Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification
add new | history | archives | old index

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

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “brown leaf”
  • Out-of-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFDs


August 2013[edit]

moral authority[edit]

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

Actual, it's more or less the other way around. It means having authority because one is believed to be moral. The authority can be over anything. In other words, if a person is believed by others to have impeccable morality, those others may follow the commands of the person with "moral authority", even if that person has no formal authority (i.e. doesn't have academic expertise in a subject or hold a political office). bd2412 T 12:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Government/politics and academia only? Really?
Some other sources of formal authority includes management position, property ownership, officially certified competence, legal violence or threat thereof. There may be more. Other, informal sources of authority can include extra-legal violence or threat thereof, status from any source derived, celebrity, a track record of success (or its tokens), acknowledged competence or knowledge (certification-free), friendship with or leverage over others. I don't know what I'm missing.
Moral authority is in no OneLook reference besides Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 14:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Looking at citations, I think that the definition incorrectly combines two different ideas, The first is of a person or institution (as in, so-and-so is a moral authority) who is respected because they are thought to be moral; and the second is a type of morality itself. For the sense of a particular person, I find things like this:
  • 2009, Robert Jefferson Norrell, Up from History: The Life of Booker T. Washington, p. 431:
    At first Martin Luther King Jr. invoked Booker as a moral authority for King's ethic of love and his posture of passive resistance to white hatred.
  • 2010, Dan P. McAdams, George W. Bush and the Redemptive Dream, p. 207:
    No less a moral authority than Elie Wiesel, the celebrated holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate, urged President Bush to invade Iraq to defend freedom and liberate the Iraqi people.
  • 2011, Scott C. Lowe, Christmas - Philosophy for Everyone: Better Than a Lump of Coal, p. 100:
    Santa is not only a moral authority, like a strict father, but he is also like a nurturing parent, traditionally, a mother.
For the sense of a force detached from individuals, I find things like this:
  • 2002, Samuel Edward Finer, The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics, p. 20:
    Thus, when the military breaches the existing political order, it will be forced to claim a moral authority for its actions.
  • 2008, Philip B. Heymann, Living the Policy Process, p. 121:
    Victims of palpable injustice enjoy a moral authority that is likely to provide access to even busy players.
  • 2011, Daniel Walker, God in a Brothel: An Undercover Journey into Sex Trafficking and Rescue, p. 124:
    In that knowledge I realized that while I lacked any legal authority, I already possessed all the necessary moral authority to confront and interview Watson for his crimes.
I think, therefore, that the problem with this definition is that it needs to be two distinct definitions to reflect two distinct concepts. bd2412 T 14:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, or so am I inclined; the definition does not seem to be sum of parts. If the usual pro-deletion suspects have not shown up until now, let us err on the side of keep. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    See moral authority at OneLook Dictionary Search. Delete. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    From looking at authority, I actually do not see a sense of authority that, when combined with "moral", yields "moral authority". "The power to enforce rules or give orders" does not do; "Persons in command; specifically, government" does not do either; "A person accepted as a source of reliable information on a subject" does not work either, I think, since a moral authority is not necessarily a source of reliable information on morality. This could be because of a weakness of the authority entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    Weakness indeed. MWOnline has 12 definitions compared to our 3. Even Webster 1913 had "3. The power derived from opinion, respect, or esteem; influence of character, office, or station, or mental or moral superiority, and the like; claim to be believed or obeyed; as, an historian of no authority; a magistrate of great authority." DCDuring TALK 19:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    Let's not adopt the weaknesses of other dictionaries, then. Keep. bd2412 T 13:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's honor the strength of language: that it can make a virtual infinity number of utterances whose exact meaning depends on context. —This comment was unsigned.
    Under that theory we could delete fire drill or tennis player as utterances whose exact meaning depends on context. However, for various reasons we have decided to keep such things. bd2412 T 15:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    One key difference (key if we have the humility to recognize the possibility that the professional lexicographers at other dictionaries may have nearly as good judgment as we do) is that many other OneLook dictionaries have fire drill at OneLook Dictionary Search, some have tennis player at OneLook Dictionary Search, but none have moral authority at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 17:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    I would happily delete fire drill and tennis player. There is some obscure reason I can't remember that made others want to keep tennis player. --WikiTiki89 17:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    Those two should be kept. Purplebackpack89 20:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: per BD and Dan Purplebackpack89 19:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 17:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Keφr 20:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg
Input needed: This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

For keeping: BD2412, DP, PBP. For deletion: Gloves, DCDuring, Wikitiki89, me. Anyone else? Keφr 07:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]


probably not a true adjective - WF

Needs fixing, not deletion. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
It needs evidence to show that it behaves like a true adjective and with what meanings, if any. This is a common problem with -ing form entries. They are worth systematic inspection and review for PoS, without actually flooding RfV or RfD. Perhaps the more far-fetched ones could be done en masse. DCDuring TALK 15:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's a present participle that can be used as a noun or adjective. Purplebackpack89 20:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • RFD kept as there is no consensus for deletion. Keepers: Atitarev, Purplebackpack89. Deleters: WF (a banned user), DCDuring. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

depend on[edit]

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

Some lemmings view it as a phrasal-verb idiom. Is it? Well, it depends. If we view it-phrases as idioms and ignore the legal and literary meanings, then there may be no common current use of depend that is not always followed by on (or upon). Duplicating the meanings or cross-referencing/linking are possibilities. DCDuring TALK 13:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Week keep. Google Books gives more than a hundred results: depended on by, depended upon by. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete; I looked at the TAKASUGI Shinji search above; my comment to it is that "Loan funds depended on by tenants of Drumquin" means "loan funds on which tenants of Drumquin depend". Surely not all verb + preposition combinations are phrasal verbs; this does not seem to be one. "complain about" is similar in the construction; check google:"complained about by". The form is "<object> is complained about by <subject>", a passive form of "<subject> complains about <object>". However, bring about is a phrasal verb, IMHO. For reference: depend on at OneLook Dictionary Search; none of the leading non-Wordnet dictionaries is there. By contrast, bring about at OneLook Dictionary Search shows Collins, Macmillan and Merriam-Webster. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't see how thus us any different from rely on. bd2412 T 02:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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

Yes. The first sense is referring to a language in the context of all the languages of the world, with Latin being considered the high, sacred language and any other language being considered a common, ordinary everyday language by comparison. The second refers to lower-prestige and/or less-formal varieties within a language, The best way to highlight the difference is to imagine an archbishop saying Mass at the national cathedral, with senators and foreign dignitaries in attendance, and asking whether the language used could be described as "jargon, argot". Chuck Entz (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Another clue is the way Roman Catholic usage tends to refer to "the vernacular", rather than "a vernacular language". Speaking of "the vernacular" in reference to slang is rarely used anymore, except as a humorous way to sound incongruously elegant and proper when describing obscenity. More common is to speak of a specific type of vernacular, such as the hip-hop vernacular in the example sentence. We might end up actually adding a sense, leaving us with three senses: the Roman Catholic sense, a general "speech of the common people" sense, and a "specific speech variety" sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see evidence to that effect and I don't believe it.
What makes that peculiar to the RCs? I could understand vernacular referring to standard language; spoken language; or non-standard dialects, argot, slang etc., not that our definitions make that clear. I could understand that religious texts might be translated into the first and second, but not the third. But lots of groups might not consider "argot" and worthwhile translation target.
And is a "particular group of people" is meant not to include, say, the speakers of a local language not officially recognized.
I also not that, unsurprisingly, we manage to exclude "vernacular" as it might apply to aspects of culture other than language, eg, architecture. DCDuring TALK 02:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) After looking through the entry, I would say that the real overlap is between the first sense:
  1. The language of a people, a national language.
    The vernacular of the United States is English.
or the second sense:
  1. Everyday speech, including colloquialisms, as opposed to literary or liturgical language.
    Street vernacular can be quite different from what is heard elsewhere.
and the Roman Catholic sense. The "jargon, argot" sense is the least similar to the Roman Catholic sense of the three. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep, but change. The Roman Catholic sense is "not Latin", used pejoratively. -- 23:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
No, it's certainly not pejorative. Lmaltier (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
No, not pejorative, but the definition leaves much to be desired. The vernacular is the vernacular regardless of whether the words of the Mass have been translated into it or not. Something like "the everyday spoken language of the people in a particular place, as opposed to Latin" comes closer to it; it does seem to be quite close to the current wording of sense 2. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: Case has not been made for redundancy. Purplebackpack89 18:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

big balls[edit]

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

It's not really SoP because if balls means courage, big balls doesn't mean big courage. Unfortunately from a Wiktionary point of view, it can be rephrased in very many ways (huge balls, massive balls) but none of them as SoP. Or if they are, what do we list at big, huge, massive, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
If we keep this, I think we should insist on exact translations from every variation into all the main languages we have.
"Big courage" is simply not good English because courage is uncountable. Balls in this sense needs to be marked as both countable and uncountable. The countable definition could be a non-gloss definition or some strained gloss like "symbols of courage". That would then accommodate both classes of modifiers. Or we could have a single sense marked as both countable and uncountable with a non-gloss definition. An additional step would be have redirects from all the attestable (on Citations pages) combinations of modifiers and balls to a senseid-marked sense of balls and have two or three usage examples that span the usage.
This is yet another example of modifiers being restricted by the grammar and semantics of a term. If every one is to be an entry with translations, we have a lot of entry-creation and translation to do. Wouldn't we be better off to automate the creation of appropriate redirects? Wouldn't that help users at least as much as the proliferation of parallel entries? DCDuring TALK 13:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Could be covered with usage notes at balls I suppose. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of a usage note. In addition to that, a redirect from big balls, but not other combinations such as massive balls, would be helpful to the user. --BB12 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, with addition of usage note to balls. bd2412 T 19:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mglovesfun: while "balls" means courage, then if "big balls" means "courage" rather than "big courage", it is not a sum of parts. Admittedly, this is not in dictionaries: big balls at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have seen some usages use it as an intensifier of balls (courage). I have just added the humorous tag. Feel free to revert if you want. Pass a Method (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]


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

Merge. — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes I mean merge, since they're both the same but imperfect. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I think there is room for a distinction that not every dictionary makes. A person can be pessimistic and an impersonal forecast/outlook/appraisal/assessment can be pessimistic. It seems silly to say or imply that a forecast is pessimistic only because of the pessimism of forecaster, but that is what most dictionaries' definitions seem to imply.
If the distinction doesn't seem worth distinct sense, perhaps usage examples can show the application to both people and predictions.
Of course, this isn't reflecting in the existing senses which seem to be the same meaning worded for different types of dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 22:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't oppose such a distinction. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Definitions merged (I think it counts as "delete" here). I also added a definition "Pertaining to the worst-case scenario" for the impersonal meaning; feel free to improve it. Keφr 18:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

face sex oral[edit]

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

I was wondering what face sex was, until I clicked on it and it was Romanian. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
At least it's better than face cum... -- Liliana 05:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is not obvious to an English speaker that the Romanian phrase would follow this construction. bd2412 T 13:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. The verb face just means “do”. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

group action[edit]

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

Incidentally, our math sense at [[group action]] is terrible. If it gets kept, it will need to be reworded (to what's at [[action]] or similar).​—msh210 (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
First, I rewrote the definition here (without seeing what was at action).
Second, I could suggest this is backwards. Perhaps. There are different kinds of actions: algebra, monoid, monad, graded, category actions and so on. I'm not sure what the proper way to divvy up the meanings is. As I said in a different discussion, I try to stay away from my professional expertise here. I believe mathematics and dictionaries don't really mesh too well.
To clarify, mathematics is notorious for "abuse of language". An official full unambiguous language is effectively present, but then no one actually uses it, except for a few stray moments when the extra clarity is necessary. The result is that "action" is really "X action", except in situations when only "X actions" are considered, and no one mentions "X". And even when two or three kinds of actions are present, well, if the notation is well-chosen, it is always "clear from context" (ha!) which kind of action is meant. As it is, group actions are historically the first kind of action, and they remain the most common, so yes, by default the word "action" without context refers to "group action". But no one would say "I study actions", but "I study group actions." Choor monster (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep as revised. bd2412 T 16:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per WT:JIFFY (which is pretty much what Choor monster said). Keφr 18:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


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

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

Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase[edit]

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

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

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

November 2013[edit]

bible belt[edit]

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

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

Moved to RFV. Keφr 18:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

sveda lingvo[edit]

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

Erm, it's pretty obvious what it means. However Special:WhatLinksHere/lingvo shows quite a few of these. Have any of them been nominated for deletion before? What was the result? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Evidently greka lingvo has. See Talk:greka lingvo. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete all (we need to list them to do that, of course). If you know what sveda and lingvo mean, you know what sveda lingvo means. And if you don't know what they mean, that's why we have entries for sveda and lingvo. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm listing the others below; if you have a comment specific to these, please put it in the language's individual section. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed - they should all be deleted. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Yes, all SOP. And remove derived term links at sveda, eŭska, vaska, itala, irlanda, and klingona. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep. In Esperanto, Swedish is called la sveda lingvo, or la sveda by abbreviation. Note that Esperanto nouns always end with -o, and sveda is clearly an abbreviation and not a noun of its own. It is not clear whether an adjective + lingvo stands for an actual language or not. Compare sveda lingvo (“Swedish language”) and amerikaj lingvoj (“American languages”). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

eŭska lingvo[edit]

vaska lingvo[edit]

itala lingvo[edit]

irlanda lingvo[edit]

klingona lingvo[edit]

emergency physician[edit]

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

  • Keep as a translation target. The French translation is urgentiste, a single-word non-compound. Per WP, Portuguese is emergencista. German Notarzt is a compound, but I am not sure one would be able to be sure about the translation by combining translations for "emergency" and "physician". I am not sure what the Czech translation should be; maybe záchranář, but not nouzový lékař offered by Google translate (actually, Google offered "nouzové lékař", which is ungrammatical for gender mismatch). Slovak would probably be pohotovostný lekár, which is quite transparent, yet Google translate offers núdzové lekár. Admission: translation target is outside of CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I would delete as not likely to be a good phrasebook entry. You don't ask for an emergency physician, you ask for an ambulance or to go to a hospital. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg
Input needed: This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

emergency doctor[edit]

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

My first thought is an emergency physician is one you call in an emergency, not one that works in an emergency department. Having said that, I'm pretty sure it means both. So delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

без посторонней помощи[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

Seems to me this is a rather fruitless discussion. Is "parquet" in "parquet floor" a noun-modifier or an adjective? On what grounds could you offer a definitive answer to that question? (And is it even a sensible question to ask?) Unless the parsimony that a noun-only definition would offer is the goal, maintaining the adjectival entry makes it clear that "parquet" can be used to modify a variety of nouns ("floor," "table," etc.).

vi estas stultulo[edit]

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

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

homo marriage[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

chè sâm bổ lượng[edit]

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

January 2014[edit]

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

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

  • Keep all; they seem fairly idiomatic to me. bd2412 T 17:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-idiomatic Vietnamese words[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I'll improve Wikipedia's discussion of classifiers shortly, but in the meantime, there's a wealth of academic research online about them, for example: [1][2]. [3] starts out with a good overview. For something more accessible, see this grammar chapter and this one by Laurence Thompson. Finally, it may be helpful to see how reputable translationaries deal with this issue.

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

    These things called Vietnamese classifiers do not seem to be very similar to English articles. You say they serve the same grammatical function, but I am rather unclear about what you mean by that. I can add "a" or "the" to almost any English noun; from what I have understood, you cannot freely combine any classifier with any noun or verb; furthermore, an addition of "a" vs. "the" indicates definiteness or determinacy, while that is not what the classifiers do. The classifiers seem to be similar to -ing, -ion, -ness, -ize, -er, -or suffixes and to "tree" and "fruit" in "apple tree" and "apple fruit". An almost perfect regularity in application of classifiers--if there is one--may make it customary for Vietnamese-English dictionaries to omit combinations that include the classifiers, but it is less clear that this fits the overall approach of English Wiktionary, which even includes inflected forms as separate entries, and which has "coolness" as a separate entry, unlike Merriam-Webster online, which only has a dedicated entry for "cool". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    I think that a large part of this problem is that you are too fixated on interpreting these to be like prefixes or suffixes when the comparison to English "-ing", "-ness", etc is pretty inadequate on its own. And besides, muỗi is redundant to con muỗi and this duality would only create more maintenance work in the future should something change. This seems to be a problem dictionaries have with Sinitic languages in general, when classical classifications of PoS like "noun", "verb", "adjective" are inadequate at fully capturing the meaning of a lemma. But I'll let Mxn speak more about these entries. TeleComNasSprVen (talk 10:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    You have not explained why the comparison of "sự" to -ing and -ion and the like is inadequate; I have explained what makes a comparison to English definite and indefinite articles implausible to me, or at least not useful in deciding whether the Vietnamese combinations should be kept. A reasoning along the lines of '"sự hy sinh" should not be kept, since we do not keep a car' is entirely implausible to me.
    As for maintenance, I do not see any maintenance problem with "con muỗi" vs. "muỗi" that is absent in "blueness" vs. "blue" or "plowing" vs. "plow"; indeed, MWO avoids "blueness"[4], while en:wikt does not. However, since both con muỗi and muỗi mean "mosquito", the former could have a definition line reading like "classifier-extended form of muỗi", or the like; the same approach is not so useful for sự hy sinh (sacrifice, noun), which is not synonymous with hy sinh (sacrifice, verb). But even there, sự hy sinh could read like "Nominal form of hy sinh; sacrifice". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    I have already given my explanation further up the page and I'd have expected you to fully read all the arguments presented here before coming up with a rebuttal of your own. You might have done so, but nevertheless, I believe Mxn is more qualified to comment on the classifier-as-PoS-issue (he's even given you links to the literature on them which I was not previously aware existed), so rather than risk having the appearance of talking out of my ass I will leave it to him. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    Your diff does not explain why the comparison of "sự" to -ing and -ion and the like is inadequate. The only part of the diff that pertains to "sự" is this: "As I have never used the word sự in regular Vietnamese I cannot speak to that [...]". --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks. I'm now convinced about Vietnamese classifiers. It's not just one dictionary, which is misleading learners to believe that "con cóc" is a word. I can quote at least two, plus some textbooks (plus Google Translate for some reason). No other dictionary for a language, which features classifiers, AFAIK, confuses users providing "classifier + noun" in translations of English nouns. It's also to do with the way specifically Vietnamese classifiers work, compared to other languages. In Vietnamese, a sentence can start with a classifier, without a numeral or determiner, it's not the case with some other languages. Anyway, I'm OK to delete such cases - "classifier + noun".
I'm not convinced about "nominaliser + verb" cases, though, even if some Vietnamese grammarians don't consider them true nouns and there could be more than one nominaliser. Some grammarians don't considers Japanese suru-verbs true verbs either. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Request for move discussion is here Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Non-idiomatic_Vietnamese_words. Only applies to entries with "classifier + noun" entries from the above list. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Reviving the discussion, which mainly moved to Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Non-idiomatic_Vietnamese_words and that part is complete - entries moved to terms without the classifier. Further comments are sought for "sự" nouns, a few of the above. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

risk appetite[edit]

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

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

take exception to[edit]

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

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

television show[edit]

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

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

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

  • Restore, reinstate, undelete. If teleshow is used in science fiction, it's too far out, haha. Donnanz (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Restore and keep. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't restore. Per above and previous discussion.​—msh210 (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Restore as {{translation only}} per DP. Keφr 08:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg
Input needed: This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

For restoring: Anatoli, PBP, DP, Donnanz, Matthias Buchmeier, me (6 people). For deletion: -sche, Wikitiki89, Ungoliant, Msh210, DCDuring (5 people). Anyone else wants to comment, or should this be closed as "not restored for no consensus"? Keφr 18:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Since we don't have a policy on restoring, the vote count can be interpreted as "no consensus" for deletion of the entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed as restored. Our principles tend to favor inclusion unless there is consensus to exclude (as evidenced by the fact that anyone can create an entry, and unless the entry is nonsense or meets some other speedy deletion criteria, some process must be used to gauge consensus in favor of deleting the entry). This seems to have gone back and forth, but since we have no set rules on requests for the restoration of previously deleted entries, I believe that the best course of action is to restore, let the entry sit for some time so that advocates for its existence can improve it to the greatest degree possible to show its utility, and then have this discussion again at some future point of advocates of deleting it continue to feel that it should be removed. bd2412 T 19:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

chromosomal aberration[edit]

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

If we had a medical definition of aberration, I would have said delete. --WikiTiki89 14:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Now we have (#7): "deviation of a tissue, organ or mental functions from what is considered to be within the normal range". Feel free to improve my English, I'm just a poor learner. Mastering a foreign language would require a lifetime. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
In that case delete. --WikiTiki89 15:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am not sure whether this is SOP. It is in some medical dictionaries in chromosomal aberration at OneLook Dictionary Search, although that is not a very strong argument. chromosomal abnormality,chromosome abnormality,chromosomal aberration,chromosomal mutation,chromosome anomaly,chromosomal anomaly at Google Ngram Viewer is interesting; I picked the terms from W:Chromosomal abnormality. Google translate has this as two units for Greek, Slovak and Spanish, but as one unit for Czech, Romanian, and Russian. Not a very strong case for keeping, but the case for deletion ("or else we will need to have all phrases and sentences", or "the rules are rules and must be kept!") seems even weaker. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • WP redirects "Chromosomal aberration" to "Chromosome abnormality". At GNG the six combinations of "[chromosome|chromosomal] [defect|aberration|abnormality]" seem to co-vary over time and seem impossible to distinguish, except in the same way that "defect" is more pejorative than "abnormality", which is a bit more pejorative than "aberration". Comparison with hormone [abnormality|aberration|defect] suggests that there may be a modest tendency to avoid "defect" and that "aberration" is just less common that "abnormality". DCDuring TALK 19:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

محمد بن عبد الله[edit]

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

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

evening prayer[edit]

sunset prayer[edit]

dawn prayer[edit]

noon prayer[edit]

