BRAND.

The newspaper sense of Правда should be moved to the entry правда. Is there no common-noun sense of известия? – I am curious about its etymology. Michael Z. 2014-03-25 20:02 z

As the etymology section of Известия (Izvestija) says, it's the plural of изве́стие (izvéstije). I don't quite see why a proper-noun meaning should be moved to a lower-case spelling, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I just added that etymology.
Variations in capitalization shouldn’t be used to split up an entry. If someone sees ИЗВЕСТИЯ in print and looks it up, they should be able to read all definitions on a single web page. Michael Z. 2014-03-25 20:36 z
So Polish and polish should be on the same page? We decided against that years ago. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
This is why we have {{also}}. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, it doesn’t serve readers at all to have to flip back and forth just to untangle the differences between entries like aboriginal and Aboriginal, wherein closely-related senses have both meaning and capitalization that varies over time, place, and according to style. Each is an alternative capitalization of the other, which defies common sense and understanding. I’d be surprised to learn of any discussion where decided this is a good idea.
Secondly, {{also}} may neatly solve some problem, but not this one. A reader looking at got#English has to load and read six more pages to determine that five of them have nothing for her. And a reader following a link to at#Turkish might not even see the note nine screenfuls higher that suggests he consult an index of over a dozen pages because one of them might contain AT#Turkish.
This compares very poorly to the usability of print dictionaries that put strings of the same letters adjacent, regardless of capitalization, diacritics, hyphens, spaces, or punctuation. We ought to do better. Michael Z. 2014-03-25 23:09 z

Standard English[edit]

Standard (may need specific linguistics definition) + English. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete, and I don't think a special definition of standard is necessary. --WikiTiki89 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Defined at Oxford, Merriam-Webster, etc. BTW, keep those with "Ancient", "Old", "Modern", "Eastern" prefixes languages one may have appetite for. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Old English, Modern English, etc. are the names of specific languages. Standard English is any register of English considered standard. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The border between languages and registered is often blurred. Modern Standard Arabic is both a register and a quite distinct language if compared to Arabic dialects but not so, if compared to Classical Arabic. Standard Chinese (it's missing but it shouldn't, = Mandarin) and Standard Mandarin are also complicated. Anyway, the term is defined in notorious dictionaries, using Lemming principle, we should keep it. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
You are right about MSA, but that does not apply to English. --WikiTiki89 05:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The Lemming principle is still applicable and whether it is a register or a language, it's a word. I'm not encouraging to have Standard + plus language name entries but for Standard English there are English definitions (more than one) (I gave a SoP Russian translation станда́ртный англи́йский язы́к m (standártnyj anglíjskij jazýk) because I haven't found a dictionary entry for it.). The standard Spanish is not called "Standard Spanish" but "Castilian Spanish". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The OED for example does not have a separate definition for it, instead mentioning it as an example of standard definition 3e: "Applied to that variety of a spoken or written language of a country or other linguistic area which is generally considered the most correct and acceptable form, as Standard English, Standard American, etc.; Received Standard; also, standard pronunciation = received pronunciation n." --WikiTiki89 06:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
OED definition, although "standard" is in lower case: [mass noun] The form of the English language widely accepted as the usual correct form. In Merriam-Webster both words are capitalised. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is it so hard for people to understand that Oxford Dictionaries is not the Oxford English Dictionary? --WikiTiki89 07:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. Merriam-Webster is still valid and is in the right case. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying Merriam-Webster is not valid or even that Oxford Dictionaries is not valid. I'll make my point about the OED explicit: The OED acknowledges the existence of "Standard English" by mentioning it as a boldface example of "standard", yet it does not include it as a headword. That can only mean that the editors of the most prestigious English dictionary did not find the phrase idiomatic, since it is clear they did just simply leave it out due to oversight. --WikiTiki89 07:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Standard Spanish is called Standard Spanish. — Ungoliant (falai) 06:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Any language can have a standard register. I'm not asking to create or keep Standard Spanish, I don't see a definition for Castilian Spanish either. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. I don’t see why Standard English is idiomatic. — Ungoliant (falai) 07:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I mean I don't see a definition for standard Spanish names in dictionaries but there is "Standard English". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete. A linguistic definition of standard is needed, since its technical definition appears in linguistic dictionaries and glossaries.

Can someone provide a good link to WT:Lemming principle? I hate it when I can’t find guidelines that specifically support other editors’ arguments and really exist. Michael Z. 2014-03-26 17:00 z

The lemming test is one of several potentially (though not necessarily) persuasive tests, outlined at WT:IDIOM, based on simple precedent / examination of which entries have survived RFD in the past and what arguments were made in favour of them. - -sche (discuss) 18:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
A brief discussion of formalizing and automaticizing the lemming principle for inclusion decisions is at WT:BP#Proposal: Use Lemming principle to speed RfDs. DCDuring TALK 19:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. So it appears to me that #Lemming identifies a principle that has been applied, but makes no recommendation for applying or disregarding it in specific cases. Is that a fair interpretation? Michael Z. 2014-03-27 15:38 z
That's right, I think. The proposal.is an attempt to give it a formal definition for a limited purpose. It is mach like many of the list of idiomaticity indicators advanced by Pauley. It is just particularly easy to implement at any of several levels of inclusion on the list of lemmings. —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talkcontribs).

