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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFDs

April 2014[edit]


  • RFD-sense: A fictional city, the hometown of Batman. (Inserted later.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Should this be an RFV? But given the choice, delete all such fancruft. Equinox 17:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, Batman's home town is Gotham City anyway, not just Gotham. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "When Gotham City is ashes, you have my permission to die"? I guess it fails WT:FICTION anyway, though we could move this to RFV to keep obnoxious bureaucrats our consciences silent... Keφr 17:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
This might be citable.
  1. [1] I don't think she's saying New York City is like New York City. Esp. because of the Star Wars reference, I think she's comparing it to Gotham City..
  2. [2] Because of the crowds and police, I suspect he's comparing London to Gotham City. Bit ambiguous to me, though.
  3. [3] May not qualify, but not far off.
I'd suggest RFV. DAVilla 20:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I can't see the quote at the third link you gave, but in the first I think she's saying the apartment felt like a log cabin in the middle of the big city and is using Gotham to mean NYC as the big, bad city. But I don't think she's thinking of Batman's Gotham City at all. The second quote might be referring to Batman's city, especially since the guy's name is Robin, but it could really equally well be referring to NYC. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Sense deleted. This does indeed appear to fail WT:FICTION. bd2412 T 20:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


The plural of corgi in Welsh is corgwn without the circumflex i.e. not *corgŵn. You can look it up in the Welsh Academy Dictionary and the National Terminology Portal. It follows the pattern of other "dogs" e.g. helgwn "hounds", milgwn "greyhounds", dwrgwn "otters", morgwn "dogfish", celwyddgwn "liars" etc. Llusiduonbach (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru has a cite for Cor’gŵn from 1630, so it may be worth keeping this as a {{nonstandard spelling of}} or {{obsolete spelling of}} or the like. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
What is our cutoff between Middle Welsh and Welsh? Renard Migrant (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
w:History of the Welsh language puts it at the beginning of the 15th century. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added the 1630 quotation by Robert Lloyd, vicar of Chirk to Citations:corgi and moved *corgŵn to cor’gŵn, since that is the form in which it is attested. The entry for *corgŵn can now be deleted. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]


Discussion moved from User talk:Angr#-si.
Hello, yes i think so. « si » is not a suffixe, it's a grammatical nonsense. I have too baad english. I give the reasons to you in italian. La particella « si » non é un suffisso, è piuttosto un pronome enclitico, come le particelle pronominali atone mi, ti, ci, vi, lo, la, ne. Riferimenti : Si personale ; il verbo ; il pronome personale ; coniugazione pronominale o riflessiva. Italian pleasure is to acculate personnal pronoun. Just see dirmelo (tell me it) it's an enclise of pronoun mi and article lo and « melo » is not a suffixe. And you can find many exemples of this kind of word : dirglielo (dire+gli+lo), dircelo (dire+ci+lo), dirgliene (dire+gli+a+ne). It will be very difficult for good comprehension of italian if you don't integrate the special maner to use personnal pronoun. it's better way to say the enclise form on the article si. I hope i was clear in my explications. Best regards. - 13:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
If it's a particle or a pronoun, not a suffix, the thing to do is to replace the line ===Suffix=== with ===Particle=== or ===Pronoun=== and {{head|it|suffix}} with {{head|it|particle}} or {{head|it|pronoun}}. But deleting the whole entry without putting the information somewhere else is simply destructive. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, I am taking part in your conversation, it is already very well explained in section Italian si (see part 3 « si passivante) ». You can actually remove the suffix -si which does not exist in Italian. It's only an enclitic form appears after the verb as explained in the article « si ».
When I get a chance, I'll start a deletion discussion for -si. It shouldn't be deleted without wider discussion. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to kc_kennylau for initiating this RFD. The OP's "yes i think so" is a response to the automatic edit summary of my revert here. I do think the anons make a good case that -si isn't a suffix but an enclitic pronoun and that the entry at si should be sufficient, but I do want to submit this to wider discussion rather than just deleting it tout court. I'd also like someone who knows Italian to look at the two entries and see if there's anything at -si that can usefully be merged to si before the former gets deleted (assuming it does). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep, but convert the POS to pronoun and the definition to something like {{form of|enclitic form|si|lang=it}}. A hyphen before a term means the term is spelt without a space between itself and the preceding word, not necessarily that it is a suffix. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete, and also -arsi, -ersi and -irsi. In fact, italian verb (e.g. : « dire ») is in a lexical domain and « dirsi » is in a fonctionnal domain. The lexical verbs are associated with a position for clitic pronouns (proclitic or enclitic). As described above, clitic constructions and especially clitic climbing is an essential part of italian grammar. It's an innovating nonsense to summarize this complexity in a false item -si. This type of article can only lead readers to be in the wrong and to confound with a suffix. — Elbarriak (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Catalan has similar enclitic particles, but our entries for them are at the hyphenless forms. See se etc. —CodeCat 14:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete. I'd be ok with what Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV says if it were only used in compounds, but it isn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


Sense of “To designate an area as suitable for profitable real-estate lending and property insurance” is redundant to “To ease access to services (such as banking, insurance, or healthcare) to residents in specific areas.” Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The broader sense is unsupported, which is why it is RfVed. The new, narrower sense has three citations. If the broader sense is actually attestable, then of course it stays. The narrower sense is the original definition, going back at least to the 1960s. The extension to other services, if attestable at all, is certainly newer, which lexical information is most readily displayed using {{defdate}} with separate definitions. DCDuring TALK 21:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The senses are essentially the same, therefore both senses can be supported by any of the citations provided. The only difference between the definitions is that the correct one (mine) is about residents GETTING stuff, while the incorrect one (yours) is about banks GIVING stuff. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Transitivity needs to be dealt with here. One sense suggests the verb applies to an area (which agrees with the citations) while the other suggests it applies to a service. Can you "greenline the banking in Ontario", or would it be "a bank that greenlines Ontario"? Equinox 22:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
First off, it would help if you said which was which. Secondly, I'm not seeing that. They both talk about areas and services Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
If you can't tell which is which, then you are proving my point that the transitivity needs to be specified! Equinox 00:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • One more thing: in this sense, the word "profitable" is not supported by the citations. What is supported is THAT more services are provided, not WHY they are Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think this is really a debate about how to word the definition, rather than about the existence of one or the other variant of the same thing. --WikiTiki89 23:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    Yeah, DCDuring should never have added a second definition and should have started a discussion on the article's talk page about the definition rather than an RfV of a definition that was correct, but that he didn't like. But he didn't, so here we are. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not really interested in gum-flapping. I'm interested in citations, empirical support instead of verbosity. I usually descend to verbosity only as a last resort, usually when others fail to provide empirical support for their questionable positions. DCDuring TALK 00:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    You have three citations that support either definition, there's no need to accuse me of gum-flapping. THIS isn't an RfV anyway, so citations schmitations. If more citiations are needed (again, the citations in there support either definition), I have at least a week to find them, during which I can do as much gum-flapping or whatever you call it as I want Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    There is NO EMPIRICAL SUPPORT for the extension of meaning beyond real-estate loans and property insurance. You have admitted to only having a symmetry argument (from the antonym), which symmetry argument has no support in WT:CFI. I rest your case. DCDuring TALK 00:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    Um, you don't get to rest my case. This is the request for deletion of YOUR definition, not the request for verification of MINE. It's embarrassing that you haven't made that distinction, nor frankly provided any argument why your definition should be kept. Tearing down my definition won't save your own. I again remind you that while citations might be preferable, I don't have to cite it this very minute. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    I was (foolishly) responding to your off-topic objection to my decision not to use Talk:greenline as a venue. That was the case previously rested.
    The second definition is not redundant to the first as it has a materially narrower scope, as mentioned above. No other reason for deletion has been presented. I hereby rest your RfD case. DCDuring TALK 01:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    You don't get to arbitralily decide that a deletion discussion of a definition you wrote it over, sorry. That's not how it works. Editors other than I have questioned your decision to do things in the manner in which you did, and you really have yet to offer a reasonable explanation for that as well. So we're going to keep talking. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 18:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    @Purplebackpack89, It didn't help that you duplicated the discussion here at RFD (when it could have been resolved at RFV), and then blamed DCDuring when he made a comment on one page rather than the other. --WikiTiki89 22:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the other sense of "greenline" has passed RfV, meaning it won't be deleted and this sense is redundant to that one. Purplebackpack89 23:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


I would like to request the restoration, in some form, of mahā, the transliteration of the Sanskrit महा (great). In the course of fixing disambiguation links to this title on Wikipedia, I have found many uses of mahā with this meaning. It is similarly widely used in books. However, searching for it here takes the reader to maha, which has no information on the Sanskrit meaning of the word. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't do Sanskrit romanised forms. If you want to find a term using this transliteration - 1. paste/type it in the search window and linger to see suggestions, 2. select containing mahā from the bottom and click enter/double-click. A Search results page will appear 3. "Search in namespaces:" check "None" first, then check (Main). This will shorten your search to the main namespace and click "Search". again. महत् appears the 4th in the results. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that sort of advice is going to reach the average reader, who is more likely to either type maha into the window, or to type/paste in mahā and hit enter, which will take them to maha. I'm not sure why we wouldn't "do" this unusually well attested romanization. If someone sees this word in English text, they should be able to find it defined here. bd2412 T 02:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
(E/C)I was just giving you a technical advice how to reach the entry currently, since searching in Wiktionary and search results keep changing. There's no policy on romanised Sanskrit, AFAIK, even if romanisations are attested, they are not in the native script. E.g. ghar is an attestable transliteration of Hindi घर but we only have घर (there's Irish but no Hindi), yeoksa is an attestable transliteration of Korean 역사 but we only have 역사. I'm just stating the fact, so if mahā is created, any admin may delete it on sight. The policies can be created and changed, though. There are romanisations for some languages with complex scripts. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
We could add matching transliterations to the {{also}} templates. As for whether this entry should be restored, WT:About Sanskrit#Transliterated entries bans transliteration entries, so I oppose unless the Sanskrit editing community decides to change that. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The use of {{also}}, as now at maha, seems like a decent idea that respects our prejudices and yet offers the more persistent users at least a way of finding native script entries that provide a useful definition for the transliteration they may have come across, the Wiktionary definition for which they may not find by direct search. DCDuring TALK 03:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I personally have no objections to redirects. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
A redirect from mahā to महा would be fine with me, so long as there are no other meanings of mahā. bd2412 T 12:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I think we should reconsider permitting Latin-alphabet entries for Sanskrit, even if all they say is "Romanization of महा". We already allow Latin-alphabet entries for Pali, Gothic, and some other ancient languages that are usually encountered in Romanization in modern editions. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it used as a word in any language? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
According to Google Books, it appears in about 150,000 books. bd2412 T 22:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
If it's used as an English word or any other language, it may get an English or other entry. For romanised Sanskrit, I'm afraid it's a policy question, you'll have to start a separate discussion or a vote. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Alternative form of maha (four) in Tahitian. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see a discussion or policy that says that romanizations of Sanskrit are disallowed. Until then, I consider the above statement "We don't do Sanskrit romanised forms" unsubstantiated. In fact, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-08/Romanization of languages in ancient scripts resulted in 7:4 for the proposal that "If an ancient, no longer living language was written in a script that is now no longer used or widely understood, and it was not represented in another script that still is used or widely understood, then romanizations of its words will be allowed entries." (I wrote 7:4 rather than 8:4, since Ruakh only supported for Gothic.). A subsequent vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-09/Romanization of languages in ancient scripts 2 unanimously expressly allowed romanizations for Etruscan, Gothic, Lydian, Oscan, and Phoenician.
I found Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2013/August#Sanskrit_in_Latin_script?. There, couple of people support allowing Sanskrit romanizations, including Ivan Štambuk (apparently), Angr, Dan Polansky (me), and Eiríkr Útlendi, where Ivan reported User:Dbachmann to support including Sanskrit romanizations as well; opposition seems to include Liliana; Chuck Entz is unclear. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know much about Sanskrit, but I do know that there are tens of thousands of books that use the mahā (in that script) to signify a specific word with a specific meaning. I'm not about to suggest that we incorporate the whole transliterated Sanskrit corpus, but it seems absurd to refuse to have a definition for a word used as widely as this one. bd2412 T 15:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we should continue to have a consistent (uniform) policy towards romanized Sanskrit. At the moment, that policy is to exclude it. I wouldn't mind reversing that policy and allowing romanized Sanskrit to be entered similarly to romanized Gothic or pinyin Chinese, and the preceding comments suggest that enough other people feel the same way that we should probably have a vote.
Allowing some romanized of Sanskrit words and not others according to some arbitrary threshold such as "n Wiktionary users think this word is important" or "[we think] this word is used in x books (where x is some very high number, like 10 000)" does not strike me as a workable state of affairs. Google Books' raw book counts are unreliable, as are its attempts to restrict searching to particular languages, so although we might decide to include only romanizations used in e.g. more than 10 000 books, we have no easy way of ascertaining whether or not a romanization actually meets that threshold.
Even if we continue to exclude romanized Sanskrit, it might be possible to cite mahā as a loanword in some language, if it is really as common as has been suggested. - -sche (discuss) 17:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
What evidence supports the hypothesis that the current policy is to exclude romanized Sanskrit? Or, put differently, what makes you think and say that the policy is to exclude it? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
See WT:ASA. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Wiktionary:About Sanskrit is not a policy; it is a policy draft. Furthermore, this is not evidence; a discussion or a vote is evidence of policy. The draft says "Entries written in IAST transliterations shall not appear in the main namespace." which was added in diff. The first edit I can find to that effect is diff, before which the page said "If entries are made under the IAST orthographic transliteration, they should use the standard template {{temp|romanization of}} to reference the Devanagari entry." Since none of the diffs refer to a discussion or a vote, they are illegitimate as means of policy making. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft or not, excluding transliterated Sanskrit is the common practice. Start a discussion if you want to change that, or continue refusing to believe it, I don’t care. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I asked "What evidence ...". If you had no answer to that question, you did not need to answer; the question was directed to -sche anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
If you really want evidence, look for RFD archives of romanised Sanskrit entries. I’m familiar with your strategy of asking people to waste their time looking for this or that and then finding some excuse for why what they found is not valid or outright ignoring it. I’m going to act like CodeCat and not waste my time; as I said, you can continue refusing to believe it. — Ungoliant (falai) 10:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Putting aside the outcomes of previous discussions, what is the reason for not having entries for such things? We are talking about a well-attested word that readers may well look to us to define. bd2412 T 16:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the logic is that, insofar as we hold that Sanskrit is not written in the Latin script, mahā is not a Sanskrit word. Compare: insofar as Russian is not written in the Latin script, soyuz is not a Russian word. And mahā (great) and soyuz (union) have not been shown to be English words, or German/Chinese/etc words. If mahā is not a word in any language, it is both outside our stated scope ("all words in all languages") and not technically includable anyway : what L2 would it use?
In contrast, महा (mahā) is a Sanskrit word, and is included, and союз#Russian is included.
That said, we have made exceptions for some languages, e.g. Japanese and Gothic, and we have said in effect "even though this language is not natively written in the Latin script, we will allow soft-redirects from the Latin script to the native script for all the words in this language which we include." (Note this is very different from your statement of "I'm not about to suggest that we incorporate the whole transliterated Sanskrit corpus, but [... only] a word used as widely as this one.") I think one could make a strong case that we should make a Gothic-style exception for Sanskrit, since Sanskrit, like Gothic (and unlike Russian), is very often discussed/mentioned (whether or not it is used) in the Latin script. - -sche (discuss) 20:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Even if we admit that "mahā is not a Sanskrit word" (and that is rather questionable since it seems to confuse words with their writen forms), it still does not follow that we have a policy that forbids having Sanskrit romanization soft-redirect entries in the mainspace, on the model of Japanese, Chinese and other romanizations (Category:Japanese romaji, Category:Mandarin pinyin). We have had Japanese romanizations for a long time (dentaku was created on 17 August 2005‎), full will definitions or translations, since no rogue oligarch bothered or dared to eradicate them (we still have them, albeit in reduced form). Whether we have a policy could be quite important in a possible upcoming vote about Sanskrit romanization, since it is not really clear what the status quo is. Therefore, it is rather important to avoid misrepresentations (unintentional or otherwise) about there being or not being a policy. As for the amount of Sanskrit romanization in the mainspace, there may well be none, which would be a fairly good sign for there being a common practice of avoiding Sanskrit romanizations, but one has to consider that this could be a result of rogue olicharch actions. Generally speaking, I find it hard to find a reason for having Japanese and Chinese romanizations while avoiding Sanskrit romanizations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: Re: "I’m familiar with your strategy of asking people to waste their time looking for this or that ...": Not really. You would be familiar with my strategy of asking people to source their claims, supply evidence, clarify the manner in which they use ambiguous terms or explain themselves. Since you already know this strategy (as you say), since you don't like it, and since the question was not directed at you, you should have spared yourself the trouble and avoid answering the question (about evidence for there being policy as opposed to common practice or a draft page that anyone can edit regardless of consensus) that you did not intend to really answer anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I did intend to answer. Not for your benefit, but for that of others who may otherwise be fooled by you into thinking that adding romanised Sanskrit is totally OK. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I still see no rationale for excluding a widely used romanization that readers are likely to come across and want defined. Some justification beyond the naked assertion of policy or the momentum of past exclusions. bd2412 T 14:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
AFAICS, adding romanised Sanskrit is totally OK; there is no discussion or vote the outcome of which is that Sanskrit romanizations shall be excluded from the mainspace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
@BD, re "I still see no rationale": I just explained one rationale (mahā is not a word in any language).
The previous BP discussion linked-to above, and comments in this discussion by people who didn't participate in the previous discussion, suggest that a proposal to allow romanizations of all Sanskrit words would pass. I myself could support such a proposal. I suggest, for the third time, that someone make that proposal.
I do not see any indication that the proposal to allow "widely used romanization[s]" only has gained traction with anyone beyond you and possibly Dan. As you note, quite a lot of momentum is against you: AFAIK, there has never been a language for which we allowed romanizations for only some words according to some threshold of exceptional commonness. AFAIK, there has never even been an alphabetic or abugidic language for which we allowed romanizations for only some words according to the threshold of any citations at all. (If you discovered that one of our Gothic romanizations had 0 attestations at Google Books, Groups, etc, we'd still keep it as long as it was derived from an attested native-script form according to the rules of Wiktionary:Gothic transliteration.)
You could keep trying to overturn this momentum, but — especially given that the only people who still seem to be participating in this discussion are you, me, Ungoliant, and Dan, and we don't seem to be changing each others' minds — I think it would be more productive to grasp the support for allowing all romanized Sanskrit, and run with it. - -sche (discuss) 17:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
We generally decide whether any unbroken string of letters is "a word" by looking to see if it is used in print to convey a consistent meaning. We do this because the existence of the word in print is what makes it likely that a reader will come across it and want to know how it is defined, or possibly how it is pronounced, derived, or translated into other languages. There are now a half dozen citations of mahā at Citations:mahā, including several where the word is used in English running text without italicization. In some previous discussions we have used the compromise position of declaring the word to be English, but derived from the language of its original script. I think this is absurd. Is tovarich English, really? bd2412 T 18:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I have posted this at the Beer Parlour. bd2412 T 19:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes tovarich is indeed English if it's used in running English text as an English word (for which a citation is provided). Same with mahā - the word originates from Sanskrit but it's not a Sanskrit word in the context of provided citations - it's an English word now because it's used in English. --09:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The above unsigned comment seeks to make the case:

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

That alone is a wholly inadequate reason. I say how natsukashii a certain time of year makes me; that doesn't make natsukashii suddenly English. The whole context must be taken into account: to whom am I speaking? Do I assume that my intended audience is familiar enough with Japanese to understand this term? Or am I being deliberately obtuse in using a word that my audience probably won't know? Or perhaps I introduced this term earlier, and explicitly explained it then. All of this must be taken into account before deciding how "English" any given term is.
Past there, I just had a look at Citations:mahā page. There are currently six citations listed. The first one mentions mahā where it's used as part of a title (the w:Mahabharata), rendering that invalid. The second, third, fifth, and sixth all feel the need to add a gloss for the term in parentheses, clearly indicating that this is not an English word. The fourth citation is the only one that might pass muster, but it's from a quite esoteric text about Tibetan Buddhism. The deeply specialized nature of this text assumes that the reader is intimately familiar with many things related to Tibetan Buddhism and related terminology, and as such, I would characterize this as a case of using Sanskrit terms in an English context where the audience is expected to know the term, and not a use of the term as English.
Delete as an English entry. Per Dan below, possibly keep as an IAST transliteration of Sanskrit महा (mahā), similar to our various other transliteration entries for non-Latin-alphabet languages, like Japanese or Gothic. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep mahā as an IAST transliteration of the Sanskrit महा. (To make my stance clear to a prospective closing admin; my reasoning is above.] --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

tvær vikur[edit]

Nominating jointly with...

fjórtán dagar[edit]

These are "two weeks" and "fourteen days" respectively. SOP per #vierzehn Tage above. I've held off on nominating hálfur mánuður ("half month") since it's not clear whether it literally means "half a month", or if it always idiomatically means a fortnight regardless of the length of the month. Any Icelandic speakers able to clarify? Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to make it more fun, bear in mind that there are non-Western calendars (e.g. Hebrew and Hijri) which also have "months", and their lengths are more variable. Equinox 17:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure there's an Icelandic word for fortnight, and I don't think there is in Norwegian (fjorten dager, to uker in Bokmål), Danish (fjorten dage, to uger) and Swedish (fjorton dagar, två veckor) either. For that reason it may be a good idea to keep these Icelandic phrases. Donnanz (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete both. The absence of an Icelandic word for fortnight is no reason to violate our own CFI. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Unidiomatic sums of parts by their etymology sections’ own admittance. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, as probably the best Icelandic translations of fortnight. Both entries were created in 2007 by User:BiT, who is a native Icelandic speaker. I often wonder how these sorts of nominations are supposed to improve the dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have just come across a Nynorsk word "fjortendagar", which is rather interesting. “fjortendagar” in The Nynorsk Dictionary. Donnanz (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete both. Just because English has the word fortnight doesn't mean that all languages that don't have such a word need to have entries for "two weeks" or "fourteen days". --WikiTiki89 10:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It does seem that fjortendagar is attestable, which would invoke WT:COALMINE if they were in the same language. However, I do not read either Nynorsk or Icelandic, so I don't know offhand what language these cites are in.[4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. bd2412 T 13:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep "Fortnight" is the modern form of Old English fēowertȳne niht. Furthermore, this term is the best translation for "fortnight" out there for Icelandic. Tharthan (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

canine distemper virus[edit]

the viral agent that causes canine distemper. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That is not the complete meaning of the term, it is its etymology. As with many vernacular names for organisms, it corresponds to a particular proper noun in taxonomy. It has a generally accepted abbreviation that is in fairly common, though specialized use. It is probably lexical only in the context of veterinary pathology, but we have many, many thousands of entries that have an SoP meaning that is close to and the source of a meaning that is not SoP in a specialized, often technical context. DCDuring TALK 11:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, this virus name is retained, at least tentatively, when it is found in other mammals (lions, ferrets, raccoons, stoats, etc), though the illness is not called canine distemper. DCDuring TALK 11:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the entry should be moved to Canine distemper virus#Translingual, following the International Committee on Taxonomy of Virusess orthography. DCDuring TALK 18:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm very sceptical that the term is translingual. google books:"canine distemper virus" cette, for example, turns up exactly one hit of the term used in French. That search does turn up enough hits of the term used in English to refer to the virus in hamsters and other animals to suggest that you're right that the virus is still called "canine distemper virus" even when it's found in non-canids, but I'm not sure that lends it any idiomaticity, since it's still "the virus that causes canine distemper". (Compare: many "red cars" have silver hubcaps, black or beige or grey seats, etc; their failure to be entirely red does not make "red car" idiomatic.) The point that this is the specific common name for a particular taxonomically identifiable virus is more suggestive of idiomaticity, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 19:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This or the capitalized, ICTV form is a no-brainer as to idiomaticity. It is part of a nomenclature system. Virus naming often adopts English customary names as the formal names of species. As to use in French see this Google Scholar search and German see this one. The yield of valid cites is not too high, so patience or an RfV is required to get definite results. DCDuring TALK 20:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
See also [[talk:tobacco mosaic virus]].​—msh210 (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

metaphorical extension[edit]

Listed on RFC. But not convinced it's really a set term. Ƿidsiþ 14:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Seems like an encyclopedic and otherwise transparent combination. bd2412 T 20:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete. I think that we can all figure out what this is. --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think the current definitions are obvious from metaphorical and extension. But the definitions may be incorrect. It is hard to figure out what to do with this entry without first collecting attesting quotations, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

arfer dda[edit]

Completely SOP; simply arfer (practice, procedure) + dda (good). BigDom 08:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted, without objection. bd2412 T 01:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]


See also discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Font support for Latin Extended-D.

As far as I know we exclude such spellings on the same grounds we exclude long-s spellings for German, fi-ligature spellings for English and the like. -- Liliana 21:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 22:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Even if we allowed use of the contested character, it's an abbreviation, not an alternative spelling, and the cited use has no space in it. Considering the prevalence of conventions such as having part of a word in smaller characters above the line and underlined, though, I think it would be a bad idea to even try representing scribal shorthand. This particular variation has a Unicode look-alike, but most won't. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Pace the nominator, Liliana, the exclusionary principle that applies to ſ, , etc. is inapplicable to ; ſ and can in every case be correctly converted to s and fi, respectively, without error. cannot be converted in the same way because sometimes it acts as a sigil for per, otherwise it may represent par, and at other times it stands for por. Therefore, the autoredirection that can be implemented for ſ, , and the like cannot be implemented for .
@Chuck Entz: This isn't just "a Unicode look-alike", it's one of Unicode's "Medievalist additions"; i.e., this is exactly the sort of thing for which was intended. The Medieval Unicode Font Initiative works to sort out which characters mean what, and where their proposals are accepted by the Unicode Consortium, I believe we should use these characters where appropriate. I'm not suggesting that we try to copy every nuance of scribal shorthand, but where certain conventions are sufficiently clear and widespread that they have been granted codepoints, I think it's safe for us to represent that aspect of scribal abbreviation.
Keep as creator. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep ꝑ I.S.M.E.T.A. (How clever of me.) --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are forty-five more uses of ſuꝑficialis and Suꝑficialis, in texts dated between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53] (and here's a use of suꝑficialis from 1902). Those are only the ones that have survived the OCR autodigitisation process, from the books available to Google, of one form (representing four of twenty-four inflections), of one word, in one language. I hope this shows that this kind of entry is not a marginal one of trifling unimportance. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


Delete. More bupkis from a self-confessed WF sock, -- · (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you try Google books ("batcape")? This word does exist, it's used in a number of books, in English, in French, etc. Most uses are capitalized, but not all of them. Lmaltier (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Remarks: this word seems to be capitalised (Batcape); the definition is dubious (in reality, it seems to refer to the specific cape that is part of a Batman costume, not just any cape); and I've added two possible citations, though they aren't terribly satisfactory. Equinox 21:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this needs citations which are "independent of reference to that universe" per WT:FICTION Siuenti (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Would we need to remove the 1st sense in vampire unless we find uses of this sense without reference to the vampire universe? Or fully remove the page cyclops if there was no 2nd sense? This rule seems absurd, and inconsistent with the basic rule all words in all languages. It's normal to exclude words created by an obscure novelist in one of its novels and not used alsewhere, because they cannot be considered as words of the language, but this is not the case here. Anyway, it's not a fictional word, as batcapes are actually existing objects, even if the words refers to fiction. Lmaltier (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
A "fictional universe" refers to a specific fictional universe, usually created and owned by one author or organization. If there were three entirely separate and independent fictional universes that all used the word "batcape", I would consider it attested. --WikiTiki89 18:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

epula, epulam, epulorum[edit]

The word epulum is heterogeneous, having neuter singular forms and feminine plural forms with epulae also acting as a plural noun. The feminine singular and neuter plural nouns epula are backformations User:JohnC5 4:19 AM August 8, 2014.

If they're back-formations, then they exist! Is that actually an RFV issue? Read the introduction of WT:RFV. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Kept: No deletion rationale and no delete votes in over 3 months. These entries may still be RfVed. Purplebackpack89 20:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The Snow Queen[edit]

Fairy tale and its character. Essentially a book title, thus not dictionary content despite the translation table. Equinox 06:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Move to Snow Queen and keep as the character. Translations need to be reviewed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete. If kept why not move to RFV? Also the title of the book is... The Snow Queen so the move would have to be a split not a move. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting point. I amend my vote to move to Snow Queen and keep sense 2 (the character) only. bd2412 T 15:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Moved and kept. bd2412 T 16:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

go to work[edit]

Rfd-sense: the first two senses "To begin performing some task or work." and "To go to one's job, as by commuting." should be replaced by {{&lit|go|to|work}}. -- Liliana 00:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The first sense would not be idiomatic, even with our definitions of work. We have the right sense of the components for "to go to one's job".
There is a use of the expression for which we lack the right sense of work#Noun. MWOnline has what seems like the right definition: "sustained physical or mental effort to overcome obstacles and achieve an objective or result". They place it as a subsense under the sense "activity in which one exerts strength or faculties to do or perform something:". MW puts their definition for our "employment" sense as a subsense to the same sense, whereas we make "employment" to be a main sense.
go/get to work often use the MW sense. Definitions that to not include elements corresponding to "sustained effort", "overcoming obstacles", and "achieving results or objectives" fail to capture this.
At least we have the right sense of go: "start". DCDuring TALK 01:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
In my parochial experience, "(let's) get to work" is commoner. I would imagine work covers it. Equinox 01:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep as a translation target (even just one, literal sense). At least three four languages have a word for it (zh, ja, ko, vi). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as translation target.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: The fact that there are multiple literal definitions suggests that it is ambiguous what "go to work" means. Therefore, we need to keep these. Purplebackpack89 17:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 02:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


Sum of its parts, non-idiomatic: 送料共 (sōryō-tomo, "shipping fee included") = 送料 (sōryō, shipping fee) + (tomo, altogether, included). It is simply a productive combination of nouns and the suffix -tomo, as seen in usages like 手数料共 (tesūryō-tomo, "transaction fee included") = 手数料 (tesūryō, transaction fee) + (-tomo), 消費税共 (syōhizei-tomo, "consumption tax included") = 消費税 (syōhizei, consumption tax) + (-tomo), 電池共 (denchi-tomo, "battery included") = 電池 (denchi, battery) + (-tomo), etc. unsigned comment by Whym 09:11, 13 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Tentatively delete, although it's included in EDICT. I have added one usage example at . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 21:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

rediculous (usage note)[edit]

The following usage note is herewith proposed for deletion: "This spelling may sometimes be used intentionally for effect."