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

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

mondo bizarro[edit]

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

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

a modo mio[edit]

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


The sense in question:

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

Which is redundant to:

  1. Lacking proper respect or seriousness; sarcastic.

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

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


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

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


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

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

March 2014[edit]


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

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

Is there any reason to keep this open any longer? bd2412 T 21:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

biological clock[edit]

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

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

Category:Hungarian terms derived from Turkmen[edit]

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

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

Category deleted as empty; it may be re-created when there is something to fill it. Keφr 19:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Standard English[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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. [5] 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. [6] Because of the crowds and police, I suspect he's comparing London to Gotham City. Bit ambiguous to me, though.
  3. [7] 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)


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)


Both the Geordie senses are redundant to sense 1. Sense 3 indicates the present participle - in other words, it's an eye dialect of -ing - and sense 4 indicates a gerund - in other words, it's an eye dialect of -ing. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

(Before anyone suggests that maybe "-ing" is only condensed to "-in" in these specific contexts in Geordie, Google books gives plenty of evidence of Geordies eating herrin, and paying shillins, and climbing Roseberry Toppin.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
"Roseberry Topping"? OMG I think I just found my drag queen name. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, just eye dialect, and common in many other dialects, not just Geordie. Dbfirs 08:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Maybe a usage note listing the dialects where this eye dialect is most commonly used can be added. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 01:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted/merged. - -sche (discuss) 02:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

dative of purpose[edit]

SOP. This is no dictionary material. --Fsojic (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is part of a set of correlative terms: the types of dative cases. DCDuring TALK 22:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep. There are also dative of benefit, ethic dative, etc. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

green line[edit]

The sense: "Any of the various subway, railway, tram and bus lines around the world marked with color green on the map and/or on the signs along the route or on the vehicles" is completely SOP, as it refers to a line that has randomly been designated "green". In my town, we have one of these, along with a red line, blue line, orange line, yellow line, and soon-to-open silver line and purple line. Undoubtedly we can find other examples from around the world, but in every case they will be no more idiomatic than train or bus routes that identify their route by reference to numbers or geographic locations. bd2412 T 15:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. What's next- A line: "Any of the various subway, railway, tram and bus lines around the world marked with the letter A"? Chuck Entz (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete. The example given is not even correct. The London Underground does not use colours as names for the lines. It would be "District" line. --Dmol (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. It's my addition, so I took the liberty of deleting it right away. I originally added the "sense" as sort of bad joke because I thought it fit perfectly the SOPish overall content of the entry. Now, as the RFD for the whole entry was declared "unsolved" and thus "kept", there's no place for this "sense". The usex , btw, was not incorrect. The District line is sometimes referred to as the green (not Green) line as also the Tube uses color codes to differentiate the lines. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

PS. I still think the word processing sense (which is the sense that provoked my irresponsible action) is equally SOP - the line indicating an error could be of any color, it just happens to be green in some word processors. In my version of Microsoft Outlook a suspected error is indicated by a dotted red line. The usex proves nothing. It would be absurd to call a green line on a screen for something else than a "green line". --Hekaheka (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that almost all the uses of "green line" in the word processing context refer just to a line that happens to be green. I found two borderline examples, but not enough to convince me that it is used as a separate term in word processing. Would you like to rfv the sense? Dbfirs 08:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
All senses seem encyclopedic, except the word-processing sense, too trivial for an encyclopedia, more suitable for a user-manual glossary at best. DCDuring TALK 12:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The generic sense of a demarcation line does not seem particularly encyclopedic to me; although examples are provided, the examples are not the definition. bd2412 T 12:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Then why not put the encyclopedic part of the definition into a properly formatted usage example. Also, try finding another green line that fits the definition, especially with the "such as". Then try substituting the definition with the "such as" into a usage instance for some other demarcation line. The comma between the definition proper "A demarcation line" and the 8 times longer "such as" is a flimsy basis for claiming the "example" is not part of the definition. The definition as is looks like a minimally disguised encyclopedic definition. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Just to keep the discussion on track, my deletion nomination relates to the transportation route sense of "green line". bd2412 T 12:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's delete the whole entry! The demarcation line -sense is in Collins and dictionary.com, but the actual usage seems scant. Most of the time the term is either capitalized or within quotation marks, and even when it is not, it is used to refer to a specific Green Line. The word-processing sense is useless as DCD points out. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Sense 1 is almost invariably capitalised in the usages I can find, so any entry should go under Green Line. Dbfirs 10:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to the deletion of the entire entry. bd2412 T 01:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

private language[edit]

RFD SOP sense: "A language used exclusively within a group of closely associated people, such as lovers, immediate family members, or members of a profession." --WikiTiki89 19:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete {{&lit}} covers it. DCDuring TALK 20:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


Gerund? It doesn't have a plural or anything to distinguish it meaningfully from the verb. Or am I wrong on this, in which case every single present participle, even e.g. "defragmenting", should have a noun section of this kind? Seems silly. Equinox 15:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: The reason you don't find a plural is that greenlining is usually used with a definite article, i.e. "the greenlining of ...". As for your second sentence, a) not every present participle is used as a noun in common parlance, and b) the ones that are SHOULD have noun definitions Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, all -ing forms are both gerunds and present participles. What seems silly is calling them all present participles alone when actually they're both. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I agree with Angr, but it might not be practical if we do it this way. After all, the same form can also be used as an adverb: Sitting here, I can't help but wonder.... —CodeCat 16:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I think that in the sense you described, sitting is a verb Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Since when do verbs modify clauses like adverbs? —CodeCat 16:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Since when does your case show an -ing-form modifying a clause? Consider: "Sitting there, I viewed the car." and "Sitting there, the car was viewed by me." In the second case, the natural, native interpretation is that it was the car that was "sitting". DCDuring TALK 16:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
              • And in that case, "was sitting" is the present progressive form of sit. But we've gone off-topic. The topic is that this and other gerunds should be kept if used in common parlance (and therefore attestable) Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm not convinced that sitting is an adverb in "Sitting here, I can't help but wonder." I think "sitting here" is an adjective (as all participles are) modifying "I"; after all, sitting is describing a property of the speaker, not the manner of her wondering (or the manner of her inability to help wondering). It's like disappointed in "Disappointed, he went back home" or "He went back home disappointed", which are different from "He went back home disappointedly." I have no particular objection to listing both the present participle and the gerund under a ===Verb=== header (categorized as verb forms); I merely object to persistently omitting the gerund sense from -ing forms. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
          • It's debatable whether in the example above "sitting" is an adjectival participle or an an adverbial participle. Same goes for something like this: "She fell, screaming, down the rabbit hole." I think the best way to analyze it is as an adverb that describes the subject's state while performing the action. --WikiTiki89 18:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Another clear example of why it must be an adverb is "It is not good to eat walking.", because the subject that "walking" would refer to is not even mentioned in the sentence. --WikiTiki89 18:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
              • It's also fairly easy to see by adding "while". "While sitting", "while walking" and so on. This makes it more obvious that we're dealing with a subordinate clause that expresses time or circumstance, which behaves syntactically as an adverb within the overall sentence. A good way to see this with any phrasal part of speech or subordinate clause is to replace it with an interrogative for which the phrase is the answer, or alternative a demonstrative. In this case, the question must be "when" (in the meaning of "in what case/circumstance" or "at what time"), and the demonstrative can be either "then" (in that case) or "now" (at this time). For Angs example with "disappointed", the question is "how", and the demonstrative is "so", "thus" or "like that". These are all clearly adverbs, which means that the original phrase must be as well. —CodeCat 19:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
              • (edit conflict) Lest we forget, this RfD is about a noun sense, not an adjective or adverbial sense. This and other gerunds can function as both noun and verb senses, and definitions should be created accordingly Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    The discussion is confusing word class and function. The existence of the adverbial usage of Thursday in "He left Thursday" does not require us to have an adverb PoS section in [[Thursday]]. Just because we are confused on this doesn't mean we should confuse our users. DCDuring TALK 19:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    I don't believe walking or Thursday are adverbs in those senses...walking is a verb and Thursday is an object (consider the the proper way to say those things are "It is not good to eat while you are walking" and "He left on Thursday". In either case, this RfD is not about an adverb, but a noun, and no one has yet to give a valid reason why the word is used improperly as a noun and/or should be deleted. I have no intention of adding an adverbial sense, even if I did believe one existed Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    If there was such a word as Thursdaywalking, it could be a gerund. However, the word would have to exist before it could be classified. bd2412 T 21:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    I was concerned with CodeCat's introduction of the idea of an -ing-form of a verb generating an adverb PoS because it might be construed as adverbial. I don't recall anyone else introducing or advocating that idea.
As to the matter at hand, if an -ing-form of a verb can be found in the plural (rantings) or modified by a determiner (much ranting), we have been declaring it to be a noun even if, as in the case of ranting there is no distinct meaning in the alleged noun, apart from aspect. I think the noun PoS is a distraction. IMO, we would be better off creating and applying a template for English ing-forms that conveyed the idea that such forms were both nominals (gerunds) and participles (inflected forms of verbs also serving as modifiers of nouns).
Further, just as the PoS header "Prepositional phrase" eliminated the need to have essentially duplicative definitions under "Adjective" and "Adverb", a PoS header for -ing-forms would also eliminate duplication, though at a price of causing occasional users confusion not guaranteed to be meliorated by a linked definition in Appendix:Glossary. DCDuring TALK 21:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Having a gerund template is probably a good idea, so long as we count definite and indefinite articles as determiners Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Some count the articles as determiners. I was focused on the uncountable senses that -ing-forms can have, which are associated with determiners like much and little. Some define determiners broadly to include the articles, others chop determiners into many classes, based on various differences in their usage properties. It's not a debate I'd care to pursue until it proved important lexicographically. DCDuring TALK 01:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
If "a" or "the" is used properly in front of a word ending in -ing, it is a noun and that sense should be kept Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. In "feed the starving", "starving" is an adjective. --WikiTiki89 02:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
No, it's a noun, because it is preceded by a definite article, and there is no noun for it to modify. Its Dutch equivalent has singular and plural forms ("starving" is implicitly plural), and can have genders. It's a noun. —CodeCat 03:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Haven't we had this discussion hundreds of times? It's an adjective used in place of a noun. Whether you call it a noun or noun is irrelevant, it's still an adjective. Any adjective can be used this way. --WikiTiki89 03:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
CGEL calls it a "fused-head" construction, something both determiners and adjectives are capable of, which behaves as a nominal. DCDuring TALK 04:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and the important point here is that it's not a gerund, but a participle. --WikiTiki89 04:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Here, here, and here greenlining is a gerund, not a participle. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with that. --WikiTiki89 02:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg
Input needed: This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • This should be closed as keep as it has run for ~3 months and no one other than the nominator has expressed a deletionist opinion. Purplebackpack89 16:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

licensed game[edit]

"A video game based on an existing license, like a movie." Ignoring the fact that a licensed game might be a non-video game (e.g. a board game or role-playing card game): this seems very SoP. Other common collocations include "licensed toy" and "licensed product". Equinox 14:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete I think this is SOP, although admittedly, no-one would be able to interpret this using our old definitions of "licensed", or even "license". I've expanded the page a bit, to add a couple of more specific subsenses. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Keφr 18:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


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)


Sense: "a tram or bus number 1". Actually, you could refer in this way to television or radio stations, highways, rooms, seats, people even (google:"jedynka na liście"). Anything with a number designation can be referred to with a noun naming the number (or just the numeral, if you are careless enough). An alternative would be to broaden the sense to include this metonymic usage, but is it worth it? Compare Talk:A cup. Keφr 20:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this does not seem to be an instance of metonymy that merits a sense. Further I don't think a general metonymic sense should be included for every number, letter, color, etc in every language. OTOH. I wish I had something other than my intuition to rely on to discriminate inclusion-worthy metonymy from exclusion-worthy metonymy. DCDuring TALK 16:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I would rephrase and fix the definition to have a broader noun sense (derived from the numeral - "by extension") but keep. No other sense seems to cover this. I didn't give it a lot of thought, though. Thinking fivesome - piątka, pięcioro? In Russian too, when someone says - сади́сь на едини́цу (sadísʹ na jedinícu), not sure if it's obvious to a learner that they mean "take number one (tram, bus, etc.)". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
How about a usage note? Keφr 07:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the best way is to keep the sense "number one" (expanded). It may cover some other cases, not transportation. I have also added this sense to едини́ца (jediníca), pls take a look. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep the sense 'a tram or bus no. "1"' of a Polish entry, but probably make it broader; no other sense currently in the entry does the job. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

subito accelerando[edit]

SOP. We already have appropriate English-language entries for both subito and accelerando; musical terms like this can be combined freely (subito piano, subito fortissimo, subito presto, etc.) and it is unnecessary to list them all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

virtual personal trainer[edit]

Non-idiomatic sum of parts. -- Gauss (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure which sense of virtual covers this (the trainer isn't "simulated in a computer"; he/she is a real person), and I think we need to add a sense there. But delete if such a sense is added, since you can also have virtual assistants, virtual PAs, and so on. Equinox 19:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I've added a sense: "Operating by computer or in cyberspace; not physically present. a virtual assistant; a virtual personal trainer." Equinox 19:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete. This sense of virtual can be used for any profession or service that is able to be offered online. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The sense added is a good catch. Accodingly, delete. DCDuring TALK 00:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete. It's definitely a sense of virtual, whether we have a good enough definition of virtual at this time is irrelevant. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This is how virtual is meant here: Virtual http://www.thefreedictionary.com/virtual 3. Computer Science Created, simulated, or carried on by means of a computer or computer network: virtual conversations in a chatroom.

Definition of virtual (adj) Bing Dictionary 2. generated by computer: simulated by a computer for reasons of economics, convenience, or performance

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtual 4: being on or simulated on a computer or computer network <print or virtual books> <a virtual keyboard>:

Deleted. Keφr 07:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


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

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


This covers both the prefix and its category:

I added this based on a dictionary but two other users have pointed out that this isn't really a prefix and words derived from stf should be described as blends rather a prefix + X combination. This makes sense, so these two should probably be deleted. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

We are actually arguing with the mighty OUP by calling this not a prefix, since they call it one in their Brave New Words (admittedly a populist spin-off and not quite the OED). But I still feel it's too narrow and specialised to be really prefix-like. Probably delete. But thanks Adam for adding the various related words, which seem quite attestable in fandom. Equinox 19:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete. The examples in the entry don't even use this prefix: stfandom is st- + fandom, not stf- + *andom. - -sche (discuss) 17:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

cult film[edit]

Per cult video game. SoP. Equinox 23:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I think cult film should not be deleted. The first reason is that I can find 10 sources right now on the internet and put them into citations. Also, cult classic is a synonym, made before cult film (not created by me), and was edited by several people, and was still not deleted. Third, kultfilm is a full word, a Danish translation of the word cult film, and kultfilm has no spaces. Every word without spaces should be added to the dictionary unless it was clearly a made up word. As for cult video game, yeah just delete cult video game. But not cult film. What do you guys think? What else do I have to do to prove that this is not a bad entry?

One more thing. Equinox said it should be deleted because it is like "brown leaf". Well no it's not, because cult film is a very widespread word and is used quite a lot, whereas cult radio or cult video game are not used as much. Please consider that. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. RFD doesn't mean that it isn't a real thing. We know you could show that it exists. But "brown leaf" also exists. The point is that the meaning is clear from the separate words. Equinox 22:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not that it exists. Lots of things exist. I want it kept because it is used very widely. I'm not saying that I want to show that it exists. I'm saying I want to show that it's used a lot.

And I do understand that you are an administrator here, have been here much longer than I have by a long shot, and are probably much older than me (I'm a young editor). Maybe my idea of a multi-lingual dictionary containing all words in all languages is different by a long shot than what experienced editors and administrators think, but I still really want this to be kept. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"brown leaf" is also used very widely, as you can see here [8], so that argument, on its own, isn't enough to justify keeping. Equinox 22:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
My criteria:
  1. Is it used widely? Yes
  2. Does it have a Wikipedia page? (not required but helps a lot in my cause) Yes
  3. Does it have a translation in more than one language? Yes
  4. Does it have translations in a language where the word in that language has no spacing or hyphens? Yes
  5. Is it important? Yes
  6. Would someone look it up in this dictionary? I'd say yes to that too, eventually they will
  7. What happens when it's not there? Well then hell. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Please read our criteria. The first three criteria mean nothing for rfd. The forth has some relevance, but only as a sort of circumstantial evidence- there are languages that can say things like "I saw those two women walk this way" as a single word with prefixes, suffixes and infixes. The fifth is also irrelevant to RFD. The last two are really part of the same point- and also relevant but not decisive.
The point about "sum of parts" entries is that there are a near-infinite number of such entries possible, but none of them would convey any useful information that isn't already provided by the entries for the component parts. You really have to show that cult film has a meaning that can't be found at cult or film. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete per my rationale on #cult video game, unless someone manages to cite cultfilm where I failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It isn't idiomatic. - -sche (discuss) 02:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Delete it. I have no more arguments. This is not criteria for this dictionary. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
... or for any dictionary that I've ever seen. Dbfirs 08:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Lemming test: Collins has it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Oops! So it does! I've added a sense to our noun entry for those (like Collins) who regard "cult film" as attributive use of the noun, rather than adjectival use of "cult". In this context, I see why Ready Steady Yeti argued for inclusion. Perversely, we have art film and Collins doesn't. Dbfirs 09:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Not SoP. If it were SoP, then it would mean a film made by a cult. If the Branch Davidians had filmed David Koresh preaching to his flock, that would be a cult film. But that is not what cult film means. Cult films are not produced by cults, nor are they about cults. Cult films are weird and unusual, and their audience becomes obsessive and irrationally appreciative of the film. Pink Flamingos (1971–72) starring Divine became a cult film. —Stephen (Talk) 09:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, as defined at "cult", adjective. You might as well falsely argue that "brown leaf" itself requires an entry, since there are different senses of brown and leaf: it isn't, for example, a brown page in a book, even though that's a "leaf", and plausible. Equinox 18:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
So do we need the words "weird and unusual" in the definition? That would make it more than SoP. Dbfirs 07:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, after a hesitation. For one thing, Collins has it. For another thing, here is cult film,cult movie,cult comedy,cult book,cult video game,cult horror,cult radio series at Google Ngram Viewer, which suggests that "cult film" and "cult movie" are the main expressions, of which the other ones are immitations. I do admit that these cult things form a group, but I am not sure this makes them sum of parts. Yes, you can take the group, figure out a definition of "cult" used in these combinations, and add it to cult (adjective), but I am not sure this is the best treatment; it smells too much of adding a definition to adjective red: Of a dwarf planet, being relatively cool and of the main sequence, and then claiming SoP for red dwarf. For those editors that are sometimes ok with a redirect, I propose you consider to figure it out how to take the reader from "cult film" to the adjectival sense that cult currently has; what about cult#Adjective? Although cult#Portuguese also has an adjectival definition. In any case, keeping "cult film" entry seems to serve the users better than removing it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    Correction: The Ngram actually suggests "cult book" is the term that appeared earlier. I would still keep "cult film" and "cult movie" together with "cult book". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep is what Stephen seems to say above, albeit without boldface. (A note made for the likes of me who like to count votes.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Never mind what I said above. I also say keep. Forgive me for not understanding every bit of what you guys just said. But I think I get the point. This is what I was thinking about this morning before getting out of bed. Cult film, for one, is not a combination of the entries for cult and film. Cult film means "A film that has acquired a cult following.". This word cannot be guessed by combining the meanings of cult and film in any senses. It is not about cults or having to do with cults (well I suppose it could be but that's not what the word means), it has to do with the film acquiring a cult following. Plus, more support is that another dictionary, Collins, has this entry. In that case, cult video game still seems questionable. I would actually rather cult video game be deleted, because the Wikipedia article does not have articles in other languages about cult video game. But this rule for inclusion is not what Wiktionary is looking for. I think Wiktionary (not me) would rather keep this entry for the same reason as cult film. For the reason, it is not a video game about or made by a cult, but it is a video game that has acquired a cult following, once again. I think I've made my case. Thanks for the support. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • One of our definitions of cult is "Enjoyed by a small, loyal group", so if a cult film is nothing more than a film that is enjoyed by a small, loyal group then this is SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No, because the word does not assume that the movie has something to do with a "small loyal group of enjoyers", neither does it mean that it was made by a "small loyal group of enjoyers". The meaning of the word is "A film that has acquired a cult following" (not a cult). Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Definitions are just explanations. They can be rephrased and still refer to the same thing (approximately, but no one uses uses natural languages like legalese anyway, except lawyers). What if we deleted "small" from the definition of cult? Would it still not be cult + film? Keφr 18:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete! I did not realize. Look at the example in the definition that Angr refers to. "cult horror movie"! On the contrary, in commemoration of this attempt to keep this world, let's replace the example with "cult film"! Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete (I think this discussion is effectively dead anyway). Renard Migrant (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep. I think cult film is the original term, rather than the adjectival use of cult. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete! I don't know why we haven't yet. This discussion is long since over. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

terrorist training camp[edit]

terrorist + training + camp Keφr 08:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be worthy of a Wikipedia entry. There's no entry for training camp, but there is one for terrorist camp. Donnanz (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has different criteria for inclusion, of course. I suggest that we keep terrorist camp and expand the entry because it is not just a camp for terrorists, then delete terrorist training camp. Dbfirs 09:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm fairly neutral on this, but it doesn't make sense to delete one and keep the other, when it is known as both. I ain't sayin' nuffink. Donnanz (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Though I'm the creator, I'm actually quite neutral on this myself. Terrorist training camp is a long word, though it is an alternative form of terrorist camp. I may say keep both of them. It doesn't make sense to delete one and keep the other, even though one is more useful than the other. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Being long is not a problem. The issue is that the term's meaning is obvious given its constituent words. (It may be argued that this is not the case for terrorist camp, so I did not nominate it, but I have nothing against adding it here.) Keφr 16:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
By long, I meant too specific by a long shot. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Every word in every language, not every sequence of words imaginable in every language. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 15:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Well then '''''''''''''''''''''''''''delete it already'''''''''''''''''''''''''''! I can't wait to see it deleted once and for all! Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Nothing worth discussing. Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
And training camp shouldn't even really be here either. See training +‎ camp. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not here is it? Dbfirs 11:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Definition and translations copied to terrorist camp. Keφr 18:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

cult classic[edit]