Crimean peninsula[edit]

Crimean Peninsula[edit]

Crimean adj + peninsula n = CrimeaMichael Z. 2014-03-25 02:36 z

But not just any peninsula that is Crimean is a Crimean peninsula, is it? Doesn't that make this term idiomatic? Nah, I'm just joshing you; this is SOP and should be deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
What about other Category:en:Peninsulas with "Peninsula" or Category:en:Islands with "Island"? Place names are specifically allowed and "Crimean peninsula" is a place name, not the same as "Crimea". And some translations are not "Crimean" + "peninsula" but e.g. "peninsula" + "Crimea", although East Slavic have common adjective + peninsula/island combinations. Keep. Why are we stirring the place name topic again? My vote has nothing to do with the Russian occupation of the peninsula. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Is Crimea distinct from the peninsula it occupies? That is, is Crimea a political/cultural territory, while the Crimean Peninsula is a geographical landform? Singapore vs. Pulau Ujong, India vs. Indian subcontinent, Panama vs. Isthmus of Panama, etc. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
They almost coincide but the administrative/state border shifted back and forth and may still shift, which is reflected in some news about neighbouring Kherson oblast (hopefully not). Crimea on its own, Crimean peninsula and various Crimean khanates, governorates, oblasts and republics are all distinct senses. Would it matter if borders of Italia and Apennine Peninsula coincided 100%? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
"Crimea" can refer to the Crimean peninsula or to any of several entities which have, at various points in time, occupied all or part of it. It seems to be comparable to "Ireland", and thus "Crimean peninsula" seems to me to be no more idiomatic than "island of Ireland". - -sche (discuss) 03:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Are we under obligation to delete Kuril Islands because they can be shortened to Kurils or imperfective aspect because we can shorten it to imperfective. Should we delete official names of countries? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
What I was trying to say, basically, is that "Crimean Peninsula" may be a proper noun in its own right. If it is, it would be warrant its own entry. We have "Scandinavian Peninsula," because this is a geographical term representing a specific landform, whereas "Scandinavia" can mean both the peninsula and the cultural region located on the peninsula. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The proper name of the place found on maps is Crimea. “Crimean peninsula” is a descriptive phrase, like North American Continent/continent or City/city of New York. Or Crimean land mass, Crimean territory, Crimean region, &c. ad infinitum.

User:Atitarev, I am not “stirring” anything by suggesting removing inappropriate entries per CFI. I don’t understand the relevance of “place names are specifically allowed,” the Old East Slavic language, or the Kuril Islands. But please don’t be bothered to explain in detail.

New York has two senses New York City and the state of New York. Crimea has historical, territorial senses. Peninsula border don't necessarily coincide with the borders of any entity in Crimea. We also allow official name of countries (Republic of, etc.), even though there are shorter names. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Cloudcuckoolander, Crimea is the name of the place that has existed on the earth and in people’s minds since since history. Signatures on political and legal documents do not change the term. The encyclopedia already has a page listing all of the specific things called “Crimea.” The dictionary’s entries define terms, and we should resist the urge to turn them into lists of thingsMichael Z. 2014-03-25 15:40 z