Rationale: weak or non-existence evidence supporting the usage note.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be an WT:RFV thing? --WikiTiki89 20:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know. Even if quotations are provided, their assessment as to their support for the usage note may turn very controversial. I propose to leave it here in RFD, and let those who want to keep this collect as much supporting evidence as they can. In the end, the closure will be a RFD-one, based on vote counting. (Yes, in the ideal world, it would be based on the strength of arguments, but no one has yet come up with an algorithm assessing strength of arguments.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
One citation that I provided makes exactly this distinction: May 28, 2013, The Official Justin Timberlake Thread, page 13: "I love Britney but, That's rediculous, not ridiculous but, rediculous!" Here the writer is basically indicating that they know the word is spelled "ridiculous" but that the situation is so extreme as to be "rediculous". I would also point again to 1986, Winston Groom, Forrest Gump, Ch. 7: "Him bein a tank officer an all, he say it rediculous for us to be wagin a war in a place where we can't hardly use our tanks on account of the land is mostly swamp or mountains". Here the misspelling is obviously being used as eye dialect representing the character's accent. 2013, Tracey Hollings, The Curious Musings of Sally Columbous, page 108, has a chapter heading titled "Rediculous". While we are on the subject, by the way, the number of hits for 18th and 19th century uses suggests that at one point this was a legitimate alternate spelling. bd2412 T 20:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Eye dialect is yet another separate sense line, presumably, since it's neither (accidental) misspelling nor eccentric personal choice à la CodeCat. Equinox 20:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Four senses, then? Common misspelling, intentional misspelling, eye dialect, archaic alternative use? bd2412 T 20:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I thinking we're overdoing it. I think "misspelling" covers all those cases. But I'm going to vote keep on the usage note based on BD's evidence. --WikiTiki89 20:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The way I've handled other things that were acceptable in the past but are now restricted in some way is along the lines of this: {{lb|en|now|nonstandard|or|eye dialect}} {{alternative spelling of|ridiculous}}. I recognize that "nonstandard or eye dialect" is a bit clunky, so perhaps "eye dialect of" could be a separate sense, but saying "now nonstandard: alternative spelling of" rather than having separate "archaic spelling of" and "misspelling of" senses seems useful. - -sche (discuss) 21:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
On further investigation, this Ngram suggests that it has been hovering around 500-1000 times less common than ridiculous (except for a bizarre spike around 1817-1818) for the last 200 years. It does, however, go back a ways before that. Here is a slightly earlier quote: 1598, William Shakespeare, Loves Labors Lost: the first quarto, page 57: "Their shallow showes, and Prologue vildly pende, And their rough carriage so rediculous, Should be presented at our Tent to vs". bd2412 T 22:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
With Shakespeare, one can always blame the typesetters. DCDuring TALK 23:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Not really a matter of blame – spelling was rather fluid then. I would just say ‘obsolete or non-standard spelling of’. Ƿidsiþ 11:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think one citation from Shakespeare is enough to call it obsolete. --WikiTiki89 11:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Here are some more citations contemporaneous to Shakespeare:
    • 1592, Thomas Nash, Pierce Penilesse, His Supplication to the Divell, page 28:
      Dalliance in the sagest and highest causes is an absurdity, and like a rediculous Vice in a tragedy, or a poisonous serpent in Paradise.
    • 1594, Robert Parsons, A Conference about the Next Succession of the Crown of Ingland, page 14:
      ...but if it be ment as though any Prince had his particuler gouermenr or interest to succeed by institutió of nature, it is rediculous, for that nature giueth it not as hath bin declared, but the particular constitution of euery comon wealth with-in it selfe...
    • 1603, George Gifford, ‎Thomas Wright, A Dialogue Concerning Witches & Witchcrafts, page 60:
      God hath given naturall helps, and those we may use, as from his hande against naturall diseases, but things besides nature he hath not appointed, especiallie they bee rediculous to drive away devilles and diseases.
    • 1609, Jean François Le Petit, A Generall Historie of the Netherlands, page 1288:
      It were a rediculous spectacle, that after they had stript our wives and children of all their clothes, and made them forfeit to your highnesse, they should afterward condemne them to depart out of your territories Within three dayes.
    • 1610, St. Augustine, Citie of God, page 327:
      O lamentable necessity! nay rediculous detestable vanitie, to keepe vanity from diuinitie.
Cheers! bd2412 T 13:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow, excellent! --WikiTiki89 14:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Was it the same typesetting shop? ;-) DCDuring TALK 15:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
But seriously, folks, EME is almost as bad as Middle English in terms of lack of standardized spelling. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
That would certainly explain this. bd2412 T 16:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I would have hypothesized proliferation from the very beginning. Maybe editing/proofreading was better initially, but rapid growth (and lower prices?) reduced such effort. I wonder if anyone has studied this? DCDuring TALK 16:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Excellent citations from bd showing old usage. And I like the context + alt form solution which has been implemented. I question only whether it should say "archaic" rather than "obsolete". According to our glossary, obsolete is for things "no longer in use, no longer likely to be understood" while archaic is for things "no longer in general use, but ... generally understood by educated people, but rarely used in current texts or speech"; the latter seems to apply here.
PS, I find a few citations of "radiculous" as an archaic or obsolete spelling of "rediculous", plus a few citations of it as something related to "radicular" (but one book says "radicular pain" emanates from radicles, while "radiculous pain is pain without anatomic basis"). - -sche (discuss) 16:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • For the record, keep the usage note. bd2412 T 18:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


Apparently Spanish, which doesn't use ï. Also biez as alt form. --Type56op9 (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a matter for rfv. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
All the first pages on Google show either Wiktionary or websites that, I assume, use the WT data. This page is speedy-able, IMO. --Type56op9 (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]


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

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

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

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

of biblical proportions[edit]

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

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

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

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

sic semper tyrannis[edit]

Sum of parts. The fact that it's the motto of the State of Virginia isn't a definition, or relevant. Mottoes with no linguistic merit should not be kept. A motto just means someone's adopted it; it does not become more linguistically interesting because of it. Let Wikipedia handle it. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete as a sum of parts if it remains Latin. The “motto of the State of Virginia” line should go even if the entry is converted to an English proverb. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep idioms like fried egg are a sum of their parts and allowed. There is a long list of English phrases and Latin phrases that are allowed. This is as famous an idiom or phrase as many included in these categories. I believe this is Latin and not English. A search comes with the following numbers: Google web About 459,000 results (0.34 seconds), Google scholar About 1,150 results (0.05 sec) and Google books About 16,500 results (0.31 seconds) plenty of usage to justify an entry. WritersCramp (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
There's also a long list of phrases that have been deleted. The reason fried egg has been kept is for not being the sum of its parts: if you coat a hard-boiled egg in batter and deep-fry it, it's not the same as a fried egg. There are plenty of famous phrases we wouldn't want to include: "To be or not to be, that is the question", "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times", "Four score and seven years ago", "Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn", etc. They have all kinds of interesting history and cultural associations- but that's for an encyclopedia to deal with, not an dictionary. Also, the phrase is probably both Latin and English, but as Latin it's no more entry-worthy than then the translation "thus always to tyrants". As English, it might be worth keeping, as I've said below. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep the general sense but delete the Virginia state motto sense. This is a set phrase likely to turn up outside of a clear context in writing. bd2412 T 21:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This has a long history going back to Ancient Rome, and it was spoken by w:John Wilkes Booth when he assassinated w:Abraham Lincoln, but that's irrelevant for our purposes. I think one could make the case that people who use it in English don't always know what the individual words mean, and there's also some usage of "sic semper" as an abbreviation or nickname for the phrase- both pointing to the likelihood of its having become an idiomatic part of English. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why usage is irrelevant. Keep all senses. It seems kinda ridiculous to keep the derived (English) form, but not the original (Latin) form. Heck, being a word or phrase from which words are derived should be a CFI. Purplebackpack89 04:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Note, however, that "motto of the state of Virginia" is not a correct definition of the phrase; it is merely an example of a use of the phrase. bd2412 T 13:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, surely you're not advocating keeping wrong information. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep sense 1, Delete sense 2 It's a proverb, and one that's not sum of parts. Literally, it simply means "tyrants will always be treated this way" with no indication of what "this way" is (harshly? lavishly? apathetically?). In actual use, it only ever means "tyrants shall be overthrown/killed". Finally, there is some use of it in running English without gloss, and without reference to either Virginia or Lincoln's assassination (with italics, but that's pretty standard for Latin, even for phrases like in vitro and a priori that are quite widely understood):
    "Those who live by electronics, die by electronics. Sic semper tyrannis" (Player Piano, Kurt Vonnegut, page 60)
    There is now a perverse pleasure in circles in Asia and Africa that Howard was scotched — sic semper tyrannis, and all that.
    "Sic semper tyrannis," he said. "They get away with anything."
Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Was this attestably used as a proverb in Latin? If so, that would make it includable without regard to its beng SoP.
    Whether or not it was so used in Latin, the expression seems to be used as a proverb in English, probably attestably for our purposes. DCDuring TALK 16:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
WritersCramp, I'd like you to make a coherent argument. Yes we allow Latin phrases but not all Latin phrases possible. Like in Category:English phrases we have Bob's your uncle but not I have a big dog. If you think this is idiomatic, say why. You just say we keep idiomatic phrases, you don't claim that this is one. And number of hits is irrelevant, you can get thousands of hits for I have a big dog. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
You first Renard; IMHO your +tag is frivolous! WritersCramp (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
We don't really care about your opinion about tags. You ain't got the creds.
Can you find the evidence that this was a proverb in, say, classical Latin? DCDuring TALK 21:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I have been here two-years longer than you noobie -:)WritersCramp (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
But you haven't done anything except whine and bitch. DCDuring TALK 23:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Definite keep as English as it's attested, and definitely idiomatic (tyrannis isn't a word in English, so how can it be sum of parts?). As for the Latin, no idea. Attested would be a good start, as for idiomatic I have no idea. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
WritersCramp with all due respect, I think you're just not capable of making good arguments. If you were, you'd have done it already. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The good argument has already been made. You keep the English term because it has a meaning of its own, you keep the Latin term because the English term has been derived from it. While we're at it, we create fiat lux for similar reasons. Purplebackpack89 04:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
w:John Wilkes Booth shouted this phrase as he shot President Lincoln. It has also been used in books and movies, such as w:Into the Blue (2005 film). It’s an important phrase. —Stephen (Talk) 04:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Yup! In reality that is just scratching the surface, there are many many citations available to use, including Brutus words when stabbing Caesar. WritersCramp (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Prove it by actually citing some Latin works to support the Latin entry. DCDuring TALK 09:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
That's the thing, the Latin doesn't get a free pass just because the English is derived from it. It has to meet WT:CFI/ If this is so easy to cite, why doesn't someone just cite it? Renard Migrant (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
What kind of silly world do we live in that derivatives pass CFI but roots fail it? CFI should be written in such a way so that roots like this are auto-passes. Purplebackpack89 13:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Nothing silly about it: an SOP phrase isn't a root, it's just a phrase. A Latin entry wouldn't add any useful information- the etymology should simply link to the individual words, and provide a gloss, if necessary. That said, if anyone can show that the phrase is idiomatic in Latin, then we should have a Latin entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I'm not convinced that's a good idea. For example, would we want an English entry on same procedure as last year? SOP in English with no setness, but a common set phrase in German (eg 1, 2, 3). Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Like Chuck Entz says, why would we want to include anything that doesn't meet CFI and doesn't add anything useful. We can explain the meaning of the words in the etymology section. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Can we de-tag the English yet? Renard Migrant (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Who nominated the English for deletion? DCDuring TALK 16:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually that's a good point! Renard Migrant (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thus always what to tyrants? Thus always nice to tyrants? Thus always silent to tyrants? Thus always doom to tyrants? Thus always birthday cake to tyrants? --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

George Mason, who may have suggested the expression as the State of Virginia's motto in 1776, can have wished no less than loss of dominion on King George, perhaps also madness, and disappointment from and betrayal by his son. Premature death? Heavens no! DCDuring TALK 18:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it could also mean death, but why is that implication necessary for you? How is the implication of death certain? You have to say this in context to comprehend the meaning, otherwise, how is the meaning obvious? You’re weird. --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is Mason's verbal specification of the seal:
"Virtus, the genius of the commonwealth, dressed like an Amazon, resting on a spear with one hand, and holding a sword in the other, and treading on Tyranny, represented by a man prostrate [supine in the actual seal], a crown fallen from his head, a broken chain in his left hand, and a scourge in his right. In the exergon, the word Virginia over the head of Virtus; and underneath the words Sic Semper Tyrannis. On the reverse a group, Libertas, with her wand and pileus. On one side of her Ceres, with the cornucopia in one hand, and an ear of wheat in the other. On the other side Eternitas, with the globe and phoenix. In the exergon these words: Deus Nobis Haec Otia Fecit."
The imagery is of defeat and loss of power, not death. This was the American Revolution, not the French. DCDuring TALK 21:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I've sent the Latin section to WT:RFV#sic semper tyrannis. The English section was not there when this RFD started, and the nominator Renard Migrant does not seem to intend to have the English section deleted; hence, this RFD is to be understood to be about the Latin section, also per the tagging in the mainspace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep and move to rfv. It's an attestation issue. it must be attested with an idiomatic meaning otherwise it's liable to be rfd'd again. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The English section passed while the Latin section failed RFV (i.e. not attested; can be added back if attested). Therefore all sections have been dealt with. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Pokémon & related[edit]

As Pokémon and Baby Pokémon got removed, so should the Pokémon terms Basic Pokémon, Pikachu, Eevolution, Pokédollar, Pokémaniac, Pokéfan. It's simply ridiculous to delete the more common word "Pokémon" but not to delete those more uncommon words like "Basic Pokémon" and "Eevolution" and those compounds with the word "Pokémon" like "Basic Pokémon". - 12:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's quite a big mixture of terms. At the very least, Pokémaniac and Pokéfan should be kept, because they're not in-universe terms. Basic Pokémon is a clear delete. Pikachu... well, maybe it's used generically, like Godzilla? Should probably be RFV'd. Eevolution and Pokédollar are weird, because they're not actually terms from Pokémon, they're words invented by fans to describe parts of the game. Going by the letter of WT:FICTION, these pass - I don't know whether they're really in the spirit of the rule though. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Even though I was in the vanguard of deleting Pokémon universe stuff, I don't agree with you on all of these. The word "Pokéfan" does not describe something that only exists within the P~ universe (like the creature "Pikachu"); rather it describes a real-world fan, a thing in the world, and outside the game and series. Compare X-Phile (fan of The X-Files). I think we should keep such terms. Equinox 12:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
To be specific: I think (unless they are not CFI-attestable) we should keep Pokémaniac and Pokéfan, which are real-world entities; probably delete Pokédollar and Eevolution, which appear to be fan-created terms but are restricted to the single fictional universe; and delete Basic Pokémon and Pikachu, which are "official" in-universe terms. Equinox 13:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Anybody think Poké- is attestable enough for creation as a prefix, much like Mc- in regard to McDonalds? Purplebackpack89 13:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Smurrayinchester: "Pokédollar" is an official in-universe Pokémon term - at least in some non-English regions (and at least accourding to Pokémon wikis like bulbapedia and pokewiki).
  • In case of "Pokémaniac": Is it used outside the Pokémon universe and is it not just another spelling of the in-universe terms "PokéManiac" resp. "Poké Maniac"?
  • In case of "Poké-": When counting in-universe terms, then it should be. When not counting them, then maybe not. Also: Doesn't "Mc-" come from Scottish names and not from McDonalds (like that Highlander guy "Connor MacLeod" though it's "Mac-" there)?

- 14:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep Pokéfan and Pokémaniac. There's as much cause to delete these as there is to delete Trekkie. Also keep Eevolution and Pokédollar. WT:FICTION doesn't apply here, since both of these terms originate from the Pokémon fandom, not the official Pokémon franchise, and there's nothing in WT:FICTION that precludes the inclusion of fandom slang used within a specific fandom (so long as it's citable). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep. No valid deletion rationale given (nothing in WT:CFI about deleting 'simply ridiculous' entries). Feel free to RFV anything that might not pass. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep all, undecided about Basic Pokémon. Restore Pokémon. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep all. Restore Pokémon and Baby Pokémon. Tharthan (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong keep on all of these including Pikachu. The citation page proves that people use "Pikachu" without giving the context that it is a Pokémon. Khemehekis (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

mackinaw coat[edit]

RfV tag added in mid August, but apparently not entered here.