Renard Migrant (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep basically per my reasoning from #cult film above. This is a sum of parts only if the group of terms involving cult book, cult film and cult classic is used to extract an adjectival sense of cult serving to represent this group. In cult classic at OneLook Dictionary Search, Collins does not have it but oxforddictionaries.com (not OED) does; curious. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 15:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Cult (enjoyed by a small, loyal group) + classic (artistic work of lasting worth). — Ungoliant (falai) 15:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete. I'm evil, eh? Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Abstain. At this point, "cult classic" is no more than the sum of its parts. It may have been the first "cult _" collocation to come into use. Other collocations show up earlier in ngrams, but tracking down the actual books reveals that what Google has recorded as early (pre-1930s) instances of "cult work", "cult game" and "cult book" are in fact instances of "diffi- cult (work|game|book)" across line breaks, and the two early hits of "cult story" are actually a scanno of "colt story" and "a new study of the belief that Jesus rose from the dead, of its function as the early Christian cult story". The earliest hit of a "cult _" collocation which is actually relevant seems to be this one from 1933: "Charles Ford's achievements include everything from his cult classic film Johnny Minotaur [...]". One could try to demonstrate that this use of "cult classic" predates "cult" having the sense "enjoyed by a small, loyal group" (in which case it would pass the "in a jiffy" test), but I am not sure how one would do that. - -sche (discuss) 03:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Film? The question is really whether the term "cult classic" means "cult classic film", or whether it normally means "a perfect and/or early example of a particular style enjoyed by a small loyal group" and "an artistic work of lasting worth enjoyed by a small loyal group". Then it would be a sum of parts. Dbfirs 07:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Dan Polansky, that's why we have a relevant definition at cult, it's not some sort of incredibly fortunate coincidence. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure a definition should be at cult#Adjective. But it can stay there; we also have a definition at prime (Adjective, #4) and prime number. See also Talk:free variable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


Wikimedia is blanked/deleted/whatever you want to call it/tagged maybe, but Wikimédia, a French translation, is not. So what do you think should happen to this? I say delete, but it's worth discussion I guess. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete, name of an individual website. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete: I can't imagine it passing an RFV. Equinox 17:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

nadgorliwość jest gorsza od faszyzmu[edit]

This is defined as a Polish proverb, but does not seem to be one. google books:"nadgorliwość jest gorsza od faszyzmu" finds only 6 hits, in only 4 of which the phrase is actually shown by Google. To be a proverb, a phrase must have many more durably archived hits, I believe. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Plus they they took a concise, direct phrase and gave it a rambling, vague heap of verbiage instead of a definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep. There is no exceptional criterion for proverbs, and the variant nadgorliwość gorsza od faszyzmu is listed in at least one published glossary of proverbs. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
If it cannot be demonstrated to be a proverb, then this is simply a sum of parts sentence. The published glossary is this, right? The typesetting looks extremely cheep, so it is as "published" as any random web page, and its being "published" in this way does not matter at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

lado bom[edit]

Lado (side: one possible aspect of a concept, person or thing) + bom (good).

Many SOPs can be and are formed with this sense of lado: lado bom (good side), lado ruim (bad side), lado mau (bad/evil side), lado divertido (fun side), lado chato (boring side), lado difícil (difficult side), lado fácil (easy side), etc. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

foder-se para[edit]

The term demands the adverb pouco otherwise has (assumes) a literal meaning "screw yourself by" (to get, or, in name of something or someone) --Tchirruá (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Usually true, but it is occasionally used without pouco. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
@Tchirruá: On the other hand, I’ve never seen it not used in the progressive aspect, so maybe it should be moved to estar se fodendo para. What do you think? — Ungoliant (falai) 12:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

culona inchiavabile[edit]

SoP of culona and inchiavabile (which we seem to lack at the moment; I'll look into it). It's not an idiom it's a famous quotation. Wiktionary is not Wikiquote! Renard Migrant (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete. This does not seem to be a common Italian insult, believing google books:"culona inchiavabile". If this were a common insult, I would find it worth keeping, since it would be unobvious to me that they actually say this in Italian, but it is not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Language is what is spoken and the phrase was uttered by the President of Italy, thus requiring definition. It is what a dictionary is for, to define the language as used. The What Wiktionary is not article does not in fact say that "Wiktionary is not Wikiquote"; this argument is a red herring.O'Dea (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
But we can define culona and inchiavabile. By your argument, why not make an entry for Angela Merkel è una culona inchiavabile as that's the whole phrase? PS surely despite the link, you're not denying that Wiktionary isn't Wikiquote are you? Renard Migrant (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The difference between Wiktionary and Wikisource could not be clearer, but lots of multiword entries are already defined in dictionaries: bus stop, hammer price, credit mule, polling booth, bunk off, pole dancer.... Before adding the entry I searched online for a clear statement of its meaning and its etymology. Finally, having satisfied myself that I grasped it confidently enough to write a respectable definition of it, I wrote one to help others who, like me, need an easier-to-find definition with etymology to clarify it. There is so obviously a justification for this. Wiktionary exists to provide accessible meaning so people don't have to waste time Web-wandering to duplicate research already performed. The definition provides a helpful service, as it ought. O'Dea (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete. The President of Italy speaking something doesn’t make it idiomatic. The entries culona and inchiavabile should give our users the information necessary to understand precisely what it means. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

wyjść po angielsku[edit]

wyjście po angielsku[edit]

The minimal idiomatic part is po angielsku (which I now added; improvements to the definition are welcome), because the verb may be replaced with any synonym, like zniknąć, ulotnić się, czmychnąć without any loss of meaning, making this term SOP. (Alternatively, one might consider synonym substitutions as alternative forms of this term, but I think it is not feasible to do so.) Keφr 20:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible SoP Japanese terms[edit]


Delete. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Not idiomatic. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per TAKASUGI Shinji. bd2412 T 17:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


Delete. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep. It means a cotton boll. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per TAKASUGI Shinji, whose authority on the idiomacity of Japanese words I trust completely. bd2412 T 17:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Atitarev: I assume this was deleted in error? 12:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, restored. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 13:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to withdraw this. It seems like the word is more complex than I thought. It could mean cotton boll and cottonseed. Thanks for pointing it out, TAKASUGI Shinji. Whym (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


Add a metaphorical definition to 実る before deleting this. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. Whym (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Not idiomatic. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per TAKASUGI Shinji. bd2412 T 17:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


Delete. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Not idiomatic. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per TAKASUGI Shinji. bd2412 T 17:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


Delete. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Idiomatic. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per TAKASUGI Shinji, whose authority on the idiomacity of Japanese words I trust completely. Taken character by character, this would seem to mean "no truth to the crime", which is not the same as identifying a charge (presumably a criminal charge or accusation) as false. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


All above are simply non-idiomatic phrases. Whym (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Not idiomatic. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per TAKASUGI Shinji. bd2412 T 17:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


既成事実 is an established term, but this is not. Whym (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Create 既成 before deleting this. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. Whym (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Not idiomatic. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per TAKASUGI Shinji. bd2412 T 17:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


Translation of the English idiom "world's oldest profession", not idiomatic as a term in Japanese. Whym (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I abstain my vote until further notice. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Could be an RFV issue? Renard Migrant (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Not idiomatic. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per TAKASUGI Shinji. bd2412 T 17:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted a bunch except for some for which there were keep votes. Voting keep for 世界最古の職業, even if it may be a translation. I think English "world's oldest profession" is also idiomatic. Undecided about 無実の罪. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe most Japanese have no idea what the world’s oldest profession is. As far as I know, it is used to explain the English concept. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
But this type of opinions seems quite common on the Japanese Web: 売春婦が世界最古の職業というネタが広く流布しているような気がする。 しかし、... (or similar), quoted or without quotes. It doesn't have to be known to MOST Japanese but to MANY, IMHO. It is a translated phrase for many languages, not sure where it originated. More importantly, it seems attestable in Japanese as uses, not mentions. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 14:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I might have said too assertively. Your example is quite ordinary, however. It means: "It seems a widespread story that the prostitution is the world's oldest profession, but…" Here, "世界最古の職業" doesn’t means the prostitution but literally means the oldest profession of the world. It is not idiomatic. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Isn’t it better to move it to RFV? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with you on idiomaticity of this term in Japanese but I just don't see it a very important term to spend too much time on it, as I read Japanese with difficulty. :) The few examples I've read seem to suggest that it's used not mentioned in Japanese, just like it is in other languages. I met a few Japanese, even living in Japan who live "in the West", reading only Western books, watching only Western movies and series, even if it's all in translation. For westernised Japanese what is idiomatic in English, is also idiomatic in Japanese. Just a thought. "World's oldest profession" is a common term, which is used in the world literature. Feel free to RFV. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

cendre volcanique[edit]

Sum of parts, consisting of cendre + volcanique. Or ought we have volcanic ash? --Fsojic (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, if you know what cendre (ash) means, and you know what volcanique (volcanic) means, you know what cendre volcanique. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

IIRC redirects[edit]

Kephir deleted If I Remember Correctly and If I Recall Correctly under WT:SOP and WT:redirects. We discussed it briefly (I have no idea how to link LQT threads here), and my request for these redirects to be restored fell on deaf ears of which I was rudely told to shut up. so be it. as far as I know, there is no justifiable reason for redirects of this nature to be prohibited, and their inclusion (which falls under Wiktionary:redirects#Redirecting between different forms of idioms as the spelled out version of an initialism is certainly a different form of it) is allowed. The prime example that shows that this should be allowed is the redirect of as far as I know which is another form of AFAIK has existed since 02:50, 6 September 2008‎ (5.8 years ago). As such, I'm requesting either a discussion on the topic of why redirects to alternative forms of initialisms are not allowed despite the fact they improve search indexing making it easier to find a definition someone may be looking for or restoration of these redirects. Thank you. —This unsigned comment was added by Technical 13 (talkcontribs).

Definitely delete, apart from the bad capitalization, why have if I recall correctly redirect to IIRC, which then explains that it means if I recall correctly. Totally boneheaded. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • And I thought you were tech-savvy. Here is the link: Thread:User talk:Kephir/redirects. Comparison to as far as I know makes more sense than to red herring, I think. Still, as far as I know is atypical, because the "as ... as ..." construct is usually used for expressing some kind of proportion, comparison or analogy, but as far as I know does not draw a parallel to anything explicitly mentioned. While "he dislikes fish as far as I know" does not mean "his dislike of fish is directly proportional to my extent of knowledge", but "I can claim he dislikes fish, but note the limited knowledge I might have". But if I recall correctly seems more like straightforward conditional clause. Keφr 18:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Not restored. Keφr 18:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification#Topramenesha.

M1 Abrams[edit]

A model of tank- encyclopedia material

Thanks, but no tanks... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. A case could be made for having Abrams, as nothing in the word indicates what it is, but this entry is encyclopedic. --Dmol (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Whoa hang on, is this really a proper noun? If so why? Looks like a common noun and would meet WT:CFI because the meaning is not easily derived from the sum of its parts. Seriously, look up M1 and Abrams. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems like another case of branded product, like the RFV-failed Talk:Atari 2600. Send to RFV perhaps? Equinox 13:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes it's probably a registered trademark which for our purposes makes it a proper noun, even if it is used like a common noun. I'm not saying I'm in favor of this, just in practice this is how we work. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Why would it be a registered trademark? That's a US government label for one of the pieces of hardware; I'm not under the impression that the names of tanks or planes, like the F-15, are commonly trademarked.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
For the record, there is no U.S. federal trademark registration for the "M1 Abrams" tank. There are some cancelled registrations for a brand of fireworks by that name (ownership unrelated), and there was a registration held by the United States Army Tank-Automotive Command for just "Abrams", for which the product described was an "M1 tank". Also for the record, delete. bd2412 T 15:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Individually named streets[edit]

Aldersgate Street[edit]

"A street leading north from London Wall towards Clerkenwell." Unlike e.g. 24 Sussex Drive there is no metonymy here, and we are not a street atlas. Equinox 13:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: I find some intrinsic value in this being here Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Do you have any reason to want to keep this? If so, what it is? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    And how does this "finding" in any way comport with WT:CFI? Delete DCDuring TALK 15:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I disagree with this particular interpretation of CFI. There also isn't a dang thing in CFI about roads or streets. We are being overly restrictive and deleting too much stuff, and these two deletions are a perfect example of that. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if it's covered by CFI (yet), but common sense would suggest we avoid this: what you said about CFI applies equally to Main Street. How many cities, towns, hamlets, burgs and other assorted places in the US don't have a Main Street? Chuck Entz (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Well CFI isn't CFE; it's not criteria for exclusion it's criteria for inclusion. How does this meet any of them? When you say "I disagree with this particular interpretation of CFI", what interpretation is this? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 16:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There was an underground station named "Aldersgate Street" opened in 1865, but it is now named "Barbican" after two name changes (since 1968). Donnanz (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    • By coincidence, that is where Wikimania 2014 is being held. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • OTOH Aldersgate (at 17:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC) a redirect to Aldersgate Street) would seem to be lexical in that it refers metonymously to a critical event in the life of John Wesley and the history of Methodism. It is analogous to road to Damascus. I only found one citation at Google books that has that same interpretation. DCDuring TALK 17:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • See [[Aldersgate]]. DCDuring TALK 18:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Good. Somebody added that Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC) A Methodist
  • Delete This can easily get ridiculous.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Dmol (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete (same as below). Renard Migrant (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, not because it's a street name, but because it's generally considered as a name, but not as a word (unlike e.g. Strand, Champs-Élysées or Canebière which should be accepted, because these names are considered as words). I have a related question: very often, German street names are written as single words, e.g. Friedrichstraße. Are these names considered as words in German? I feel they might, but I don't know for sure. Lmaltier (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Lombard Street[edit]

As with Aldersgate Street: no metonymy, and we're not a street atlas or guidebook. Equinox 13:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete sense. Not to mention the numerous other Lombard streets that exist, such as the famous zigzaggy one in San Francisco. --WikiTiki89 14:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete sense. Move some of the def to etymology. I have added a metonymic sense with citations. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete sense / move it to the etymology, per DCDuring and per precedent cases like 24 Sussex Drive, linked-to in the previous section. - -sche (discuss) 16:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has over 20,000 articles on individual named streets, and I don't think we want to have entries reflecting all of the unique names. We should give basically the same treatment to all entries in Category:en:Named roads - delete senses containing purely geographic descriptions of the locations of the streets, but keep metonymic senses, and put enough of the geographic description in the etymology to make sense of the origin of the word. Note, however, that for an entry like Wall Street, the etymology should not merely say that this comes from the name of a street in New York, but should at least note that it is derived from "de Waal Straat", believed to reflect the Dutch settlers having originally built a wall there. bd2412 T 17:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Where are you getting that 20,000 figure from? Also, shouldn't more of them be in the cat? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Las Vegas has around 8,000 streets; multiply that by the number of major cities... (I do suspect The Strip might have lexical meaning, but there's almost certainly not a second street in Las Vegas that has that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but not all of those have Wikipedia articles or Wiktionary entries. Also, some of them have the same name as streets elsewhere Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The point is that they are attestable (i.e. three uses could easily be found in books or magazines for many streets, if only because of e.g. companies' mailing addresses). But the only "definition" for more than 99% of them would be "a street in city X". Equinox 22:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
@pbp, the 20,000 articles can be found by plumbing through all the subcategories and sub-subcategories of Wikipedia's w:Category:Streets (there is quite a tree). bd2412 T 01:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete; there's too many of them, and they're encyclopedic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. (see below) --Dmol (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there is an argument for including the famous San Francisco street. Searching for things like "looks like Lombard Street" etc, brings up various uses to refer to the crookedness of the street. Any thoughts. --Dmol (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
If I were lexicographer-in-charge, I would exclude similes as evidence. I'm not, however, and I think others may disagree. DCDuring TALK 23:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I've stuck out my delete vote above, pending another look at this. The London street does seem to be synonomous with the banking industry, and has done for a long time. Moreover, it is used as a comparision of other similar market streets elsewhere. No time to go in to detail at the moment, but hopefully tomorrow.--Dmol (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I still think the sense referring to the physical street in London should be deleted. I've seen enough cites, myself, to justify both the "London equivalent to Wall Street" sense and the "San Francisco epitome of something with twists and turns" sense (try searching on "more curves than Lombard Street" and "more twists and turns than Lombard Street"). I just don't want to set a precedent that could be used to justify including a sense for Main Street in Podunk, Nowhere. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete. While I hardly think I need to justify why, remember WT:CFI is criteria for inclusion (not criteria for exclusion). Quite simply, this just doesn't meet them. For example, attested and idiomatic, while it's attested it's as unidiomatic as you can get. It means 'any street called Lombard'. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep the sense "The money and capital market of London" added after this nomination started, having 3 quotations in the mainspace. By the way, Lombard Street at OneLook Dictionary Search shows a similar sense is in Collins. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


"Tintin, the Belgian comic book character"
"Tinky Winky, one of the Teletubbies"

Does this really need to be here? Page Tinky Winky was deleted because it was not notable enough, and I don't think a Belgian comic book character is notable either. Why we keep these two senses? Isn't this against the rules? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 04:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


Same as above. Already failed an RFV discussion. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 04:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you're misusing the term "notable", and I'm quite certain the present definition of Tintin would pass RfV if RfVed. However, it probably should still be deleted for the real reason Tinky Winky was deleted: we don't keep brand names or characters as definitions. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 04:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
If Tintin is notable then the Tinky Winky sense only should be obliviated. It's kind of funny how I'm tagging this for deletion, as Teletubbies is actually one of my favorite TV shows. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 07:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Please re-read my comment again. Something can be deleted here in spite of (Wikipedia) notability. Tinky Winky was deleted that way. Tintin should be too. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
As you say, it already failed RFV, so was re-added out of process. Deleted again. Equinox 20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think "Tintin" (name of a fictional character) should better be kept, full with pronunciation. However, Wiktionary:CFI#Fictional_universes applies, supported by Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-01/Appendices for fictional terms. I don't support that policy, but it is supported by a vote, so no bold keep from me. But again, it would be preferable IMHO to keep the entry. My rationale is that this is a single-word attested proper name on which lexicographical information such as pronunciation can be kept. An objection would be that this would lead to an inclusion of too many names of fictional characters, but this can be addressed by applying frequency criteria to such names. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
This entire discussion has been closed, as both things needed to be deleted are now deleted, officially. The 丁丁 senses were speedy deleted. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 14:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

T. Rex[edit]

  1. A British rock band, formed in 1967 by singer-songwriter and guitarist Marc Bolan.

Not dictionary material. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Was speedily redirected to T. rex. I support this course of action, but let’s see what other people think first. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete band name sense, but keep entry as an alternative spelling of T. rex. There are enough citations to support this capitalization:
  • 2004, Jodi Picoult, My Sister's Keeper, p. 374:
    I mean, not only are they found on Australia alone, like some kind of mutant evolutionary strain—they have the eyes of deer and the useless paws of a T. Rex.
  • 2007, Douglas Preston, Tyrannosaur Canyon, p. 105:
    In this body of water lived a predator even bigger than she, the fifty-foot-long crocodilian known as Deinosuchus, the only animal capable of killing a T. Rex unwise enough to venture into the wrong body of water in pursuit of prey.
  • 2008, Victoria Minnich, Question Reality: An Investigation of Self-Humans-Environment, Part 2, p. 454:
    [I]f Terra introduced some T. Rexes from Cocos island in Jurassic Park, that would be considered kind of “unethical,” so might as well do it through government.
Cheers! bd2412 T 12:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Since the creator linked "1967" and "Marc Bolan" from the definition, he apparently thought he was on Wikipedia. Strong delete: rock bands are not dictionary material. Equinox 20:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
delete before I go ahead and add Scooter. -- Liliana 20:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you OK with it being recreated as a hard-redirect to T. rex, or having the alt of T. Rex definition added instead? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course that's what she means, pbp, the alt sense didn't even exist until I just now added it. I have converted this to an RfV-sense with respect to the band, which should be deleted. bd2412 T 14:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Contested sense deleted. bd2412 T 13:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

am I right[edit]

Previous discussion: Wiktionary:Tea room/2014/June#am I right?