I'm inclined to equate this with Arabian Peninsula, but I'm not sure. --WikiTiki89 16:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Where Arabian = “related to Arabia”, and Arabia = “Arabian peninsula”? You’ll have to explain why that entry is a good example. And also why it should exist. Michael Z. 2014-03-25 23:54 z
Crimean = “related to Crimea”, and Crimea = “Crimean peninsula”. And regarding "You’ll have to explain why that entry is a good example. And also why it should exist.": You are assuming I'm using this example to promote a particular view on whether to delete Crimean peninsula or not, but I am in fact undecided. I simply brought up this example because I think it is the exact same scenario. --WikiTiki89 00:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, and pardon me for presuming. But it’s one more SOP construction demonstrating nothing but its own SOP-ness, equating essentially to a circular definition. There other “—— peninsula” entries that are exactly the same, and a few that are not. Michael Z. 2014-03-26 00:21 z
The following look like parallel constructions to me, and should probably be deleted: Arabian Peninsula, Chukchi Peninsula, Chukotka Peninsula, Chukotski Peninsula, Iberian Peninsula, Iberian peninsula, Kathiawar peninsula (no entry Kathiawar), Korean Peninsula. Also Horn peninsula was RFD’d yesterday.
Some examples are not as clear-cut, but look SOP to me: Antarctic Peninsula (the big peninsula of Antarctica), Apennine Peninsula (the peninsula dominated by the Apennine mountains), Balkan Peninsula (ditto), Olympic Peninsula (home of the Olympic mountains and Mount Olympus), Scandinavian Peninsula & Scandinavian peninsula (the peninsula of Scandinavia, but not corresponding exactly to it), Kola Peninsula (no entry Kola).
In contrast, the following looks like a good entry, with a definition that is not self-evident: Upper Peninsula (local context, apparently; whither Lower Peninsula?) Michael Z. 2014-03-26 16:20 z
Crimean Peninsula at OneLook Dictionary Search shows no lexicographic support for these. DCDuring TALK 17:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If this were merely SoP, wouldn't we expect to find most of the citations to have a lowercase "p"? The capital "P" suggests a formal place name. I would delete Crimean peninsula as SoP and keep Crimean Peninsula, unless it can be shown that a substantial majority of citations use the lowercase "p". bd2412 T 17:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
    Not necessarily. It just means that it is considered to be a proper noun. --WikiTiki89 20:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
What is a “formal place name”? Idiomaticity and sum-of-partness apply to all terms and phrases, noun or proper noun. Since this doesn’t appear in dictionaries, some writers will automatically capitalize it as a place name, while others will automatically l.c. the common noun peninsula. Don’t assign too much significance to capitalization.
If it matters, caps:l.c. ratio of “Crimean [P/p]eninsula” is 10:10 in COCA, 1:5 in BNC, and 1:0 in the Strathy Corpus of Canadian English. Inconclusive, as one might expect to find in an SOP term absent from dictionaries. Michael Z. 2014-03-27 02:41 z
The only requirements for the inclusion of place names, to my knowledge, is that they be attestable and that the place exists (or once existed) in the real world. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
No. WT:CFI#Names of specific entities only adds a few restrictions on proper names. It doesn’t add any mandates for inclusion, nor nullify any other guideline. The criterion of WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, for example, still applies. Michael Z. 2014-03-27 15:31 z
There's nothing idiomatic in proper nouns, e.g. United Kingdom, South Korea, they are just names, they are included not because of their idiomaticity. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 20:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. A kingdom that is united is not the United Kingdom. There may be thousands of small peninsulas that are in Crimea, and therefore are Crimean, but they are not the Crimean Peninsula. bd2412 T 03:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The United Kingdom isn’t just a kingdom that’s united, and South Korea isn’t just the south of Korea. But the Crimean P/peninsula is just the P/peninsula of Crimea (easily citable with initial cap, in case you thought that was a significant indicator).
Nor should a dictionary define autonomous region of Crimea, Crimean ASSR, Crimean A/autonomous republic, Crimean lands, Crimean oblast, Crimean Peninsular, Crimean region, Crimean R/republic, Crimean soil, Crimean Soviet Republic, Crimean steppes, Crimean Tatar khanate, Crimean Tatar Republic, Crimean territory, Khanate of Crimea, nor Republic of Crimea (cited from real sources, caps sic). (An encyclopedic dictionary might include articles about one or two of these, but we have an encyclopedia to link to.) Michael Z. 2014-03-28 05:39 z
I know your standing on multi-part place names but if we don't use qualifiers (island, peninsula, etc.), why do we need New York City, Washington, D.C. if New York can also mean the city of New York and Washington can also mean Washington, D.C.? "Crimea" has the sense "Crimean peninsula" and any administrative area on the peninsula but they don't have to coincide in borders. "Crimean peninsula" is unambiguous short for the peninsula, like Isle of Wight, even if we can abbreviate it to Wight colloquially or Kuril Islands to Kurils. If we just use shortened names, who will know, which Horn (Horn peninsula), which Kola (Kola Peninsula)? We can also abbreviate "past tense" to "past" or drop Falkland Islands since we have Falklands but I think better not. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@User:Mzajac, actually no, the Crimean P/peninsula is not "just the P/peninsula of Crimea". The Kerch peninsula is a Crimean peninsula, because it is a peninsula located in Crimea, as are the Heracles Peninsula and the Tarhankut Peninsula. All of these are actual Crimean peninsulas, but none of them is the Crimean Peninsula. bd2412 T 12:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
User:BD2412, does the definite determiner the not have meaning? Should the dictionary define American President and President of the United States as “Barack Obama” because Franklin Pierce is an American President, and Canadian capital and Capital of Canada as “Ottawa,” because Toronto, Ontario, is a Canadian capital?
(By the way, Kerch peninsula, Peninsula of Kerch, Heracles Peninsula, and Peninsula of Heracles are red links. Should we become a gazetteer, listing and defining all places in the world, or all the ones that have Wikipedia articles?) Michael Z. 2014-03-28 14:54 z
The issue is capitalization, not the definite article, which is a red herring. The name of the capital of Canada is "Ottawa", not "Capital of Canada"; the name of the U.S. President is "Barack Obama"; you won't find President of the United States on his birth certificate. However, the name of the landform that Crimea is found on is Crimean Peninsula, and is unique in being the only thing that is named that. As for Wiktionary being a gazetteer, place names are words, and fall under the goal of having "all words in all languages". If we are not going to have them (and we already have many), we might as well change that to "some words in all languages". bd2412 T 15:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
“The landform that Crimea is found on” – Crimea, very often the Crimea, is the landform, and its name is Crimea.
“All words” – “Crimean Peninsula” is two words, “the Crimean Peninsula” is three, and so is capitalized Citations:Peninsula of Crimea. But I don’t think it warrants an entry either. Michael Z. 2014-03-28 15:53 z
You may be surprised to find that we have a number of "words" in the dictionary that are idioms composed of two lexical units with a space between them. Rhode Island and Mount Everest are geographic examples, but we also have things like fire engine and police box. Let me ask you this as a test of idiomacity: is w:Kerch peninsula a "Crimean peninsula" or not? If so, is it a "Crimean Peninsula"? bd2412 T 17:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I can see good reasons to include Rhode Island, Mount Everest, fire engine, and police box. No need to be snarky about it.