Generally similar to the now-deleted mackinaw jacket, now deleted.

But see mackinaw coat at OneLook Dictionary Search. Ergo: Keep. DCDuring TALK 20:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete. I think anything to be said about this is for Wikipedia; the denim jacket, straw hat, etc. also have cultural connotations, but in terms of definition they are just a Y made of X. Equinox 23:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
That's the etymology. The coat seems to be something more specific in length, belt, cut, pockets, etc, not necessarily though usually of the metonymous cloth, which are some of the reasons why professional lexicographers have an entry for it. This reminds of the discussion of oak and oak tree, the inclusion of the latter being a good precedent for this. I being small-minded, find consistency compelling. Of course, institutional bias favors things familiar to a large portion of contributors. which this North American artifact is not. DCDuring TALK 01:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
It still seems cultural rather than lexical. The straw hat is always flat-topped and not round like a bowler (I think?!), but if somebody did produce a round hat of straw it would presumably still be a straw hat. The fact that straw hats tend to be flat-topped, and/or worn by picnickers and old-fashioned schoolboys, is not lexical. Equinox 01:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. All of the OneLook dictionaries that have an entry for "mackinaw coat" define it as synonymous with "mackinaw", so all we really need is a sense "a coat made of this material" at mackinaw and we're good. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    We could provide users with that help, too. Or we could treat [[mackinaw]] as a disambiguation page. Or we could make the various collocations redirects to a better entry at [[mackinaw]] with fuller definitions, and possibly pictures for the coat/jacket. DCDuring TALK 11:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    We don't have disambig pages here, do we? I think if I were to encounter "mackinaw coat" in my reading and wondered what it meant, the first thing I would look up in my dictionary is mackinaw, not mackinaw coat. I know what a coat is. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    Au contraire mon ami, we have many. They are quite similar to WP dab pages, except they lack the formal designation. The ones I am most familiar with are for vernacular names of living things, eg, [[rockfish]], but there are many others. DCDuring TALK 15:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep both, especially since they predate the use of ‘Mackinaw’ alone (not true, see below). Ƿidsiþ 10:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
In fact what should really be up for RFD is the sense of ‘Mackinaw’ as ‘heavy woollen cloth’, since as far as I know it's only ever used in compounds like this. The meaning is not ‘a coat made of Mackinaw’, but rather ‘a coat associated with the Mackinaw lake’, hence also terms like Mackinaw boat (which naturally is not made of cloth). Ƿidsiþ 10:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You are almost certainly right for current English. The "heavy woolen cloth" definition is at least dated, but it has historical/literary interest. If "coat/jacket of mackinaw" appeared in a text, I suspect most users would not type in "mackinaw coat/jacket". DCDuring TALK 11:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
If it's true that "mackinaw coat" is older than "mackinaw" in the relevant sense, then it's keepable by WT:JIFFY. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
For the record, the definition of mackinaw jacket prior to deletion was:
# A short coat made of mackinaw cloth, a dense water-repellent wool. These jackets were popular with lumberjacks and outdoor enthusiasts throughout the colder regions of North America for much of the 18th and 19th centuries. They had at minimum two breast pockets, though four front pockets are common. Mackinaw jackets can be of any color, but the black and red plaid "lumberjack" pattern was most common. [They are warm and comfy, perfect to wear while enjoying a fresh cup of coffee on a November morning, while standing on the hand-built wooden deck outside your kitchen, overlooking the tree-lined slopes. I once knew a girl who wore a mackinaw jacket, her innocent eyes curling up into the sky like whisps of smoke.]
I may have added a few lines, but you get the picture. bd2412 T 14:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Seems like it could have used help from a contributor instead of the back of the hand. But it is not easy to write a good definition for any real object that varies around a typical configuration. The prototype for the problem is game. DCDuring TALK 15:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, correction – I made a mistake there. Per the OED, mackinaw in the sense of ‘cloth’ does, indeed, predate the sense of ‘coat’. Apologies. Nevertheless I still vote to keep the compounds. Ƿidsiþ 14:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, erring on the side of. Per DCDuring and Widsith. Collins has "mackinaw" defined as "Mackinaw coat"[54]. A key question is whether "mackinaw" is ever used alone to refer to the cloth (or to the coat?), or whether it almost always occurs in compounds; I don't know. Again, nothing very strightforward. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A comment for the keepers: if this were kept, something else should be offered as definition than the current mackinaw coat! Meanwhile, delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • The previous definition was "A mackinaw jacket". I changed it following the deletion of that entry, per the previous vote on this page. I have provided the previous definition of "mackinaw jacket" above. bd2412 T 17:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete per Widsith and others. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Widsith argued for keeping, so your comment makes no sense to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes it does, he says keep because the significance is cultural not lexical, and I say delete because the significance is cultural not lexical. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: the word "cultural" does not appear anywhere in Widsith responses. Which sentence of Widsith is to the effect that the significance of the compound mackinaw coat is cultural and not lexical? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Widsith says we should keep mackinaw coat because it predates mackinaw. Not a lexical argument (because nothing to do with the usage of the words mackinaw or coat). Then he claims this isn't true but says we should keep it anyway. So, he claims this is idiomatic, disproves his own argument, and then says keep. I could hardly come up with a better deletion rationale if I wanted to. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: So what you are saying is that he retracted the only rationale that he provided. And yet you said delete per Widsith. You can do better than that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


Definition given is "attributive form of whooping crane". msh210 made loads of similar "attributive form of XYZ" entries a few years ago. How do we feel about them? --Type56op9 (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Some were deleted. See e.g. Talk:alpine-chough. I doubt most are even attestable, but I suppose it's an RFV issue; though I'd also argue that replacing spaces with hyphens in this way is a standard thing we don't need to document, like we don't include initial-capital-letter forms for use at the beginning of a sentence. Equinox 11:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) While I personally don't have a massive objection to them, I do wonder if it's a bit misleading. In Google books, I can find only a few sources that hyphenate "whooping crane" in compounds (although just enough to push us over the 3 citation mark). Practically every source uses it open, even when it's clearly attributive (as in the martial art school "whooping crane style"). These hyphenated forms are at best pedantic, and at worst totally unused. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
What exactly would a martial art school teach? Creative camouflage? Decorative gunstock design? Would there be paint-by-numbers drill? DCDuring TALK 15:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If the hyphenated form is not present, our search engine takes a user to the page-not-found page and offers a list topped by the with-space form and any entries containing the with-space form in the headword, followed by the spelled-solid forms. If we cannot alter the behavior of the search engine to go directly to the list-topping forms, it might be nicer to have redirects between hyphenated and with-space forms, hard if possible, soft if necessary, instead of making users page past the New Entry Creator and click on what is most-likely sought. It is tedious to have to make alternate-form entries for one or the other for all the barely attestable vernacular names of living things, for example. DCDuring TALK 15:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The main problem (aside from validity I mean) is they're listed as adjectives but listed as alternative forms of nouns. Msh210 when I asked him about this said that while they are nouns, they may appear to be adjectives to readers. So even the person who created them as adjectives thinks that they're nouns. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "noun" is a better PoS, but separate hyphenated-form entries (or separate with-space entries if the hyphenated form in more common) seem to me to add next to nothing that is not accomplished by the alternative-form section.
The need for hyphens is not lexical; it is determined by context, orthographic fashion, taste, and habit. DCDuring TALK 17:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
As others have noted, the POS headers are wrong in apparently all of these entries. The strings that are attested should use Template:attributive of under a noun header. (If anyone thinks the strings are attested as adjectives, we can go to RFV to find out.) The strings that aren't attested, well, those should be sent to RFV and then, when they fail RFV, deleted. - -sche (discuss) 05:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It might be nice to convert such items to redirects to the unhyphenated forms. It would discourage the needless re-creation of hyphenated form entries. DCDuring TALK 00:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware my input isn't terribly useful but, we could go either way. Deletion seems fine as they're just typographical variants in the same way that House is a typographical variant of house used as the first word of a sentence. Or alternatively {{attributive form of}} looks fine also. I'd shade towards keeping and correcting over deletion, and of course unattestable ones should go, that goes without saying. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


Translingual. This should not be a lemma, which would be cordifolius.

As forms of cordifolius appear inflected in scientific Latin running text, it also doesn't seem best considered a Translingual term. DCDuring TALK 00:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: full names are translingual, genus names too. But cordifolia is only Latin. Lmaltier (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

play pocket pool[edit]

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

It's true that you have to understand it in the sense of the game, as well as in the figurative sense of masturbation, e.g. the word "game" in this example from Google Books: "Even the trace of moisture from his lips struck me as erotic, and I had to play a quick game of pocket pool to avoid public embarrassment." I'm not sure how we can document that comprehensively; it is probably best done with notes in the entry, rather than creating all such forms. Equinox 19:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW, is this only used for male masturbation? I'd assume so, because pocket pool suggests balls moving around! Equinox 20:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I know someone who called it pocket billiard juggling. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
TMI, Renard. Anywho, redirect to pocket pool. Purplebackpack89 15:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

sexual union[edit]

Seems to mean "sexual intercourse". Plentifully attested to mean something. Deleted multiple times before, probably as a sum of parts. Is surprisingly common: sexual union,sexual intercourse at Google Ngram Viewer. If this is declared sum of parts, I wonder what prevents "sexual intercourse" from being declared sum of parts. I see added value in having this entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems not to have failed RFD in the past (Special:WhatLinksHere/sexual union doesn't indicate any old deletion archives) so I would've just not nominated in the first place. Anyway, keep. I suppose it's not very idiomatic, but as long as it's a little idiomatic, a little is enough. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me to be a euphemism for the euphemism sexual intercourse. DCDuring TALK 12:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mentioned in the Kama Sutra (rather unsurprising). Donnanz (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    @Donnanz: Not sure why being mentioned in Kama Sutra matters. The nomination would be that "sexual union" is a semantic sum of parts, not that it does not exist, so claims of existence have no bearing on the nomination. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Kama Sutra or not, my vote stays the same. Donnanz (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Well it's in English translations of the Kama Sutra, not the original, which is not written in English. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Kept: It's been over a month and no one, not even the nominator, has voted delete. Purplebackpack89 18:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

intimate parts[edit]

I think this should be kept but I can imagine someone saying this is sum of parts. Here (What are the intimate parts?) is someone asking what intimate parts are. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This has ~25,000 hits on Google Books, making it a tenth as common as private parts (~221,000). But is it just any part that is intimate? One book says this, for example: "Intimate parts, as defined in Minnesota Statues Section 609.341, include the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks or breast, as well as the clothing covering these areas." Equinox 20:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
So this statutory definition seems broader than genitalia, since genitalia would not include inner thigh, buttocks and clothing covering these areas. Does it actually ever mean genitalia only? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
In my idiolect private parts would be more likely used of males and intimate parts of females, which difference would constitute one good reason to keep the entry, if supported by authority, overwhelming opinion, or citations. DCDuring TALK 12:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I imagine we are lacking a sense of intimate, "[o]f or involved in a sexual relationship" doesn't cover it, nor does "[p]ersonal; private". I'd imagine this should be kept no matter what definitions we add or modify. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
google books:"intimate interview", it seems to me we don't have a sense to cover that either. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Kept: It's been over a month, and no one, not even the nominator, has voted delete Purplebackpack89 18:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

have an affair[edit]

See affair. I get that Dan is probably realising that whether to use "have", "make" or "do" with a given noun isn't always obvious, but I don't think this is the solution. Better to have usage examples at affair. Equinox 18:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

At least one source tells me that "affair" in the pertinent sense is usually used in the phrase "have an affair". So the very existence of the sense in "affair" would be the result of this tendency to find the minimum phrase at all costs. As a user of the dictionary, I think I am better served by having both "have an affair" and "affair"; ditto probably for have sex. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I overstated my case. I admit that we need a noun entry for "affair" in the sense, as in "Their affair was discovered". --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: Both "have" and "affair" are ambiguous. Purplebackpack89 20:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
All English is ambiguous. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Then I guess we'll have to have more two- and three-word entries then, to resolve the ambiguity. Purplebackpack89 20:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete. A usage example and redirect should be sufficient. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete. It's no better than have an orange (for Purplebackpack89, both 'have' and 'orange' are ambiguous). Renard Migrant (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you honestly have nothing better than to make low-level digs at me? Not only is that a personal attack, it's also inaccurate: there are multiple definitions of "affair" that take indefinite articles: one means "party" and one means "repeated instances of sexual intercourse". There is one of orange: the fruit. How 'bout making an actual argument instead of unnecessarily tearing me down? Purplebackpack89 20:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
As usual you claim that a solid argument is a "personal attack". Renard is quite right: if you looked at orange you would see four noun senses. Equinox 20:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
There may be four definitions, but they're not all countable. The phrase "have an orange" pretty clearly refers to the fruit, because all the other things are either a) uncountable, b) can't be "had" per se, or c) aren't in common parlance. As such, "have an affair" is not analogous to "have an orange", and it was wrong for Renard Migrant to personalize it in the way he did. Purplebackpack89 20:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The fact you refer to this as a personal attack, that's definitely a personal attack on me. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Purplebackpack89 and Renard Migrant should ideally quit this fruitless conversation, but especially Purplebackpack89, since there really is no personal attack in "for Purplebackpack89, both 'have' and 'orange' are ambiguous". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky:, It's wrong for Renard Migrant to presume he knows what I believe. This is the latest in a series of low-level digs by Mglovesfun and he. Purplebackpack89 21:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you misinterpreted his comment: I read "for Purplebackpack89" as equivalent to "for the benefit of Purplebackpack89", that is, he was explaining it in terms tailored to your line of argument, so he mentioned you specifically. I don't think he was saying the equivalent of "Purplebackpack89 is so ignorant, he thinks that...". Chuck Entz (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: It's definitely not directly analogous to "have an orange". Tell me, why should we keep have sex? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Why do you automatically assume that Renard wants to keep "have sex"? The prior existence of an entry does not mean that everyone supports it, only that nobody has nominated it for deletion yet. Are you suggesting that you think we should have "be married", "get married", "have a wife", "have a spouse", etc.? They are all "attestable". Does any other dictionary have them? No, because most other dictionaries aren't staffed by loons. Equinox 00:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that anybody who wants to keep those things, or even keep have sex, is a loon? Sure looks that way. @Equinox:, you need to settle down and stop throwing the word "loon" around. Purplebackpack89 01:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Please stop whining. DCDuring TALK 12:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, everybody needs to stop, take a deep breath, and get back to discussing the matter at hand instead of personalities and conduct. At this point, who started it and who said what to whom is beside the point. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't need to assume anything; Renard can clarify himself whether he wants have sex deleted. My point is that likening "have an affair" to "have an orange" is silly, and that one actually needs to use one's powers of discernment beyond that kind of silliness. Reasoning about "have sex", whether leading to keeping or deleting "have sex", goes beyond the "have an orange" rubish. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. While PBP is right that "affair" has multiple countable senses, the phrase have an affair can refer to any of them, not just one of them. Anyone encountering the phrase "have an affair" and not understanding it will simply have to look up affair and then use context to determine which of the various meanings is intended. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Have has a lot of possible meanings, therefore wouldn't any phrase with 'have' in it be potentially ambiguous. Having dictionary entries for the unidiomatic misses the point on how people interpret language; they get the meaning of 'have' from the context where dictionary entries appear in isolation. A very good example would by face sex which I didn't know was Romanian until I clicked on it. But in a Romanian sentence... I know it's Romanian (or at least not English) so I don't need to know what it is. Also I tagged Purpleback in my comment because it was a reply to his. If any reply is a personal attack... then surely his reply to me is a personal attack. Why can't he judge himself by his own standard if he can judge me by them? If making a legitimate reply to a legitimate comment is to be barred... how can we even have an RFD debate? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Some nouns go with do: "do work", "do drugs", "do a good deed", "do laundry" etc. Some go with have: "have dinner", "have sex", "have fun", "have a fight", etc. It doesn't always make sense why we "have sex" instead of "doing sex" or why we "do drugs" instead of "having drugs", so these things have to be remembered for each noun. Of course some of them can be used with both with a slight change in meaning, e.g. "have dinner" (meaning "eat a dinner") vs. "do dinner" (meaning "organize a dinner"). Thus, "have an affair" is nothing special. It should simply be noted on each noun's entry which verb it is used with (i.e. in a usage example, as a usage note, or however else). --WikiTiki89 21:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Really? I've never used the phrase "do an affair" or "do affairs" before. Purplebackpack89 21:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Where in the comment you responded to did it say anything about the phrase "do an affair"? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Parallelism. The compares "have sex" to "do sex", "have drugs" to "do drugs", and "have dinner" to "do dinner". Why mention all those unless you're comparing "have an affair" to "do an affair?" Otherwise, "do sex", "do drugs", or "do dinner" aren't relevant to this discussion. Purplebackpack89 04:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
First of all, I said that "do sex" and "have drugs" are not used (at least commonly). Second of all, my point was that even though it is not always possible to guess which verb will be used with the noun, the phrases formed with the verb and the noun are still SOP. We would have to have an entry like this for pretty much every action-related noun in the English language. There is a comparable situation in French, where it is not always possible to guess whether avoir or être would be used to form the passé composé of a verb, but those forms of the verb are still SOP and we do not have separate entries for them. --WikiTiki89 21:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we shouldn't have entries for that, but we should explain both of those things in some way or another. I took French as a foreign language for four years in HS and two semesters in college. Every French dictionary or textbook I had a list in the back of the book of which verbs use être. Likewise, maybe we should have a list someplace of "phrases with do", "phrases with have", "phrases with go" and "phrases with be". Four pages that, if they existed, would add immense utility. Purplebackpack89 23:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
We actually have at least the beginnings of such a list in table form at Appendix:Collocations of do, have, make, and take. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
And see also w:Light verb. One possible presentation would be to have light verb constructions at the simple verbs they are equivalent to. I think that covers a large percentage of the cases. It would have the advantage of piggybacking on the already present translations at those entries. DCDuring TALK 00:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
For French, we already include the information in the conjugation tables (although a list might be useful as well). For the problem at hand, I have already said that I think we should include usage examples or usage notes showing which verb should be used with the noun. --WikiTiki89 20:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I might say keep as a translation target. I found half a dozen (non-SoP) idiomatic Chinese terms with this meaning and "to have an affair" seems to match better than "to cheat". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep at least as a translation target, per Anatoli. (I already made a post above, but without bold keep.)--Dan Polansky (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I have added a bunch of translations and fixed the headword, added translation target cat. More translations (fixes) are welcome. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to affair, preferably. Otherwise just keep I suppose. Ƿidsiþ 06:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