Created despite two editors one editor objecting and none supporting. --WikiTiki89 13:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I realize that I did not actually vocalize my own objection. --WikiTiki89 13:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I took the objection as inapplicable since Equinox claimed there was humor in the longer phrase, and was simply unaware that it occurs in the simpler phrase. Choor monster (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
More relevant, the stated definition makes it clear this is not SOP, which is what I interpret Equinox's "transparent". See the three citations, in no case is the questioner actually in doubt.
Of more interest to me is the relation with the phrase "am I not right?" The two phrases are seemingly interchangeable! Choor monster (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
No, the stated definition is exactly what you would expect from a rhetorical question. --WikiTiki89 16:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Right. As opposed to the more common SOP usage of the phrase "am I right". The difference between this and "am I right or am I right" is simply the latter is never used in an SOP manner.
So I have no idea what you are actually objecting to. Choor monster (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the possible interposition of "not" is of any consequence. Consider, constructions like "am I tall" and "am I not tall" can also basically mean the same thing. However, I wonder whether WT:COALMINE stretches far enough to encompass am I right as an alternative spelling of amirite. bd2412 T 17:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I understood Wikitiki89's "No" as referring to my "More relevant" paragraph, not "Of more interest", and responded accordingly. (We had a side discussion on Talk:am I right regarding "rhetorical question", and also in the edit summaries on the entry history.) Choor monster (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: In our disagreement, there is possibly some confusion over the phrase "rhetorical question". I am using the phrase in the sense of WP rhetorical question, and not in the sense of WT rhetorical question. Choor monster (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    The only reason I brought up the rhetoricalness of the question in the side discussion is because the definition stated the question is rhetorical and thus a citation that isn't contradicts the definition. That had nothing to do with this deletion debate. --WikiTiki89 21:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Clarification: I nominated this because it is SOP, not because it is rhetorical. You can ask many questions rhetorically, that doesn't make them idiomatic. --WikiTiki89 21:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
And I claim that because it is rhetorical, it is not SOP. When someone asks "are you nuts?", he is not engaging in an SOP query based on incomplete information about your mental health, but is simply asserting that your recent suggestion/activity was deeply and obviously flawed.
For the phrase "am I right?", the difference between literal and idiomatic meaning is less extreme, but it is definitely there. The four cited examples are all cases where the speaker is taking it for granted that the answer is a resounding, unambiguous yes. The speaker is not trying to resolve doubts about something he just said. Let me cite three examples that I did not include:
  • "At first the man-child has no teeth, but about the sixth month—am I right, sir?" (Herman Melville, The Confidence-Man, [9])
  • "My idea is: let young lad run about and play with young lads of his own age and not be. Am I right, Jack?" (James Joyce, Dubliners, [10])
  • "The only airstrip capable of taking such a plane—am I right, Harling?—is here in Nassau." (Ian Fleming, Thunderball, [11])
In each of these cases, it's not clear to me whether the question is literal or rhetorical.
Overall, the use of "amirite" as a substitute for the rhetorical usage is proof the two senses are far enough apart to warrant our attention.
Again, I see no difference between distinguishing between the literal and rhetorical senses of "am I right?" and of "am I right or am I right?", other than the latter is not normally used in a literal sense. Why do you oppose "am I right?" but support "am I right or am I right?" (I'm assuming your support for the latter is not contingent on the snowclone issue.) Choor monster (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "Are you nuts?": That is a typical example of exactly why I think we don't think we should add every possible rhetorical question. Rhetorical questions are part of language usage, that does not mean they have their own special place in the lexicon. Both "Am I right?" and "Are you nuts?" have exactly the meaning you would expect given their parts and the contextual indication that the question is rhetorical.
Regarding "Am I right or am I right?": As Equinox said, he created this not because it is rhetorical, but because it has the unusual feature of having identical clauses on both sides of the "or". I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this, but the point is that that argument is irrelevant for the plain "Am I right?". --WikiTiki89 17:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we can use logically-equivalent phrases to look for the limits of idiomaticity: "are you nuts?" can have any synonym (crazy, daft, out of your mind, etc.) substituted for nuts and mean the same thing. If we were to discover a new word, "zglurn", that meant the same thing, it could be substituted and the phrase as a whole would mean the same thing: "are you zglurn?". The question then becomes: do we change anything if we say "am I correct?", "am I wrong?" or "am I in accordance with reality?", and does any change come strictly from the nature of the item substituted? Chuck Entz (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, as long as they are said in the same tone, "am I correct?", "am I wrong?", and "am I in accordance with reality?" all mean the same as "am I right?", although they may be less common and the last one even unciteable as a rhetorical question. --WikiTiki89 17:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
(ec, response to earlier comment) I don't recommend adding every possible rhetorical question. Just those that are properly attested. The fact that the meaning changes from SOP, whether or not it follows a predictable arc, means that it is not SOP. You are claiming, when you refer to expected meanings, that in essence, SOP+"rhetorical marker" is still SOP, so an entry explaining the rhetorical meaning is superfluous. And you are relying on a claim that the change in meaning is canonical.
But this is absolutely not true. You are speaking as a native and are mistaking your deeply embedded fluency for logic. For example, it's perfectly logical that "are you nuts?" could have been rhetorical words of encouragement to a friend having a wild and crazy time. It's perfectly logical that "am I right?" could have been a rhetorical expression of self-doubt, but we actually say "or maybe I'm just kidding myself". The fact that these are not the meanings is idiomatic.
The canonical example of how native speakers are rather poor judges of SOP regarding their own language is "Time flies like an arrow".
I fail to see how being "unusual" makes a difference in our goals here. We're trying to document both usual and unusual forms. The fact that "am I right or am I right?" is funny looking with "or" used in a humorous way seems ridiculous as a justification, if, ultimately, it's just SOP all along. At that rate, we should include all well-attested jokes and puns. "I'm a frayed knot" anyone? (I like "am I right or am I right?" because coming up with a natural, non-rhetorical SOP usage requires thinking like Kripke, but of course that's not a justification either.)
Should we delete nicht wahr? Choor monster (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not advocating keeping "Am I right or am I right?", in fact I even nominated it for deletion below. Let's keep these discussions separate though, because there are different arguments to be made. Anyway... Being rhetorical does not make something non-SOP. SOP has to do with the meaning, while rhetoricity has to do with the reason. The meaning is clearly SOP even if the reason for saying it is rhetorical. And when I said we shouldn't add every possible rhetorical question, I meant every possible attested rhetorical question. As for "time flies like an arrow", it is SOP. --WikiTiki89 18:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
My apologies regarding "am I right or am I right?". I interpreted your request below as a preference, and when you quoted Equinox I assumed you regarded his explanation as a valid reason, one that "am I right?" lacks.
We don't care too much what somebody's reasons for saying something are. We care what the meanings are. (If the reason is relevant we supply it as a note.) The rhetorical usage has a distinct and non-predictable meaning in the two phrases I've mentioned: you are point-blank ignoring my explicit proofs above. (I am making no blanket claims about other phrases.) "Time flies like an arrow" is SOP if and only if you know the meaning already, which ultimately means it's not SOP at all. (That's what the link was for.) Choor monster (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The rhetorical usage has the exact same meaning as the literal meaning. The difference is that the person asking already knows he is right and is using the question to emphasize his point (that's what I mean by a reason, and as you said, the reason is irrelevant). --WikiTiki89 20:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
"Time flies like an arrow" is definitely SOP. To not figure out what it means, you would have to assume the existence of time fly, which would have to be a noun parallel in meaning to fruit fly. As for ambiguity: it happens all over the place in English, and trying to eliminate it by treating all of the pairs of different meanings as lexical items would quickly become untenable: there's a famous line from w:Animal Crackers where Groucho says "I once shot an elephant in my pajamas- how the elephant got into my pajamas, I'll never know". Try clearing that up with dictionary entries! Chuck Entz (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I absolutely do not see how it is possible to say that informing one's listeners that one does not know something can be understood as informing one's listeners that one definitely does know something. In the case of "am I right?" I agree the literal and rhetorical meanings are close. In "are you nuts?" they are not even close.
  • We include Houston, we have a problem. It's use is 100% SOP, with or without "Houston" as part of the situation.
  • We include one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. Again, 100% SOP.
  • We include nicht wahr.
  • How about What we've got here is failure to communicate? The actual meaning is that the speaker wants his listener to know that the speaker gets to lie his head off, and is not to be called on it, nor to be contradicted in any way.
  • In contrast, You Had Me at Hello, while now a catchphrase, is simply clever.
  • I was thinking of 'Time' the imperative verb, not the fictitious Musca temporus. Of course ambiguity is everywhere, but almost all of it is simply a one-off, and hence not our concern. Choor monster (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
How is saying Houston, we have a problem SOP when Houston is not the target of the statement SOP? How can one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind, a statement nigh incoherent be SOP when used in reference to the original?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course Houston is not the target! The point of "Houston, we have a problem" is that Houston still means Houston (ie, SOP). And since Mission Control is so obviously not interested in somebody's petty problem, there is some serious mockery going on. (The snowclone "Earth to X" is similar.) The non-SOP aspect that should have been mentioned is that we here frequently means you have a problem, but I suppose that is covered under some "royal we" sense.
If I say "one small step ..." when I've finished some project, I've said, SOP, that my project is of great importance to humanity. The allusion is extra.
In both cases, this is what WikiTiki89 above called the "reason" something was said, and he asserts having a "reason" that intimately ties in with an SOP-phrase is ultimately grounds for deletion. I disagree. Choor monster (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
No. All I said was having an unexpected reason is not grounds for inclusion. --WikiTiki89 14:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
If you defend your RfD by identifying this weakness, then you are using it as grounds for deletion. Choor monster (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
No I'm not. If you added the phrase I like apples and claimed it should be included because apples are delicious, and I said that apples being delicious is not grounds for inclusion, that does not mean I am saying the phrase should be deleted only because apples are not delicious; it means that I am saying there is nothing else about the phrase that merits inclusion. If that makes not sense to you, then you can see how little sense your argument is making. If that does makes sense to you, then it will show you how little sense your argument is making. --WikiTiki89 18:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I like pie. If you called for that phrase's deletion on the grounds that its supporter's argument that it is a non sequitur is all about the reason the phrase is said—it remains, literally, a statement about savor, and the given definition is really just the speaker's reason only—then point out, "oops, no argument left for inclusion, guess we'll have to delete it" you would have done the exact same thing you're doing here.
I concede the statement I made is too strong. If indeed there were two arguments for inclusion and you reclassified one of them as merely "reason", you would not call for deletion. However, that does not apply, so far as I can tell, to any of the instances I've mentioned above. And in general, multiple supporting arguments for inclusion are uncommon with CfD-nominated terms anyway, so I consider it too strong in theory but not in practice. I like lamp. Choor monster (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

am I right or am I right[edit]

(This discussion should not influence or be influenced by the discussion above.)

I believe this is a snowclone and should be moved to the appendix. Any adjective can be used: "Am I awesome or am I awesome?", "Am I hot or am I hot?", etc. --WikiTiki89 13:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


This seems to be a misspelling of "café". Or a typographical variant not worth keeping. Determining relative frequency seems hard, since google:"cafe'" does not really contrain the search, and finds "café", "cafe", etc. I would bet on this being a rare misspelling or form not worth keeping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Occam's razor suggests it's an intentional spelling rather than a misspelling, since 'e', the apostrophe and the space bar are all so far apart it's implausible someone would strike them in the right order by accident if they only meant to strike the 'e' and space bar. Is it worth including as a spelling / typographical variant? Hmm... it seems similar to : users of it are approximating something that they don't have quite the right tools to represent in what from a prescriptivist perspective would be the ideal way (in this case, users lack an easily-accessible 'é' key; in the case of Mʳ, users lack the ability to use HTML tags like <sup>). This is the only instance of e' being used for é I was able to find 3+ uses of, and it is a use I've seen fairly often in ASCII e-mails and the like; whether that makes it more includable (since the variation is nowhere near systematic, the way variation of 'u' and 'v' was in the past)* or less includable (since it's a one-off) is again hard to say. Weak keep. - -sche (discuss) 22:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
*Postscript: I realise we keep old u-vs-v variants, and do so in part because alternation of two characters which are now separate and used for different things is not something that can be predicted accurately by human users (especially non-native speakers) or site functions like the site search and "Did you mean ...?" function, and each form may be a word in a foreign language, which prevents the use of redirects. That applies as much to e-vs-'-vs-e'-vs-é as to u-vs-v: e' and é normally mean different things in English (contrast the cafés located on Broad Street [are expensive] with the cafe's located on Broad Street [and it opens at 10 am]), and both strings might be found in other languages (café already is attested in another language, viz. French; cafe' might be attested with some meaning in some of the many world languages that use apostrophes as letters). I'm upgrading my vote to a full keep. - -sche (discuss) 23:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a misspelling. It is simply the use of an apostrophe in place of the accent mark, which is unavailable on most English keyboards. I've seen this done a lot in Italian, but don't see it much in English. --WikiTiki89 23:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I have seen it and other typographic kludges (in English) with some foreign names. For example, Go"del from people who can't type Gödel and don't know about Goedel. I've also seen G\"odel, which is just the TeX formatting code. Choor monster (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Haha, it's like SAMPA's revenge. I hope we can delete any such "kludges". Equinox 11:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't object to this being a hard redirect to café, for the case that someone would really use "cafe'" as a search term. But "cafe'" should not show up in Alternative forms section of café. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
    I could live with this being a hard redirect and being left out of café. If anyone ever confirms that it actually is a word in another language (presumably a language that uses the apostrophe as a letter), we can reconsider how to handle it at that time. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Converted to hard redirect.​—msh210 (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


Also, tovarich and tovarishch. These are not words in the English language. They are merely romanizations of the Russian товарищ; the citations given use qualifications in the preceding or following sentences that show that they are understood to be words in Russian, not English. I have no objection to entries presenting these words as Russian romanizations, but it is a misstatement of fact to present them as being part of the English language. bd2412 T 18:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

In tovarish at OneLook Dictionary Search, Collins and Merriam-Webster seem to think otherwise. The string "tovarish" would not appear in Czech; that would be "tavárišč" (google:"tavárišč"). --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I would contend that those dictionaries have fallen off the slippery slope of labeling romanizations as English words. There is nothing, by that logic, which would prevent the inclusion of any attestable romanization as an "English" word. bd2412 T 18:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Re: 'There is nothing, by that logic, which would prevent the inclusion of any attestable romanization as an "English" word.' Yes, but the romanization has to be attested to convey meaning in the middle of English sentence full of English words. Nothing wrong with that, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
1. If we agree (and I imagine we do) that languages can borrow words from other languages, then the question is whether the citations currently in the entry are sufficient to verify that tovarish has been borrowed into English, as opposed to just transliterated. Isn't this then a matter to be handled on RFV by laying out why particular citations are invalid, and asking for better ones?
2. I think these citations of the word in the plural demonstrate its English-ness, that is, demonstrate that it's a loanword rather than a transliteration. - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
It is unclear to me from the immediate context whether those plurals are also conveyed as being words in Russian, being used to show the Russian-ness of the speaker. Could one not, speaking of Greeks, Indians, and Sri Lankans say that they were accompanied by fíloses, dosts, and miturās to the same effect? Also, do comparable examples exist for tovariches and tovarishches? bd2412 T 19:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Tovarish just sounds like a familiar English word to me. I’ve heard and seen it used many times in my life, as also effendi, sheikh, monsieur, mademoiselle, herr, frau, fraulein, monsignor, senor, senora, senorita, and san. Not so with fílos, dost, and miturā. —Stephen (Talk) 20:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@BD2412: Hmm, I don't think that by trying to demote loanwords to mere romanisations, it's not going to gain points on promoting romanisation as entries. Being a Russian, I am sometimes called "tovarish" by English (and other language) speakers (meaning from "comrade", "communist", even if I'm not to simply a slang word for "Russian"). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Tovarish and other words that show up romanized in running foreign text are part of the reason I haven't been anti-romanization, because unlike scientific romanization, they really need an entry of some sort IMO. Not sure tovarish is the best example.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The fact that it is a romanized Russian word only pertains to etymology, it does not say anything about the Englishness of the word. Some quotations are only mentions, they should not be considered, but other quotations are actual uses in English. The same applies to autoroute, to judo or to Kremlin. All these words are used in English, and deserve an "English" entry, even when it's difficult to consider them as English words. Similarly, highway is an English word, but I would support the addition of a French section, because this word is used in French in some circumstances. Lmaltier (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep Leaving all the transliteration argument on the side, tovarishes is huge blinking letters indicating that the word is English, not transliteration from the Russian plural.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
From the Russian singular. Yes, keep. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep (in case my previous comment was unclear). - -sche (discuss) 01:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep, this time in boldface. Attested to convey meaning in the middle of English sentence; has English tovarishes plural; as an auxiliary check, Stephen (native speaker) says it feels like English word to him. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep, per other people's comments. Also it's definitely not Russian, unless it's used three times in durably archived Russian texts. Is it? Renard Migrant (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Kept. Keφr 07:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

through until[edit]

Looks SOP to me. Apparently just created for the sake of a Norwegian translation. --Type56op9 (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Is the (redlinked) Norwegian translation itself not SoP? DCDuring TALK 11:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it even used? Can we have an example sentence? I don't understand this collocation at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
This looks like a mistake to me. A quick Google Books search reveals only coincidental cases of "through" being a part of a preceding phrasal verb. --WikiTiki89 15:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's a citation:
"The army band played through until almost three, then a man got onto the front of the steps and announced through a big megaphone mounted on a metal stand that the spelling contestants were to come to the back of the bandshell. (link)
Is 'through until' a single unit in this citation? I would say no it's not. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It is not. Through has an adverbial sense meaning something like "continuously" or "for the entire (remaining) time". Until looks like a simple preposition in the PP until almost three. DCDuring TALK 01:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

file allocation table[edit]

Nothing more than file + allocation + table. Keφr 07:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep. It's much more than SoP. Forms the basis of some operating systems. --Dmol (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
So what if it does? The term, as defined, is SOP. Keφr 07:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete generic sense. --WikiTiki89 20:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep. This is both the name of a specific data structure in file systems of the FAT family, and the name of the file system itself. It is therefore on par with terms like inode. The data structure sense may be SOP, but as it can refer to a type of file system as well, it definitely isn't in that sense. —CodeCat 21:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The citations we entered support a generic sense, in which the term is SOP. Unless you are arguing for adding a subsense of "a data structure of this sort as found in the FAT family of file systems", in which you might argue the term is idiomatic. Keφr 21:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, this RFD is for the whole entry, but I'm arguing for keeping the entry because there are non-SOP senses that should be there. —CodeCat 22:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Atitarev: to clarify, keep a generic sense or a specific one? Keφr 07:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Currently it only has one sense. My vote is for a generic sense, which may need a change. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

new best friend[edit]

new + best friend. I am inclined to speedy it. Keφr 07:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... there is a particular sense in which this is used, when jokingly suggesting that you are going to exploit somebody for what they can offer you, e.g. "You know [some celebrity]? That makes you my new best friend!" The existing definition doesn't capture this at all but I think that's what he was going for. Equinox 11:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
That might work, but is it attestable? And why is it not just a sarcastic use of best friend? Keφr 12:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the sarcastic usage also implies a very temporary status. For example, if you need your car and the valet shows up, you might say he's your "new best friend", but that status will only apply until you have your car. bd2412 T 13:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: You are correct that it is usually used sarcastically. I think it fails SOP because it can not only be used with people who aren't your friend, it can be used with things that aren't people at all! Purplebackpack89 14:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Show it. (By which I mean citations, not something contrived on the spot.) Keφr 14:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
      • That's an RfV issue, not an RfD one, and was the STFU in the edit summary really necessary? Purplebackpack89 14:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Truth is, even if you found citations, I would likely consider them a rather unremarkable case of metaphor not particularly worthy of inclusion, the target of which could just as well be said to be best friend (or even just friend). I mean, you could refer to a dildo as your best friend. I am quite convinced some users thereof already do, though probably not in media acceptable as attestation. So, in large part, it was a rhetorical phrase. Keφr 15:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, I've found citations. The fact that you have closed your mind to the keeping of this entry, even if citations were found, is disheartening and unproductive. It doesn't build a Wiktionary. Purplebackpack89 15:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Turns out I was wrong about dildoes being uncitable.
            • 2004, Marcy Sheiner, Best Women's Erotica 2005, Cleis Press (ISBN 9781573442015), page 78
              “It's called a dildo, Betsy darling. And it will be your best friend until James comes home again.”
            • 2011, Jake Wheat, The Spaghetti Seduction & Other Delicious Super Gay Erotic Stories (ISBN 9781257157082)
              Back and forth, in and out, buzzing all the way – this King Kong dildo had become my new best friend.
            • 2011, Christopher Taylor, "Mirrors", Best of Asian Erotica (edited by Richard Lord), Monsoon Books (ISBN 9789814358187)
              “Let me introduce you to my best friend,” she says. She reaches under the bed and pulls out a smooth black dildo, a foot and a halflong.
          Keφr 21:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons given, including Purplebackpack89's. —CodeCat 15:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. If we include the metaphorical/sarcastic sense it should be added to best friend, because it isn’t always used with new. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Can you attest that? Purplebackpack89 15:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, I can.
        • 2005, Jeff Davidson, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Getting Things Done, Penguin (ISBN 9781440650543), page 212
          You might even say, the bigger the problem, the greater your creative potential. The problem you're facing is your best friend because it will help to bring out the best in you.
        • 2006, Christopher Duncan, The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World, Apress (ISBN 9781430201199)
          As an entrepreneur, a conservative financial outlook is your best friend. Live to fight another day. Running a business also involves a host of legal issues. Talk to some people you respect and trust, get some recommendations, and hire a good
        • 2010, Art Seamans, I See, Said the Blind Man, AuthorHouse (ISBN 9781449098384), page 48
          An instructor informed us that in battle, your rifle is your best friend.
      Happy? Keφr 15:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
      Not really, because you didn't create a definition at best friend for those citations, and then put those citations there. I have done so, and will acquiesce to the deletion of new best friend if the definition I added at best friend is allowed to remain. Purplebackpack89 00:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 20:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Re: above: "it can be used with things that aren't people at all!" Ever heard of "my cat is my best friend"? Or any other noun that isn't a human. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete and make sure best friend covers it. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
google books:"my|his|her dog|cat|computer|car|motorbike| is my|his|her best friend. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I think even friend can be used this way. If you disbelieve me, Google is your friend. Keφr 13:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

ageless sleep[edit]

Misinterpretation of SOP expressions in poetry by an IP better known for adding bad content to Japanese entries and to entries on magic and deities. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

No idea. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep and RfV. It might just be a less-used euphemism for death. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

eternal sleep[edit]

Same as previous, but also merely a copy of it- even to the point of using the same quote, which doesn't include the entry title. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete. The sleep is either actual sleep, or a trivial metaphor. The magical cause or mechanism can vary from one story to another. "A magical state of suspended animation" is being too specific. Equinox 10:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
No idea. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete if the creator tries to define a magical sleep. But isn’t it rather a common euphemism of death? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep A euphemism for death, of uncertain scope of usage beyond Christianity. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

and so on and so forth[edit]