Okay, that is a good question about idiomaticity. I have one for you: what does “the Crimean peninsula” refer to? I don’t think it means Kerch. Are you privileging uses with a as more significant than uses with the?
I have scanned hundreds of quotations in Google Books and in the BYU corpora. “Crimean P/peninsula” is always used the same way and always means the same thing (with a single exception). The capitalization of the p isn’t significant. I think some writers played it safe by capitalizing the whole name of a place, while other writers played it safe by lowercasing a common noun modified by a proper adjective. Or maybe some of them read the Chicago Manual 8.1 “Chicago’s preference for the ‘down’ style” and l.c.’d, others read 8.52 “Mountains, rivers, and the like” and capped, while still others tried to interpret 8.46 “Regions of the world and national regions” and ended up flipping a coin.
If we define Crimean Peninsula as a proper name, then Crimean peninsula should be defined as an alternative capitalization of it.
And if we do, shall we also define Crimea Peninsula, Crimea peninsula, Peninsula of Crimea, peninsula of Crimea, Peninsula of the Crimea, or peninsula of the CrimeaMichael Z. 2014-03-29 03:40 z
I repeat that the "the" is a red herring. We are not going to include "the largest city west of the Mississippi", even though that phrase only refers to any one city at a time, because there is not a place known in the cartographic sense as "largest city west of the Mississippi". Crimean Peninsula, by contrast, actually shows up as a unique place name in physical geography maps like this one, and this one, and this one. The variations you propose would only be included if they could also be attested as place names. The fact that some places have multiple names, like Paris and City of Light, is well documented. bd2412 T 17:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Now we’re getting somewhere. What do you mean by “attested as place names?” We can already accept maps as sources of quotations, but I don’t think your links are durably-archived sources. Are you proposing that sum-of-parts restrictions shouldn’t apply to place names? Michael Z. 2014-03-29 18:27 z
We are not ignoring sum-of-parts restrictions. Crimean Peninsula is idiomatic; there are many peninsulas that are "Crimean" but it is incorrect to denote any of them but one "Crimean Peninsula". This is no different than having an entry for police box despite the fact that any "box" that is owned or used by "police" (e.g. a cardboard box used to hold evidence) could be described in SOP terms as a police box. If your concern is about the durability of sources, here are some durably archived sources containing a map of the Ukraine with the "Crimean Peninsula" labeled as such. bd2412 T 20:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
bd2412 T 20:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
That would be a great analogy, if the Police were a box. Do you think we should define Canadian G/overnment in its idiomatic sense of the federal government of Canada, because there are many Canadian governments under it, like those of provinces or municipalities? North American land mass? U.S. territory? United Nations assembly?
Also, I am still not clear what you mean by being “attested as place names.” All those red link are attested, with “peninsula” in both caps and l.c., and they all refer to Crimea. Would that be sufficient to warrant inclusion, or do you mean that there is some specific indicator distinguishing a proper name from a descriptive term? Michael Z. 2014-03-30 20:45 z
Since you were concerned about durably archived sources, show me three durably archived sources where Peninsula of Crimea appears on a map, thereby indicating the place name as the cartographer/geographer understands it, and I will agree that Peninsula of Crimea is just as deserving of an entry. The same can be said if you can find three map usages of Korea South as opposed to South Korea to identify that region. As for them all referring to Crimea, there is a difference between Crimea and Crimean Peninsula, and it is the same difference as the difference between senses 1 and 2 of Hawaii and Australia. bd2412 T 03:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
If you’re saying that Crimean Peninsula = Crimea (1), I agree with that. Also that Crimean Oblast = Crimea (2.13 & 2.14). I have seen English maps that have both Crimean Peninsula and Crimean Oblast on the peninsula. To me, this is evidence that both of the longer names are SOP. Michael Z. 2014-03-31 20:10 z
I don’t agree that simply appearing as a map label makes a phrase a proper noun or a place name. Lots of common nouns and descriptive phrases are used to label specific map features. A map may illustrate the geographic definition of the referent, but it lacks lexical context and usage, and even capitalization (tending to title case and all caps). Specific places marked on maps I have at hand include steppe of the Kipchaks, Max Vasmer, Lusatian culture, coastal lowlands, French, East European upland, western dialects, Goths, Teutonic Order, 1791, March 1939, 1870’s, Krymksij Poloustrov (on an English map), Ukrainian line, Boundary of Ukraine, British Expeditionary Force, minefields, narrows.
Conversely, I disagree that finding a name on a map is required to consider it a place name. Nothing in our guidelines supports this. Michael Z. 2014-03-31 20:10 z
Nevertheless, I would keep Crimean Peninsula. Whether appearing on maps or in running text is a more authoritative showing, it appears well enough in both. Whereas Crimea might mean the political demarcation or the geographic entity, Crimean Peninsula is much more clearly limited to the geographic entity. How this compares to other landforms may well be a bit fuzzy, but the region has a particularly important history as a flashpoint in European wars (most pointedly the Crimean War of the 1850s, but look at it in the news again today). bd2412 T 11:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Obviously Crimean + peninsula refers to geography more directly than, say, Crimean + government or Crimean + industry. How does that relate to our CFI? How do historical conflicts in Crimean relate to our CFI regarding the phrase Crimean peninsulaMichael Z. 2014-04-01 17:55 z
I'm not talking about Crimean + peninsula, I'm talking about Crimean Peninsula, the name of a particular place. Its involvement in historical conflicts has lead to it being written about more, and made it more likely to be a term that a reader might look up in a dictionary to find, for example, a translation of the place name. The purpose of a dictionary is to serve the needs of the readers, and entries like this accomplish that. bd2412 T 18:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
You are saying we should consider the notability of a referent. A dictionary does not serve its readers by trying to compete with an encyclopedia. Michael Z. 2014-04-03 06:29 z
You are absolutely right. We don't need to consider its notability, since it was easy enough to provide three references spanning a year and demonstrating idiomacity. bd2412 T 15:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
(By the way, the guideline doesn’t require that any thing exists in the real world for a term to be defined. It specifically mentions mythological creatures, and that fictional places are also subject to the restrictions of WT:CFI#Fictional universes. Wiktionary is WT:NOT an encyclopedia, and generally concerns terms, not things. Michael Z. 2014-03-27 15:48 z)
  • Keep this geographic name in both attested capitalizations. The allegation of this being a sum of parts seems implausible. Notice our definition of the adjective Crimean: "Denoting, of, or related to Crimea, a peninsula on the north of the Black Sea, separating it from the Sea of Azov." Thus, "Crimean peninsula" would be a peninsula relating to a particular peninsula on the Black Sea, which seems implausible.