Not unicode. --Æ&Œ (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Move to . — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete The entry is absolutely useless. Firstly, the title is wrong (should be Unsupported titles/ct ligature) and its current state is totally redundant - any user who can find this has already figured out that c͡t = ct - and secondly, it's just a stylistic thing and conveys no extra meaning (unlike, say, ß or IJ). With no Unicode representation, I don't see any reason to have this entry. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Where the entry is now, I agree. However, if it is moved to U+EEC5, it will be useful, since the only confusion that is likely to arise from this is if someone comes across a MUFI-compliant text but lacks a font that supports this ligature at that codepoint. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
U+EEC5 is a Korean character piece for me; ct is U+E03D (). I don't see any reason for us to start encoding the mess of PUA standards.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete as just plain wrong. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete per Smurrayinchester and Prosfilaes. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 20:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

original character[edit]

Seems SoP. If you create a fanwork, you may have borrowed characters and original characters: characters that are original. Equinox 23:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Considering "OC" and the like are used for it, and the fact that the term itself is used as if it were a lone noun at times, I think it should be kept. However, I don't really care about the inclusion of this term here anyways, so I won't make any "official" vote. Tharthan (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Is "lone noun" a linguistic term? What is it? Why is "brown leaf" not a lone noun? Also, the existence of an abbreviation doesn't say much: we have e.g. FYI and AICMFP and LOL but probably would not want entries for their full expansions. Equinox 23:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
By a "lone noun", I refer to it being treated as if it really doesn't have an adjective before it, and furthermore carrying a definition that is separate from its parts. A "character that is original" means, simply, a "character that was created with originality". Meanwhile, an "original character" (as opposed to an "original" "character") is "a character that is used within something that references another product or the like, but that is not part of that product's canon". Additionally, people often refer to "popular OCs" and "a popular original character", once again treating "original character" as "original character" and not "a character that is original".This is a similar case. Tharthan (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you'll care for or be satisfied by these, but:

TVTropes has this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OriginalCharacter

This mock-blog: http://originalcharacterdisorder.tumblr.com/

A certain encyclopedia that I don't plan to link to because of its content (hint: it uses the letter ash as its symbol) discusses the topic in detail (albeit mockingly).

Other than that, it's pretty hard to find particular attestations of this that merit referencing (probably due to it being a term used only in aficionado subcultures). Tharthan (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep. "Original character" is a discrete concept within fandom. The term's use is restricted in a way that cannot be derived from its components. Almost every fictional character in existence is an original character, strictly speaking, in that he/she/it was at some point dreamed up by someone. But this term generally only applies to fan-created characters integrated into fanworks (especially fan fiction) based on pre-existing fictional universes. It's generally not used to describe a new character added to an official adaption of an existing creative property that isn't found in the source work/canon (e.g. Tauriel from the second Hobbit movie). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep (assuming CFI). It is definitely not SOP, since the fanfic context is not obvious. SOP usage would seemingly be for Olive Oyl and Fritzi Ritz, as opposed to late-comers Popeye and Nancy. Or in a TV context, Batman and Robin, but not season 3 Batgirl. And even within the context of fanfic, it is impossible to know a priori what exactly is meant by "original". Is an "original character" a character that was in the original work that the fanfic is based on? Or is it a new, original idea, someone dreamed-up by the fan? Or back to TV, same bat-channel, was Aunt Harriet an "original character"? SOP won't tell us. Choor monster (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Isn’t it from the Japanese オリジナルキャラクター, which always means a fan-created character in a fanwork? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
And where does the Japanese come from? Keφr 07:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep, the implied fanfic context sells it to me. Keφr 07:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 00:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]


I know I have already nominated "ವುತ್ತು" for deletion, but the discussion was moved to "Requests for Verification." You can see that discussion here. It was proven that "ವುತ್ತು" does not exist. The entry was created by a user who does not know Kannada, the language for which this entry was created, in the least (he likes to think he knows Kannada, but he doesn't). I am not sure why this still exists and why someone has not come along to delete it yet. This discussion under "Requests for Verification" abruptly ended without anything happening, and again, I have no idea why.

Someone on the "Requests for Verification" discussion stated that "Requests for Deletion" is the place to determine whether a word that does exist is worthy of inclusion, but I thought it was just when there was a policy violation (and isn't the requirement for attestation a policy?). So could someone clarify that in addition to getting rid of the entry "ವುತ್ತು" please?

Thanks a lot!

Princeps linguae (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The item is attested, as pointed out at WT:RFV#ವುತ್ತು (later Talk:ವುತ್ತು); in that RFV, Stephen says it is a typo of ಮತ್ತು. After the RFV, ವುತ್ತು was redirected to ಮತ್ತು, which is not our common practice for dealing with misspellings. The question is whether we want to indicate this as a misspelling using {{misspelling of}} or whether we want to delete this a rare misspelling. See also WT:CFI#Spellings, which says "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I've striken out the attestation claim; look at that RFV to see that three quotations attesting the term in use have not been provided yet. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
It's had a full month and it's uncited. Just delete it. Even if it were cited, how could it be a common misspelling with just three citations? Renard Migrant (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I don’t think typo is the right term for this. Probably scanno is more appropriate. It is not anything that a native Kannada speaker would type, accidentally or otherwise. It’s just that the letter ವು (vu) looks superficially almost identical to the letter (ma). A foreigner might make this mistake, or an optical character reader (OCR). —Stephen (Talk) 09:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
This is not a misspelling! When something is misspelled, it is misspelled because the correct spelling and the incorrect spelling could produce the same or similar pronunciation. "ವುತ್ತು" is pronounced "vuttu"; the correct "ಮತ್ತು" is pronounced "mattu." Just delete it! I thought the opinions of people who know the language took precedence when it comes to matters dealing with that language? Sorry for my irritation. :) Princeps linguae (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I have marked it as a scanno of ಮತ್ತು. It ought to be deleted, but because we have had it as an entry here for some time, other sites such as glosbe.com have interpreted its existence here on en.wiki as evidence of validity and have copied it, and as a result it gets 8000 google hits. —Stephen (Talk) 15:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
That's no reason for us to keep it, though. Our keeping it just contributes to the wikiality of this nonexistent word. If other sites copy us blindly without fact-checking us, that's their problem, not ours. I really really don't want to start adding all attested scannos of all words in all languages. It's bad enough we have "common misspellings" without adding "rarely attested scannos" as well. The nominator wants this deleted, Dan and Renard both want this deleted, and you yourself say "it ought to be deleted", so I'm deleting it now. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


Tagged in February but not listed. Rationale is intransitive verb, hence no passive. I suppose it's an rfv issue. Also I thought intransitive verbs do have passives, but deponent verbs do not. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

legal right[edit]

Discussion moved from WT:RFV#legal right.

SOP to me. JamesjiaoTC 03:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one of the common senses of legal, one of the common senses of right. These senses are used with other words, such as legal duty, legal obligation, human right, internationally recognised right (and so on). Renard Migrant (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there some kind of pronunciation rationale for keeping this? I'd like to hear it, if there is. DCDuring TALK 13:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there any kind of rationale for keeping this? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lawyer hat on. A legal right is nothing more than a right that is established by law, therefore, legal. Pronunciation is no different from any other collocation of "legal" (legal obligation, legal ownership, legal party), or any other collocation of "right" (moral right, divine right, economic right). bd2412 T 15:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete (especially since even BD thinks so!). Equinox 18:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
If there is a reason to keep this, it is not because of idiomatic use in law, it would be because of its possible idiomatic use in ordinary discourse, IMO, or, possibly, political or philosophical discourse, for which legal expertise would not be germane. That it is a common collocation, there can be no doubt. For example, dictionaries at OneLook have it, at least as a redirect. Wordnet and its followers have included it and defined it as we have: "A right based in law." DCDuring TALK 20:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I will admit that I sometimes hear of people insisting on having a "legal right" where one does not exist ("I have a legal right to [speak through a bullhorn next to your house at 3 AM / openly carry a handgun in WalMart / refuse to pay income tax]"). This doesn't change the definition of the term, or make it idiomatic, any more than a person claiming to be the rightful King of Spain makes them the rightful King of Spain, or makes rightful King of Spain dictionary-worthy. bd2412 T 14:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The definition of any term is just a summary of how people use the term.
The definition provided by that often-invoked lemming WordNet and followed by others is clearly SoP. Furthermore, many uses of legal right that reflect a meaning of not accommodated by our definitions of legal and right could be accommodated by more and/or better definitions of the component terms. I suppose that most of the meanings of legal can be used with right: "mandated by law"; "permitted by law"; "conforming to law"; "in law, not in fact"; "in law, not in equity"; "by law, not morality"; "in form or fiction recognized by law"; ?"of lawyers". None of these seems so common as to exclude the others.
I suppose that this just shows that WordNet is not a lemming to be followed, even when some others follow it. DCDuring TALK 16:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with BD2412. This is not separate usage, but semantically correct use of 'legal right' where the person using it is wrong on a factual not a linguistic level. It's like when I see a dog in the dark and it turns out to be a fox, do we therefore need a definition at dog that says "(mistakenly) Fox". Renard Migrant (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
As you must have missed, I said above that I don't think we need to keep this term.
But the fact/language distinction that you argue from does not hold up to careful examination. What constitutes a 'fact' changes over time. The dominant school of taxonomic thought now considers taxonomic names to be expressions of hypotheses about descent. Some older names are therefore thought to be erroneous. They are nonetheless in use, though usually by neighboring fields, such as agriculture and horticulture. In addition, there are periods when a significant portion of the relevant taxonomic community may hold to different descent hypotheses and therefore different sets of names. There are numerous similar examples in all of the sciences. A classical, non-taxonomic example are the names morning star, evening star, and Venus. DCDuring TALK 18:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. No further comment for over a month with respect to an entry for which everyone seems to agree that deletion is in order. bd2412 T 20:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


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

access specifier[edit]

Tagged but not listed (I'm going to be trying to list as many of these as I can today). Renard Migrant (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Worth a look for comparison purposes: Talk:access modifier. Equinox 18:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

model-driven architecture[edit]

Tagged but not listed. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

baruhu baruh shemó[edit]

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

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


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


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



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

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


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

Has this been deleted out of process? What did the entry say previously? Why don't deletions show up in an editor's contributions? Dbfirs 20:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Ivan Štambuk deleted it 19, October 2014. 10 days from nomination does seem to be pretty quick, especially 2 days after an opposing view was posted. I notice, though, that Renard had changed the tag from {{rfd}} to {{d}} the same day he added it, so Ivan may not have been aware of this discussion.
As to the merits, I don't share Dan's childlike faith in statistical tests, but I wouldn't call the 73 hits I got in Google Books "rare", given that scannos are unlikely to add a letter, and that books are usually edited and have fewer misspellings. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining what happened. I now see why I couldn't trace the history. There do seem to be quite a few instances of this mis-spelling in Google Books. I wonder why Ngrams doesn't find them. Dbfirs 22:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
1632:1, way too rare. Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Chuck & Dan don't think so. If the mis-spelling is this common in books, then it's probably much more common in unedited text. Dbfirs 08:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I know they don't think so; I read their comments. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as uncommon misspelling. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Donnanz (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete (explicit bolding). Renard Migrant (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

horror movie[edit]

horror film[edit]

horror flick[edit]

About as straightforward as you can get. Note the definition of horror '[a] genre of fiction, meant to evoke a feeling of fear and suspense'. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete all. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete, redundant to genre sense at horror (unlike e.g. chick flick where we might lack information about what kind of film women are stereotypically supposed to like). Equinox 17:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Plus, a "chick flick" might be understood as a flick about chicks, which could be high-interest stuff for the boys, depending on the amount of clothing used in the setup. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think it is 100% sum of parts with respect to the horror sense "An intense painful emotion of fear or repugnance". And even then, I somehow feel this is worth keeping. Some dictionaries have this: horror movie: Collins[55], Macmillan[56]; horror film: Collins[57], dictionary.cambridge.org[58]. Furthermore, the genre sense at "horror" originates as a shortening of "horror movie", so deriving the sum-of-parts claim from the genre sense at horror seems inappropriate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
No it's from a different sense of horror. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Oops, it is not certain that the genre sense of "horror" originates from "horror movie": it pertains to both books and movies. Now, how is this sense of "horror" attested? MWO does not have it, while Collins[59] has it only as a "modifier", as in "horror movie". The attesting quotations in the horror entry are rather unconvincing. Anyway, I think this is keep at least per dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Dan Polansky, keep just per the lemming test? You can't find any merit in the entry at all? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ƿidsiþ 12:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Donnanz (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
What happens when WT:CFI and the consensus of the vote are at loggerheads? Which is more important? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know that we can say they are at loggerheads, if editors are voting to keep based on their interpretation of the CFI as permitting this entry. We do seem to have an as-yet unwritten provision for keeping useful translation targets. bd2412 T 21:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
But they're not voting on their interpretation of CFI. Nobody's claiming it's idiomatic. It fails CFI but like I say, as long as voting takes precedence over CFI, and it does, this is a keeper. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
They believe translation target is a CFI. That's their "interpretation" of CFI, if you will. Purplebackpack89 18:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Renard is correct. WT:CFI has only one definition of idiomaticity which does not encompass the lemming test. WT:CFI also contains no provisions for "translation only" entries. There is nothing to "interpret". Keφr 19:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

physical attractiveness[edit]