User:Type56op9 (really You-Know-Who) added this even though it previously failed rfd after a discussion in late 2009. Isn't that a no-no? -- · (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedied. RFD-failed entries need an “RFD” to be undeleted. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Endorse speedy deletion of previously RfD'd content. bd2412 T 13:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Lord Voldemort added this? Cool! Renard Migrant (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Shh! WF's hard enough to deal with without giving him ideas... Chuck Entz (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep aka restore. Well, it was RFD-deleted in October 2009 (Talk:and so on and so forth), but I am not sure it should have been, since it looks like a fine entry for our phrasebook; this is very much a set phrase. In that RFD discussion, I did not vote in boldface since I did not realize there was a phrasebook allowance in WT:CFI back then; it was only after I nominated "I love you" in February 2010 (Talk:I love you#Deletion_debate_.282.29) that it became very clear that we did have phrasebook allowance in the WT:CFI. google:"and so on and so forth" finds it in multiple dictionaries. dict.cc gives two German translations that I recognize as valid and perfectly suited to "and so on and so forth": "etc. pp." (from my memory, "et cetera pe pe"), and "und so weiter und so fort" (I heared it often). --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
We already have entries for and so on and and so forth. This is merely a combination of the two that adds nothing to their individual definitions. I think it is like the phrase "out of touch and behind the times", which is attested but merely combines repetitions of more or less the same idea. bd2412 T 14:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, for the decoding direction, the phrase is transparent. As is I love you. It is the encoding direction that matters. The second argument I made was with respect to translation target, keeping in mind that Wiktionary is a multilingual dictionary. In German, you say google:"und so weiter und so fort" but you fairly rarely say google:"und so fort und so weiter". It is a unit whose parts get glued together in the mind as one lexical item, at least in my mind. Of course, German "etc. pp." is just intransparent and deserves an entry anyway. As for google books:"out of touch and behind the times", it does not seem very phrasey with its 31 Google books hits. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Do not undelete.​—msh210 (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Msh210: was that a vote or a closure? Keφr 07:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
A vote (per nom and bd2412).​—msh210 (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

joking aside[edit]

SOP. Added by WF at the same time: all joking aside, joking apart, which should also be deleted. -- · (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete (all) as SoP.--Dmol (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep, it is NOT SoP because joking aside is a phrase. If it were a sum of parts it would be something like "let's set all joking aside" or something like that, but joking aside is an idiomatic phrase. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 13:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the word you are looking for is ellipsis. But questions of that aside, you can substitute any noun phrase for "joking" here, which makes this phrase somewhat SOP-py. Keφr 13:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Seeds aside, watermelons are pure deliciousness. --WikiTiki89 14:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete: Yeti is wrong, I think. See e.g. [12], [13], [14]. Equinox 20:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete. --WikiTiki89 14:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Pretty common set phrase. If we delete this we should at least keep it in the Thesaurus or some appendix. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Why? For whose benefit? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete, and for Rædi Stædi Yæti see aside and apart. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sum of parts, just like kidding aside, all jokes aside, all prejudices aside, unusual circumstances aside, etc., etc. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The above arguments are conclusive: deleted joking aside. The other two were never tagged, and may have slightly different issues, so as a formality I've just tagged them linking to this section of RFD and am not striking this section. IMO delete them per arguments above.​—msh210 (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

go from bad to worse[edit]

This was nommed for speedy deletion, but I disagree. Also, it passes the Lemming Test. --Type56op9 (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete. I would say the lemming test is borderline. Only three dictionaries have it (based on that link). --WikiTiki89 14:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: per lemming argument. Purplebackpack89 19:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: three idioms dictionaries, Cambridge Learner's, and Collins make a pretty good group of lemmings. DCDuring TALK 21:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
But for me it is not that there are no other instances of "[go] from ADJ to Comp(ADJ)" or of "[VERB] from bad to worse". It is that this expression is clearly the prototype for all the low-frequency alterations of both variant constructions. We generally don't have a good way of presenting constructions in mainspace. A high-frequency (for the class of idiomatic constructions) prototype like this is a very good stand-in for the more general forms. DCDuring TALK 21:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
But on the other hand, the meaning is perfectly transparent. --WikiTiki89 02:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
That is why the better US dictionaries (MW, RHU, AHD, WNW) don't have it. It is good for language learners, I think, including the advanced learners who are the buyers of idioms dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 02:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
So you would rather mimic bad dictionaries than good dictionaries? --WikiTiki89 03:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I already know that smart users don't really trust Wiktionary definitions. Perhaps we can at least help language learners. DCDuring TALK 03:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that bad dictionaries are better for language learners than good ones. And in this case, I think the meaning is transparent to learners as well, if they are familiar with the constituent parts, which they are likely to be. --WikiTiki89 03:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Inspired by your comment, I did a little Google search for "Wiktionary defines [...] as", to see if sites had positive, negative or neutral views of our definitions; data here. 3 sites had negative views of us, 22 cited our definitions neutrally as examples of "how the/a dictionary defines x". - -sche (discuss) 18:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: I did not and do not say that. I believe that learners are not in a position to be very discriminating and have less need to be discriminating. They may also value the accessibility of our "expertise".
@-sche: It would be interesting to compare us with other online English dictionaries. I have stopped looking at the site metrics that are freely available because Wiktionary.org was so far behind MW in the US – and no one here seemed the least bit interested. DCDuring TALK 19:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I've added the results of a search for "Merriam-Webster defines". (Maybe I should have tried plain "Webster defines", too.) 18 cited MW definitions neutrally as examples of "how the/a dictionary defines x", 5 were news articles promoting / reporting on MW's inclusion of new words, 1 post (duplicated on many sites) had a negative view of MW. - -sche (discuss) 01:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
You are a true Stakhanovite. Any current negativity about MW pales by comparison with the high-profile hostility to the introduction of MW3. I mostly see no difference in the way Wiktionary and MW are treated in the sample citations. Almost all the instances are of the author offering the definition given as correct. Maybe I'll see if I can find any instances of explicit comparison. DCDuring TALK 02:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
This is neither here nor there, but it occurs to me that if people cite M-W Online (and particularly if they cite print dictionaries) more often than they cite us, one reason may be that they assume those dictionaries' definitions will not change soon or often, whereas they recognize that ours can be edited at any time. In my opinion, that means M-W has an apple and Wiktionary has an orange, i.e. it doesn't mean one is better than the other, since each one has a benefit: M-W has stability, which is good, and we have the potential for quick reflexes and definitions and usexes that are up-to-date and optimized for clarity based on feedback, which is also good. - -sche (discuss) 16:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@-sche: It's here now. Unfortunately we occupy a tenuous middle ground between Urban Dictionary and MW. UD is vastly more responsive, trendy, and folksy. We show no interest in pursuing that and our behavior toward anon contributions shows it. MW seems more "social" with respect to normal users than we actually are: they have lots of comment-type participation on entries I look at there. (BTW, I assume the comments are moderated.) DCDuring TALK 11:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
BTW, Urban Dictionary ranks ahead of us in website traffic. DCDuring TALK 12:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
UD and Wiktionary don't even attempt to serve the same purpose! Equinox 12:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • On the fence, but my sense is that this is a far more common construction than its positive counterpart, "go from good to better". Also, is there something grammatically incorrect in the phrasing? You can say that someone will "go from Phoenix to Albuquerque", or omit the first part and merely say that they will "go to Albuquerque", but you can't really say that a situation will "go to worse". bd2412 T 12:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    I agree that "from good to better" is rare, but there is nothing grammatically wrong with the construction. People definitely say things like: After the successful day, John Doe went from nervous to confident. --WikiTiki89 13:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    A further generalization of the construction, which seems farther yet from setness, is: "from ADJ1 to ADJ2". "The opinions ranged/went/ran/etc from stupid to well-informed." With most verbs both ends of the spectrum apparently need to be defined with prepositional phrases that don't work by themselves. DCDuring TALK 14:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel like it's idiomatic but the meaning's pretty transparent. What WT:CFI#Idiomaticity says is "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." I'd say this doesn't meet it because like I said, the meaning is transparent. But if it were purely down to voting I'd keep it. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Not relevant if other dictionaries have it or not. They don't use our criteria and we don't use theirs. Plus if we just start copying from other dictionaries... what's the point? I's never been our goal to become Oxford or Merriam Webster or Collins. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
No, we must be better than them! We're about 8% of the way there, by my best estimations. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Being better does not mean including more words. --WikiTiki89 13:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: "Not relevant if other dictionaries have it". There are some of us who have sufficient respect for professional lexicographers at other dictionaries and sufficient concern about the competitive standing of Wiktionary that we actually pay attention to such things. I now see the error of my ways.
@Wikitiki89: I agree that we should devote much more time to improving the quality of our existing entries, especially English, for which we might be expected to have the definitions that, for example, other-language wiktionaries would rely on. Attestation, usage examples, wording, missing senses, missing grammar notes all merit our attention. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't feel like respect comes into it at all. They work with different criteria so come out with different results. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Weak delete. The definition doesn't even try to disguise the fact that the term (the sum) means precisely what one would think based on its component parts, i.e. it's SOP. - -sche (discuss) 16:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's sum of parts. Are we going to include it's going to get worse before it gets better, or other similar constructions? Inclusion in other dictionaries may not be relevant in this case, since their Criteria for Inclusion are different to ours. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as idiomatic. I often use this expression. Donnanz (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Tooironic: Some things we know about the inclusion criteria of other dictionaries:
    1. They are influenced by scarcity of funds, whether they are run for profit or not, so that they do not insert items without cause.
    2. The print dictionaries are space-limited, something inherited by most online dictionaries based on print dictionaries, hence they tend to be less complete, less inclusive than Wiktionary.
    3. They would seem to want to include items the meaning of which users, potential customers, etc might want to know and expect to be able to find out in a dictionary.
    4. They compete for many of the same users that are the justification for Wiktionary getting the resources it has.
    The assertion that inclusion by other dictionaries is irrelevant seems completely unsustainable in fact, though it might win a vote here. DCDuring TALK 11:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    It appears in Oxford. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/from-bad-to-worse?q=bad+to+worse Donnanz (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Donnanz: I hope you understand that "I often use this expression" has nothing to do with idiomacity. --WikiTiki89 13:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    I'm more than likely not unique though, there are probably millions of people who use it. Donnanz (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    That's not the point. Frequency of use is not a factor in deciding idiomacity. --WikiTiki89 14:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    We could argue for days on end on whether it's idiomatic or not, and I'm not going to do that. I think it's idiomatic as a result of being a common expression in everyday language, and I'm sticking to that. I realise your own opinion may differ. Donnanz (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    As I'm sure you know, WT:CFI doesn't have this interpretation of idiomatic, it has a different one! Renard Migrant (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ƿidsiþ 12:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. For decoding, it is fairly transparent, but, for encoding, how would you know that people actually say this? In Czech, you don't say *"šlo to od špatnému k horšímu", you say "šlo to od desíti k pěti". Also per go from bad to worse at OneLook Dictionary Search, "lemmings". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Dan Polansky. This shows that SOP should not be considered as a criterion, the sound criterion is does it belong to the vocabulary of the language? or might it be useful for learners to learn it? (which is very different from commonness). This project can be used to learn new words you've never seen anywhere else (e.g. through categories). Lmaltier (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tooironic.​—msh210 (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


“(Ireland, UK, slang, moderately offensive) Epithet, implying a person of poor judgement, low intelligence and/or ignorance, whose application of such deficiencies has adverse consequences for others as well as themselves. There may be an inference of repeated debacles cause by the person.”

seems redundant to:

“(Ireland, UK, slang, moderately offensive) A person of very poor judgment and unpleasant character.”

Could they have meant to add it as an adjective? — Ungoliant (falai) 02:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete, mistake. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

共同通訊社 & 共同通讯社 (Chinese) and 共同通信社 (Japanese)[edit]

Seems sum of parts, and not dictionary material. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • The Japanese is a proper noun, and thus not SOP. However, whether that proper noun merits an entry, I am uncertain. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I don't quite understand your logic. Both the Chinese and Japanese are proper nouns, the Chinese is merely a translation of the original Japanese. Xinhua News Agency, France 24 and China Radio International are also proper nouns, and of a similar type, but we don't have entries them - nor should we, arguably, since that's the job of an encyclopedia not a dictionary. Then again we do have British Broadcasting Corporation, but that hasn't been through a deletion request (yet). ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to keep 共同通信社. It might appear as if a sum of parts that means a certain type of news agencies ("通信社") that are based on joint ("共同") membership or something, while it actually is the name of a particular agency. The possible misinterpretation would motivate us to have an entry for 共同通信社 to explain that it can only be a proper noun in Japanese. Whether to have Xinhua News Agency mentioned above is a different matter, because that term would be unlikely to be mistaken as a general term. I don't have a particular opinion on the other two Chinese entries listed. Whym (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Your initial comment was seems sum of parts, which 共同通信社 demonstrably isn't, as much as it might look like one. That's what I was responding to in the first sentence of my post above. Your second comment, [seems to be] not dictionary material, was what I was responding to in the second sentence of my post above. Does that help make my logic any clearer? (Serious question, no snark intended at all.) Note that my previous post doesn't actually evince any position on whether 共同通信社 merits an entry.
FWIW, looking at this issue again, I lean towards Whym's opinion, in that 共同通信社 does indeed look like it might just be any old 通信社 (tsūshinsha, news agency) that happens to be 共同 (kyōdō, joint or collaborative) in some way -- i.e., it does look like an SOP phrase. However, this term really isn't just an SOP phrase, it's the name of a specific news agency, so perhaps an entry is merited to make that clear: users could conceivably come here looking for this as a term to find in a dictionary. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

gakko and gakkou[edit]

Discussion moved from WT:RFV.
Haplology (talkcontribs) put a note in the two pages asking if we have "to include alternative transcriptions", and I am therefore putting the two pages here for that matter. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Arrowred.png Personally, I must say that romanizing 学校 as gakko instead of ​gakkō is a bit like spelling apple as aple, or ate as at -- it's a misspelling that omits important phonetic information, potentially resulting in a different word altogether. I don't think we have any business including "alternative transcriptions" as a matter of normal policy.
  • [[gakko]] is also a valid romanization of other Japanese words: 楽戸 (gakko, in the Nara period, a kind of private-sector school or house of 雅楽 (gagaku, court music) unaffiliated directly with the official court gagaku office); 合期 (gakko, meeting a deadline; turning out as expected or hoped for, also read as gōgo). As such, I'd be much more tempted to deep-six the "alternative transcription" content and turn that page into a regular romanization entry.
  • [[gakkou]] isn't a valid romanization of any Japanese word (using our modified Hepburn scheme), so my sense would be to delete this altogether. Alternately, if other folks feel this might still be useful to incoming users, at least rework it entirely so it's clearly marked as a misspelling, and so it's not showing up in the index of Japanese nouns. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This is really an RFD matter... delete both (replacing the first one with the valid content Eirikr mentions). - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Just think, if Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-06/Allowing attested romanizations passes, we'll end up restoring gakkou just a wek from now. :b - -sche (discuss) 16:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    I don't know what you are talking about. Where do you see any attesting quotations of "gakkou" in use to convey meaning? Enjoying setting up straw men much? "gakkou" was sent to RFV, no attesting quotations were provided for the form, so it was deleted, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    google books:gakkou has loads of instances of the string gakkou. I argue they're not "uses" of a "word" to "convey meaning", and it seems no-one disagrees with my view, since no-one cited any of those citations when the term was at RFV. Nonetheless, those citations are identical in form to citations which the main proponent of allowing romanizations (BD) has argued are "words used to convey meaning", hence I presume that if the vote to allow romanizations passes, he'll support including gakkou. - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @-sche: It bears noting that at least some of those hits are likely bogus, like the top title on this page of hits: The Phonology of Hungarian.  :)
    That aside, there have been occasional conversations among us JA editors about what to do with spellings that don't fit the modified Hepburn scheme in use here at EN WT. So far, the general consensus (at least, as I've understood it) has been to remove such entries. The use of ou or uu instead of the macron versions ō and ū is very common online and even in some academia, in part due to the difficulties of inputting macrons using US keyboards. (For those interested, this is sometimes called wāpuro rōmaji or “word-processor romanization”.) Given that we already have a standard for romanized Japanese entries, and given that we already have romanizations for a high percentage of our JA entries (and even the JavaScript tools in place to accelerate their creation), I don't think BD's arguments in favor of including romanizations have much immediate bearing on Japanese -- we're already doing that.  :)
    If folks wish to expand that discussion to include the issues of alternate spellings and what to do with those, I'm happy to engage in that conversation, and if such alternates are deemed entry-worthy, it would be very easy to (re)create the [[gakkou]] entry as a similar {{ja-romanization of}} redirection. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

sorting algorithm[edit]

and its synonym sort algorithm. A valuable encyclopaedia topic, but simple SoP for a dictionary: any algorithm that performs sorting. There are also search algorithms, rendering algorithms, etc. etc. Equinox 12:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 13:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep. An essential topic for students of computer science; however, I have added a link to the definition of the word “algorithm” and also have described it as a “sequence of steps.” (Note: Under “Related terms” there is a useful link to a list of sorting algorithms, including many that I have never heard of, a few of which are not mentioned by name the Wikipedia article.) 15:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Dictionaries are not for topics, but for words. --WikiTiki89 15:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete. The meaning is clear. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as an SoP that is transparent from its components. bd2412 T 17:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. "Essential topic" is logic for putting it in a textbook, not here! Renard Migrant (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    The reason we don't include 'essential topics' which don't have any lexical merit as entries, is we'd end up with things like history of slavery in the 19th century. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


I created this entry before reading Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Company names. Although the company is obviously notable, the citation policy practically invalidates any citation that would support its inclusion. See iPad (deleted), Netgear (no entry), VMware (no entry). But see iPhone (included), HP (included) and Motorola (included). (Cf. Microsoft, where the company is listed in the etymology but the primary definition is “a company whose products are ubiquitous.”) 14:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. WT:COMPANY is not supported by consensus, as per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. Even disregarding the number of votes in the vote (as some editors suggest), I cannot see any real rationale in that vote for deleting company names; the voters do not explain why including company names is bad for the dictionary. One of the voters says that we need some rules or else there are going to be too many of them, but does not explain what is bad about having many attested single-word company names. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, the policy says "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." If you look at w:Cisco (disambiguation)#Places it suggests it is attested other than as a trademark, and would therefore pass. Note it just says 'attested', the place names don't have to meet CFI they just need to be attested. So it would seem to pass and easily too. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC). PS Keep obviously. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. The basic principle is that all words are includable. Trademarks are special, however, because anybody is allowed to create new ones. These new ones may be used only by the company itself, and should not be included in this case. Therefore, there should be strict attestation rules to check that the word is actually used. The rule I would propose is n (to be chosen) independent attestations not originating from the company owning the trademark or any affiliate companies, ads, people or companies working for the company. Furthermore, the company name or trademark should be something we can considered as a word, not only as a name (e.g. Société nationale des chemins de fer belges or names terminated by Inc. etc. cannot be considered as words, and should never be included). But Cisco is not only a company name, it's also a word. Lmaltier (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

la mia[edit]

la via[edit]

la ilia[edit]

la sia[edit]

la nia[edit]

As far as I know, any Esperanto adjective can be preceded by the definite article in this way. For example, la granda (the large one), la tia (the one like that) and so on. So I don't think these merit separate entries. —CodeCat 16:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete all. These are comparable to the Spanish phrases el mío, la suya, etc., which we rightly do not have entries for. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The French equivalents le mien, la mienne (etc.) all got merged into mien, mienne (etc.) Renard Migrant (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The deletion of the French terms le mien, etc. seems wrong. The French dictionary has them. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know Esperanto but there's a discussion below about le mien. @TAKASUGI Shinji: could you link us to the dictionary or tell us, which dictionary, if it's a paper one? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
In Esperanto they are not special, as you can use both mia et la mia. In modern French, however, you use only le mien [15]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, interesting that the dictionary's article is for [[mien]], [[mienne]]. I voted "undelete" in the RFD below, please comment there. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Schloss Burg[edit]

Oh c'mon, this is just the name of a castle. We don't even have Neuschwanstein so why should we have this? -- Liliana 21:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 21:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep; we do include many place names, and castles are not as numerous as e.g. streets. In any case, I have not seen consensus or any signs of it that names of castles should be excluded. We should have Neuschwanstein, to be sure. Pertinent regulation: WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. For Czech, we should have Hluboká and Karlštejn. I can imagine "Schloss Burg" excluded for its inclusion of the word "Burg", but then you have to consider all the English geographical names like Hudson River, Cooper Creek, Lake Ontario, Atlantic Ocean, Adriatic Sea, Chesapeake Bay, Cape Horn, Mount Everest, Longs Peak, Death Valley, Copper Canyon, Red River Gorge, Mexico City, New York City, Cape Town, and New York State. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
There's really no keep or delete rational here in CFI. CFI passes it back to voters to decide how they want to vote. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete.​—msh210 (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

cast a pall[edit]

Our entry for pall#Noun omitted the definition "a sense/feeling of gloom", which I've added.

That definition of pall occurs as subject of verbs like descend, came over, settle, fall, hang, not just as part of cast a pall. No OneLook lemmings follow us in including this.

I will shortly add a usage example for some form of 'cast a pall'. I suggest that this be made a redirect to that definition. DCDuring TALK 01:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Pall appears after verbs like be, throw, put, set, spread, keep, leave in expressions fitting the new definition. DCDuring TALK 02:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
It also appears after prepositions. IOW, it is a normal noun in this sense appearing in a range of usages that should clearly show that there is no idiomaticity to cast a pall. DCDuring TALK 02:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 17:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

le mien (undeletion)[edit]

The whole set of entries (which I will unfortunately need to list in full) le mien, la mienne, les miens, les miennes, le tien, la tienne, les tiens, les tiennes, le sien, la sienne, les siens, les siennes, le nôtre, la nôtre, les nôtres, le vôtre, la vôtre, les vôtres, le leur, la leur, les leurs.