    For OneLook: Black Sea at OneLook Dictionary Search finds some dicts; Crimean Peninsula at OneLook Dictionary Search and Arabic Peninsula at OneLook Dictionary Search find close to nothing, while Balkan Peninsula at OneLook Dictionary Search again finds some dicts including AHD and Collins; Korean Peninsula at OneLook Dictionary Search finds WordNet copiers but not AHD and Collins.

    For other similarly formed peninsula names: Korean Peninsula, Scandinavian Peninsula (Scandinavian--of or pertaining to Scandinavia, which in one of its senses refers to the Scandinavian Peninsula); for more see the list collected by Mzajac above.

    Frequency of capitalizations: Crimean peninsula,Crimean Peninsula at Google Ngram Viewer.

    For better context: Geographic names that contain their entity type in the name include Hudson River, Cooper Creek, Lake Ontario, Atlantic Ocean, Adriatic Sea, Chesapeake Bay, Cape Horn, Mount Everest, Longs Peak, Death Valley, Copper Canyon, Red River Gorge, Mexico City, New York City, Cape Town, New York State, Main Street, Grant Avenue, Jack Kerouac Alley, Leicester Square, Piccadilly Circus, and Abbey Road. Some have the form "<noun-phrase-used-attributively> <entity-type>" (e.g. "Death Valley"), while some have the form "<adjective-phrase> <entity-type>" (e.g. "Atlantic Ocean"). --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You are ignoring “denoting,” Dan. Crimean peninsula = “the peninsula that is Crimea.” It’s just like “North American continent”.
I notice that the Onelook dictionary entries are purely encyclopedic. They lack etymology, onomastics, pronunciation, or anything else that makes up a dictionary entry. Encyclopedic dictionary entries exist to sell print dictionaries to customers who don’t want a shelf full of encyclopedias. Fortunately, a link to Wikipedia takes up much less space.
The dictionary should define proper nouns and related words, like Crimea and Crimean, and not contain every proper name that is a sum-of-parts construction, like Crimea peninsula or Crimean peninsula. I realize that not everyone agrees with this view, but I wish the proponents of encyclopedic entries would propose even a vague idea of what they want included and excluded, instead of just bickering over every entry. Michael Z. 2014-03-29 15:14 z


Uncommon misspelling of ânion. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this not a matter for RFV? Keφr 07:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I don’t think so. But move it there if you want to, I don’t care. — Ungoliant (falai) 08:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Any supporting evidence? --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Some data: Google Books Pt aniôn: 15 hits; Google Books Pt ânion: 2,470 hits; Google books hit ratio: 164. Since the absolute numbers leading to the ratio are rather low, it is hard to judge. Furthermore, some of these allegged 15 hits are clear scannos. This spelling may even be hard to attest. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


This and keepin', kickin', interestin', needin', accordin', changin', draggin', burnin', expectin', standin', feelin', showin', screamin', dancin', sendin', growin', motherin', foolin', workin', waitin', thinkin'. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Some tough logic: These entries were added by a user who was blocked for adding them. So, either it was ok to add the entries and he should be unblocked, or it was not ok to add the entires and the entries should be speedily deleted. --WikiTiki89 05:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep these if they are attested. We have long kept -in' entries. The user who added these seems (based on the block summary) to have been blocked for using multiple accounts, not for adding these particular entries. - -sche (discuss) 05:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, the user is WF, and SemperBlotto generally only blocks WF when he uses more than one account at a time, or when he starts adding garbage- so WikiTiki89 may not be far from the truth. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I suspect he was using multiple accounts, because most of these are trivially citeable, and follow our usual format for such entries. Daughterin’ might should be RFVed, though. - -sche (discuss) 06:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know about this form, but daughtering is clearly attested, and I have created an entry for it. bd2412 T 16:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep any that are attested. (That is keep all, and anyone can RFV any that, after a search, he suspects is unattested.) See also the old BP discussion -sche linked to above.​—msh210 (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. This is an RfV matter, not a RfD matter. bd2412 T 19:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete daughterin' (keep the rest) — it was suggested by my script in error. It was suggested based on a mangled scanno of daughter-in-law (I automatically added an apostrophe to -in words). The Google ngram data where it originated does not contain the word daughterin': [19]. My apologies. The rest of the "eye dialect" terms can probably be attested though. If this RFD was only for daughterin' I think a result in favour of deletion would have been more clear. Pengo (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep There is no RfD rationale in our current rules or practice for deleting these. None, some or all may turn out not to survive RfV if challenged there. Even daughterin may be be found in some source other than the Google n-gram corpus, which, I think, is smaller than the entire Books corpus. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Someone should probably link this discussion to the RfV for daughterin'. (I honestly will be impressed by any citations found). Pengo (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Redirect all "-in'" forms to forms with -ing. We need a CFI rule for "-in'", similar to repetitive "hahahahaha"->hahaha, etc., see Wiktionary:Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with that. I don't think regional spellings, which may have different pronunciations, are comparable to mere repetition. bd2412 T 22:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The similarity is in endless possibilities of -in'/-in or -en'/-en ending for every or almost every English -ing ending. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
How is that different from the endless possibilities of -ing endings for verbs? A variation would need to be attested to be included, and either its entry would indicate the difference in pronunciation, or the base page (e.g. "fixing"), would need a line indicating the alternate spelling and pronunciation. bd2412 T 23:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