Seems NISoP to me. There's also "physical attraction" (state of being attracted to the physical aspects), and I found cites for things like Web sites ("Visitors will judge a site's performance on its ease of use and its physical attractiveness") and building sites ("Beyond location and cost, the committee had to consider the size of the site and its physical attractiveness"), so it's certainly not a term restricted to human beings. Equinox 19:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

But it has hormonally amplified meaningfulness among folks who use big words. DCDuring TALK 21:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete. No need for me to comment here. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

absolutely not[edit]

Given pretty much any adverb can be followed by not, this has to be covered as not. A few examples, definitely not, maybe not, certainly not, perhaps not. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Might belong in a phrasebook, if we were capable of having one. DCDuring TALK 12:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
IMO delete, though there are in fact plenty of adverbs that don't fit well here (e.g. "thoroughly not"). However, that doesn't mean we should have entries for all valid combinations! Equinox 18:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I hypothesize that no manner adverb would work, but many modal and degree (esp. intensifier) adverbs would. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes sorry, quickly not doesn't work, you're right. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely, definitely, emphatically, categorically not! Chuck Entz (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, erring on the side of. dictionary.cambridge.org: absolutely[60] has this, just like idioms.thefreedictionary.com[61]. We are cabaple of hosting a phrasebook. As for "pretty much any adverb can be followed by not", that is clearly incorrect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: BTW, why isn't "certain other dictionaries have it" a full-on CFI? Purplebackpack89 20:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Because some words other dictionaries have belong in Appendix:English dictionary-only terms rather than in mainspace. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Why would other dictionaries having something be a good thing? They have different criteria to us. This is not something to be ashamed of. Being different basically means we have some relevance, as opposed to simply a photocopy of other dictionaries. Oxford and Chambers don't have the exact same corpus and you don't see either of them trying to become the other. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Generally, so that a little less time is wasted in RFD, and so that we can broaden our view of what is useful beyond the imagination of whoever wrote the CFI. I for one would be only happy if the number of RFD nominations would drop to a third per month, especially by people who hardly ever help close or archive old RFDs. RFD is not for removal of wrong information, only for removal of information that some consider redundant, so its being a little more inclusive does not make Wiktionary incorrect. See also Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/January#Proposal: Use Lemming principle to speed RfDs. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
          • My point stands, it may not make us less correct but it would make us less unique and therefore less relevant. I don't want our USP to be "we try to be like other dictionaries". Like I say, you don't see Oxford, Collins, Chambers (etc.) apologizing because they're not trying to be like other dictionaries. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - absolutely not useful. --Hekaheka (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - absolutely transparent. bd2412 T 17:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Not only can not be used with many intensifiers, but absolutely can intensify many negatives - "absolutely no", "absolutely no-one", "absolutely nothing", "absolutely never". If people wanted, we could have some sort of negative intensifying definition at absolutely (which would be equivalent the German gar) but I don't think that's necessary. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    The interesting thing, though, is that "not" cannot be used in this way without something preceding it. For example, "possibly not", "maybe not", "I think not", "if not", etc., but by itself, it is "no". --WikiTiki89 16:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    It can in the sense we label an interjection. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    But that's not the same sort of sense as in "absolutely not". --WikiTiki89 17:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as translation target.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete (though I'd put this specifically in bold for anyone counting up the votes). Renard Migrant (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

distinction without a difference[edit]

Looks a bit SoPpy to me. --WikiTiki89 10:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be covered by the prior knowledge test, so keep. Nothing much definition-wise to warrant its keeping, but it appears a lot in philosophy books 1 2 3 as a set phrase. Strictly speaking, as [1] points out, it's not exactly SoP because in order to draw a distinction there has to be some difference, but I don't know whether that bit of pedantry is really enough to claim idiomaticity. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that this is technical. It's just a term that has greater application among philosophers. It simply hinges on the idea, inherent in the definition of distinction, that some differences are manufactured rather than inherent, natural, or consequential. DCDuring TALK 11:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Leaning toward keep as a set phrase. bd2412 T 19:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
If we had some kind of significant limit of resources, this would not be kept, as it is utterly transparent if one is careful about words. However, a significant portion of the uses of "without a difference" occur with "distinction" immediately preceding and about as many with an NP headed by distinction immediately preceding. In the past I'd have taken the latter as evidence against it being a set linguistic phrase and for it being more of a conceptual association. But few accepted the argument. Rather than fight this, I'm willing to stop opposing the trend of making Wiktionary less linguistic and more conceptual if all you linguists would have it that way, no matter how wrong I believe it to be in my heart of hearts. DCDuring TALK 19:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 14:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

computer virus[edit]

[[computer]] + [[virus]]. Very transparent. Note that computer mouse got deleted. People are very tech savvy nowadays, they know that meaning of virus so computer virus is very transparent. Also usually just called a 'virus' for the same reasons. Translations can go at virus, most of the translations are for 'virus' anyway (like the French is just virus). Renard Migrant (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It may be worth looking into whether the word "computer" was required originally when computer viruses were first introduced. --WikiTiki89 16:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Of course it was. This is not a terribly unusual evolution. It is arguable that virus in the software sense has a distinct etymology, back formation from computer virus. As Wiktionary clearly is or at least sometimes pretends to be a historical dictionary, we can't really delete such terms. Even now it is sometimes necessary to use computer virus to disambiguate, especially for a non-technical audience. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
"Of course it was."? You can't use logic to predict history without evidence. --WikiTiki89 02:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm for deletion, provided that the current definition of "computer virus" is substituted for the definition of the 4th sense of "virus", which currently reads "A computer virus". --Hekaheka (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Does it matter which came first? WT:CFI#Idiomaticity doesn't mention it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: Only if it was idiomatic at some time in the past. Do we exclude expressions that become unidiomatic over time? If we wish to exclude computer virus, would that be because it was a live metaphor in its early uses and remained live until virus ("computer virus") entered the lexicon? Would the rule of excluding live metaphors be one that operates only on past live metaphors but not on current live metaphors? DCDuring TALK 15:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes we exclude unidiomatic expressions even if they were idiomatic at some point in the past, c.f. computer mouse. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Why? DCDuring TALK 17:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Because it's not useful to anyone. If you know what a computer and a virus is, you know what a computer virus is. If you don't know what they mean, look them up at computer and virus. The fact that it would've been useful 20 years ago is irrelevant; with that logic you end up with things that would've been idiomatic 500 years ago but have been transparent for the last 499 years. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Utility is not part of WT:CFI. How would be decide that, anyway? Whose utility? Should we delete oak tree? railroad car? flower petal? car boot? I'd like to know whether there is a principle behind this other than the principle of pure whimsy, based on no explicit criteria as well as no facts. DCDuring TALK 18:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
"The fact that it would've been useful 20 years ago is irrelevant". Funny, I thought that it didn't matter when a word was used, and if it had three citations spanning at least a year, it didn't matter if the years were 2010 to 2012, or 1010 to 1012 Purplebackpack89 18:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
But this isn't a word. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
It is very hard to WT:AGF when your argument hinges on a distinction between word and term. Maybe we should make allowances for newbies. DCDuring TALK 19:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, this dude Renard Migrant's only been editing for seven and a half months. Maybe he should come back when he's been editing for a year, and he has better grasp of Wiktionary policies. Purplebackpack89 21:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Renard Migrant has been around longer than 7-8 months. This user is a reincarnation of Mglovesfun, the one who said the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Donnanz (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
He knows them better than you. Keφr 22:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
How is this different from say, I used to have a dog? In the sense that, you could cite it 20 years ago, therefore it must be kept (see above). Renard Migrant (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Twenty years ago I used to have a dog was just as SOP as it is now. Which might have not been the case with computer virus. Keφr 10:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per lemming test; all major dictionaries I looked in either don't have "computer virus" at all or just say "another term for virus (in the relevant sense)". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    Apparently one cannot rely on your reports of other dictionaries. See computer virus at OneLook Dictionary Search. Though some (eg. AHD, MW) don't have the term at all and others have the main entry at virus, sometimes with a soft redirect (Collins and several others), some with only an inline "also" (Oxford), others have definitions (eg, American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Macmillan, WordNet). DCDuring TALK 19:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    Apparently one can rely on my reports of other dictionaries, since your findings exactly correspond with mine. The major dictionaries either don't have computer virus at all or else have it as a "soft redirect" to the computer sense of virus. The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy is not my idea of a major dictionary; the main AHD doesn't have it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Angr: AHD probably put it in the add-on to avoid typesetting and yet sell some books. I didn't mention the various glossaries that also have the term. In any event you simply asserted something without adequate research. Both the rhetorical advantage and the harm to the discussion can be seen from others citing the no-lemming argument that you claimed. DCDuring TALK 03:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a rather short-sighted policy to delete every term which has a faint whiff of SoPpiness about it. You have the usual problem with translations, so it should be kept as a translation target at least. Donnanz (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    • As Renard said in the nomination, translations can go at virus. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
That's an utterly stupid idea, IMO - a lot of hard work for no real gain, and that's not taking into account those entries in other languages which would need modifying. Donnanz (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Umm... Not much work needs to be done. It's a simple copy and paste. --WikiTiki89 13:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Per above, should we keep entries with no lexical merit because it takes effort to delete them? That's a bit like saying we shouldn't correct errors because it takes effort. In which case, what the Hell are we all here for? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
We should keep it anyway, regardless of lemming tests and what-have-you - common sense is needed here. By the way, it's listed in my Oxford hard copy with a redirect to virus; at least the term is recognised by them. Donnanz (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Common sense says delete it as it offers nothing useful to the reader. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I feel like this is part of our continuing war on users, to include things they don't need for our own purposes. It's selfish and should be stopped. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
For starters, that doesn't make one lick of sense. For second, I personally believe users other than myself would get use out of it. For third, "war on users?" What users are being waged war on here? You? I'm sorry, but I've never bought into the argument posited by you and Mglovesfun that this project goes south if we create two-word entries. I tend to believe that this project goes south if we have entries people are looking for and can't find, especially if other dictionaries have them. Purplebackpack89 21:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Because how are English learners going to learn to put two words together if we keep doing it for them. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I hope you know that the argument that we shouldn't have words just because everybody can figure out what they mean can easily be reduced to absurdity. Purplebackpack89 18:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Really? If people look up "red ball", it's hardly going to hurt them if they find it. We are never going to have a significant fraction of the two word phrases in English, so it's not going to hurt our users if they find it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Abstain! Really can't decide. I take DCD's point that there was (probably) a time when a computer virus was not merely referred to as a "virus", and I wonder whether we should delete "mobile phone" at the future time when there are no longer wired/tethered ones. Perhaps not. Equinox 16:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No matter what else we do we need to craft a better definition of the fourth sense of virus#Noun "(computing) A computer virus".
The Hacker's Dictionary has: "virus /n./
"[from the obvious analogy with biological viruses, via SF] <def 1>A [[cracker program]] that searches out other programs and `infects' them by embedding a copy of itself in them, so that they become Trojan horses.</def 1> that when these programs are executed, the embedded virus is executed too,</def 1A>, thus propagating the `infection'</def 1B>. <opt C>This normally happens invisibly to the user</opt 1C>. <opt D>Unlike a worm, a virus cannot infect other computers without assistance.</opt D> <opt E>It is propagated by vectors such as humans trading programs with their friends (see SEX).</opt E> <opt F>The virus may do nothing but propagate itself and then allow the program to run normally. Usually, however, after propagating silently for a while, it starts doing things like writing cute messages on the terminal or playing strange tricks with the display (some viruses include nice display hacks). Many nasty viruses, written by particularly perversely minded crackers, do irreversible damage, like nuking all the user's files.</opt F>
"In the 1990s, viruses have become a serious problem, especially among IBM PC and Macintosh users (the lack of security on these machines enables viruses to spread easily, even infecting the operating system). The production of special anti-virus software has become an industry, and a number of exaggerated media reports have caused outbreaks of near hysteria among users; many lusers tend to blame <def 2>everything that doesn't work as they had expected</def 2> on virus attacks. Accordingly, this sense of `virus' has passed not only into techspeak but into also popular usage (where it is often incorrectly used to denote <def 3>a worm or even a Trojan horse)</def 3>. See phage; compare back door; see also Unix conspiracy."
Are any of the three implicit appropriately terse definitions (approximate boundaries marked with tags "<def>") even accurate in current use ("opt" tags mark additional optional content)? In what usage contexts would the various possible definitions function? DCDuring TALK 19:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I vote keep, unless someone convinces me that WT:JIFFY is a bad call here. Keφr 22:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen any actual evidence that WT:JIFFY applies here, merely assertions that the longer term must be older. I don't see any reason to believe that without proof. It actually strikes me as unlikely, especially if the term virus was first used by IT specialists who would have known from context that they were talking about viruses in computers rather than in living beings and so wouldn't have needed to make the term more specific. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@Angr: You might be right, but why do all those lemmings have the term now?
@Angr, Renard Migrant: Also, if you are making a principled argument in favor of excluding live metaphors, such as this might be considered to have been, please say so. It was certainly not a living-thing virus that was infecting the computer. My excerpt above, from the Hacker's Dictionary, use the word analogy rather than metaphor, but that seems close enough. Or would you challenge that? DCDuring TALK 01:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The "Hacker's Dictionary" is not really a dictionary, is it? It's more of a collection of subcultural anecdotes. That doesn't stop it from having value as a gauge of a subculture at a certain point in time (rather long ago, since the world of computing moves so fast) but it means it's likely to have lots of chatty senses and sub-discussions of things that a real dictionary would treat rather more tersely. Equinox 01:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a lot better than some glossaries, but it is as you say. I was mostly looking for something on the subject that was published in the past. It was published in at least three versions. I was trying to find a shortcut to seeing whether early use of the term was in the form virus or computer virus. Maybe Usenet is a better bet for that. DCDuring TALK 02:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
According to w:Computer virus, the first known reference to a self-replicating program as a virus is in a 1984 paper by w:Fred Cohen, which is reproduced in html format on his website here. Notice that the first sentence in the paper is "This paper defines a major computer security problem called a virus." Throughout the paper, both virus and computer virus seem to be used pretty much interchangeably. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That might be evidence that it was a live metaphor.
I'm not sure what evidence to look for beyond the lemmings (which seems sufficient to me, but apparently not to others). I don't think there is COALMINE evidence in English.
I suppose that I would be perfectly happy if we had a principled argument that said: 1., we don't care about what professional lexicographers deem inclusion-worthy, even though they are purportedly more resource-constrained than we are and hence should be more exclusionist than we are, 2., that virus was at its introduction a live metaphor that, because it was so apt, rapidly became lexicalized and widely understood by all parts of the IT community and the general population, 3., that computer is just used as a modifier in certain circumstances, such as for disambiguation, euphony, variety, context maintenance, etc, and, 4., that this is completely distinct from cases like computer program, flower petal, oak tree, car boot, . It would also be nice if there were some actual evidence that there was no significant group of users that benefited from inclusion, though it is hard to imagine how one could get such evidence (aside from the inclusion decisions of professional lexicographers). DCDuring TALK 03:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh my god flower petal. Just slash my arteries now. Equinox 04:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I take issue with leg 1 of the argument above. I honestly think that if 1-2 print dictionaries have a definition, we should too. Purplebackpack89 04:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't really find the arguments defensible, but maybe someone could persuade me.
@Equinox: Not all the definitions at flower petal at OneLook Dictionary Search are as nul as ours. Wordnet is the lead lemming with its usual followers. DCDuring TALK 05:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The OED has an entry for Newton, Isaac, just one reason not have a lemming criterion for inclusion. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: No, it doesn't, or, at least, I can't find it. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
My Oxford hard copy has "Newton, Sir Isaac" listed, the emphasis being on Newton. But I think this is a little bit of nit-picking by Renard Migrant. Donnanz (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Donnanz: Oxford Dictionaries (whatever that is) has an entry, like you say; however, I took R.M.'s claim to apply to the full OED. An entry for “Newton” was first introduced in the 1976 second volume of A Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary, to which I don't have access to check; however, both the second-edition (1989) entry for “Newton” and the third-edition (September 2003) entry for “Newton, n.” mention “Sir Isaac Newton” in their etymology sections only. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Yep, like I said. My hard copy is the 2nd revised edition of the Oxford Dictionary of English (2005), probably for the British market, and the back cover fell off ages ago. It's had a hard life. Donnanz (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Donnanz: A copy of this, yes? I didn't know that any of Oxford's dictionaries listed biographical entries. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the very same. It has quite a few biographical entries: e.g. "Churchill, Sir Winston" and "Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan" amongst others. Anyway, who needs a sub to the OED when we have that free website you just discovered? Donnanz (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Donnanz: Etymologies and sourced quotations are major benefits. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
There's a lot of etymology info in Oxford anyway, but sourced quotations? Do you mean OED provides that? Donnanz (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Yep. For every word. --WikiTiki89 09:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I didn't know that. Sourced quotations aren't my speciality. Donnanz (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Donnanz how long did it take you to write that comment? Wasn't it just too much effort? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Not as long as you think. Donnanz (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant:, who gives a darn how long it took him to write the comment? You need to cool down on this AfDRfD. You're essentially using the flimsiest of arguments for deletion of this, and then you're criticizing people who disagree with you. FWIW, I am perfectly OK with us having biographical entries as well, provided they are brief AND something that is found in print dictionaries. I think if there are too many words print dictionaries have that we don't, people are going to use print dictionaries instead of us. Purplebackpack89 18:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
What is an "AfD"? Keφr 18:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Kephir: Articles for Deletion, essentially Wikipedia's equivalent of this project's Requests for Deletion. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Whoosh. Keφr 19:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I took Aɴɢʀ's answer to be a joke, but I thought your question was a genuine enquiry. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
At first I took Kephir's question for a genuine inquiry too, but then I decided it was sarcasm and answered accordingly. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
A German political party. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
How about a little less joke-cracking about whether I use AfD instead of RfD and a little more discussion of the merits of this article and/or CFI in general? Purplebackpack89 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete As per Chuck Entz's evidence that "virus" was not originally a shortened form of "computer virus".--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Except it kind of was… I switch to abstain. Keφr 06:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Maybe there should be a "chicken or egg" test. Donnanz (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, Chuck Entz's evidence shows that in its original usage, computer virus was used interchangeably with virus and thus was not a set phrase. Delete. --WikiTiki89 09:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't see how this "not a set phrase" follows. A set phrase can have a set abbreviation. Moreover, we can't privilege usage among the original computer-savvy, who presumably took "computer" for granted. Non-computer people use English also. Looking through outsiders (lawyers [62], journalists [63] [64]) writing about the Morris worm, "computer virus" was often used, sometimes standalone, sometimes interchangeably, with no clear priority. Choor monster (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
        • But "virus" not used as an abbreviation. Rather, "computer" is used as qualifier to establish context. The same applies to each of the articles you just linked to. --WikiTiki89 19:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's count the votes. Keep 4 (DCDuring, Donnanz, PurpleBackPack, Matthias Buchmeier), Delete 5 (Renard Migrand, Hekaheka, Angr, Prosfilaes, WikiTiki). Delete has a narrow lead, but not enough to decide. Keep on the good argument. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If the entry is kept, the translations should move where they belong. It's obvious that translations include words like "computer", "information", "data", etc. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I was waiting for the outcome of this discussion first. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any controversy here. Translations for computer game, computer program, computer language should also reflect this and they usually do, many of them behaving the same way. E.g. 電腦遊戲 is a Chinese term for "computer game" where 遊戲 is just a "game" but Russian язы́к программи́рования (jazýk programmírovanija) literally meaning "language of programming" is normally used for ""computer language". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
This discussion isn't about the translations. It's about whether it is SOP. But since you bring it up, the translations do show that term is SOP in other languages as well. --WikiTiki89 04:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I know it's not about translations but I was asked the question "what about..." and I have answered. Being SoP is not a single reason to delete an entry, anyway and we all know this, like all gas station, apple tree discussions we had in the past. For this particular term, the Lemming principle might be a good reason to keep it, for English and some other languages. If don't introduce Lemming principle, at least, as part of CFI, we're going to keep wasting time forever on RFD's. Someone has already done the hard job of selecting words for inclusion. computer virus@macmillandictionary. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Well at least two people are suggesting a lemming test (and we have how many regular editors, 20?). Why doesn't someone propose it? I'd encourage its proposal (though of course I've been clear I'd oppose it if proposed). Renard Migrant (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It was discussed and rejected once. Your turn. DCDuring TALK 18:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I left some comments on that discussion, and would support the lemming test being instituted. Purplebackpack89 22:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As Anatoli joined the ranks of keepers, it's 5-5 now, the keepers being DCDuring, Donnanz, PurpleBackPack, Matthias Buchmeier, Anatoli and deleters being Renard Migrand, Hekaheka, Angr, Prosfilaes, WikiTiki. Why not stop here and keep this bugger for lack of consensus for deletion and move on to something else? --Hekaheka (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