Rational: These all function as a single unit. For example, the pronoun is le mien not mien which is more like a particle because it isn't used on its own. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep deleted. We don't have comparable combinations in other languages either, like Dutch de mijne, Catalan el meu. —CodeCat 13:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Lemming principle may applicable here, per TAKASUGI Shinji in the related rfd above. If that's the case, we should undelete and keep. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 14:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
CodeCat I don't know how comparable those are to the French ones. But if they're idiomatic combinations, shouldn't we create them? Also as far as I know mien (et al.) aren't used without the definite article at all. Not any more anyway, I've found an 18th century use 'un sien portrait' by Voltaire. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Question: Is an indefinite usage of these pronouns ever possible, such as "Ils sont miens."? That actually gets a lot of Google Books hits, but I suspect that they might just be colloquial misuses that should actually have a definite article. --WikiTiki89 14:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
In Dutch, they can only be used with a definite article. "They are mine" would be either zij zijn de mijnen (they are the mines) (with mijnen being the plural of mijne) or zij zijn van mij (they are of me). —CodeCat 14:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
French also has the construction ils sont à moi (they are to me). I guess it only makes sense to undelete for all languages where the definite article is required, even though my personal preference would have been to have the definitions at mien et al. and to have le mien et al. be redirects. --WikiTiki89 15:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikitiki89 not as far as I know, and yet looking at those hits they used to be used like that! google books:"elles sont miennes" gets a lot of hits too. The hits claiming to be more modern seem to be actually modern books citing older texts. So I think the answer to your question is that it was possible but it isn't anymore, a bit like saying "mine house" in English is no longer possible, but it's the sort of thing you'll find in Chaucer. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes because mien, mienne (etc.) aren't even words on their own in contemporary French. So how can le mien be sum of parts if mien isn't even a word? Except it is, not in modern French but as we can see above it did used to be used on its own. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for the clarification. In that case, I follow Wikitiki89 and vote to undelete for languages where these possessive pronouns can only be used with a definite article immediately preceding them. If what Renard Migrant says is accurate, this includes French, but it does not include Spanish or Esperanto. If, as User:Lmaltier seems to be implying below, it is possible to say "Ils sont miens" in modern French, then this does not include French.Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Updated 18:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC).
You misunderstand me: these pronouns always include the definite article, i.e. these pronouns include a space. When miens is used without the article, it's not a pronoun. Lmaltier (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
So here's my current understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong): French has a set of possessive adjectives ("mien", "tien", "vôtre", etc.), which are used in modern French in sentences like "Ils sont miens.", and any such possessive adjective can be turned into a possessive pronoun with the addition of a definite article. If that is accurate, then it seems to me that the possessive pronouns are sum-of-parts—the result of combining a definite article with a possessive adjective. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is the way possessive pronouns are formed. Nonetheless, they are pronouns (and they are much more common than possessive adjectives, which have a literary character). I'm sure you would not want to remove them if written lemien... But this is exactly the same case. Please, don't revisit French grammar... This shows how the SOP criterion can be harmful, and why it should be fully abandoned, and changed to does this belong to the vocabulary of the language?. Lmaltier (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
What's the grammatical difference between "Ils n'ont pas les miens" and "Ils n'ont pas les verts"? Also if I am not mistaken, aren't there abstract nouns in French that always use the definite article? --WikiTiki89 13:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The (very important) grammatical difference is that les miens is a pronoun. And yes, you are mistaken, there is no French noun that always use the definite article, except town names, such as Le Caire or Le Havre. Note the upper case article, showing that the article belongs to the proper name (it's lower case only when merged with a preposition, e.g. au Caire or du Havre). This is why a page Le Caire is required, and a page Caire may be very helpful, although Caire, by itself, is not a complete French word. Lmaltier (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
But les verts is also basically a pronoun. --WikiTiki89 17:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It's certainly not a pronom in French. And I'm convinced it's not a pronoun either (would you call the French a pronoun???). In this case, vert may be either a noun (tous les verts de ce tableau) or an adjective (about peppers : je préfère les verts), in which case the noun is omitted, but this does not make the adjective a pronoun. Lmaltier (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You could say the exact same thing about "mien", that it's simply an adjective (about peppers: je préfère les miens). --WikiTiki89 02:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
You are right, without the article, it's considered as a possessive adjective. But the important thing is that all grammarians consider that, with the definite article, they are possessive pronouns. You are allowed to disagree with all French specialists, to consider you know better, but there is a principle here: no original research. Lmaltier (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Find me a "French specialist" who will say that "les verts" is not a pronoun. Also, "no original research" is a Wikipedia principle, not a Wiktionary one. We allow original research, such as finding quotations to confirm that a word exists even if it is not in any other dictionary. --WikiTiki89 13:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry? Any specialist of French grammar. In French, the concept of pronom obviously exclude such things. The list of existing pronouns in French is a somewhat fixed list, even if may be difficult to give an exhaustive list (and try to find a specialist of English grammar stating than the green is not a pronoun...). Have a look at w:French pronouns. This page should make things clearer to you, even if some kinds of French pronouns have been forgotten (e.g. personne). About original research: I think you misinterpret this principle. On Wikipedia, it does not exclude hard work to produce good articles. It mainly requires that 1. everything should be verifiable through external sources. 2. subjects cannot be invented. As an example, if you find and demonstrate a mathematical theorem for the first time, it's verifiable, but it's original research nonetheless, because this is a subject you created yourself. These principles are applicable to Wiktionary except that, here, we don't address subjects, but words. If you create a word yourself, even with good arguments, it should be considered as original research. But we include words even when they are absent from all other dictionaries, much like Wikipedia includes many subjects absent from all other encyclopedias, provided that external sources are available. Our primary sources are word creators, our secondary sources are quotations and other dictionaries. Lmaltier (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
You say any specialist of French grammar would say that, and I say find me one because I don't believe you. --WikiTiki89 14:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Rather than challenging Lmaltier to prove a negative, can you prove the positive? That is, can you find a French grammarian who says "les verts" is a pronoun? - -sche (discuss) 21:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikitiki89 probably talks about the DP hypothesis, which assumes determiner phrases and definite pronouns are essentially the same. But it is not the point; we discuss whether le mien should have an entry of its own, and most of us say yes. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Nope, not the DP hypothesis, otherwise I would have said that "les hommes" is also the same as a pronoun. The reason "les verts" is a equivalent to a pronoun is not because it is definite, but because it replaces a noun with something more generic when the identity of the noun is known, which is what a pronoun does. --WikiTiki89 16:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)*
Once again (in this example, and when verts is an adjective), it's an ellipsis. Lmaltier (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
It is too regular and common of a formation to be an ellipsis. You could claim almost anything to be an ellipsis. --WikiTiki89 11:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Le mien cannot be an ellipsis. See my post just below. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is an ellipsis. This is why this construction is used only when the omitted noun has been used before or is clear from the context (it is always possible to complete the sentence with the noun). When it's not the case, then this means that what had been interpreted as an adjective is actually a noun. Lmaltier (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Same thing with all pronouns. You can't say "il mange des pommes" unless whoever referenced by "il" has been mentioned before or is clear from context. You can't say "je préfère les miens" unless the referenced noun has been mentioned before or is clear from context. This does not mean they are ellipses. --WikiTiki89 21:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The fundamental difference is that les verts is an ellipsis of, say, les T-shirts verts, but you can’t say *les miens T-shirts. Mien cannot modify a noun in modern French. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I think there is a tendency to interpret it as an ellipsis, but I don't think it is one. I think that definite article + adjective is just a regular construction. Also, you can interpret "les miens" to be an ellipsis of the archaic "les T-shirts miens", but once again, I do not think that it was in fact an ellipsis, but just a regular construction. --WikiTiki89 15:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
undelete. This is no different from lequel, sum of le + quel. --Fsojic (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • undelete Yes, it's possible to write Ils sont miens. (mien is a possessive adjective in this case). Nonetheless, le mien, etc. are considered as pronouns in French (possessive pronouns). This is very clear: have a look at any French grammar (e.g. http://french.about.com/od/grammar/a/pronouns_possessive.htm). Why should you exclude some pronouns? Lmaltier (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC) To clarify: these possessive pronouns always include the article, the article belongs to the pronoun, this is why we must restore the pages. When mien is used without the article, it's not a pronoun, it's a possesive adjective, it's not the same word. Lmaltier (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Undelete all. The French equivalent of mine is le mien, not just mien. You can copy fr:Modèle:pronoms possessifs/fr. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Italian has similarities. Italian possessive adjectives, which PRECEDE nouns also mostly use definite articles (e.g. "la nostra macchina" - "our car") but there are exceptions with family members, e.g. "tua sorella" - your sister. AFTER nouns possessive adjectives don't have an article - "padre mio". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
In examples you provide, nostra, tua and mio are possessive adjectives, one of them being used with a definite article, and none of them are pronouns. But you are right that Italian is very similar, as it is possible to use il mio as a possessive pronoun, to replace a noun. Lmaltier (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry if it was off-topic. I was just mentioning it in passing. I'm undecided about Italian il mio, which is a partial equivalent of the French le mien and whether the Italian translation of mine (pronoun) should link as mio (it), il mio, (il) mio (it) or il mio. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

быть в состоянии[edit]

SOP: быть + в + состоя́нии (bytʹ + v + sostojánii). At the very least, this should be moved to в состоя́нии (v sostojánii), since it is often independent of the verb быть (bytʹ), such as in the following sentence: Человек в состоянии работать всегда сможет найти работу. --WikiTiki89 18:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, move, not delete. Not "at the very least", since "в состоянии" is idiomatic. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The example - "Человек в состоянии работать всегда сможет найти работу." doesn't actually prove anything, since the verb быть (bytʹ) is usually omitted in the present tense. In English - "A person, in the position (capable) to work, can always find a job." As for the move to в состоя́нии (v sostojánii) - would that be a predicate? We don't have many examples of such entries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
(I see you changed your signature, it confused me for a second.) Anyway, as you can see from the English translation, the "в состоянии" is an adjectival phrase directly modifying "человек"; there is no implicit present tense copula in the sentence. To prove it to you, I will make the sentence past tense: В те времена, человек в состоянии работать всегда бы смог найти работу. As you can see, no past tense copula "был" appears before "в состоянии". --WikiTiki89 14:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you but this example still doesn't prove it, since the implied form here is not "есть", "был" or "будет" (is, was or will be) but "будучи" (being, participle), which is the same in all senses and is also omitted in the English translation I have provided. I have already agreed to move, I will make it an adverb, modelling on в ку́рсе (v kúrse). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
"будучи" is not implied. It's simply not necessary. Otherwise we should move all our adjectives from хороший to быть хорошим. --WikiTiki89 14:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a predicative here, not an adjective. "To be good" or "to be in the position" don't have the same usage for "to be". "A good person" is OK, "A in the position person" is not OK. "Человек в состоянии работать" implies "Человек, который (есть)/будучи в состоянии работать". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
You're right that the actual adjectives are a bit different, but it's an adjectival phrase, not a predicate. It functions no differently than a participle phrase (which is why "будучи" also makes sense) or a relative clause (which is why "который" also makes sense here). Just because something can be inserted without changing the meaning, doesn't mean that it is implied when it is omitted. --WikiTiki89 15:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Moved to в состоянии, header converted to "Adjective". Keφr 08:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

일본의 애니메이션[edit]

Tbot entry from a translation, SoP - "Japanese anime" --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)



Another Tbot from translations. SoP - "of neutrality", Korean is like Japanese の or Chinese 的 after nouns, shows possession or is used to form attributes --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This should not have been deleted, IMHO. A single pro-deletion editor should not count as consensus, IMHO, and certainly not after mere 5 days. I am not commenting on the substance of the nomination, merely on the process. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Dan here. I am unstriking until someone else comments. --WikiTiki89 18:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
By all means. This nomination here may sit here until everyone's happy with the deletion. In deleting obvious linguistic silliness or automatically generated entries sometimes no consensus is required and there is a general consensus about Korean/Japanese adjectives that possessive/attributive particles are not used to form lemmas but are used in translations from English, etc. For the same reason we don't include English friend's, mother's, etc. It is a trouble that people who have no idea about these languages insist on waiting for some consensus. I could have deleted these on sight. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not the consensus so much as that you only waited 5 days. On the other hand, if you thought it was a clear-cut, uncontroversial case, then you could have just speedied it, rather than bring it up here. --WikiTiki89 23:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Whatever I do, you can't please everyone. I waited for some time, let people know. Deletion of the entry makes entries red and if there IS any opposition, people will voice it. A general consensus is not a policy yet, it is for Japanese (not sure if it's written down but all の-adjectives have been deleted or converted to adjectival nouns), not for Korean. I wasn't going to archive it. --23:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete both. Wyang (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete both. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Striking (already deleted).​—msh210 (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


Only used in pre-emptive. This doesn't look like a good use of {{only used in}} because it's not likely to be interpreted as a word on its own! Renard Migrant (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 03:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment may exist, in a very rare form. One clear use in this book, meaning "acting to counteract something when it happens (but not beforehand)", one clear mention (but italicised) meaning "to do with purchasing", one citation from New Zealand Hansard as a nonce word: "At that time we secured from the Maori people what is called the pre-emptive right; but that, I think, is a misnomer—it should have been the “ emptive right,” to be correct" (snippet will not appear, unfortunately). Vast majority of hits are scannos for emotive or eruptive, though. Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Wonderfool created a huge number of these, along the lines of topsy (only with turvy), upside (only with down), etc. Pretty clearly doing it to mess around, since the search facility finds the relevant entries even without such worthless stubs. I thought I had zapped 'em all but clearly missed this one. Equinox 20:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@Cloudcuckoolander:'s removed this unilaterally. It would seem petty to add it back given the way this debate is going. Shall we just leave it as it is? Renard Migrant (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep: attesting quotations showing the use of "emptive" outside of "pre-emptive" are in the entry since 18 July 2014‎. They may be considered too rare or created by what might be non-native speakers, but I do not recall how we handle such cases; WT:ATTEST does not deal with rarity, and WT:CFI does not say rare forms should be excluded. Thus, the reason originally stated in this nomination no longer applies to the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
You've misunderstood, the challenged sense has already been deleted, you're voting keep for an entirely different sense. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: I think Dan and Purp are taking the RfD notice literally,not as you seem to have intended. Yous should have used {{rfd-sense}} if you did not intend the entire entry (actually L2 section) to be deleted. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I nominated the entire entry as it was at the time for deletion, Cloudcuckoolander deleted the sense unilaterally and replaced it with a completely different one. The deletion debate is a bit of a nonevent to be honest. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Cloudcuckoolander: 1. You shouldn't remove an item after such a brief discussion (less than four days in this case). We usually like to let at least a full week pass. That allows those who only come by on weekends to contribute. 2. When there is an RfD for an entire L2 section, but definitions are added that were not present at the time of the original RfD, {{rfd}} should be replaced with ?{{rfd-sense}} applied to the sense(s) that were there at the time of the original RfD. DCDuring TALK 18:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The "only in pre-emptive" sense was clearly a joke. Joke entries and senses are generally treated as deletable on sight. I didn't (and don't) see cause for retaining a joke sense for a "grace" period. The sense that was nominated for deletion is quoted in Renard's post at the top of this section, and it's also viewable in the history of the entry.
That said, I've made it a personal policy not to touch RfD templates. It's not my place to deem an RfD discussion closed, or to judge that any new sense I've added to an entry passes CFI and that the page is thus keepworthy. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I never cease to be amazed that definitions I think of as jokes or possible Wonderfoolerery have defenders, so caution in trusting one's intuition is appropriate. As to the rest, it's just a question of making it easier for other contributors, nothing more or less. DCDuring TALK 21:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I probably should've left a note here about replacing the definition. That was an oversight on my part. Sorry. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 04:10, 23 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)

random number[edit]