accouté, accouta, accoutant, etc.[edit]

It seems that the verb accouter does not exist in French. Lmaltier (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

banana peel[edit]

banana skin[edit]

Banana + peel. Pure SOP; how is this any different from apple peel, potato peel or any other peel? — Ungoliant (falai) 22:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. This term is American, as opposed to banana skin in British English. Banana skin is listed in my Oxford Dictionary of English. Donnanz (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    Nominating the literal sense of banana skin as well then, to be converted to &lit if it fails as there is an idiomatic sense. — Ungoliant (falai)
  • No, I think you miss my point. If banana peel is only used in Am. English, and banana skin only in Br. English, they are not terms used throughout the English-speaking world, so it makes sense to retain both of them. Deleting one sense from banana skin doesn't make any sense either. And I take it the translations do not matter either in your eyes; there is a redirect from banana skin to banana peel. Donnanz (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    Keep per Donnanz. DCDuring TALK 00:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    Differences in usage of skin and peel should be listed in their respective pages. Translations matter if enough languages have idiomatic words for a banana’s peel, in which case the definition can be converted into {{translation only}}. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep banana peel. There's an idiomatic sense that we don't have yet: it was a favorite gag in old movies to have someone slip and fall after stepping on a banana peel, so it came to be used metaphorically for anything that makes you slip or make yourself look foolish if you aren't careful. There's also the phrase "have one foot on a banana peel", referring to being in an unstable situation- the most common permutation being "have one foot on a banana peel and the other in the grave" for someone at great risk for death. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    It is the object itself that is the gag, not the word "banana peel". --WikiTiki89 08:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    In the US I don't think banana skin is idiomatic in either of the senses given. It just means the skin of a banana. In my idiolect banana peel refers to the skin once it is removed from the rest of the banana. This fits, for example, WordNet's definition. The second banana skin sense or something similar would probably be attestable in the US, but I haven't heard or read it.
BNC: banana peel - 0, banana skin - 11
COCA: banana peel - 52, banana skin - 5
The US usage seems to often be an allusion to the vaudevillean pratfall, rather than have the UK sense in the COCA sample. DCDuring TALK 02:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Otherwise, we would need to have overly narrow senses at skin and peel, reading for example: With respect to a banana, the removable outer layer (U.S. only/UK only). bd2412 T 03:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    We already have these senses. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    Not specific to their regional limitations as applied to bananas (and apparently bananas alone). bd2412 T 11:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 08:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to find a case for murder weapon (see mordvåpen), but I haven't found one yet. But there's definitely a case for retaining these two entries. Donnanz (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Let me ask something: should apple peel/skin, passion fruit peel/skin, lemon peel/skin, grapefruit peel/skin, grape peel/skin and all other citable fruit + skin/peel combinations be added as well? If not, why is banana peel/skin different? (Don’t say “there are idiomatic senses”, only the senses relating to the actual skins of actual bananas are being nominated). — Ungoliant (falai) 10:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
My gut feeling tells me there's no case for the non-existent entries you mentioned; there's probably a better case for murder weapon. But that doesn't alter my stance regarding the two entries under discussion. Donnanz (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is there a case for banana peel and not for other fruit peels? — Ungoliant (falai) 11:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Both banana skin (in the UK) and banana peel (in the US) have at least one metaphorical use, referring to some kind of possibly comic hazard. The UK metaphorical usage seems clearer to me than the more nearly allusive use of banana peel in the US. {{&lit}} would probably cover the other usage, but not in the opinion of all some professional lexicographers. See banana peel at OneLook Dictionary Search and banana skin at OneLook Dictionary Search. Other fruit peels/skins don't have any metaphorical uses that I am aware of, though potato peel would be one I'd like to check. DCDuring TALK 14:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
As I said, only the senses relating to the actual skins of actual bananas are being nominated. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
But why? One trait of a banana skin/peel (slipperiness) relates to the figurative usage. I remember seeing a Mini slip on a discarded banana skin when it pulled up at the traffic lights. The driver wondered what on earth was going on. Donnanz (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to repeat what I said above: It is the object itself that is the gag, not the word "banana skin". --WikiTiki89 15:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "murder weapon," 1) a "murder weapon" isn't necessarily a "weapon" in the narrow sense that it is something intentionally designed to cause injury (e.g., a brick, length of pipe, or other heavy everyday object used to bludgeon someone to death), 2) a weapon like a hunting rifle was designed for killing, but it wasn't designed for murder, 3) WMDs are weapons used for murder, but they're generally not considered "murder weapons" when used. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, food for thought on murder weapon. Thanks. Donnanz (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The way I see it is that "murder weapon" refers to a weapon that was already used for murder, whether a switchblade, hunting rifle, or brick. WMDs are weapons used for mass destruction; calling a WMD explosion "murder" is a drastic understatement. --WikiTiki89 07:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete the literal sense. CFI doesn’t tell us to include SOP expressions just because we can tag them with usage labels. Maybe we should change this – usage is a lexicographical characteristic, and arguably gives idiomaticity. On the other hand, every English speaker will know what banana peel or banana skin means, even if that is not her regional preferred form, so I don’t know if this case warrants changing CFI.