So long as voting takes precedence over policy, which it does, you're absolutely right. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Kept. The votes on keeping and deleting are evenly split, rendering a clear absence of consensus to delete. Furthermore, for the benefit those concerned about voting taking precedence over policy, I note that tenable policy-grounded arguments have been made that this phrase was historically idiomatic, and therefore passes CFI. bd2412 T 14:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

user-defined type[edit]

can't really get more SoP than this -- Liliana 12:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

We could remove "for a special purpose" from the definition (since I might define a type for a perfectly ordinary purpose), so then, yes, totally transparent; delete. Now I'm wondering about user-defined graphic (created by me, a long time ago): perhaps that deserves keeping because of the non-obvious fact that the graphic replaces a text character in the "font" and is thus a certain size and can be typed on the keyboard (not just any graphic defined by a user, e.g. a sprite). Of course keep the abbrs UDT, UDG, anyhow. Equinox 12:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Equinox. User-defined graphic does seem different. DCDuring TALK 14:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete, and I didn't even have to look to know who created it. --WikiTiki89 15:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Erm..which sense of "type" or just any? --Hekaheka (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
data type. Equinox 13:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Type has this definition by the way. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There's no entry for user-defined. Maybe there should be one. Donnanz (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    Nor for user-definable (in my Oxford hard copy). Donnanz (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    Hyphens work like spaces. We can talk about a "dog-bitten carpet", etc. but it doesn't require an entry. Equinox 18:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    Hmm, Wiktionary is so case-sensitive that hyphens don't work like spaces. Donnanz (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    Ironically, there are separate entries for case-sensitive and case sensitive. Donnanz (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Case-sensitivity has nothing to do with hyphens and spaces. Equinox means in terms of meaning user-defined and user defined as the same thing. Two words linked by a hyphen don't make a single word, no more than two words linked by a space are a single word. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Equinox does not need a spokesperson. As far as this entry is concerned, I have decided to abstain. Donnanz (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree, delete. Keφr 09:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep as an important computing term. UDT is the common abbreviation. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
We've already established multiple times that the existence of an abbreviation does not automatically mean the non-abbreviated form should be included. --WikiTiki89 02:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I didn't vote for that and I don't see it as our CFI. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Create [[I am not a lawyer]] then, and see what happens. Keφr 22:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll do just that. Purplebackpack89 22:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
While I appreciate the sarcasm, UDT (abbreviating here) is an important term in database and software development. (The phrase [[I am not a lawyer]] is not even a good candidate for a phrase book, so delete.) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not sarcasm, it's a real analogy. You're confusing the thing with the word. User-defined types may be important to computer science, but the term "user-defined type" is nothing special. Steel trusses are important in engineering, that doesn't mean we need to include "steel truss". --WikiTiki89 23:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
"Steel trusses" don't require definition but I'm not an expert in engineering. We do have a number of medical terms, diseases, computer, linguistic terms, various daily items, which are SoP's. Being SoP is not reason for a deletion, even if some people like you think being a SoP alone a good reason for deletion. We have nominative case, gas station, lung cancer, apple tree, etc. "User-defined type" or UDT is a special data type for which various software giants have their own definitions. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Saying create [[white car]], since we have [[white bear]] IS a sarcasm and is not a real analogy at all. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
"for which various software giants have their own definitions"? Evidence please. --WikiTiki89 00:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Synonymous with "user-defined data type" (the word "data" should be in the definition). From the web, e.g. Microsoft: "Holds data in a format you define. The Structure statement defines the format.". PostgreSQL: "data types defined below the level of the SQL language". This includes object-oriented classes, which are not part of standard libraries, so there is plenty of definitions in object-oriented environments as well. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
"Type" is often used as short for "data type"; it's no different when it's in a phrase. "Holds data in a format you define" and "data types defined below the level of the [] language" are equivalent to the SOP definition. But don't confuse definitions with implementation details. The "Structure" statement is specific to the syntax of Visual Basic, "SQL" just a particular language, and classes are just the form of user-defined types used in object-oriented languages. --WikiTiki89 00:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You claimed above that having an abbreviation is sufficient for a phrase to be considered idiomatic, so I offered a counterexample. white bear has a definition under which a grizzly bear which stumbled into a jar of white paint does not fall, which makes the term idiomatic. I cannot see anything analogous about user-defined type, which is precisely a type defined by a user. Keφr 08:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, we have to be careful about colours, but brown bear is also justifiable, especially in countries like Norway which have both species. But red dress and blue lagoon wouldn't qualify; there is an entry for pink elephant though. Donnanz (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I have reconsidered. Yes, delete. I'll make changes to UDT, since it's an important abbreviation and make SOP translations. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


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

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

cunt hunt[edit]

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

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

in the trouser department[edit]

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

Why should we delete this? It has 4 citations and doesn't seem to be an SOP. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 14:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: verifiable and not SOP, so passes CFI. Also, I'm wondering if in the...department is a valid construction. Purplebackpack89 15:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is clearly no definition now in the entries for either trouser or, for that matter, department that makes this euphemism SoP. If someone can define and attest senses of the component terms that would make this SoP, I'd be happy to consider changing my vote. DCDuring TALK 19:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    @DCDuring:, given the discussion below, do you have an opinion on moving this to trouser department? Cheers! bd2412 T 13:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    @BD2412: As I said below, "Wouldn't it have to be trouser department to include the last cite (and the many others that have another article, predeterminer, determiner, and/or intervening adjective)?" Sorry I didn't explicitly change my vote to Move to trouser department. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." So keep. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Move: I'd like to float the idea this should be just the trouser department. That's how Knickers in a Twist: A Dictionary of British Slang lists it. Irvine Welsh's Filth says "The mouth department and the trouser department are well out of synchronisation in the not-so-superstore that is Ray Lennox, I kid."[65] Three Things About Me says "His trouser department took a dive. Rose was as confident and beautiful as ever."[66] Genesis: The Complete Guide to Their Music says "'The Shorts.' Not a reference to the band's trouser department, but the brevity of the tracks on their best selling compilation The Way We Walk(1992)".[67] Blowing It says "The front trouser department would surely be the first place to seek out evidence of intent when faced with a potential stalker." Etc.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    Wouldn't it have to be trouser department to include the last cite (and the many others that have another article, predeterminer, determiner, and/or intervening adjective)? DCDuring TALK 03:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    What he said. If you're dropping "in", drop "the". Purplebackpack89 04:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Other "department" constructions might arguably be SOP, but this one is definitely idiomatic, as it's not self-evident that "trouser department" is intended to be a euphemism for "groin." To the uninitiated, "he leaves a lot to be desired in the trouser department" could be interpreted to mean that the man in question wears out-of-style/ill-fitting/dirty trousers, etc. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Move to trouser department and word as a noun. "In the" is transparent when prepended to such a noun. Leave the current title as a redirect. bd2412 T 14:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • How often is 'trouser department' used without 'in the'? If it's very rarely I'd sooner keep it as it is. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I found four cites of "trouser department" (in this sense--also found in the literal sense) without too much work. It's a tiny sample, but the first couple pages of google books:"trouser department" shows me 11 literal uses, 5 figurative uses of "in the trouser department" and 3 of just "trouser department" (including "going for the trouser department"). (And one dictionary entry for "trouser department".) So it's definitely not "vary rare".--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This entry should definitely be deleted and possibly trouser department created. But better than that would be to create a new sense of department to cover usages like this:
Did something in the love department just recently happen to you?
The arms are also a good length as sometimes jumpers are a little short in the sleeve department.
If you're feeling a little out of sorts in the stomach department, you might want to try this potent tea.
He looked into Mona's eyes, seeing a mysterious woman, an unknown for him on several occasions in the feelings department.
Older men need to exercise regularly to keep up on the sex department.
--Hekaheka (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
"In the trouser department" is euphemistic in a different way to those examples. "In the sleeve department" literally means "with respect to sleeves", but "In the trouser department" does not mean "with respect to trousers". (See also Wiktionary:Tea room#In the [YOUR ITEM HERE] department) Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Read carefuly. I wrote "possibly trouser department created". "In the trouser department" is "in the" + "trouser department". Or, would you add a separate entry for all the following:
He was aware that some men were concerned about the size of their equipment, but usually their anxiety focussed on the trouser department.
Lee thinks with his trouser department!
I also felt a little stir underneath me from his trouser department before turning around quickly and blushing again.
Plus, we need the new sense of "department". This guy wasn't thinking his penis when writing this:
I tried not to look at the things I really don't need and focused on the trouser department of my outfit.
Further, is this the only occasion where "trouser" is used to refer to "penis"? Do we need a new sense for "trouser"? If we do, also "trouser department" becomes SOP. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I just assumed that when you said "But better than that would be to create a new sense of department to cover usages like this", you were suggesting that if we had this sense of department, trouser department would automatically become SOP, which I was refuting. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


This was added as a past participle by a bot, but there is no such word in Polish. It might be a misspelling of przegrany (loser, lost). --Tweenk (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete: As per what you said -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Speedy. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete of course. Lousy Wonderfool bot. these will have to be deleted too --Type56op9 (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedied. Keφr 17:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete others like these too, please. --Type56op9 (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. Keφr 19:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

cost per available seat mile[edit]

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

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

cribbage board[edit]

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

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

cultural evolutionism[edit]

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

Fifth Amendment[edit]

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

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

foreign country[edit]