Non-idiomatic sum of parts: random (adjective senses 2 and 3) + number. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep, since this usually can be found in dictionaries. bd2412 T 04:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, it has a rather specific meaning in statistics. Ƿidsiþ 07:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No, it does not. If there is a specific mathematical meaning, it is contained in random, but truth is, even mathematicians usually use random essentially like laymen, because there is simply no good definition of randomness. I am curious to know what User:Msh210 has to say about this; though as far as I am concerned, this is SOP. Delete. Keφr 18:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the ping. I'm no expert, having hardly studied randomness. (I have studied random variables some, and I'd think off the cuff that random variable is not SOP. I haven't thought it through, though.)​—msh210 (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Oh, there is no question whether random variable is idiomatic; the term refers to quite specific conceptualisation of an unpredictable outcome of some process as a measurable function on a probability space — and none of this follows from either word. WT:FRIED, in essence. Keφr 20:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as a mathematical term and per Lemming principle. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. The "specific meaning" is already covered in the entry for random. The word "number" can be replaced with anything: random integer, random card, random person, random portion, random distribution. --WikiTiki89 18:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Compare Talk:prime number, which passed. I would want to delete both. Equinox 19:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The difference is that "prime number" is much more restricted. It is much rarer to find "prime" used attributively with something other than "number". Out of the things I listed above for "random", "prime" can only be used with "integer" and even that is rare, even if this is simply due to the fact that all primes are integers and thus specifying "integer" is redundant. On the other hand, "prime" is regularly used predicatively with words like "integer" ("this integer is prime"). --WikiTiki89 19:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
prime number is, quite undisputably, a term of the English language. random number is much more disputable, you are right, unless it's a "fixed term of art", as mentioned below. Lmaltier (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete. The keepers aren't making a good argument here. Other dictionaries have it, has it ever been Wiktionary's goal to copy as much from other dictionaries as possible. As for a specific meaning in statistics, does it? What it is? The entry just says it's a number chosen at random. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I suppose none of your would argue that this actually meet CFI, just that we shouldn't apply CFI to this term, right? Renard Migrant (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Right, this is RFD, not RFV. Attestable but not inclusion-worthy, like the example of "brown leaf" at top of page. Equinox 11:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
In that case, why don't we, instead of having an entry, merely have a page listing other dictionaries where the reader can actually find a definition of this term. Something like, "We're sorry, Wiktionary doesn't have an entry on this term, but you can find it in Meriam-Websters, Collins, Oxford, etc." bd2412 T 13:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
A truly inspired idea: we could combine {{no entry}} and {{R:OneLook}}. DCDuring TALK 13:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@BD2412: They can already find the definition on Wiktionary at [[random]] and [[number]]. --WikiTiki89 13:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Wait a minute, DCDuring. Don't get the President yet. Maybe we should consider this for a second. Maybe, and I'm just spit balling here, maybe, we have a responsibility as dictionary writers to define phrases with meanings set well enough that other dictionaries have seen fit to define them. Maybe we as dictionary writers have a responsibility to this project to see to that it reflects the determinations of trained professionals. Yes, I'm certain that I read that somewhere once. And now I'm thinking, DCDuring, that your suggestion of deleting this entry, while expeditious and certainly painless, might not be, in a matter of speaking, the American way. Random number stays where it is. We're gonna define the phrase. bd2412 T 15:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Nope. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I take it that's a rhetorical "nope", since I don't see any practical basis for it. bd2412 T 01:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I was just admiring your idea. I didn't vote delete. I'm inclined to keep an entry with one or more well-written definitions. The only thing that the existing definition has going for it is that it has been in Wiktionary for nearly 10.5 years. DCDuring TALK 17:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: The "brown leaf" test is irrelevant because "random number" is a fixed term of art. If you are interested in a translation, you must use the specific phrase-based translation that already exists in the target language. An SOP-inspired translation based on "random" + "number" is going to be dicey. The existing translation table is quite handy. To rely on WP foreign language links to Random number is a poor substitute. For example, the table has French and Russian, but apparently no one has written the WP article yet in those languages. (Compare with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, which was kept as a fixed term of art.) Choor monster (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Brown leaf is a set term. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    For what? Perhaps we should have it. Is it some synonym for tobacco? Choor monster (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have a strong suspicion that random number is used most commonly to mean something very specific that does not follow from random and even number (at least by any of our definitions. In the normal speech of those normal humans that might use this, say, in talking about a lottery, or come across it in a magazine, number means a finite, context-determined subset of natural numbers and random refers implicitly to a uniform distribution over that subset. I think almost any other definition would need to be stated explicitly to such normal humans. Even among statisticians and applied mathematicians, random number by default refers to a number selected by a process that corresponds to a uniform distribution over a finite set of natural numbers. Thus I think we need the entry, though I can't say as much for the specific definition. DCDuring TALK 14:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    "Random" does not necessarily imply a uniform distribution. You can have randomness with a normal distribution, or gaussian distribution, or really any distribution you want. "Number" is unspecific and is usually specified by the context; for example, in the context of the Mega Millions lottery, "number" means a natural number from 1-75. --WikiTiki89 14:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    I know it doesn't necessarily mean that to sophisticates such as you, I think it does mean that to those normal people who come across the term and those who write for them. DCDuring TALK 14:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Can you give a specific example? --WikiTiki89 15:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Very possibly "large number" typically means different things to mathematicians (Graham's number) than to others (anything bigger than a few hundred?). I would hate to see an entry for it on those grounds. Equinox 14:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Equinox: What do our hates and loves have to do with the meanings of words as used in the language? DCDuring TALK 18:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Ignore the second sentence, focus on the first one, and drop the tiresome equivocation once in a while. Equinox 18:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think equivocation is inevitable in trying to reach a conclusion in applying principles to concrete cases. DCDuring TALK 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    It doesn't though. ‘Large number’ has no specific meaning in mathematics. ‘Random number’ does, it doesn't just meaning any number I choose at random, it means a number generated from a given set by a truly random process, such that – in the OED's words – ‘all the numbers in the set have the same chance of selection’. Ƿidsiþ 15:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    A random element of a set does not have to be a number. You can have a set of elephants, for example, and choose one using a truly random process. There is nothing special about the word "number". --WikiTiki89 15:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Note that, for example, "Large cardinal" and "Geometry in the large" do have meaning within mathematics. In each case the ordinary sense of large is merged into something more domain-specific. In these two examples, the meaning is actually non-precise, with an aspect of "I know it when I see it". In contrast "Huge cardinal", has a very precise meaning.
    As to "random elephants": that's something of a red herring. When people study "random surfaces" or "random graphs" or "random flows", they are not taking any random meaning of random and applying it to the specific concept, the way you are with "random elephants". They are referring, in these cases, to a precise sense of random that leads to interesting notions worth studying in each case. Someone who comes late to the game and wants to use a different notion of random will typically use a different word. We have things like "Markov fields" and "stochastic processes". And some instances are even more extreme, like "random reals", where the sense of random is 100% technical, not covered under anybody's dictionary or encyclopedia definition, yet somehow aptly named. Choor monster (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    But this isn't about "random surfaces" or "random graphs" or "random flows" (which may be worth including), this is about "random numbers" and you have failed to show how "random number" is any more specific than "random" + "number". --WikiTiki89 16:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    That's a different issue. Objecting to a lousy definition is not grounds for deletion. But I've made a stab at fixing the definition up. Choor monster (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    At RFD we discuss the definition that is there. We are not mind readers. --WikiTiki89 19:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    You could do that, and maybe if people did this a lot then ‘random elephant’ would be a set phrase as well. But they don't and it isn't. Ƿidsiþ 17:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think you're missing the point that in mathematics this is done with many different things other than just numbers, even if not with elephants. --WikiTiki89 17:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    The point is this isn't really about mathematics here, although we mathematicians like to think we own the term. "Random numbers" have penetrated outside mathematics—the worlds of gaming and computer security—unlike "random matrices" or "random walks" or any of the other examples I mentioned above. These other notions are subject to user-redefinition as needed in technical context, "random number" less so. If you're doing Gaussian, you say Gaussian. See [16] for an example. Choor monster (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I remember watching a documentary in the UK simulating a trial (this is because filming and rebroadcasting a legal trial in the UK would be illegal). The defence lawyer I remember said that his defendant had no defence in law but he could still try and get the defendant off because of the human nature of the jury. This is what this debate reminds me of. There's no plausible defence for this entry but if it just a matter of blind voting it might survive. Fine, but at least have the guts to admit you want to keep this for reasons other than CFI. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
This is unbecoming trash talk. Choor monster (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it "trash talk", but I agree that these kinds of statements are unhelpful. --WikiTiki89 19:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Wikitiki89: So therefore among probability theorists and applied mathematicians who work with stochastic processes, probability distributions, etc, random number is not a set phrase or idiom. We probably need a usage note for that or perhaps a definition line as follows:
  1. (mathematics) Used other than as an idiom: see random,‎ number.
For others random number seems a set phrase with various possible definitions, including "a number provided by a random number generator (in turn defined as "usually an algorithm that generates pseudo-random numbers")". DCDuring TALK 18:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
So what will the supposed non-idiomatic definition be? --WikiTiki89 18:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: I've provided two so far, as well as the &lit line that follows from your helpful drawing of our attention to the range of collocations in mathematics. The definitions that other dictionaries have are satisfactory to me, though they make it harder to make a clean case for inclusion in this kind of free-for-all. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Renard, the CFI is there to codify our own instincts about what terms should be included. Not the other way around. The CFI have been, and may still be, reworked to fit our collective judgement. In my opinion, ‘random number’ is a set term, and I am far from alone in thinking this. In fact it seems to me that the editors of almost every major dictionary feel the same way. It is used by statisticians as a single entity, and I think of it as being ‘one’ term, not two stuck together. This is not very scientific, but it perhaps helps explain to you where I am coming from. What I don't understand is how – faced with many people who see the value in this – you think Wiktionary would be in any way improved without it. If you don't find it useful, you don't have to look it up. Ƿidsiþ 18:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • See my revised definition. The point is that in "common" usage, random here means "discrete uniform", which fact is definitely not SOP. Choor monster (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    If what you say that "in 'common' usage, random means 'discrete uniform'" is right (which I still disagree with), then this "common" definition should be added to [[random]]. And either way I don't see what this has to do with the word "number". Anyway, I think the common usage definition of "random" is more like "unpredictable" and has nothing do with any type of distribution. --WikiTiki89 19:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    What some of us who want to keep this are saying is that it is not possible to write definitions in a given usage context and register of at least one of random or number (let's say random) that quite covers the actual usage of the words in random number without requiring that the definition of random be more or less restricted to use with number and its synonyms and hyponyms. DCDuring TALK 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    I get that, but I don't think that is true. --WikiTiki89 19:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Well, what would the definition of random look like? DCDuring TALK 20:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    For any definition of "random number" you give me, I'll give you back a suitable definition of "random" and "number". All I need is for you to specify which definition you want me to split. --WikiTiki89 20:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    There are now three in the entry. Stop dithering and start defining. DCDuring TALK 21:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Those are all straightforward, I thought you had a different definition in mind. From all three of those, you remove the word "(a) number" from the definition and you have your definition of random. Note that I also dispute the accuracy of the "uniform distribution" definition, but that's irrelevant to this point. --WikiTiki89 01:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Regarding your request several indents back/comment here, regarding "uniform distribution" sense to random: it's been there since 2005, when it was added as #1, and it is still there, part of #1 among Adjective meanings. Choor monster (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    In that case how is your definition of "random number" not SOP? --WikiTiki89 15:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    As I've explained: the "uniform distribution" (sub)sense is not a priori obvious, especially to those with more than a little education. (The fact that it is typically the smart choice, a point you made earlier, is irrelevant.) Choor monster (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    Which is why it is defined at [[random]]. --WikiTiki89 13:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    Yes. Which isn't all that helpful when identifying which uses of random are part of set phrases and which are not. Choor monster (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have restored the original definition and marked it with {{rfd-sense}}. Could we either
  1. close this out by deleting the original definition and sending the entry to cleanup or RfV OR
  2. have separate RfD discussions for each suggested definition, freezing each definition until discussion thereof is concluded?
Definitions are not really independent of one another, but we can probably have more focused discussions if we treat them as completely independent until a consensus on keeping or a specific change has emerged. DCDuring TALK 20:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I propose to restore the entry to this revision. The changes made after that seem pretty ridiculous to me, almost certainly not based on evidence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    I agree with Dan that if we are to keep this, it would have to be the definition at this revision, possibly with some minor changes and with the addition of an {{&lit}} sense. --WikiTiki89 20:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Feel free to RfD or RfV each sense. Feel free to improve the definitions at random#Adjective and, if necessary, number#Noun. Or stand with the current definitions at those entries, or find definitions at other dictionaries that suit your purposes. DCDuring TALK 21:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've included three citations of random number meaning one selected based on a discrete uniform distribution. I've also altered the definition to refer to "continuous", there are numerous citations for that too that I haven't bothered to enter. I voted "Keep", but I wish to clarify this refers to the two new definitions only. The original was borderline SOP, but the &lit handles that. Choor monster (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've seen two users state they don't like my revision. All I can say is you two simply do not know what you are talking about. People instinctively think "random", when not being used to mean "arbitrary", refers to a uniform distribution, and this has been very well documented, most famously regarding the Monty Hall problem. The most interesting example I've come across was when I once consulted for NASA to help check and doublecheck simulation code, and at some point came across a mildly complicated probability calculation where the engineer had made exactly this mistake. Fixing it was easy. The hard part was figuring out a way to soundly convince the other engineers I was correct (which I did before I told them, precisely because this mistake is so notorious). Choor monster (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Would people think that the sum of two or more dice rolls (which is used in many board games and does not have a uniform distribution) is not random? And as for the Monty Hall problem, notice how the wording of the problem ("Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?") does not use the word "random" at all and yet people still assume a uniform distribution. This is because if you do not know how the door was selected, even if you know it was not random, you still have to assume a uniform distribution. --WikiTiki89 14:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I deliberately said "based on", not "is", a uniform distribution. That includes dice, as mentioned in my Usage Note.
    Regarding the MHP: HUH??? If one particular wording does not use the word "random", so what? My point is that people typically interpret everything as following a uniform distribution, for example, when asked to choose which of two doors hides the car and which hides the goat. I'm mentioning this as a FYI, not as a potential citation per se. Choor monster (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Any probability distribution can be "based on" the uniform distribution. If "people typically interpret everything as following a uniform distribution" then it has nothing to do with the word "random" and even less so with the phrase "random number". --WikiTiki89 14:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    This isn't mathematics.
    But there's no easy way to indicate at random which combination terms with it are going to implicitly assume uniformity, it's best to make the indication at such terms. That's why it's not SOP. In other words, we don't define "random X" based on people's misconceptions about randomness, whether or not the term accords with or contradicts them Choor monster (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    You seem to be contradicting yourself. Do "people typically interpret everything as following a uniform distribution", or only for certain "combination terms"? --WikiTiki89 15:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    You are mixing apples and oranges. The everything remark was about how people get it wrong, the combination refers to what people actually say, right or wrong.
    Speaking in exaggerated caricature, the mathematician would prefer to keep control of mathematical vocabulary. Listening to laymen getting it all wrong every day, when there's no point of a correction even getting through, breaks my heart. And no dictionary cares, either.
    In this case, popular misconception has led to "random number" not being the mathematically correct SOP, but the bastardized "uniformly distributed random number" special case. So it goes, and our remit here is to document this. It has not led to a bastardized meaning for other "random X" combinations that I know of. "random walk", for example, doesn't seem to have suffered out in the wild.
    So long as the highly technical mathematical term "real mouse" never gets misused, I'm happy. Choor monster (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    What exactly do people get wrong? Without any prior knowledge of a given situation, uniform distributions are the best assumption. Anyway, the layman's definition of "random" is nothing other than "unpredictable", and has nothing to do with any sort of mathematical notions such as "uniform distributions". --WikiTiki89 17:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    What they get wrong is that they equate "random" with "follows (or is based on) a uniform distribution". If loaded dice are used in a game and is generating numbers according to a non-uniform distribution, the results are still "random" in a mathematical sense, but common usage will describe the result as non-random. Here are three from the first page of Google hits for "non-random dice":
      • "Folks who spend time at the craps table agree that eventually the total number of each number may well tend to equal out. They notice, however, for the smaller segment of the time they are there, runs and tides of number patterns seem to take over. Finding those currents of non-equal, non-random dice rolls is what the seasoned craps player is all about." [17]
      • "But some dice really do produce better results, since mass-produced dice never can be 100% truly random." [18]
      • "In fact, if you have dice at home, there's a good chance that they will also give you a non-random distribution. Dice often have the pips formed by a dimple in the surface. This means that the face with 1 pip weighs more than the face with 6 pips. This will skew your results in the long-term and that's why dice often have the pips printed rather than gouged out."[19]
    The "correct" meaning, of course, is that the dice are being physically controlled in some manner, not that they are biased away from a perfect uniform distribution. Similarly, you can find discussions on whether physical coin flips are really "random"—it's been "proven" that there is a teeny bias towards a caught flipped coin being the same side it was started at. (Yet another famous Persi Diaconis discovery!) Choor monster (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think it can be captured by a sense of random synonymous with "unpredictable". Nothing about it is specific to numbers. (By the way, I think prime number is simply a WT:JIFFY.) Keφr 20:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    The whole point is that it is not clear which possible sense one ought to reply. For example, consider the following:
    "What is a flash mob? It’s when a random number of people start dancing a choreographed routine with it gradually involving more and more people from the unsuspecting crowd." [20]
    I've read somewhere that flashmobs follow a Lévy distribution, but the speaker above did not have that in mind. Choor monster (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    If I say something's a bad idea, am I saying it's "Not suitable or fitting", "Evil; wicked" or "(slang) Fantastic"? Does that mean we should have an entry for bad idea? I wish we could retire "how can it be the sum of its parts if we aren't sure which parts" as an argument. After all, users are still going to have to make the same choice, either in the form of which combination to choose of the senses for each of the separate entries or in the form of which sense of the combined entry to choose. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    You're just proving yourself wrong here by showing that any sense of "random" can be behind the meaning of "random number". --WikiTiki89 13:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    Uh, no, I'm proving myself right. The phrase "random number" has two particular set phrase meanings (#3,#4), and one free-for-all meaning (#1). The free-for-all meaning can be rendered in all sorts of ways, in English or in translation, like "bad idea". The set phrase meanings can not. Choor monster (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    For ease of understanding, I have created uniform distribution. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I added a context label. Mathematical terms often have different meanings depending on whether they're used in lay or mathematical contexts, so a mathematical definition should always be labeled as mathematical. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Your use of the label is backwards. I gave a mathematical definition for the lay usage, probably because I don't know any better. In a mathematical context, the distribution is spelled out or otherwise known from context. Choor monster (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • IMO delete as SOP per Wikitiki (18:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)).​—msh210 (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WT:Lemming principle: definition of random number in Collins dictionary. (This is for the entry as a whole, not specific senses)--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to defend the Collins definition: "any of a sequence of random numbers". As they do not define sequence of random numbers, it is circular. I don't know how it got past their editorial process. I don't think that the lemming principle requires that we discard all of our other principles. IOW, we shouldn't follow a rabid lemming. DCDuring TALK 01:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, definitions don't have to be the same, in fact, some people strongly object copying definitions, I provided the link not for the purpose of fixing ours. The important fact is that a term exists, even if one can argue its definition. The lemming principle doesn't imply having the same info as the other dictionary but saving people on useless RFD discussions, when time is better spent on something more productive. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes lemmings disappoint me. Not that this is not a difficult area for lexicographers. DCDuring TALK 02:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if other dictionaries have an idiomacity rule; I trust that their authors, with the limited space they have to print, feel that the words they include are worth defining in a dictionary, perhaps even if they are idiomatic. The ultimate goal is not to be good rules-followers, but to help the reader. bd2412 T 03:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
MW Online seems to be the most exclusionary of multi-word expressions. I say seems because I thing their paywall may hide some idioms from OneLook. I need to test that. DCDuring TALK 03:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Among the considerations that other dictionaries have is the one that says they need to either sell dictionaries or online subscriptions. That, in turn, gives them a reason to care about users, beyond altruism and outside of any theory of idiomaticity. Benefits of a simple lemming rule include that it would add a bias toward helping the reader and reduce the amount of repetitive gum-flapping on this page. DCDuring TALK 03:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
By way of contrast, there's an entry for Random-Number Exaggeration at UD. Choor monster (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
These omit explicit treatment of the lowest-common-denominator use in everyday language, some of which predates mathematical usage and some of which is a simplification or specialization of that usage. DCDuring TALK 02:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I am constantly amazed at how vociferously people will argue to keep terms out of this dictionary. When many people clearly see value in having it, why should we exclude it? What possible gain is there? (Leaving aside the question of why editors here think they are better informed on this matter than the editors of the OED, Chambers, Merriam-Webster etc.…) Ƿidsiþ 11:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Widsith because we're not trying to copy other dictionaries. We cannot do a better job of being the OED than the OED can, or a better job of being Chambers than Chambers can. It seems to be if you were able to understand that, you'd understand it already. I find you're clearly unable to understand what other editors are saying to you. I feel it's pointless to try and explain it to you because you just won't understand. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
He's not talking about mimicking other dictionaries (that's what "leaving aside" means), he's talking about keeping entries that could potentially help a reader understand something. How does it help Wiktionary to exclude a phrase that in fact exists and has meaning in the real world? Aside from being rude, it is bizarre that you are criticizing an editor as being "unable to understand" something when you were clearly unable to understand the point that he was making, and addressed your answer to something completely different. Why discuss the issue if you don't care enough to get it right? bd2412 T 12:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I assume that we are not endorsing open-ended inclusionism of multi-word entries ("MEWs"). I have come to see that we need to include many expressions that are not clearcut idioms. A Lemming Rule, if we enacted one, would be a help.
But I suspect that many MWEs exist because, 1., they are missing, possibly shown as redlinks in other entries and, 2., it is easier for a contributor to come up with a definition for an MWE than to examine the often much lengthier entries for the constituent terms. This difficulty corresponds to the difficulty that users must have in decoding and MWE. To me that suggests that it would be valuable to come up with a user interface that would facilitate simultaneous user examination of the constituent-term entries, facilitating substitution of specific definitions and translations for them. Such an interface would also be useful in identifying missing senses for those willing to attempt such contributions.
One of the most constructive uses of RfDs of multi-word expressions, IMO, is to identify and assign some priority to weaknesses in our definitions of the constituent terms. I often find that I need to go to other dictionaries to find well-worded definitions for missing or deficient senses of RfD candidates. So many of our English entries have dated, misleading wording as well as plain, ordinary errors. The Sisyphusian or Herculean nature of addressing these deficiencies is a discouragement to addressing them globally. DCDuring TALK 13:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

случайное число[edit]

As above. --WikiTiki89 13:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep (no surprise). Ƿidsiþ 13:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Note that Russian dictionaries do not have this term. Based on these results, only the Russian Oxford Dictionary of Psychology and the Russian Wikipedia have it. --WikiTiki89 14:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as a translation of the English term, for which there will almost certainly be no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 14:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • This phrase can be linked as {{t|ru|[[случайное]] [[число]]}} if the entry is deleted. Also, I dislike this "I am sure it will be my way" attitude. For the record, delete. Keφr 15:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm just stating the facts. Most of the editors who usually participate in these discussions have weighed in, and there is nothing remotely resembling a consensus for deletion. Nevertheless, I don't see why we would consider deleting a translation of term before the discussion on the term itself has concluded. bd2412 T 15:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • For which definitions is it a translation? All, some, only &lit? DCDuring TALK 17:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    All I think, although I have not systematically gone through every definition of "random" just to make sure that it works. --WikiTiki89 17:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know enough Russian to know whether this is SOP. I still maintain to delete random number, but have no idea about this term. I'm surprised to see so many opiners here, actually.​—msh210 (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Isn't it assumed that if an English word fails, all translations automatically fail as well? -- Liliana 20:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
No. If we decided in any event were SOP — I'm not saying we should — that would not mean בין כך (literally "between thus") would be SOP also. But perhaps you mean "all translations that are also word-for-word translations automatically fail". Still no (though this time I can't think of a good example off the top of my head): that a phrase is SOP in one language doesn't imply its counterpart is SOP is another.​—msh210 (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep. If someone is misled by "Russian dictionaries do not have this term", ABBYY Lingvo also has it. Here's a mirror случайное число@Yandex (specifically Русско-английский индекс к Англо-русскому словарю по вычислительной технике и программированию) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was Russian-Russian dictionaries. --WikiTiki89 02:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It's OK. Russian-FL are also dictionaries. The term is heavily used my mathematicians, IT specialists, not just statisticians. псевдослуча́йное число́ (psevdoslučájnoje čisló, pseudorandom number) also merits an entry, so does pseudorandom number, which is not that intuititive. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
How is it not intuitive? pseudorandom + number, псевдослучайное + число --WikiTiki89 10:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


To my knowledge, this is not a common error by adult native speakers of English. It needs significant written sources for inclusion.Jchthys (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This is really an RfV matter, but that would be satisfied by the following examples:
  • 1970, Freda Utley, Odyssey of a Liberal: Memoirs, page 103:
    I remember one amusing episode: in a conversation with an engineer when responding to the usual Japanese enquiry in making social talk, "How many childs have you?"
  • 1979, Spit in the Ocean, Volume 1, Issues 5-6, page 106:
    "It is as they say;" he clucks; "these childs are smoke the evil dope and the old ways of behave are forget.
  • 2003, Richard Matheson, Duel: Terror Stories by Richard Matheson, page 172:
    I can have many childs. Ten at a time at once.
  • 2005, Stephan Olariu, ‎Albert Y. Zomaya, Handbook of Bioinspired Algorithms and Applications, page 6-402:
    Thus, the initial random vectors are all normalized and the childs are also normalized to unit vectors after any crossover or mutation operation.
  • 2006, Holman Day, The Landloper: The Romance of a Man on Foot, page 192:
    It is poison that has kill our little Rosemarie – and all her life ahead! The doctor say so – and he say I cannot understand about the rich man, why he do it. But I understand that the childs are dying.
  • 2010, Jack Dazey, Dying For Her Love, page 114:
    We are not confused children and if we were then let these childs be free, for life is short and every bit of a smile extends life one more day.
Cheers! bd2412 T 17:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • FYI: (childs*10000),children at Google Ngram Viewer; childs at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: I've never seen that before, I'm assuming it inflates the number of occurrences of "childs" by 10000? --WikiTiki89 18:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    That's right; it multiplies the plotted frequency. To verify, plug in different numbers and see what they do to the graph. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
We could use some kind of usage label or usage note for this to explain in what usage situations it might be found. But, as it is not a misspelling of children, the question of whether it is a "common" has no relevance. DCDuring TALK 18:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It is not a misspelling, but it seems to be a malformation. If we decide to exclude rare misspellings, we can similarly decide to exclude rare malformations. I am not saying we necessarily have to do that; I am merely providing some data that have a bearing to a prospective exclusion policy, similar to the unwritten policy of excluding rare misspellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it a malformation? It's nonstandard, but it is "child" with an "-s", which is the correct way to form most plurals. Actually, given the context of most of the uses I found (outside the math book), it seems to primarily be a literary device designed to convey the dialect of a character. bd2412 T 18:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Good point. One might actually argue that "children" is a malformation, albeit an incredibly common one. In fact, children seems to be a relict, part of the historical core of the language. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It's already tagged as "nonstandard". Tag it as "rare" and add a usage note indicating that it is generally used to portray dialect that is something less than fully literate, and keep it like that. bd2412 T 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we could keep it but add a usage note saying it's primarily used to indicate that the speaker is not a native speaker of English. It's a whole different kind of "nonstandard" from, say, chillun. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep (tagged "rare", as bd2412 says).​—msh210 (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

fat as a cow[edit]

fat as a pig[edit]