Is there any evidence that peel/skin have a broader American/British bias, or is it only with bananas? A usage note in each of these entries could explain this, whether it’s restricted to banana + X or universal.

Strathy corpus records 4:0 for banana peel, supporting that it is North American. Michael Z. 2014-03-31 17:04 z

Of the seven nouns banana, orange, potato, lemon, onion, fruit, and grapefruit for which there was both COCA and BNC usage, UK and US usage agree in collocating the noun more frequently with skin or peel in five of the cases. With banana the numbers showing different collocation frequency are above. With potato COCA collocates skin and peel equally (12 and 12) and BNC has two peels and no skins. It actually seems that banana skin and banana peel occur with different frequency (UK and US) than one would expect based on the usage of skin and peel, which do not much differ otherwise between US and UK. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I would think that potato skin would be an outlier because of the dish. bd2412 T 22:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I think potato peeling (usually peelings} is more common in British usage, when the potato skin is peeled off. Donnanz (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I have created an entry for potato skins, although this is admittedly not quite comparable to the issue at hand. bd2412 T 21:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I personally consider "potato skin" and "potato peel" to be two different things. The potato skin is the actual skin of the potato, while the potato peel is the potato skin plus some of the flesh that is cut off during the peeling process. --WikiTiki89 22:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep both as both have metaphorical meanings, and {{&lit}} exists for a reason. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think {{&lit}} does justice to the non-figurative sense. Banana skin and banana peel are both used in the US, with slightly different meanings. Banana skin seems to be used much more often than banana peel in the UK, covering the non-figurative definitions of both US terms. DCDuring TALK 00:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. My initial reaction was, "clear-cut SOP entries, delete," but the arguments above have convinced me otherwise. Presenting information on the regional difference in the usage of these two terms in separate entries rather than trying to work the information into the (understandably) crowded entries for peel and skin is the simpler solution. I think there's ultimately a balance to be struck between weeding out unnecessary entries and striving to make our wiki as accessible as possible to readers. Peel and skin also both have additional senses that could lead someone who's only ever encountered either banana peel or banana skin to misinterpret meaning — e.g. banana peel as a banana-based facial peel. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]


I think this term is easily cited and atested for. It has many related terms such as negroid, congoid, africanoid, caucasoid, caucazoid, europid, araboid, hellenoid, indianoid, mongoloid, australoid, and americanoid, iberiod, celtoid, and mixoid, i believe that there is wide availability for all the other terms but that persianoid related information has been censored by google books but if you search harder you realize it's real i have seen it in anthropology books and those books and classes helped me figure out who i am and where i came from because i have generally celtoid features with lots of hellenoid features, geographically a huge group of people are hellenoid from Greece to Afghanistan others turkoid or persianoid or araboid or indianoid and having all these terms available helps people understand their ancestry so we should not leave out persianoids for we would be leaving out a ton of people.

The article has been deleted from Wikipedia as a hoax: Persianoid. Try getting it back in there before you add it here. Also, Google Books hasn't censored anything: the word simply isn't in common use. Equinox 07:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The word you want is Persoid, which is rather rare, but just about exists (16 Google books results for '"Persoid" + Persia'). iberiod? Isn't that a dog-sledding competition? Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Edit conflict -- how did SM get in ahead of me? The only Google hit is to the deleted Wikipedia article, and other search engines don't find anything either. They can't all be censoring the word. The "-oid" suffix seems to be widely used for only the major classifications, not for subsets, though Smurrayinchester (above) has found a very rare alternative for you. Dbfirs 12:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Haven't a clue - I just clicked save, and it went straight back to the page with no edit conflict warning. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Same here. I wasn't complaining at you, just puzzled by the sequence. Anyway, thanks for finding the correct term -- just about citeable. Dbfirs 07:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
See WT:RFC#The race-related edits of User: and User:Artemesia. This is the tip of the iceberg. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