Gotta be SOP, right? --Type56op9 (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, keep it, what else do you call them? It's a translation target anyway, and I've got one to enter. Donnanz (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Donnanz. If we have the "I have a..." series... Purplebackpack89 17:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
"Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers." Keep per that, but per that only. It's not idiomatic as you can say foreign land, so it's not a unique use of 'foreign'. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
If only we had a phrasebook. DCDuring TALK 23:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Foreign nation, foreign land, foreign homeland, foreign polity, foreign region, overseas country...--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Stupid entry IMO, very SoP. Equinox 22:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. And the translation target is probably best as foreign + country. DCDuring TALK 00:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It's SOP in English but good as a translation target. Added the category. Keep as a translation target. In East Asian languages "foreign country" is synonymous for "abroad" and terms for "foreigner" are based on "foreign country" + "person". Other languages have non-SoP terms for it as well. Nothing stupid about the entry, BTW. foreign + country won't work for e.g. 外國外国, nước ngoài or чужби́на (čužbína). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep per Atitarev.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Translation target argument is irrelevant and degrades English Wiktionary. Its persistent use wastes time. Use SoP translations, but link to the components. It's only four extra keystrokes. Make more FL entries instead of having all those damned redlinks in the translation tables. DCDuring TALK 04:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. It's not about making linking to components and they are not degrading the English Wiktionary. Users are able to find translations of "foreign country" in other dictionaries: e.g. foreign country in Thai ต่างประเทศ (dtàang-bprà-tâyt); เมืองนอก (meuang-nôk) and foreign country in Korean 외국 (oeguk). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wyang (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Any particular reasons? Keφr 10:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
      • At a minimum, this could be kept as a translation target. Wyang (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Have you read the other definitions? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as a translation target, if nothing else. This, that and the other (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete as a damned SOP (in my opinion). Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 14:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's useful as a translation target entry. Not sure if we have a specific policy on this, but I think it would be a good idea to keep all these kind of entries in one category for safe-keeping. A good rule might be that the entry must have a minimum of, say, six languages that translate it as one word. From what I can see looking at this entry's translation table, it is one word in Belarusian, Bulgarian, Catalan, Chinese, Dutch, Finnish, Hebrew, Hungarian, Icelandic, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Macedonian, Polish, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish and Ukrainian. That's quite a lot, and probably only the tip of the iceberg. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

fraternal birth order[edit]

Definition isn't right, and I can't see this as entryworthy. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy delete as just totally wrong. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Move to fraternal birth order effect. This is an actual scientific hypothesis, and that's the most common name for it (it gets several pages of hits on Google Books). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that we already had the hyphenated form fraternal birth-order effect. I went ahead and created an unhyphenated form (fraternal birth order effect), and converted the hyphenated form to an "alternative form of" entry, since the unhyphenated form gets more hits on Google Books. I'm now fine with deleting the nominated entry (fraternal birth order). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

fringe group[edit]

To my eyes, it is just fringe + group? By the way, this entry is from 2004. If it gets deleted, I must be in line for some kind of prize for "oldest piece of crap found on Wiktionary". --Type56op9 (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Not another SoP freak! Also used in the political sense - e.g. a fringe group in the Labour Party. Anyway, keep it. Donnanz (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
That's the same sense. Donnanz, do you care about the rules at all, or is it all voting as far as you're concerned. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There's no law saying you have to vote this way or that. And there's no law saying I have to kowtow to your personal principles - I have my own, thanks very much. The political sense is not mentioned in the entry. Donnanz (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
None of that's relevant to what I said. I asked if you cared about rules or if you thought it was all voting. By rules I mean WT:CFI. Please answer the question. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you're in danger of becoming too big for your boots. All very reminiscent of User:Mglovesfun. Donnanz (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
So you're refusing to answer the question. Right. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. A fringe group in the political sense is one on the fringe of the movement.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Donnanz,and because I don't like that Renard's bullying him over his vote. Purplebackpack89 21:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I asked him to justify his comments. He has so far declined to do so. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete, and formally disapprove of Purple voting for something not on its own merits, but based on his feelings about someone's behaviour. That's not how to build a credible dictionary. Equinox 22:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@Equinox:, I'd have voted keep even if Renard wasn't bullying Donnanz. And if you're "formally disapproving" of stuff, let me "formally disapprove" of Renard bullying keepists and insisting that CFI always be applied. Purplebackpack89 22:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think we would have CFI at all if it was a purely optional thing. These are the rules we have determined (by many iterations of voting) in order to stop this becoming a totally random chaotic empty space in which people can post any damn thing they want. It's meant to be a dictionary. Equinox 22:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I disagree with a lot of what you just said, but let's focus on two areas: a) I interpret CFI differently than Renard (and when Renard says "enforce CFI", I'm pretty sure he really means "enforce his idea of CFI"), and b) I don't see it as a dichotomy where the only two options are CFI as currently written and random chaos. Purplebackpack89 22:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You are constantly attempting to enforce your own ideas, so you cannot criticise someone who tries to enforce their own idea of something that is actually Wiktionary policy. Equinox 03:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh come on Purple I wouldn't call it bullying. You're no less forceful than I am. Pot calling the kettle black anyone? Renard Migrant (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I suspect bullies don't see themselves as bullies. Perhaps Migrant would like to spend some time in the sin bin along with Polansky. What Migrant needs to learn is that I am not going to respond to aggressive questioning. I oppose the rigid enforcement of CFI or whatever, and Migrant should respect that. After all, the dictionary should be a pleasurable hobby, not a battleground. Donnanz (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
What Migrant doesn't mention is that he has edited the entry in such a way it suggests that he actually approves of it. What is going on? Donnanz (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Putting the thing into WT:ELE format and improving poor-quality wording is good for giving a questionable entry a fair shot. There should be more of that, not less.
The definition both before and after RM's edit hardly fits any of the use of fringe group at COCA. Much of the use seems to be of fringe with respect to the overall "fabric" of opinion, behavior, etc. IOW, this seems to mean a group at the fringe ("edge") (of something). Other nouns used following fringe in this include element, candidate, festival, people, player (both sports and other), economy, science, idea, theater, movement, party, type, movementm phenomenon, publication, stuff, just to mention those occurring four or more times at COCA.
Delete. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
@Matthias Buchmeier: Unreasoned answers don't deserve full (any?) weight. Why keep? DCDuring TALK 04:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
What about the lemmings? My gut feeling tells me that some mayor dictionaries have it although i didnnt figure it out yet. It might also be a set term at least that's what wikipedia claims.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
At least the online version of Collins has it.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I would have to say this is simply adjective + noun where the adjective and the noun have their usual meetings. Note that google books:"fringe meeting" gets about 4800 hits, so group isn't the only noun that fringe can be used with. Ergo, delete (and that's how you back up an argument with evidence, for those who refuse to do so). Renard Migrant (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I get 220000 hits for fringe group, so that more a argumernt pro set term set/keeping than for SOP/deletion.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Matthias Buchmeier: Hits where?
When I search COCA (which gives a reliable, replicable count, unlike Google) for red car I get 182 hits, for fringe group I get 44.
And so what? Mere frequency is not part of CFI. DCDuring TALK 06:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep. It’s a valid term. —Stephen (Talk) 07:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Steven G Brown: Thank you for settling that for us. Just for form though, could you say why? DCDuring TALK 08:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete My usual test for this sort of entry is whether keeping this implies that we need many other entries for all its equally idiomatic synonyms. Since you can also have a "fringe movement", a "fringe party" or a "fringe organization", all of which are pretty much the same thing, it seems cleaner and easier to maintain if we keep the definition as an adjective at fringe. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone who wants to keep this have a shred of evidence to back it up? That's rhetorical of course, if there were evidence someone would've presented it by now. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
By evidence, do you mean citations? Purplebackpack89 22:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • By evidence, I strongly suspect that citations is not what Renard is looking for. The call for deletion here is because the term fringe group is patently sum-of-parts -- the combination of terms is in no way idiomatic, as others have also pointed out. Evidence here would be evidence that fringe group is actually idiomatic, that it has some meaning beyond just fringe + group.
By contrast, the term red scare is an excellent example of an idiomatic multi-word term. That very idiomaticity is what makes this a single integral term, despite the fact that it is composed of multiple individual words. One cannot arrive at the meaning of red scare just by combining red + scare.
fringe group, meanwhile, is wholly decomposible into its constituent words without any loss of idiom.
Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

global society[edit]

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

Keep this too. I suspect it may be idiomatic. Donnanz (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Unsure, it depends on usage. However, I think it falls under global sense "concerning all parts of the world." So delete, or provide evidence of idiomaticity. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

grafting tool[edit]

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

Grafting what? Trees? Is it a horticultural tool? Donnanz (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not a specific tool, it's any tool used for grafting. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Convert to {{&lit}}. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Keφr 12:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Almost deserves an RFV: do people talking about "grafting tools" when they aren't the specific sense #2? Equinox 22:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete "[verb]ing tool" is just a standard way to construct an NP that refers to a 'tool for/used in [verb]ing.'. It's really a special case of "[noun] tool" ('a tool used for [noun]').
Or maybe we should create a special L2 for these: let's call it Mentalese. It can include all the non-idiomatic translation targets that anyone can think of. Even better why not create a separate Wiki for it: WikiConcept? Its CFI need not be limited to words and phrases. DCDuring TALK 08:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Have you tried w:? They have managed to eschew any CFI whatsoever. Keφr 12:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
They are conceptual and they have notability as a criterion. Language has many non-notable words. DCDuring TALK 07:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Funny, I would rather RFV the second sense. Keφr 12:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
That would be a good RfV. DCDuring TALK 07:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
But here are some Google Books hits for the tool sense. I think I own a tool like this, though perhaps not as strong. Mine is a long-bladed shovel used for digging narrow trenches. Also the sense of graft/grafting ("dig"), which [[graft]] lacks, is a different etymology from the sense relating to woody plants. DCDuring TALK 08:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I have revised the entry and also [[graft]] to distinguish 2-3 distinct etymologies. DCDuring TALK 08:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer[edit]

SOP. --WikiTiki89 23:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: Useful phrasebook entry, and source of an abbreviation. Purplebackpack89 23:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Not a phrasebook candidate. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Why not? We have lots of phrasebook entries with the form "I am..." or "I have..." Purplebackpack89 23:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The repetitiveness of phrases (which contradict the description of what should go in, a kind of phrasebook CFI) is one of the things that turn some editors away from the phrasebook project, even if they support the idea otherwise. IMHO, you're just making the case worse by adding such entries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete, no question. Equinox 00:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete and block creator for disruptive edits. Keφr 08:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Eh, no. We're talking one entry here. Purplebackpack89 14:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Well of course, this is just one in a long series, but particularly symptomatic, I think. Keφr 14:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
No, Kephir, this is just you disliking me again. If you look at the number of pages I've created this calender year that have been RfDed or successfully deleted, you'll find it's relatively few. That's why there's community consensus not only to let me edit unabated, but community consensus to have me whitelisted. Purplebackpack89 14:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I would disagree with Kephir. Purpleback's improved a lot since his first edits, a block now based on edits made years ago wouldn't be justified. Is this edit flouting policy or just an edit many editors disagree with? I think more the second, and we need editors with different viewpoints to keep us all honest. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete --Hekaheka (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. The creator added an inaccurate definition to make it look idiomatic, but it’s not. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Ungoliant, the definition is accurate, and is written in the same manner as similar phrases. Purplebackpack89 14:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete DCDuring TALK 04:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


Sense: "Belonging to a different culture."

Eating with chopsticks was a foreign concept to him.

The usex shows a use that I would gloss as "alien, strange". And not everything "belonging to a different culture" is foreign. For example, the various Native American cultures are not called "foreign" by more recent arrivals, except sometimes in the sense of "alien, strange", nor is the culture of the American pilgrims, or of Mormons, etc. This just seems like a sloppy definition to me. DCDuring TALK 07:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say someone was trying to express a "pertaining to an outside country" sense, but then I noticed we already have it as sense 2. Maybe this should be considered an RFV issue. Either way delete unless someone shows citations which cannot be subsumed under other senses. As for the usage example, I would say it just means "unfamiliar, unknown" here, which may or may not be conflated with "alien, strange". Keφr 09:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
A few citations for languages described as foreign in their own lands:
Also some useful hits at google books:"foreign in its own country", google books:"foreign in their own country", google books:"foreign in their own land" etc. I suppose you could argue that the Welsh, Maori and Navajo are nations, even if they're not states - perhaps merge this into the "relating to a different nation" sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
To me at least some of that kind of use seems to be playing on the two senses of foreign, but I am open to citations, rewording, etc. And we have foreign language as an entry, not that the single definition there is adequate as currently worded. It should be made to earn its keep by freeing us of the need to specifically cover the cases above. (If not, we should delete it.) DCDuring TALK 04:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it's redundant. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yep, it seems redundant with sense #6: "alien, strange". --Hekaheka (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


Sense 3, "A heterogeneity which encompasses the Wikipedia encyclopedia in its many language versions and the process of its development." It's not a very clear definition, but as far I can see, this is redundant to sense one. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: that sense and some others were already nominated at RFV back in 2011. The discussions were marked as "failed", but for some reason none of the nominated senses were removed. Keφr 18:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
That means we can speedy it, right? --WikiTiki89 20:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Seems to me that definition #3 is the perverted child of definitions #1 and #2, both of which are attestable, accurate, and should be kept. Purplebackpack89 20:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, definition #2 split out of definition #3: diff. I constructed the definition in question while trying to incorporate the meaning of Wikipedia as a project (the encyclopedia, the community and its rules). Delete --biblbroksдискашн 21:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


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

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

radio-controlled car[edit]

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

Delete. We need a policy to keep the SOP's from proliferating. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
We do. It should have some relatively objective means for determining whether an entry or definition should be included or excluded. I wonder what we should call it. The name should probably have a positive spin. Hmmmm, I wonder. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The deletionist policy. Donnanz (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Like I keep saying, we have rules, just currently we don't apply them. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 19:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
We should have R/C ("radio controlled") DCDuring TALK 19:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. Donnanz (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I always thought RC was "remote control". --WikiTiki89 23:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It's possibly synonymous in a lot of cases. Remote control is often achieved via radio waves. Donnanz (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I would go as far as to say "almost always". But still, how can we tell what the abbreviation actually stands for? --WikiTiki89 23:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Does it ever refer to actual cars, or just toys? Does it matter anyway? Keφr 19:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Big (and little) boys' toys. Heaven help us if the roads were full of full-size radio-controlled cars. Donnanz (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I remember seeing a radio-controlled shunter (locomotive) in NZ. The loco was controlled by a railwayman on the ground. Donnanz (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Kephir: It refers to larger vehicles, too, but not very often. I found one referring to a "large" one used somehow on a movie set, others referring to vehicles used to move nuclear fuel or other dangerous materials. Here is one from 1921, pictured.
It is highly unlikely to matter very often as context almost always makes it clear, but think of the translators. DCDuring TALK 20:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am going to vote keep for that very reason, as a few translations would be nullified or orphaned. Think of the children indeed. I realise there's an entry for radio-controlled, but I don't want deletion of this entry to go through unopposed. Donnanz (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete. PS we have radio-controlled. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l35sUu0u8bk. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

on drugs[edit]

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

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


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

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

Shouldn't it be I- (or i-) for this definition, as it's a prefix? CFI says prefixes should be kept, but then it mentions "i-" specifically in the "attestation vs. slippery slope" section. However, it looks like the mention of "i-" in the slippery slope section is not referring to this prefix, but to words generated with the prefix "i-", and probably the definition pertaining to Apple products. Based on that, move and keep. Purplebackpack89 14:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I would say delete because programming code words are used in programming languages and not in English. Wiktionary covers only human languages. —CodeCat 14:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, but if it's not used in English then it shouldn't be kept as English. In fact (though CFI sadly doesn't mention it) 'all words in all languages' refers to human languages not computer languages. Furthermore, it's my understanding that computer languages don't have words. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I created this and can see why it might be deletion-worthy; the point about Hungarian prefixes is a good one, and e.g. C is also sometimes used as a class prefix. (We shifted the APL symbols to an appendix, for example, and we don't have entries for programming keywords unless they have entered English, e.g. bless, enum.) It does raise questions about the acceptability of some other programming-language items, like ++. Equinox 23:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)