These are really not idioms but simple comparisons of which you could construct potentially infinite examples of, just by taking any exceptionally large object. -- Liliana 23:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You could replace them with just about any other animal but these two are by far infinitely more common, almost set phrases. No one ever says you're as fat as a rhinoceros...a whale ( when water or the beach is in context) yes, and cow and pig. Leasnam (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Undecided for the moment but there are other, very similar expressions with comparisons, which probably passed RFD or RFV. Is it an RFV case, rather than RFD? I think there is a limited number of animals/things you compare a fat person with. Slavs (at least some Slavic languages) use pigs (male or female varieties) but commonly barrels, e.g. Russian: "толстый как бочка", Polish: "gruby jak beczka". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Here are a few from a 1917 dictionary of similes:
  • Fat as a bacon-pig at Martlemas. — Anon.
  • Fat as brawn. — Ibid.
  • Fat as a sheep's tail. — Ibid.
  • A red bag, fat with your unpaid bills, like a landing net. — Dion Boucicault.
  • Fat as Mother Nab. — Samuel Butler.
  • Fat as a whale. — Chaucer.
  • Fat as a barn-door fowl. — Congreve.
  • Fat as seals. — Charles Hallock.
  • Fatte as a foole. — Lyly.
  • As fat as a distillery pig. — Scottish Proverb.
  • As fat as a Miller's horse. — Ibid.
  • Fat as butter. — Shakespeare.
  • Fat as tame things. — Ibid.
  • Fat and fulsome to mine ear
As howling after music. — Ibid.
  • Fat as grease. — Old Testament.
Some would quite likely be from well-known works and therefore would thereby pass RfV without regard to whether they were otherwise common. DCDuring TALK 03:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
So, what's your vote on this? Having a variety of similes is not a reason to discard them. Some of the above would be includable, IMO. They are quite useful for language learners, especially the common ones but I'll wait for other opinions. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Your criterion favoring "common" but not merely attestable similes has nothing to do with WT:CFI. It seems like a BP matter, possibly even a vote. There are lots of amusing similes (happy as Larry, happy as a clam at high tide, happy as a pig in shit) that are common among some groups during some periods. Some of them seem arbitrary (eg "Larry") and thereby possibly idiomatic, others seem to make a great deal of sense, ie, be transparent. But as our coverage is supposed to span a time periods for which we cannot rely on unaided intuition, I think we would need to be able to apply our standard rules of attestation and non-transparency to similes.
Thus I would be happier with happy as Larry than with fat as a pig as an entry. Cassell's Dictionary of Slang (2005) agrees with my inclusion instincts and criteria. DCDuring TALK 04:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I favour common over temporary expressions. "Happy as Larry" is not very useful for language learners, almost like an in-joke. My mother-in-law liked to say a rhyme здоро́в как Труно́в (zdoróv kak Trunóv) "healthy as Trunov" (referring to a long-time mayor of a city named Trunov who I never knew, implying he's healthy because he is a mayor, probably very corrupt, so he has money to look after himself). It was fun to say this in the family but if I said this to another Russian, they wouldn't have a clue what I'm talking about. Is [[sly as a fox]] idiomatic enough? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
fat as a pig at OneLook Dictionary Search, as fat as a pig at OneLook Dictionary Search, fat as a cow at OneLook Dictionary Search, as fat as a cow at OneLook Dictionary Search
It's just us and McGraw-Hill's Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. I'd think we'd be doing language learners a better service if we bothered to translate the entries in Category:English phrasal verbs, but naybe they are too hard. DCDuring TALK 10:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete both, unless it is shown that they are needed solely as a translation target for an idiom that is uniquely meaningful in some other language (which I doubt). Metaphors are cheaply transparent, unless the asserted comparison does not automatically assume the characteristics of the operative adjective (e.g. fit as a fiddle). bd2412 T 12:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep similes, or at least high-frequency similes, even if transparent, since they are useful for the encoding direction ("How do I say 'very fat' using a simile?"), and for simile-to-simile translation ("How do I render 'fat as a pig' using a Spanish simile?"). As for the examples listed by DCDuring, I wonder whether they are attested in use to convey meaning; for instance, google books:"Fat as a bacon-pig at Martlemas" does not suggest as much. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as obvious SOP. I suggest common similes of this sort be listed in a usage note sub the adjective (or adverb as the case may be, in this case fat, e.g. "Common exemplars for flat, used in similes, are a board (emphasizing lack of protrusions) and a pancake (emphasizing thinness)") and/or in an appendix devoted to such similes.​—msh210 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    What is the advantage of listing these in usage notes rather than in separate entries, which can be linked to separate translations, which will not necessarily be word-for-word translations? Per fat as a cow, Italian and Polish would be like fat as a barrel. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    I've never heard "happy as Larry" and I would vouch for "happy as a pig in mud" (but not "shit", never heard that before either). Keep. Its a set phrase comparison that has some members (like pig, though not all pigs are fat necessarkly) more transparent than others ( like whale). Comparable to "as hungry as a horse" & "as big as a house" (oh yeah? my house is tiny.) Leasnam (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    Why are we supposed to care whether any individual has not heard of a given expression? DCDuring TALK 05:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
You don't. And did I don't see where anyone has asked anyone to. Its an indicator of how common a word or phrase is Leasnam (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


An alternative spelling of ridiculous. Though it may be in some idiolects, it seems like a low-frequency (ie, not "common") misspelling, occurring a a frequency less than 0.5% of the frequency of the generally accepted and used spelling. DCDuring TALK 11:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This should be at RFV. —CodeCat 11:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not a question of attestation. It's a gum-flapper. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
gum-flapper? In any case, if this is attested, and there is no idiomaticity issue, then I don't see a reason not to have it. So keep. —CodeCat 12:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep but change to misspelling. Not sure where your frequency figures come from but I see this all the time online. Equinox 12:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep but classify appropriately - I think we need a new categorization scheme for intentionally ironic Internet-age nonstandard spellings (wrong spellings that are nevertheless not an oversight by the writer). On a side note, I have heard this word in spoken English (where the speaker clearly intentionally pronounced the first syllable as "reh"); although the correctly spelled form uses a schwa and could theoretically take this pronunciation, it is far more likely to naturally take a "ri-" or "ree-" pronunciation. I therefore think that the use of the spelling, "rediculous", implies the specific pronunciation "reh-diculous". bd2412 T 13:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree that the misspelling implies anything about the pronunciation. For example, the way I always type "ridiculous" as R-E-D-<backspace>-<backspace>-<backspace>-R-E-<backspace>-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S. It seems my fingers are just itching to put an "e" in there. --WikiTiki89 13:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    I'd love to see the data and methodology from which we could make a determination as to what might be ironic. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    I suppose one could tell from the context, in Usenet posts and Twitter posts and the like. For example, this forum post looks like intentional misspelling. bd2412 T 19:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    I should have made it clear that I don't doubt that enough good-quality citations could be found for attestation especially on Usenet. I am very skeptical how one could document that such usage predominated. DCDuring TALK 21:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    If enough citations exist to attest that the intentional usage exists independent of spelling errors, what difference does it make whether that usage predominates among all usage? bd2412 T 04:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    Because if it will mislead normal users if we do not treat some minor deviant usage as a minor deviant usage. If it is attestable as an intended usage by an author writing in his own voice, it is includable aa such. But we would be downgrading normal use in favor of the precious to treat this as an alternative spelling, any more than we should treat boyz as an alternative mainstream spelling of boys. DCDuring TALK 05:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    All of that can be solved with context tags and usage notes. We have plenty of words in the dictionary with multiple definitions, some of which are rare or obscure. We don't leave them out just because including them might seem to overstate their importance. I'm sure we can arrive at some solution that describes this word both as a misspelling, and sometimes as an occasional intentional usage. bd2412 T 17:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep but change to misspelling. I completely agree with Equinox. --WikiTiki89 13:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    I only checked Google Books, BNC, and COCA. For misspellings GloWBE is a better source of both absolute and relative frequency. It is hard to trust Google counts. But after several years of the question coming up we still don't have any consensus of what combination of absolute and relative frequency on any corpus makes something "common". A formula like (log(misspelling_rate_per_billion))*(misspelling_percentageratio) for a specified corpus should yield a good ordering. If there were agreement on the adequacy of the ordering, we would need to determine which corpus and where we would set the threshold. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    At GloWBE rediculous occurs about 2.0% as often as ridiculous, 560 occurrences per billion words. For comparison occurence occurs 300 times per billion and 3.9% as often as occurrence. Applying the formula gives a score of 0.127 for rediculous and 0.222 for occurence, ie, same order of magnitude. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: This may or may not be relevant, according to Google Ngrams, the relative frequency (ignoring what seems to be noise) has stayed rather constant throughout history (at a ration of about 1:1000, or around 0.1%). --WikiTiki89 15:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    Edited works may not be good for finding out about the tendency to misspell among ordinary folks. OTOH the GloWBE corpus would over-represent typos. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, possibly as a common misspelling, per ridiculous,(rediculous*1000) at Google Ngram Viewer. For a calibration that I used, see User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2013#What_is_a_misspelling. If this is intentional, then I don't really know how to mark it. Common misspellings are kept per long-standing practice, and there is now even better evidence of consensus or lack of it at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-04/Keeping_common_misspellings. @DCDuring: what are 7 examples of common misspellings that you would keep, and why would you keep them? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Dan P., re "If this is intentional, then I don't really know how to mark it", see template:deliberate misspelling of.​—msh210 (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
      • There's no reason we can't have two senses, one for a "misspelling of" and the other for a rare "deliberate misspelling of". bd2412 T 16:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, there is a reason: the sense is the same sense in both cases. But a note can explain this point. Lmaltier (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

European dragon[edit]

Chinese dragon[edit]

A dragon from Europe? A dragon from China? We've had a lot of crazy entries fall to SOP; I'm surprised that these stayed. Purplebackpack89 20:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a little more complicated than that: these are two completely different mythological "species". The European dragon is a malevolent, fire-breathing devourer and destroyer, while the Chinese dragon is an ebullient symbol of strength and vitality. The question is whether the two concepts are present in the language as discrete entities independent of their parts. I'm inclined to think they aren't, though there's a small amount of usage set in fantasy universes/alternate realities where they're treated as actual species- sometimes even with taxonomic names. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the nuances between European and Chinese dragons, those nuances a) are kinda encyclopedic, and b) don't exist in the definitions RfDed at the moment. Purplebackpack89 21:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the nuances are present in the Chinese entry, at least, in as much as I think its sense 2 (which details the appearance of the dragon) is the same as its sense 1. (I've added a RFD tag to sense 2.) I agree with Chuck on all his points, and am inclined to delete these. Frankly, I think it would make more sense to have two senses at [[dragon]], as we already do. - -sche (discuss) 22:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete European dragon, but keep Chinese dragon. A European dragon is basically just the generic idea of a dragon; the Chinese dragon imports additional qualities. Also, the definition as written suggests that Asian dragons generally are called "Chinese". If a dragon from Vietnam or Mongolia is therefore "Chinese", then this would seem to be idiomatic. bd2412 T 00:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Both look rather encyclopaedic to me, i.e. I'd lean toward deletion. Equinox 12:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete While it's true that Chinese dragons are different to western dragons, they're not consistently called Chinese dragons. "Asian dragons", "Eastern dragons", "Oriental dragons", "Japanese dragons", "Korean dragons" are all citable, as is simply "dragon" used to refer to Chinese-style dragons (for example, this description of a scene in Spirited Away simply says "The first time is when Haku, in his dragon form, has been attacked by paper planes, and he's bleeding profusely", without ever mentioning that his "dragon form" is based on an Asian dragon.) These entries should definitely go, although I would support keeping the current subsenses at dragon (which explain the distinction quite nicely without getting too encyclopaedic). Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. The differences are encyclopedic, not lexical. --WikiTiki89 16:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Chinese dragon. It's a different creature from normal dragons, e.g. it can't fly. It's a single word in CJKV languages (single character and single syllable). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    The fact that it is a single-character word in Chinese is completely irrelevant. --WikiTiki89 11:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Chinese dragon, because I think it belongs to the vocabulary of the English language. The fact that there are synonyms is not a reason to delete. I don't understand The differences are encyclopedic, not lexical: the lexicographical importance relates to the term, not to characteristics. Note that, according to Bernard Heuvelmans, this dragon was inspired by observations of a species of marine mammal. However I think that this marine mammal is never called Chinese dragon. I know that there was such an observation by soldiers from a French military vessel in the Hạ Long Bay, and note that this name Hạ Long Bay refers to a legend stating that the bay was created by a dragon. Lmaltier (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    There's some slight controversy about whether this type of dragon is Chinese from Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese point of view but from the Western perspective, it's probably Chinese but there may be some variations in Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese mythologies. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Delete both (accidentally voted twice). It does not "belong to the vocabulary of the English language". When people talk about Chinese dragons, they usually call them "dragons". The fact that they are Chinese is just an occasional clarification. Even though dragons are different in European and Chinese mythologies, the word "Chinese" does not create a lexical difference. --WikiTiki89 11:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Of course, they usually call them "dragons". Just like they usually call red foxes foxes. Lmaltier (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, but you would never call a "red fox" a "fox that is red" or a "maroon fox", because "red fox" is a set term that refers to a type of fox. But with "Chinese dragons", you could just as easily say "dragons in China", "dragons in Chinese mythology", "Asian dragons", or even "dragons in the Far East" to mean the exact same thing. --WikiTiki89 19:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Chinese dragon is a further clarification, just like "brown bear", which is also a bear, you don't have to call them "brown bears" every time you talk about them. A Chinese lantern is also a type of lantern. Brown bears and red foxes can also be called bears and foxes but they are brown bears and red foxes, not simply bears and foxes. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Once again, you can't call a "brown bear" using any other synonym for "brown". You can't call a "Chinese lantern" using any other synonym for "Chinese". But you can call a "Chinese dragon" using any synonym for "Chinese". --WikiTiki89 02:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. I've cast my vote and let the RFD take its course. "Chinese dragon" is not just the name of the creature but has some symbolism, as in Zodiac, hence "Year of the Dragon", which is not using a common dragon in the European sense. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Notice how it's the "Year of the Dragon" and not the "Year of the Chinese Dragon". I am not denying the existence or separate identity of the dragons of Chinese folklore; I am only denying that they are idiomatically named "Chinese dragon". --WikiTiki89 02:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    The same can be said about Chinese lanterns. You don't need to use "Chinese" all the time, e.g. in "lantern festival". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    The first part of the above can be said about "Chinese lanterns", the second part (the part about not being idiomatically named) cannot. "Chinese lantern" is idiomatic because "lanterns in China" are not necessarily "Chinese lanterns", but "dragons in China" are the same thing as "Chinese dragons". --WikiTiki89 02:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    No, dragons in the Chinese fashion are the same thing as "Chinese dragons". A translation that put Middle Earth in the Middle Kingdom would not turn Smaug into a Chinese dragon; TMZ's Dargon the Dragon, originally a mislabeled Chinese stuffed animal, was always a European dragon made in China.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Chinese dragon; the use of panda alone does not make red panda and giant panda not words; likewise with Chinese dragon. I'm less sure with European dragon, as it seems to be the default for dragon to mean the European dragon in English, with European just being a geographic clarifier.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, "European dragon" seems to be used only in comparison with other types of dragons, such as Chinese dragons. Noteably, for East Asians, and its Sino-Xenic descendants is the default and European and other dragons would need clarifications. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


A misspelling of "animallike". It seems attested: google books:"animalike", google groups:"animalike", animalike at OneLook Dictionary Search. But this is not a common misspelling by any stretch (not found by Google Ngram Viewer at all), and should be deleted as a rare misspelling. animalike, animallike, animal-like at Google Ngram Viewer. For regulation, see WT:CFI#Spellings; for consensus, see Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-04/Keeping_common_misspellings; for previous practice of deleting rare misspellings, see talk:himand. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

anima-like seems to barely exist in Jungian writing, meaning "like an anima", but animalike doesn't seem to be used. Delete Not sure if it's worth having an article for "anima-like" - the hyphen makes it a totally transparent compound. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should be created if this spelling of anima-like is found. My Pocket Oxford Dictionary considers that the -like suffix may be added to any noun, and that all these adjectives should be considered as English words. But I think that this theoretical existence is not sufficient, and that at least one attestation is required before creating the page. Lmaltier (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

arfer dda[edit]

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

Jacob Marley[edit]

"A fictional man" etc. We have a lot of characters from this particular work, for some reason (!): see Category:en:A Christmas Carol. This underwent RFV before and some citations were given. I think them inadequate since they do not show any generic use. I propose deletion because book characters, aside from generic use, are not suitable dictionary content IMO. Equinox 21:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably all the characters except Scrooge can go, though there may be idiomatic possibilities for the spirits. Purplebackpack89 22:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

What about the following quotes:

  • "He would listen for the tinkle of chimes behind him, the hurried wind through louver windows, or the loose strand of a wandering conversation from the house next door, and think that they have come back to warn him, a Jacob Marley to his Scrooge, that reckoning was upon him."[21]
  • "Having been raised from the death of my sin, I often forge new bonds for myself, a Jacob Marley who should no longer be burdened but continues to carry the chains of my own making."[22]
  • "It would have been nice to have had a Jacob Marley who could have run down the rules at the start of the game for me."[23]

Do these count as "generic use"? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The first one is clearly referring to the characters in the book, and the second seems to. I don't know about the third. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
After looking at it in context, I would sat that the third one is referring to Jacob Marley's role in the narrative structure of the book. I think they all are referring to Jacob Marley as a character in the book, rather than as some kind of generic character or archetype, though the second quote is the least explicit about it. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The following seems to apply, from Wiktionary:CFI#Fictional_universes: "With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense." Examples are in Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion/Fictional_universes. One of them is this: "Irabu had hired Nomura, a man with whom he obviously had a great deal in common, and, who, as we have seen, was rapidly becoming the Darth Vader of Japanese baseball." The "a Jacob Marley" quotes above appear to me very much like "the Darth Vader" in the above quote, although I am not sure what "attributive sense" mentioned in CFI is. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I would say "a Jacob Marley to his Scrooge" is attributive. It's simply extending the metaphor. I don't see how it's a problem if an author does use a name in an attributive sense and goes on to explain it too. Anyway, I've added 3.5 attributive citations. Choor monster (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Now it's 4.5. I added a sports citation that is dead-on imitative of the Darth Vader example. Choor monster (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Would this count?
  • 2012, Brian Norman, Dead Women Talking: Figures of Injustice in American Literature, page 93:
    Nor is she exactly a grand tormentor from beyond, Roy's own Jacob Marley.
Cheers! bd2412 T 16:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
One problem I see perusing the quotes is that there doesn't seem to be any agreement on what "Jacob Marley" as a common noun means. Is it a person wearing metaphorical chains? Is it a person with no metaphorical bowels? Is it a miser? Is it someone who warns someone else about the error of his ways? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why this is a problem. We run into the same question with almost any proper noun. Do we worry about the supposedly different meanings between "he spoke in a Darth Vader voice" and the Nomura example above? I'm quite sure the quotation wasn't referring to Nomura's breathing! Consider words like Dickensian. It can be used to refer to poverty, time/place, writing styles, plot twists, and so on. (We've split the meaning in two. It took four years and a bit of edit-warring.) There are exceptions: Scrooge and Tiny Tim are quite narrow. And when I created Ludlumesque, I didn't notice at first there were precisely two senses as to how it was used. Choor monster (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Quite apart from "Jacob Marley" I think this is an important point. If (say) Bloggs is a famous author who wrote surrealistic beatnik novels about lonely poor people, then does "Bloggsian" suggest surrealism, beatnik-ism, loneliness, poverty, or a combination of some or all, and how is this to be defined? "Like the writings of Bloggs" is sufficient, but useless to somebody who hasn't read the books and wants to interpret the word. P.S. Jordanesque is my fave eponym. Equinox 21:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Checking what the OED did with Dickensian, I noticed that our split in two is one sense there. But they had a noun sense (with three cites!) that we missed. I added the noun. Choor monster (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not bothered by the idea of a definition that lays out the general characteristics associated with the term, and then notes that the term is used to describe a person or thing sharing any number of those characteristics. bd2412 T 02:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, CFI are wrong when they require "used out of context in an attributive sense". I would exclude all these names, but I would include "single word" well-known names, considered as having entered the general vocabulary. But first name + last name names cannot have a linguistic interest. All these names, either fictional or not, including yours, can be used out of context in an attributive sense, but it only depends on encyclopedic characteristics. As it's a general rule, and no linguistic data (other than data about the first name and data about the last name) can be provided, they should be excluded. Lmaltier (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion isn't policy, so your comment serves no point. Your ideas regarding linguistic interest are purely your own. Of course every name can be used in an attributive sense, the question is which ones have in fact been used so.
I noticed that the existing citations for Tiny Tim were entirely non-attributive, yet it somehow passed RFV? I added 4 on the Citations page, all out of context attributive. Choor monster (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Our policy is based on our editors' opinions, so yes, his comment is very much to the point. Ƿidsiþ 11:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is whether Jacob Marley meets existing policy. Someone's wish for a different policy is completely pointless here. Choor monster (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
On one hand, I agree with Choor monster that any talk about changing policies belongs at the WT:BP, otherwise it is just whining. On the other hand, we have to remember that WT:CFI is meant to reflect out policies, not the other way around, and it often does so imperfectly or inaccurately. --WikiTiki89 14:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Unattestable Japanese terms[edit]

All below seem to be non-existing terms in Japanese. Whym (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)





Speedy deleted. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time trying to figure what to do with contributions from this person, who changes their IP constantly to avoid being blocked, but consistently geolocates to Sky Broadband or Easynet in London or sometimes elsewhere in the UK. Is there any way I could post links to their latest batch in an agreed-upon place for special attention? Yesterday they posted as and Chuck Entz (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

aspect-oriented software development[edit]

'Tis software development that is aspect-oriented. Equinox 00:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 01:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Interesting concept, but not for a dictionary. Delete DCDuring TALK 01:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)