Reasonably sure this is a typo. Scores a lot of Google books hits (13,000), but other forms of the hypothetical verb "alot" ("alots", "alotting", "can alot", "will alot") get little to nothing. A lot of noise in the results, due to the common typo for "a lot". Given that "alotted" and "alotting" are the most numerous results, I think it's some sort of strange way of compensating for the double "t" by undoubling the "l". Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it common enough to be a common misspelling of allotted? DCDuring TALK 20:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep as common misspelling; remove the separate senses it has now. Equinox 14:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dan Polansky and User:Equinox. bd2412 T 14:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to stop links pointing to that page from being blue? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why we'd generally want to link to a "misspelling" entry — or are you asking this with a view to avoiding typos? Equinox 16:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest the opposite. There were only two incoming links to the page; one of them was a misspelling in a definition, which I fixed just now, and would not have known about but for having looked at the incoming links. bd2412 T 18:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@Equinox: Exactly that. We all make mistakes; a red link has more than once prompted me to correct a typo I've made whilst writing an entry. Including the string __HIDDENCAT__ on a Category: page stops that category from appearing in an entry's category list when that entry is included in that category; is there something similar that can be added to the pages that are only misspelling entries, which would stop blue-linking (or else somehow flag that link as being one for a typo)?
@BD2412: I wasn't suggesting that we not have entries for misspellings (although the blue-linking is a good reason not to). And besides, there is no need for a misspelling entry and/or a what-links-here to find these typos; a normal search would suffice.
 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, redlinks sometimes help catch typos, but that shouldn't really be a reason for keeping or deleting anything. --WikiTiki89 16:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Not a good reason, no, but it would be nice to have the best of both worlds. Such blue-linking–prevention could also be used for rare and obsolete spellings (which we definitely do want), too. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete as a too uncommon misspelling.
I see no evidence that this is common by any reasonable definition of "common", based on relative frequency. The Google N-Gram presented shows it to be occurring about 0.2% as frequently as the correct spelling. At COCA, for example, it occurs once relative to some 1100 instances of allotted. It doesn't occur at all at BNC. The corpus of Global Web-based English (GWE) has 41 occurrences relative to 5400 instance of allotted. If we had corpora of secondary and tertiary education examination essays, I'd expect a higher percentage, but we have no quantitatively reliable corpora that show it is "common" relative to allotted.
Including this is setting a precedent of less than 0.8% at GWE relative to the correct spelling, which seems to be the most misspelling-laden of corpora and about 20 in a billion (.2 in a million) relative to the word count of the entire corpus. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
WT:CFI#Spellings gives ocurred, occurred as an example of what "may well merit entries"; it gives no other example. (ocurred*3000),occurred at Google Ngram Viewer shows the factor of 3000. By my lights, factor 3000 in GNV is still acceptable for inclusion, in the copyedited corpus used by Google Ngram Viewer. At User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2013#What_is_a_misspelling, in the table starting with "beleive", there was only one example much below the 500-factor band in which "alotted" lies: "condensor". We are not overflooded with misspelings; we have 1,595 entries in Category:English misspellings. What you should do, IMHO, is present a method and calibrate it using what you consider examples of common misspellings. What are 7 examples of what you consider common misspellings? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

xerox copy[edit]

This seems entirely redundant to xerox. Equinox 14:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep per WT:COALMINE. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Because of "xeroxcopy"? Wow, maybe someone has spelled it that way. Equinox 17:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
They have. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm, keep it. An extended form of xerox. I don't think we use this term in the UK. Donnanz (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete Michael Z. 2014-04-10 00:33 z

Definitely Keep. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


Fictional town, and I can't see any way this could be used in an out of universe sense. Flagrantly fails WT:FICTION. Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL, yes. Delete. Equinox 17:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I find a few metaphorical uses, but nothing that would be a real out-of-universe sense. bd2412 T 18:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


I'd expected to find at least a couple of citations that could support a sense like "A crime-ridden fictional city where the Batman comics are set" by comparing a real crime-ridden city to the fictional one, but surprisingly, I can't find anything like that. Therefore, this seems to fail WT:FICTION. Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Should this be an RFV? But given the choice, delete all such fancruft. Equinox 17:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, Batman's home town is Gotham City anyway, not just Gotham. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "When Gotham City is ashes, you have my permission to die"? I guess it fails WT:FICTION anyway, though we could move this to RFV to keep obnoxious bureaucrats our consciences silent... Keφr 17:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

virgin forest[edit]

Instead of this entry, we need a specific sense at virgin, as it is also used with other types of woodland: google books:"virgin jungle", google books:"virgin woodlands", google books:"virgin oak forest", google books:"virgin larch forest", as well as predicatively: google books:"forest is virgin", google books:"forests are virgin". — Ungoliant (falai) 13:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep. "virgin forest" is naturally extended to "virgin jungle", but is the most common of this use of "virgin", and the natural extension should not lead to sum-of-parts claim: virgin forest,virgin jungle,virgin woodlands at Google Ngram Viewer. For the predicative use claim, check google books:"forests are virgin" -"forests are virgin forests", with its 8 hits, the first 3 hits by non-native authors Kristiina A. Vogt, Maria S. Tysiachniouk, and Dr Soili Nystén-Haarala. virgin forest at OneLook Dictionary Search finds "virgin forest" in Collins: virgin forest and in WordNet copiers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
So what if it’s the most common? Being common doesn’t make something idiomatic. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Just to point out, virgin (if it is to be considered an adjective) is only used attributively in all of its definitions. So the lack of "forests are virgin" means nothing. --WikiTiki89 17:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
In addition to its 7 senses & subsenses of the noun, MWOnline has 9 senses and subsenses of virgin as adjective as follows:
  1. "free of impurity or stain : unsullied
  2. chaste
  3. characteristic of or befitting a virgin : modest
  4. fresh, unspoiled; specifically : not altered by human activity <a virgin forest>
  5. a (1): being used or worked for the first time (2) of a metal : produced directly from ore by primary smelting
    b: initial, first
  6. of a vegetable oil : obtained from the first light pressing and